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

Re: [John_Lit] Reading strategy [was Why ascribed to John?]

Expand Messages
  • Ken Durkin
    Historical criticism is a reading strategy of those interested in the early development of Christianity. If you are more interested in the reception and
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 25, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      Historical criticism is a "reading strategy" of those interested in the
      early development of Christianity. If you are more interested in the
      reception and continuing significance of the final version, then you will
      have a different reading strategy.

      I've never thought of historical criticism as a search for the holiest
      strata of a text, although perhaps the desire of some to link FG with the
      apostle John creates that impression.

      Many disciplines have contributed to biblical studies. Someone
      applies new knowledge in a particular discipline to biblical studies, and it
      becomes fashionable for a while.

      Sometimes, new knowledge is ignored. For example, I think the work of the
      world-system analysis sociologist, Immanuel Wallerstein is very important
      for understanding Revelation, but I've never come across anyone who shares
      that view. It's not caught on yet.

      Ken Durkin




      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Pete Phillips <p.m.phillips@...>
      To: <johannine_literature@egroups.com>
      Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 5:16 PM
      Subject: RE: [John_Lit] Readiing strategy [was Why ascribed to John?]


      > Thanks for your interest and renaming of the thread, Ken,
      >
      > Well, having kind of said a bit too much in the last post and with Peter
      > bringing it to a close with his final three words, I'm wary of getting
      into
      > another issue but let's see.
      >
      > My reading strategy takes the text in its final form which clearly
      includes
      > a whole host of amendments and additions and so on. this is clear from
      the
      > references to the Beloved Disciple, the reference to his testimony, the
      use
      > of first plurals in places and so on. Hengel's argument is that the text
      > has been compiled from the teacher's notes once he died and has had an
      > appendix added. Hence the usual critical move to say that 21 and 1 have
      > been added.
      >
      > My point is to say, what then? Do you suggest that the text is more holy
      > if you accept it as being 2-20. Or if you are unhappy with the term
      'holy'
      > is the text a greater revelation of anything, presumably the identity of
      > the Logos-Christ, if you only take the central portion. Or does it get
      > even holier if you only take the Gospel of Signs rather than the Passion
      > Narrative. Where is all this heading? Is it suggesting that there is a
      > pure core of scripture which has been added to and that by subtracting all
      > the additions etc then we get back to that sacred core - it sounds a bit
      > kabbalistic.
      >
      > I'd rather say that the final redactor knew that there were aporias.
      > He/she (though prob. he) knew that there were references which could be
      > picked up to different people. He knew that the BD references were
      > confusing. He knew, perhaps, though of this I am not sure, that some of
      > the vocab used in different sections reflected different phases of the
      > development of the teaching. BUT despite knowing all this, the final
      > redactor let the work go because it met his rhetorical aims - it had the
      > potential in this form to persuade as many people as possible of the
      > validity of Jesus and gave them the opportunity to believe in his name and
      > so have eternal life (in/on the gospel's own terms).
      >
      > So one of my reading strategy would be to analyse the reading intentions
      of
      > this final redactor because that's the text as we have it. All attempts
      to
      > get back to an Ur-text or an Urprolog (that's what I'm working on at the
      > moment) are futile because we don't have any controls against which to
      > measure success. It is better to work away at the final text and try to
      > work out why the author/final redactor was happy to present the gospel is
      > this form and why the early church was happy to pass the text on in this
      > form very very early in its history.
      >
      > Other reading strategies for me focus around ascertaining the rhetorical
      > dynamic of the text as we have it as well as the socio-rhetorical textures
      > which are woven into the text - one of these is the developmental history,
      > I suppose. However, there is also much to say about post-structuralist
      > readings of the text which would argue that the text matters far more than
      > its history or author since they are simply part of the text.
      >
      > Does this make any sense?
      >
      > Pete
      >
      > Peter Phillips
      > New Testament Lecturer and Director of Studies,
      > Cliff College,
      > Calver,
      > Hope Valley, Derbyshire, UK
      >
      > Tel: +44 1246 582321 x122
      > Fax: +44 1246 583739
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Ken Durkin [SMTP:ind.fin.choices@...]
      > Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 04:24
      > To: johannine_literature@egroups.com
      > Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Readiing strategy [was Why ascribed to John?]
      >
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: Pete Phillips <p.m.phillips@...>
      >
      > > I don't have a problem with the
      > > aporias because of the reading strategy that I have chosen for this
      text.
      > > The aporias become part of the reading strategy that I think the author
      > > promotes for all his(/her) readers - one of gradual assimilation into
      the
      > > in-group of the Christian community/communities. The aporias both point
      > to
      > > the destabilisation of the readers awareness and also to the
      > encouragement
      > > of multiple reading of the text. The aporias are only a problem for the
      > > first readers/hearers.
      >
      > I've read a few articles recently supporting the view that 21 is not an
      > addition to an earlier text, but these attempts to explain the unity of
      the
      > gospel tend to strengthen my view that 21 was added to an earlier text. I
      > would be interested to know how the reading strategy you have chosen
      > deals with those who suggest that 21 is an addition to an earlier text and
      > is a
      > strong indication that the author would be likely to 'improve' and
      'update'
      > other parts of the text.
      >
      > Ken Durkin
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com
      > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com
      > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com
      >
      >
      > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com
      > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com
      > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.