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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Some on-line items of interest - Farrer

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In a message dated 5/24/2004 12:52:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ... There are two problems with this argument. For one thing, the sequence of elements is
    Message 1 of 13 , May 24, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 5/24/2004 12:52:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time, k.hanhart@... writes:


      In my research I had already concluded that the Creed in its first phase
      had been a book list of 'apostolic' writings received in the various
      ecclesias. However, the surprising composition of the first prayer
      in the Didache, convinced me that the key terms in the Creed were
      citations of key terms in the various canonical writings.
      If true the Creed would so to speak favour the
      Farrer theory concerning the Gospels in ascending order: (John) '
      only-begotten' ;  (Luke): conceived of 'the HOLY SPIRIT'; (Matthew) born of
      the 'VIRGIN Mary', (Mark) 'suffered  under PONTIUS PILATE'. Perhaps we
      should pursue this string, (1 Corinthians) raised ON THE THIRD DAY etc.


      There are two problems with this argument. For one thing, the sequence of elements is clearly determined by the normal, human-biological timetable (conceived, born, died), and so it seems gratuitous to relate it to a supposed sequence of evoked documents. Secondly, the elements are not as characteristically related to the Gospels with which you associate them as you seem to suggest: "conceived of the Holy Spirit" is a closer echo of Matt 1:18 (and 20) than of anything in Luke; and "suffered under Pontius Pilate" sounds more Lukan to me than it does Markan (Mark never uses Pilate's first name, and the emphasis on the suffering of Jesus, with PAQEIN, is less dominant in Mark than in Luke-Acts).


      My argument favouring Farrer was taken from John, It was honoured by Werner
      Georg Kuemmel in the latest revision of his 'Introduction to the New
      Testament'.  It concerns the article 'The Structure of John 1,35 - 4,54 in
      ' Studies in John' in  honour of prof J.N. Sevenster, in the Brill series
      Suppl to Novum Testamentum,1970  I started with the simple observation that
      the Aramaic rendition of the Hebrew name Nathanael, may well refer to
      Matthew. Nathanael is of course a surprisingly unknown, but important
      disciple in John. The Hebrew means ' God has GIVEN' and the Aramaic name
      Matthai  means GIFT of JHWH,  Matthai is the Aramaic for Matthew. Kuemmel
      who was not fond of the Judaic background of the Gospel, called my
      suggestion in a derogatory way: 'Fantastisch'.

      Briefly, 1,45 offers a fit characterization of the Gospel of Matthew: 'We
      have found him of whom Moses in the Torah' (a)  - 'and also the prophets
      wrote' (b) - 'Jesus of Nazareth' (c) - 'the son of Joseph' (d).  Now it is
      true that (a) Jesus is the new Moses who fulfilled the Torah and (b) the
      string of the citations of Moses and the prophets and (c) the emphasis on
      Nazareth (can any good come from Nazareth?)  and (d) Matthew's genealogy
      focuses on Joseph  are ALL FOUR typical for Matthew (contra Lk's focus  on
      Mary. Note also John 2,1 Cana and the 'mother of Jesus', which follows the
      paragraph on Nathanael/Matthew.



      This is interesting, but I remain a bit a skeptical. If Nathanael were supposed to be Matthew, why would John have changed the name, and why would there be no allusion here (or is there?) to Matt 9:9-13?


      If the above be true, is then the earlier paragraph in John ahead of
      Nathanael (1,40 - 42) a reflection on Mark? That certainly would be the
      case. In this brief episode two facts stand out bold and clear. Jesus is
      the Messiah and Simon receives a new name. Furthermore the word 'proton' (vs
      41) is arresting because no second deed of Andrew is mentioned. But was not
      Peter the first disciple who confesses Jesus as Messiah? Was not Mark
      written under the aegis of Peter according to tradition? And does not Peter'
      s confession occupy a strategic position in Mark?


      This, I think, is the weakest part of your argument. The problem is that there are more (possible) allusions to Matthew here again than to Mark. (And it is also difficult to see a reason why John would want to reflect any kind of a chronological order of composition here). E.g., Mark never uses the expression Simon Peter, as does John in 1:40 and Matthew in 16:16. Also, the numeral DUO occurs twice in Matthew's account of the calling of Peter and Andrew (Matt 4:18, 21) and frequently in Jn 1:35-42, but not at all in the corresponding Markan text. Finally, Jn 1:42 more closely echoes Matt 16:18, both in vocabulary (including verbal agreement: SU EI..) and in syntax (use of direct discourse) than it does Mk 3:16.

      Leonard Maluf
      Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
      Weston, MA
    • Karel Hanhart
      Leonard, I am fully aware that my proposal is almost too good to be true. Proof is hard to come by in these matters and every theory is bound to have a
      Message 2 of 13 , May 25, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Leonard,
         
        I am fully aware that my proposal is almost too good to be true. Proof is hard to come by in these matters and every theory is bound to have a rebuttal. However, you are too quick in your dismissal, it seems to me. The force of my contention is our knowledge that in the early ecclesia the string binding them together was the slow emergence of the canon. Slow for it took at a century or more. Many books and epistles - also messianic essays - were written in Judean circles. For identification, a particular ecclesia would be in correspondence with kindred ecclesia's, noting thereby what specific books  were "received" in their midst for study and for the liturgy. As we have learned from the phenomenon of intertextuality in the gospels, a reliable reference to other texts was achieved by means of key terms. One needs a concordance for that. One must keep in mind,however,  that we do not have an early Greek text of the Creed; a considerable difficulty, which I noted previously. I find the result of my research thus far rather striking, when I tested the first article of the Creed on the Didache. In its early (Aramaic?) form it certainly the Didache is one of the earliest Christian writings. Although it was not accepted in the canon!, it served well in producing the three key expressions to refer to JHWH, the God of Scripture. This in spite of the prohibition of making an image of the Eternal One. They used the  very first prayer in which God's name was invoked in the Didache; a unique way to express the Inexpressible.  
               
         k.hanhart@... writes:

        In my research I had already concluded that the Creed in its first phase
        had been a book list of 'apostolic' writings received in the various
        ecclesia's. However, the surprising composition of the first prayer
        in the Didache, convinced me that the key terms in the Creed were
        citations of key terms in the various canonical writings.
        If true the Creed would so to speak favour the
        Farrer theory concerning the Gospels in ascending order: (John) '
        only-begotten' ;  (Luke): conceived of 'the HOLY SPIRIT'; (Matthew) born of
        the 'VIRGIN Mary', (Mark) 'suffered  under PONTIUS PILATE'. Perhaps we
        should pursue this string, (1 Corinthians) raised ON THE THIRD DAY etc.
        Leonard's first reply:
         
        There are two problems with this argument. For one thing, the sequence of elements is clearly determined by the normal, human-biological timetable (conceived, born, died), and so it seems gratuitous to relate it to a supposed sequence of evoked documents.
         
        Karel  responds:
         
        The argument is rather weak, I think.  It seems logical that a certain biographical order was followed when it came to the second part of the three-part Creed, namely, christology. The three last gospels did likewise beginning with the wondrous birth. 
         
        Leonard's second reply  
         
         Secondly, the elements are not as characteristically related to the Gospels with which you associate them as you seem to suggest: "conceived of the Holy Spirit" is a closer echo of Matt 1:18 (and 20) than of anything in Luke; and "suffered under Pontius Pilate" sounds more Lukan to me than it does Markan (Mark never uses Pilate's first name, and the emphasis on the suffering of Jesus, with PAQEIN, is less dominant in Mark than in Luke-Acts).
        Karel's response:
         
        You fail to mention the term monogenes which most certainly is Johannine. Moreover, few will contest that "Virgin Mary", emphasized by Matthew in his first citation of the prophets (Isaiah 7,14), was unique for Matthew. That would be enough to distinguish him from the other three. Moreover, is not Luke's specific contribution his emphasis on the role of the Spirit in the birth of Jesus and in the birth of the ecclesia?  That leaves Mark as the author of the oldest "received" Gospel, Mark who was the creator of the Passion story: better: of the new "paradosis" of the haggadah about the Passover. We are dealing with the foremost tradition (paradosis) of Israel commemorating the Exodus story and the paschal lamb". Mark created it (N.B. paradothesetai) and Matthew adopted it.
        Karel had written:
        My argument favouring Farrer was taken from John, It was honoured by Werner
        Georg Kuemmel in the latest revision of his 'Introduction to the New
        Testament'.  It concerns the article 'The Structure of John 1,35 - 4,54 in
        ' Studies in John' in  honour of prof J.N. Sevenster, in the Brill series
        Suppl to Novum Testamentum,1970  I started with the simple observation that
        the Aramaic rendition of the Hebrew name Nathanael, may well refer to
        Matthew. Nathanael is of course a surprisingly unknown, but important
        disciple in John. The Hebrew means ' God has GIVEN' and the Aramaic name
        Matthai  means GIFT of JHWH,  Matthai is the Aramaic for Matthew. Kuemmel
        who was not fond of the Judaic background of the Gospel, called my
        suggestion in a derogatory way: 'Fantastisch'.
        Briefly, 1,45 offers a fit characterization of the Gospel of Matthew: 'We
        have found him of whom Moses in the Torah' (a)  - 'and also the prophets
        wrote' (b) - 'Jesus of Nazareth' (c) - 'the son of Joseph' (d).  Now it is
        true that (a) Jesus is the new Moses who fulfilled the Torah and (b) the
        string of the citations of Moses and the prophets and (c) the emphasis on
        Nazareth (can any good come from Nazareth?)  and (d) Matthew's genealogy
        focuses on Joseph  are ALL FOUR typical for Matthew (contra Lk's focus  on
        Mary. Note also John 2,1 Cana and the 'mother of Jesus', which follows the paragraph on Nathanael/Matthew.
        Leonard's question to the argument re. John:
         
        "This is interesting, but I remain a bit a skeptical. If Nathanael were supposed to be Matthew, why would John have changed the name, and why would there be no allusion here (or is there?) to Matt 9:9-13?
        Karel's answer:
         
        No doubt,  John's Gospel, the "spiritual Gospel", is regarded by most as set apart from the so-called synoptic gospels. He loves allegory, just like Philo did (prof Dodd). He insists that salvation is from the ioudaioi, and consistently reminds his audience that the "Passover of the ioudaioi " was near while his story ends with the narrative of Jesus' death as the Passover lamb..   
        The Hebrew version of Matthew's name, Nathanael, together with the other charateristics under a - d   seem to me rather convincing. 
        If the above be true, is then the earlier paragraph in John ahead of
        Nathanael (1,40 - 42) a reflection on Mark? That certainly would be the
        case. In this brief episode two facts stand out bold and clear. Jesus is
        the Messiah and Simon receives a new name. Furthermore the word 'proton' (vs
        41) is arresting because no second deed of Andrew is mentioned. But was not
        Peter the first disciple who confesses Jesus as Messiah? Was not Mark
        written under the aegis of Peter according to tradition? And does not Peter'
        s confession occupy a strategic position in Mark?
         
        Leonard's arguments and Karel's response:
         
        Leoonard::
         
        This, I think, is the weakest part of your argument. The problem is that there are more (possible) allusions to Matthew here again than to Mark. (And it is also difficult to see a reason why John would want to reflect any kind of a chronological order of composition here).
         
        Karel:
        Leonard, you may not like my proposal, being a true Griesbachian, and you rightly conjure up possible objections. But let me try to convert you to the order Mark, Matthew, Luke, John.
        If John is indeed the last Gospel within the canon and  if he together with his fellow bishops in Asia Minor (grudgingly or loyally or practically) gave precedence to the authority of Peter ( - read: to the see of Rome, where Peter died - ) above that of the Beloved Disciple (read chapter 21), than a chronological order makes perfect sense. The author makes clear from the very start that Mark, Matthew and Luke/Acts were "received" in their circles and enjoyed authority there. However, John prefers Luke, as many acknowledge, and looks somewhat askance at Matthew (1,50 "you will see greater things").. 
        Leonard:
         
        E.g., Mark never uses the expression Simon Peter, as does John in 1:40 and Matthew in 16:16.
         
        Karel:
         
        True. However, as I have suggested all along, Mark invented the Greek term Petros, or took it over from Gal 2,7. Simon was normally called by his Aramaic nickname Cephas, as Paul shows elsewehere. Mark starts out by using his proper name "Simon". (the exception is naturally 3,16 (see below) It is only from his confession on that Simon is called "Petros".  Moreover, as I have insisted, in the opened tomb story, Mark ends the burial section  with a reference to LXX Isa 22,16 with his mnemeioi...lelatomemenon ....ek petras (!).  and he ends the resurrection meassage with eipate...toi Petrol (!). Mark created this comparison "Rock"- "Simon Peter" purposely. Matthew followed suit. As I have argued Matthew 18,16-18  "on this rock I will build my ecclesia" is the Matthean elaboration and acknowledgment of Mark;'s message.
         
        Leonard:
         
         Also, the numeral DUO occurs twice in Matthew's account of the calling of Peter and Andrew (Matt 4:18, 21) and frequently in Jn 1:35-42, but not at all in the corresponding Markan text.
         
        Karel:
         
        Again, Leonard, you should read my book. Isn't it an odd phenomenon that Jesus has three Judean disciples as his intimi. even at the Mt of Transfiguration, wjere he called four? Mark called attention to the duo in his own peculiar way which his successors underlined by this very coupling of Simon and Andrew. Simon is a Hebrew name. And Andrew characteristically Greek. The two languages and cultures are far apart. If two sons of a British family are introduced, and one is called Shimon and the other as Tschu (as in Tschu en Lai), one realizes that the second son was adopted. Andrew and Simon were hardly members of one family. Andrew does only occur as one of four at the 'calling of disciples near the Sea' and the subsequent formation of the 'house of Simon (!), the model of the later ecclesia (1,29). He only reappears in the narrative in the chapter 13, predicting future (!) events. The Gentiles would come in after Jesus'death; not as an exception to the rule but through the missioary endeavor.  "But first the Gospel must be preached to all nations: (13,10).
        Thus the two (spiritual ! ) brothers Jesus called by the 'sea' of Galilee represent the Judean people and the Gentiles, the latter are the wild branches on the olive tree. So at the outset of his gospel, Mark includes the Gentiles by presenting Jesus' universal call to Judeans and Gentiles on the shores of the sea.
         
        Leonard:
         
        Finally, Jn 1:42 more closely echoes Matt 16:18, both in vocabulary (including verbal agreement: SU EI..) and in syntax (use of direct discourse) than it does Mk 3:16.
         
        Karel:
         
        Surely the odd, original, but un-Greek  "epetheken onoma toi Simoni...: Petron" in Mk 3,16 forced Matthew and John to improve the language.  Mark's meaning is probably: "he charged Simon with being a (the) rock". 
         
        Food for thought I hope,
         
        your
        Karel
      • Maluflen@aol.com
        In a message dated 5/25/2004 8:09:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time, k.hanhart@net.hcc.nl writes:
        Message 3 of 13 , May 25, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 5/25/2004 8:09:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time, k.hanhart@... writes:

          << Surely the odd, original, but un-Greek "epetheken onoma toi Simoni...: Petron" in Mk 3,16 forced Matthew and John to improve the language. Mark's meaning is probably: "he charged
          Simon with being a (the) rock". >>

          Karel, I have numerous questions that emanate from your lengthy post, but perhaps I should refrain from posing them till I have read your book. In the meantime, I would like to highlight the oddity of your argument's premise, which is that John and the author(s) of an early Christian creed were dutifully recording the correct order of the Synoptic Gospels through coded (not to mention chronologically inverted) allusions at roughly the same time that an almost universal tradition was developing in the church that emphatically asserted the priority of Matthew as the first written Gospel. I find this odd in the extreme. With regard to the above citation from the end of your post, could you explain to me what is wrong with the Greek of the cited Markan phrase? I have never had any particular difficulty understanding the phrase, or its syntax, and it reads to me like a good essential summary of the story in Matt 16 which Mark will later omit. Mark is not interested in the issue of legitimation of an authority in the (Jewish)Christian community with which that Matthean source-text deals. (You see I am far from conversion on this topic.)

          Leonard Maluf
          Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
          Weston, MA
        • Joseph Weaks
          ... Karel, Thanks for sharing the gist of your arguments here. It s nice food for thought. Some of the arguments do look more like chaos theory/coincidence
          Message 4 of 13 , May 25, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Karel Hanhart wrote:
            > I am fully aware that my proposal is almost too good to be true. Proof
            > is hard to come by in these matters and every theory is bound to have
            > a rebuttal. However, you are too quick in your dismissal, it seems to
            > me.

            Karel,
            Thanks for sharing the "gist" of your arguments here. It's nice food
            for thought. Some of the arguments do look more like chaos
            theory/coincidence that authorial craft, mostly because of the
            assumptions it makes. For instance:

            > However, the surprising composition of the first prayer
            > in the Didache, convinced me that the key terms in the Creed were
            > citations of key terms in the various canonical writings.
            > If true the Creed would so to speak favour the
            > Farrer theory concerning the Gospels in ascending order: (John) '
            > only-begotten' ; (Luke): conceived of 'the HOLY SPIRIT'; (Matthew)
            > born of
            > the 'VIRGIN Mary', (Mark) 'suffered under PONTIUS PILATE'. Perhaps we
            > should pursue this string, (1 Corinthians) raised ON THE THIRD DAY etc.

            Really? These seem to you substantially clear references to those
            gospels? And what do you mean by surprising? It is suprised that the
            Didache has a prayer? or surprising that you were convinced? or
            surprising that it gave a mini-credo? or surprising that you were able
            interpret the references as uniquely identified with the 4 canonicals?

            Perhaps you give a fuller account of your jumps elsewhere, but what
            seems obvious to you is less than so to me.
            > Nathanael is of course a surprisingly unknown, but important disciple
            > in John.
            I have no idea what this means. With the possible exception of Peter,
            they're all unknown.

            > The famous last chapter 21 is not a later appendix. It has rightly
            > been characterized as a kind of allegorical
            > representation of the book of Acts
            This premise is not very sustainable. (Reminds me of Crossan's biggest
            weakpoints: "Yes, Text A is early and Text B is late because it makes
            sense to me. Now that I've established that stratification, let us
            proceed."

            > If the above be true, is then the earlier paragraph in John ahead of
            > Nathanael (1,40 - 42) a reflection on Mark? That certainly would be
            > the case.
            Really? "Certainly?" One does not naturally follow the other. I just
            don't see how we can assert the same kind of theological word groupings
            to these ancient authors that we use in our own methodologies. At the
            least, we need to really try and make that case. (ie. using son of man
            to identify with a text, examples of such allusion in Revelation).

            Still, I applaud every continued attempt at inter-textuality between
            texts such as Didache, Shepherd, etc, with the canonical texts. Instead
            of a building block for a Farrer thesis, perhaps your ideas serve more
            of a supporting role.

            Fantastischliche,
            Joe Weaks

            **************************************************************
            Rev. Joseph A. Weaks
            Senior Minister, Bethany Christian Church, Dallas
            Leander Keck Fellow of NT Studies, Brite Divinity School, Ft. Worth
            j.weaks@...
            **************************************************************


            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
          • Karel Hanhart
            Read my book, therefore, Leonard. I am particularly interested in questions of detail of my argumentation. I mean, one should not turn at once to my tentative
            Message 5 of 13 , May 28, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Read my book, therefore, Leonard. I am particularly interested in questions
              of detail of my argumentation. I mean, one should not turn at once to my
              tentative conclusion e.g. on the identity of Arimathea or the neaniskos in
              the tomb and shoot it down. Far more important is the calendar question I
              mentioned to BobMacDonald or my solution to the phenomenon of Judas and
              Andrew in the structure of the Gospel of Mark.

              cordially,

              Karel


              ----- Original Message -----
              From: <Maluflen@...>
              To: <k.hanhart@...>; <M.S.Goodacre@...>;
              <synoptic-L@...>; <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 4:14 PM
              Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Some on-line items of interest - Farrer


              > In a message dated 5/25/2004 8:09:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
              k.hanhart@... writes:
              >
              > << Surely the odd, original, but un-Greek "epetheken onoma toi Simoni...:
              Petron" in Mk 3,16 forced Matthew and John to improve the language. Mark's
              meaning is probably: "he charged
              > Simon with being a (the) rock". >>
              >
              > Karel, I have numerous questions that emanate from your lengthy post, but
              perhaps I should refrain from posing them till I have read your book. In the
              meantime, I would like to highlight the oddity of your argument's premise,
              which is that John and the author(s) of an early Christian creed were
              dutifully recording the correct order of the Synoptic Gospels through coded
              (not to mention chronologically inverted) allusions at roughly the same time
              that an almost universal tradition was developing in the church that
              emphatically asserted the priority of Matthew as the first written Gospel. I
              find this odd in the extreme. With regard to the above citation from the end
              of your post, could you explain to me what is wrong with the Greek of the
              cited Markan phrase? I have never had any particular difficulty
              understanding the phrase, or its syntax, and it reads to me like a good
              essential summary of the story in Matt 16 which Mark will later omit. Mark
              is not interested in the issue of legitimation of an authority in the
              (Jewish)Christian community with which that Matthean source-text deals. (You
              see I am far from conversion on this topic.)
              >
              > Leonard Maluf
              > Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
              > Weston, MA
              >
              > K)¦Ø,zz-z§ÿÃjfºO.ê¢ ³)¦Ø"¸´ìz´zS?ÂÂwniË


              Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
              List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
            • Karel Hanhart
              ... From: To: ; ; ; Sent: Tuesday, May
              Message 6 of 13 , May 28, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: <Maluflen@...>
                To: <k.hanhart@...>; <M.S.Goodacre@...>;
                <synoptic-L@...>; <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 4:14 PM
                Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Some on-line items of interest - Farrer


                > In a message dated 5/25/2004 8:09:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
                k.hanhart@... writes:
                >
                > << Surely the odd, original, but un-Greek "epetheken onoma toi Simoni...:
                Petron" in Mk 3,16 forced Matthew and John to improve the language. Mark's
                meaning is probably: "he charged
                > Simon with being a (the) rock". >>
                >
                > Karel, I have numerous questions that emanate from your lengthy post, but
                perhaps I should refrain from posing them till I have read your book. In the
                meantime, I would like to highlight the oddity of your argument's premise,
                which is that John and the author(s) of an early Christian creed were
                dutifully recording the correct order of the Synoptic Gospels through coded
                (not to mention chronologically inverted) allusions at roughly the same time
                that an almost universal tradition was developing in the church that
                emphatically asserted the priority of Matthew as the first written Gospel. I
                find this odd in the extreme.

                Leonard, I, for one, find it odd that you appear to be unacquainted with the
                first century method of referring to passages in Tenach. This is always done
                through key terms. If Mark, for instance, writes "when you see to 'dbelugma
                tes eremoseos'" (13,14) his readers knew he was citing Dan 9,27.
                First century authors didnot have footnotes or notes in the margin but their
                audience or at least - in the case of the ecclesia -, the presbyter would be
                in a position to explain the text in the light of Daniel.
                This practice was essential because communication was very expansive at the
                time.
                Finally, the practice that the early ecclesia's notified each other of what
                documents were "received", i.e. approved, by them, is well known Hence my
                conclusion that the Creed originally was a booklist of received documents.

                What do you think of my comment: 'epetheken onoma toi Simoni'?

                cordially,

                Karel





                With regard to the above citation from the end of your post, could you
                explain to me what is wrong with the Greek of the cited Markan phrase? I
                have never had any particular difficulty understanding the phrase, or its
                syntax, and it reads to me like a good essential summary of the story in
                Matt 16 which Mark will later omit. Mark is not interested in the issue of
                legitimation of an authority in the (Jewish)Christian community with which
                that Matthean source-text deals. (You see I am far from conversion on this
                topic.)
                >
                > Leonard Maluf
                > Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
                > Weston, MA
                >
                >


                Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
              • Karel Hanhart
                ... From: Joseph Weaks To: Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 7:39 PM Subject: [Synoptic-L] Re: Didache, John and gospel
                Message 7 of 13 , May 28, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "Joseph Weaks" <j.weaks@...>
                  To: <synoptic-L@...>
                  Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 7:39 PM
                  Subject: [Synoptic-L] Re: Didache, John and gospel order (Was: Some on-line
                  items of interest)


                  > Karel Hanhart wrote:
                  > > I am fully aware that my proposal is almost too good to be true. Proof
                  > > is hard to come by in these matters and every theory is bound to have
                  > > a rebuttal. However, you are too quick in your dismissal, it seems to
                  > > me.
                  >
                  > Karel,
                  > Thanks for sharing the "gist" of your arguments here. It's nice food
                  > for thought. Some of the arguments do look more like chaos
                  > theory/coincidence that authorial craft, mostly because of the
                  > assumptions it makes. For instance:
                  >
                  > > However, the surprising composition of the first prayer
                  > > in the Didache, convinced me that the key terms in the Creed were
                  > > citations of key terms in the various canonical writings.
                  > > If true the Creed would so to speak favour the
                  > > Farrer theory concerning the Gospels in ascending order: (John) '
                  > > only-begotten' ; (Luke): conceived of 'the HOLY SPIRIT'; (Matthew)
                  > > born of
                  > > the 'VIRGIN Mary', (Mark) 'suffered under PONTIUS PILATE'. Perhaps we
                  > > should pursue this string, (1 Corinthians) raised ON THE THIRD DAY etc.
                  >
                  > Really? These seem to you substantially clear references to those
                  > gospels? And what do you mean by surprising?

                  Joseph,

                  Why the ironic tone of of writing? Didn´t I observe that it was almost too
                  good to be true and that proof in these matters is hard to come by?
                  My surprise was aroused after I had checked all canonical writings but had
                  not found the combination in them of `Father´ ´almighty´ and ´creator´ in
                  one verse. We call such a combination a hapax. So the force of my theory was
                  diminished, because I did not find the combination in any canonical writing.
                  Finally, I decided to check the Didache little expecting that I would find
                  confirmation there. But the unexpected occurred. The opening of the prayer
                  in the Didache did contain the three elements.
                  What is more, it does make sense that the opening statement in the
                  Apostle´s Creed (book list) would refer precisely to the Didache. For Luke
                  in his Acts makes mention of several authors who wrote before him, but does
                  not mention any one of them by name. But he does state that the first
                  christian did persevere in the ´didache ton apostolon´. Apparently, the
                  Didache was so well known and so much accepted by all, that he could mention
                  the book by name.

                  > Perhaps you give a fuller account of your jumps ( again the irony KH)
                  elsewhere, but what
                  > seems obvious to you is less than so to me.

                  > Nathanael is of course a surprisingly unknown, but important disciple
                  > in John.
                  > I have no idea what this means. With the possible exception of Peter,
                  > they're all unknown.

                  Philip and Andrew are among the twelve, Joseph, the three are known,
                  Nathanael is the only exception. Also Matthew was among the twelve, which
                  John (with an innuendo) translated in the sacred tongue, Hebrew, ´Nathanael´
                  .

                  > > The famous last chapter 21 is not a later appendix. It has rightly
                  > > been characterized as a kind of allegorical
                  > > representation of the book of Acts This premise is not very
                  sustainable. (Reminds me of Crossan's biggest weakpoints: "Yes, Text A is
                  early and Text B is late because it makes
                  > sense to me. Now that I've established that stratification, let us
                  > proceed."

                  This was not my idea, but of a famous British commentator, whose name I
                  cannot locate at the moment. John prefers Luke, as has been observed by
                  others. Is it so strange that John after having told the passion story,
                  would begin a final chapter with ´after that Jesus revealed himself anew´
                  and continue his account with one great fishing expedition ( the 153 fish
                  representing the nations of the world). Just as in Acts two disciples
                  ´fishing for people´ play in it a major role, Peter and the Beloved
                  Disciple. As Ray Brown and others rightly observed / there appears to be
                  rivalry in this chapter between the two disciples, but Peter is the
                  acknowledged leader.
                  Now taking into account that John wrote his gospel last of the four and that
                  he represented the ecclesiae of Asia Minor and taking into account that a)
                  the ecclesia of Rome was accredited by most ecclesiae a leading role as
                  prima inter pares but b) that Asia Minor long resisted this, the notion that
                  John in the fourth gospel wrote as it were a summary of the acts of the
                  apostles and did accredit Peter with being Shepherd of the sheep, has a
                  degree of probability.It at least explains the strange ending of the Gospel.
                  Chapter 21 is not an appendix as Bultmann wanted.
                  I am writing this as a protestant, but it does make good sense. In fact,
                  history shows both the
                  demurral and acceptance by the Eastern church of the primacy of Rome.


                  > > If the above be true, is then the earlier paragraph in John ahead of
                  > > Nathanael (1,40 - 42) a reflection on Mark? That certainly would be
                  > > the case.
                  > Really? "Certainly?"

                  Granted ´cerainly´ is not the right adverb.

                  > Still, I applaud every continued attempt at inter-textuality between
                  > texts such as Didache, Shepherd, etc, with the canonical texts. Instead
                  > of a building block for a Farrer thesis, perhaps your ideas serve more
                  > of a supporting role.

                  > Fantastischliche,

                  Joe, all exegetes speculate / no one is able to offer certain proof. Irony
                  is a weak weapon in these matters. Even those who mantain that Jesus
                  actually walked on water, are making a phantastic statement. They speculate
                  that the authors of the Gospel were reporting facts in the manner of a
                  modern journalist. Why accuse a colleague of phantasy?

                  cordially,

                  Karel

                  >
                  > **************************************************************
                  > Rev. Joseph A. Weaks
                  > Senior Minister, Bethany Christian Church, Dallas
                  > Leander Keck Fellow of NT Studies, Brite Divinity School, Ft. Worth
                  > j.weaks@...
                  > **************************************************************
                  >
                  >
                  > Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                  > List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                  >


                  Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                  List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                  ... Not canonical, but the combination appears in Philo Decal 51.6; Spec 3.189.5 Plutarch Platonicae quaestiones 1000.E.11 Maximus Soph.Philosophumena
                  Message 8 of 13 , May 28, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Karel Hanhart wrote:

                    > Joseph,
                    >
                    > Why the ironic tone of of writing? Didn´t I observe that it was almost too
                    > good to be true and that proof in these matters is hard to come by?
                    > My surprise was aroused after I had checked all canonical writings but had
                    > not found the combination in them of `Father´ ´almighty´ and ´creator´ in
                    > one verse.

                    Not canonical, but the combination appears in

                    Philo Decal 51.6; Spec 3.189.5 Plutarch Platonicae quaestiones 1000.E.11
                    Maximus Soph.Philosophumena 33.6.c.3.

                    Jeffrey

                    > We call such a combination a hapax. So the force of my theory was
                    > diminished, because I did not find the combination in any canonical writing.
                    > Finally, I decided to check the Didache little expecting that I would find
                    > confirmation there. But the unexpected occurred. The opening of the prayer
                    > in the Didache did contain the three elements.
                    > What is more, it does make sense that the opening statement in the
                    > Apostle´s Creed (book list) would refer precisely to the Didache. For Luke
                    > in his Acts makes mention of several authors who wrote before him, but does
                    > not mention any one of them by name. But he does state that the first
                    > christian did persevere in the ´didache ton apostolon´. Apparently, the
                    > Didache was so well known and so much accepted by all, that he could mention
                    > the book by name.
                    >
                    > > Perhaps you give a fuller account of your jumps ( again the irony KH)
                    > elsewhere, but what
                    > > seems obvious to you is less than so to me.
                    >
                    > > Nathanael is of course a surprisingly unknown, but important disciple
                    > > in John.
                    > > I have no idea what this means. With the possible exception of Peter,
                    > > they're all unknown.
                    >
                    > Philip and Andrew are among the twelve, Joseph, the three are known,
                    > Nathanael is the only exception. Also Matthew was among the twelve, which
                    > John (with an innuendo) translated in the sacred tongue, Hebrew, ´Nathanael´
                    > .
                    >
                    > > > The famous last chapter 21 is not a later appendix. It has rightly
                    > > > been characterized as a kind of allegorical
                    > > > representation of the book of Acts This premise is not very
                    > sustainable. (Reminds me of Crossan's biggest weakpoints: "Yes, Text A is
                    > early and Text B is late because it makes
                    > > sense to me. Now that I've established that stratification, let us
                    > > proceed."
                    >
                    > This was not my idea, but of a famous British commentator, whose name I
                    > cannot locate at the moment. John prefers Luke, as has been observed by
                    > others. Is it so strange that John after having told the passion story,
                    > would begin a final chapter with ´after that Jesus revealed himself anew´
                    > and continue his account with one great fishing expedition ( the 153 fish
                    > representing the nations of the world). Just as in Acts two disciples
                    > ´fishing for people´ play in it a major role, Peter and the Beloved
                    > Disciple. As Ray Brown and others rightly observed / there appears to be
                    > rivalry in this chapter between the two disciples, but Peter is the
                    > acknowledged leader.
                    > Now taking into account that John wrote his gospel last of the four and that
                    > he represented the ecclesiae of Asia Minor and taking into account that a)
                    > the ecclesia of Rome was accredited by most ecclesiae a leading role as
                    > prima inter pares but b) that Asia Minor long resisted this, the notion that
                    > John in the fourth gospel wrote as it were a summary of the acts of the
                    > apostles and did accredit Peter with being Shepherd of the sheep, has a
                    > degree of probability.It at least explains the strange ending of the Gospel.
                    > Chapter 21 is not an appendix as Bultmann wanted.
                    > I am writing this as a protestant, but it does make good sense. In fact,
                    > history shows both the
                    > demurral and acceptance by the Eastern church of the primacy of Rome.
                    >
                    > > > If the above be true, is then the earlier paragraph in John ahead of
                    > > > Nathanael (1,40 - 42) a reflection on Mark? That certainly would be
                    > > > the case.
                    > > Really? "Certainly?"
                    >
                    > Granted ´cerainly´ is not the right adverb.
                    >
                    > > Still, I applaud every continued attempt at inter-textuality between
                    > > texts such as Didache, Shepherd, etc, with the canonical texts. Instead
                    > > of a building block for a Farrer thesis, perhaps your ideas serve more
                    > > of a supporting role.
                    >
                    > > Fantastischliche,
                    >
                    > Joe, all exegetes speculate / no one is able to offer certain proof. Irony
                    > is a weak weapon in these matters. Even those who mantain that Jesus
                    > actually walked on water, are making a phantastic statement. They speculate
                    > that the authors of the Gospel were reporting facts in the manner of a
                    > modern journalist. Why accuse a colleague of phantasy?
                    >
                    > cordially,
                    >
                    > Karel
                    >
                    > >
                    > > **************************************************************
                    > > Rev. Joseph A. Weaks
                    > > Senior Minister, Bethany Christian Church, Dallas
                    > > Leander Keck Fellow of NT Studies, Brite Divinity School, Ft. Worth
                    > > j.weaks@...
                    > > **************************************************************
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                    > > List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                    > >
                    >
                    > Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                    > List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

                    --

                    Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

                    1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
                    Chicago, IL 60626

                    jgibson000@...



                    Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                    List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                    ... I m not sure, as I m still trying to figure out just what your argument is. Jeffrey -- Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.) 1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1 Chicago,
                    Message 9 of 13 , May 29, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Karel Hanhart wrote:

                      > Thanks, Jeffrey. Would the reference to Philo diminish the strength of my
                      > argument in your opinion? Both Philo and the Didache couch their language
                      > in terms of Scripture.

                      I'm not sure, as I'm still trying to figure out just what your argument is.

                      Jeffrey
                      --

                      Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

                      1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
                      Chicago, IL 60626

                      jgibson000@...



                      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                    • Joseph Weaks
                      I understand that Burridge is doing a revised edition of his book. Anyone have detailed info. I know he is updating the preface, but is that it, or is there
                      Message 10 of 13 , Jul 7, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I understand that Burridge is doing a revised edition of his book.
                        Anyone have detailed info. I know he is updating the preface, but is
                        that it, or is there material enhancement to the text? Has he set out
                        to plug some of the holes? Release date? Suggestions where to find out
                        more info?

                        Thanks,
                        Joe

                        **************************************************************
                        Rev. Joseph A. Weaks
                        Senior Minister, Bethany Christian Church, Dallas
                        Ph.D. (Cand.), Brite Divinity School, Ft. Worth
                        j.weaks@...
                        **************************************************************


                        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                      • Mark Goodacre
                        Yes, I ve seen some of the new material in draft and it represents a substantial revision, bringing the book up to date and engaging developments and reactions
                        Message 11 of 13 , Jul 8, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Yes, I've seen some of the new material in draft and it represents a
                          substantial revision, bringing the book up to date and engaging
                          developments and reactions that have emerged since the first edition.
                          It is apparently scheduled for release in September. See the Eerdmans
                          site at:

                          http://www.eerdmans.com/shop/product.asp?p_key=0802809715

                          What Are the Gospels?: A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography
                          Richard A. Burridge

                          $34.00 Paperback

                          Not yet in print (Expected ship date: 9/29/04)

                          revised edition; 380 pages; dimensions (in inches): 6.25 x 9.25

                          ISBN: 0-8028-0971-5

                          Foreword by Graham Stanton

                          Richard Burridge's highly acclaimed study of the Christian Gospels is
                          substantially updated and expanded in this revised edition. Here
                          Burridge engages the field of Gospel studies over the last hundred
                          years, arguing convincingly for viewing the Gospels as biographical
                          documents of the sort common throughout the Graeco-Roman world.

                          In pursuing the question of his book's title, Burridge compares the
                          work of the Christian evangelists with that of Graeco-Roman
                          biographers. Drawing on insights from literary theory, Burridge
                          demonstrates that the widespread view of the Gospels as unique is
                          false, and he discusses what a properly "biographical" perspective
                          means for Gospel interpretation. The book includes a long new chapter
                          detailing the recent paradigm shift in Gospel scholarship — a shift
                          due in large part to this very book — a new foreword by Graham
                          Stanton, and an appendix dealing with the absence of comparable early
                          Jewish biographies.

                          Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                          List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                        • Stephen C. Carlson
                          I take it that the recent paradigm shift referred to below in the press blurb is Bauckham et al. s (which includes Burridge) Gospel for All Christians.
                          Message 12 of 13 , Jul 8, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I take it that the recent "paradigm shift" referred to below in
                            the press blurb is Bauckham et al.'s (which includes Burridge)
                            "Gospel for All Christians."

                            Burridge ably filled in for Bauckham in a SBL 2003 session on this
                            topic. As I recall, one of his points is that the gospels are a
                            form about biography, which means that they are about its subject
                            Jesus, not about the local community from which they originated.
                            It sounds like a basic point, but it is a helpful reminder when
                            reading someone's use of a gospel as a window into an early
                            Christian community.

                            Stephen Carlson


                            At 09:51 AM 7/8/2004 +0100, Mark Goodacre wrote:
                            >Yes, I've seen some of the new material in draft and it represents a
                            >substantial revision, bringing the book up to date and engaging
                            >developments and reactions that have emerged since the first edition.
                            >It is apparently scheduled for release in September. See the Eerdmans
                            >site at:
                            >
                            >http://www.eerdmans.com/shop/product.asp?p_key=0802809715
                            >
                            >What Are the Gospels?: A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography
                            >Richard A. Burridge
                            >
                            >$34.00 Paperback
                            >
                            >Not yet in print (Expected ship date: 9/29/04)
                            >
                            >revised edition; 380 pages; dimensions (in inches): 6.25 x 9.25
                            >
                            >ISBN: 0-8028-0971-5
                            >
                            >Foreword by Graham Stanton
                            >
                            >Richard Burridge's highly acclaimed study of the Christian Gospels is
                            >substantially updated and expanded in this revised edition. Here
                            >Burridge engages the field of Gospel studies over the last hundred
                            >years, arguing convincingly for viewing the Gospels as biographical
                            >documents of the sort common throughout the Graeco-Roman world.
                            >
                            >In pursuing the question of his book's title, Burridge compares the
                            >work of the Christian evangelists with that of Graeco-Roman
                            >biographers. Drawing on insights from literary theory, Burridge
                            >demonstrates that the widespread view of the Gospels as unique is
                            >false, and he discusses what a properly "biographical" perspective
                            >means for Gospel interpretation. The book includes a long new chapter
                            >detailing the recent paradigm shift in Gospel scholarship — a shift
                            >due in large part to this very book — a new foreword by Graham
                            >Stanton, and an appendix dealing with the absence of comparable early
                            >Jewish biographies.
                            >
                            >Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                            >List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...

                            --
                            Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                            Weblog: http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/hypotyposeis/blogger.html
                            "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35


                            Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
                            List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.