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.
      **
    • 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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.