Scriptural literacy

[Radrook]

Here is a commentary about the modus operandi which appears to yield all sorts of idiosyncrasies when applied to the Bible.

(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1978) p. 377,

Walter Kaufmann discusses Wellhausen's as well as other forms of Higher Criticism and showsone of the major failures of these schools in the following observation:

Imagine a Higher Critic analyzing Goethe's Faust, which was written by a single human being in the course of sixty years. The scenes in which the heroine of Part One is called Gretchen would be relegated to one author; the conflicting conceptions of the role of Mephistopheles would be taken to call for further divisions, and the Prologue in Heaven would be ascribed to a later editor, while the prelude on the stage would be referred to yet a different author. Our critic would have no doubt whatsoever that Part Two belongs to a different age and must be assigned to a great many writers with widely different ideas. The end of Act IV, for example, points to an anti-Catholic author who lampoons the church, while the end of Act V was written by a man, we should be told, who, though probably no orthodox Catholic, was deeply sympathetic to Catholicism. Where do we find more inconsistencies in style and thought and plan: in Goethe's Faust or in the Five Books of Moses?[39] In short, inconsistencies of style and text cannot be taken as proof that a work was written by more than one author.

[39] Herman Wouk remarks in his book This is My God (Glasgow: Williams Collins Sons and Co., 1973) p. 291:

"Literary analysis has been used for generations by obsessive men to prove that everybody but Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. I believe literary analysis could be used to prove that I wrote both David Copperfield and Farewell to Arms. I wish it were sound!"

 

[RandFan]

Here is a commentary about the modus operandi which appears to yield all sorts of idiosyncrasies when applied to the Bible.

Interesting but the point is narrowly focused. Context is but a small issue regarding authorship. Even if it were significant it wouldn't resolve so many of the problems of the Bible.

 

[angelsaramark]

the way it is

Or how about stoning your children to death if they get mouthy? Or killing all the men of a tribe and taking their women as sex slaves? How shall we interpret those "moral directives"?

Ummm... This is just life. Currently, those in the military (someone's child) are ordered to go and fight and die. Plans are in the works (Charlie Wrangle) to draft (compulsory service) young men and women for whatever the government wants. Women are still sex slaves even here in the good old USA. None of this is new. It's the order of things.

Face it, you are going to always be someone's bitch. As long as you know the rules, you can keep out of trouble.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

If anyone can help, I do have a question. First, I don't completely buy the story that Burton Mack spins in "Who Wrote the New Testament?", especially the separate communities that he proposes existed soon after Jesus died. But he does raise a point about Paul that is now bugging me.

Background -- 1Thessalonians was the first of Paul's letters, so it seems to contain the earliest example of his theology. According to Mack, Paul was converted to a particular form of Christianity that he labels the Christ cult -- the idea being that this type of cult was formed by several strains coming together and reflected in the creed: That Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried; and that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures; and that he appeared....... This includes the idea of the noble death (it also included the suffering servant concept) and justification by God evidenced by the resurrection. But Mack does not seem to think that the justification by God -- the resurrection -- necessarily implied an apocalyptic message initially.

So, here's the issue that I have with 1Thessalonians: If we accept the traditional explanation that the Thessalonians were already apocalypticists, and if we use Paul's later pronouncements on apocalypticism as a guide (that Jesus was the first fruits) and if he taught this doctrine to the Thessalonians, why would they be concerned about those who had died? Wouldn't they already have the idea that the dead were going to be resurrected? Does this imply that they did not think the dead were going to be resurrected?

Earlier in the letter Paul off-handedly refers to a day of retribution, so he seems to have taught them some form of apocalypticism, or at least some idea of a coming judgment. But this did not include the idea of a resurrection of the dead? It doesn't seem to, otherwise why would Paul need to spell out this idea -- which reads like it is a new one to them.

This letter really bothers me now. What did Paul teach these people?

 

[Greediguts]

So, here's the issue that I have with 1Thessalonians: If we accept the traditional explanation that the Thessalonians were already apocalypticists, and if we use Paul's later pronouncements on apocalypticism as a guide (that Jesus was the first fruits) and if he taught this doctrine to the Thessalonians, why would they be concerned about those who had died? Wouldn't they already have the idea that the dead were going to be resurrected? Does this imply that they did not think the dead were going to be resurrected?

Earlier in the letter Paul off-handedly refers to a day of retribution, so he seems to have taught them some form of apocalypticism, or at least some idea of a coming judgment. But this did not include the idea of a resurrection of the dead? It doesn't seem to, otherwise why would Paul need to spell out this idea -- which reads like it is a new one to them.

This letter really bothers me now. What did Paul teach these people?

If the congregation was new and had very little time with Paul before he left, they might not have correctly grasped what he had tried to teach them. Paul almost seemed to expect some problems to arise (3:5). He sent Timothy to check-up on them so then it would appear the rest of the letter is Paul addressing the concerns and questions Timothy brought back from his visit. Paul reminds them to abstain from fornication (perish the thought!) as the congregation may have had some concerns with THAT directive!!! Then Paul seems to address a misconception about resurrection. The congregation seems to think if you die before witnessing the return of Jesus, you won’t get into the new kingdom of God. Paul explains that the dead will precede the living and then the living will be “raptured”. The last part of the letter is to remind the group to maintain an apocalyptic vigilance.

This problem could arise because people became focused on the apocalyptic aspect of the teachings (probably taught with a strong indication that the end times were coming soon). Anyone older in the congregation (which at those times would have been 35-40) might be concerned that they would die without seeing Jesus and miss out on all the resurrection cake…

 

[Hokulele]

It could be that in an effort to distinguish Christianity from Judaism, emphasis was placed on the soon-to-be end times. Since Judaism already included the concept of resurrection, some of the members of the early church may have thought that resurrection was rejected as well. There did seem to be a bunch of Jew-bashing in that particular letter.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

If the congregation was new and had very little time with Paul before he left, they might not have correctly grasped what he had tried to teach them. Paul almost seemed to expect some problems to arise (3:5). He sent Timothy to check-up on them so then it would appear the rest of the letter is Paul addressing the concerns and questions Timothy brought back from his visit. Paul reminds them to abstain from fornication (perish the thought!) as the congregation may have had some concerns with THAT directive!!! Then Paul seems to address a misconception about resurrection. The congregation seems to think if you die before witnessing the return of Jesus, you won’t get into the new kingdom of God. Paul explains that the dead will precede the living and then the living will be “raptured”. The last part of the letter is to remind the group to maintain an apocalyptic vigilance.

This problem could arise because people became focused on the apocalyptic aspect of the teachings (probably taught with a strong indication that the end times were coming soon). Anyone older in the congregation (which at those times would have been 35-40) might be concerned that they would die without seeing Jesus and miss out on all the resurrection cake…

But Paul always seemed to spend, when we have a time frame, 18 months or so with each group. He couldn't have created the group in the first place without spending a good deal of time in the area.

Yes, they could have been focused on the apocalyptic message -- though Mack argues (and I don't agree with him) that apocalypticism was not part of the original message; he thinks Paul threw it in in this letter. But if apocalypticism was part of the original message, the brand that Paul delivers in his other letters seems to include a general resurrection from the dead. If that was his message -- there will be a general resurrection from the dead at the end times and Jesus is the first fruits demonstrating that the general resurrection is a comin' -- then how do we make sense of Thessalonians question?

Could he have left out the whole idea of a general resurrection from the dead? Did his message grow and change over time? Was the original message just that the end times are coming, so be prepared? Did he even tell them that?

I think he must have given them some sort of judgment-is-coming lecture based on his comment about the coming retribution; but does this letter really make sense -- from the viewpoint of the community itself -- if he delivered a strong apocalyptic message to them?

I'm thinking that he didn't preach a general resurrection of the dead initially. If he'd mentioned it, I don't think the Thessalonians would have let that little tidbit slip their minds.

 

[calebprime]

Here is a commentary about the modus operandi which appears to yield all sorts of idiosyncrasies when applied to the Bible.

and Radrook quoted:

Quote:
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1978) p. 377,

Walter Kaufmann discusses Wellhausen's as well as other forms of Higher Criticism and showsone of the major failures of these schools in the following observation:

Imagine a Higher Critic analyzing Goethe's Faust, which was written by a single human being in the course of sixty years. The scenes in which the heroine of Part One is called Gretchen would be relegated to one author; the conflicting conceptions of the role of Mephistopheles would be taken to call for further divisions, and the Prologue in Heaven would be ascribed to a later editor, while the prelude on the stage would be referred to yet a different author. Our critic would have no doubt whatsoever that Part Two belongs to a different age and must be assigned to a great many writers with widely different ideas. The end of Act IV, for example, points to an anti-Catholic author who lampoons the church, while the end of Act V was written by a man, we should be told, who, though probably no orthodox Catholic, was deeply sympathetic to Catholicism. Where do we find more inconsistencies in style and thought and plan: in Goethe's Faust or in the Five Books of Moses?[39] In short, inconsistencies of style and text cannot be taken as proof that a work was written by more than one author.

[39] Herman Wouk remarks in his book This is My God (Glasgow: Williams Collins Sons and Co., 1973) p. 291:

"Literary analysis has been used for generations by obsessive men to prove that everybody but Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. I believe literary analysis could be used to prove that I wrote both David Copperfield and Farewell to Arms. I wish it were sound!"


------------


had to Google to get title:

Critique of Religion and Philosophy

I love W. Kaufmann. I wonder what he would have to say on the matter of Biblical authorship.

 

[Greediguts]

But Paul always seemed to spend, when we have a time frame, 18 months or so with each group. He couldn't have created the group in the first place without spending a good deal of time in the area.

If we cross-reference with Acts 17, Paul was not there long...

"After Paul and Silas had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three sabbath days argued with them from the scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Messiah to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, "This is the Messiah, Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you." Some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women. But the Jews became jealous, and with the help of some ruffians in the marketplaces they formed a mob and set the city in an uproar. While they were searching for Paul and Silas to bring them out to the assembly, they attacked Jason's house. When they could not find them, they dragged Jason and some believers before the city authorities, shouting, "These people who have been turning the world upside down have come here also, and Jason has entertained them as guests. They are all acting contrary to the decrees of the emperor, saying that there is another king named Jesus." The people and the city officials were disturbed when they heard this, and after they had taken bail from Jason and the others, they let them go.
That very night the believers sent Paul and Silas off to Beroea; and when they arrived, they went to the Jewish synagogue. These Jews were more receptive than those in Thessalonica, for they welcomed the message very eagerly and examined the scriptures every day to see whether these things were so. Many of them therefore believed, including not a few Greek women and men of high standing. But when the Jews of Thessalonica learned that the word of God had been proclaimed by Paul in Beroea as well, they came there too, to stir up and incite the crowds. Then the believers immediately sent Paul away to the coast, but Silas and Timothy remained behind. Those who conducted Paul brought him as far as Athens; and after receiving instructions to have Silas and Timothy join him as soon as possible, they left him."(Acts 17:1-15)

So he was there for almost a month. Not a long period of time. Timothy and Silas stayed behind, near the area, for awhile longer.

If that was his message -- there will be a general resurrection from the dead at the end times and Jesus is the first fruits demonstrating that the general resurrection is a comin' -- then how do we make sense of Thessalonians question?

Could he have left out the whole idea of a general resurrection from the dead? Did his message grow and change over time? Was the original message just that the end times are coming, so be prepared? Did he even tell them that?

How much was Paul able to teach them in the short time he was there? How much may have been second-hand info that Timothy and Silas passed on to others in nearby towns, who then went into Thessilonica, re-telling what they had been told?

If Paul made it a habit of going into temples and arguing through scripture that Jesus was the Messiah, I would believe that apocalyptic themes would be common in his conversations.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

How long does it take to say that Jewish apocalypticism includes the idea of a general resurrection of the dead? He covers it in a few lines in Cornithians. Seems to me that if he taught it -- and length of time is not an issue if we are talking one month or 18 -- then they wouldn't have asked the question.

I don't think he taught that idea to them.

Keep in mind too that Acts was written 30 years or more after the fact.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

The mother tells the servants to do whatever Jesus tells them. The mother (Judaism) would be telling the servants (the people) that she trusts Jesus; the heritage of [/COLOR]Israel is safe with him. The steward would represent authority (religious elite). When they bring the steward the water, he does not realize where it came from, but the author makes a point of stating the servants knew. Authorities don't know the truth, but the people do. Now the other time bridegroom is mentioned in the Gospel of John is when John the Baptist refers to Jesus (John 3:29). If we look at what the steward says to the bridegroom, we can see the author is really making a statement about the Synoptic Gospels. The Synoptic Gospels would be the inferior wine that the majority of people have consumed, leaving them drunk; unable to comprehend the works of Christ. The real meaning of Jesus (the bridegroom) and his works would now come out in John's Gospel (the good wine).

I wanted to re-visit this issue, because I've had some doubts about it after further reading................


Tell me what you think about this option.........I was wondering again about the wedding at Cana in particular and trying to piece out why the cleansing of the Temple comes next.

I don't think Jesus' mother stands for Judaism per se, but for the real Judaism that is modelled in Christ. The inferior wine, I think, is the old version of Judaism that is now superseded by the new message that Jesus brings; it was the stewards who served the old wine and who do not know where the new wine comes from (the Jewish leadership -- agreed).

The next thing that happens is a passover and Jesus travels to Jerusalem and cleanses the Temple, then predicts its destruction, then equates the Temple with his body.

He identifies rebuilding the Temple with his resurrection because he brings the good wine -- the right message from God.

I think we see all the signs associated with Jewish festivals not because this was a strongly Jewish group, but because at each festival Jesus does something miraculous -- he one-ups the festivals themselves because he supplants them, bringing the real message from God.

I think this group was trying, in the post-Temple-destruction period to identify itself as the true inheritors of the Israelite heritage, as opposed to the corrupt Jewish leadership; just look where their version of Judaism got them.

So, while I agree that John was written in response to Mark, I think much of what is written in John makes more sense if viewed as the Johannine group's attempt to identify itself as the true Judaism. They were probably stuck with having a "new religion", so what better way to deal with the issue than to argue that they are the true old religion (ala Epistle of Barnabas), and what better way to begin than to claim a founder who existed before Judaism ever was?

ETA:

Then next he goes back to Galilee through Samaria and has the conversation with the woman at the well concerning the water of life. She specifically asks Jesus "are you a greater man than our father Jacob (Israel)?" since they are at Jacob's well to which Jesus does not directly respond but clearly shows that his water is superior to that of Jacob's well and, by extension, Israel itself. Then comes the discussion about her husbands, which I can only guess refers to different overlords of Samaria. Jesus tells her that her current mate is not her husband -- which I assume refers to the Herodians who I seem to recall had control over Samaria at the time (though it could also refer to Rome).

ETAETA:

Can you tell I'm reading John again as I write this? Next (skipping the cure of the nobleman's son and the discussion in Samaria about the food and belief/witnessing that surfaces as a continuing theme throughout the gospel) comes the Pool at Bethesda -- interesting issue that might possibly refer to Mark's gospel. This sign plays out in a similar manner to the paralytic in Mark (one of the early miracles) even with the "Get up, pick up your mat and walk" line. So, here's my question -- the man is specifically said to suffer an illness which had lasted 38 years. Could the writer of John been aware of exactly when Mark was written and referred to that? Or could this be code for the fact that John was not written circa 95 but actually in 108 -- the 38 years referring to the time of the Temple destruction?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

OMG, John is a re-working of Jewish history for this new community. I think this makes sense of why Jesus' mother quotes Pharaoh -- the Pharaoh at the time of Joseph, who was always seen in a positive light -- because Jews are cast as Egyptians in this book (the true inheritors of Judaism are like Joseph's Pharaoh). The Pharisees are Pharaoh at the time of Moses -- "He has blinded their eyes, he has hardened their hearts, for fear they should see...." and Jesus is Moses leading the people out of slavery (to sin) "Look, there is the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." There is no transfiguration in this text because one of the themes is transfiguration -- Jesus is the transformative figure (water into wine, vinegar into blood and water, darkess into light, etc.) and he brings food from heaven (manna); walking on water is a re-enactment of the Sea of Reeds. The resurrection of Lazarus is the redemption of the first born of Israel.

ETA:

Why the frick is Judas so prominent in this gospel? Is he a re-working of the episode with the golden calf? He is clearly associated with money.

 

[Greediguts]

I'm working alot at the moment, so I'll make a more detailed post later. I need to spend more time going over the text. I still see John as a challenge to the Synoptics, not creating a "new" Judaism or re-working their history. When the Beloved Disciple and Jesus' mother (the one who gives birth-Judaism the mother of Christianity) are at the cross and Jesus says "Woman here is your son" and to the Beloved Disciple he states "Here is your mother"(John 19:26-27) that seems fairly clear to me...I don't see an author using the figure of a mother to represent "new" Judaism modeled after Jesus then just use wine to represent all of past Judaism?!? Being tied to all of that history helped give them some street cred...


Within your theory, what is the role of the Beloved Disciple?


BTW what is the book and verse that the Pharaoh's quote comes from?? I'm drawing a blank...

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Being tied to all of that history helped give them some street cred...

Right, but by the time that John was written, there was an increasingly obvious break between Judaism and Christianity -- the Christians had been thrown out of the synagogues (around 90 or so IIRC), referred to by Jesus in his final instructions to the disciples (Jn 16:2). Initially the Romans didn't see any distinction between Jews and Christians if we believe Seutonius -- Claudius threw them all out of Rome because of the fights that were seen as internal to Judaism. But, by the time of Nero (or at least by the time of Tacitus) there appears to be a clear distinction between Jews and Christians because Nero blames Christians and not Jews for the fire in Rome. The Christians needed street cred because their religion was so new. What better way to play for credibility but to say that they had the oldest of religions because they got the faith of the Jewish God right and those silly Jews, with their corrupt leaders, got it wrong? I think that is why jesus repeatedly tells the disciples (and the Jews) that the Jews did not know him -- that they did not know the Father. He is basically saying that the Jews don't know their own god.

Within your theory, what is the role of the Beloved Disciple?

He would be the embodiment of this Christian group ("my instruction to you is to love one another"); and he probably referred specifically to some founder or supposed founder of the group -- like the references to the Advocate who in John seems to be the Spirit and, at the same time, an individual. So, the beloved disciple assumes the mantle of care for true Judaism (the mother of Jesus) which is the heart of this group.

BTW what is the book and verse that the Pharaoh's quote comes from?? I'm drawing a blank...

Jesus' mother saying "do whatever he tells you" (Jn 2:6) refers to Pharaoh giving the same instruction to the Egyptians when Joseph was in Egypt (Gen 41:55) and the famine had begun.

I agree with you that John was written in response to Mark (Peter is shown as stupidly impetuous -- repeatedly -- for a reason, and the author of John replays scenes from Mark in new ways), but I think the break from Judaism was a stronger motivation and a bigger theme in this book.

 

[Greediguts]

OMG, John is a re-working of Jewish history for this new community. I think this makes sense of why Jesus' mother quotes Pharaoh -- the Pharaoh at the time of Joseph, who was always seen in a positive light -- because Jews are cast as Egyptians in this book (the true inheritors of Judaism are like Joseph's Pharaoh). The Pharisees are Pharaoh at the time of Moses -- "He has blinded their eyes, he has hardened their hearts, for fear they should see...." and Jesus is Moses leading the people out of slavery (to sin) "Look, there is the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." There is no transfiguration in this text because one of the themes is transfiguration -- Jesus is the transformative figure (water into wine, vinegar into blood and water, darkess into light, etc.) and he brings food from heaven (manna); walking on water is a re-enactment of the Sea of Reeds. The resurrection of Lazarus is the redemption of the first born of Israel.

Wanted to throw out something I came across while reading more of Helms' writings. He points out that the wedding story takes it origin from Septuagint III Kings where Elijah provides a jar of flour that is always full. The line where Jesus says "What have I to do with you woman" seems very rude and out-of-place. In Septuagint III Kings, the woman in the story says the same line to Elijah (Septuagint III Kings 17:18-minus the word "woman" of course). This story becomes another example of prophecy fulfilled by Jesus. Elijah called for a vessel of water which became flour that never ran out. Jesus called for vessels of water which became wine in abundance. Helms also believes this story helps to point to an author living in a cosmopolitan, Greek-speaking city. They would have been familiar with Greek customs. On the festival day of Dionysus, the temple springs of Andros and Teos were supposed to yield wine instead of water. Three vessels would be placed in the temple on the eve of the festival and the next day they would be filled with wine. A miracle!!!


To the larger question regarding John being a reworking of Jewish history, I still don't see it. They obviously had a problem with the Jewish religious leaders, but not with the people themselves. Raymond Brown talks of Crypto-Christians. Jews who secretly believe but do not want to be expelled from the synagogue. They would know Jewish history and the religious texts. The Crypto-Christians could recall Jesus was a Jew who functioned within the synagogue. So their judgment would be that the expulsion of the Johannie Christians from the synagogue was due to the group's radical ideas and the intransigence of the Jewish elite. They would stay and try to bring the groups back together, back to the time there was at least tolerance between the groups. Verses like John 12:42-43 point to this idea of believing Jews staying in the temple.

The big idea the Gospel of John was trying to change is the idea of "future eschatology"-the Johannine Community no longer expected any apocalyptic events in the future. God's very decisive offer of salvation through faith in Jesus was ALL that was needed. Jesus is NOT coming soon. For the follower's of John's Gospel, he came and went. Again, in John's Gospel, Jesus' last words on the cross are "It is finished." His work is done. Humanity has been shown the true way. Judgment was not a future matter, but right now, at Jesus' time. (John 3:18, John 5:24, John 12:31). John's Jesus is triumphant at the moment of his Crucifixion/glorification (John makes this all one moment): "I shall draw all men to myself when I am lifted up from earth"(John 12:32). John's Jesus does not need a future second coming (he also did not need a virgin birth, a baptism, or a Eucharist ritual established). This was a RADICAL departure from the Synoptics. So radical that John was edited and future eschatology was re-introduced by a final redactor, so the growing proto-orthodox church would accept it (Helms believes the author of John II was the final editor of the Gospel of John - Brown does not specify). The Book of Revelation being attributed to "John" only muddles the situation even more for present day Christians...


Ultimately, the break from Judaism is not the overall message of the Gospel. The establishment of Johannine Christology, in the face of the Synoptics, is the central theme running throughout the text.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Ultimately, the break from Judaism is not the overall message of the Gospel. The establishment of Johannine Christology, in the face of the Synoptics, is the central theme running throughout the text.

I dont' think "break from Judaism" is the way they viewed it, but rather break from the Jewish authorities who had lead the people astray. I think they viewed themselves as the true inheritors of God's message -- the true Judaism. Give me a couple days and I'll try to paint a fuller picture.

I agree that a central theme of the book is their Christology, which was radically different from the synoptics. We're in agreement there. I just think the miracle at Cana better symbolizes the other theme I see running through the book -- that this community saw itself as the inheritors of the true message of the one God, who was the Jewish God, and which is symbolized in the good wine.

They did break from what we would consider mainstream Judaism by seeing Jesus as divine. As you know, there were Jewish Christian groups that kept the Law as a primary feature of their message and their Christology was entirely different, since they were adoptionists. I think the Johannine community needed to rework their view of what Judaism was to fit the new Christology; and this is necessarily a theme of the book.

By the way, very cool bit about the jar producing flour; yeah, it fits right in and certainly explains the origin of the story.

 

[Greediguts]

I dont' think "break from Judaism" is the way they viewed it, but rather break from the Jewish authorities who had lead the people astray. I think they viewed themselves as the true inheritors of God's message -- the true Judaism. Give me a couple days and I'll try to paint a fuller picture.

I agree that a central theme of the book is their Christology, which was radically different from the synoptics. We're in agreement there. I just think the miracle at Cana better symbolizes the other theme I see running through the book -- that this community saw itself as the inheritors of the true message of the one God, who was the Jewish God, and which is symbolized in the good wine.

They did break from what we would consider mainstream Judaism by seeing Jesus as divine. As you know, there were Jewish Christian groups that kept the Law as a primary feature of their message and their Christology was entirely different, since they were adoptionists. I think the Johannine community needed to rework their view of what Judaism was to fit the new Christology; and this is necessarily a theme of the book.

By the way, very cool bit about the jar producing flour; yeah, it fits right in and certainly explains the origin of the story.

I think we agree more than we disagree on this. I do think the Johannine community would see itself as the true inheritors of the faith. I guess the idea of "reworking" what Judaism was, is where we start to split. I'll wait to hear more of what you have to say.

Raymond Brown sees about 7(!) different groups being represented in the Gosple of John. There is alot going on in this text...

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I think we agree more than we disagree on this. I do think the Johannine community would see itself as the true inheritors of the faith. I guess the idea of "reworking" what Judaism was, is where we start to split. I'll wait to hear more of what you have to say.

Raymond Brown sees about 7(!) different groups being represented in the Gosple of John. There is alot going on in this text...

Yeah, it's an amazing text, and I'm sure much more dense than I realize.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply earlier, if that is the message you got, that I disagreed with the idea that John was meant to answer Mark. I just thought there was an alternative interpretation for the wedding at Cana having to do with the theme of their new way of seeing themselves as the true inheritors of Judaism, in light of Jesus -- the good wine.

As far as reworking, I guess that depends on what you think I meant. I did not mean that they recreated Judaism, but that I think they replay Jewish history symbolically in the book to fit the new Christology -- with references to the patriarchs (Jacob's well), the passover (throughout), the reed sea (Jesus walking on water), feeding the multitudes in the desert (the miracle of the loaves, followed by Jesus discussing himself as manna), the Babylonian exile (Jesus foretelling his departure at the Feast of Tabernacles, after the people discuss the origin of the Messiah), [out of order I know but possibly] David (the good shepherd), and the rebuilding of the Temple (the resurrection of Lazarus) -- and to show that they are the true inheritors of the tradition.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

OK, here's what I put together in the last hour or so. Sorry for it's length and that I just got tired of writing ....................


As you know, John’s gospel begins with a prologue announcing that Jesus is the Word of God, a pre-existent being, made flesh and witnessed by John, the Baptizer.

John announces ” Indeed, from his fullness we have, all of us, received – yes, grace in return for grace, since though the Law was given through Moses, grace and truth have come through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God; it is the only Son, who is nearest to the Father’s heart, who has made him known.” (Jn 1:16-18)

The opposition of Moses/Jesus is initiated in the opening verses of the text as is the theme, often repeated, that no one knows the Father except through the Son. So, “the Jews” did not know the Father, did not understand what Judaism was supposed to concern until Jesus arrived to set the record straight. This Christology is set in opposition both to Mark’s view of Jesus, who appears as a miraculous man possibly adopted by God, and to the earlier conception of Judaism as interpreted by “the Jews” (the Jewish leaders, in particular, the Pharisees who were mostly concerned with Law).

Now the Johannine community must have had a problem with John the Baptist because this was a man, particularly in Mark, who preached repentance of sins before the Kingdom of God arrived; so the Baptist is transformed in John’s story into a witness, and we never actually see him baptize anyone – particularly not Jesus (which would have made no sense given Johannine Christology). John twice refers to Jesus as the lamb of God (and once as the one who takes away the sins of the world); and, interestingly the question John’s disciples (who become Jesus’ disciples) ask Jesus is, “Where do you live?” This narrative section ends with the proclamation that the disciples will see “heaven laid open”, implying that is where Jesus really lives. Along the way, as you know, the author denigrates Peter (first occurrence) by mentioning that he was brought into the community by his brother Andrew (who was previously a follower of the Baptist) in opposition to the story in Mark where they are called together and Andrew is barely mentioned again.

The miracle at Cana we have discussed previously – suffice it to say that Jesus both turns the water into wine and serves as the bridegroom (as he is often depicted and clearly referred to by John later (Jn 3:29); so Jesus has kept the best wine until now. We can quibble over whether or not the best wine refers to the new Johannine Christology (in opposition to Mark’s Christology) or to a new conception of how Judaism works, but I see no reason to suppose that it does not refer to both. I tend more toward this being a reference to their view of Judaism, but it’s not a big deal.

Next up is the cleansing of the Temple – a clear reference to the destruction of the Temple. But, in opposition to earlier treatments, in John’s hands Jesus draws a direct parallel between the Temple and his body. He implies that his resurrection is a restoration of the Temple in some sense – because the Johannine community lived in the post-Temple period and needed to refashion what that meant in relation to their faith and Jesus. This Jesus seems the perfect fulfillment of the Temple period, since he will provide the perfect sacrifice to replace all other sacrifices (so the Johannine group could see itself as followers of the true Temple -- Jesus).

Notice that this occurs during Passover, where sacrifice was commonly provided at the Temple (granted it was done at other times as well for those living in Judea). But the Passover and Temple is linked to Jesus’ body, and we have just heard that he is the lamb of God (twice, and once that he takes away the sins of the world) , and there is a transformation of water into wine juxtaposed before this, wine being one of the symbolic “foods” at Passover, as you know.

I think the implication is that Jesus transcends the Passover, that he is what is truly important, even more than the temple (obviously, since it no longer exists by the time the gospel is written and God would not have allowed that unless there was a reason), with a further reference (again, this is my opinion) to the wine, his blood, in the Eucharist tradition. The next Passover meal/ miracle is associated with bread.

Next up is the conversation with Nicodemus – that one must be born from above in water and the Spirit; the evangelist restates the previously alluded to theme that Jesus comes to save the world and that he accomplishes this feat by his arrival and his death (not a future return, in contradistinction to Mark, as you have previously argued, and I agree). He also repeats the theme of darkness and light (Jesus as light) and implies – later explicitly states – that those who reject the Son reject the Father. Or, that “the Jews” reject their own tradition, properly understood.

Next is the trip through Samaria and his discussion with the woman at the well about the water of life. Water/wine is maintained as the theme with the first Passover. The woman specifically asks if Jesus claims to be greater than Jacob, and he implies that he is because the water that he will give brings eternal life – again, he transcends the traditional Jewish figure. Then Jesus tells her, “Believe me, woman, the hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know; for salvation comes from the Jews. But the hour will come – in fact it is here already – when true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth: that is the kind of worshipper the Father wants. God is spirit, and those who worship must worship in spirit and truth.” (Jn 4:21-24). In other words, the old Temple tradition is going to pass, but the real Judaism, the real way to worship God is to worship Him in spirit and truth through belief in Jesus.

The return to Galilee, from the first trip to Jerusalem, is capped by the cure of the nobleman’s son, performed specifically while Jesus is again in Cana, as a sort of reproach – “So, you will not believe unless you see signs and portents” – despite the fact that Jesus repeatedly performs miracles for the purposes of inculcating belief. The first Passover narrative is bookended by the first two signs, both performed at Cana, like this is one narrative unit.

I’m afraid, however, that I’m at a bit of a loss to explain why this sign is given right here in the story and how it fits into the narrative structure as a whole except that it fits the theme of “curing” the people from the misguided teaching of “the Jews” and can be paired with the new wine – the proper way to view Judaism in light of Jesus’ ministry.

Next is the cure of the sick man at Bethesda, which I think serves as a transition to the next narrative unit which surrounds the second Passover. You will recognize the basic outline/point of the story from Mark – performing a cure on the Sabbath and “Get up, pick up your sleeping mat and walk”. But I think he also symbolizes the transition of Judaism from the fall of the Temple to the time of the writing of the story. I’m stretching things a bit here, but there must be some reason why he is afflicted for 38 years. As I mentioned in an earlier post, this would put the creation of this story, which may have been added later – it begins with the same “some time after this” as does the next narrative unit – around 108. The man, like the Jewish people who would be left adrift by the destruction of the Temple, is cured by Jesus who tells “the Jews” that “whoever listens to my words, and believes in the one who sent me, has eternal life”. (JN 5:24)

The next narrative unit, surrounding the second Passover, is where I think the story of Israel’s history is symbolically replayed. This Passover is tied to bread (continuing the theme of using the symbolic Passover foods), and we get the bread of life passages.

The last narrative unit is the last Passover and Passion. The lamb is the symbol here, as Jesus is sacrificed on Preparation day. The teachings are primarily concerned with two things – to see me is to see the Father, to believe me is to believe in the Father; and stay true to the message because tribulation is coming. The idea that accepting Jesus means accepting God fits nicely with the idea that this group saw themselves as the inheritors of the “true Judaism”.

With the crucifixion we see the Romans giving Jesus vinegar (wine) and piercing his side – and out comes water and blood (Eucharist and reversal of the miracle at Cana). And, as you have pointed out, Jesus famously proclaims, “It is done”, because his sacrifice is all that is needed, no new work to be done in a rapidly approaching second coming.

OK, I’m already petering out, and this is way too long, so I’m just gonna stop now.

 

[Greediguts]

O.K. I'm sorry. I was getting caught-up in thinking you thought the Johannine community was trying to basically recreate a whole new history of Judaism. Again, sorry. I have moments of being very dense. So yes, I agree with you.

I think the Gospel of John was written to show:

1. Jesus is the true fulfillment of OT prophecy.

2. Jesus now replaces Moses' Law and Jewish customs.

2. The Synoptics did not understand Jesus' true message.


Looking over the wedding at Cana again, something else stood out...

Jesus refers to his mother as "woman". Now granted, he refers to other women as "woman", but it seems very "odd" that he directs this at his actual mother. I mean, it's his mom. Since this is when the author introduces the character, I find it telling that the word "woman" is used. The only time Jesus refers to her as "mother" is when he "gives" Mary to the Beloved Disciple. She becomes a caring mother then, not before. What is the author saying about Judaism? The mother also states "They have no wine." Could the author really be saying Judaism is barren? In the author's mind, the vine produced no real fruit (the Synoptics)...

He also uses the jars meant for Jewish rites of purification. This is the beginning of Jesus replacing Jewish custom/law with his own.

I find so many references to Moses that it's obvious the writer wanted to show parallels between Moses and Jesus. Also, in John's Gospel, Jesus is never called the Son of David. The focus is on the Mosaic traditions.

Looking at the temple story again, yes, Jesus is saying he is more important than the temple. He replaces the temple. God was confined to the temple, now He has become flesh. Raymond Brown points out that Jesus' actions fulfill OT prophecy as well (Jeremiah 7:8-14, Zechariah 14:20-21).

I think it's also very interesting that the character of Nicodemus comes to Jesus at night. In John's Gospel, darkness is symbolic of evil and ignorance. Something else stood out...the text of 3:16-21 almost seems out-of-place. What was a conversation, seems to end in a monologue

I'm running late, but will try to post more later....