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

Re: [John_Lit] Primary Evidence [was Reading strategy]

Expand Messages
  • Peter Hofrichter
    Felix Just from the Jesuit Fathers argues for the existence of previous litterature to our canonical scriptures although in most cases we cannot definitely
    Message 1 of 5 , Dec 31, 1969
    • 0 Attachment
      Felix Just from the Jesuit Fathers argues for the existence of previous litterature to our canonical scriptures although in most cases we cannot definitely reconstruct these texts. He points to the obvious addition of Jn 8,1-11, Luke speaking of many who have alredy tried to write a Gospel (many are usually more than two), the Gospel of Thomas, etc. Thank you very much! Although there is little hope for trustworthy reconstructions research has in principle always to be aware and to take in account the possible existence of such predecessors. And, of course, attempts of reconstruction are allowed, legitimous and necessary on the condition one does not forget that they are hypothetical. One can, of course, ristrict oneself to biblical positivism and try to explain the existing text on a synchronic level. As far as this meets the intention of the last redaction also this is legitimous, especially for pastoral purposes and dogmatics. This raises the question of inspiration and canonisation. The Church wanteted these final texts to be read in the sevices and canonized them as basis of her faith. As far as a theologian is also historian he is challenged to ask more and to look behind the text to the history of its development and of the emerging Jesus movement. Of course, this will not be without influence on our concepts of early history of dogma and even on actual dogmatics.
      Peter

      Univ.-Prof. DDr. Peter Hofrichter
      Vorstand des Instituts f├╝r Kirchengeschichte und Patrologie
      Universit├Ątsplatz 1, A-5020 Salzburg, Austria
      Tel +43/662/8044/2700, 2704, Fax 2709
      privat: Wallmannhofstrasse 3, A-5400 Hallein, Austria
      Tel/Fax +43/6245/85010, +43/664/2027098
      Homepage: http://www.sbg.ac.at/kig/fs2.htm
    • Jack Kilmon
      ... From: Felix Just, S.J. To: Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2000 5:32 PM Subject: [John_Lit]
      Message 2 of 5 , Oct 26, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Felix Just, S.J." <fjust@...>
        To: <johannine_literature@egroups.com>
        Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2000 5:32 PM
        Subject: [John_Lit] Primary Evidence [was Reading strategy]


        >
        > So I wonder whether those who would require "manuscript evidence" for the
        > sources or previous editions of John are not asking for a level of proof
        that is
        > unreasonably high and inappropriate, given the social and material culture
        of
        > the ancient world.

        Considering the level of glossing, interpolation and redaction of these
        texts, I wonder
        if an earlier rescension would even be recognized since the norm is for
        surviving
        papyri to be very fragmentary. We might find a copy of a more primitive
        form
        of 4G and call it something else..like Egerton.

        Jack


        -----
        ______________________________________________

        taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon

        Jack Kilmon
        North Hollywood, Ca.
        jkilmon@...

        http://www.historian.net

        sharing a meal for free.
        http://www.thehungersite.com/
      • Staley, Jeffrey
        I beg to differ with Jeff and Pete and others jumping on this bandwagon. Shouldn t the fact that 7:53--8:11 is missing from the oldest manuscripts be
        Message 3 of 5 , Oct 31, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          I beg to differ with Jeff and Pete and others jumping on this bandwagon.
          Shouldn't the fact that 7:53--8:11 is missing from the oldest manuscripts be
          considered "primary evidence" for the fact that there are "different
          editions"
          of John?

          I, too, suspect that there were "different editions" of John--different from
          our "canonical" JOhn. I just don't think there is much value in trying to
          reconstruct them (without SOME similar sources), and then trying to argue
          for a certain trajectory (theological-social) based upon that
          reconstruction. Interestingly, I am editing a volume of essays for
          Sheffield Academic Press on the Gospel of John that includes 2 essays on
          John 7:53-8:11. Both do attempt to read the story within the context of
          JOhannine theology. A recent dissertation (published by Sheffield?) argues
          strongly for a "trial topos" running throughout the Gospel. Perhaps this is
          why the story ends up in JOhn 7-8--a classic text for "Jesus on Trial" (as
          Jerome Neyrey and others have argued)

          And if this addition happened at a relatively late stage, when the
          Johannine tradition was close to being "fixed", then isn't it even more
          likely
          that some editting also might have taken place earlier?


          Sure, I accept this. I just don't think we get very far without having
          comparable sources.
          Certain clues or "seams" in the present text (like the transition of
          14:31--15:1, or 20:31--21:1) are good enough evidence in my mind for the
          factTHAT some additions were made to a previously shorter text, even if we
          can't reconstruct the "original" with complete certainty, and even if we
          still agree to use the present text for literary, theological, and canonical
          purposes.

          One may also ask the important question (fundamentalist or no!) about the
          significance of the currecnt state of the narrative that did not see fit to
          "delete the seams." Thus, my interest in narrative rhetoric.

          And briefly on "Q" - we shouldn't forget that one of the strongest arguments
          people used before 1945 was, paraphrased, "No early Christian would have
          compiled a collection of the sayings of Jesus without also telling about his
          Passion and Death." But the discovery of the complete Gospel of Thomas blew
          that argument out of the water.

          Oh yeah, I use this argument all the time in churches and classes. The nice
          thing with Q is we could compare Luke and Matthew long before the discovery
          of Thomas. We are not on as sure footing with Johannine sources

          So I wonder whether those who would require "manuscript evidence" for the
          sources or previous editions of John are not asking for a level of proof

          Let's put the question this way--what is the
          scholarly/scientific/historical/theological/spiritual/social/political
          payoff in reconstructing sources behind JOhn?

          Jeff
        • Mark Goodacre
          ... I realise that this is an issue more at home on Synoptic-L but I can t resist a quick rejoinder to say: what is the evidence that this argument about Q
          Message 4 of 5 , Oct 31, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            On 31 Oct 2000, at 13:53, Staley, Jeffrey wrote:

            > And briefly on "Q" - we shouldn't forget that one of the strongest arguments
            > people used before 1945 was, paraphrased, "No early Christian would have
            > compiled a collection of the sayings of Jesus without also telling about his
            > Passion and Death." But the discovery of the complete Gospel of Thomas blew
            > that argument out of the water.

            I realise that this is an issue more at home on Synoptic-L but I can't resist a
            quick rejoinder to say: what is the evidence that this argument about Q was
            put before the discovery of Thomas? The only argument I know of that
            resembled this one was put by Austin Farrer who in "On Dispensing with Q"
            pointed out that "We have no reason to suppose documents of the Q type to
            have been plentiful" ("On Dispensing", p. 58). Farrer was probably unaware
            of the contents of the Gospel of Thomas, and perhaps he would have
            moderated his comments had he known of it, but if one reads the article
            carefully he is making an important point about the character and nature of
            the reconstructed Q, that it is a hybrid document with a narrative exordium
            that fizzles out a third of the way into the document, something which may
            well give us the clue to the origin and character of Q.

            Mark
            Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
            Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
            University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
            Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom

            http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
            Homepage
            http://www.ntgateway.com
            The New Testament Gateway
          • Lorna Wilson
            ... TEXUAL ANALYSIS: My research has shown different versions of John: 1. Metzger analysis on 4G, NT Textual Criticism (PA missing from many documents). Ex: PA
            Message 5 of 5 , Oct 31, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              >From: "Staley, Jeffrey" <staleyj@...>
              >
              >>Shouldn't the fact that 7:53--8:11 is missing from the oldest manuscripts
              >>be considered "primary evidence" for the fact that there are "different
              >> >editions"
              >of John?
              >
              >LLW reply for Jn 7:53-8:11 a.k.a Pericope Adulterae (PA):
              TEXUAL ANALYSIS:
              My research has shown different versions of John:
              1. Metzger analysis on 4G, NT Textual Criticism (PA missing from many
              documents). Ex: PA missing from Alex writings P(66) also P(75) which
              contains Lk 2:18-18:18 and Lk 22:4-Jn. 15:8. Also missing from eastern
              SYR(c,s) and SY(p); 4-5th Coptic ver.; Arm. man, Old Georg ver. Western
              GOthic ver, several Old Latin.

              2. Holzmann's view: PA is found in both Luke and Mark(see Nestle p. 285 and
              Holzmann in Thlz., 1898, col 56f. Vidae supra, p. 66) - the original
              location of pericope found in Mark chap. 12 between vv. 17 and 18 and Luke
              chap. 20 between vv. 26 and 27, (texts dealing with resurrection and
              marriage).

              3. Nestle analysis (283) supports PA in various locations including:
              After: Jn 7:52, Jn 7:36 (ms. 225), Jn 7:44 (sev. Georgian mss.),
              Jn 21:25 (Westcott/Hort), Lk 24:53 (mss. 1331), Lk 21:38 (Ferrar group)


              SOURCE ANALYSIS:
              I found Bart Ehrman article, "Jesus and the Adultress" in NT Studies, vol
              34, 1998, pp. 24-44 to be invaluable for source critical analysis. According
              to Ehrman theory, PA has two "sources" w/final conflated version:

              SOURCE A
              1. Gospel according to Hebrews and Papias exposition of the Lord's sayings
              as recorded by Eusebius in EH III. 39.
              2. Commentary on Eccl.. 7:21-22a by Didymus the Blind

              SOURCE B
              1. Diasacalia 3rd cen. Syriac writing
              2. Apostolic Constitutions VIII, ii, 24, ca 380

              FINAL TEXT - Combined Sources A&B yield conflated version of PA

              LANGUAGE THEMATIC ANALYSIS OF PA
              Is the language used in PA consistent with rest of Gospel?
              Issue raised a couple of weeks ago..was unable to respond at the time.
              I agree the language is a hard fit, my exegesis yielded some continuity of
              theme" so that it was not totally foreign (at least rhetorically speaking)

              Raymond Brown suggests the location of PA after 7:52 illustrates certain
              statements made by Jesus (8:15,46). Ridderbos comments on frequent
              reference to "judging" and "witness" (7:47, 8:14,15) could be a point of
              contact for inclusion of PA after 7:52. Sanders believes (from a theological
              perspective only) PA fits into theme of judgment in Jn. 8. Derrett makes
              connection between PA and 7:51 and 8:13 where "admssibility of evidence"
              appears. In Nestle, Harris suggests PA should be placed between Jn. 5,6
              because of reference to Mosaic Law mentioned in 8:5.

              I think the theme of "judgment" 7-8 is what makes PA fit in 7:53-8:11
              rhetorically. For example:
              5:45 Your accuser is Moses >> is implied in law of adultery Jn. 8:5

              5:45 Do not think I will accuse you before your Father >> is echoed in
              Jesus' response to the woman and her accusers 8:11, 7b

              7:19 No one keeps the law >> implies transgression or sin 8:7b

              7:24 Do not JUDGE by appearance but JUDGE right judgment >> echos Jesus'
              warning to the accusers and also his decision to let adulteress go free
              8:7b, 11a

              7:51 Our law does not JUDGE people w/o first giving them a hearing >> sheds
              light on the suspicious trial of the adulteress woman who was JUDGED not not
              heard 8:4-6a

              8:15 You JUDGE by human standards, I JUDGE no man >> helps to sharpen the
              contrast between Jesus and his opponents 8:4-6a

              8:16a Yet even if I do JUDGE my judgment is valid expresses the righteous
              judgment of Jesus in this case.

              Other phrases I believe link to PA rhetoricaly include:
              8:17 testimony of two witnesses
              8:12 walk in darkness
              8:21,24 die in your sins
              8:37, 7:19-20 looking for an opportunity to kill Jesus
              8:12 I AM ego eimi the light of the world. I see this divine revelatory
              expression of Christ seen in PA as Jesus enlightens the minds of the
              accusers and the woman and provides opportunity for both to be enlightened
              and changed by the power of his word.


              WHY ALL THIS COMPLEXITY (MY THOUGHTS):
              In PA Jesus affirms equality of men and woman by taking stance on the
              "double standard" practice which appeals to male bias. Also, challenge to
              social sterotype of woman as "seducers." Ben Witherington in comm. on 4G
              addresses 1) social sterotype/scapegoating, ethics of
              leadership/responsibility to exemplary life 3) right judgment so balance
              between mercy and justice


              What I found is the reluctance of the Church to accept PA because it might
              imply Jesus' position on easy forgiveness of adultery (Augustine view) or
              misinterpretation of indulgence of adultery (according to Metzger) and
              issues Church Father raised about sexual purity and forgiveness of church
              members that lapsed after being baptized (this is also reflected in the
              Shepherd of Hermas...also comments from Clement, Ignatius, on strong view
              about the importance of maintaining purity in marriage and Tertullian
              classifying adultery, idolatry, and homicide as the 3 most serious sins that
              could not be forgiven).

              I think it was difficult for the Church to reconcile what they understood
              the tradition of Jesus' position on forgiveness (baesd on PA) vs. the harsh
              discipline of the early Church regarding sexual sin. Brown states that PA
              could not be included in the canon until the Church was willing to forgive
              adultery...I think the inclusion of Shepherd of Hermas in Sinaiticus relects
              the Church willingness to forgive sin...when discipline was somewhat
              relaxed, PA was circulated more widely.


              I think that PA was probably used to settle doctrinal disputes on authority
              of the Law or instruction on proper way to treat those in the faith
              community who fell into sin. I think PA can serve to enlighten people
              regarding the superiority of Christ's teachings over the Law and the
              unmerited forgiveness of God towards sinners - "for God sent not his Son
              into the world to CONDEMN the world" (Jn 3:17) compared to "Neither do I
              CONDEMN you...go and sin no more" (Jn 8:11).

              MY QUESTIONS TO THIS FORUM:
              Ccould PA also represent specific issues of the early Church struggle with
              other issues beside sexual sin? Could PA reflect the Jn community "hatred of
              the world" and attitude against the "lust of the flesh" (1 Jn 2:15-16). Or
              could PA controversy reflect tension with certain Jewish Christian
              struggling with the relevance of Torah in life of the new faith community,
              i.e. maintaining Mosaic tradition higher than teachings of Jesus? Or does
              PA reflect reluctance of a male dominated society to accept the new status
              of equality that Jesus attributed to women? Also, Martyn sees 4G as a
              two-level drama and I wonder what else could be going on besides the obvious
              conflict with the Jews/Jesus...could this story represent a persecuted faith
              community?



              Lorna Wilson

              _________________________________________________________________________
              Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

              Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
              http://profiles.msn.com
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.