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

Re: Greek idiom2

Expand Messages
  • K. Hanhart
    ... I happen to disagree, David. Though the Beloved Disciple (BD) was a historical person (Schnackenburg), he was not John Zebedee, or John Mark, or Lazarus
    Message 1 of 3 , Dec 5, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      David Hall wrote:
      >
      >... yet the question of who was
      > seated to the side of Jesus was John if I recall correctly.

      I happen to disagree, David. Though the Beloved Disciple (BD) was a
      historical person (Schnackenburg), he was not John Zebedee, or John
      Mark, or Lazarus (Filson, JN Sanders), or the cumulative symbol of the
      early Christian prophetic spirit (Kragerud), or "all successive
      representatives" "of the founder of the community" (he will not die, Jn
      21,23; Neyrinck). With Bacon, Bultmann and Goulder I believe that Paul
      is meant, but with a difference.
      Ephesus and Rome had been vying for the leading role in the ecclesia
      (end first cent, cf alogoi). With some justice Ephesus could claim it
      had believed earlier than Rome, but in the Fourth Gospel Simon
      nevertheless receives the task of Shepherd. In John 20,3-10 and 21,2-14
      the author is dealing with this intricate question of leadership. In
      John 20 the "other disciple" (anonymous) reaches the tomb first; in John
      21 the BD (also anonymous) exclaims "it is the kurios"; yet in 21,15-19
      Simon will feed the sheep. Thus Jn's Gospel goes a step further than
      Mark's neaniskos, 'Tell it to Peter" (16,7) and Matthew's "on this
      Rock...".
      Clearly there are two different anonymous disciples (21,2). They are
      anonymous because they had not actually followed Jesus and must
      therefore appear surreptiously in the story of Jesus, as these two were
      considered essential to the furtherance of the Gospel.
      (1) I believe one (i.e. the "other disciple) is John = the first patron
      saint of Ephesus = the author of Revelation = probably the silent John
      next to Peter in Acts (3,1) = John of Jerusalem, (an Essene?).
      (2) The other is Paul (- who was long active in Ephesus-). He is the BD.
      I think, for the following reasons:
      1. 153 fish represent the nations and Paul would fit best understanding
      the Lord's command:"nets - on the other side!"; 2. "The mother of Jesus"
      under the cross, representing faithful Israel, was to be taken "into
      this BD's own home" (refering to the diaspora or second exile). This
      would again fit Paul, the famous apostle to the nations; in the Gospel
      Israel is to the nations as 'mother' is to 'son' 3. In the whispered
      conversation at the supper(concerning the question who would "hand over"
      Jesus) Judas was to "hand over" the Messiah to his death, but Paul
      again would be his first apostle to 'hand him over' unto life "in him"
      among the nations - he sits closer to Jesus and was already in Jesus'
      heart; 4. Paul called himself (in a personal way with the key Pauline
      verb agapao), "beloved by Jesus" (Gal 2,20, 1 Cor 13 and passim); 5.
      Paul had "written these things", namely in his letters compiled in
      Ephesus Jn 21,24; 6. He indeed had claimed he would not die before the
      parousia (1 Cor 15, I Thes 4,17, Jn 21,22.23); a good reason why
      opponents to Paul's ecclesiology could and probably did discredit him
      (Jn 21,21). Convincing?
      However, I agree with Thomas Longstaff (Friday, 19.01) that "this
      (Johannine) thread should end here". More to the point one might ask:
      is there a similar rivalry between the 'neaniskos' (Mk 14,51.52; 16,5-7)
      and Peter. And does that argue for or against Markan priority as Matthew
      studiously seems to erase this neaniskos from his Gospel in the key
      Gethsemane and resurrection narratives?
      your Karel Hanhart
    • K. Hanhart
      ... David, The identity of the Beloved Disciple is, of course, one of the most complex issues in Gospel Stduies. Your suggestion may be the disciple was Peter
      Message 2 of 3 , Dec 6, 1998
      • 0 Attachment
        David Hall wrote:
        >
        > I think maybe the disciple was Peter or John for on the Mount of
        > Transfiguration the three most trusted were Peter, James, and John. As for
        > Paul, Paul was yet a madman during the time of Jesus passion. If not a full
        > fledged madman, learning to become one.

        David, The identity of the Beloved Disciple is, of course, one of the
        most complex issues in Gospel Stduies. Your suggestion "may be the
        disciple was Peter or John was made perhaps too quickly. The BD cannot
        possibly be Peter for in Jn 13,23f and Jn 21,7ff his role is opposite
        Peter.
        As to the possibility of John Zebedee, Schnackenburg summarized the
        feeling of many,"the anonymity of [the BD].., the symbolic meaning
        apparently attributed to him, the historically suspect scenes in which
        the disciple plays a role (under the cross, running to the grave [
        Schnackenburg thinks there is only one anonymous disciple, not two KH]),
        and not least the entire presentation of the Gospel which does not give
        the impression of an eyewitness account and can hardly be credited to
        the fisherman's son from the Sea of Gennesaret - all this raises serious
        questions... In Jesus and Man's Hope p. 223 - But perhaps you want to
        maintain the classical position that John Zebedee is the author of the
        Fourth Gospel. In that case we must part ways. Karel H
      • Anthony Patterson MD
        How about Mary Magdalene as the identity of the Beloved Disciple? ... From: K Hanhart To: Synoptic-L@bham.ac.uk
        Message 3 of 3 , Dec 11, 1998
        • 0 Attachment
          How about Mary Magdalene as the identity of the Beloved Disciple?

          -----Original Message-----
          From: K Hanhart <K.Hanhart@...>
          To: Synoptic-L@... <Synoptic-L@...>
          Date: Sunday, December 06, 1998 3:01 PM
          Subject: Re: Greek idiom2


          >David Hall wrote:
          >>
          >> I think maybe the disciple was Peter or John for on the Mount of
          >> Transfiguration the three most trusted were Peter, James, and John. As
          for
          >> Paul, Paul was yet a madman during the time of Jesus passion. If not a
          full
          >> fledged madman, learning to become one.
          >
          >David, The identity of the Beloved Disciple is, of course, one of the
          >most complex issues in Gospel Stduies. Your suggestion "may be the
          >disciple was Peter or John was made perhaps too quickly. The BD cannot
          >possibly be Peter for in Jn 13,23f and Jn 21,7ff his role is opposite
          >Peter.
          > As to the possibility of John Zebedee, Schnackenburg summarized the
          >feeling of many,"the anonymity of [the BD].., the symbolic meaning
          >apparently attributed to him, the historically suspect scenes in which
          >the disciple plays a role (under the cross, running to the grave [
          >Schnackenburg thinks there is only one anonymous disciple, not two KH]),
          >and not least the entire presentation of the Gospel which does not give
          >the impression of an eyewitness account and can hardly be credited to
          >the fisherman's son from the Sea of Gennesaret - all this raises serious
          >questions... In Jesus and Man's Hope p. 223 - But perhaps you want to
          >maintain the classical position that John Zebedee is the author of the
          >Fourth Gospel. In that case we must part ways. Karel H
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.