Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Re(2): Re(2): [John_Lit] John 6:4 The Jewish Passover Feast was near.

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In a message dated 4/13/2000 12:40:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time, panderso@georgefox.edu writes:
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 13, 2000
      In a message dated 4/13/2000 12:40:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
      panderso@... writes:

      << johannine_literature@egroups.com writes:

      [Paul Anderson]

      << >because they are like ‘sheep without a shepherd’

      This is the focus of the point being made, Leonard; it is in Mark, but not
      in Matthew or Luke. [...] Any idea why Mark
      alone has the Micaiah ben Imlah reference?>>

      My point was that the words ARE in Matt, only a few chapters earlier, where
      they appropriately occur just before the transmission of power and authority
      from the original leader of Israel (Jesus himself) to his successors as
      leaders of Israel (the twelve apostles). This suggests that the primary OT
      reference of the expression in Matt 9:35 is to Num 27:17, where the context
      is likewise that of the succession of authority in Israel (from Moses to
      Jesus son of Nun). I would suggest that Matthew's reference to Jesus'
      compassion on the crowds in 14:14 is intended to recall, to the attentive
      synchronic reader, the whole of 9:35-36 with its context. In this case,
      however, the primary OT reference is most probably to Ezek 34:5, where a
      reference to sheep that have no shepherd occurs in the context of a passage
      that complains about shepherds who feed themselves and not the sheep (cf.
      Ezek 34:9). I am not sure that the 1 Kings 22:17 passage is really in view
      here, except perhaps in a secondary way. And certainly Mark, from a 2 GH
      perspective, need not even be aware that he is citing the OT in 6:34, where
      he seems to merely conflate Matt 9:35 and 14:14. There is an enormous amount
      of evidence that Matt is keenly aware of the importance of Ezek 34 for his
      theological portrait of Jesus and his followers, the new leaders of Israel. I
      don't see that Mark is interested in this question at all. He writes at a
      time when "the church" (and probably a mostly Gentile church at that) has
      quite fully taken over center stage from Israel. I think that both "the
      disciples" and "the crowds" in Mark, in various ways, represent the
      Christians in Mark's community and their reactions to "Jesus and the gospel".

      >I have no idea what this means.

      [Paul Anderson]
      The common issue between Mark's and John's renderings of the feeding (of
      the 5,000) narrative is the connection with the looming Roman presence
      (possible perception as a revolt -- companies, I mean "groups," of 50 and
      100 being seated; guerrilla season, I mean "springtime;" just the
      soldiers, I mean "the men," are counted, etc. -- with the implicit threat
      of Roman retaliation in the background) both drawing on OT conquest
      motifs. Some of these nuances (for whatever reason) are missing from
      Matthew and Luke while more amplified in Mark and John. >>

      OK. I find this interesting, to be sure, but it would take more than this to
      persuade me that Mark has anything like this in mind, and especially that he
      does so because of, or in connection with, a 1 Kings 22:17 background. I hope
      you can emphathize with my position, at least if you accept hypothetically,
      for a moment, my (minority) Synoptic source theory.

      << I take it to imply Marcan and Johannine proximity to the events themselves
      -- and more realistically so, while independent from each other -- which
      casts important light on the EGGUS TO PASCHA motif in John.>>

      I also find the pairing of Mark and John interesting here, but I am more
      inclined to interpret it in the other direction (both are late theological
      developments of earlier Synoptic material).

      << It is present
      neither for theological nor for chronological reasons in John, but for
      chairological ones, suggesting a more realistic set of interpretations
      regarding some of the events narrated than some synoptic presentations.>>

      I think your interpretation of John here may very well be correct. Though I
      think I would prefer to speak of verisimilitude here, rather than
      "realistic", if the latter term is intended to suggest historicity in the
      strict sense of the term.

      << See also my treatments, if you're interested, Leonard, of John 6:14f. and
      6:66-71. >>

      Where could I order a copy of your book? Sounds very interesting!

      Leonard Maluf
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.