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

Re: [John_Lit] Order in John and other stuff

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In a message dated 5/5/2000 1:56:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time, staleyjl@plu.edu writes:
    Message 1 of 12 , May 5, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 5/5/2000 1:56:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
      staleyjl@... writes:

      << Eggus to Pascha is a great example (as we
      discussed earlier). It reflects political issues rather than theological
      agendas.>>


      But political issues are not necessarily any more "historical" than are
      theological agenda (or theological agendas, to adopt your quaint
      double-plural form).


      Leonard Maluf
    • Horace Jeffery Hodges
      ... In a message dated 5/5/2000 1:56:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time, staleyjl@plu.edu writes:
      Message 2 of 12 , May 6, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        Leonard Maluf posted the following:

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

        In a message dated 5/5/2000 1:56:58 PM Eastern
        Daylight Time, staleyjl@... writes:

        << Eggus to Pascha is a great example (as we
        discussed earlier). It reflects political issues
        rather than theological
        agendas.>>

        But political issues are not necessarily any more
        "historical" than are theological agenda (or
        theological agendas, to adopt your quaint
        double-plural form).

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

        If I recall correctly, it was not Jeffrey Staley but
        Paul Anderson who made the point about political
        agendas. (Also, in English, "agenda" can be used as a
        singular and "agendas" as a plural, can't they?)

        That aside, I wanted to address the question that
        Jeffrey Staley raised about narrative, feminist, or
        post-colonial readings.

        I have heard three interesting readings within the
        past year -- one narrative, one feminist, and the
        other postcolonial.

        As for the narrative one -- last year at the AAR/SBL,
        Jeffrey Staley presented a 'narrative' reading of
        John's Gospel that interwove it with his viewing of
        the movie "Liar, Liar", which I had (and have) not
        seen. I presumed -- and still do -- that his intention
        was ironic and intended as a sort of parody of some
        extremes of reader-response interpretation. Or was it
        an ironic defense of reader-response interpretation,
        and I missed it? Or was he ironically lying throughout
        and waiting for me to catch him in a falsehood? Or was
        he straightforwardly presenting his genuine views? Or
        was I even present at the talk?

        The feminist one (I have forgotten the name of the man
        who presented this reading) argued for Mary Magdalene
        as the author of John's Gospel, based partly upon her
        elevated importance in John's Gospel as the first
        witness to the resurrection and partly upon her
        prominence as a 'beloved' disciple in later Gnostic
        writings (the link being the putative Gnostic quality
        of John's Gospel and the nonidentification of the
        beloved disciple in John).

        The postcolonial one was by Musa W. Dube Shomanah, who
        was a fellow presenter of mine in one of the Johannine
        Literature Sections (the one presided over by Paul
        Anderson). She presented (so far as I recall) an
        ironic reading that portrayed the Johannine Jesus, not
        the Jewish leadership, as the collaborator with the
        Romans because of Jesus's apolitical understanding of
        his kingdom, which -- in her reading--merely
        perpetuated Roman domination of an oppressed minority.

        While I, ultimately, do not (I think) agree with
        either of these latter two readings, I found them both
        to be thought-provoking and even brilliant
        suggestions. Respectively, they forced me to think
        through why I assume a male author for John and to
        question if my admiration for the Johannine Jesus's
        apolitical stance isn't just an unreflective
        still-pious reading in need of a better grounding (or
        possibly even rejection?).

        So, I would say that one way in which such 'liminal'
        readings of the text have changed the way that I read
        John is by making me more aware of my extra-Johannine
        presuppositions. I have gradually learned to take
        fewer things for granted and to recognize that I
        belong to a community and tradition of readers who
        share certain assumptions that need reflecting upon
        and better grounding.

        Oh--and Jeffrey Staley's paper made me realize that I
        need to get out of the house and see more movies ...
        (or was the message that I should get myself a video
        player?)

        Jeffery Hodges

        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
        http://im.yahoo.com/
      • Horace Jeffery Hodges
        ... In a message dated 5/5/2000 1:56:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time, staleyjl@plu.edu writes:
        Message 3 of 12 , May 6, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          Leonard Maluf posted the following:

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

          In a message dated 5/5/2000 1:56:58 PM Eastern
          Daylight Time, staleyjl@... writes:

          << Eggus to Pascha is a great example (as we
          discussed earlier). It reflects political issues
          rather than theological
          agendas.>>

          But political issues are not necessarily any more
          "historical" than are theological agenda (or
          theological agendas, to adopt your quaint
          double-plural form).

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

          If I recall correctly, it was not Jeffrey Staley but
          Paul Anderson who made the point about political
          agendas. (Also, in English, "agenda" can be used as a
          singular and "agendas" as a plural, can't they?)

          That aside, I wanted to address the question that
          Jeffrey Staley raised about narrative, feminist, or
          post-colonial readings.

          I have heard three interesting readings within the
          past year -- one narrative, one feminist, and the
          other postcolonial.

          As for the narrative one -- last year at the AAR/SBL,
          Jeffrey Staley presented a 'narrative' reading of
          John's Gospel that interwove it with his viewing of
          the movie "Liar, Liar", which I had (and have) not
          seen. I presumed -- and still do -- that his intention
          was ironic and intended as a sort of parody of some
          extremes of reader-response interpretation. Or was it
          an ironic defense of reader-response interpretation,
          and I missed it? Or was he ironically lying throughout
          and waiting for me to catch him in a falsehood? Or was
          he straightforwardly presenting his genuine views? Or
          was I even present at the talk?

          The feminist one (I have forgotten the name of the man
          who presented this reading) argued for Mary Magdalene
          as the author of John's Gospel, based partly upon her
          elevated importance in John's Gospel as the first
          witness to the resurrection and partly upon her
          prominence as a 'beloved' disciple in later Gnostic
          writings (the link being the putative Gnostic quality
          of John's Gospel and the nonidentification of the
          beloved disciple in John).

          The postcolonial one was by Musa W. Dube Shomanah, who
          was a fellow presenter of mine in one of the Johannine
          Literature Sections (the one presided over by Paul
          Anderson). She presented (so far as I recall) an
          ironic reading that portrayed the Johannine Jesus, not
          the Jewish leadership, as the collaborator with the
          Romans because of Jesus's apolitical understanding of
          his kingdom, which -- in her reading--merely
          perpetuated Roman domination of an oppressed minority.

          While I, ultimately, do not (I think) agree with
          either of these latter two readings, I found them both
          to be thought-provoking and even brilliant
          suggestions. Respectively, they forced me to think
          through why I assume a male author for John and to
          question if my admiration for the Johannine Jesus's
          apolitical stance isn't just an unreflective
          still-pious reading in need of a better grounding (or
          possibly even rejection?).

          So, I would say that one way in which such 'liminal'
          readings of the text have changed the way that I read
          John is by making me more aware of my extra-Johannine
          presuppositions. I have gradually learned to take
          fewer things for granted and to recognize that I
          belong to a community and tradition of readers who
          share certain assumptions that need reflecting upon
          and better grounding.

          Oh--and Jeffrey Staley's paper made me realize that I
          need to get out of the house and see more movies ...
          (or was the message that I should get myself a video
          player?)

          Jeffery Hodges

          __________________________________________________
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
          http://im.yahoo.com/
        • Maluflen@aol.com
          In a message dated 5/6/2000 5:46:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jefferyhodges@yahoo.com writes:
          Message 4 of 12 , May 6, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 5/6/2000 5:46:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
            jefferyhodges@... writes:

            << (Also, in English, "agenda" can be used as a
            singular and "agendas" as a plural, can't they?)>>


            Yes, of course. As a stickler for nostalgic accuracy, I was just implicitly
            bewailing this, as I do also the many other deplorandas that have entered
            English usage.

            Leonard Maluf
          • Jeffrey L. Staley
            ... I m glad to see that my non-historical questions evoked some conversation on this listserve. I am in the midst of grading final papers and exams, so
            Message 5 of 12 , May 9, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              Horace Jeffery Hodges wrote:

              >
              > That aside, I wanted to address the question that
              > Jeffrey Staley raised about narrative, feminist, or
              > post-colonial readings.

              I'm glad to see that my "non-historical"
              questions evoked some conversation on this listserve. I am in the midst of grading final papers and exams, so will have to forgo any
              lengthy discussion of these topics for a few days. But I plan to get back here soon, though.

              >
              >
              > I have heard three interesting readings within the
              > past year -- one narrative, one feminist, and the
              > other postcolonial.
              >
              > As for the narrative one -- last year at the AAR/SBL,
              > Jeffrey Staley presented a 'narrative' reading of
              > John's Gospel that interwove it with his viewing of
              > the movie "Liar, Liar", which I had (and have) not
              > seen. I presumed -- and still do -- that his intention
              > was ironic and intended as a sort of parody of some
              > extremes of reader-response interpretation. Or was it
              > an ironic defense of reader-response interpretation,
              > and I missed it? Or was he ironically lying throughout
              > and waiting for me to catch him in a falsehood? Or was
              > he straightforwardly presenting his genuine views? Or
              > was I even present at the talk?
              >
              > The feminist one (I have forgotten the name of the man
              > who presented this reading) argued for Mary Magdalene
              > as the author of John's Gospel, based partly upon her
              > elevated importance in John's Gospel as the first
              > witness to the resurrection and partly upon her
              > prominence as a 'beloved' disciple in later Gnostic
              > writings (the link being the putative Gnostic quality
              > of John's Gospel and the nonidentification of the
              > beloved disciple in John).
              >
              > The postcolonial one was by Musa W. Dube Shomanah, who
              > was a fellow presenter of mine in one of the Johannine
              > Literature Sections (the one presided over by Paul
              > Anderson). She presented (so far as I recall) an
              > ironic reading that portrayed the Johannine Jesus, not
              > the Jewish leadership, as the collaborator with the
              > Romans because of Jesus's apolitical understanding of
              > his kingdom, which -- in her reading--merely
              > perpetuated Roman domination of an oppressed minority.
              >
              > While I, ultimately, do not (I think) agree with
              > either of these latter two readings, I found them both
              > to be thought-provoking and even brilliant
              > suggestions. Respectively, they forced me to think
              > through why I assume a male author for John and to
              > question if my admiration for the Johannine Jesus's
              > apolitical stance isn't just an unreflective
              > still-pious reading in need of a better grounding (or
              > possibly even rejection?).
              >
              > So, I would say that one way in which such 'liminal'
              > readings of the text have changed the way that I read
              > John is by making me more aware of my extra-Johannine
              > presuppositions. I have gradually learned to take
              > fewer things for granted and to recognize that I
              > belong to a community and tradition of readers who
              > share certain assumptions that need reflecting upon
              > and better grounding.
              >
              > Oh--and Jeffrey Staley's paper made me realize that I
              > need to get out of the house and see more movies ...
              > (or was the message that I should get myself a video
              > player?)
              >
              > Jeffery Hodges
              >
              > __________________________________________________
              > Do You Yahoo!?
              > Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
              > http://im.yahoo.com/
              >
              > Subscribe: send e-mail briefly describing your academic background & research interests to johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com
              >
              > Unsubscribe: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com
              >
              > Contact list managers: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com
            • Jeffrey L. Staley
              ... The focus of this paper was on the Woman caught in adultery a text that I never discuss much when teaching John, since it is not part of the original
              Message 6 of 12 , May 12, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                > As for the narrative one -- last year at the AAR/SBL,
                > Jeffrey Staley presented a 'narrative' reading of
                > John's Gospel that interwove it with his viewing of
                > the movie "Liar, Liar"

                The focus of this paper was on the "Woman caught in adultery" a text that I never discuss much when teaching John, since it is not part
                of the "original" text. However, when viewing "Liar Liar" with my son, I noticed Jim Carrey quoting John 8:32. This led me to ask
                whether there might be other allusions/connections to the Gospel of John in the film. I ended up finding quite a few--not the least of
                which is that the film is about a woman who is "caught in the very act of adultery." Viewing the film in connection with John gave me a
                way to read John 7-8 with the woman "back in the story." The paper, thus in part, was a study of "intertextuality," the ways in which
                texts take on new meanings when read with/against other documents.

                Was the essay a parody? In part, yes. But like all parody (which, incidently, is what I think John 4 is), it has a seious point. I am
                so tired of thinking that real biblical scholars can only read John with/against things written at the same time as John was written--or
                earlier. Or else (like Bultmann's use of Mandaean documents), if we are going to use something from later centuries, we have to invent a
                "historical" argument for why we are using later documents (they contain the residue of earlier sources, etc.). If what we are reading
                is canonical literature, it is also quite appropriate to read it with/against contemporary texts (as Bultmann did with Heidegger).

                The essay is set for publication in a Festschrift for one of my mentors.

                >
                >
                >
                > The postcolonial one was by Musa W. Dube Shomanah, who
                > was a fellow presenter of mine in one of the Johannine
                > Literature Sections.

                Musa Dube and I are editing a collection for Sheffield Academic Press on Postcolonial Readings of John. We have nearly all the final
                essays in hand, and hope to complete the volume soon.
              • Jeffrey L. Staley
                ... I m trying to remember is I saw this. Do you still have this post? Put it back up here, I ll look at it!
                Message 7 of 12 , May 12, 2000
                • 0 Attachment
                  > Jeff, it is largely because our narrative ... and your even more
                  > deconstructive ... readings don't feature here that many of us are, I think,
                  > "lurkers." The one occasion I attempted a "narrative" response to a question
                  > raised (the Cana to Cana sequence) was met with silence!

                  I'm trying to remember is I saw this. Do you still have this post? Put it back up here, I'll look at it!
                • Jeffrey L. Staley
                  ... For instance, according of days in the early part of John to some symbolic/liturgical role is not implicit in the text, but possibly so. This makes it
                  Message 8 of 12 , May 12, 2000
                  • 0 Attachment
                    >
                    > There are degrees of symbolization in the Johannine text (apparently
                    > non-symbolic detail, possibly symbolic or theologically-significant
                    > detail, implicitly symbolic/theological detail, and explicitly
                    > symbolic/theological detail), and interpretations should take such factors
                    > into consideration more than they do.
                    > >
                    > How about those water pots in John 2 and 4? or the Samaritan woman's "five husbands?" How does one "decide" if something is a
                    > "non-symbolic detail?" I still go back to Robert Alter's classic "The Art of Biblical Narrative" (one of my mentors at Berkeley back
                    > in the early 1980's), who argued that "biblical (read ancient Hebrew) narrators are laconic" and thus every detail counts (read his
                    > reading of betrothal scenes in Genesis and Exodus). Or perhaps, more honestly(?), I have lots more fun imagining that each detail
                    > counts, while you have more fun imagining that some are "non-symbolic."

                    For instance, according of "days" in the early part of John to some symbolic/liturgical role is not implicit in the text, but possibly
                    so. This makes it a possibility but not a
                    strong one.

                    "Not implicit in the text" for whom? So a "majority rules?" What if interpretive systems change (as they have over time)? What do we do
                    with "minority views?" The same thing we usually do with real minorities? Ignore them?
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.