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

Re: [John_Lit] getting on with the business of John

Expand Messages
  • Gnostic Tom
    ... I ve had a question for decades now of just exactly how does the Gospel of John relate to Gnostic literature, and specifically how does it deal with the
    Message 1 of 16 , Jan 18, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      On 1/17/2011 3:54 PM, Tom Butler wrote:
      >
      >
      > Though this list has been quiet for a while, it seems to spring to
      > life as soon
      > as a challenging question is posed. It is not dead, just waiting for
      > a new
      > question to address.
      > Yours in Christ's service,
      > Tom Butler
      >

      I've had a question for decades now of just exactly how does the Gospel
      of John relate to Gnostic literature, and specifically how does it deal with
      the concept of the "god of this world" / "archon of this kosmos"?

      One of the main threads in the Gospel of John has to do with the "world"
      and how
      Christ has the role of dealing with the "world" in a cosmic drama.
      "World" in
      each case is kosmos. For the ancients, "the whole world" and "the whole
      cosmos"
      were not distinct as in modern thought. If we read cosmos where it says
      world,
      the Gnostic reading of the text becomes clear. The Gnostic myth, from
      several
      Nag Hammadi documents, is that Christ comes from a realm beyond the
      cosmos to
      deal with and defeat the archon rulers of the cosmos and then to ascend
      back out
      of the cosmos. This myth can be seen in the Gospel of John.

      John 4:42 And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy
      saying:
      for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the
      Christ, the
      Saviour of the world.

      Christ is the saviour of the kosmos. But saved from what? From who? And how?

      John 6:14 Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did,
      said,
      This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world.

      Christ came as a prophet, an interpreter and explainer of hidden truths.

      John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man
      eat of
      this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my
      flesh,
      which I will give for the life of the world.

      Christ came as alien food to revive those in the kosmos so they can become
      eternal aions ("live for ever", which in Greek combines life (zoe) with
      being an
      immortal, an aion). The word aion is used in many Gnostic texts.

      John 8:23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above:
      ye are of
      this world; I am not of this world.

      Christ is not of the kosmos beneath, but from the realm above the kosmos.

      John 12:31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of
      this world
      be cast out.

      The "Prince of this world" is the "archon" of this "kosmos". "Judement" is
      "krisis" and "cast out" is ekballo, which means to take out of power and
      banish.
      Christ comes finding the cosmos in crisis and his role is to dethrone
      the god in
      charge. On a political scope, the Messiah was to dethrone Caesar in
      Rome, but
      Jesus here in John had a cosmic scope to deal with.

      John 14:30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of
      this world
      cometh, and hath nothing in me.

      The division between the archon of his kosmos and Christ was one of
      diametrically opposing forces.

      John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my
      kingdom were
      of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be
      delivered to
      the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

      The defeat of the archon of the kosmos was not so that Christ could then
      rule
      the kosmos. "Kingdom" is basileia, a Greek word that translates the Hebrew
      MaLKuWTH, the extant of influence, the home turf. Jesus explains that
      where he
      rules from is beyond this cosmos.

      John 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus
      answered,
      Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause
      came I
      into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one
      that is of
      the truth heareth my voice.

      So in the end, Pilate stands representing the archon of this kosmos and
      Jesus
      explains that he came into this kosmos to sound out truth (aletheia,
      uncovered
      reality) to those who can understand.

      The spoken truth gospel message of Jesus here seems to be that there are
      greater
      forces at play beyond the gods of this cosmos, and that there is a
      Christ from
      beyond this cosmos that has come to offer understanding and escape from the
      control of the archons.

      This thread seems to be an exclusive of the Gospel of John among the gospels
      of the Bible, but one that is a major theme in the Gnostic texts. Thus
      my question
      of how does the Gospel of John relate to the Gnostic texts?

      Thomas Ragland
      Nashville, Tennessee



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Jack Kilmon
      ... From: winetattler Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 12:33 PM To: Subject: [John_Lit]
      Message 2 of 16 , Jan 18, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        --------------------------------------------------
        From: "winetattler" <SemioticSymphony@...>
        Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 12:33 PM
        To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
        Subject: [John_Lit] getting on with the business of John

        > Hello to all:
        >
        > This forum has been fairly quiet lately, no doubt for the trials and
        > tribulations of the academic year, etc.
        >
        > However, Tom Thatcher has recently and generously facilitated an
        > interesting colloquium on the biblical-studies group, and that colloquium
        > is about to end.
        >
        > Is there any interest here, given that other members are active in the
        > Jesus, John and History project, in continuing to move the business of
        > John into new horizons?
        >
        > If so, then let me pose some new business with a general question to this
        > group:
        >
        > How do the constructs of "story" and "discourse" work in FG, and do their
        > interplay move the matters of 'history,' 'historicity,' etc., forward?
        >
        > Cordially, and with warmest regards,
        > Joe
        > Joseph Calandrino
        >

        There are many layer to 4G. In my opinion and open to discussion, once they
        are peeled away, 4G was the first (that's right....first, prior to Mark) and
        most historical gospel of them all.


        The term "primacy" is very convoluted regarding New Testament writings.
        These are writings that begin around 50 to 64 0r 67 CE for the Pauline
        Corpus, 70 to 95 CE for the Gospels and as late as 150 to 170 CE for
        2Peter..the latest of NT works. (I am not interested in going into a thread
        on Gospel dating. I am fully aware there are those that would have them
        composed in the Chicago Tribune) Every CANONICAL NT work was indeed authored
        in Greek but there were pre-cursors and sources that were in Aramaic. My
        own field of study and interest is recognizing translational Greek,
        particularly Aramaic interference in Greek syntax. Since Paul of Tarsus
        wrote his epistolary works in Greek (be kind of silly to write to
        Corinthians, Romans, Thessalonians, etc in Aramaic) the next canonical work
        we deal with is Mark. I am persuaded that John Mark wrote notes in Aramaic
        taken down from the speeches of Kefa/Simon/Peter over a number of years
        while acting as Peter's interpreter from his native Aramaic to Mark's
        passable Greek. Peter would say to a group of people in Lydda, Pontus,
        Cappadocia, etc... איכא דאן נהוא פגרא תמן נתכנשׁון נשׁרא׃" Yeshua
        amar......'aika den d'hawa pagra, thamman
        yitkanuon nishrea'" Now I am confident this indeed goes to the lips of the
        HISTORICAL Jesus because you will notice it is a 2-4 beat rhyme. Vintage
        Jesus-speak. Then Peter, I am sure, paused while Mark translated the
        Aramaic to Greek, " ὅπου γὰρ ἐὰν ᾖ τὸ πτῶμα ἐκεῖ συναχθήσονται οἱ ἀετοί "
        and the crowd nodded to each other as they heard "wherever their is a
        carcass, there also will gather the vultures." Now to Yeshua the "carcass"
        (pagra) was the temple treasury and the "vultures" (nishrea) were the
        Romans. Today that would be the insurance companies ...but I digress. Mark
        wrote down the Aramaic "memoirs" of "Jesus dids"....and "Jesus saids"...from
        Peter. Eventually, either just before or just after Peter's death, he took
        the notes, IMO, to Alexandria and used them to write the first edition of
        the Gospel in Greek. He wrote it in Greek but he used his own Aramaic notes
        and source material. The underlying Aramaic influence on Mark's Greek is
        easily recognizable. A significant work on this is Maurice Casey's "Aramaic
        Sources of Mark's Gospel."

        Now, before your eyes glaze over, I am going to jump to the Gospel of John
        because consensus scholarship sees it as the LAST Gospel to be written as it
        also sees Mark as the FIRST but that gets sticky as well. The Gospel of
        John is attributed only by tradition to Yohanan bar Zebedee whom many
        believe was the BD, but Yohanan (Jesus' cousin according to the sources)
        appears to have been killed about the same time as his older cousin Yaqub
        (James, the Just), Jesus' brother in the Ananus affair in 62CE. The Gospel
        was written IN GREEK around 95 CE by John of Patmos (the "elder") probably
        in Ephesus. HOWEVER, like Mark, there was a pre-cursor Aramaic document
        that was a smaller Gospel that IMO actually PRE-DATED MARK. It may be
        prophetic that, in this case, the LAST becomes FIRST. John of Patmos using
        either a Greek translation of the original smallerAramaic gospel or
        translating it himself, uses it as a skeleton around which he constructs the
        much larger, semi-Gnostic and theological GREEK Gospel of John...but wait,
        ...it gets even more complex because this Gospel of John has been the most
        screwed around with, glossed, edited, redacted, chapter shuffled patchwork
        in the New Testament by later Greek scribes, churchmen and copyists. The
        Gospel of Mark, as well, is published in later editions and the one we have
        now is NOT the one used as a source by the authors of Matthew and
        Luke....that's another story for another time.

        We are left with TWO Aramaic documents written very early, probably within
        10 to 30 years of the crucifixion; Mark's notes from Peter and an Aramaic
        gospel I call "proto-John." Who wrote "Proto-John?" We will never know. I
        guess it could have been Yohanon bar Zebedy but wouldn't it be a kick in the
        pants if it was the disciple Matthew's? This is the "gospel" and "Word"
        mentioned many times by Luke/Acts such as Acts 15:7 And when there had been
        much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men [and] brethren, ye
        know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles
        by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. and the "Gospel
        of God mentioned by Paul, such as Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus
        Christ, called [to be] an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God. This
        Aramaic Gospel was Luke's source and Josephus' source. Gary J. Goldberg,
        "The Coincidences of the Emmaus Narrative of Luke and the Testimonium of
        Josephus", The
        Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 13 (1995), 57-77.

        www.Josephus.org/GoldbergJosephusLuke1995

        This first Aramaic "Proto-John," IMO, was written BEFORE Mark and was very
        hostile to Peter for having denied Yeshua, an act considered a betrayal (I
        habitually use "Yeshua" because I am steeped in Aramaic). Mark, on the
        other hand, was Peter's companion and interpreter and his Gospel was written
        to defend Peter. You had two factions of early Christianity. the Petrines
        and the Johannines that were inimical to each other. We have seen the
        various polemical works between Christians and non-Christians but rarely the
        polemic between Christian sects except for hints of the Pauline-Jakobian
        strife. I think that when John of Patmos took the Aramaic proto-John and
        fleshed out his Greek Gospel, he mellowed out the anti-Petrine stuff. Later
        churchmen, in one of the many editing rounds with the Gospel of John, took
        the last chapter of MARK and appended it as Chapter 21 to JOHN...thereby
        harmonizing the two Gospels.

        I am already over-burdening you with all this but going with my theory that
        John 21 was originally the ending of Mark and then redacted and appended to
        John, it is interesting that the references to the BD bridge John and "Mark"
        (John 19:26; 20:2; 21:7; 21:70). On the John-Mark connection, I look at the
        Prologue and see no certain Aramaic origin. I do see Mark's use of PROS HMAS
        and this is, as Burney points out, confined to Mark and John. Mark is
        missing a conclusion. John has an extra conclusion. Mark anticipates a
        first resurrection appearance in Galilee and John 21 without the "third
        appearance" editorial insert at 21:14 is that first appearance. In Mark,
        Peter denies Jesus three times. In John (21:15-17) Peter affirms his love
        three times. That completed another Markan bracket. In Mark, the shepherd
        is struck down and the sheep scattered. In John 21 Peter becomes the new
        shepherd....another Markan bracket. In Mark, the first words spoken to a
        disciple are "follow me." In John 21 the LAST words spoken are "follow me"
        (Jn 21:22) another completed Markan bracket.

        If John 21 was originally the first resurrection appearance account of the
        ending of Mark, Mark would become unified literarily if the appendage is
        restored to Mark....less a few Johannine phrases. It does. As an
        Aramaicist, I am the "follow the Aramaic" guy and also find support in this
        by Burney.

        If John 21 was removed from Mark, edited with a few Johannine signature
        phrases, we should see typically Markan Aramaisms noted in Mark and John
        with none or little in Matthew and Luke. I find this in Mark's frequent use
        of the historic present resulting from Aramaic narrative participle also
        frequent in John and John 21. There is also a connection between John and
        Mark's use of imperfects, the rare use of de and frequent use of kai, the
        partitive APO in 21:10 used by Mark at 5:35, 6:43, 7:4 and 12:2.

        OK, breathe a sigh of relief now as we get to the "behold thy son'/Disciple
        whom Jesus loved thing.

        Even as the eldest son, his father being deceased, Jesus would not have the
        right to place his mother's care in the hands and house of someone else when
        there were four living brothers. The cultural anthropology behind this is
        all wrong. The motivation behind this story lies in the tradition of the
        Ephesian Church that John, the disciple, moved to Ephesus and became the
        "Bishop" (presbyteros), bringing Mary with him who then lived and died in
        Ephesus where there is today a "tomb" where she is buried lending great
        authority in antiquity to the Ephesus Christian community. They not only
        had the disciple Jesus loved most but the Virgin Mary as well. That she
        traveled to and lived in Ephesus is related by Irenaeus, a disciple of
        Polycarp who was a disciple of John of Ephesus. Mary became "Theotokos"
        (Mother of God) at the first council of Ephesus in 431 CE.

        The Beloved Disciple story glues the original final chapter of John to the
        Markan appendix by placing the BD at the crucifixion (19:26), the
        resurrection (20:2), the first appearance 21:7) and the end of the Gospel
        that claims the BD wrote it.

        Perhaps the original Aramaic Proto-John reported Jesus said "atta ha barek!"
        ("Behold your son"), referring to himself, but I have no allusion that the
        story of the "Beloved Disciple" (meant to elevate the Ephesus Community) is
        authentic. John of Ephesus may have had a hint of truth in that the
        disciple John (Yohanan Bar Zebedy) might have written Proto-John but since
        he was painting this disciple as their foundation of authority, it could
        have been written by anyone in the early Jesus community. He makes it sound
        as if this early disciple wrote his larger Greek Gospel of John rather than
        the smaller Aramaic source document that is still very visibly imbedded in
        4G. For this reason, John of Ephesus has been confused with John the
        disciple ever since, thanks to that fictional character, the "Beloved
        Disciple."


        Well now, if the multiple extensions, redactions, glosses, interpolations
        and chapter shuffling is undone and the remainder back translated to Aramaic
        (something I am doing) you will have your discourse that moves matters of
        history.

        Went on a bit, didn't I?

        Jack

        Jack Kilmon
        San Antonio, TX
      • Matson, Mark (Academic)
        ... Jack, I agree with you on the priority of John. At least I suspect John is very early, as early as Mark, and independent. I think priority is a
        Message 3 of 16 , Jan 19, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          Jack Kilman wrote:

          > There are many layer to 4G. In my opinion and open to discussion, once
          > they are peeled away, 4G was the first (that's right....first, prior to
          > Mark) and most historical gospel of them all.

          Jack, I agree with you on the priority of John. At least I suspect John is very early, as early as Mark, and independent. I think "priority" is a difficult term if there is independence, and I have a hard time seeing John as dependent on Mark, or Mark dependent on John. Paul Anderson may have something with his interfluentiality, though I still have a hard time seeing clear evidence of that.

          What I question, though, is the "layers" and the "peeling away." How can we really tell? I used to be a fan of Fortna's, but have become less certain. The more I read John (and E. Schweizer's analysis of John was influential on this), the more I see a unified text. And, as my own response to Joseph Calandrino indicated, I think narrative analysis tends to find the story as very cohesive. So I guess my question is how do you determine the layers? How confident can you be? Perhaps a sample would be helpful.

          Peter would say to a group of people in Lydda,
          > Pontus,
          > Cappadocia, etc... איכא דאן נהוא פגרא תמן נתכנשׁון נשׁרא׃" Yeshua
          > amar......'aika den d'hawa pagra, thamman yitkanuon nishrea'" Now I am
          > confident this indeed goes to the lips of the HISTORICAL Jesus because you
          > will notice it is a 2-4 beat rhyme. Vintage Jesus-speak. Then Peter, I
          > am sure, paused while Mark translated the Aramaic to Greek, " ὅπου γὰρ ἐὰν
          > ᾖ τὸ πτῶμα ἐκεῖ συναχθήσονται οἱ ἀετοί "
          > and the crowd nodded to each other as they heard "wherever their is a
          > carcass, there also will gather the vultures." Now to Yeshua the
          > "carcass"
          > (pagra) was the temple treasury and the "vultures" (nishrea) were the
          > Romans.

          And we would agree that much of the gospel of John is clearly very semitic. And I would bow to your expertise about particular phrases that are clear indications of an Aramaic origin. But does this mean a source, or has John either directly written in Greek having a Semitic background? Or Perhaps is he reporting eyewitness account (cf. Bauckham, but also simply the emphasis on "testimony" in the 4G)? How do we know?

          And I am very comfortable asserting the historicity of certain aspects (as I did recently arguing for John's version of Passion dating). But again, I tend to see the whole gospel as unified, and thus don't move easily to argue for sources or historicity simply on pieces.

          > Well now, if the multiple extensions, redactions, glosses, interpolations
          > and chapter shuffling is undone and the remainder back translated to
          > Aramaic (something I am doing) you will have your discourse that moves
          > matters of history.
          >

          So, the story we have is not partaking in "historiography?" (rightly understood as the interpretation of an individual). Granted, John is now what we would call a history... it is exhortation in narrative form to make a point (That you might believe....). But I'm still not comfortable with the need to "extract" the history... and am nervous about the series of decisions that are made to get at "historical bits". The methodology seems iffy to me.

          Mark A. Matson
          Academic Dean
          Milligan College
          423-461-8720
          http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.htm
        • Mardaga, Hellen
          Dear Mark, Jack, etc…. I am surprised to read the following statement: Peter would say to a group of people in Lydda, ... The 2-4 beat rhyme you are
          Message 4 of 16 , Jan 19, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Mark, Jack, etc….

            I am surprised to read the following statement:
            Peter would say to a group of people in Lydda,
            > Pontus,
            > Cappadocia, etc... איכא דאן נהוא פגרא תמן נתכנשׁון נשׁרא׃" Yeshua
            > amar......'aika den d'hawa pagra, thamman yitkanuon nishrea'" Now I am
            > confident this indeed goes to the lips of the HISTORICAL Jesus because you
            > will notice it is a 2-4 beat rhyme. Vintage Jesus-speak. Then Peter, I
            > am sure, paused while Mark translated the Aramaic to Greek, " ὅπου γὰρ ἐὰν
            > ᾖ τὸ πτῶμα ἐκεῖ συναχθήσονται οἱ ἀετοί "
            > and the crowd nodded to each other as they heard "wherever their is a
            > carcass, there also will gather the vultures."

            The 2-4 beat rhyme you are referring to (and I think you have the book “The Poetry of Our Lord” in mind) is a common stylistic feature. I do not see how you can simply “deduct” from this phenomenon that “the historical Jesus” said such a thing. I think you are overlooking some important aspects of rhetoric:

            - a feature may be common in a book – several books (e.g. parallelism is found both in John and in the Synoptics) but is that necessary a proof that because a word of Jesus is structured as a parallelism he literally “spoke” that way?
            - We do not even clearly know which language Jesus spoke. He could have spoken some Greek, maybe Aramaic, read Hebrew….but that is it. We can only “assume” what he might have said
            - What about the whole notion of orality? Oral tradition? Parallelism, rhyme, repetition, amplification are not only used in written texts but they also serve a listening audience. It could be that Mark composed the words of Jesus (since he is translating them [!] as you suggest) as a 2-4 beath rhyme (!) exactly to serve the listening audience and to help them remember the content of the gospel easier by mnemotechnic features.

            Dr. Hellen Mardaga
            Assistant Professor of New Testament
            The Catholic University of America
            Caldwel Hall 419
            620 Michigan Av.
            20064 Washington DC
            202-319-6885
            ________________________________
            From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com [mailto:johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Matson, Mark (Academic)
            Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 12:02 PM
            To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: RE: [John_Lit] getting on with the business of John



            Jack Kilman wrote:

            > There are many layer to 4G. In my opinion and open to discussion, once
            > they are peeled away, 4G was the first (that's right....first, prior to
            > Mark) and most historical gospel of them all.

            Jack, I agree with you on the priority of John. At least I suspect John is very early, as early as Mark, and independent. I think "priority" is a difficult term if there is independence, and I have a hard time seeing John as dependent on Mark, or Mark dependent on John. Paul Anderson may have something with his interfluentiality, though I still have a hard time seeing clear evidence of that.

            What I question, though, is the "layers" and the "peeling away." How can we really tell? I used to be a fan of Fortna's, but have become less certain. The more I read John (and E. Schweizer's analysis of John was influential on this), the more I see a unified text. And, as my own response to Joseph Calandrino indicated, I think narrative analysis tends to find the story as very cohesive. So I guess my question is how do you determine the layers? How confident can you be? Perhaps a sample would be helpful.

            Peter would say to a group of people in Lydda,
            > Pontus,
            > Cappadocia, etc... איכא דאן נהוא פגרא תמן נתכנשׁון נשׁרא׃" Yeshua
            > amar......'aika den d'hawa pagra, thamman yitkanuon nishrea'" Now I am
            > confident this indeed goes to the lips of the HISTORICAL Jesus because you
            > will notice it is a 2-4 beat rhyme. Vintage Jesus-speak. Then Peter, I
            > am sure, paused while Mark translated the Aramaic to Greek, " ὅπου γὰρ ἐὰν
            > ᾖ τὸ πτῶμα ἐκεῖ συναχθήσονται οἱ ἀετοί "
            > and the crowd nodded to each other as they heard "wherever their is a
            > carcass, there also will gather the vultures." Now to Yeshua the
            > "carcass"
            > (pagra) was the temple treasury and the "vultures" (nishrea) were the
            > Romans.

            And we would agree that much of the gospel of John is clearly very semitic. And I would bow to your expertise about particular phrases that are clear indications of an Aramaic origin. But does this mean a source, or has John either directly written in Greek having a Semitic background? Or Perhaps is he reporting eyewitness account (cf. Bauckham, but also simply the emphasis on "testimony" in the 4G)? How do we know?

            And I am very comfortable asserting the historicity of certain aspects (as I did recently arguing for John's version of Passion dating). But again, I tend to see the whole gospel as unified, and thus don't move easily to argue for sources or historicity simply on pieces.

            > Well now, if the multiple extensions, redactions, glosses, interpolations
            > and chapter shuffling is undone and the remainder back translated to
            > Aramaic (something I am doing) you will have your discourse that moves
            > matters of history.
            >

            So, the story we have is not partaking in "historiography?" (rightly understood as the interpretation of an individual). Granted, John is now what we would call a history... it is exhortation in narrative form to make a point (That you might believe....). But I'm still not comfortable with the need to "extract" the history... and am nervous about the series of decisions that are made to get at "historical bits". The methodology seems iffy to me.

            Mark A. Matson
            Academic Dean
            Milligan College
            423-461-8720
            http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.htm




            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Paul Anderson
            Thanks, Mark, Jack, and others! Important issues, here. In Christology of the Fourth Gospel, I tested all of Bultmann s evidence for sources--plying out his
            Message 5 of 16 , Jan 19, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              Thanks, Mark, Jack, and others! Important issues, here.

              In Christology of the Fourth Gospel, I tested all of Bultmann's evidence for
              sources--plying out his stylistic criteria throughout his commentary within
              John 6, which should be a showcase for multiple sources (as four of
              Bultmann's inferred five major sources--excepting the Passion source) are
              purportedly evident. In that analysis, the distribution of stylistic
              features (other than the work of the narrator) is random--not even
              indicative of disparate material. So, I find no evidence that John's
              tradition incorporated alien sources--Gnostic, Jewish, or Synoptic. John's
              is an independent gospel tradition, developing alongside others, but neither
              dependent on them nor on other imagined "sources".

              So, on the Gnostic question, and in light of the Qumran writings, I take
              John's dualism and enlightenment motifs to be Jewish, and this is bolstered
              by Aramaisms and Hebraisms in the text. What if Jesus himself taught (Is.
              54:13) that they shall all be taught by God--fulfilling the yearning of
              Moses (Nu. 11:29) that all God's people would be prophets with God's Spirit
              put upon them? Maybe the prophet from Nazareth's teaching that all have
              access to the divine (at least potentially) is what scandalized the
              religious leaders of Judea, leading to debates over his authority? Stranger
              things have happened. So, John's revelation-theology is not Gnostic, but
              profoundly Jewish (Deut. 18:15-22). Rather, Gnostic Christianity, from the
              second century on certainly made use of John, and the contacts with the Odes
              of Solomon and other such literature reflects Johannine influence on them
              rather than their influence (or trajectories like them) on John. Judaism too
              features God's enlightening work in the world, redeeming it and empowering
              the faithful.

              On the distinctive Johannine-Markan contacts, none of the similarities are
              identical, so literary dependence (in either direction) falls way short of
              evidentiary proof. However, some contact in the oral stages of tradition
              (ie. two preachers at least--perhaps more, but impossible to ascertain,
              either way) seems likely, especially if purveyors of tradition (see Acts 8
              as an example of such--not claiming this was indeed the case for explaining
              some contacts, but something like this is not implausible--with Raymond
              Brown, here) traveled in ministry together. The very Markan details omitted
              by Matthew and Luke (200 and 300 denarii, green/much grass, etc.) are common
              to John and Mark (challenging theories of added details as mimetic
              verisimilitude being standard operations--Matthew and Luke most often omit
              Markan names, distances, measures, etc.), suggesting contact, but not a
              literary-derivation sort of contact. So, oral-tradition contact is the most
              likely inference, but if so, it cannot be claimed that Mark's tradition had
              to have influenced John's, or vice versa. That's some of the basis for a
              modest inference of some "interfluence" between the early Markan and
              Johannine traditions. Raymond Brown's later Introduction (2003) calls this
              "cross influence". So, I see interfluence happening early in the Johannine
              tradition with the Markan tradition, and later with the Matthean tradition.
              With Mark Matson, I see the Johannine tradition influencing Luke, and
              perhaps Q, if there was a Q.

              With Mark Matson also, I don't think we can know much about earlier nuggets
              of tradition growing like a snowball, although some of that in the Johannine
              tradition is likely. I think we at least have an earlier edition and a final
              edition, but knowing much more (ie. distinguishing layers of development) is
              quite speculative.

              I should point to Urban von Wahlde's new THREE VOLUME COMMENTARY that has
              finally come out with Eerdmans a couple of months ago--he does indeed
              identify strata, and in a very thoughtful way. So, I encourage Johannine
              scholars to look at his work and to see if it holds together, but more
              importantly, what the interpretive yield might be. I should also say that my
              Riddles of the Fourth Gospel (Fortress) is coming out soon, and there I lay
              out the Johannine riddles in exhaustive form--as well as viable ways to
              approach and interpret them.

              Respectfully,

              Paul Anderson

              On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 9:02 AM, Matson, Mark (Academic) <
              MAMatson@...> wrote:

              > Jack Kilman wrote:
              >
              > > There are many layer to 4G. In my opinion and open to discussion, once
              > > they are peeled away, 4G was the first (that's right....first, prior to
              > > Mark) and most historical gospel of them all.
              >
              > Jack, I agree with you on the priority of John. At least I suspect John is
              > very early, as early as Mark, and independent. I think "priority" is a
              > difficult term if there is independence, and I have a hard time seeing John
              > as dependent on Mark, or Mark dependent on John. Paul Anderson may have
              > something with his interfluentiality, though I still have a hard time seeing
              > clear evidence of that.
              >
              > What I question, though, is the "layers" and the "peeling away." How can
              > we really tell? I used to be a fan of Fortna's, but have become less
              > certain. The more I read John (and E. Schweizer's analysis of John was
              > influential on this), the more I see a unified text. And, as my own
              > response to Joseph Calandrino indicated, I think narrative analysis tends to
              > find the story as very cohesive. So I guess my question is how do you
              > determine the layers? How confident can you be? Perhaps a sample would be
              > helpful.
              >
              > Peter would say to a group of people in Lydda,
              > > Pontus,
              > > Cappadocia, etc... איכא דאן נהוא פגרא תמן נתכנשׁון נשׁרא׃" Yeshua
              > > amar......'aika den d'hawa pagra, thamman yitkanuon nishrea'" Now I am
              > > confident this indeed goes to the lips of the HISTORICAL Jesus because
              > you
              > > will notice it is a 2-4 beat rhyme. Vintage Jesus-speak. Then Peter, I
              > > am sure, paused while Mark translated the Aramaic to Greek, " ὅπου γὰρ
              > ἐὰν
              > > ᾖ τὸ πτῶμα ἐκεῖ συναχθήσονται οἱ ἀετοί "
              > > and the crowd nodded to each other as they heard "wherever their is a
              > > carcass, there also will gather the vultures." Now to Yeshua the
              > > "carcass"
              > > (pagra) was the temple treasury and the "vultures" (nishrea) were the
              > > Romans.
              >
              > And we would agree that much of the gospel of John is clearly very semitic.
              > And I would bow to your expertise about particular phrases that are clear
              > indications of an Aramaic origin. But does this mean a source, or has John
              > either directly written in Greek having a Semitic background? Or Perhaps is
              > he reporting eyewitness account (cf. Bauckham, but also simply the emphasis
              > on "testimony" in the 4G)? How do we know?
              >
              > And I am very comfortable asserting the historicity of certain aspects (as
              > I did recently arguing for John's version of Passion dating). But again, I
              > tend to see the whole gospel as unified, and thus don't move easily to argue
              > for sources or historicity simply on pieces.
              >
              > > Well now, if the multiple extensions, redactions, glosses, interpolations
              > > and chapter shuffling is undone and the remainder back translated to
              > > Aramaic (something I am doing) you will have your discourse that moves
              > > matters of history.
              > >
              >
              > So, the story we have is not partaking in "historiography?" (rightly
              > understood as the interpretation of an individual). Granted, John is now
              > what we would call a history... it is exhortation in narrative form to make
              > a point (That you might believe....). But I'm still not comfortable with
              > the need to "extract" the history... and am nervous about the series of
              > decisions that are made to get at "historical bits". The methodology seems
              > iffy to me.
              >
              > Mark A. Matson
              > Academic Dean
              > Milligan College
              > 423-461-8720
              > http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.htm
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > ------------------------------------
              >
              > 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]
            • Jack Kilmon
              ... From: Matson, Mark (Academic) Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 11:02 AM To: Subject: RE:
              Message 6 of 16 , Jan 19, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                --------------------------------------------------
                From: "Matson, Mark (Academic)" <MAMatson@...>
                Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 11:02 AM
                To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                Subject: RE: [John_Lit] getting on with the business of John

                > Jack Kilman wrote:
                >
                >> There are many layer to 4G. In my opinion and open to discussion, once
                >> they are peeled away, 4G was the first (that's right....first, prior to
                >> Mark) and most historical gospel of them all.
                >
                > Jack, I agree with you on the priority of John. At least I suspect John
                > is very early, as early as Mark, and independent. I think "priority" is a
                > difficult term if there is independence, and I have a hard time seeing
                > John as dependent on Mark, or Mark dependent on John. Paul Anderson may
                > have something with his interfluentiality, though I still have a hard time
                > seeing clear evidence of that.
                >
                > What I question, though, is the "layers" and the "peeling away." How can
                > we really tell? I used to be a fan of Fortna's, but have become less
                > certain. The more I read John (and E. Schweizer's analysis of John was
                > influential on this), the more I see a unified text. And, as my own
                > response to Joseph Calandrino indicated, I think narrative analysis tends
                > to find the story as very cohesive. So I guess my question is how do you
                > determine the layers? How confident can you be? Perhaps a sample would
                > be helpful.
                >
                > Peter would say to a group of people in Lydda,
                >> Pontus,
                >> Cappadocia, etc... איכא דאן נהוא פגרא תמן נתכנשׁון נשׁרא׃" Yeshua
                >> amar......'aika den d'hawa pagra, thamman yitkanuon nishrea'" Now I am
                >> confident this indeed goes to the lips of the HISTORICAL Jesus because
                >> you
                >> will notice it is a 2-4 beat rhyme. Vintage Jesus-speak. Then Peter, I
                >> am sure, paused while Mark translated the Aramaic to Greek, " ὅπου γὰρ
                >> ἐὰν
                >> ᾖ τὸ πτῶμα ἐκεῖ συναχθήσονται οἱ ἀετοί "
                >> and the crowd nodded to each other as they heard "wherever their is a
                >> carcass, there also will gather the vultures." Now to Yeshua the
                >> "carcass"
                >> (pagra) was the temple treasury and the "vultures" (nishrea) were the
                >> Romans.
                >
                > And we would agree that much of the gospel of John is clearly very
                > semitic. And I would bow to your expertise about particular phrases that
                > are clear indications of an Aramaic origin. But does this mean a source,
                > or has John either directly written in Greek having a Semitic background?
                > Or Perhaps is he reporting eyewitness account (cf. Bauckham, but also
                > simply the emphasis on "testimony" in the 4G)? How do we know?
                >
                > And I am very comfortable asserting the historicity of certain aspects (as
                > I did recently arguing for John's version of Passion dating). But again,
                > I tend to see the whole gospel as unified, and thus don't move easily to
                > argue for sources or historicity simply on pieces.
                >
                >> Well now, if the multiple extensions, redactions, glosses, interpolations
                >> and chapter shuffling is undone and the remainder back translated to
                >> Aramaic (something I am doing) you will have your discourse that moves
                >> matters of history.
                >>
                >
                > So, the story we have is not partaking in "historiography?" (rightly
                > understood as the interpretation of an individual). Granted, John is now
                > what we would call a history... it is exhortation in narrative form to
                > make a point (That you might believe....). But I'm still not comfortable
                > with the need to "extract" the history... and am nervous about the series
                > of decisions that are made to get at "historical bits". The methodology
                > seems iffy to me.
                >
                > Mark A. Matson
                > Academic Dean
                > Milligan College
                > 423-461-8720
                > http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.htm
                >

                Hi Mark,

                I don't think we can apply any methodology until we can see what
                "proto-John" looked like. I do not see 4G as unified in its present form.
                For example:

                John, as does Mark, has a very profound Aramaic background but the Prologue
                does not. I think it was appended as an antiphonal hymn chanted between a
                lector and the communicants before reading the Gospel which began at
                1:19....but here is the kicker. I think the anti-Petrine Aramaic
                "proto-John" shortly after its translation to Greek...a much smaller text
                than the present Greek canonical John.... actually stimulated the
                composition of the PRO-Petrine Ur-Markus. The Aramaic or translational
                Greek PJ was used, perhaps, as a template around which the much larger Greek
                version was composed around 90ish CE. It is easy to see how the Prologue,
                as happened elsewhere in the NT for liturgical elements, became attached.
                The use of the ending of Mark, removed and edited, as an ending of John had
                a purpose of harmonizing John to Mark to remove anti-Petrine themes hence
                the "blend" of Johannine and Markan style discernable from the rest of the
                Gospel and observed by other scholars.

                1:22-25 added by redactor

                1:30 added by redactor

                1:32 added by redactor

                2:1-10 from "Signs Gospel" appended with 2:11 on later redaction

                2:15 "..and the sheep, and the oxen" gloss

                2:17 Early John was KATAFAGETAI (will consume me), changed by redactor to
                aorist to conform to Ps 69:9

                2:23-24 redaction from "signs"

                3:3 from older baptismal tradition

                3:5 "water" added by editor

                3:13 added

                3:16 added

                Order of Ch 4 thru 7 in Proto-John was 4, 6, 5, 7.

                4:1 "the Lord knew" gloss

                4:2 redaction, contradicts Proto-John 3:22

                4:46-54 from "signs"

                Ch 5 should follow chapter 6

                5:4 redactor (not in Bodmer)

                5:25 redaction

                5:27b "because he is the Son of Man" added

                5:28-29 redaction

                5:25 and 5:28-29 is editor's redaction of future realization over original
                Proto-John's present realization

                6:1-15 redaction from "signs"

                6:23 gloss

                6:27 editor's "future" addition

                6:39-44 editor's

                6:51-58 added by editor to correlate Bread of Life with Eucharist

                7:1 editor's

                7:8 OUPW was originally OUK in Proto-John

                7:15-24 was originally at end of ch.5 in Proto-John

                7:53-8:11 part of a late redaction (3rd C). First occurs in C.Bezae.
                Interrupts flow from 7:52 to 8:12.

                8:12-59 original Proto-John material but for 8:13 added

                8:14a added

                8:14b is original, also GThom 24

                8:15 added

                8:17a added

                8:17b original Proto-John from Deut. 19:15

                8:18 added

                8:19a added

                8:19b original Proto-John also in Q and Lk 10:22

                8:20a added

                8:20b original Proto-John..also Egerton

                8:21b "and shall die in your sins" added

                8:21c "where I am going" original Proto-John..also Apoc James 2:23-27

                8:22 original PJ..also GThom 38

                8:23-24 added

                8:25 Original PJ..also GThom 43

                8:26-28 added

                8:31a added

                8:31b orig PJ and GThom 19

                8:32 orig PJ

                8:33 added

                8:34a added

                8:34b orig PJ

                8:35 Orig. PJ

                8:36 added

                9:22 would have to have been edited after the Birkhat ha-minim in 85CE

                9:35 "signs" redaction

                10:18d "this commandment have I received..." goes with 10:27-29

                10:19 goes with Ch 9.

                11:2 added

                11:45-50 "signs" redaction

                12:44-50 goes with Ch 9 except for editor's 12:48.

                13:31 All of Ch 17 originally here

                14:30 prefaced 18:1 in PJ

                Chapters 15 and 16 preceded 13:36-14:31 in PJ

                19:34 added

                20:11-31 orig. PJ with no parallels in synoptics. PJ ended here

                Ch 21 editor's appendix ending of Mark

                An editor took the last chapter of MARK and appended it as Chapter 21 to
                JOHN...thereby harmonizing the two Gospels.

                The reasoning?

                Mark anticipates a first resurrection appearance in Galilee and John 21
                without the "third appearance" editorial insert at 21:14 is that first
                appearance.
                In Mark, Peter denies Jesus three times (14:67-72). In John (21:15-17),
                Peter affirms his love three times....the pro-Petrine redemption anticipated
                in Mark. This completes what form critics have come to recognize as Markan
                brackets (like the bracketed blind men at 8:22 and 10:46). In Mark, the
                shepherd is struck down and the sheep scattered. In John 21 Peter becomes
                the new shepherd..completing another incomplete Markan bracket. In Mark,
                the first words spoken to a disciple are "follow me." In John 21 the LAST
                words spoken are "follow me" (Jn 21:22) completing another Markan bracket.

                If John 21 was originally the first resurrection appearance account of the
                ending of Mark, Mark would become unified literarily if the appendage is
                restored to Mark..less a few Johannine phrases. It does. I am, to the
                point
                of annoyance to some, the "follow the Aramaic" guy and also find support
                in this from Burney. If John 21 was removed from Mark, edited with a few
                Johannine signature phrases, we should see typically Markan Aramaisms
                noted in Mark and John with none or little in Matthew and Luke. I find this
                in Mark's frequent use of the historic present resulting from Aramaic
                narrative
                participle also frequent in John 21. There is also a connection between
                John
                and Mark's use of imperfects, the rare use of de and frequent use of kai,
                the
                partitive APO in 21:10 used by Mark at 5:35, 6:43, 7:4 and 12:2.



                Glosses:

                4:1 "the Lord Knew"

                4:2

                4:11b "Sir.....

                5:4

                5:27 "because he is the..

                5:40

                6:6*

                6:23

                6:27

                6:51-58

                6:71*

                8:21 "and shall die in your sins

                8:27*

                8:31a

                11:2 added by late redactor to conflate Mary Magdalene with a prostitute but
                at
                odds with Luke 7:36

                11:25-26

                12:33*

                12:47-48

                13:10 "not save to wash his feet

                13:11*

                14:30 "much"

                16:16 "because I go to the father

                18:9

                18:32*

                19:34-35

                Aramaic proto-John would have started something like:

                והדא הי סהדותה דיוחנן כד שׁדרו לותה יהודיא
                מן אורשׁלם כהנא ולויא דנשׁאלוניהי אנת מן אנת׃
                19 And this is the record of John, when the priests
                and Levites from Jerusalem asked him, Who art thou?
                ואודי ולא כפר ואודי דלו אנא אנא משׁיחא׃
                20 And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed,
                I am not the Messiah.
                ושׁאלוהי תוב מנא הכיל אליא
                אנת ואמר לא איתי נביא אנת ואמר לא׃
                21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias?
                And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.
                ענא יוחנן ואמר להון אנא מעמד אנא במיא
                בינתכון דין קאם הו דאנתון לא ידעין אנתון לה׃
                26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water:
                but there standeth one among you, whom ye know
                not;



                shlama amek

                Jack

                Jack Kilmon
                San Antonio, TX
              • Matson, Mark (Academic)
                Helen Mardaga wrote: ... I think you are overlooking some important aspects of rhetoric: - a feature may be common in a book – several books (e.g.
                Message 7 of 16 , Jan 19, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  Helen Mardaga wrote:

                  ... I think you are overlooking some important aspects of rhetoric:

                  - a feature may be common in a book – several books (e.g. parallelism is found both in John and in the Synoptics) but is that necessary a proof that because a word of Jesus is structured as a parallelism he literally “spoke” that way?

                  - We do not even clearly know which language Jesus spoke. He could have spoken some Greek, maybe Aramaic, read Hebrew….but that is it. We can only “assume” what he might have said

                  - What about the whole notion of orality? Oral tradition? Parallelism, rhyme, repetition, amplification are not only used in written texts but they also serve a listening audience. It could be that Mark composed the words of Jesus (since he is translating them [!] as you suggest) as a 2-4 beath rhyme (!) exactly to serve the listening audience and to help them remember the content of the gospel easier by mnemotechnic features.
                  ================================
                  Thanks, Helen, for this comment.

                  I think I, too, would like to respond to Jack with a query about the writing process and its relationship to various sources and/or levels of a document.

                  I guess I tend to see authors utilizing a variety of approaches, some conscious some unconscious, to influence an audience (thanks, Helen, for introducing rhetoric and its orientation to audiences and the need to persuade). I imagine at times an author casts language in various ways for effect (compare Luke's very Greek prologue, only to slip into a very semitic or septuagintal style in the birth narrative; similarly Luke in Acts frequently adopts stylistic modes in the speeches).

                  So I imagine that John might well be doing something similar -- especially adopting some semitic styles in the Jesus teaching sections.. Could this not be simply a Hellenistic Jew who is moderately fluent in both Aramaic and Greek, who at times allows more of the Aramaic memories/oral components to come out more strongly. I say this as a proposal.

                  Having said all that, Jack, I want to take your own stratification and see what it works like. That will take a few days.

                  But as Paul Anderson noted (referring to Bultmann's segmentation of sources), careful analysis of the text has tended to discount any variety of strata so as to distinguish sources. I found Fortna's model pretty persuasive at one pont (focusing on various aporia, logical breaks, in the narrative as indications of redactional seams), but Eduard Schweizer's careful analysis of linguistic stylistic markers (in his book Ego Eimi), at a linguistic level these layers can't be verified. Have you read Schweizer's book (quite old now), and do you have a suitable answer for his analysis?

                  And with this kind of stylistic analysis, if John 21 was originally from Mark, then there has been an extreme and systematic reshaping of the language. It does not sound like Mark, grammatically or rhetorically. It sounds like John (and concerns about ch. 21 have foundered often on the fact that this chapter is very similar stylistically to the rest of the 4G.

                  This takes me back to my earlier assertion that John is a fairly uniform text. Does it have Aramaisms? Yes. Is the Jewish substrata of this gospel strongly present? Yes. But that can certainly take place as an author attempts to create a persuasive text to an audience (that might be composed of Hellenistic Jews in part or in whole)...


                  Mark A. Matson
                  Academic Dean
                  Milligan College
                  Milligan College, TN
                  http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/personal.htm
                • SemioticSymphony@aol.com
                  Hello Tom and fellow listers: I think the very issues of story and discourse are difficult because they have the tendency to deflect inquiry into our texts
                  Message 8 of 16 , Jan 20, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hello Tom and fellow listers:

                    I think the very issues of story and discourse are difficult because they have the tendency to deflect inquiry into our texts toward the writer doing the inquiring. This phenomenon occurs primarily because of the interpretive gestures and semantic transformations our strategies betray. I believe Hellen is working this kind of thing through with Jack on this thread.

                    Though I am very interested in the assumptions we make as we approach FG (or any text, really) I do not think that the work on which such assumptions operate negates the entire enterprise, except where assumptions contain fatal flaws of logic, errors of fact, etc. Jack, our resident Aramaicist (if I may be so bold), continues to illuminate biblical texts for us with a sensitivity to language and literary convention, even as Hellen's challenges move the discussion forward.

                    so, have at it!

                    Joe
                    Joseph Calandrino






                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: Tom Butler <pastor_t@...>
                    To: johannine_literature <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                    Sent: Mon, Jan 17, 2011 4:54 pm
                    Subject: Re: [John_Lit] getting on with the business of John




                    Joe and Members of the Johannine Literature List,
                    I look forward to reading a thread addressed to the question you pose, Joe.





                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Jack Kilmon
                    ... From: Mardaga, Hellen Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 12:39 PM To: Subject: RE: [John_Lit]
                    Message 9 of 16 , Jan 21, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --------------------------------------------------
                      From: "Mardaga, Hellen" <MARDAGA@...>
                      Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 12:39 PM
                      To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                      Subject: RE: [John_Lit] getting on with the business of John

                      > Dear Mark, Jack, etc….
                      >
                      > I am surprised to read the following statement:
                      > Peter would say to a group of people in Lydda,
                      >> Pontus,
                      >> Cappadocia, etc... איכא דאן נהוא פגרא תמן נתכנשׁון נשׁרא׃" Yeshua
                      >> amar......'aika den d'hawa pagra, thamman yitkanuon nishrea'" Now I am
                      >> confident this indeed goes to the lips of the HISTORICAL Jesus because
                      >> you
                      >> will notice it is a 2-4 beat rhyme. Vintage Jesus-speak. Then Peter, I
                      >> am sure, paused while Mark translated the Aramaic to Greek, " ὅπου γὰρ
                      >> ἐὰν
                      >> ᾖ τὸ πτῶμα ἐκεῖ συναχθήσονται οἱ ἀετοί "
                      >> and the crowd nodded to each other as they heard "wherever their is a
                      >> carcass, there also will gather the vultures."
                      >
                      > The 2-4 beat rhyme you are referring to (and I think you have the book
                      > “The Poetry of Our Lord” in mind) is a common stylistic feature. I do not
                      > see how you can simply “deduct” from this phenomenon that “the historical
                      > Jesus” said such a thing. I think you are overlooking some important
                      > aspects of rhetoric:
                      >
                      > - a feature may be common in a book – several books (e.g.
                      > parallelism is found both in John and in the Synoptics) but is that
                      > necessary a proof that because a word of Jesus is structured as a
                      > parallelism he literally “spoke” that way?

                      Hi Hellen:

                      Sorry it took me a while. Sometimes recreational computer time comes
                      infrequently.

                      Concentrating on Aramaic reconstructions of first layer sayings and
                      aphorisms of Jesus I find the typical orality devices, of course. Assonance,
                      paronomasia, alliteration rhyme and meter that indicate to me an individual
                      in a manner that would not occur if the language of delivery would have been
                      anything other than Aramaic.



                      > - We do not even clearly know which language Jesus spoke.

                      Judean Aramaic. To me it is not even debatable anymore. There is a ton of
                      evidence in the only real footprints of the historical Jesus we have, his
                      words.

                      Translational Greek is recognizable by the lexical and syntactic
                      interference and in this case that interference is Aramaic.


                      > He could have spoken some Greek, maybe Aramaic, read Hebrew….but that is
                      > it. We can only “assume” what he might have said

                      I am sure he had "get by Greek" having grown up in Galilee surrounded by
                      Hellenism and trade. He spoke Aramaic. Those are the only transliterated
                      words placed on his lips including the cry from the cross. Whether or not
                      he was competent in Hebrew is hard to assess. The reading of the Isaiah
                      scroll at the synagogue at Luke 4:21 is special "L" material from the last
                      decade of the 1st century and almost certainly not genuine to Jesus.
                      Otherwise we have no indications he knew, read or spoke Hebrew and we do
                      have indications he was familiar with Targums.

                      Jesus grew up in Palestine (not even assuming the Galilee) in the first
                      third of the 1st century. As such, he grew up in an Aramaic speaking country
                      so it is more than an assumption to me that he spoke Aramaic as his mother
                      tongue.

                      Even our Gospel of John has an Aramaic sub-structure, in fact the strongest
                      of the Gospels.


                      > - What about the whole notion of orality? Oral tradition?
                      > Parallelism, rhyme, repetition, amplification are not only used in written
                      > texts but they also serve a listening audience. It could be that Mark
                      > composed the words of Jesus (since he is translating them [!] as you
                      > suggest) as a 2-4 beath rhyme (!) exactly to serve the listening audience
                      > and to help them remember the content of the gospel easier by mnemotechnic
                      > features.

                      That is the most unlikely possibility, IMO, since Mark wrote his Gospel in
                      his "second language Greek" where the Aramaic mnemonic apparati would be
                      lost just as was idiom in many cases. They do not appear until the Aramaic
                      is reconstructed. In the cry from the cross, first penned...er...reeded..by
                      Mark from his notebook, he chose to preserve it as it was spoken and there
                      is no better indication of Judean Aramaic.

                      The "cry from the cross" bothers some people and there are apologists from
                      Syriac churches (Jesus did not speak Syriac) who manufacture all forms of
                      creative "translations." The cry from the cross is clear Aramaic and
                      definitively "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"

                      I think Mark was correct in his transliteration since the Western Aramaic
                      (Judean) would have a qamets qatan instead of qamets gadhol for the lamed in
                      alaha. Easterm (Syriac) would be alef (pattah)-lamed (qamets gadhol)-heh
                      (hiriq qatan)-yod, hence aLAhy. Western (Judean) would be alef-lamed
                      (qamets qatan)-heh (hiriq qatan)-yod, hence aLOhy, hence Mark's
                      transliteration as ELWI Ελωι ελωι λαμμᾶ σαβαχθανι . Judean Aramaic
                      aLOhy, aLOhy LAma shevawqTAny?

                      "God of me, God of me, why have forsaken you me?"

                      Some say there a problem with the absence of a smooth breathing for the
                      transliterated ELWI? I don't think so. There was no such thing in the
                      first century and the original Markan autograph would have had an uncial
                      ELWI.

                      In Aramaic speaking Palestine of the 1st century, Jesus would not have heard
                      Psalm 22 in Hebrew. He would have heard it from the synagogue lector reading
                      the Aramaic Targum of Psalm 22.
                      אלהי אלהי מטול מה שׁבקתני

                      Just one of hundreds of indicators that I have noticed is the rendering of
                      the name of Jesus' buddy אֶלְעָזָר in Hebrew el'azar. It has come down to
                      us from Jesus' own Galilean pronunciation as l'azar with the dropped aleph
                      and transliterated into Greek as Λάζαρος and in the Vulgate as Lazarus.

                      If Jeremias, Black, Fitzmyer and Casey are not compelling on this issue,
                      then no one can be, certainly not a mere amateur such as myself.

                      Is it cold in DC?

                      Regards,

                      Jack

                      Jack Kilmon
                      San Antonio, TX



                      >
                      > Dr. Hellen Mardaga
                      > Assistant Professor of New Testament
                      > The Catholic University of America
                      > Caldwel Hall 419
                      > 620 Michigan Av.
                      > 20064 Washington DC
                      > 202-319-6885
                    • Mardaga, Hellen
                      Dear Jack, yes it is very cold in DC.....I really hate the winter..... One should avoid statements or certainties with regard to claims about the
                      Message 10 of 16 , Jan 22, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Dear Jack,



                        yes it is very cold in DC.....I really hate the winter.....



                        One should avoid statements or "certainties" with regard to claims about the "historical" Jesus. I have discovered that all to often people say things about the historical jesus (what he did, how he spoke, where he went to etc...)that sound as if they were personally present at the scenery (no ofense). There really is no straightforward evidence with regard to the literacy of Jesus, only possibilities or probabilities.



                        I also think - but I might be wrong- that you overlook the very important distinction between the real Jesus (whom we do not know and never will) and the historical Jesus (the Jesus we recover through scientific research).



                        Hellen















                        ________________________________
                        From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com [johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com] on behalf of Jack Kilmon [jkilmon@...]
                        Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 11:36 PM
                        To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: Re: [John_Lit] getting on with the business of John




                        --------------------------------------------------
                        From: "Mardaga, Hellen" <MARDAGA@...<mailto:MARDAGA%40cua.edu>>
                        Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 12:39 PM
                        To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com<mailto:johannine_literature%40yahoogroups.com>>
                        Subject: RE: [John_Lit] getting on with the business of John

                        > Dear Mark, Jack, etc….
                        >
                        > I am surprised to read the following statement:
                        > Peter would say to a group of people in Lydda,
                        >> Pontus,
                        >> Cappadocia, etc... איכא דאן נהוא פגרא תמן נתכנשׁון נשׁרא׃" Yeshua
                        >> amar......'aika den d'hawa pagra, thamman yitkanuon nishrea'" Now I am
                        >> confident this indeed goes to the lips of the HISTORICAL Jesus because
                        >> you
                        >> will notice it is a 2-4 beat rhyme. Vintage Jesus-speak. Then Peter, I
                        >> am sure, paused while Mark translated the Aramaic to Greek, " ὅπου γὰρ
                        >> ἐὰν
                        >> ᾖ τὸ πτῶμα ἐκεῖ συναχθήσονται οἱ ἀετοί "
                        >> and the crowd nodded to each other as they heard "wherever their is a
                        >> carcass, there also will gather the vultures."
                        >
                        > The 2-4 beat rhyme you are referring to (and I think you have the book
                        > “The Poetry of Our Lord” in mind) is a common stylistic feature. I do not
                        > see how you can simply “deduct” from this phenomenon that “the historical
                        > Jesus” said such a thing. I think you are overlooking some important
                        > aspects of rhetoric:
                        >
                        > - a feature may be common in a book – several books (e.g.
                        > parallelism is found both in John and in the Synoptics) but is that
                        > necessary a proof that because a word of Jesus is structured as a
                        > parallelism he literally “spoke” that way?

                        Hi Hellen:

                        Sorry it took me a while. Sometimes recreational computer time comes
                        infrequently.

                        Concentrating on Aramaic reconstructions of first layer sayings and
                        aphorisms of Jesus I find the typical orality devices, of course. Assonance,
                        paronomasia, alliteration rhyme and meter that indicate to me an individual
                        in a manner that would not occur if the language of delivery would have been
                        anything other than Aramaic.

                        > - We do not even clearly know which language Jesus spoke.

                        Judean Aramaic. To me it is not even debatable anymore. There is a ton of
                        evidence in the only real footprints of the historical Jesus we have, his
                        words.

                        Translational Greek is recognizable by the lexical and syntactic
                        interference and in this case that interference is Aramaic.

                        > He could have spoken some Greek, maybe Aramaic, read Hebrew….but that is
                        > it. We can only “assume” what he might have said

                        I am sure he had "get by Greek" having grown up in Galilee surrounded by
                        Hellenism and trade. He spoke Aramaic. Those are the only transliterated
                        words placed on his lips including the cry from the cross. Whether or not
                        he was competent in Hebrew is hard to assess. The reading of the Isaiah
                        scroll at the synagogue at Luke 4:21 is special "L" material from the last
                        decade of the 1st century and almost certainly not genuine to Jesus.
                        Otherwise we have no indications he knew, read or spoke Hebrew and we do
                        have indications he was familiar with Targums.

                        Jesus grew up in Palestine (not even assuming the Galilee) in the first
                        third of the 1st century. As such, he grew up in an Aramaic speaking country
                        so it is more than an assumption to me that he spoke Aramaic as his mother
                        tongue.

                        Even our Gospel of John has an Aramaic sub-structure, in fact the strongest
                        of the Gospels.

                        > - What about the whole notion of orality? Oral tradition?
                        > Parallelism, rhyme, repetition, amplification are not only used in written
                        > texts but they also serve a listening audience. It could be that Mark
                        > composed the words of Jesus (since he is translating them [!] as you
                        > suggest) as a 2-4 beath rhyme (!) exactly to serve the listening audience
                        > and to help them remember the content of the gospel easier by mnemotechnic
                        > features.

                        That is the most unlikely possibility, IMO, since Mark wrote his Gospel in
                        his "second language Greek" where the Aramaic mnemonic apparati would be
                        lost just as was idiom in many cases. They do not appear until the Aramaic
                        is reconstructed. In the cry from the cross, first penned...er...reeded..by
                        Mark from his notebook, he chose to preserve it as it was spoken and there
                        is no better indication of Judean Aramaic.

                        The "cry from the cross" bothers some people and there are apologists from
                        Syriac churches (Jesus did not speak Syriac) who manufacture all forms of
                        creative "translations." The cry from the cross is clear Aramaic and
                        definitively "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"

                        I think Mark was correct in his transliteration since the Western Aramaic
                        (Judean) would have a qamets qatan instead of qamets gadhol for the lamed in
                        alaha. Easterm (Syriac) would be alef (pattah)-lamed (qamets gadhol)-heh
                        (hiriq qatan)-yod, hence aLAhy. Western (Judean) would be alef-lamed
                        (qamets qatan)-heh (hiriq qatan)-yod, hence aLOhy, hence Mark's
                        transliteration as ELWI Ελωι ελωι λαμμᾶ σαβαχθανι . Judean Aramaic
                        aLOhy, aLOhy LAma shevawqTAny?

                        "God of me, God of me, why have forsaken you me?"

                        Some say there a problem with the absence of a smooth breathing for the
                        transliterated ELWI? I don't think so. There was no such thing in the
                        first century and the original Markan autograph would have had an uncial
                        ELWI.

                        In Aramaic speaking Palestine of the 1st century, Jesus would not have heard
                        Psalm 22 in Hebrew. He would have heard it from the synagogue lector reading
                        the Aramaic Targum of Psalm 22.
                        אלהי אלהי מטול מה שׁבקתני

                        Just one of hundreds of indicators that I have noticed is the rendering of
                        the name of Jesus' buddy אֶלְעָזָר in Hebrew el'azar. It has come down to
                        us from Jesus' own Galilean pronunciation as l'azar with the dropped aleph
                        and transliterated into Greek as Λάζαρος and in the Vulgate as Lazarus.

                        If Jeremias, Black, Fitzmyer and Casey are not compelling on this issue,
                        then no one can be, certainly not a mere amateur such as myself.

                        Is it cold in DC?

                        Regards,

                        Jack

                        Jack Kilmon
                        San Antonio, TX

                        >
                        > Dr. Hellen Mardaga
                        > Assistant Professor of New Testament
                        > The Catholic University of America
                        > Caldwel Hall 419
                        > 620 Michigan Av.
                        > 20064 Washington DC
                        > 202-319-6885
                      • Jack Kilmon
                        Hi Hellen: Since it is a given that the real Jesus is lost to history, the historical Jesus is as close as we are going to get. We get as close as we can
                        Message 11 of 16 , Jan 22, 2011
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Hi Hellen:

                          Since it is a given that the "real Jesus" is lost to history, the
                          "historical Jesus" is as close as we are going to get. We get as close as
                          we can through both a critical analysis of the texts and steeped in the
                          social, cultural, religious and linguistic anthropology of the late second
                          temple period. As a result and per exemplum, I do not know if the REAL
                          Jesus wore sandals. I do know that they were the standard footwear and some
                          have been recovered at Qumran and Wadi Muraba'at and the texts tell me he
                          did a lot of walking. As a result, I think I am very safe in stating,
                          almost apodictically, Jesus wore sandals.
                          I don't know what the REAL Jesus wore in addition to the sandals but
                          standard dress was an inner tunic, a tunic coat (Kitonet), a girdle or belt
                          of leather, a mantle that was like a robe, similar to a Gilabiyah and a
                          headdress not unlike a prayer shawl or tallit. Examples of these pieces of
                          clothing have been found, some fairly well preserved and I would bet the
                          mayonnaise farm that is what the historical and the real Jesus wore, albeit
                          I cannot tell you about colors. I can tell from the archaeological evidence
                          what kind of cups he drank from and ate from and what kind of wine he drank
                          and food he ate. We also have a very good idea of infrastructure and the
                          types of houses he lived in as well as social and family praxis. I can say
                          with strong conviction that he spoke Aramaic and even know enough of the
                          idiom to know he didn't say some of the things we think he said.

                          I think he really did, honestly and for true, actually heal a lot of people,
                          again with good reason rather than "faith."

                          All I am saying is that if you look at the whole elephant from all of the
                          indicators at out disposal, there is much we can say about the only REAL
                          Jesus we will ever know, the historical Jesus.

                          shlama

                          Jack

                          Jack Kilmon
                          San Antonio, TX

                          --------------------------------------------------
                          From: "Mardaga, Hellen" <MARDAGA@...>
                          Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 7:30 AM
                          To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                          Subject: RE: [John_Lit] getting on with the business of John

                          > Dear Jack,
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > yes it is very cold in DC.....I really hate the winter.....
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > One should avoid statements or "certainties" with regard to claims about
                          > the "historical" Jesus. I have discovered that all to often people say
                          > things about the historical jesus (what he did, how he spoke, where he
                          > went to etc...)that sound as if they were personally present at the
                          > scenery (no ofense). There really is no straightforward evidence with
                          > regard to the literacy of Jesus, only possibilities or probabilities.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > I also think - but I might be wrong- that you overlook the very important
                          > distinction between the real Jesus (whom we do not know and never will)
                          > and the historical Jesus (the Jesus we recover through scientific
                          > research).
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Hellen

                          >
                          >
                          > ________________________________
                          > From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                          > [johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com] on behalf of Jack Kilmon
                          > [jkilmon@...]
                          > Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 11:36 PM
                          > To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                          > Subject: Re: [John_Lit] getting on with the business of John
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > --------------------------------------------------
                          > From: "Mardaga, Hellen" <MARDAGA@...<mailto:MARDAGA%40cua.edu>>
                          > Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 12:39 PM
                          > To:
                          > <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com<mailto:johannine_literature%40yahoogroups.com>>
                          > Subject: RE: [John_Lit] getting on with the business of John
                          >
                          >> Dear Mark, Jack, etc….
                          >>
                          >> I am surprised to read the following statement:
                          >> Peter would say to a group of people in Lydda,
                          >>> Pontus,
                          >>> Cappadocia, etc... איכא דאן נהוא פגרא תמן נתכנשׁון נשׁרא׃" Yeshua
                          >>> amar......'aika den d'hawa pagra, thamman yitkanuon nishrea'" Now I am
                          >>> confident this indeed goes to the lips of the HISTORICAL Jesus because
                          >>> you
                          >>> will notice it is a 2-4 beat rhyme. Vintage Jesus-speak. Then Peter, I
                          >>> am sure, paused while Mark translated the Aramaic to Greek, " ὅπου γὰρ
                          >>> ἐὰν
                          >>> ᾖ τὸ πτῶμα ἐκεῖ συναχθήσονται οἱ ἀετοί "
                          >>> and the crowd nodded to each other as they heard "wherever their is a
                          >>> carcass, there also will gather the vultures."
                          >>
                          >> The 2-4 beat rhyme you are referring to (and I think you have the book
                          >> “The Poetry of Our Lord” in mind) is a common stylistic feature. I do not
                          >> see how you can simply “deduct” from this phenomenon that “the historical
                          >> Jesus” said such a thing. I think you are overlooking some important
                          >> aspects of rhetoric:
                          >>
                          >> - a feature may be common in a book – several books (e.g.
                          >> parallelism is found both in John and in the Synoptics) but is that
                          >> necessary a proof that because a word of Jesus is structured as a
                          >> parallelism he literally “spoke” that way?
                          >
                          > Hi Hellen:
                          >
                          > Sorry it took me a while. Sometimes recreational computer time comes
                          > infrequently.
                          >
                          > Concentrating on Aramaic reconstructions of first layer sayings and
                          > aphorisms of Jesus I find the typical orality devices, of course.
                          > Assonance,
                          > paronomasia, alliteration rhyme and meter that indicate to me an
                          > individual
                          > in a manner that would not occur if the language of delivery would have
                          > been
                          > anything other than Aramaic.
                          >
                          >> - We do not even clearly know which language Jesus spoke.
                          >
                          > Judean Aramaic. To me it is not even debatable anymore. There is a ton of
                          > evidence in the only real footprints of the historical Jesus we have, his
                          > words.
                          >
                          > Translational Greek is recognizable by the lexical and syntactic
                          > interference and in this case that interference is Aramaic.
                          >
                          >> He could have spoken some Greek, maybe Aramaic, read Hebrew….but that is
                          >> it. We can only “assume” what he might have said
                          >
                          > I am sure he had "get by Greek" having grown up in Galilee surrounded by
                          > Hellenism and trade. He spoke Aramaic. Those are the only transliterated
                          > words placed on his lips including the cry from the cross. Whether or not
                          > he was competent in Hebrew is hard to assess. The reading of the Isaiah
                          > scroll at the synagogue at Luke 4:21 is special "L" material from the last
                          > decade of the 1st century and almost certainly not genuine to Jesus.
                          > Otherwise we have no indications he knew, read or spoke Hebrew and we do
                          > have indications he was familiar with Targums.
                          >
                          > Jesus grew up in Palestine (not even assuming the Galilee) in the first
                          > third of the 1st century. As such, he grew up in an Aramaic speaking
                          > country
                          > so it is more than an assumption to me that he spoke Aramaic as his mother
                          > tongue.
                          >
                          > Even our Gospel of John has an Aramaic sub-structure, in fact the
                          > strongest
                          > of the Gospels.
                          >
                          >> - What about the whole notion of orality? Oral tradition?
                          >> Parallelism, rhyme, repetition, amplification are not only used in
                          >> written
                          >> texts but they also serve a listening audience. It could be that Mark
                          >> composed the words of Jesus (since he is translating them [!] as you
                          >> suggest) as a 2-4 beath rhyme (!) exactly to serve the listening audience
                          >> and to help them remember the content of the gospel easier by
                          >> mnemotechnic
                          >> features.
                          >
                          > That is the most unlikely possibility, IMO, since Mark wrote his Gospel in
                          > his "second language Greek" where the Aramaic mnemonic apparati would be
                          > lost just as was idiom in many cases. They do not appear until the Aramaic
                          > is reconstructed. In the cry from the cross, first
                          > penned...er...reeded..by
                          > Mark from his notebook, he chose to preserve it as it was spoken and there
                          > is no better indication of Judean Aramaic.
                          >
                          > The "cry from the cross" bothers some people and there are apologists from
                          > Syriac churches (Jesus did not speak Syriac) who manufacture all forms of
                          > creative "translations." The cry from the cross is clear Aramaic and
                          > definitively "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"
                          >
                          > I think Mark was correct in his transliteration since the Western Aramaic
                          > (Judean) would have a qamets qatan instead of qamets gadhol for the lamed
                          > in
                          > alaha. Easterm (Syriac) would be alef (pattah)-lamed (qamets gadhol)-heh
                          > (hiriq qatan)-yod, hence aLAhy. Western (Judean) would be alef-lamed
                          > (qamets qatan)-heh (hiriq qatan)-yod, hence aLOhy, hence Mark's
                          > transliteration as ELWI Ελωι ελωι λαμμᾶ σαβαχθανι . Judean Aramaic
                          > aLOhy, aLOhy LAma shevawqTAny?
                          >
                          > "God of me, God of me, why have forsaken you me?"
                          >
                          > Some say there a problem with the absence of a smooth breathing for the
                          > transliterated ELWI? I don't think so. There was no such thing in the
                          > first century and the original Markan autograph would have had an uncial
                          > ELWI.
                          >
                          > In Aramaic speaking Palestine of the 1st century, Jesus would not have
                          > heard
                          > Psalm 22 in Hebrew. He would have heard it from the synagogue lector
                          > reading
                          > the Aramaic Targum of Psalm 22.
                          > אלהי אלהי מטול מה שׁבקתני
                          >
                          > Just one of hundreds of indicators that I have noticed is the rendering of
                          > the name of Jesus' buddy אֶלְעָזָר in Hebrew el'azar. It has come down to
                          > us from Jesus' own Galilean pronunciation as l'azar with the dropped aleph
                          > and transliterated into Greek as Λάζαρος and in the Vulgate as Lazarus.
                          >
                          > If Jeremias, Black, Fitzmyer and Casey are not compelling on this issue,
                          > then no one can be, certainly not a mere amateur such as myself.
                          >
                          > Is it cold in DC?
                          >
                          > Regards,
                          >
                          > Jack
                          >
                          > Jack Kilmon
                          > San Antonio, TX
                          >
                          >>
                          >> Dr. Hellen Mardaga
                          >> Assistant Professor of New Testament
                          >> The Catholic University of America
                          >> Caldwel Hall 419
                          >> 620 Michigan Av.
                          >> 20064 Washington DC
                          >> 202-319-6885
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > ------------------------------------
                          >
                          > 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
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                        • Matthew Estrada
                          Jack, You speak in generalities, but the gospel stories are specific. And that, I am afraid, you cannot claim with certainty (the mayonaise farm), what the
                          Message 12 of 16 , Jan 22, 2011
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Jack,

                            You speak in generalities, but the gospel stories are specific. And that, I am
                            afraid, you cannot claim with certainty (the mayonaise farm), what the REAL
                            Jesus DID. Did he indeed turn water into wine?

                            Matt Estrada
                            peasant




                            ________________________________
                            From: Jack Kilmon <jkilmon@...>
                            To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                            Sent: Sat, January 22, 2011 9:12:45 PM
                            Subject: Re: [John_Lit] getting on with the business of John

                             
                            Hi Hellen:

                            Since it is a given that the "real Jesus" is lost to history, the
                            "historical Jesus" is as close as we are going to get. We get as close as
                            we can through both a critical analysis of the texts and steeped in the
                            social, cultural, religious and linguistic anthropology of the late second
                            temple period. As a result and per exemplum, I do not know if the REAL
                            Jesus wore sandals. I do know that they were the standard footwear and some
                            have been recovered at Qumran and Wadi Muraba'at and the texts tell me he
                            did a lot of walking. As a result, I think I am very safe in stating,
                            almost apodictically, Jesus wore sandals.
                            I don't know what the REAL Jesus wore in addition to the sandals but
                            standard dress was an inner tunic, a tunic coat (Kitonet), a girdle or belt
                            of leather, a mantle that was like a robe, similar to a Gilabiyah and a
                            headdress not unlike a prayer shawl or tallit. Examples of these pieces of
                            clothing have been found, some fairly well preserved and I would bet the
                            mayonnaise farm that is what the historical and the real Jesus wore, albeit
                            I cannot tell you about colors. I can tell from the archaeological evidence
                            what kind of cups he drank from and ate from and what kind of wine he drank
                            and food he ate. We also have a very good idea of infrastructure and the
                            types of houses he lived in as well as social and family praxis. I can say
                            with strong conviction that he spoke Aramaic and even know enough of the
                            idiom to know he didn't say some of the things we think he said.

                            I think he really did, honestly and for true, actually heal a lot of people,
                            again with good reason rather than "faith."

                            All I am saying is that if you look at the whole elephant from all of the
                            indicators at out disposal, there is much we can say about the only REAL
                            Jesus we will ever know, the historical Jesus.

                            shlama

                            Jack

                            Jack Kilmon
                            San Antonio, TX

                            --------------------------------------------------
                            From: "Mardaga, Hellen" <MARDAGA@...>
                            Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 7:30 AM
                            To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                            Subject: RE: [John_Lit] getting on with the business of John

                            > Dear Jack,
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > yes it is very cold in DC.....I really hate the winter.....
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > One should avoid statements or "certainties" with regard to claims about
                            > the "historical" Jesus. I have discovered that all to often people say
                            > things about the historical jesus (what he did, how he spoke, where he
                            > went to etc...)that sound as if they were personally present at the
                            > scenery (no ofense). There really is no straightforward evidence with
                            > regard to the literacy of Jesus, only possibilities or probabilities.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > I also think - but I might be wrong- that you overlook the very important
                            > distinction between the real Jesus (whom we do not know and never will)
                            > and the historical Jesus (the Jesus we recover through scientific
                            > research).
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Hellen

                            >
                            >
                            > ________________________________
                            > From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                            > [johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com] on behalf of Jack Kilmon
                            > [jkilmon@...]
                            > Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 11:36 PM
                            > To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                            > Subject: Re: [John_Lit] getting on with the business of John
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > --------------------------------------------------
                            > From: "Mardaga, Hellen" <MARDAGA@...<mailto:MARDAGA%40cua.edu>>
                            > Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 12:39 PM
                            > To:
                            ><johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com<mailto:johannine_literature%40yahoogroups.com>>
                            >>
                            > Subject: RE: [John_Lit] getting on with the business of John
                            >
                            >> Dear Mark, Jack, etc….
                            >>
                            >> I am surprised to read the following statement:
                            >> Peter would say to a group of people in Lydda,
                            >>> Pontus,
                            >>> Cappadocia, etc... איכא דאן נהוא פגרא תמן נתכנשׁון נשׁרא׃" Yeshua
                            >>> amar......'aika den d'hawa pagra, thamman yitkanuon nishrea'" Now I am
                            >>> confident this indeed goes to the lips of the HISTORICAL Jesus because
                            >>> you
                            >>> will notice it is a 2-4 beat rhyme. Vintage Jesus-speak. Then Peter, I
                            >>> am sure, paused while Mark translated the Aramaic to Greek, " ὅπου γὰρ
                            >>> ἐὰν
                            >>> ᾖ τὸ πτῶμα ἐκεῖ συναχθήσονται οἱ ἀετοί "
                            >>> and the crowd nodded to each other as they heard "wherever their is a
                            >>> carcass, there also will gather the vultures."
                            >>
                            >> The 2-4 beat rhyme you are referring to (and I think you have the book
                            >> “The Poetry of Our Lord” in mind) is a common stylistic feature. I do not
                            >> see how you can simply “deduct” from this phenomenon that “the historical
                            >> Jesus” said such a thing. I think you are overlooking some important
                            >> aspects of rhetoric:
                            >>
                            >> - a feature may be common in a book – several books (e.g.
                            >> parallelism is found both in John and in the Synoptics) but is that
                            >> necessary a proof that because a word of Jesus is structured as a
                            >> parallelism he literally “spoke” that way?
                            >
                            > Hi Hellen:
                            >
                            > Sorry it took me a while. Sometimes recreational computer time comes
                            > infrequently.
                            >
                            > Concentrating on Aramaic reconstructions of first layer sayings and
                            > aphorisms of Jesus I find the typical orality devices, of course.
                            > Assonance,
                            > paronomasia, alliteration rhyme and meter that indicate to me an
                            > individual
                            > in a manner that would not occur if the language of delivery would have
                            > been
                            > anything other than Aramaic.
                            >
                            >> - We do not even clearly know which language Jesus spoke.
                            >
                            > Judean Aramaic. To me it is not even debatable anymore. There is a ton of
                            > evidence in the only real footprints of the historical Jesus we have, his
                            > words.
                            >
                            > Translational Greek is recognizable by the lexical and syntactic
                            > interference and in this case that interference is Aramaic.
                            >
                            >> He could have spoken some Greek, maybe Aramaic, read Hebrew….but that is
                            >> it. We can only “assume” what he might have said
                            >
                            > I am sure he had "get by Greek" having grown up in Galilee surrounded by
                            > Hellenism and trade. He spoke Aramaic. Those are the only transliterated
                            > words placed on his lips including the cry from the cross. Whether or not
                            > he was competent in Hebrew is hard to assess. The reading of the Isaiah
                            > scroll at the synagogue at Luke 4:21 is special "L" material from the last
                            > decade of the 1st century and almost certainly not genuine to Jesus.
                            > Otherwise we have no indications he knew, read or spoke Hebrew and we do
                            > have indications he was familiar with Targums.
                            >
                            > Jesus grew up in Palestine (not even assuming the Galilee) in the first
                            > third of the 1st century. As such, he grew up in an Aramaic speaking
                            > country
                            > so it is more than an assumption to me that he spoke Aramaic as his mother
                            > tongue.
                            >
                            > Even our Gospel of John has an Aramaic sub-structure, in fact the
                            > strongest
                            > of the Gospels.
                            >
                            >> - What about the whole notion of orality? Oral tradition?
                            >> Parallelism, rhyme, repetition, amplification are not only used in
                            >> written
                            >> texts but they also serve a listening audience. It could be that Mark
                            >> composed the words of Jesus (since he is translating them [!] as you
                            >> suggest) as a 2-4 beath rhyme (!) exactly to serve the listening audience
                            >> and to help them remember the content of the gospel easier by
                            >> mnemotechnic
                            >> features.
                            >
                            > That is the most unlikely possibility, IMO, since Mark wrote his Gospel in
                            > his "second language Greek" where the Aramaic mnemonic apparati would be
                            > lost just as was idiom in many cases. They do not appear until the Aramaic
                            > is reconstructed. In the cry from the cross, first
                            > penned...er...reeded..by
                            > Mark from his notebook, he chose to preserve it as it was spoken and there
                            > is no better indication of Judean Aramaic.
                            >
                            > The "cry from the cross" bothers some people and there are apologists from
                            > Syriac churches (Jesus did not speak Syriac) who manufacture all forms of
                            > creative "translations." The cry from the cross is clear Aramaic and
                            > definitively "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"
                            >
                            > I think Mark was correct in his transliteration since the Western Aramaic
                            > (Judean) would have a qamets qatan instead of qamets gadhol for the lamed
                            > in
                            > alaha. Easterm (Syriac) would be alef (pattah)-lamed (qamets gadhol)-heh
                            > (hiriq qatan)-yod, hence aLAhy. Western (Judean) would be alef-lamed
                            > (qamets qatan)-heh (hiriq qatan)-yod, hence aLOhy, hence Mark's
                            > transliteration as ELWI Ελωι ελωι λαμμᾶ σαβαχθανι . Judean Aramaic
                            > aLOhy, aLOhy LAma shevawqTAny?
                            >
                            > "God of me, God of me, why have forsaken you me?"
                            >
                            > Some say there a problem with the absence of a smooth breathing for the
                            > transliterated ELWI? I don't think so. There was no such thing in the
                            > first century and the original Markan autograph would have had an uncial
                            > ELWI.
                            >
                            > In Aramaic speaking Palestine of the 1st century, Jesus would not have
                            > heard
                            > Psalm 22 in Hebrew. He would have heard it from the synagogue lector
                            > reading
                            > the Aramaic Targum of Psalm 22.
                            > אלהי אלהי מטול מה שׁבקתני
                            >
                            > Just one of hundreds of indicators that I have noticed is the rendering of
                            > the name of Jesus' buddy אֶלְעָזָר in Hebrew el'azar. It has come down to
                            > us from Jesus' own Galilean pronunciation as l'azar with the dropped aleph
                            > and transliterated into Greek as Λάζαρος and in the Vulgate as Lazarus.
                            >
                            > If Jeremias, Black, Fitzmyer and Casey are not compelling on this issue,
                            > then no one can be, certainly not a mere amateur such as myself.
                            >
                            > Is it cold in DC?
                            >
                            > Regards,
                            >
                            > Jack
                            >
                            > Jack Kilmon
                            > San Antonio, TX
                            >
                            >>
                            >> Dr. Hellen Mardaga
                            >> Assistant Professor of New Testament
                            >> The Catholic University of America
                            >> Caldwel Hall 419
                            >> 620 Michigan Av.
                            >> 20064 Washington DC
                            >> 202-319-6885
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > ------------------------------------
                            >
                            > 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]
                          • Jack Kilmon
                            No, Matt, I do not believe he turned water into wine. The miracle stories and supernatural events are an entirely different animal in HJ studies, primarily
                            Message 13 of 16 , Jan 23, 2011
                            • 0 Attachment
                              No, Matt, I do not believe he turned water into wine. The miracle stories
                              and supernatural events are an entirely different animal in HJ studies,
                              primarily ignored in the various "quests."
                              In the cyclic "quests" for the historical Jesus, in the past, much focus has
                              been placed on the sayings of Jesus. Other important aspects in the "quest"
                              have good foundations in the cultural anthropology of
                              1st century Palestine. These elements are woefully absent in much debate
                              concerning the historical Jesus. The miracle stories, however, were ignored
                              because of the historical difficulty.

                              In the 1st century Middle East any disease, disability or infirmity was
                              considered divine punishment for some transgression against God or for sin.
                              This is a silly concept today (albeit still promulgated by primitive
                              evangelical types like Pat Robertson regarding the AIDS epidemic). Back to
                              the 1st century. Hysterical pathologies resulting from guilt feelings over
                              perceived transgressions would have been rampant in that society where
                              literally thousands of "sinners" expected imminent retribution from God.
                              These hysterically based infirmities, called Conversion Disorders, are
                              often seen today by psychiatrists and most commonly are some form of
                              paralysis (healed by Jesus at Mark 3:1) 1, 2, 3, blindness (Mark 8:22;
                              10:49) 4, skin eruptions, all of which were called "Leprosy" in the 1st
                              century (healed Mark 1:40) and deafness (healed Mark 7:32) 5. Given a
                              healer whom the victim believed had the authority from God to heal the sin,
                              many of these infirmities would have been instantly healed (6) and failures
                              chalked up to "lack of faith." The reputation of Jesus as a healer spread
                              like wildfire.

                              There were other healers sashaying from place to place but the higher rate
                              of success for Jesus may have been the perception by the am ha'aretz that he
                              was the bar nasha and had God's authority to forgive sin which the gospels
                              relate was a sharp thorn in the butts of the temple crowd who could only
                              play the "healing on a sabbath" ruse to trip him up.

                              The point is that some of the "miracles" actually happened.

                              1.Heruti RJ, Reznik J, Adunski A, et al. Conversion motor paralysis
                              disorder: analysis of 34 consecutive referrals. Spinal Cord 2002;40:335-40.
                              2.Heruti RJ, Levy A, Adunski A, et al. Conversion motor paralysis disorder:
                              overview and rehabilitation model. Spinal Cord 2002;40:327-34.
                              3.Letonoff EJ, Williams TR, Sidhu KS. Hysterical paralysis: a report of
                              three cases and a review of the literature. Spine 2002;27:441-5.
                              4.Freud, Sigmund. (1910i). The psycho-analytic view of psychogenic
                              disturbance of vision. SE, 11: 209-218.
                              5.Loren Pankratza, etal A forced-choice technique to evaluate deafness in
                              the hysterical or malingering patient Journal of Consulting and Clinical
                              Psychology
                              Volume 43, Issue 3, June 1975, Pages 421-422
                              6. Ruddy R, House A. Psychosocial interventions for conversion disorder.
                              Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005, Issue 4.

                              Jack

                              Jack Kilmon
                              San Antonio, TX


                              --------------------------------------------------
                              From: "Matthew Estrada" <matt_estrada@...>
                              Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 8:40 PM
                              To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                              Subject: Re: [John_Lit] getting on with the business of John

                              > Jack,
                              >
                              > You speak in generalities, but the gospel stories are specific. And that,
                              > I am
                              > afraid, you cannot claim with certainty (the mayonaise farm), what the
                              > REAL
                              > Jesus DID. Did he indeed turn water into wine?
                              >
                              > Matt Estrada
                              > peasant
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > ________________________________
                              > From: Jack Kilmon <jkilmon@...>
                              > To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                              > Sent: Sat, January 22, 2011 9:12:45 PM
                              > Subject: Re: [John_Lit] getting on with the business of John
                              >
                              >
                              > Hi Hellen:
                              >
                              > Since it is a given that the "real Jesus" is lost to history, the
                              > "historical Jesus" is as close as we are going to get. We get as close as
                              > we can through both a critical analysis of the texts and steeped in the
                              > social, cultural, religious and linguistic anthropology of the late second
                              > temple period. As a result and per exemplum, I do not know if the REAL
                              > Jesus wore sandals. I do know that they were the standard footwear and
                              > some
                              > have been recovered at Qumran and Wadi Muraba'at and the texts tell me he
                              > did a lot of walking. As a result, I think I am very safe in stating,
                              > almost apodictically, Jesus wore sandals.
                              > I don't know what the REAL Jesus wore in addition to the sandals but
                              > standard dress was an inner tunic, a tunic coat (Kitonet), a girdle or
                              > belt
                              > of leather, a mantle that was like a robe, similar to a Gilabiyah and a
                              > headdress not unlike a prayer shawl or tallit. Examples of these pieces of
                              > clothing have been found, some fairly well preserved and I would bet the
                              > mayonnaise farm that is what the historical and the real Jesus wore,
                              > albeit
                              > I cannot tell you about colors. I can tell from the archaeological
                              > evidence
                              > what kind of cups he drank from and ate from and what kind of wine he
                              > drank
                              > and food he ate. We also have a very good idea of infrastructure and the
                              > types of houses he lived in as well as social and family praxis. I can say
                              > with strong conviction that he spoke Aramaic and even know enough of the
                              > idiom to know he didn't say some of the things we think he said.
                              >
                              > I think he really did, honestly and for true, actually heal a lot of
                              > people,
                              > again with good reason rather than "faith."
                              >
                              > All I am saying is that if you look at the whole elephant from all of the
                              > indicators at out disposal, there is much we can say about the only REAL
                              > Jesus we will ever know, the historical Jesus.
                              >
                              > shlama
                              >
                              > Jack
                              >
                              > Jack Kilmon
                              > San Antonio, TX
                              >
                              > --------------------------------------------------
                              > From: "Mardaga, Hellen" <MARDAGA@...>
                              > Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 7:30 AM
                              > To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                              > Subject: RE: [John_Lit] getting on with the business of John
                              >
                              >> Dear Jack,
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >> yes it is very cold in DC.....I really hate the winter.....
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >> One should avoid statements or "certainties" with regard to claims about
                              >> the "historical" Jesus. I have discovered that all to often people say
                              >> things about the historical jesus (what he did, how he spoke, where he
                              >> went to etc...)that sound as if they were personally present at the
                              >> scenery (no ofense). There really is no straightforward evidence with
                              >> regard to the literacy of Jesus, only possibilities or probabilities.
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >> I also think - but I might be wrong- that you overlook the very important
                              >> distinction between the real Jesus (whom we do not know and never will)
                              >> and the historical Jesus (the Jesus we recover through scientific
                              >> research).
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >> Hellen
                              >
                              >>
                              >>
                              >> ________________________________
                              >> From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                              >> [johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com] on behalf of Jack Kilmon
                              >> [jkilmon@...]
                              >> Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 11:36 PM
                              >> To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                              >> Subject: Re: [John_Lit] getting on with the business of John
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >> --------------------------------------------------
                              >> From: "Mardaga, Hellen" <MARDAGA@...<mailto:MARDAGA%40cua.edu>>
                              >> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 12:39 PM
                              >> To:
                              >><johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com<mailto:johannine_literature%40yahoogroups.com>>
                              >>>
                              >> Subject: RE: [John_Lit] getting on with the business of John
                              >>
                              >>> Dear Mark, Jack, etc….
                              >>>
                              >>> I am surprised to read the following statement:
                              >>> Peter would say to a group of people in Lydda,
                              >>>> Pontus,
                              >>>> Cappadocia, etc... איכא דאן נהוא פגרא תמן נתכנשׁון נשׁרא׃" Yeshua
                              >>>> amar......'aika den d'hawa pagra, thamman yitkanuon nishrea'" Now I am
                              >>>> confident this indeed goes to the lips of the HISTORICAL Jesus because
                              >>>> you
                              >>>> will notice it is a 2-4 beat rhyme. Vintage Jesus-speak. Then Peter, I
                              >>>> am sure, paused while Mark translated the Aramaic to Greek, " ὅπου γὰρ
                              >>>> ἐὰν
                              >>>> ᾖ τὸ πτῶμα ἐκεῖ συναχθήσονται οἱ ἀετοί "
                              >>>> and the crowd nodded to each other as they heard "wherever their is a
                              >>>> carcass, there also will gather the vultures."
                              >>>
                              >>> The 2-4 beat rhyme you are referring to (and I think you have the book
                              >>> “The Poetry of Our Lord” in mind) is a common stylistic feature. I do
                              >>> not
                              >>> see how you can simply “deduct” from this phenomenon that “the
                              >>> historical
                              >>> Jesus” said such a thing. I think you are overlooking some important
                              >>> aspects of rhetoric:
                              >>>
                              >>> - a feature may be common in a book – several books (e.g.
                              >>> parallelism is found both in John and in the Synoptics) but is that
                              >>> necessary a proof that because a word of Jesus is structured as a
                              >>> parallelism he literally “spoke” that way?
                              >>
                              >> Hi Hellen:
                              >>
                              >> Sorry it took me a while. Sometimes recreational computer time comes
                              >> infrequently.
                              >>
                              >> Concentrating on Aramaic reconstructions of first layer sayings and
                              >> aphorisms of Jesus I find the typical orality devices, of course.
                              >> Assonance,
                              >> paronomasia, alliteration rhyme and meter that indicate to me an
                              >> individual
                              >> in a manner that would not occur if the language of delivery would have
                              >> been
                              >> anything other than Aramaic.
                              >>
                              >>> - We do not even clearly know which language Jesus spoke.
                              >>
                              >> Judean Aramaic. To me it is not even debatable anymore. There is a ton of
                              >> evidence in the only real footprints of the historical Jesus we have, his
                              >> words.
                              >>
                              >> Translational Greek is recognizable by the lexical and syntactic
                              >> interference and in this case that interference is Aramaic.
                              >>
                              >>> He could have spoken some Greek, maybe Aramaic, read Hebrew….but that is
                              >>> it. We can only “assume” what he might have said
                              >>
                              >> I am sure he had "get by Greek" having grown up in Galilee surrounded by
                              >> Hellenism and trade. He spoke Aramaic. Those are the only transliterated
                              >> words placed on his lips including the cry from the cross. Whether or not
                              >> he was competent in Hebrew is hard to assess. The reading of the Isaiah
                              >> scroll at the synagogue at Luke 4:21 is special "L" material from the
                              >> last
                              >> decade of the 1st century and almost certainly not genuine to Jesus.
                              >> Otherwise we have no indications he knew, read or spoke Hebrew and we do
                              >> have indications he was familiar with Targums.
                              >>
                              >> Jesus grew up in Palestine (not even assuming the Galilee) in the first
                              >> third of the 1st century. As such, he grew up in an Aramaic speaking
                              >> country
                              >> so it is more than an assumption to me that he spoke Aramaic as his
                              >> mother
                              >> tongue.
                              >>
                              >> Even our Gospel of John has an Aramaic sub-structure, in fact the
                              >> strongest
                              >> of the Gospels.
                              >>
                              >>> - What about the whole notion of orality? Oral tradition?
                              >>> Parallelism, rhyme, repetition, amplification are not only used in
                              >>> written
                              >>> texts but they also serve a listening audience. It could be that Mark
                              >>> composed the words of Jesus (since he is translating them [!] as you
                              >>> suggest) as a 2-4 beath rhyme (!) exactly to serve the listening
                              >>> audience
                              >>> and to help them remember the content of the gospel easier by
                              >>> mnemotechnic
                              >>> features.
                              >>
                              >> That is the most unlikely possibility, IMO, since Mark wrote his Gospel
                              >> in
                              >> his "second language Greek" where the Aramaic mnemonic apparati would be
                              >> lost just as was idiom in many cases. They do not appear until the
                              >> Aramaic
                              >> is reconstructed. In the cry from the cross, first
                              >> penned...er...reeded..by
                              >> Mark from his notebook, he chose to preserve it as it was spoken and
                              >> there
                              >> is no better indication of Judean Aramaic.
                              >>
                              >> The "cry from the cross" bothers some people and there are apologists
                              >> from
                              >> Syriac churches (Jesus did not speak Syriac) who manufacture all forms of
                              >> creative "translations." The cry from the cross is clear Aramaic and
                              >> definitively "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"
                              >>
                              >> I think Mark was correct in his transliteration since the Western Aramaic
                              >> (Judean) would have a qamets qatan instead of qamets gadhol for the lamed
                              >> in
                              >> alaha. Easterm (Syriac) would be alef (pattah)-lamed (qamets gadhol)-heh
                              >> (hiriq qatan)-yod, hence aLAhy. Western (Judean) would be alef-lamed
                              >> (qamets qatan)-heh (hiriq qatan)-yod, hence aLOhy, hence Mark's
                              >> transliteration as ELWI Ελωι ελωι λαμμᾶ σαβαχθανι . Judean Aramaic
                              >> aLOhy, aLOhy LAma shevawqTAny?
                              >>
                              >> "God of me, God of me, why have forsaken you me?"
                              >>
                              >> Some say there a problem with the absence of a smooth breathing for the
                              >> transliterated ELWI? I don't think so. There was no such thing in the
                              >> first century and the original Markan autograph would have had an uncial
                              >> ELWI.
                              >>
                              >> In Aramaic speaking Palestine of the 1st century, Jesus would not have
                              >> heard
                              >> Psalm 22 in Hebrew. He would have heard it from the synagogue lector
                              >> reading
                              >> the Aramaic Targum of Psalm 22.
                              >> אלהי אלהי מטול מה שׁבקתני
                              >>
                              >> Just one of hundreds of indicators that I have noticed is the rendering
                              >> of
                              >> the name of Jesus' buddy אֶלְעָזָר in Hebrew el'azar. It has come down to
                              >> us from Jesus' own Galilean pronunciation as l'azar with the dropped
                              >> aleph
                              >> and transliterated into Greek as Λάζαρος and in the Vulgate as Lazarus.
                              >>
                              >> If Jeremias, Black, Fitzmyer and Casey are not compelling on this issue,
                              >> then no one can be, certainly not a mere amateur such as myself.
                              >>
                              >> Is it cold in DC?
                              >>
                              >> Regards,
                              >>
                              >> Jack
                              >>
                              >> Jack Kilmon
                              >> San Antonio, TX
                              >>
                              >>>
                              >>> Dr. Hellen Mardaga
                              >>> Assistant Professor of New Testament
                              >>> The Catholic University of America
                              >>> Caldwel Hall 419
                              >>> 620 Michigan Av.
                              >>> 20064 Washington DC
                              >>> 202-319-6885
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >>
                              >> ------------------------------------
                              >>
                              >> 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]
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > ------------------------------------
                              >
                              > 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
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                            • Matthew Estrada
                              Thanks, Jack, for your well-thought out response. Matt ________________________________ From: Jack Kilmon To:
                              Message 14 of 16 , Jan 23, 2011
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Thanks, Jack, for your well-thought out response.

                                Matt



                                ________________________________
                                From: Jack Kilmon <jkilmon@...>
                                To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                                Sent: Sun, January 23, 2011 9:58:03 AM
                                Subject: Re: [John_Lit] getting on with the business of John

                                 
                                No, Matt, I do not believe he turned water into wine. The miracle stories
                                and supernatural events are an entirely different animal in HJ studies,
                                primarily ignored in the various "quests."
                                In the cyclic "quests" for the historical Jesus, in the past, much focus has
                                been placed on the sayings of Jesus. Other important aspects in the "quest"
                                have good foundations in the cultural anthropology of
                                1st century Palestine. These elements are woefully absent in much debate
                                concerning the historical Jesus. The miracle stories, however, were ignored
                                because of the historical difficulty.

                                In the 1st century Middle East any disease, disability or infirmity was
                                considered divine punishment for some transgression against God or for sin.
                                This is a silly concept today (albeit still promulgated by primitive
                                evangelical types like Pat Robertson regarding the AIDS epidemic). Back to
                                the 1st century. Hysterical pathologies resulting from guilt feelings over
                                perceived transgressions would have been rampant in that society where
                                literally thousands of "sinners" expected imminent retribution from God.
                                These hysterically based infirmities, called Conversion Disorders, are
                                often seen today by psychiatrists and most commonly are some form of
                                paralysis (healed by Jesus at Mark 3:1) 1, 2, 3, blindness (Mark 8:22;
                                10:49) 4, skin eruptions, all of which were called "Leprosy" in the 1st
                                century (healed Mark 1:40) and deafness (healed Mark 7:32) 5. Given a
                                healer whom the victim believed had the authority from God to heal the sin,
                                many of these infirmities would have been instantly healed (6) and failures
                                chalked up to "lack of faith." The reputation of Jesus as a healer spread
                                like wildfire.

                                There were other healers sashaying from place to place but the higher rate
                                of success for Jesus may have been the perception by the am ha'aretz that he
                                was the bar nasha and had God's authority to forgive sin which the gospels
                                relate was a sharp thorn in the butts of the temple crowd who could only
                                play the "healing on a sabbath" ruse to trip him up.

                                The point is that some of the "miracles" actually happened.

                                1.Heruti RJ, Reznik J, Adunski A, et al. Conversion motor paralysis
                                disorder: analysis of 34 consecutive referrals. Spinal Cord 2002;40:335-40.
                                2.Heruti RJ, Levy A, Adunski A, et al. Conversion motor paralysis disorder:
                                overview and rehabilitation model. Spinal Cord 2002;40:327-34.
                                3.Letonoff EJ, Williams TR, Sidhu KS. Hysterical paralysis: a report of
                                three cases and a review of the literature. Spine 2002;27:441-5.
                                4.Freud, Sigmund. (1910i). The psycho-analytic view of psychogenic
                                disturbance of vision. SE, 11: 209-218.
                                5.Loren Pankratza, etal A forced-choice technique to evaluate deafness in
                                the hysterical or malingering patient Journal of Consulting and Clinical
                                Psychology
                                Volume 43, Issue 3, June 1975, Pages 421-422
                                6. Ruddy R, House A. Psychosocial interventions for conversion disorder.
                                Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005, Issue 4.

                                Jack

                                Jack Kilmon
                                San Antonio, TX

                                --------------------------------------------------
                                From: "Matthew Estrada" <matt_estrada@...>
                                Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 8:40 PM
                                To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                                Subject: Re: [John_Lit] getting on with the business of John

                                > Jack,
                                >
                                > You speak in generalities, but the gospel stories are specific. And that,
                                > I am
                                > afraid, you cannot claim with certainty (the mayonaise farm), what the
                                > REAL
                                > Jesus DID. Did he indeed turn water into wine?
                                >
                                > Matt Estrada
                                > peasant
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > ________________________________
                                > From: Jack Kilmon <jkilmon@...>
                                > To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                                > Sent: Sat, January 22, 2011 9:12:45 PM
                                > Subject: Re: [John_Lit] getting on with the business of John
                                >
                                >
                                > Hi Hellen:
                                >
                                > Since it is a given that the "real Jesus" is lost to history, the
                                > "historical Jesus" is as close as we are going to get. We get as close as
                                > we can through both a critical analysis of the texts and steeped in the
                                > social, cultural, religious and linguistic anthropology of the late second
                                > temple period. As a result and per exemplum, I do not know if the REAL
                                > Jesus wore sandals. I do know that they were the standard footwear and
                                > some
                                > have been recovered at Qumran and Wadi Muraba'at and the texts tell me he
                                > did a lot of walking. As a result, I think I am very safe in stating,
                                > almost apodictically, Jesus wore sandals.
                                > I don't know what the REAL Jesus wore in addition to the sandals but
                                > standard dress was an inner tunic, a tunic coat (Kitonet), a girdle or
                                > belt
                                > of leather, a mantle that was like a robe, similar to a Gilabiyah and a
                                > headdress not unlike a prayer shawl or tallit. Examples of these pieces of
                                > clothing have been found, some fairly well preserved and I would bet the
                                > mayonnaise farm that is what the historical and the real Jesus wore,
                                > albeit
                                > I cannot tell you about colors. I can tell from the archaeological
                                > evidence
                                > what kind of cups he drank from and ate from and what kind of wine he
                                > drank
                                > and food he ate. We also have a very good idea of infrastructure and the
                                > types of houses he lived in as well as social and family praxis. I can say
                                > with strong conviction that he spoke Aramaic and even know enough of the
                                > idiom to know he didn't say some of the things we think he said.
                                >
                                > I think he really did, honestly and for true, actually heal a lot of
                                > people,
                                > again with good reason rather than "faith."
                                >
                                > All I am saying is that if you look at the whole elephant from all of the
                                > indicators at out disposal, there is much we can say about the only REAL
                                > Jesus we will ever know, the historical Jesus.
                                >
                                > shlama
                                >
                                > Jack
                                >
                                > Jack Kilmon
                                > San Antonio, TX
                                >
                                > --------------------------------------------------
                                > From: "Mardaga, Hellen" <MARDAGA@...>
                                > Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 7:30 AM
                                > To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                                > Subject: RE: [John_Lit] getting on with the business of John
                                >
                                >> Dear Jack,
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >> yes it is very cold in DC.....I really hate the winter.....
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >> One should avoid statements or "certainties" with regard to claims about
                                >> the "historical" Jesus. I have discovered that all to often people say
                                >> things about the historical jesus (what he did, how he spoke, where he
                                >> went to etc...)that sound as if they were personally present at the
                                >> scenery (no ofense). There really is no straightforward evidence with
                                >> regard to the literacy of Jesus, only possibilities or probabilities.
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >> I also think - but I might be wrong- that you overlook the very important
                                >> distinction between the real Jesus (whom we do not know and never will)
                                >> and the historical Jesus (the Jesus we recover through scientific
                                >> research).
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >> Hellen
                                >
                                >>
                                >>
                                >> ________________________________
                                >> From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                                >> [johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com] on behalf of Jack Kilmon
                                >> [jkilmon@...]
                                >> Sent: Friday, January 21, 2011 11:36 PM
                                >> To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                                >> Subject: Re: [John_Lit] getting on with the business of John
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >> --------------------------------------------------
                                >> From: "Mardaga, Hellen" <MARDAGA@...<mailto:MARDAGA%40cua.edu>>
                                >> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 12:39 PM
                                >> To:
                                >><johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com<mailto:johannine_literature%40yahoogroups.com>>
                                >>
                                >>>
                                >> Subject: RE: [John_Lit] getting on with the business of John
                                >>
                                >>> Dear Mark, Jack, etc….
                                >>>
                                >>> I am surprised to read the following statement:
                                >>> Peter would say to a group of people in Lydda,
                                >>>> Pontus,
                                >>>> Cappadocia, etc... איכא דאן נהוא פגרא תמן נתכנשׁון נשׁרא׃" Yeshua
                                >>>> amar......'aika den d'hawa pagra, thamman yitkanuon nishrea'" Now I am
                                >>>> confident this indeed goes to the lips of the HISTORICAL Jesus because
                                >>>> you
                                >>>> will notice it is a 2-4 beat rhyme. Vintage Jesus-speak. Then Peter, I
                                >>>> am sure, paused while Mark translated the Aramaic to Greek, " ὅπου γὰρ
                                >>>> ἐὰν
                                >>>> ᾖ τὸ πτῶμα ἐκεῖ συναχθήσονται οἱ ἀετοί "
                                >>>> and the crowd nodded to each other as they heard "wherever their is a
                                >>>> carcass, there also will gather the vultures."
                                >>>
                                >>> The 2-4 beat rhyme you are referring to (and I think you have the book
                                >>> “The Poetry of Our Lord” in mind) is a common stylistic feature. I do
                                >>> not
                                >>> see how you can simply “deduct” from this phenomenon that “the
                                >>> historical
                                >>> Jesus” said such a thing. I think you are overlooking some important
                                >>> aspects of rhetoric:
                                >>>
                                >>> - a feature may be common in a book – several books (e.g.
                                >>> parallelism is found both in John and in the Synoptics) but is that
                                >>> necessary a proof that because a word of Jesus is structured as a
                                >>> parallelism he literally “spoke” that way?
                                >>
                                >> Hi Hellen:
                                >>
                                >> Sorry it took me a while. Sometimes recreational computer time comes
                                >> infrequently.
                                >>
                                >> Concentrating on Aramaic reconstructions of first layer sayings and
                                >> aphorisms of Jesus I find the typical orality devices, of course.
                                >> Assonance,
                                >> paronomasia, alliteration rhyme and meter that indicate to me an
                                >> individual
                                >> in a manner that would not occur if the language of delivery would have
                                >> been
                                >> anything other than Aramaic.
                                >>
                                >>> - We do not even clearly know which language Jesus spoke.
                                >>
                                >> Judean Aramaic. To me it is not even debatable anymore. There is a ton of
                                >> evidence in the only real footprints of the historical Jesus we have, his
                                >> words.
                                >>
                                >> Translational Greek is recognizable by the lexical and syntactic
                                >> interference and in this case that interference is Aramaic.
                                >>
                                >>> He could have spoken some Greek, maybe Aramaic, read Hebrew….but that is
                                >>> it. We can only “assume” what he might have said
                                >>
                                >> I am sure he had "get by Greek" having grown up in Galilee surrounded by
                                >> Hellenism and trade. He spoke Aramaic. Those are the only transliterated
                                >> words placed on his lips including the cry from the cross. Whether or not
                                >> he was competent in Hebrew is hard to assess. The reading of the Isaiah
                                >> scroll at the synagogue at Luke 4:21 is special "L" material from the
                                >> last
                                >> decade of the 1st century and almost certainly not genuine to Jesus.
                                >> Otherwise we have no indications he knew, read or spoke Hebrew and we do
                                >> have indications he was familiar with Targums.
                                >>
                                >> Jesus grew up in Palestine (not even assuming the Galilee) in the first
                                >> third of the 1st century. As such, he grew up in an Aramaic speaking
                                >> country
                                >> so it is more than an assumption to me that he spoke Aramaic as his
                                >> mother
                                >> tongue.
                                >>
                                >> Even our Gospel of John has an Aramaic sub-structure, in fact the
                                >> strongest
                                >> of the Gospels.
                                >>
                                >>> - What about the whole notion of orality? Oral tradition?
                                >>> Parallelism, rhyme, repetition, amplification are not only used in
                                >>> written
                                >>> texts but they also serve a listening audience. It could be that Mark
                                >>> composed the words of Jesus (since he is translating them [!] as you
                                >>> suggest) as a 2-4 beath rhyme (!) exactly to serve the listening
                                >>> audience
                                >>> and to help them remember the content of the gospel easier by
                                >>> mnemotechnic
                                >>> features.
                                >>
                                >> That is the most unlikely possibility, IMO, since Mark wrote his Gospel
                                >> in
                                >> his "second language Greek" where the Aramaic mnemonic apparati would be
                                >> lost just as was idiom in many cases. They do not appear until the
                                >> Aramaic
                                >> is reconstructed. In the cry from the cross, first
                                >> penned...er...reeded..by
                                >> Mark from his notebook, he chose to preserve it as it was spoken and
                                >> there
                                >> is no better indication of Judean Aramaic.
                                >>
                                >> The "cry from the cross" bothers some people and there are apologists
                                >> from
                                >> Syriac churches (Jesus did not speak Syriac) who manufacture all forms of
                                >> creative "translations." The cry from the cross is clear Aramaic and
                                >> definitively "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"
                                >>
                                >> I think Mark was correct in his transliteration since the Western Aramaic
                                >> (Judean) would have a qamets qatan instead of qamets gadhol for the lamed
                                >> in
                                >> alaha. Easterm (Syriac) would be alef (pattah)-lamed (qamets gadhol)-heh
                                >> (hiriq qatan)-yod, hence aLAhy. Western (Judean) would be alef-lamed
                                >> (qamets qatan)-heh (hiriq qatan)-yod, hence aLOhy, hence Mark's
                                >> transliteration as ELWI Ελωι ελωι λαμμᾶ σαβαχθανι . Judean Aramaic
                                >> aLOhy, aLOhy LAma shevawqTAny?
                                >>
                                >> "God of me, God of me, why have forsaken you me?"
                                >>
                                >> Some say there a problem with the absence of a smooth breathing for the
                                >> transliterated ELWI? I don't think so. There was no such thing in the
                                >> first century and the original Markan autograph would have had an uncial
                                >> ELWI.
                                >>
                                >> In Aramaic speaking Palestine of the 1st century, Jesus would not have
                                >> heard
                                >> Psalm 22 in Hebrew. He would have heard it from the synagogue lector
                                >> reading
                                >> the Aramaic Targum of Psalm 22.
                                >> אלהי אלהי מטול מה שׁבקתני
                                >>
                                >> Just one of hundreds of indicators that I have noticed is the rendering
                                >> of
                                >> the name of Jesus' buddy אֶלְעָזָר in Hebrew el'azar. It has come down to
                                >> us from Jesus' own Galilean pronunciation as l'azar with the dropped
                                >> aleph
                                >> and transliterated into Greek as Λάζαρος and in the Vulgate as Lazarus.
                                >>
                                >> If Jeremias, Black, Fitzmyer and Casey are not compelling on this issue,
                                >> then no one can be, certainly not a mere amateur such as myself.
                                >>
                                >> Is it cold in DC?
                                >>
                                >> Regards,
                                >>
                                >> Jack
                                >>
                                >> Jack Kilmon
                                >> San Antonio, TX
                                >>
                                >>>
                                >>> Dr. Hellen Mardaga
                                >>> Assistant Professor of New Testament
                                >>> The Catholic University of America
                                >>> Caldwel Hall 419
                                >>> 620 Michigan Av.
                                >>> 20064 Washington DC
                                >>> 202-319-6885
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >>
                                >> ------------------------------------
                                >>
                                >> 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]
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > ------------------------------------
                                >
                                > 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]
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.