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

RE: [John_Lit] New topics worth discussing?

Expand Messages
  • Mardaga, Hellen
    Dear Paul, as far as the CBA meeting is concerned, it lasted from Saturday evening until Tuesday morning. I attended an interesting task force on the synoptic
    Message 1 of 24 , Aug 19, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Paul,

      as far as the CBA meeting is concerned, it lasted from Saturday evening until Tuesday morning. I attended an interesting task force on the synoptic gospels. One of the topics that was under discussion was Bauckham's hypothesis regarding the synoptic gospels and their audiences. it was interesting to me since it reminded me of our discussion in Wales on the topic of orality. I delivered a paper on hapax legomena in John and the technique of variation. In short several of the hapax can be explained in light of different words occuring in the same pericope with the same meaning (sometimes derivates or sometimes "synonyms").
      As for now I am digging through all kind of possible works on orality and oral traditions., namely the works of Gerhardsson, Kelber, Ong, Tatcher, Bauckham, Byrskog and Dunn ( as a "start"). Suggestions are welcome


      Hellen Mardaga
      assistant Professor of New Testament
      The Catholic University of America
      ________________________________
      From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com [johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com] on behalf of Paul Anderson [panderso@...]
      Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 7:52 PM
      To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [John_Lit] New topics worth discussing?



      Dear colleagues,

      Having received a "flow" of discussions on "water and blood" in the
      Johannine writings, I'm wondering if there are other topics that Johannine
      scholars have been working on around the world, which would be of interest
      to others.

      I attended the Fourth Gospel and Apocalyptic conference at Bangor, Wales in
      July, which developed John Ashton's statement some two decades ago that
      there is a good deal of unnoticed apocalyptic material in the Fourth Gospel,
      which was an excellent conference. Some similarities between the Gospel of
      John and Revelation exist, but considerable difference still hinder linking
      them too closely.

      As mentioned earlier, the SNTS Johannine Seminar worked with
      Johannine/Pauline themes (last year they worked with Johannine/Hebrew
      themes; next year they may work with Johannine/Luke-Acts themes), and those
      sessions were very engaging.

      Harry Attridge presented an excellent paper on the Dead Sea Scrolls and
      John, to which John Collins responded, which reminds me that the
      Coloe/Thatcher collection on the same subject will be appearing with SBL
      Press this fall--celebrating 60 years of discovery and interpretation.

      Could someone report on the CBA meetings and the international SBL meetings,
      as well as other Johannine conferences this summer?

      For myself, I lectured this summer in Germany and Holland on the John,
      Jesus, and History Project as well as a Bi-Optic Hypothesis, and enjoyed
      some really engaged discussions. Here's a Bible and Interpretation essay on
      a very stimulating discussion at Marburg as I consider to work on a
      sympathetic alternative to Bultmann's paradigm.

      http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/mainz357911.shtml

      Any comments would be greatly appreciated!

      Sincerely,

      Paul Anderson
      George Fox University
      Newberg, OR 97132

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Paul Anderson
      Thanks, Hellen! You might also look at Ian McKay s work on John and Mark; that book changed my mind from Johannine independence from the Synoptics to Johannine
      Message 2 of 24 , Aug 19, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks, Hellen!

        You might also look at Ian McKay's work on John and Mark; that book changed
        my mind from Johannine independence from the Synoptics to Johannine
        automony, including a general familiarity with Mark (perhaps having it read
        in a meeting for worship), evoking an alternative response.

        I'd like to hear more about your variation and repetition work, as well as
        the your treatment of the hapax legomena.

        Nice to have you in America!

        Paul Anderson


        As for now I am digging through all kind of possible works on orality and
        > oral traditions., namely the works of Gerhardsson, Kelber, Ong, Tatcher,
        > Bauckham, Byrskog and Dunn ( as a "start"). Suggestions are welcome
        >
        > One of the topics that was under discussion was Bauckham's hypothesis
        regarding the synoptic gospels and their audiences. it was interesting to me
        since it reminded me of our discussion in Wales on the topic of orality. I
        delivered a paper on hapax legomena in John and the technique of variation.
        In short several of the hapax can be explained in light of different words
        occuring in the same pericope with the same meaning (sometimes derivates or
        sometimes "synonyms").


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Matthew Estrada
        Hi Paul, I enjoyed reading your paper that you reference below. You raise some debatable issues that are worth discussing. 1)      I agree that Bultmann
        Message 3 of 24 , Aug 19, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Paul,
          I enjoyed reading your paper that you reference below. You raise some debatable
          issues that are worth discussing.
          1)      I agree that Bultmann had it wrong concerning a) the Signs, Sayings, and
          Passion sources, b) that they were disarranged, and c) then correctly restored
          to their original order by Bultmann.
          2)      I agree with that “one scholar” (contra you and Bultmann) concerning
          John’s dependence on the Synoptics. I believe he did use them as one of his
          sources, but John used so many different sources and spread them out between
          many other sources that it is very difficult to recognize from where he is
          drawing his material.
          3)      I agree that “John” is the common author of the gospel and I John,
          although I do not agree that John “edited” the gospel (I believe he authored
          it).
          4)      You evidently believe John wrote a largely “historical” gospel, while I
          believe he wrote a largely “theological” treatise. Here you mention several
          “incidental echoes” of “historical narratives” that we could discuss.
           
          Choose something and make a case for it, and let’s go from there.
           
          Sincerely,
           
          Matt Estrada





          ________________________________
          From: Paul Anderson <panderso@...>
          To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Thu, August 19, 2010 7:52:00 PM
          Subject: [John_Lit] New topics worth discussing?

           
          Dear colleagues,

          Having received a "flow" of discussions on "water and blood" in the
          Johannine writings, I'm wondering if there are other topics that Johannine
          scholars have been working on around the world, which would be of interest
          to others.

          I attended the Fourth Gospel and Apocalyptic conference at Bangor, Wales in
          July, which developed John Ashton's statement some two decades ago that
          there is a good deal of unnoticed apocalyptic material in the Fourth Gospel,
          which was an excellent conference. Some similarities between the Gospel of
          John and Revelation exist, but considerable difference still hinder linking
          them too closely.

          As mentioned earlier, the SNTS Johannine Seminar worked with
          Johannine/Pauline themes (last year they worked with Johannine/Hebrew
          themes; next year they may work with Johannine/Luke-Acts themes), and those
          sessions were very engaging.

          Harry Attridge presented an excellent paper on the Dead Sea Scrolls and
          John, to which John Collins responded, which reminds me that the
          Coloe/Thatcher collection on the same subject will be appearing with SBL
          Press this fall--celebrating 60 years of discovery and interpretation.

          Could someone report on the CBA meetings and the international SBL meetings,
          as well as other Johannine conferences this summer?

          For myself, I lectured this summer in Germany and Holland on the John,
          Jesus, and History Project as well as a Bi-Optic Hypothesis, and enjoyed
          some really engaged discussions. Here's a Bible and Interpretation essay on
          a very stimulating discussion at Marburg as I consider to work on a
          sympathetic alternative to Bultmann's paradigm.

          http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/mainz357911.shtml

          Any comments would be greatly appreciated!

          Sincerely,

          Paul Anderson
          George Fox University
          Newberg, OR 97132

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Paul Anderson
          Okay, but the Synoptic traditions must be treated individually, rather than as a collected set of traditions--that did not develop until the mid-second
          Message 4 of 24 , Aug 19, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            Okay, but the Synoptic traditions must be treated individually, rather than
            as a collected set of traditions--that did not develop until the mid-second
            century.

            On these two points I stand with Bultmann (although I disagree entirely on
            there being any evidence for alien "sources" underlying John, a
            disordering/reordering of the text, and the redactor's adding disparate
            material). There is no evidence that the Johannine narrator depended on Mark
            or other Synoptic accounts, as all the Johannine-Synoptic similarities are
            also distinctive. This is what leads me to concur that P. Gardner-Smith and
            Moody Smith are right in asserting Johannine non-dependence on the
            Synoptics. Raymond Brown would concur also; even Barrett must confess that
            if the Johannine evangelist made use of Mark, he did not do so like Matthew
            and Luke did. So, I go with some familiarity, but not dependence on Mark.

            With Bultmann again, I see the author of the Johannine Epistles as the final
            editor of the Gospel, but not the Evangelist. However, with Brown versus
            Bultmann, the redactor seems conservative in his additions rather than
            innovating and amending the theology of the evangelist.

            Paul Anderson


            2) I agree with that �one scholar� (contra you and Bultmann) concerning
            > John�s dependence on the Synoptics. I believe he did use them as one of his
            > sources, but John used so many different sources and spread them out
            > between
            > many other sources that it is very difficult to recognize from where he is
            > drawing his material.
            > 3) I agree that �John� is the common author of the gospel and I John,
            > although I do not agree that John �edited� the gospel (I believe he
            > authored
            > it).
            >


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Matthew Estrada
            Paul, in your last post you said:  There is no evidence that the Johannine narrator depended on Mark or other Synoptic accounts, as all the
            Message 5 of 24 , Aug 20, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              Paul, in your last post you said:  "There is no evidence that the Johannine
              narrator depended on Mark or other Synoptic accounts, as all the
              Johannine-Synoptic similarities are also distinctive."

              But what if John borrowed from the Synoptic material in the same way that he
              borrows from OT material? Many of his OT sources are hardly recognizable, and
              thus it is very difficult to convince others that he did indeed depend on them.
              The similarities account for his dependence on the material while the
              differences provide clues for his agenda. You see the differences as proof that
              he did not use the Synoptics since you view John as historical narrative, while
              I see the differences as John's own creativity and believe that his stories are
              largely theological in nature.

              Matt Estrada
               




              ________________________________
              From: Paul Anderson <panderso@...>
              To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Fri, August 20, 2010 12:40:08 AM
              Subject: Re: [John_Lit] New topics worth discussing?

              Okay, but the Synoptic traditions must be treated individually, rather than
              as a collected set of traditions--that did not develop until the mid-second
              century.

              On these two points I stand with Bultmann (although I disagree entirely on
              there being any evidence for alien "sources" underlying John, a
              disordering/reordering of the text, and the redactor's adding disparate
              material). There is no evidence that the Johannine narrator depended on Mark
              or other Synoptic accounts, as all the Johannine-Synoptic similarities are
              also distinctive. This is what leads me to concur that P. Gardner-Smith and
              Moody Smith are right in asserting Johannine non-dependence on the
              Synoptics. Raymond Brown would concur also; even Barrett must confess that
              if the Johannine evangelist made use of Mark, he did not do so like Matthew
              and Luke did. So, I go with some familiarity, but not dependence on Mark.

              With Bultmann again, I see the author of the Johannine Epistles as the final
              editor of the Gospel, but not the Evangelist. However, with Brown versus
              Bultmann, the redactor seems conservative in his additions rather than
              innovating and amending the theology of the evangelist.

              Paul Anderson


              2)      I agree with that “one scholar” (contra you and Bultmann) concerning
              > John’s dependence on the Synoptics. I believe he did use them as one of his
              > sources, but John used so many different sources and spread them out
              > between
              > many other sources that it is very difficult to recognize from where he is
              > drawing his material.
              > 3)      I agree that “John” is the common author of the gospel and I John,
              > although I do not agree that John “edited” the gospel (I believe he
              > authored
              > it).
              >


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



              ------------------------------------

              SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com 
              UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com 
              PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
              MESSAGE ARCHIVE:
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messagesYahoo! Groups Links






              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Paul Anderson
              Good points here, partially; I think there is a great deal of explicit use of Hebrew Scripture in the Fourth Gospel, as well as implicit references to
              Message 6 of 24 , Aug 20, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                Good points here, partially; I think there is a great deal of explicit use
                of Hebrew Scripture in the Fourth Gospel, as well as implicit references to
                Scripture. There are no explicit uses of the Synoptics or exact
                representations of Synoptic traditions in John--every similarity is also
                different. So it is clearly not "dependence" like the Fourth Evangelist used
                Scripture.

                I do go with familiarity, at least of Mark, but many of the contacts are
                contrastive (as the Bible and Interpretation essay suggests), so
                "dependence" does not work here either. The five signs in the first edition
                of John (seeing chs. 6 and 21 added later) are precisely the signs NOT in
                Mark; if familiarity with Mark existed, the evangelist has augmented Mark,
                not depended on Mark.

                How do we know Mark, or the other Synoptic traditions, were not influenced
                by the developing Johannine tradition? While I think John was finalized last
                among the canonical Gospels (around 100 CE), its tradition did not originate
                late.

                Much appreciated,

                Paul Anderson



                >
                >


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • davidecford
                Hellen, hi, your reading lists sounds great. Have you seen Kelly R Iverson s article Orality and the Gospels: A Survey of Recent Research Currents of
                Message 7 of 24 , Aug 20, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hellen, hi, your reading lists sounds great.

                  Have you seen Kelly R Iverson's article "Orality and the Gospels: A Survey of Recent Research" Currents of Biblical Research vol 8.1:71-106 (2009).

                  David Ford
                  FUSBC, Medellín, Colombia
                  --- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com, "Mardaga, Hellen" <MARDAGA@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Dear Paul,
                  >
                  > as far as the CBA meeting is concerned, it lasted from Saturday evening until Tuesday morning. I attended an interesting task force on the synoptic gospels. One of the topics that was under discussion was Bauckham's hypothesis regarding the synoptic gospels and their audiences. it was interesting to me since it reminded me of our discussion in Wales on the topic of orality. I delivered a paper on hapax legomena in John and the technique of variation. In short several of the hapax can be explained in light of different words occuring in the same pericope with the same meaning (sometimes derivates or sometimes "synonyms").
                  > As for now I am digging through all kind of possible works on orality and oral traditions., namely the works of Gerhardsson, Kelber, Ong, Tatcher, Bauckham, Byrskog and Dunn ( as a "start"). Suggestions are welcome
                  >
                  >
                  > Hellen Mardaga
                  > assistant Professor of New Testament
                  > The Catholic University of America
                  > ________________________________
                  > F
                • Matthew Estrada
                  Paul, you stated: There are no explicit uses of the Synoptics or exact representations of Synoptic traditions in John--every similarity is also different. So
                  Message 8 of 24 , Aug 20, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Paul, you stated: "There are no explicit uses of the Synoptics or exact
                    representations of Synoptic traditions in John--every similarity is also
                    different. So it is clearly not "dependence" like the Fourth Evangelist used
                    Scripture."

                    I would like to challenge you thinking here. You are correct in stating that the
                    Fourth Evangelist uses both explicit and implicit references to OT texts.
                    However, I believe that you are incorrect in deducing that because the Fourth
                    Evangelist has no explicit uses of the Synoptics in his gospel, then he is not
                    depending on the Synoptics in the same way he depends on OT material. He may not
                    depend on the Synoptics in using explicit references to them as he does with
                    certain OT texts, but he does depend on the Synoptics (IMO) in using implicit
                    references to them in the same way he does with many of the OT texts.

                    You then state: "I do go with familiarity, at least of Mark, but many of the
                    contacts are contrastive (as the Bible and Interpretation essay suggests), so
                    "dependence" does not work here either." I would counter here by saying John is
                    both familiar with Mark and manipulates Mark to achieve his own goals, so
                    dependence (IMO) does work here. One can depend on a source and use it in a
                    variety of ways. One does not have to stick to literal repetition in drawing
                    from other material.

                    And you conclude your posts with: "How do we know Mark, or the other Synoptic
                    traditions, were not influenced by the developing Johannine tradition? While I
                    think John was finalized last among the canonical Gospels (around 100 CE), its
                    tradition did not originate late."

                    This goes back to your belief that John was doing historical reporting. However,
                    since I believe that much of John did not originate from actual facts concerning
                    what Jesus' said/did and did not say/do but rather originated from the
                    Evangelist's own creative thinking in his desire to state theologically what has
                    been accomplished in Jesus and why he should be believed on to be the Messiah,
                    then I conclude that the Evangelist composed his material later than the
                    Synoptics but before Acts (although I am not saying he was not an eye witness;
                    being an eyewitness and "creating" stories are not a contradiction).

                    Since indirect allusions are often difficult not only to detect but also to
                    agree on, there exists two major camps concerning the nature of the gospels. I
                    believe that you are in the one while I am in the other. How can we proceed?

                    Sincerely,

                    Matt Estrada





                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • jgibson000@comcast.net
                    ... We can proceed by you first recognizing not only (a) that there is no mutual exclusivity between a doing historical reporting and doing theology as you
                    Message 9 of 24 , Aug 20, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On 8/20/2010 4:21 PM, Matthew Estrada wrote:
                      > And you conclude your posts with: "How do we know Mark, or the other Synoptic
                      > traditions, were not influenced by the developing Johannine tradition? While I
                      > think John was finalized last among the canonical Gospels (around 100 CE), its
                      > tradition did not originate late."
                      >
                      > This goes back to your belief that John was doing historical reporting. However,
                      > since I believe that much of John did not originate from actual facts concerning
                      > what Jesus' said/did and did not say/do but rather originated from the
                      > Evangelist's own creative thinking in his desire to state theologically what has
                      > been accomplished in Jesus and why he should be believed on to be the Messiah,
                      > then I conclude that the Evangelist composed his material later than the
                      > Synoptics but before Acts (although I am not saying he was not an eye witness;
                      > being an eyewitness and "creating" stories are not a contradiction).
                      >
                      > Since indirect allusions are often difficult not only to detect but also to
                      > agree on, there exists two major camps concerning the nature of the gospels. I
                      > believe that you are in the one while I am in the other. How can we proceed?
                      >


                      We can proceed by you first recognizing not only

                      (a) that there is no mutual exclusivity between a doing historical
                      reporting and doing theology as you suggest there is,

                      (b) that if John was indeed intent to state what has been accomplished
                      by Jesus for the Jewish people of his time, he *has* to be interested
                      in historical reporting and in what Jesus said and did, since whatever
                      it was that Jesus accomplished was done through specific historical
                      acts, and

                      (c) that your claim that Paul's question about whether the synoptic
                      tradition was influenced by developing Johannine tradition "goes back to
                      [Paul's] belief that John was doing historical reporting, is a non
                      sequitur and is grounded in petitio principii, especially if GJohn is
                      what you say it is, since it assumes, quite contrary to fact, that the
                      synoptic authors were not also doing theology.

                      Jeffrey

                      --
                      Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
                      1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
                      Chicago, Illinois
                      e-mail jgibson000@...



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Paul Anderson
                      I understand the argument, Matthew; right. The dehistoricization of John is the prevalent platform among modern biblical scholars, reflected here in your
                      Message 10 of 24 , Aug 20, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I understand the argument, Matthew; right. The "dehistoricization of John"
                        is the prevalent platform among modern biblical scholars, reflected here in
                        your statement

                        "...since I believe that much of John did not originate from actual facts
                        concerning
                        what Jesus' said/did and did not say/do but rather originated from the
                        Evangelist's own creative thinking in his desire to state theologically what
                        has
                        been accomplished in Jesus and why he should be believed on to be the
                        Messiah..."

                        How do you KNOW that John's alternative rendering of Jesus' ministry is NOT
                        rooted in historical tradition or memory?

                        Or (see
                        http://books.google.com/books?id=DS6TPsU3YPsC&pg=PA157&lpg=PA157&dq=theologizing+speculation+gone+awry&source=bl&ots=ZeRjI8i7EV&sig=fFHYXV_FanAn24I3CCoBfPEzA8I&hl=en&ei=JhFvTPiGKIS-sQOpjumICw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=theologizing%20speculation%20gone%20awry&f=false),
                        is your view a factor of "theologizing speculation gone awry"? Show me it's
                        not the latter.

                        gratefully,

                        Paul Anderson


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Bob MacDonald
                        Paul - your four categories of symbolization make me laugh in joy - explicit, implicit, correlative, and innocent! Innocent is a category I would like to put
                        Message 11 of 24 , Aug 20, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Paul - your four categories of symbolization make me laugh in joy -
                          explicit, implicit, correlative, and innocent!

                          'Innocent' is a category I would like to put myself in - but scarcely
                          applicable!

                          I am guessing you mean that the text is innocent, not the interpreter, in
                          imposing his theology!

                          Bob
                          Bob MacDonald
                          http://meafar.blogspot.com
                          Vcitoria BC
                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                          [mailto:johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul Anderson
                          Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 4:39 PM
                          To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: Re: [John_Lit] New topics worth discussing?

                          Or (see
                          http://books.google.com/books?id=DS6TPsU3YPsC&pg=PA157&lpg=PA157&dq=theologi
                          zing+speculation+gone+awry&source=bl&ots=ZeRjI8i7EV&sig=fFHYXV_FanAn24I3CCoB
                          fPEzA8I&hl=en&ei=JhFvTPiGKIS-sQOpjumICw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum
                          =1&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=theologizing%20speculation%20gone%20awry&f=fa
                          lse),
                          is your view a factor of "theologizing speculation gone awry"? Show me it's
                          not the latter.

                          gratefully,

                          Paul Anderson
                        • Paul Anderson
                          Thanks, Bob! Yes, I believe the theologizing interest of the evangelist is likely the sloppiest and most uncritically used term in recent decades of
                          Message 12 of 24 , Aug 20, 2010
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Thanks, Bob!

                            Yes, I believe "the theologizing interest of the evangelist" is likely the
                            sloppiest and most uncritically used term in recent decades of Johannine
                            studies. It too often gets a critical pass, even when the rationale is
                            inadequate. My hope is to provide criteria by which the term can be used
                            critically, and perhaps even meaningfully.

                            However, even if used meaningfully, an accurate theologizing inference may
                            still be non-significant. A historical detail may be presented in a highly
                            theological way; an illustrative detail "innocent" (the detail, that is, not
                            the interpreter) of theologizing features is not necessarily historical.

                            Grist for the mill,

                            Paul Anderson

                            On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Bob MacDonald <bobmacdonald@...> wrote:

                            > Paul - your four categories of symbolization make me laugh in joy -
                            > explicit, implicit, correlative, and innocent!
                            >
                            > 'Innocent' is a category I would like to put myself in - but scarcely
                            > applicable!
                            >
                            > I am guessing you mean that the text is innocent, not the interpreter, in
                            > imposing his theology!
                            >
                            > Bob
                            > Bob MacDonald
                            > http://meafar.blogspot.com
                            > Vcitoria BC
                            > -----Original Message-----
                            > From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                            > [mailto:johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul Anderson
                            > Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 4:39 PM
                            > To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                            > Subject: Re: [John_Lit] New topics worth discussing?
                            >
                            > Or (see
                            >
                            > http://books.google.com/books?id=DS6TPsU3YPsC&pg=PA157&lpg=PA157&dq=theologi
                            >
                            > zing+speculation+gone+awry&source=bl&ots=ZeRjI8i7EV&sig=fFHYXV_FanAn24I3CCoB
                            >
                            > fPEzA8I&hl=en&ei=JhFvTPiGKIS-sQOpjumICw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum
                            >
                            > =1&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=theologizing%20speculation%20gone%20awry&f=fa<http://books.google.com/books?id=DS6TPsU3YPsC&pg=PA157&lpg=PA157&dq=theologi%0Azing+speculation+gone+awry&source=bl&ots=ZeRjI8i7EV&sig=fFHYXV_FanAn24I3CCoB%0AfPEzA8I&hl=en&ei=JhFvTPiGKIS-sQOpjumICw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum%0A=1&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=theologizing%20speculation%20gone%20awry&f=fa>
                            > lse),
                            > is your view a factor of "theologizing speculation gone awry"? Show me it's
                            > not the latter.
                            >
                            > gratefully,
                            >
                            > Paul Anderson
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > ------------------------------------
                            >
                            > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                            > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                            > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
                            > MESSAGE ARCHIVE:
                            > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messagesYahoo! Groups
                            > Links
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >


                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Bob MacDonald
                            Thanks Paul Your criticism sloppiest and most uncritically used term leads me to another one word allusion in John this time to Psalm 119: the issue of
                            Message 13 of 24 , Aug 21, 2010
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Thanks Paul

                              Your criticism " sloppiest and most uncritically used term " leads me to
                              another one word allusion in John this time to Psalm 119: the issue of
                              keeping the commandments. Psalm 119 parts 1-3 are all about this inner
                              precious conversation -

                              Again in the farewell discourse, we have this - "if you love me, you will
                              keep my commandments".

                              I expect one could run with this allusion for some distance.

                              The dialogue between father and son - between Hashem and Israel - between
                              God and 'the elect' - another phrase from the writing under the name of John
                              - this 'dialogue' is in the Psalter. No book of the NT makes this more
                              evident than Hebrews - but the impact of the Psalter is everywhere.

                              The poetry of John would bear comparison with the poems of the TNK.

                              Bob

                              > Bob
                              > Bob MacDonald
                              > http://meafar.blogspot.com
                              > Victoria BC
                            • Paul Anderson
                              Thanks, Bob, the Fourth Gospel and the Hebrew Psalter would make an excellent topic to research. Allusive echoes with scripture do indeed exist in John, as do
                              Message 14 of 24 , Aug 21, 2010
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Thanks, Bob, the Fourth Gospel and the Hebrew Psalter would make an
                                excellent topic to research. Allusive echoes with scripture do indeed exist
                                in John, as do echoes of Synoptic themes, though less directly.

                                My essay in the imagery volume (an excellent collection, by the way) simply
                                challenges the facile "solving" of historical problems by means of literary
                                inferences, which themselves are variably arguable.

                                In addition to a narrative mode and theological claims in John, we also have
                                narrative mode and historical claims--which may be wrong, but that is not to
                                say that they are not historical but only theological. This has been the
                                default critical mode of operation for some time; it is, however, critically
                                flawed.

                                Paul Anderson

                                On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 7:39 AM, Bob MacDonald <bobmacdonald@...> wrote:

                                > Thanks Paul
                                >
                                > Your criticism " sloppiest and most uncritically used term " leads me to
                                > another one word allusion in John this time to Psalm 119: the issue of
                                > keeping the commandments. Psalm 119 parts 1-3 are all about this inner
                                > precious conversation -
                                >
                                > Again in the farewell discourse, we have this - "if you love me, you will
                                > keep my commandments".
                                >
                                > I expect one could run with this allusion for some distance.
                                >
                                > The dialogue between father and son - between Hashem and Israel - between
                                > God and 'the elect' - another phrase from the writing under the name of
                                > John
                                > - this 'dialogue' is in the Psalter. No book of the NT makes this more
                                > evident than Hebrews - but the impact of the Psalter is everywhere.
                                >
                                > The poetry of John would bear comparison with the poems of the TNK.
                                >
                                > Bob
                                >
                                > > Bob
                                > > Bob MacDonald
                                > > http://meafar.blogspot.com
                                > > Victoria BC
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > ------------------------------------
                                >
                                > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
                                > MESSAGE ARCHIVE:
                                > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messagesYahoo! Groups
                                > Links
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >


                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Matthew Estrada
                                Paul, you asked, How do you KNOW that John s alternative rendering of Jesus ministry is NOT rooted in historical tradition or memory? I don t know if my
                                Message 15 of 24 , Aug 21, 2010
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Paul, you asked, "How do you KNOW that John's alternative rendering of Jesus'
                                  ministry is NOT rooted in historical tradition or memory?" I don't know if my
                                  answer to your question will satisfy you or not, Paul, but here it is: I used to
                                  think non-critically (and in no way am I saying that anyone who believes the
                                  gospels are rooted in history are non-critical thinkers) and believe that the
                                  gospel stories were historical tradition. Even though the seminary I attended
                                  believed likewise, while studying certain texts very thoroughly, I came to view
                                  these stories as theological creations. How do I KNOW that they are what I claim
                                  them to be? John Meier, in volume 2 of his book "A Marginal Jew, states
                                  (concerning the Cana Miracle) in the opening paragraph of his concluding
                                  remarks, after examining the various miracle and healing stories:
                                   
                                  "In sum, when one adds these historical difficulties [which he's just finished
                                  examining] to the massive amount of Johannine literary and theological traits
                                  permeating the whole story, it is difficult to identify any 'historical kernel'
                                  or 'core event' that might have a claim to go back to the historical Jesus. Put
                                  another way: if we subtract from the eleven verses of the first Cana miracle
                                  every element that is likely to have come from the creative mind of John or his
                                  Johannine 'school' and every element that raises historical problems, the entire
                                  pericope vanishes before our eyes verse by verse. Many critics would assign the
                                  origin of the story to the Johannine 'school' or 'circle' lying behind the
                                  Gospel. I prefer the view that the story is a creation of the Evangelist
                                  himself, using a number of traditional themes." (p. 949)

                                   
                                  Even though he wrote the above way after I stumbled upon my interpretation of
                                  John's "water" symbolism, he expresses my own reasons for believing that these
                                  stories are largely symbolic and not rooted in historical tradition. I can
                                  provide reasonable "evidences" showing from where, and why, the
                                  Evangelist borrowed almost every word and phrase that is found in the Cana
                                  Miracle story. This has led me to conclude that he created these stories.

                                  I enjoyed the article. Thanks.

                                  Matt Estrada





                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • Paul Anderson
                                  Thanks, Matthew, exactly. We do not KNOW there was no historical tradition underlying particular Johannine scenarios, and the presence of literary and
                                  Message 16 of 24 , Aug 21, 2010
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Thanks, Matthew, exactly. We do not KNOW there was no historical tradition
                                    underlying particular Johannine scenarios, and the presence of literary and
                                    theological features does not discount the possibility of historical ones.
                                    What do we do, for instance, with the fact of Johannine empiricism? John is
                                    the most mundane of the gospels as well as the most elevated.

                                    Your point is a good one, that many pre-critical interpreters see everything
                                    in the Gospels as historical without appreciating literary and theological
                                    factors involved in the selection and crafting of gospel narratives. I also
                                    believe that much of John is crafted for theological and rhetorical reasons,
                                    but claiming such to be the ORIGIN of EVERYTHING Johannine, and that there
                                    was no foundational traditional memory, brings new sets of critical problems
                                    that scholars are just now beginning to address.

                                    May I comment on Meier's thoughtful paragraph? Right. Huge
                                    historical-critical problems abound with the water-into-wine narrative, and
                                    the Johannine story-line would do just fine if it were excised. That could
                                    be an argument, however, for the need to include it for reasons other than
                                    literary or theological ones. If it does not further the plot significantly,
                                    perhaps it is included for "historical" reasons (whether or not it actually
                                    happened)--particularly as an augmentation of Mark--the first sign, before
                                    those mentioned in Mark 1. Of course, Meier had not been up on subsequent
                                    critical investigations of Johannine historicity over the last decade or so;
                                    we'll see what happens in his fifth (of sixth?) volume(s).

                                    Here's where positivism, if it is evenly used, critically, must be plied to
                                    falsification as well as verification. If ones cannot claim they KNOW a
                                    late-first-century report is historically false, or even not historically
                                    motivated, they should at least be more modest or even agnostic in their
                                    claims.

                                    Much appreciated,

                                    Paul Anderson

                                    On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Matthew Estrada <matt_estrada@...>wrote:

                                    > Paul, you asked, "How do you KNOW that John's alternative rendering of
                                    > Jesus'
                                    > ministry is NOT rooted in historical tradition or memory?" I don't know if
                                    > my
                                    > answer to your question will satisfy you or not, Paul, but here it is: I
                                    > used to
                                    > think non-critically (and in no way am I saying that anyone who believes
                                    > the
                                    > gospels are rooted in history are non-critical thinkers) and believe that
                                    > the
                                    > gospel stories were historical tradition. Even though the seminary I
                                    > attended
                                    > believed likewise, while studying certain texts very thoroughly, I came to
                                    > view
                                    > these stories as theological creations. How do I KNOW that they are what I
                                    > claim
                                    > them to be? John Meier, in volume 2 of his book "A Marginal Jew, states
                                    > (concerning the Cana Miracle) in the opening paragraph of his concluding
                                    > remarks, after examining the various miracle and healing stories:
                                    >
                                    > "In sum, when one adds these historical difficulties [which he's just
                                    > finished
                                    > examining] to the massive amount of Johannine literary and theological
                                    > traits
                                    > permeating the whole story, it is difficult to identify any 'historical
                                    > kernel'
                                    > or 'core event' that might have a claim to go back to the historical Jesus.
                                    > Put
                                    > another way: if we subtract from the eleven verses of the first Cana
                                    > miracle
                                    > every element that is likely to have come from the creative mind of John or
                                    > his
                                    > Johannine 'school' and every element that raises historical problems, the
                                    > entire
                                    > pericope vanishes before our eyes verse by verse. Many critics would assign
                                    > the
                                    > origin of the story to the Johannine 'school' or 'circle' lying behind the
                                    > Gospel. I prefer the view that the story is a creation of the Evangelist
                                    > himself, using a number of traditional themes." (p. 949)
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Even though he wrote the above way after I stumbled upon my interpretation
                                    > of
                                    > John's "water" symbolism, he expresses my own reasons for believing that
                                    > these
                                    > stories are largely symbolic and not rooted in historical tradition. I can
                                    > provide reasonable "evidences" showing from where, and why, the
                                    > Evangelist borrowed almost every word and phrase that is found in the Cana
                                    > Miracle story. This has led me to conclude that he created these stories.
                                    >
                                    > I enjoyed the article. Thanks.
                                    >
                                    > Matt Estrada
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > ------------------------------------
                                    >
                                    > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                    > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                    > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
                                    > MESSAGE ARCHIVE:
                                    > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messagesYahoo! Groups
                                    > Links
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >


                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • Matthew Miller
                                    Hi Paul You said: the Johannine story-line would do just fine if it were excised. That could be an argument, however, for the need to include it for reasons
                                    Message 17 of 24 , Aug 21, 2010
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Hi Paul

                                      You said:
                                      the Johannine story-line would do just fine if it were excised. That could
                                      be an argument, however, for the need to include it for reasons other than
                                      literary or theological ones. If it does not further the plot significantly,
                                      perhaps it is included for "historical" reasons...

                                      The purpose of your argument aside - a point on which I agree, I think it should be noted that the Wedding of Cana significantly develops John's message. May I suggest John's marriage theme as another topic worth discussing?

                                      Matthew Miller
                                      Canby Bible College
                                      Logosmadeflesh@...


                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • Matthew Estrada
                                      Paul, You state: We do not KNOW there was no historical tradition underlying particular Johannine scenarios, and the presence of literary and theological
                                      Message 18 of 24 , Aug 21, 2010
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Paul,

                                        You state: "We do not KNOW there was no historical tradition underlying
                                        particular Johannine scenarios, and the presence of literary and
                                        theological features does not discount the possibility of historical ones."

                                        I can respond with, We do not know there was, either. You are correct in saying
                                        that literary and theological elements in a story do not make that story
                                        "unhistorical". However, when we read a story, for example, like "the tortoise
                                        and the hare", we do not assume that it is historical. Why? Because elements in
                                        the story provide us with enough reasonable "evidences" which allow us to make
                                        that assumption. This is the way I see it working with the Cana Miracle, as well
                                        as many other stories in the gospels. Looking hard an.d close enough, I
                                        discovered enough clues that convinced me of the genre of John's gospel.

                                        You said, "I also believe that much of John is crafted for theological and
                                        rhetorical reasons, but claiming such to be the ORIGIN of EVERYTHING Johannine,
                                        and that there was no foundational traditional memory, brings new sets of
                                        critical problems that scholars are just now beginning to address."

                                         I would like to clarify that I do think that there is some history behind the
                                        stories, but not in the way you think. The history that I see behind these
                                        stories is the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. The evangelist is not
                                        interested in relating the details that occurred in Jesus' life, but is
                                        interested in relaying the meaning of Jesus' incarnation, death and
                                        resurrection.



                                        You said, "the Johannine story-line would do just fine if it (the Cana miracle
                                        story) were excised (because of the historical-critical problems). That could be
                                        an argument, however, for the need to include it for reasons other than literary
                                        or theological ones. If it does not further the plot significantly, perhaps it
                                        is included for "historical" reasons (whether or not it actually
                                        happened)--particularly as an augmentation of Mark--the first sign, before those
                                        mentioned in Mark 1."

                                        I do not see these historical-critical problems that you mention since I do not
                                        view this as describing historical details. Nor would I be in favor of excising
                                        the Cana miracle from the gospel, as there are tons of important literary and
                                        theological elements within it that can cause one to marvel at what God has done
                                        through Jesus, and in the writing of this particular story.

                                        Sorry that I cannot be more modest or agnostic in my claim that this story is a
                                        theological one that is not rooted in historical details. Would you prefer that
                                        I say, "The Peter Rabbit story might have been rooted in history" even though my
                                        good judgement tells me otherwise?

                                        Sincerely,

                                        Matt Estrada





                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • Paul Anderson
                                        Matthew, may I point out a few mistaken readings or at least distortions of my most recent post? a) I m not claiming that everything in John has a historical
                                        Message 19 of 24 , Aug 21, 2010
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Matthew, may I point out a few mistaken readings or at least distortions of
                                          my most recent post?

                                          a) I'm not claiming that everything in John has a historical root; I'm
                                          challenging your claim that most or all of it does not. Show me how you know
                                          that; I remain unconvinced by the presence of literary and theological
                                          features. By this thinking, the cross is theological, therefore, Jesus did
                                          not die on one. This is flawed thinking; it also is likely untrue.

                                          b) I'm not claiming the Johannine narrative would not miss the wedding
                                          narrative; that is Meier's claim, which could support the opposite
                                          conclusion.

                                          c) I don't understand the Peter Rabbit reference; are you claiming that the
                                          Fourth Gospel is the same genre of Peter Rabbit, or are you suggesting this
                                          is MY view? It feels like a slam if you are claiming that that because a
                                          scholar is working on critical theory regarding gospel historiography this
                                          is intellectually equivalent to believing a Beatrice Potter story is rooted
                                          in history.

                                          Speaking of texts and their interpretation, let's be sure we understand and
                                          represent well what we are engaging.

                                          Thanks!

                                          Paul Anderson


                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • Matthew Estrada
                                          Hi Paul, a) I did not say that just because a text uses theological and literary features, that this means the text is therefore to be judged as not being
                                          Message 20 of 24 , Aug 21, 2010
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Hi Paul,

                                            a) I did not say that just because a text uses theological and literary
                                            features, that this means the text is therefore to be judged as not being rooted
                                            in history. I did say that because I have found in the water to wine story an
                                            overabundance of these features (where I can reasonably account for almost every
                                            word and phrase in that story), that I have judged it, as well as other texts
                                            within John and Luke (for the same reasons), to be story creations not rooted in
                                            history.

                                            b) I apologize for misreading what you earlier wrote. You stated, "May I comment
                                            on Meier's thoughtful paragraph? Right. Huge historical-critical problems abound
                                            with the water-into-wine narrative, and the Johannine story-line would do just
                                            fine if it were excised." As I read that, it sounds as if it is coming from you.
                                            I did not know that you were repeating Meier's words. An innocent
                                            misunderstanding. Sorry.

                                            c) My Peter Rabbit reference was probably not a good illustration for what I was
                                            trying to communicate. I was only using that illustration to try and say that
                                            even as I came to understand Santa Claus does not really exists and that the
                                            Peter Rabbit story is just that- a story, so, too, have I come to understand
                                            much of John's gospel as the Evangelist's own creation, taken from a variety of
                                            sources and woven into a theological stories.

                                            I may have said something else in this post that is offensive to you. If so, I
                                            apologize now. I don't mean it that way.

                                            I would like to ask you another question: Why is it so important to
                                            believe whether these stories happened or not?

                                            Thanks.

                                            Matt Estrada
                                             




                                            ________________________________
                                            From: Paul Anderson <panderso@...>
                                            To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                                            Sent: Sat, August 21, 2010 9:52:42 PM
                                            Subject: Re: [John_Lit] New topics worth discussing?

                                             
                                            Matthew, may I point out a few mistaken readings or at least distortions of
                                            my most recent post?

                                            a) I'm not claiming that everything in John has a historical root; I'm
                                            challenging your claim that most or all of it does not. Show me how you know
                                            that; I remain unconvinced by the presence of literary and theological
                                            features. By this thinking, the cross is theological, therefore, Jesus did
                                            not die on one. This is flawed thinking; it also is likely untrue.

                                            b) I'm not claiming the Johannine narrative would not miss the wedding
                                            narrative; that is Meier's claim, which could support the opposite
                                            conclusion.

                                            c) I don't understand the Peter Rabbit reference; are you claiming that the
                                            Fourth Gospel is the same genre of Peter Rabbit, or are you suggesting this
                                            is MY view? It feels like a slam if you are claiming that that because a
                                            scholar is working on critical theory regarding gospel historiography this
                                            is intellectually equivalent to believing a Beatrice Potter story is rooted
                                            in history.

                                            Speaking of texts and their interpretation, let's be sure we understand and
                                            represent well what we are engaging.

                                            Thanks!

                                            Paul Anderson

                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]







                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          • Paul Anderson
                                            I appreciate your apology, Matthew, although it rings a bit hollow when you bring in Santa Claus as a further example of what enlightened scholars should
                                            Message 21 of 24 , Aug 21, 2010
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              I appreciate your apology, Matthew, although it rings a bit hollow when you
                                              bring in Santa Claus as a further example of what enlightened scholars
                                              should abandon if they can just get over Johannine claims to historicity.

                                              Again, you misunderstand my critical interest, and I doubt you've read the
                                              three books I've published on the subject in the last four years, let alone
                                              Charlesworth's essay in the April 2010 issue of the Journal for the Study of
                                              the Historical Jesus, calling for a paradigm shift in Jesus studies--away
                                              from ignoring John to including John. At least go read that essay.

                                              My interest is not "to believe whether these stories happened or not" it is
                                              to weigh critically the claims that they do not reflect historical interests
                                              or knowledge based upon flawed inferences of the Fourth Gospel's genre,
                                              derivative origin, and theologized character.

                                              Okay, this has too long been a dialogue, so I'll release my part of this
                                              conversation and move on to other things.

                                              Sincerely,

                                              Paul Anderson



                                              On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Matthew Estrada <matt_estrada@...>wrote:

                                              > Hi Paul,
                                              >
                                              > a) I did not say that just because a text uses theological and literary
                                              > features, that this means the text is therefore to be judged as not being
                                              > rooted
                                              > in history. I did say that because I have found in the water to wine story
                                              > an
                                              > overabundance of these features (where I can reasonably account for almost
                                              > every
                                              > word and phrase in that story), that I have judged it, as well as other
                                              > texts
                                              > within John and Luke (for the same reasons), to be story creations not
                                              > rooted in
                                              > history.
                                              >
                                              > b) I apologize for misreading what you earlier wrote. You stated, "May I
                                              > comment
                                              > on Meier's thoughtful paragraph? Right. Huge historical-critical problems
                                              > abound
                                              > with the water-into-wine narrative, and the Johannine story-line would do
                                              > just
                                              > fine if it were excised." As I read that, it sounds as if it is coming from
                                              > you.
                                              > I did not know that you were repeating Meier's words. An innocent
                                              > misunderstanding. Sorry.
                                              >
                                              > c) My Peter Rabbit reference was probably not a good illustration for what
                                              > I was
                                              > trying to communicate. I was only using that illustration to try and say
                                              > that
                                              > even as I came to understand Santa Claus does not really exists and that
                                              > the
                                              > Peter Rabbit story is just that- a story, so, too, have I come to
                                              > understand
                                              > much of John's gospel as the Evangelist's own creation, taken from a
                                              > variety of
                                              > sources and woven into a theological stories.
                                              >
                                              > I may have said something else in this post that is offensive to you. If
                                              > so, I
                                              > apologize now. I don't mean it that way.
                                              >
                                              > I would like to ask you another question: Why is it so important to
                                              > believe whether these stories happened or not?
                                              >
                                              > Thanks.
                                              >
                                              > Matt Estrada
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > ________________________________
                                              > From: Paul Anderson <panderso@...>
                                              > To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                                              > Sent: Sat, August 21, 2010 9:52:42 PM
                                              > Subject: Re: [John_Lit] New topics worth discussing?
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > Matthew, may I point out a few mistaken readings or at least distortions of
                                              > my most recent post?
                                              >
                                              > a) I'm not claiming that everything in John has a historical root; I'm
                                              > challenging your claim that most or all of it does not. Show me how you
                                              > know
                                              > that; I remain unconvinced by the presence of literary and theological
                                              > features. By this thinking, the cross is theological, therefore, Jesus did
                                              > not die on one. This is flawed thinking; it also is likely untrue.
                                              >
                                              > b) I'm not claiming the Johannine narrative would not miss the wedding
                                              > narrative; that is Meier's claim, which could support the opposite
                                              > conclusion.
                                              >
                                              > c) I don't understand the Peter Rabbit reference; are you claiming that the
                                              > Fourth Gospel is the same genre of Peter Rabbit, or are you suggesting this
                                              > is MY view? It feels like a slam if you are claiming that that because a
                                              > scholar is working on critical theory regarding gospel historiography this
                                              > is intellectually equivalent to believing a Beatrice Potter story is rooted
                                              > in history.
                                              >
                                              > Speaking of texts and their interpretation, let's be sure we understand and
                                              > represent well what we are engaging.
                                              >
                                              > Thanks!
                                              >
                                              > Paul Anderson
                                              >
                                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > ------------------------------------
                                              >
                                              > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                              > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                              > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
                                              > MESSAGE ARCHIVE:
                                              > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messagesYahoo! Groups
                                              > Links
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >


                                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            • Mardaga, Hellen
                                              Hi David, yes I did, thank you for the suggestion. There is also a recent article which is a critique on Bauckham and Eyewitnesses. it is published by John
                                              Message 22 of 24 , Aug 22, 2010
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Hi David, yes I did, thank you for the suggestion. There is also a recent article which is a critique on Bauckham and Eyewitnesses. it is published by John Collins in Expository Times 2010 121(9)447-452. I also came accros "Memories of Jesus" by R. Stewart and G. Habermas (ed.).
                                                Enjoy the rest of the weekend!
                                                Hellen
                                                _________________
                                              • Matthew Estrada
                                                Paul,   Here is an excerpt from my paper attempting to illustrate how the author of the Fourth gospel has used the Synoptic material. If interested, you can
                                                Message 23 of 24 , Aug 28, 2010
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Paul,
                                                   
                                                  Here is an excerpt from my paper attempting to illustrate how the author of the
                                                  Fourth gospel has used the Synoptic material. If interested, you can read my
                                                  paper in full at http://estradablog.wordpress.com/.
                                                   
                                                   
                                                  C)      Now comparing these Synoptic texts with certain texts throughout John
                                                  1-3, we discover the following parallels which indicate John’s use of, mimesis
                                                  of, and transformation of, at
                                                         least one of the gospels:
                                                   
                                                  1)       In Mark 2:13 we read,
                                                   
                                                          “Once again Jesus went out beside the lake”.
                                                   
                                                         Mark says “Once again…”. When did Jesus first go out beside the lake? If
                                                  we go back to Mark 1:14-18 we read,
                                                   
                                                  “After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good
                                                  news of God. ‘The time has come,’ he said. ‘The kingdom of God is near. Repent
                                                  and believe the good news!’
                                                  As Jesus walked beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and his brother Andrew
                                                  casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen. ‘Come, follow me,’ Jesus
                                                  said, ‘and I will make you fishers of men.’ At once they left their nets and
                                                  followed Him.”
                                                   
                                                   In John 3:22-23 we read,
                                                   
                                                   “After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside,
                                                  where He spent some time with them, and baptized. Now John also was baptizing at
                                                  Aenon near Salim, because there was plenty of water, and people were constantly
                                                  coming to be baptized (This was before John was put in prison)”.
                                                   
                                                  So we note that John replaced Mark’s “After John was put in prison” with his own
                                                  “This was before John was put in prison”, and John has Jesus in a place where
                                                  there “was plenty of water” in place of Mark’s Jesus who “went out beside the
                                                  lake”. Why does John change Mark’s “lake” into his own “plenty of water”? To
                                                  answer this, one needs to understand what the word “water” symbolizes in the
                                                  Gospel of John. Without providing proof right now (but the proof will be
                                                  provided later), the word “water” symbolizes “the Law and the prophets”. When
                                                  John states that there was “plenty of water”, he is telling us that the
                                                  teachings concerning the Law and the Prophets were everywhere, and that many
                                                  people were coming to hear the teachings of the Law and the Prophets. When was
                                                  this? John says it was before John the Baptist (who is symbolic of the Law and
                                                  the Prophets) was put in prison, which most likely means before the Law and the
                                                  Prophets were “imprisoned” by the Pharisees and their strict interpretation of
                                                  it. For as we are later told in John’s Gospel, “the Jews” (the Pharisees)
                                                  prohibited reading Jesus as messiah into any of the messianic texts found within
                                                  the OT (Jn 7:13, 40-52; 9:22; 12:42; 16:2). This, I will argue, is the
                                                  “imprisonment of John the Baptist/the Law and the Prophets” (we will later
                                                  return to this).
                                                   
                                                  Knowing that Jesus never baptized (as John tells us clearly in John 4:2), and
                                                  knowing (although you, the reader, have to assume this for now) that the word
                                                  “water” symbolizes “the Law and the Prophets”, we can now interpret the word
                                                  “baptize” to mean “to teach” or “to disciple”.  For in Mk 2:13 we read:
                                                   
                                                  “Once again Jesus went out beside the lake. A large crowd came to him, and He
                                                  began to teach them. As He walked along, He saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at
                                                  the tax collector’s booth. ‘Follow me,’ Jesus told him, and Levi got up and
                                                  followed him.
                                                    While Jesus was having dinner at Levi’s house, many tax collectors and
                                                  ‘sinners’ were eating with Him and His disciples, for there were many who
                                                  followed Him.”
                                                   
                                                   John once again changes Mark’s wording. Where Mark has “to teach them”, John
                                                  has “baptizing/baptized”. Why does he do this? John does this to disguise the
                                                  symbolic meaning of his story in a seemingly historical story. Therefore, these
                                                  verses in John 3:22-23 are really saying something to this effect:
                                                   
                                                  “After this, Jesus and His disciples (the NT Church) went out into the Judean
                                                  countryside, where He (the Church) spent some time with them, and baptized
                                                  (taught/discipled). Now John (the Law and the Prophets) also was baptizing
                                                  (teaching/making disciples) at Aenon near Salim, because their was plenty of
                                                  water (the teachings on Law and the Prophets = water, were bountiful/plenty),
                                                  and people were constantly coming to be baptized (coming to be
                                                  taught/discipled). (This was before John [the Law and the Prophets] was put in
                                                  prison [by “the Jews”/the Pharisees and their strict interpretation of the Law
                                                  and the Prophets in their prohibitions of any messianic interpretations that
                                                  would see Jesus as the Christ])”.
                                                   
                                                   
                                                  2)       In our Markan text the discussion begins between Jesus’ disciples and
                                                  “the teachers of the law who were Pharisees” over the matter of Jesus’
                                                  associating with ‘sinners’. In John 3:22-30, we read of John’s disciples who
                                                  first have a discussion with “a certain Jew(s) over the matter of ceremonial
                                                  washing”. The reason why John, the author, has introduced the disciples of John
                                                  the Baptist as first having a discussion with “the Jews”, is to emphasize the
                                                  difference in teachings on the Law between the true disciples of the Baptist
                                                  (who stands for the Law) and the disciples of “the Jews” (or Pharisees/religious
                                                  leaders during that time period) who have misconstrued the teachings of the Law
                                                  and the Prophets for their own gain. John, the author, can then have the Baptist
                                                  (who stands for the Law) give testimony to his disciples concerning Jesus’ true
                                                  identity against the testimony of “the Jews” (the Pharisees/religious leaders
                                                  who misinterpret the Law). Therefore, John 3:25 is really saying:
                                                   
                                                  “An argument developed between some of John’s disciples (disciples of the Law
                                                  and the Prophets) and a certain Jew (“the Jews” and the Pharisees who would
                                                  misinterpret the Law and the Prophets and not see Jesus as the Christ as
                                                  foretold in the OT) over the matter of ceremonial washing (“the Jews” trying to
                                                  divert the attention away from Jesus that he is drawing from those who interpret
                                                  correctly the Old Testament to the meaningless rituals of the Law when viewed
                                                  outside of Jesus as their fulfillment).”
                                                   
                                                  3)       In Mark 2:13 we read: “A large crowd came to him, and he began to teach
                                                  them”. In Mark 2:14, after Jesus commands Matthew to follow him, we read “and
                                                  Levi got up and followed him”. In Mark 2:15 we read“many tax collectors and
                                                  ‘sinners’ were eating with him [Jesus] and his disciples, for there were many
                                                  who followed him”. In our John 3:26-30 passage, the disciples of the Baptist
                                                  come to John the Baptist and tell him that “everyone is going to him” (to Jesus)
                                                  for “baptism” instead of coming to the Baptist for “baptism”. So in both
                                                  gospels, people are coming to Jesus, which brings about a discussion between two
                                                  groups (in Mark, the discussion first takes place between Jesus’ disciples and
                                                  the Pharisees, and then between Jesus and the Pharisees, and then between “some
                                                  people” [disciples of the Baptist, according to Matthew] and Jesus; whereas in
                                                  John the discussion first begins between John’s disciples and a ‘certain
                                                  Jew(s)’, then between John’s disciples and John the Baptist. Here we can see how
                                                  John has conflated Mark and Matthew’s versions into one. But instead of using
                                                  the words “he began to teach them” and “there were many who followed him” (as is
                                                  found in Mark and Matthew), John uses the symbolic words “baptize” and “everyone
                                                  is going to him” to be “baptized”. Why does John exchange the words “teach” for
                                                  “baptize”, and “many who followed him” with “going to him [Jesus] for baptism”?
                                                  He does so for the purpose of continuing his use of the encoded word “water”,
                                                  which is the key to understanding these first four chapters in John as an
                                                  allegory. Therefore, John 3:26 is really saying:
                                                   
                                                  “They (the disciples of John the Baptist/the disciples of the Law and the
                                                  Prophets) came to John (the Law and the Prophets) and said to him, ‘Rabbi, that
                                                  man who was with you on the other side of the Jordan- the one you testified
                                                  about- well, he is baptizing (teaching/discipling), and everyone is going to him
                                                  (instead of coming to you/the Law and the Prophets to be discipled, as was
                                                  before, everyone now is going to Jesus/NT Church to be taught/discipled).”

                                                   
                                                  4)        In Mark, the Pharisees, seeing that many people are “following Jesus”,
                                                  ask the disciples of Jesus why their teacher associates with ‘sinners’. Jesus
                                                  then responds by saying, “It is not the healthy that need a doctor but the sick.
                                                  I have not come to call the ‘righteous’, but the sinners.”  In John, it is the
                                                  disciples of the Baptist who, after seeing that many people are “following
                                                  Jesus” instead of following their leader the Baptist, go to John the Baptist,
                                                  who gives support to Jesus’ ministry by testifying to his own disciples that he
                                                  (the Law and the Prophets) must become less, and Jesus must become greater.
                                                   
                                                  5)       John continues, and emphasizes even more, the distinction that already
                                                  exists in the Synoptic accounts above between the three groups: John the Baptist
                                                  (Jn 1:6-8, 15, 19-34; 3:23-24) and his disciples (Jn 1:35, 42; 3:25), the
                                                  religious leaders of Judaism and their disciples (1:19-24; 3:25), and Jesus and
                                                  His disciples (2:2, 11-12; 3:22).
                                                   
                                                  6)       Moreover, John, again, even more than the Synoptic accounts, does not
                                                  place John the Baptist in opposition to Jesus, but rather has him functioning as
                                                  a witness to Jesus (1:7-8, 15, 19-36; 3:27-36; 5:33-36). There is again
                                                  continuity and a break between John the Baptist (who stands for the Law and the
                                                  Prophets) and Jesus. John also, like the Synoptic accounts, places both the
                                                  Baptist and Jesus in opposition to the religious leaders of Judaism who refuse
                                                  to see the truth.
                                                   
                                                  7)       John, like the Synoptic parallels, identifies Jesus as the bridegroom
                                                  (Jn. 2:9-10; 3:29).
                                                   
                                                  8)       John, in the Cana miracle story, has Jesus provide the “new wine” (Jn.
                                                  2:1-12), even as in our Synoptic parallels Jesus is the “new wine”. Even though
                                                  in our parallel sources in the Synoptic gospels Jesus is the “new wine” (whereas
                                                  in our Cana miracle in John Jesus provides the “new wine”), when we understand
                                                  correctly the “new wine” in the Cana miracle as symbolizing the Holy Spirit,
                                                  then this difference between John and the Synoptics disappears, as Jesus and the
                                                  Holy Spirit are One (II Corinthians 3:18).
                                                   
                                                  Too many parallels exists between our Synoptic parallel stories and John to
                                                  think that John was not drawing from, and transforming, them as source material,
                                                  in the creation of his own gospel. That he uses the genre of mimesis, as well as
                                                  allegory, in the process of creating new material to proclaim Jesus as Messiah
                                                  is, in part, the reason for some of the differences between his gospel material
                                                  and the Synoptic material. That he draws from many other sources and intertwines
                                                  these other source materials with the Synoptic material to create his allegory
                                                  is another reason for these differences. John was not attempting to write an
                                                  historical account of events in the life of Jesus. His purpose was to
                                                  demonstrate the incorrectness of the position of the Jewish leaders who refused
                                                  to see Jesus as the Messiah, as well as to demonstrate the correctness of the
                                                  position of those who viewed Jesus as the Messiah, and to support those who held
                                                  the position of Jesus as the Messiah by showing that the Law and the Prophets
                                                  also testify in favor of Jesus as the Christ.
                                                   Matt Estrada




                                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.