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

Re: [John_Lit] Order in John

Expand Messages
  • Peter Hofrichter
    The contrary is the case. The Gospel of Joh shows the original order and place of the cleansing of the temple. According to Mal 3,1-3 the coming of the
    Message 1 of 28 , Dec 31, 1969
    • 0 Attachment
      The contrary is the case. The Gospel of Joh shows the original order and
      place of the cleansing of the temple. According to Mal 3,1-3 the coming
      of the messanger of God will be immediately to the temple. In John this
      messanger is still Jesus: "Look, I send my messanger before me that he
      prepares the way for me". Since in Maleachi the Messanger is identified
      with Eliah the Baptist says "I am not Eliah and reserves this category
      like that of the messiah for Jesus". Only in Mark this messanger of Mal
      3,1-3 will be separated from Jesus and identified with John the Baptist:
      The quotation is therefore changed as if god would speak to Jesus: "Look,
      I send my messenger before thee that he prepares the way for thee." Now
      the cleansing of the Temple has no longer to do with the beginning of the
      mission of Jesus. It has lost its theological meaning and has become only
      a story among otheres. This is the necessary concequence of the fact that
      Mark simplifies the journeys of Jesus to only one way from Galilee to
      Jerusalem. Thus the coming of Jesus to the temple could be located only
      at the end of the story.

      Sincerely Peter
    • Moloneyfj@aol.com
      Dear Group As far as the Temple episode is concerned, we must first take into account the Markan theological agenda. It HAS to be at the end, because that is
      Message 2 of 28 , May 4, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Group

        As far as the Temple episode is concerned, we must first take into account
        the Markan theological agenda. It HAS to be at the end, because that is the
        only time Jesus is in Jerusalem. Most commentators link it - historically -
        with the catalyst which led to the death of Jesus. And that is what Mark
        wants the reader to do. However, that may not be the way it actually
        happened.

        I heve recently argued (latest NTS) that the Johannine opening chapters have
        a bit going for them historically. I would like to suggest further, however,
        the possibility that on the several occasions Jesus was in Jerusalem (at
        least for the Pilgrom Feasts ... as in John), there were always tensions
        between himself and the situation in the Temple. Thus, what we have in the
        Gospels is not the report of a once and for all event (beginning, end, some
        time in between??) ... but a dramatic presentation of a regular tension
        between Jesus and Temple practices that made him something of a nuisance to
        the Establishment (and this is not the later product of anti-Temple elements
        joining the Johannine tradition [Cullmann]).

        The way the story is told (and here I agree with Paul A) grew in two separate
        traditions: Mark (and thus Matt and LK) ... placing it at the end for obvious
        reasons; and John ... placing it at the beginning - probably closer to the
        truth, reflecting Jesus' uncomfortable relationship with what was going on in
        the Temple. It also suits the Johannine literary and theological agenda at
        that point, of course.


        Frank Moloney
        Catholic University of America.
      • Jeffrey L. Staley
        (the content or some content of) chapter two was maybe much nearer to the end in a possible source of John. Maybe the temple-cleansing was originally near the
        Message 3 of 28 , May 4, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          (the content or some content of) chapter two was maybe much nearer to the end in a possible source of John. Maybe the temple-cleansing
          was originally near the end as in the synoptics. What do you think?

          >
          > This is Lindars' view; he believes the Temple cleansing was moved from the
          > end of Jesus' ministry (ch.10ff.) to the beginning (ch.2) in order to make
          > way for the raising of Lazarus, which Lindars considers a second-edition
          > addition. Ashton concurs to some degree.

          Paul (and others), I think others long before Lindars made the same argument (Bultmann? others before him?).

          Clearly, their are strong literary reasons that can be given for BOTH Mark's order and John's, AND reasonable historical scenarios that
          can suggest an early OR late dating of the event in Jesus's prophetic activity.

          I would recommend Frank Moloney's recent NTS article as an excellent example of readdressing the issue of historicity of certain elements
          in the Fourth Gospel.


          >
          >
          > That's one of the parts of Lindars' two-edition theory I find most
          > problematic, however. The Temple cleansing seems alluded to in John 4
          > (and in John 5 the Jerusalem leaders already want to KILL Jesus!), so I
          > think the Temple cleansing is where it should be in John. It may even
          > explain an aspect of the Elder's opinion (according to Papias) that Mark
          > wrote down Peter's preaching content correctly, but not in the right
          > order. A late Temple cleansing would have been an easy conjectural move
          > (what an OBVIOUS reason for the killing of Jesus!) requiring no historical
          > knowledge (Mark simply puts all Jerusalem content and related teaching at
          > the end as an organizer of material regardless of historical information,
          > and he is followed by Luke and Matthew). Likewise, the raising of Lazarus
          > seems to be foretold in the words of the steward in John 2 (although it
          > also refers to the glorification of Jesus).
          >
          > Nonetheless, I think there are similarities with the sort of historical
          > narrative represented in chapters 2 and 19-20. They reflect an
          > individuated Johannine tradition which tells the story in its own way;
          > thanks, Wieland, for pointing that out to us!
          >
          > Paul
          >
          > Paul N. Anderson
          > Professor of Biblical and Quaker Studies
          > George Fox University
          > Newberg, OR 97132
          > 503-554-2651
          >
          > Subscribe: send e-mail briefly describing your academic background & research interests to johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com
          >
          > Unsubscribe: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com
          >
          > Contact list managers: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com
        • Maluflen@aol.com
          In a message dated 5/4/2000 6:50:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time, willker@chemie.uni-bremen.de writes:
          Message 4 of 28 , May 4, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 5/4/2000 6:50:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
            willker@...-bremen.de writes:

            << Today it occured to me that (the content or some content of) chapter two
            was
            maybe much nearer to the end in a possible source of John. Maybe the
            temple-cleansing was originally near the end as in the synoptics. What do
            you think?>>

            It seems obvious to me that a late setting for the temple cleansing was in a
            source of John's. John most probably knew all three Synoptic gospels (and
            especially Matthew) in which this event occurs near the end of the life of
            Jesus. I am not opposed to reopening the question of which presentation is
            more historical, as Moloney has recently done, but I am not persuaded so far
            by arguments in favor of John's chronology, generally. I think John from the
            beginning presupposes a knowledge of the end and imposes that knowledge on
            all that he writes. This theological program in many and various ways
            interferes with the sequence of events as presented in this Gospel. This is
            why anything in Jn can serve so admirably for a gospel reading at this time
            of the year. The light of the paschal mystery, and thus the end of the story,
            has been systematically, and artificially projected into the narrative from
            the beginning. In the opening chapters, e.g., John the Baptist already
            witnesses to the faith in Jesus as son of God which is the goal and end of
            the whole Gospel. Even the multiple Passovers in John seem to me to be a late
            literary device that allows the author to cast a variety of distinct
            illuminations on the end of the Jesus story. I intend to be slightly
            provocative here, and hope that responses to my position will advance inquiry
            and insight into the Fourth Gospel.

            Leonard Maluf
          • Ken Durkin
            ... From: To: Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 1:45 PM Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Order in John ...
            Message 5 of 28 , May 4, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: <panderso@...>
              To: <johannine_literature@egroups.com>
              Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 1:45 PM
              Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Order in John


              > It may even
              > explain an aspect of the Elder's opinion (according to Papias) that Mark
              > wrote down Peter's preaching content correctly, but not in the right
              > order.

              Perhaps the "wrong order" is the Fourth Gospel in the Elder's mind and not
              the Second Gospel, since the "right order" would be the one where 3 gospels
              agree.

              Ken Durkin
            • Maluflen@aol.com
              In a message dated 5/4/2000 4:39:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ind.fin.choices@exchange.uk.com writes:
              Message 6 of 28 , May 4, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                In a message dated 5/4/2000 4:39:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                ind.fin.choices@... writes:

                << Perhaps the "wrong order" is the Fourth Gospel in the Elder's mind and not
                the Second Gospel, since the "right order" would be the one where 3 gospels
                agree.
                >>

                Ken, do I read you right to be saying that Papias thought Mark was the author
                of the Fourth Gospel?

                Leonard Maluf
              • Ken Durkin
                ... From: To: Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 11:49 PM Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Order in John ... not ...
                Message 7 of 28 , May 4, 2000
                • 0 Attachment
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: <Maluflen@...>
                  To: <johannine_literature@egroups.com>
                  Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 11:49 PM
                  Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Order in John


                  > In a message dated 5/4/2000 4:39:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                  > ind.fin.choices@... writes:
                  >
                  > << Perhaps the "wrong order" is the Fourth Gospel in the Elder's mind and
                  not
                  > the Second Gospel, since the "right order" would be the one where 3
                  gospels
                  > agree.
                  > >>
                  >
                  > Ken, do I read you right to be saying that Papias thought Mark was the
                  author
                  > of the Fourth Gospel?
                  >
                  > Leonard Maluf

                  Leonard, from the bits of Papias we have I couldn't even begin to think what
                  was going on in his mind, but I think we are in touch here with a tradition
                  which links someone called "John" (also named "Mark" by Luke to distinguish
                  him from JZ) who is associated with a gospel which has a different order
                  from the other gospels.

                  Ken Durkin
                • Maluflen@aol.com
                  In a message dated 5/4/2000 3:59:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Peter.Hofrichter@sbg.ac.at writes:
                  Message 8 of 28 , May 4, 2000
                  • 0 Attachment
                    In a message dated 5/4/2000 3:59:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                    Peter.Hofrichter@... writes:

                    << The contrary is the case. The Gospel of Joh shows the original order and
                    place of the cleansing of the temple. According to Mal 3,1-3 the coming
                    of the messanger of God will be immediately to the temple.>>

                    Is this discourse intended to persuade? I find it ideological and apodictic.
                    Perhaps John puts the story of the cleansing of the temple first BECAUSE
                    "according to Mal 3 the coming of the messenger will be immediately to the
                    temple". This would suggest that the position is theological, rather than
                    historical, as I wrote.

                    Matt and Lk at least among the synoptics certainly seem to have been written
                    years before John, which in so many respects is a continuation and
                    prolongation of theological directions begun by Matthew and moved forward by
                    Luke.

                    Leonard Maluf
                  • Stephen C. Carlson
                    ... Parker, Pierson, John and John Mark, JBL 79/2 (1960), floated the suggestion that the John Mark mentioned in Acts is the author of the Fourth Gospel. As
                    Message 9 of 28 , May 4, 2000
                    • 0 Attachment
                      At 06:49 PM 5/4/00 EDT, Maluflen@... wrote:
                      >In a message dated 5/4/2000 4:39:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                      >ind.fin.choices@... writes:
                      >
                      ><< Perhaps the "wrong order" is the Fourth Gospel in the Elder's mind and not
                      > the Second Gospel, since the "right order" would be the one where 3 gospels
                      > agree.
                      > >>
                      >
                      >Ken, do I read you right to be saying that Papias thought Mark was the author
                      >of the Fourth Gospel?

                      Parker, Pierson, "John and John Mark," JBL 79/2 (1960), floated the suggestion
                      that the John Mark mentioned in Acts is the author of the Fourth Gospel. As I
                      recall, Parker's thesis could not explain very well who Papias' John was.

                      Stephen Carlson
                      Stephen C. Carlson
                      scarlson@...
                    • Ken Durkin
                      ... From: Stephen C. Carlson To: Sent: Friday, May 05, 2000 5:19 AM Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Order
                      Message 10 of 28 , May 5, 2000
                      • 0 Attachment
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: Stephen C. Carlson <scarlson@...>
                        To: <johannine_literature@egroups.com>
                        Sent: Friday, May 05, 2000 5:19 AM
                        Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Order in John


                        >
                        > Parker, Pierson, "John and John Mark," JBL 79/2 (1960), floated the
                        suggestion
                        > that the John Mark mentioned in Acts is the author of the Fourth Gospel.
                        As I
                        > recall, Parker's thesis could not explain very well who Papias' John was.
                        >
                        > Stephen Carlson

                        Charlesworth's book on the BD lists some of those who share this view
                        (including Wellhausen) going back to 1904. It's the possible connection
                        between John Mark, Mark the evangelist, and "order" in a gospel that
                        interests me. At the date in question, if something is in the "wrong" order,
                        there's a possibility that it's because it's different from the other three.
                        That's how I see it. In this context is it necessary to explain who Papias's
                        "John" was? I think explaining the Second Gospel as the memoirs of Peter is
                        far more difficult.

                        Ken Durkin
                      • Richard
                        Perhaps order is not chronological order. Perhaps order is, as suggested by Michael Goulder, liturgical order based on the weekly readings in the synagogue.
                        Message 11 of 28 , May 5, 2000
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Perhaps order is not chronological order.
                          Perhaps order is, as suggested by Michael Goulder, liturgical order based on
                          the weekly readings in the synagogue. Has this view of order ever been
                          explored with respect to the GJohn?

                          Richard H. Anderson
                        • Matson, Mark A. (Academic)
                          Is it so obvious that a late setting for the temple cleansing was in John s source? I agree with Paul A. that the arguments for displacement are not as
                          Message 12 of 28 , May 5, 2000
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Is it so obvious that a late setting for the temple cleansing was in John's
                            source? I agree with Paul A. that the arguments for displacement are not as
                            compelling as might be supposed. What is somewhat at stake here (and which
                            Frank M. referred to a bit) is whether John's presentation is independent or
                            dependent. I don't think the dependence can be assumed, nor is it likely.

                            What is striking to me, as Paul and Frank have already noted, is the way the
                            temple cleansing is so well integrated into the development of the Johannine
                            narrative. Frank has noted (in his Belive in the Word) that the structure
                            of the passage is very similar to the preceding passage of the Cana miracle.
                            Moreover, it sets the stage for the beginning of hostility by the "Jews".
                            Note that this is the first introduction of that term. Each succeeding
                            appearance in Jerusalem has an uptick in the degree of hostility and danger
                            to Jesus. This is, then, not an extraneous passage in John's presentation.
                            It is part of the tightly constructed narrative presentation -- it is
                            integral to John's story of Jesus. So is it likely a secondary relocation??
                            I find that somewhat difficult to imagine.

                            Beyond that, though, one has to think that if John had had Mark's (or any of
                            the Synoptics') account as a basis for his account, then we have to also ask
                            about the purpose of his writing. One would certainly have to seriously
                            consider Hans Windisch's argument that in this case John was intended to
                            "replace" the Synoptics (ersetzen, not ergaenzen) - especially in the case
                            of the temple incident, with its radical change in placement. I frankly
                            don't see this as being as likely as independence. But if we take Leonard's
                            suggestion that John knows and relies on the Synoptic gospels, then I think
                            we must move to Windisch's conclusion about the purpose of the Fourth
                            Gospel.

                            Leonard Maluf wrote:
                            **It seems obvious to me that a late setting for the temple
                            **cleansing was in a
                            **source of John's. John most probably knew all three Synoptic
                            **gospels (and
                            **especially Matthew) in which this event occurs near the end
                            **of the life of
                            **Jesus. I am not opposed to reopening the question of which
                            **presentation is
                            **more historical, as Moloney has recently done, but I am not
                            **persuaded so far
                            **by arguments in favor of John's chronology, generally. I
                            **think John from the
                            **beginning presupposes a knowledge of the end and imposes that
                            **knowledge on
                            **all that he writes. This theological program in many and various ways
                            **interferes with the sequence of events as presented in this
                            **Gospel. This is
                            **why anything in Jn can serve so admirably for a gospel
                            **reading at this time
                            **of the year. The light of the paschal mystery, and thus the
                            **end of the story,
                            **has been systematically, and artificially projected into the
                            **narrative from
                            **the beginning. In the opening chapters, e.g., John the
                            **Baptist already
                            **witnesses to the faith in Jesus as son of God which is the
                            **goal and end of
                            **the whole Gospel. Even the multiple Passovers in John seem to
                            **me to be a late
                            **literary device that allows the author to cast a variety of distinct
                            **illuminations on the end of the Jesus story. I intend to be slightly
                            **provocative here, and hope that responses to my position will
                            **advance inquiry
                            **and insight into the Fourth Gospel.
                            **
                          • Mark Goodacre
                            ... Yes, it has been explored a couple of times, with most impact by Aileen Guilding in _The Fourth Gospel and Jewish Worship_. Her book, which came out in
                            Message 13 of 28 , May 5, 2000
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On 5 May 00, at 7:40, Richard wrote:

                              > Perhaps order is not chronological order.
                              > Perhaps order is, as suggested by Michael Goulder, liturgical order
                              > based on the weekly readings in the synagogue. Has this view of order
                              > ever been explored with respect to the GJohn?
                              >
                              > Richard H. Anderson

                              Yes, it has been explored a couple of times, with most impact by
                              Aileen Guilding in _The Fourth Gospel and Jewish Worship_. Her
                              book, which came out in 1960, received some good reviews at the
                              time but subsequently (and rightly) was seen to have many problems.
                              My Oxford M.Phil. thesis, "The Question of Lection in the Gospels"
                              (unpublished) analysed the lectionary theories of Guilding, Carrington
                              and Goulder and found them all wanting, though Goulder's less so
                              than Guilding's and Carrington's.

                              For Goulder's view on the liturgical origin of John, I hope you won't
                              mind my referring you to an earlier John_Lit message:

                              > On 19 Jul 99, at 13:20, Wieland Willker wrote:
                              >
                              > > Jesus is in Bethany/Jordan in ch. 1.
                              > > In 1:43 Jesus decided to go to Galilee.
                              > > In 2:1 he is in Kana.
                              > > The question for me is: It takes at least 3 days to travel to
                              > > Galilee. Is Jesus already in Galilee when he meets Philip? What does
                              > > "on the third" day mean in 2:1? Could this mean, "after three days
                              > > traveling"?
                              > >
                              > > NRS John 1:28 This took place in Bethany across the Jordan
                              > > NRS John 1:29 The next day he saw Jesus coming
                              > > NRS John 1:35 The next day John again was standing
                              > > NRS John 1:43 The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee. He found
                              > > Philip NRS John 1:44 Now Philip was from Bethsaida, NRS John 2:1 On
                              > > the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee
                              >
                              > The regular mentions of time here form the basis for Michael
                              > Goulder's lectionary theory of the origin of John. He thinks that
                              > each mention is "lectionary time" and he builds everything into a
                              > scheme for reading John over a forty-day Lent-type pre-Paschal fast.
                              > The third day mentioned above means that there is a kind of "rest day"
                              > between the readings for the fourth day of the first week and the
                              > sixth day of the first week. For the first week of the liturgy,
                              > therefore, we have the following pattern:
                              >
                              > Day 1: 1.1-28 Day 2: 1.29-34 ("the next day") Day 3:
                              > 1.35-42 ("the next day") Day 4: 1.43-51 ("the next day") Day 5 -- Day
                              > 6: 2.1-12 ("the third day") Day 7: 2.13-22 ("Passover").
                              >
                              > He has written two papers on this, one published at:
                              >
                              > "The Liturgical Origin of St John's Gospel" in E. A. Livingstone
                              > (ed.), _Studia Evangelica_, VII (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1982), pp.
                              > 205- 21.
                              >
                              > The second was unpublished. I wrote a critique of his theory for
                              > _Goulder and the Gospels_ but it never went into the thesis -- lack of
                              > space.

                              Mark
                              --------------------------------------
                              Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                              Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
                              University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
                              Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom

                              http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                              The New Testament Gateway
                              All-in-One Biblical Resources Search
                              Mark Without Q
                              Aseneth Home Page
                            • Stephen C. Carlson
                              ... For those who identify John Mark as the Fourth Evangelist, I would like to know how they deal with Papias testimony, because it is that part that gives me
                              Message 14 of 28 , May 6, 2000
                              • 0 Attachment
                                At 08:27 AM 5/5/00 +0100, Ken Durkin wrote:
                                >From: Stephen C. Carlson <scarlson@...>
                                >>Parker, Pierson, "John and John Mark," JBL 79/2 (1960), floated the
                                >>suggestion that the John Mark mentioned in Acts is the author of
                                >>the Fourth Gospel. As I recall, Parker's thesis could not explain
                                >>very well who Papias' John was.
                                >
                                >Charlesworth's book on the BD lists some of those who share this view
                                >(including Wellhausen) going back to 1904.

                                For those who identify John Mark as the Fourth Evangelist, I would
                                like to know how they deal with Papias' testimony, because it is
                                that part that gives me the difficulties.

                                >It's the possible connection
                                >between John Mark, Mark the evangelist, and "order" in a gospel that
                                >interests me. At the date in question, if something is in the "wrong" order,
                                >there's a possibility that it's because it's different from the other three.

                                Well, the notion of being "not in order" (OU MENTOI TAXEI) does imply
                                a comparison to a baseline that is in order. Unfortunately, plausible
                                arguments exits for treating any of the three other canonical gospels
                                as the baseline (as possibly the non-canonical Gospel according to the
                                Hebrews as well).

                                >That's how I see it. In this context is it necessary to explain who Papias's
                                >"John" was?

                                I'm not sure I understand this question.

                                >I think explaining the Second Gospel as the memoirs of Peter is
                                >far more difficult.

                                "Memoirs of Peter" was Justin Martyr's characterization, but I'm not
                                so sure that we take Papias's testimony in the same way. Unfortunately,
                                there is ambiguity in Papias's account (The use of plain third person
                                verb forms does not specify whether the subject is Mark or Peter), but
                                the basic gist seems to be that a person Mark who was or had been Peter's
                                interpreter wrote a gospel based on Peter's teaching. Papias does not
                                state that Peter was alive when Mark wrote, and I'm wondering what
                                inferences may be drawn from the participle in MEN hERMHNEUTHS *PETROU
                                GENOMENOS. Does this imply that Mark had been Peter's interpreter
                                and no longer was, or that Mark had become Peter's interpreter (and
                                still was), at the time Mark wrote the gospel?

                                Stephen Carlson
                                --
                                Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                                Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
                                "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                              • panderso@georgefox.edu
                                Thanks, Mark, excellent points! Paul Paul N. Anderson Professor of Biblical and Quaker Studies George Fox University Newberg, OR 97132 503-554-2651
                                Message 15 of 28 , May 6, 2000
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Thanks, Mark, excellent points!

                                  Paul

                                  Paul N. Anderson
                                  Professor of Biblical and Quaker Studies
                                  George Fox University
                                  Newberg, OR 97132
                                  503-554-2651
                                • Maluflen@aol.com
                                  In a message dated 5/6/2000 1:10:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, MAMatson@milligan.edu writes:
                                  Message 16 of 28 , May 6, 2000
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    In a message dated 5/6/2000 1:10:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                                    MAMatson@... writes:

                                    <<
                                    Beyond that, though, one has to think that if John had had Mark's (or any of
                                    the Synoptics') account as a basis for his account, then we have to also ask
                                    about the purpose of his writing. One would certainly have to seriously
                                    consider Hans Windisch's argument that in this case John was intended to
                                    "replace" the Synoptics (ersetzen, not ergaenzen) - especially in the case
                                    of the temple incident, with its radical change in placement. >>

                                    I don't see the cogency of this point of view. Of course there is a
                                    replacement dimension, in the sense of what John intended to communicate to
                                    his own audience (he wanted them to read his Gospel, at the time of its
                                    publication), but I don't think any of the Evangelists need have thought of
                                    their work as replacing once and for all (and for all places) the work of
                                    earlier evangelists. There was already a tradition of displaced narrative
                                    sequences in Gospels that by John's time probably already stood side by side
                                    in many church libraries (cf. Luke and Matt, e.g.). I think a lot of what was
                                    being done by the later evangelists was understood by all to be theological
                                    exploration of potentialities (for various audiences) in the Jesus story (so,
                                    theological Ergaenzung), not authoritative, or preempting revision of that
                                    story itself in its various narrative sequences. I just don't think our kind
                                    of historical logic applies (or need have applied) at all to the situation of
                                    John. There is certainly no self-conscious revisionism, or criticism of prior
                                    versions of the story, at the surface of the text. And I don't think this
                                    need mean, either, that John did not have the Synoptic Gospels in front of
                                    him when he wrote.

                                    Leonard Maluf
                                  • Moloneyfj@aol.com
                                    Leonard Maluf writes regularly with source presuppositions that are generally regarded as somewhat maverick. Good that they be aired. However, Leonard,
                                    Message 17 of 28 , May 6, 2000
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Leonard Maluf writes regularly with source presuppositions that are generally
                                      regarded as somewhat "maverick." Good that they be aired. However,
                                      Leonard, you go ahead on the basis of "one off" affirmations, responding to
                                      other people in the group who do not share your ideas about the sources for
                                      John. Have you published, or are you working on, a major study in which you
                                      deal with all the issues you keep raising here with "throw away lines"?

                                      This is important. You may well be right, but you must write a major
                                      detailed monograph, covering all the possibilities, and expose it to the
                                      scholarly world for acceptance, compromise, or rejection. That is the trade
                                      we work in. Major issues in Johannine scholarship must not be determined by
                                      email discussions, surely. Has that happened, and I am not aware of it, or
                                      is it on the way?

                                      Your many interventions, which cannot be anything more than affirmations in
                                      this medium, cannot convince. But you may be right. Prove it for us all in
                                      a study which covers all the debates on the issue (both text and 200 years of
                                      scolarly reflection on the text). Otherwise, little is gained by your
                                      continual interventions based on presuppositions which very few of us share.

                                      I submit this with respect, and hope that you have the issue covered - either
                                      in something published or on the way.

                                      Frank Moloney
                                      Catholic University of America
                                    • Maluflen@aol.com
                                      Frank J. Moloney wrote: Frank, I am not
                                      Message 18 of 28 , May 7, 2000
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Frank J. Moloney wrote:

                                        << Leonard Maluf writes regularly with source presuppositions that are
                                        generally
                                        regarded as somewhat "maverick." >>

                                        Frank, I am not sure I understand what you are saying here. I do hold a
                                        minority source view in Gospel studies -- a couple of them, in fact. But I am
                                        not sure that my point in the post you are responding to depends
                                        significantly on these views.

                                        << Good that they be aired. However,
                                        Leonard, you go ahead on the basis of "one off" affirmations, responding to
                                        other people in the group who do not share your ideas about the sources for
                                        John.>>

                                        I have always believed that this question is still wide open (more so, even
                                        than the question of Markan priority). With scholars like the eminent F.
                                        Neirynck on the side of John's knowledge of the Synoptics, I didn't think I
                                        needed to be apologetic about holding that view myself.

                                        << Have you published, or are you working on, a major study in which you
                                        deal with all the issues you keep raising here with "throw away lines"? >>

                                        Frank, I am not a Johannine scholar at all, and don't have a major work on
                                        anything in immediate preparation for publication. Whether and when I do
                                        depends much more on whether and when I win the lottery than on whether I
                                        have ideas and insights that are worth publishing. (I hope to publish an
                                        extract of my thesis on the Benedictus in Lk 1:68-79 this year, but here I
                                        touch only briefly, in the introduction, on the question of overall Synoptic
                                        source theories).

                                        <<This is important. You may well be right, but you must write a major
                                        detailed monograph, covering all the possibilities, and expose it to the
                                        scholarly world for acceptance, compromise, or rejection. That is the trade
                                        we work in. Major issues in Johannine scholarship must not be determined by
                                        email discussions, surely. Has that happened, and I am not aware of it, or
                                        is it on the way?>>

                                        Again, no. I was not, however, intending to solve major issues in Johannine
                                        scholarship in the note to which (I think) you are responding. I simply
                                        expressed the fact that I do not see the cogency of a point of view that had
                                        been expressed by a previous contributor to the list, namely, the view that
                                        if John knew the Synoptics, his gospel would have to be understood (or at
                                        least we should consider the possibility that the gospel would have to be
                                        understood) as replacing the older gospels. I would be more impressed with a
                                        good argument to counter my point of view than I am with a response that
                                        merely questions my credentials to speak.

                                        << Your many interventions, which cannot be anything more than affirmations
                                        in
                                        this medium, cannot convince. But you may be right. Prove it for us all in
                                        a study which covers all the debates on the issue (both text and 200 years of
                                        scolarly reflection on the text). Otherwise, little is gained by your
                                        continual interventions based on presuppositions which very few of us share.>>

                                        Thanks for your urging and encouragement. And by the way, I hope my major
                                        study, when it comes, will not share the presupposition that nothing
                                        important happened in the history of Johannine study between the text itself
                                        and the last 200 years of scholarship.

                                        By the way, since you have asked about my publishing record, I do have an
                                        article (on Lk 9:46-48: "The Least Among You All is the Great One"...) in a
                                        Festschrift for Ghislain Lafont published by Studia Anselmiana in Rome this
                                        year. I will give you the title of the book, though unfortunately I don't
                                        have the capacity here to insert the correct French accents: "Imaginer la
                                        theologie catholique": permanence et transformations de la foi en attendant
                                        Jesus-Christ. Melanges offerts a Ghislain Lafont a l'occasion de son 70eme
                                        anniversaire... ed. Jeremy Driscoll. As you can imagine, any study I write on
                                        a particular set of Synoptic parallels must also, at the same time, be a
                                        defense of my minority source view. This causes enormous practical
                                        difficulties for me in writing anything (other than the final, lengthy,
                                        definite work you and many others await from me), because I must always write
                                        two works at the same time, at least one of which will most often be regarded
                                        as deficient. My Synoptic theory is based on detailed analysis of many
                                        individual texts; but until the overall theory can be presupposed, it must be
                                        argued simultaneously with bringing out a minute portion of the evidence upon
                                        which it is based. Anyway, the reaction to this article should be
                                        interesting, and I certainly await your comments, among others.

                                        [I had written]

                                        << There was already a tradition of displaced narrative
                                        sequences in Gospels that by John's time probably already stood side by side
                                        in many church libraries (cf. Luke and Matt, e.g.). I think a lot of what was
                                        being done by the later evangelists was understood by all to be theological
                                        exploration of potentialities (for various audiences) in the Jesus story (so,
                                        theological Ergaenzung), not authoritative, or preempting revision of that
                                        story itself in its various narrative sequences.>>

                                        In case this was the paragraph that triggered your response, let me clarify
                                        just a bit by way of citing an example.

                                        Luke has a story of a woman who anoints Jesus during a meal hosted by a man
                                        named Simon. The story in Luke is set early in the ministry of Jesus (Lk 7).
                                        Matt (or Mark -- in this case it doesn't matter which) has a similar story
                                        that occurs in Bethany toward the end of Jesus' Jerusalem ministry. I don't
                                        think that Luke's version can (or need) be interpreted as intending to
                                        correct, or replace, the Matthean (or Markan) sequence. It simply has an
                                        agenda that is theological, not chronological-historical. I think the same
                                        applies to Johannine stories with respect to their Synoptic counterparts. I
                                        am happy to see that Dr. Mary Coloe appears to agree, at least for the case
                                        of the temple cleansing story.

                                        Leonard Maluf
                                      • Moloneyfj@aol.com
                                        Thanks very much, Leonard, for your detailed response ... and for the places for me to see your work. This will be helpful for us all. I am well aware (but
                                        Message 19 of 28 , May 7, 2000
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Thanks very much, Leonard, for your detailed response ... and for the places
                                          for me to see your work. This will be helpful for us all. I am well aware
                                          (but unconvinced - like most, including Ray Brown's posthumous work on John
                                          ... which I am editing) of Neirynck and his school. One of the best I have
                                          read on the question recently is Michael Labahn, "Jesus als Lebensspender."
                                          I do not have the volume with me, but it is 1999 - BZNW. It is a fine (but
                                          over long) study of the Johannine miracle tradition.

                                          I have a long article on Labahn's book (along with Fehribach's on women and
                                          Manfred Lang's on the Johannine Passion narrative and Mark and Luke as
                                          sources [also 1999 - FRLANT] ) in the next issue of "Salesianum" - "Where
                                          Does one Look. Reflections on Some Recent Johannine Scholarship." It is all
                                          about Johannine sources ... not only synoptics (Lang and Labahn), but also
                                          the issue of intertextuality (Labahn and Fehribach).

                                          Good to hear you liked the sound of Mary Coloe's thesis. She has written a
                                          fine study, and it will be great to see it published. It is her doctoral
                                          dissertaion, written under my supervision in my Melbourne, Australia, days.
                                          Brendan's article is a gem! As is anything he does.

                                          Frank Moloney
                                        • Antonio Jerez
                                          ... I must admit that I was just as confounded as Leonard by this message. After years of leafing through Johannine litterature by scholars from various
                                          Message 20 of 28 , May 7, 2000
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Frank Moloney wrote:

                                            > Leonard Maluf writes regularly with source presuppositions that are generally
                                            > regarded as somewhat "maverick." Good that they be aired. However,
                                            > Leonard, you go ahead on the basis of "one off" affirmations, responding to
                                            > other people in the group who do not share your ideas about the sources for
                                            > John. Have you published, or are you working on, a major study in which you
                                            > deal with all the issues you keep raising here with "throw away lines"?

                                            I must admit that I was just as confounded as Leonard by this message. After
                                            years of leafing through Johannine litterature by scholars from various schools
                                            I certainly haven't got the impression that the John-used-the-synoptics hypothesis
                                            is a somewhat "maverick" one. Quite to the contrary I get the impression that it is a
                                            reputable position with a lot of respected scholars backing it up - among them C K
                                            Barrett, Neirynck and not the least my personal friend Rene´ Kieffer here in Sweden.
                                            In my opinion Rene´ has written one of the best commentaries ever on GJohn, based
                                            on the presupposition that John knew and used at least GMark. Unfortunately his
                                            commentary has not gotten the international recognition it deserves since so far it has
                                            only been published in swedish. Rene' has also written an excellent article in the
                                            compendium "John and the synoptics" (Leuwen), explaining why he believes the
                                            many structural and thematic links between Mark and John show that John is
                                            dependent on Mark. One of the strengths of Rene' is in my opinion that he doesn't
                                            stare himself blind on the question of a word for word likeness between John and
                                            the synoptics, but has a keen feel for the mindset of the author of GJohn and his
                                            desire to do things very differently than Mark, Matthew and Luke.
                                            Besides, I certainly do not think it should be necessary for Leonard to write a 2000 page
                                            tome on GJohn to earn the right to have his views aired on this list.

                                            Best wishes

                                            Äntonio Jerez
                                            Göteborg, Sweden
                                          • David Hunter
                                            The discussion on order in John over the last weeks has been very informative and provocative. I look forward to it continuing and appreciate the time and
                                            Message 21 of 28 , May 10, 2000
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              The discussion on 'order in John' over the last weeks has been very
                                              informative and provocative. I look forward to it continuing and appreciate
                                              the time and effort many of the posts have required. As I am particularly
                                              interested in the treatment of the miracle traditions in 4G, I want to raise
                                              some broad questions in the hope that any responses will help me better
                                              understanding the discussion. (I also look forward to a discussion of Labahn's
                                              work mentioned previously.)

                                              In Professor Moloney's article "The Fourth Gospel and the Jesus of History"
                                              (*NTS* 2000 pp. 42-58) he focuses attention on the historical character of the
                                              Johannine 'framework' of the early part of Jesus' public ministry. The
                                              elements of the framework addressed are 'John the Baptist', the 'first
                                              disciples' and the 'episode in the Temple'. Using Meier's work *A Marginal
                                              Jew* in particular, the argument for the historical value of 4G data and
                                              accounts is carefully presented.

                                              One question at this point is why isn't the miracle account of ch 2:1-11
                                              treated as part of the framework of the early part of Jesus' public ministry?
                                              I am not familiar with Meier's overall programme but realise that part of the
                                              answer may be that Meier doubts any such event occurred (Vol II. p. 950).

                                              Meier does, however, find a pre-Johannine historical version behind the
                                              account of the raising of Lazarus (see Vol II pp. 818 ff) which, given the
                                              variety of sources that say Jesus raised people from the dead, Meier
                                              associates with an event in Jesus' life. Interesting, though, Meier does not
                                              relate the account and its link to an incident in the life of Jesus, to the
                                              question of 'what actually happened' (p. 831). This is beyond the realms of
                                              our scholarship for Meier as I read him.

                                              A key part of Meier's methodology in both cases is stripping the accounts of
                                              their Johannine agenda. In the case of 2:1-11 Meier speaks of 'the massive
                                              amount of Johannine literary and theological traits permeating the whole
                                              story' (p. 949).

                                              This method raises another question - what does this approach mean for the
                                              Johannine view that Jesus was arrested in the aftermath of his raising of
                                              Lazarus. Theologically, Meier and others bring out the wonderful yet sinister
                                              irony of this moment. But what does it mean politically, for example? Can a
                                              miracle account and the popular movement it precipitates, threaten an empire
                                              (as per the analysis of 11:47-48)? (In this context I'm looking forward to
                                              Musa W. Dube Shomanah's paper mentioned by Jeffery Hodges.) But if the
                                              Johannine agenda that links the miracle and the arrest is stripped from these
                                              accounts then we lose the sense of why Jesus is arrested and executed by the
                                              State. In this area, I find Crossan helpful in his attempt to engage the
                                              social impact of the healing tradition. (* Birth of Christianity* pp. 293ff.
                                              See also a brief perhaps superficial comment on Meier pp. 302-304.)

                                              I want to raise one more issue - that of the world in front of the text (made
                                              up of either or both the world of the text and the world of the reader). Meier
                                              is able to establish through a skilful redaction-type critique, a
                                              pre-Johannine tradition in many instances. My understanding of Professors
                                              Moloney and Anderson is that they want to argue for the historical value of
                                              the Johannine order as at least as reliable as the Markan order for knowing
                                              the framework of Jesus' ministry. But how does this help us address a question
                                              such as contemporary Jewish Christian relationships?

                                              The 'behind the text' questions are essential to responsible exegesis.
                                              However, would it not also be important to (critically) follow the Gospel of
                                              John and the Johannine agenda into the historical and theological period of
                                              the break between 'Judaism' and 'Christianity'. I realise this is a much
                                              broader agenda perhaps, but it asks about priorities and the dangers of
                                              isolating issues in 4G studies. What are the effects of arguing for the
                                              historical importance without maintaining a critical interest in the way the
                                              text speaks of 'the Jews', or the strengths and weaknesses of sectarian
                                              ecclesiology for example?

                                              I have taken too many words in trying to articulate these issues - apologies
                                              for that and thanks again to those who lead the discussions for their
                                              scholarship and contributions to the list.

                                              David Hunter
                                              PhD Candidate
                                              St Marks National Theological Centre
                                              School of Theology
                                              Charles Sturt University
                                              Canberra, ACT AUSTRALIA
                                            • Matson, Mark A. (Academic)
                                              ... David: I see where you are interested in the miracle traditions, and the way they may or may not be used in some assessment of historical backgrounds to
                                              Message 22 of 28 , May 10, 2000
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                David Hunter wrote:

                                                > This method raises another question - what does this approach
                                                > mean for the
                                                > Johannine view that Jesus was arrested in the aftermath of
                                                > his raising of
                                                > Lazarus. Theologically, Meier and others bring out the
                                                > wonderful yet sinister
                                                > irony of this moment. But what does it mean politically, for
                                                > example? Can a
                                                > miracle account and the popular movement it precipitates,
                                                > threaten an empire
                                                > (as per the analysis of 11:47-48)? (In this context I'm
                                                > looking forward to
                                                > Musa W. Dube Shomanah's paper mentioned by Jeffery Hodges.) But if the
                                                > Johannine agenda that links the miracle and the arrest is
                                                > stripped from these
                                                > accounts then we lose the sense of why Jesus is arrested and
                                                > executed by the
                                                > State. In this area, I find Crossan helpful in his attempt to
                                                > engage the
                                                > social impact of the healing tradition. (* Birth of
                                                > Christianity* pp. 293ff.
                                                > See also a brief perhaps superficial comment on Meier pp. 302-304.)
                                                >
                                                David:
                                                I see where you are interested in the miracle traditions, and the way they
                                                may or may not be used in some assessment of historical backgrounds to the
                                                FG. Let me say at the outset that I have argued for quite some time that
                                                the Fourth Gospel does have something unique to add to the question of the
                                                historical Jesus (my paper on this,"The Contribution to the Temple Cleansing
                                                by the Fourth Gospel", using the temple cleansing as point of reference, can
                                                be found in the 1992 SBL Seminar Papers). While I think there is an
                                                independent historical substrata, I also think it is difficult to get very
                                                precise about what it is without the other gospels as points of reference.

                                                With that caveat said, I think your post raises some interesting questions
                                                that might be engaged.

                                                First, I wonder of Meier or others would simply suggest that stripping the
                                                accounts in John of the Johannine agenda would get one to historical data.
                                                It would seem that multiple accounts are important, and hence the reason
                                                that such things as baptism, temple cleansing, etc. figure largely. We know
                                                the big events because they also occur in Mark, etc. From there we can
                                                explore whether John presents some insight that is more likely historically.
                                                Any gospel that reports an event alone, with multiple attestation, is a bit
                                                suspect, isn't it? And would this be the case with both Cana and Lazarus?

                                                More importantly, though, I wonder if you characterization of John's
                                                presentation of Jesus' arrest is correct. Is the Lazarus event really
                                                presented as the initiating event?

                                                Granted, that Jn. 12:9-10 links the Lazarus event directly with the
                                                intention to put Jesus to death. But note that Jn. 11:45 ff. actually cites
                                                "this many is performing many signs".... which links to the gospel as a
                                                whole. Note therefore that the whole gospel has this motif built into it
                                                -- that is that the judgement of death is prefigured from the very
                                                beginning:
                                                2:18 the Jews cross examine him about his temple action, and ask
                                                what signs he performs to validate himself.
                                                5:16 the Jews started persecuting Jesus... (v. 18) for this reason
                                                they were seeking all the more to kill him.
                                                7: 1 ... he did not wish to go to Judea because the Jews were
                                                looking for an opportunity to kill him.
                                                7:25 the people said "is this not the man whom they are trying to
                                                kill?"
                                                8:59 then they (the Jews) picked up stones to throw at him, but
                                                Jesus hid himself...
                                                10:31 the Jews took up stones to stone him.... (v. 39) They tried
                                                to arrest him again, but he escaped from their hands
                                                then 11:45 ff.

                                                The point of all this is that the Lazarus episode can be overemphasized. It
                                                is one event in the Johannine story that shows consistent and early
                                                opposition to Jesus by the Judean authorities (the "Jews"). The Lazarus
                                                story adds poignancy to this developing emphasis of rejection, but it is not
                                                that crucial. Is it? I would think, instead of focusing on the one account,
                                                that an analysis of the narrative structure would be important. Now the
                                                question is, is there some validity to John's presentation of early and
                                                increasing opposition? I think it is possible to make this case. But I
                                                guess I would rather focus on John's major focus, which is not opposition to
                                                any one sign per se, but rather to the pattern of the rejection of Jesus
                                                almost in inverse proportion to the degree that he reveals His nature,
                                                through signs and through speeches.

                                                Don't know if this hits at the point of your post, but perhaps it adds
                                                something to the discussion.

                                                Mark A. Matson, Ph.D.
                                                Academic Dean
                                                Milligan College
                                              • Jeffrey L. Staley
                                                ... This really sounds interesting. Let us know exactly when it comes out, since I am not at an institution that carries this. I had lots of fun using
                                                Message 23 of 28 , May 12, 2000
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  > I have a long article on Labahn's book (along with Fehribach's on women and
                                                  > Manfred Lang's on the Johannine Passion narrative and Mark and Luke as
                                                  > sources [also 1999 - FRLANT] ) in the next issue of "Salesianum" - "Where
                                                  > Does one Look. Reflections on Some Recent Johannine Scholarship." It is all
                                                  > about Johannine sources ... not only synoptics (Lang and Labahn), but also
                                                  > the issue of intertextuality (Labahn and Fehribach).

                                                  This really sounds interesting. Let us know exactly when it comes out, since I am not at an institution that carries this. I had lots
                                                  of fun using Fehribach's book last year in my John class. If you want a really interesting project, look at the film "The Last
                                                  Temptation of Christ," read Fehribach's book, then go back and view the film again. Some really provocative iissues there.
                                                • Ken Durkin
                                                  ... From: Stephen C. Carlson To: Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2000 3:39 PM Subject: Re: [John_Lit]
                                                  Message 24 of 28 , May 28, 2000
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    ----- Original Message -----
                                                    From: Stephen C. Carlson <scarlson@...>
                                                    To: <johannine_literature@egroups.com>
                                                    Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2000 3:39 PM
                                                    Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Order in John



                                                    > For those who identify John Mark as the Fourth Evangelist, I would
                                                    > like to know how they deal with Papias' testimony, because it is
                                                    > that part that gives me the difficulties.

                                                    For those who identify John Mark as the Fourth Evangelist, the only way to
                                                    deal with this "testimony" is to suggest Papias is confused. For example,
                                                    it's possible he was confused over the apostle Philip and the Philip of AA
                                                    21.

                                                    Ken Durkin
                                                  • Ken Durkin
                                                    ... From: Ken Durkin To: Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2000 9:21 PM Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Order
                                                    Message 25 of 28 , Jun 6, 2000
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      ----- Original Message -----
                                                      From: Ken Durkin <ind.fin.choices@...>
                                                      To: <johannine_literature@egroups.com>
                                                      Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2000 9:21 PM
                                                      Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Order in John


                                                      >
                                                      > ----- Original Message -----
                                                      > From: Stephen C. Carlson <scarlson@...>
                                                      > To: <johannine_literature@egroups.com>
                                                      > Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2000 3:39 PM
                                                      > Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Order in John
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      >
                                                      > > For those who identify John Mark as the Fourth Evangelist, I would
                                                      > > like to know how they deal with Papias' testimony, because it is
                                                      > > that part that gives me the difficulties.
                                                      >
                                                      > For those who identify John Mark as the Fourth Evangelist, the only way to
                                                      > deal with this "testimony" is to suggest Papias is confused. For example,
                                                      > it's possible he was confused over the apostle Philip and the Philip of AA
                                                      > 21.
                                                      >
                                                      > Ken Durkin

                                                      I've given this more thought. Regarding Papias' testimony, I've never been
                                                      convinced that the Second Gospel has any special relationship to Peter.
                                                      Kümmel (Intro to NT) used to sum up my thoughts on this: "The tradition that
                                                      Mark was written by John Mark is therefore scarcely reliable." From the
                                                      extant words of Papias there is no reason to relate them to the Second
                                                      Gospel. We can conclude that there is a tradition that a companion of Peter
                                                      was a writer, and what he wrote was possibly in a different order from other
                                                      written traditions. The insistence that he neither heard the Lord nor
                                                      followed him is the part that gives me difficulties. Perhaps this is one way
                                                      of saying Mark was not an apostle.

                                                      Ken Durkin
                                                    • Stephen C. Carlson
                                                      ... Let me quote Papias s statement: 15 And the presbyter would say this: Mark, who was indeed Peter s interpreter, accurately wrote as much as he remembered,
                                                      Message 26 of 28 , Jun 7, 2000
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        At 09:10 AM 6/6/00 +0100, Ken Durkin wrote:
                                                        >> ----- Original Message -----
                                                        >> From: Stephen C. Carlson <scarlson@...>
                                                        >> > For those who identify John Mark as the Fourth Evangelist, I would
                                                        >> > like to know how they deal with Papias' testimony, because it is
                                                        >> > that part that gives me the difficulties.
                                                        >
                                                        >I've given this more thought. Regarding Papias' testimony, I've never been
                                                        >convinced that the Second Gospel has any special relationship to Peter.
                                                        >Kümmel (Intro to NT) used to sum up my thoughts on this: "The tradition that
                                                        >Mark was written by John Mark is therefore scarcely reliable." From the
                                                        >extant words of Papias there is no reason to relate them to the Second
                                                        >Gospel. We can conclude that there is a tradition that a companion of Peter
                                                        >was a writer, and what he wrote was possibly in a different order from other
                                                        >written traditions. The insistence that he neither heard the Lord nor
                                                        >followed him is the part that gives me difficulties. Perhaps this is one way
                                                        >of saying Mark was not an apostle.

                                                        Let me quote Papias's statement:

                                                        15 And the presbyter would say this: Mark, who was indeed Peter's
                                                        interpreter, accurately wrote as much as he remembered, yet not in order,
                                                        about that which was either said or did by the Lord. For he neither heard
                                                        the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said, Peter, who as necessary
                                                        would make his teachings but not exactly an arrangement of the Lord's
                                                        reports, so that Mark did not fail by writing certain things as he recalled.
                                                        For he had one purpose, not to omit what he heard or falsify them.

                                                        Could this statement refer to the Second Gospel? We may infer from
                                                        Papias's three defenses of Mark, three characteristics of this gospel.

                                                        1. Mark's lack of order was due to writing down Peter's disconnected
                                                        anecdotes. This implies that the gospel was criticized for its order.
                                                        I have just listened to the Second Gospel on tape, and my strongest
                                                        impression is that the gospel is episodic without a strong narrative
                                                        order, except for the occasional intercalation. Although I haven't
                                                        listened to John on tape, my recollection is that its narrative flow
                                                        is clearer (e.g. this is the first sign that Jesus did).

                                                        2. Mark's purpose was not to omit what he heard. This defense implies
                                                        that the gospel was criticized for missing material. The Second Gospel
                                                        is the shortest of the four and arguably lacks a lot material Christians
                                                        have found most interesting (e.g. Sermon on the Mount, resurrection
                                                        appearances, etc.).

                                                        3. Mark's purpose as not to falsify what he heard. This defense implies
                                                        that the gospel was criticized for relating the same incidents differently.
                                                        Although this charge could be laid at any of the synoptics because they
                                                        share much material in common, the 4G has much less material in common
                                                        with the others.

                                                        Therefore, I find the best understanding of Papias's defense is a
                                                        defense of the Second Gospel, which Papias' clearly associates with
                                                        Mark. It is easy to fault Papias because it is equally hard to see
                                                        how the Second Gospel is Petrine and therefore call into question
                                                        this identification. However, if we look closely at the presbyter's
                                                        statement, we notice that the presbyter only states that someone
                                                        named Mark had been Peter's interpreter and wrote a gospel. There
                                                        is nothing in the presbyter's statement that the relationship between
                                                        Peter and Mark was close (in fact, it is not uncommon for ex-employee
                                                        to be "disgruntled") nor that Mark wrote closely with Peter or even
                                                        when Peter was still alive. Whether the subject matter of Mark came
                                                        from Peter is merely an inference that Papias drew from the presbyter's
                                                        statement and is difficult to credit. Interestingly, Papias does not
                                                        even go far to express whether Peter was still alive when Mark wrote
                                                        what "he" (Peter? Mark?) remembered. Thus, I find the supposition
                                                        "that the Second Gospel has any special relationship to Peter" to be
                                                        unsupported by Papias's testimony.

                                                        What I conclude from Papias's testimony is that the tradition that
                                                        Mark wrote the Second Gospel is early, extending as back to this
                                                        presbyter, who flourished at least in the last decade of the first
                                                        century. This presbyter was named John, and there is good reason
                                                        to connect him first with 2, 3 John, then with 1 John, and finally
                                                        with (the final form of) the 4G (see Hengel for the argument).

                                                        Since the presbyter talks about Mark as if Mark was another person,
                                                        it is difficult to identify John Mark as the same person as the
                                                        Fourth Evangelist. Even Pierson Parker, who made a case for this
                                                        identification, conceded he couldn't explain Papias's testimony.

                                                        Stephen Carlson
                                                        --
                                                        Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                                                        Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
                                                        "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                                                      • Ken Durkin
                                                        ... From: Stephen C. Carlson To: Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 3:26 AM Subject: Re: [John_Lit]
                                                        Message 27 of 28 , Jun 8, 2000
                                                        • 0 Attachment
                                                          ----- Original Message -----
                                                          From: Stephen C. Carlson <scarlson@...>
                                                          To: <johannine_literature@egroups.com>
                                                          Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 3:26 AM
                                                          Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Order in John


                                                          And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter,
                                                          wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in
                                                          exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither
                                                          heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he
                                                          accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of
                                                          his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the
                                                          Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things
                                                          as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit
                                                          anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the
                                                          statements. [From http://www.newadvent.org/fathers ]

                                                          We have to be careful that the discussion is about 4G and not 2G, but it is
                                                          relevant since we are looking at John Mark as the authority behind 4G and
                                                          tradition has linked him to 2G. I note your reasons. I see it differently.

                                                          "Not to omit anything he had heard" indicates the inclusion of material
                                                          which is different and disputed.

                                                          "not to put anything fictitious into statements" in relation to "narrative
                                                          of the Lord's sayings" indicates long discourses of Jesus.

                                                          "not in exact order" indicates a different order from the accepted order,
                                                          and I cannot help but think accepted order is Synoptic order.

                                                          Papias is making excuses for Mark's written testimony being different from
                                                          the accepted pattern, and he explains this by saying he neither heard nor
                                                          followed the Lord.

                                                          <the Second Gospel, which Papias' clearly associates with
                                                          Mark>

                                                          If all we had were the words of Papias to identify authority behind one of
                                                          the four gospels, there is nothing to suggest a clear link with 2G.

                                                          Ken Durkin
                                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.