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

Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Didache, John and gospel order (Was: Some on-line items of interest)

Expand Messages
  • Karel Hanhart
    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
    Message 1 of 1 , May 28, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      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.

      cordially,

      Karel


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Jeffrey B. Gibson" <jgibson000@...>
      To: "Karel Hanhart" <k.hanhart@...>
      Cc: "Synoptic-L" <Synoptic-L@...>
      Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 12:56 AM
      Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Re: Didache, John and gospel order (Was: Some
      on-line items of interest)


      >
      >
      > 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@...
      >


      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.