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

RE: [John_Lit] Order in John

Expand Messages
  • Matson, Mark A. (Academic)
    Is it so obvious that a late setting for the temple cleansing was in John s source? I agree with Paul A. that the arguments for displacement are not as
    Message 1 of 28 , May 5, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      Is it so obvious that a late setting for the temple cleansing was in John's
      source? I agree with Paul A. that the arguments for displacement are not as
      compelling as might be supposed. What is somewhat at stake here (and which
      Frank M. referred to a bit) is whether John's presentation is independent or
      dependent. I don't think the dependence can be assumed, nor is it likely.

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

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

      Leonard Maluf wrote:
      **It seems obvious to me that a late setting for the temple
      **cleansing was in a
      **source of John's. John most probably knew all three Synoptic
      **gospels (and
      **especially Matthew) in which this event occurs near the end
      **of the life of
      **Jesus. I am not opposed to reopening the question of which
      **presentation is
      **more historical, as Moloney has recently done, but I am not
      **persuaded so far
      **by arguments in favor of John's chronology, generally. I
      **think John from the
      **beginning presupposes a knowledge of the end and imposes that
      **knowledge on
      **all that he writes. This theological program in many and various ways
      **interferes with the sequence of events as presented in this
      **Gospel. This is
      **why anything in Jn can serve so admirably for a gospel
      **reading at this time
      **of the year. The light of the paschal mystery, and thus the
      **end of the story,
      **has been systematically, and artificially projected into the
      **narrative from
      **the beginning. In the opening chapters, e.g., John the
      **Baptist already
      **witnesses to the faith in Jesus as son of God which is the
      **goal and end of
      **the whole Gospel. Even the multiple Passovers in John seem to
      **me to be a late
      **literary device that allows the author to cast a variety of distinct
      **illuminations on the end of the Jesus story. I intend to be slightly
      **provocative here, and hope that responses to my position will
      **advance inquiry
      **and insight into the Fourth Gospel.
      **
    • Stephen C. Carlson
      ... For those who identify John Mark as the Fourth Evangelist, I would like to know how they deal with Papias testimony, because it is that part that gives me
      Message 2 of 28 , May 6, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        At 08:27 AM 5/5/00 +0100, Ken Durkin wrote:
        >From: Stephen C. Carlson <scarlson@...>
        >>Parker, Pierson, "John and John Mark," JBL 79/2 (1960), floated the
        >>suggestion that the John Mark mentioned in Acts is the author of
        >>the Fourth Gospel. As I recall, Parker's thesis could not explain
        >>very well who Papias' John was.
        >
        >Charlesworth's book on the BD lists some of those who share this view
        >(including Wellhausen) going back to 1904.

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

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

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

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

        I'm not sure I understand this question.

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

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

        Stephen Carlson
        --
        Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
        Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
        "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
      • panderso@georgefox.edu
        Thanks, Mark, excellent points! Paul Paul N. Anderson Professor of Biblical and Quaker Studies George Fox University Newberg, OR 97132 503-554-2651
        Message 3 of 28 , May 6, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          Thanks, Mark, excellent points!

          Paul

          Paul N. Anderson
          Professor of Biblical and Quaker Studies
          George Fox University
          Newberg, OR 97132
          503-554-2651
        • Maluflen@aol.com
          In a message dated 5/6/2000 1:10:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, MAMatson@milligan.edu writes:
          Message 4 of 28 , May 6, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 5/6/2000 1:10:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
            MAMatson@... writes:

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

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

            Leonard Maluf
          • Moloneyfj@aol.com
            Leonard Maluf writes regularly with source presuppositions that are generally regarded as somewhat maverick. Good that they be aired. However, Leonard,
            Message 5 of 28 , May 6, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              Leonard Maluf writes regularly with source presuppositions that are generally
              regarded as somewhat "maverick." Good that they be aired. However,
              Leonard, you go ahead on the basis of "one off" affirmations, responding to
              other people in the group who do not share your ideas about the sources for
              John. Have you published, or are you working on, a major study in which you
              deal with all the issues you keep raising here with "throw away lines"?

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

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

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

              Frank Moloney
              Catholic University of America
            • Maluflen@aol.com
              Frank J. Moloney wrote: Frank, I am not
              Message 6 of 28 , May 7, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                Frank J. Moloney wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                [I had written]

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

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

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

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

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

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

                  Frank Moloney
                • Antonio Jerez
                  ... I must admit that I was just as confounded as Leonard by this message. After years of leafing through Johannine litterature by scholars from various
                  Message 8 of 28 , May 7, 2000
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Frank Moloney wrote:

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

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

                    Best wishes

                    Äntonio Jerez
                    Göteborg, Sweden
                  • David Hunter
                    The discussion on order in John over the last weeks has been very informative and provocative. I look forward to it continuing and appreciate the time and
                    Message 9 of 28 , May 10, 2000
                    • 0 Attachment
                      The discussion on 'order in John' over the last weeks has been very
                      informative and provocative. I look forward to it continuing and appreciate
                      the time and effort many of the posts have required. As I am particularly
                      interested in the treatment of the miracle traditions in 4G, I want to raise
                      some broad questions in the hope that any responses will help me better
                      understanding the discussion. (I also look forward to a discussion of Labahn's
                      work mentioned previously.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                        Mark A. Matson, Ph.D.
                        Academic Dean
                        Milligan College
                      • Jeffrey L. Staley
                        ... This really sounds interesting. Let us know exactly when it comes out, since I am not at an institution that carries this. I had lots of fun using
                        Message 11 of 28 , May 12, 2000
                        • 0 Attachment
                          > I have a long article on Labahn's book (along with Fehribach's on women and
                          > Manfred Lang's on the Johannine Passion narrative and Mark and Luke as
                          > sources [also 1999 - FRLANT] ) in the next issue of "Salesianum" - "Where
                          > Does one Look. Reflections on Some Recent Johannine Scholarship." It is all
                          > about Johannine sources ... not only synoptics (Lang and Labahn), but also
                          > the issue of intertextuality (Labahn and Fehribach).

                          This really sounds interesting. Let us know exactly when it comes out, since I am not at an institution that carries this. I had lots
                          of fun using Fehribach's book last year in my John class. If you want a really interesting project, look at the film "The Last
                          Temptation of Christ," read Fehribach's book, then go back and view the film again. Some really provocative iissues there.
                        • Ken Durkin
                          ... From: Stephen C. Carlson To: Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2000 3:39 PM Subject: Re: [John_Lit]
                          Message 12 of 28 , May 28, 2000
                          • 0 Attachment
                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: Stephen C. Carlson <scarlson@...>
                            To: <johannine_literature@egroups.com>
                            Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2000 3:39 PM
                            Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Order in John



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

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

                            Ken Durkin
                          • Ken Durkin
                            ... From: Ken Durkin To: Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2000 9:21 PM Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Order
                            Message 13 of 28 , Jun 6, 2000
                            • 0 Attachment
                              ----- Original Message -----
                              From: Ken Durkin <ind.fin.choices@...>
                              To: <johannine_literature@egroups.com>
                              Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2000 9:21 PM
                              Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Order in John


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

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

                              Ken Durkin
                            • Stephen C. Carlson
                              ... Let me quote Papias s statement: 15 And the presbyter would say this: Mark, who was indeed Peter s interpreter, accurately wrote as much as he remembered,
                              Message 14 of 28 , Jun 7, 2000
                              • 0 Attachment
                                At 09:10 AM 6/6/00 +0100, Ken Durkin wrote:
                                >> ----- Original Message -----
                                >> From: Stephen C. Carlson <scarlson@...>
                                >> > For those who identify John Mark as the Fourth Evangelist, I would
                                >> > like to know how they deal with Papias' testimony, because it is
                                >> > that part that gives me the difficulties.
                                >
                                >I've given this more thought. Regarding Papias' testimony, I've never been
                                >convinced that the Second Gospel has any special relationship to Peter.
                                >Kümmel (Intro to NT) used to sum up my thoughts on this: "The tradition that
                                >Mark was written by John Mark is therefore scarcely reliable." From the
                                >extant words of Papias there is no reason to relate them to the Second
                                >Gospel. We can conclude that there is a tradition that a companion of Peter
                                >was a writer, and what he wrote was possibly in a different order from other
                                >written traditions. The insistence that he neither heard the Lord nor
                                >followed him is the part that gives me difficulties. Perhaps this is one way
                                >of saying Mark was not an apostle.

                                Let me quote Papias's statement:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                Stephen Carlson
                                --
                                Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                                Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
                                "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                              • Ken Durkin
                                ... From: Stephen C. Carlson To: Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 3:26 AM Subject: Re: [John_Lit]
                                Message 15 of 28 , Jun 8, 2000
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  From: Stephen C. Carlson <scarlson@...>
                                  To: <johannine_literature@egroups.com>
                                  Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 3:26 AM
                                  Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Order in John


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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