Get PDF Jesu Salbung durch die Sünderin (Lk 7,36-50): Eine neutestamentliche Exegese (German Edition)

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Jesu Salbung durch die Sünderin (Lk 7,36-50): Eine neutestamentliche Exegese (German Edition) file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Jesu Salbung durch die Sünderin (Lk 7,36-50): Eine neutestamentliche Exegese (German Edition) book. Happy reading Jesu Salbung durch die Sünderin (Lk 7,36-50): Eine neutestamentliche Exegese (German Edition) Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Jesu Salbung durch die Sünderin (Lk 7,36-50): Eine neutestamentliche Exegese (German Edition) at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Jesu Salbung durch die Sünderin (Lk 7,36-50): Eine neutestamentliche Exegese (German Edition) Pocket Guide.

Rather, the Fourth Gospel represents an independent reflection upon the ministry of Jesus produced in at least two editions, and these factors will be drawn together in suggesting an overall theory of Johannine-Synoptic relations. Whatever their degree and character, contacts between John and each of the gospel traditions probably had its own particular history, and these factors likely extended to differing traditional forms as well as content-related issues. A third fallacy involves the uncritical assumption that the tradition histories and editorial processes operative between the traditions and workings of the first three evangelists are necessarily indicative of those of the fourth.

Anderson Fourth Evangelist employed alien non-Johannine written sources, as did the First and Third Evangelists, is virtually nonexistent. It is less likely that the Fourth Evangelist knew Luke or Matthew in their written forms, and yet traces of Johannine material can the also be found in Acts.

Jesus, Simon und die Sünderin

This is an interesting and provocative fact. The Johannine and Matthean traditions appear to have shared a common set of goals in reaching local Jewish communities with the gospel of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, but their communities apparently had also endured hardship within the process. With the rise of further problems with Gentile Christians and issues related to church maintenance and organization, these traditions appear to have been engaged in dialectical sets of explorations regarding apologetics, ecclesiolo- gy, and Christocracy — the effectual means by which the risen Lord continu- es to lead the church.

However, the soundness of an argument depends on the veracity of the premises and the validity of its reasoning. In addition, the plausibility of an overall view must be considered as it relates to other constellations of issues. On the other hand, the genre of John, while it was indeed a rhetorically-oriented composition, is not that of an imaginative fiction.

While narrative features are definitely intrinsic to the composition of John, these narratives presuppose actual events, claiming at times to be reflections upon them — wrongly or rightly — and even these narrations must be considered in the light of other traditions internal and external to the Jesus movement. Anderson rhetorical interests in mind.

While the present essay cannot develop fully the critical analyses of alterna- tive options evaluated elsewhere,1 the findings of earlier works become the foundations of further research. Not all of these issues are treated directly here, but they are indeed discussed elsewhere for those interested in considering the issues further.

At times, the questions themselves are still good ones, even if particular answers are insufficient, and every critical analysis done properly casts new light on familiar matters. They may also expose other issues to be explored; likewise, every set of conclusions creates its own set of headaches needing to be addressed. The traditional view, that the Fourth Gospel was written by an apostle, John the Son of Zebedee at the end of his life, bears with it considerable problems. First, the writer of John 21 claims another person is the author — the Beloved Disciple who leaned against the breast of Jesus at the supper — and this suggests at least one other hand in the composition process if one takes the text literally.

This set of facts 1 Many of these findings are extensively laid out in Paul N. Trinity Press International , and critical responses have been suggestive of movements within Johannine scholarship. See also the traditionsgeschichtlich implications of my dialogues with Professors Schneiders, Culpepper, Stanton and Padgett in that issue. Anderson poses serious problems with the view that a particular disciple wrote all of John on his or her own. This conjecture by Clement of Alexandria, of course, proves nothing about Synoptic facticity or Johannine ahistoricity.

It simply reflects a conjectural attempt to reconcile the differences of approach and content between John and the Synoptics. Likewise, conjectural fallacies have abounded regarding how an aposto- lic author would or would not have operated. Do we really know, for instance, what an octogenarian would have thought and how he would have operated as a transmitter of tradition, eyewitness or otherwise? Anderson implications backwards to inferences, and when criticized with sustained scrutiny, the longevity of such negative certainties may not be as long-lived as we might have imagined.

Top Free Books

However, it could not have been written in the same way two decades later, after the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, whereupon Semitic and Hellenistic distinctions have become largely obsolete. It would indeed be significant, theologically and otherwise, if John were composed of at least five distinct sources. The results are not only inconclusive; they are non-indicative. Likewise problematic are disordering and reordering hypotheses. For there to have been 10 disorderings of the material found in John 6 precisely in between sentences at 80 Greek letters per sentence would have required a ratio of 1: A rationalist must thus balk at such proposals, even if they are theoretically conceivable.

Anderson On the other hand, Bultmann noticed subtle turns in the text and special nuances of meaning appearing to escape other interpreters, to their peril. Bultmann did indeed identify theological tensions in the text and contextual oddities that beg to be addressed by later theorists.

For instance, his inference that the redactor may have been the author of the Johannine epistles is right on target, and his work contributes helpfully to other composition approaches as well. Stylistically, however, John is a basic unity, albeit with several aporias and rough transitions along the way. In less nuanced ways, for instance, Thomas Brodie7 has assumed that all connections between John and any other traditions imply Johannine dependence on the rest.

This approach is well meaning, but it fails to develop convincing criteria for assessing source dependence in either direction. Oxford University Press, Anderson spiritualizing the meanings of events and details narrated in Mark, according to Barrett. In my analyses of John 6 and corollaries in the Synoptics, however, the findings appear to confirm the basic directions of P. Within John 6 alone, 24 contacts exist with Mark 6, and 21 contacts exist with Mark 8.

Consider these similar-and-yet-different details: These persistent examples of similarities-and-divergences in the material closest between Mark and John, other than the Passion narratives, suggest some sort of contact, but not the Johannine borrowing from written Mark. Obviously, the sorts of contacts unique to John and Mark involve by definition the Markan material omitted by Matthew and Luke. Interestingly, though, many of these details are telling in their own way regarding the 8 Christology, pp. University of South Carolina Press, Anderson character of the Markan and Johannine traditions.

Two primary sorts of material omitted by both Luke and Matthew include non-symbolic, illustrati- ve details and theological asides. Implications of these issues are as follows: Put otherwise, the distinctive contacts between Mark and John reflect traces of orality which were characteristic of the sorts of details preachers used in narrating their accounts of the ministry of Jesus, and this material is precisely the sort of material omitted by Matthew and Luke.

According to Peder Borgen,11 at least some of the material in John originated from Midrashic developments of Old Testament motifs. In particular, Borgen argues at some length that John 6 is a unity, and that it represents a homiletical development of Exodus Borgen argues that John 6: Borgen bases his work on the treatments of manna in Philo and the Babylonian Midrashim and correctly identifies similar Greek words and patterns existent in these other treatments of the manna theme.

In this way Borgen demonstrates John 6: First, he fails to note the fact that when the manna motif is considered in its most pervasive use 10 See Table Marcan Detail Mk 6: Interpolations Added by Luke Lk 9: This is also the way it occurs in John 6. The second observation follows from the first: Rather, we have in John 6 a Christocentric development of the meaning of the feeding miracle by Jesus, employing the Jewish manna motif and its midrashic associations as part of the development.

In other words, the origin of the traditional material in John 6 was not the Jewish Midrashim upon the manna motif, but it was an independent Johannine reflection upon the meaning of the feeding and its related discussions. More specifically, after the feeding, the crowd comes to Jesus asking for more bread, and upon his de-emphasis on the physicality of the sign they press their main point by means of employing standard Jewish manna rhetoric.

Jesus overturns their exegesis, not with his own rapier skill, but by pointing to God, the eschatological source of both the earlier manna and the present Bread, which Jesus gives and is. In fact, many of the elements disbursed between these two Markan traditions are more unified in John, suggesting the integrity of the Johannine rendering. A common theory of accounting for the origin of the Johannine tradition involves the conjecture that John is written novelistically and that the historical-type detail has been added as a means of making the narrative more believable. Bultmann certainly claims this to have been the case, assuming it is in keeping with ancient narrative practice, and this is the explanation he poses to account for the prolific detail and geographical material in John.

Two major problems, however, confront such a view. So, if 12 See Table 1: Anderson John operated like other first-century writers, especially other gospel writers, the adding of such detail would have been uncharacteristic. Among second-century pseudepigraphal gospels and writings some of this is done, but these writings show little, if any, similarity to the Gospel of John on this and many other matters. Also, John may be novelistic, but John is not written as an etherial fiction. The characters and events have indeed been dramatized, but John is more of a dramatized history than a historicized drama.

As a means of furthering this interest, the Fourth Evangelist more characteristically employs irony and the characterization of misunderstanding discussants. Thus, John is more of a dramatized history than a historicized drama. See discussions of the composition theories of Bultmann, Brown, Schnacken- burg, Barrett, and Lindars; ibid, pp. The third-person references to the ascribed author in chs.

Chapter 11 seems to have been anticipated by the exclamation of the steward in John 2: In accommodating these perplexities, it may be inferred that a first edition of John was probably produced around or shortly after 80 CE, and this edition was produced to show that Jesus was the authentic Jewish Messiah Jn The preaching ministry of the evangelist continued, however, and after his death this material Jn 1: At least six crises, or extended sets of dialogical relations, can be inferred within a hypothetical recon- struction of Johannine Christianity. While the early history of Johannine Chris- tianity is less discernible, several aspects of it can be inferred.

It apparently did develop within a northern Palestinian either Galilean, Samaritan, or possibly even trans-Jordan setting for some time, and ambivalent relations with Judean religious leaders are apparent. Nonetheless, he does place John 6 and 21 in the later edition of material and points out ten parallels between these two chapters.

Also within the early stages of the Johannine tradition, encounters with followers of John the Baptist are evident. It may have been during this period that the Johannine preaching may have come into contact with oral deliveries of the pre-Markan tradition. There never was a time when there was a singular Jesus tradition from which later trajectories departed. Some differences went back to the earliest stages of gospel traditions. Perhaps connected with the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome in CE, the Fourth Evangelist moved to one of the mission churches in Asia Minor or elsewhere to assist in the strengthening of the movement, and in the attempts to evangelize local Jews with the news that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, the evangelist forged some of the signs mate- rial, the I-Am sayings, and the controversy dialogues into more programmatic patterns.

The first-edition of John is rife with these attempts to put forward a convincing view that Jesus was indeed the Prophet like Moses, anticipated in Deuteronomy Either before or after the Jamnia marshaling of the Birkat ha-Minim, Johannine Christians were put out of the Synagogue, several followers of Jesus remained behind cryptically, and some Johannine community members may even have been recruited back into the Synagogue by the appeals to religious certainty and ethnic identity of Judaism I Jn 2: Anderson 4 Emerging Pressures from Rome.

A second crisis during this middle stage may be inferred as pressures to offer public emperor worship arose during the reign of Domitian CE.

follow link

Thus, they would have been expected to offer public Emperor laud, especially during the stepping up of the practice under Domitian, and as indicated by the correspondence between Pliny of Bythinia and Trajan ca. In response to Roman harassment and oppression around matters associated with the emerging Emperor Cult, opposing such a practice would have been the most difficult for Gentile Christians. Gentile members of Asia Minor were accustomed to worshiping the king or emperor as a matter of political loyalty, and they would not have seen it as a spiritual offense in quite the same way that the monotheistic Jewish-Christian leadership would have.

The primary argument against assi- milation would have been the suffering example of Jesus, and such was precisely the teaching to which the docetizing leaders objected.

The primary attraction to the teaching was not simply that it fit into a Hellenistic world- view, but it was the implications that made it most attractive. If a non-human Jesus neither suffered nor died, his followers need not be expected to do the same. The material added to the final edition of John has within it most of the incarnational material in John Jn 1: It was preached and written to oppose docetizing inclinations among Gentile believers, and the same sequence of issues can be seen clearly in the epistles of Ignatius and the Epistles of John. A final crisis to be inferred in the Johannine material relates to dialectical tensions with institu- tionalizing Christianity within the late first-century church.

It is doubtful, for instance, that the organizing work of Ignatius and others like him was experienced as problem-free, and tensions with Diotrephes and his kin III Jn 9f. Notice that the Elder has written to the ecclesia about Diotrephes, perhaps an institutionalizing center of the Christian movement the only uses of ecclesia in the gospels are in Matt Notice that he not only refuses to welcome the Johannine philoi, but Diotrephes also expels members of his own fellowship who are willing to take them in.

Analyses assuming the issue to be merely inhospitality overlook the larger issue, which is the infelicitous wielding of positional authority by Diotrephes, even within his own community, as the singular precipitator of the inhospitable reception of Johannine Christians. But why was Diotrephes threatened by Johannine Christians?

In response to this and other evolutions in ways structural, the Johannine Elder finalized the witness of the Beloved Disciple and circulated it as a manifesto of radical Christocracy: Obviously, a fair amount of conjecture is involved in developing any theory of Johannine history, but all of the above projections are rooted in plausible evidence. A common fallacy involves assuming Johannine Christianity stayed only in one place over 60 years, or that it only struggled on one front. Living communities rarely enjoy the luxury of facing only one set of issues over several generations, and a theoretical history of Johannine Christianity must account for the apparent dialogical factors suggested by internal and external evidence.

These crises and dialogues also accounted for some of the theological emphases in John, with Jewish-Christian dialogues pushing christological motifs higher and anti-docetic tensions evoking incarnational motifs, for instance. Anderson h Cognitive Criticism and Traditionsgeschichte. Gospel traditions were not disembodied sets of ideas floating abstractly from sector to sector within the early church. They were human beings who reflected upon experiences in the light of perceptions and religious understandings.

The unreflective notion that religious typological ideas were simply taken over by gospel traditions, thus explaining the epistemological origin of the events narrated in the gospels, is unrealistic. All the gospel traditions were theological, and they were all historical, in the sense that they sought to connect meanings of important events in the past with the perceived needs of the eventual present.

Some differences between Mark and John may even reflect radical differences of first impression rather than later divergences rooted in emerging understandings alone. Ironically, while Bultmann was entirely capable of explaining ways dialectical theologians operate in the modern era see the critical-and-constructive treatment of his view of dialectical theology at the Eisenach address, Christology, pp. Anderson including commentaries upon their subsequent relative dearth , betray the faith development of different formers of gospel traditions as their preaching ministries addressed the needs of the early church.

Such approaches to gospel traditions help to account not only for differences between the gospels, but they also provide insights into historical developments between the ministry of Jesus and the finalization of those accounts in the written gospels to which we have access. These findings, while argued in greater detail elsewhere, now become the starting place for further investigations of the epistemological origins of the Johannine tradition. While this tradition appears to have been finalized the latest among the gospels, it is by no means devoid of its own claims to autonomy, and even primacy.

In fact, the Johannine tradition comes across as the most complete and self-assured of the four canonical traditions, and yet it probably enjoyed at least contact with the other gospel traditions along the way. Ascertaining those relationships will be the primary task to which the rest of the present essay is dedicated. John's Relation to Mark: Interfluential, Augmentive, and Corrective. Because Johannine source-critical hypotheses by and large lack sufficient evidence to convince although the venture itself is not misguided , and because John was completed around the turn of the first century CE, many scholars have moved back toward a view of Synoptic dependence, against the previously-accepted judgment of P.

Gardner-Smith that John's was a per- vasively independent tradition. While many of these studies have rightly identified similarities — and therefore possible connections — between John and the Synoptics, the assumption that John simply knew one or more of the Synoptics in written form and "did his own thing" with earlier material is often wielded in unrestrained and unsubstantiated ways.

John is also very different from Mark, and this fact must be accounted for. Connections iden- tified, however, are not redactions demonstrated, and adequate judgments require more considered and examined measures. The Johannine tradition appears to have intersected with each of the Synoptic Gospels, but in different ways, suggested by the frequency and character of contacts with each.

In no case are the similarities identical, so as to suggest direct depen- dence on a written text. Anderson during the oral stages of both Synoptic and Johannine traditions, but these contacts appear also to have developed in different ways and at different times. The following proposals reflect one's attempt to weight and explain the particular evidence adequately.

A John and Mark: While Barrett and others have identified clear connections between John's and Mark's vocabulary and ordering of material, huge differences also exist. As mentioned above and in my monograph pp. It suggests, nay demonstrates, that the Fourth Evangelist did not use Mark as a written source, at least not in the ways Matthew and Luke did.

Otherwise, there would be at least several identical connections rather than a broad similarity of some words, themes, and patterns. It is also a fact that the kinds of material common to John and Mark alone are often conspicuously the same types of material omitted by 22 nd C. Westminster Press, , pp. Besides the similarities between the events of John 6 and Mark, see, for instance, parallels between Mark and the John regarding the ministry of John the Baptist Jn 1: Anderson Matthew and Luke in their redactions of Mark: Luke and Matthew add their own units of material, some of which has these sorts of details and asides, but they by and large do not add details for the sake of embellishment, and when they do add theolo- gical points they reflect the commonsense conjecture of the First and Third Evangelists.

For instance, Matthew might add something about the fulfilling of all righteousness, and Luke might add something about Jesus emphasizing prayer or teaching about the Kingdom of God. Neither of these moves need represent particular knowledge of traditional material which Matthew or Luke felt essential to be added. Rather, they offer narrative bridges or punc- tuating remarks and short commentaries as transitional asides along the way. Another feature prevalent in Mark and John, but missing from Luke and Matthew, is the "translation" of Aramaisms into Greek and the "explanation" of Jewish customs.

Mark and John are intended to be understandable to Gentile members of their audiences, which is why they translate Jewish terms and customs. The tradition-related question, however, is a catalyzing one: Why do Mark and John distinctively preserve Aramaisms and Jewish names of people and places if they were not connected to earlier Aramaic or Hebrew traditions? Inferring an earlier Aramaic rendering of John need not be performed here to identify an acceptable answer. Interestingly, both the Matthean and Lukan traditions omit these details, and possibly for different reasons.

Matthew 23 Particular examples can be found in Tables Christology pp. What we appear to have between the two feedings and associated events in Mark and the feeding and associated events in John is three independent traditions which have been preserved for us in these passages. John also does the same sort of thing, but even more so. Anderson may have had fewer Gentile members of its audience, whereas Luke may not have felt the traditional need to pass on this sort of material from his utilization of written Mark, although Luke does indeed utilize other material with Aramaic origins.

Thus, the possibility is strong that the pre-Markan material and the early Johannine tradition reflect the use of primitive material characteristic of independent oral traditions. If this were so, insights into some of the contacts between the pre- Markan and early Johannine traditions become apparent. While the presence of apparently non-symbolic, illustrative detail is not in and of itself a sure marker of primitive orality, the particular contacts between Markan and Johannine renderings precisely on these matters of detail the grass at the feeding, and denarii, for instance suggest the sorts of catchy details preachers would have used and picked up from one another.

Then again, certainty on these matters finally evades the modern exegete, but the character of the material seems to cohere with the testimonies preserved by Irenaeus and Eusebius. What is also conspicuous is that as well as peculiar agreements through- out the narratives, these two traditions also differ considerably at nearly every step of the way. The Mat- thean conservative borrowing of written Mark seems less of an approach by an apostolic authority figure although much of the M and Q traditions probably went back to Jesus than the bold, trail-blazing path carved out by the Fourth Evangelist.

First, however, the two editions of John must be distinguished. Anderson minimum of speculation that accounts for the major aporias25 in the most plausible way possible is one that infers two basic editions of John. As men- tioned above, the first edition probably began with the witness of John the Baptist Jn 1: For the final edition the editor then added such passages as the worship material of the Prologue, chapters 6, , and 21 and the Beloved Disciple and eyewitness passages.

This being the case, several things become apparent about the character and inclination of the first edition of John with respect to Mark. First, John shows considerable similarity to the macro-pattern of Mark, suggesting that the Fourth Evangelist sought to do the sort of thing Mark had done, albeit in a very different sort of way. The middle parts of John and Mark are extremely different, but their beginnings and endings show a broad similarity of pattern. For instance, the actual baptizing of Jesus is not narrated in John, and there are very few close similarities in the presentation of John the Baptist other than his being the voice crying in the wilderness from Isaiah As mentioned above, this theory builds most centrally on the two-edition hypothesis of Barnabas Lindars, and it is the most plausible and least speculative among extensive source-dependence and rearrangement hypotheses.

The suppers are on different days, neither John nor Peter go to prepare the supper, Jesus does not offer the words of the institution at the last supper, there is no Gethsemene anguish in John, and the Markan apocalypse, the cursing of the fig tree, and the final teachings of Jesus in Mark are complete- ly missing in John. Nonetheless, several alternative explanations for the similarities and differences are as follows: Conver- sely, the Johannine narration may have provided the backbone for other traditions, including the pre-Markan.

One more fact, however, deserves consideration here. The order of the Passion material could not possibly have assumed any other order. Try placing the resurrection before the supper, or the trials after the crucifixion, or the appearances before the arrest of Jesus, or the arrest before the triumphal entry, or even reversing the two trials.

None of these transpositions, nor any others, could possibly be made to work! Thus, similarities between the Johannine and Markan Passion narra- tives do not imply dependence, one way or another, and this is why Bult- mann was forced to infer an independent Passion narrative for the Fourth Gospel. The material appears to have been traditional rather than concocted, and while familiar with Mark, John is not dependent upon written Mark.

The first two signs in John thus provide a chronological complement to Mark. Most telling, however, is the fact that none of the five signs in the first edition of John are included in Mark! He apparently wanted to fill out some of the broader material not included in Mark as Luke and Matthew have done but did so without duplicating Markan material proper.

The five signs also may have been crafted rhetorically in the five-fold pattern of the books of Moses, as Jesus is presented to convince a Jewish audience that he is indeed the Prophet like Moses anticipated in Deutero- nomy The Fourth Evangelist thus drew on his own tradition as his source, which he himself may largely have been. But these are written in order that Thus, in a subtle way, John Such a complementary intent would also account for considerable problems regarding major disagreements between Mark and John, especially the Markan material omitted by John, and at this point one must differ with some of the inferences of Gardner-Smith.

Non-dependence is not the same as total independence. Anderson Jewish Messiah Jn This material reflects distinctively Johannine paraphrasis of the teachings of Jesus, and the crafting of Jesus in the patterns of Elijah and Moses typologies were also integral parts of this evangelistic agenda. They sought to improve on Mark, as did the second ending of Mark, and perhaps John did too. For whatever reason, these two miracles may not have seemed to the Fourth Evangelist to have been the best ways to get the gospel narration going, and the numeration devices in John 2: Georg Olms Verlag, , p.

Anderson numeration device within an alien signs source.

With & without typos:

Another striking difference between Mark and John involves their presentations of the Temple cleansing. Several times hence, the disruptive sign in Jerusalem is commented upon as an event that caused other ripples in the Johannine narrative Jn 4: Why, for instance, do the Jerusalem leaders already want to kill Jesus after an apparently inane healing of the paralytic?

A prior Temple disturbance seems assumed. Conversely, an unlikely move to have been concocted thus applying the criterion of dissimilarity is the Johannine rendering of the re- ason for the Jewish leaders wanting to kill Jesus as being his raising Lazarus from the dead. It would be perfectly reasonable to have conjectured that the religious leaders wanted to get rid of Jesus because of his having created a demonstration in the Temple, and while Matthew and Luke follow Mark unquestioningly here, this does not imply three testimonies against one.

It may simply reflect common-sense conjecture, the very procedure Mark would have followed if he had listed all the Jerusalem events at the end of the narrative, which he clearly did. On the other hand, John 2: Also, the presentation of Jesus going back and forth from Jerusalem and ministering over the length of three Passovers seems more realistic than the Synoptic view that Jesus attended Jerusalem only once during his ministry, and during that visit, he was killed.

Also, some of the motif in John 2: This possibility may seem unacceptable to scholars holding a harmonizing view of the gospels, but the textual evidence seems to support such a theory, and so does a striking second-century witness. Thus, the Johannine perspective upon the Markan project may also lend valuable insights into the sort of compilation Mark may have been — a gathering of traditional units into a progressive denouement, with some chronological knowledge present — rather than a strict chronology proper.

Some of these theological proclivities come into their fullest development in the supple- mentary material, but they were already at work in the first edition of John. This view is nowhere coddled as sloppily as it is with regards to the relationship between the Gospels of Luke and John. Many of the great themes and passages most characteristic of Luke are not included in John, whereas at least two or three dozen times, Luke appears to depart from Mark and to side with the Johannine rendering of an event or teaching.

For instance, such great Lukan passages as the Parables of the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son are missing from John, as are such themes as concern for the poor and the presentation of Jesus as a just man. On the other hand, Luke sides with John against Mark in significant ways, and this fact is best accounted for by assuming Luke had access to the Johannine tradition, and that he used it.

Anderson Assuming there may have been a common-yet-unknown source is entirely conjectural, and it serves no purpose better than the more solid inference that a source Luke used was the early Johannine tradition. For one thing, Luke includes a variety of details that are peculiar to John but are not found in Mark.

For instance, people question in their hearts regarding John the Baptist Jn 1: Anderson the empty tomb Jn If Luke would have had access to written John, the placement of the great catch of fish probably would have been different, although Luke appropriately still includes it as part of the calling and re-calling narrative. Likewise, if Luke had access to written John, he might have moved the Temple cleansing to the early part of the narrative, included longer I-Am sayings, presented an alternative Lazarus narrative, and shown Jesus going back and forth from Jerusalem and doing other miracles not included in Mark.

Does such a reference imply a penchant for historical detail, or is Luke referring to something broader in its meaning? Again, such an interest is impossible to ascertain, but it does coincide with the fact that several times in his narration of events, Luke appears to change the sequence or to alter the presentation of something in Mark precisely where Luke coincides with John. For instance, Luke only includes one sea-crossing narrative, as does John, and Luke only includes one feeding the feeding of the 5, similar to John Jn 6: Luke moves the servanthood discussion to the last supper, where it is in John Jn A certain explanation may elude the theorist, but one fact is clear: Anderson Luke also appears to conflate material between Markan and Johannine presentations, suggesting he saw his work to some degree as bridging these two traditions.

Movement the other direction, towards a more elevated and royal anointing, might have been imaginable, but moving to a more modest foot anointing would have been extremely unlikely without a legitimating reason. In John, the anointing is perfor- med by Mary, the sister of Lazarus, but Luke may have misunderstood the narration due to his aural access to it.

This may also suggest the oral form of the Johannine tradi- tion to which Luke had access. Another interesting point made by Lamar Cribbs is that many times where Luke omits a Markan narrative or presentation of something, he does so precisely where the Johannine tradition seems to go against such a narration. Such an inference indeed is supported by the corollary facts, although certainty will be elusive. Whatever the case, the Johannine tradition appears to have influenced the Lukan at many turns.

Again, this question is finally impossible to answer with certainty, but Luke does show remarkable similarities with several Johannine theological motifs as well as details along the way. Likewise, the favorable treatment of women in both John and Luke appears to be no accident. Anderson tion is impressive.

Sundering - Save money with Search with & without Typos on eBay - find Sundering bargains

Luke believes women to be included in the new work that God is doing in the world, and Luke probably acquired at least some of this perspective from the Johannine tradition. Another example of theological in- fluence is the common importance placed upon the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, one of the most impressive similarities between Luke and John is the way Luke presents the ministry of the post-resurrection Jesus. The risen Christ stands among the disciples, speaking peace to them and offering courage. Likewise, the corporate fellowship of believers is enhanced by the sharing of table-fellowship with the Lord — even after the resurrection — in continuity with the historical ministry of Jesus.

Luke also sides with John in emphasizing the efficacy of prayer, and this is both taught and modeled by Jesus in both Gospels. A further connection which raises a striking set of implications is the fact that Luke unwittingly provides a clue to Johannine authorship which all sides of New Testament studies have apparently missed until now. Scholars are entirely aware of the view represented by Pierson Parker28 several decades ago: The proliferation of non-compelling argumentation does not a convincing case make.

Anderson lateness, spiritual tone, and differences from the Synoptic Gospels, most scholars have largely agreed with Parker despite the fact that none of his 21 points are compelling, either individually or collectively. What we have in Acts 4: This finding could be highly significant and deserves scholarly consideration. This, by the way, is the only time John is mentioned as speaking in the book of Acts, and he normally is presented as following in the shadow of Peter. The narration is then followed by two statements, and each of them bears a distinctively associative ring.

A similar statement is declared by the Johannine Elder in I John 1: Certainly, Luke presents many people who have seen things or heard things, and this could quite possibly represent a Lukan convention. Upon examining the textual results, however, only a few times does Luke present hearing and seeing words together and in this sequence, and the only other time seeing and hearing verbs are used together and in the first person plural, as they are in Acts 4: Luke may have been misguided, or even wrong, but this identification moves the apostolic association of the Johannine tradition with the disciple John a full century before the work of Irenaeus.

Contacts Between John and Q? Could it be that there were also contacts between the Johannine tradition and the Q tradition? This exploration is the most speculative, both in terms of the existence of Q and the question of whether similarities between Matthew, Luke and John imply some sort of contact between hypothetical Q and John. What is fasci— nating is that this passage, in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark, sounds very Johannine. Explanations assuming that John has employed Q do not suffice here. The best explanation is to infer that the Q tradition included a significant saying that sounds very Johannine.

Consider these similarities between Matthew, Luke, and John: All things have been handed over to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. All things have been handed over to me by my Father; and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, or who the Father is except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. The Father loves the Son and has placed all things in his hands. I have not come on my own.

But the one who sent me is true, and you do not know him. I know him, because I am from him, and he sent me. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father. And I lay down my life for the sheep. Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going to God, got up from the table, took off his outer robe, and tied a towel around himself.

And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. Father, I desire that those also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory, which you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.

Righteous Father, the world does not know you, but I know you; and these know that you have sent me. But what are the implications of such a connection? Either Q and John have a common origin between them of tradition earlier than Q perhaps going back to Jesus? The primitivity of the Johannine tradition thus is confirmed by either possibility, although the latter is the most likely.

Like the Lukan tradition, the Q tradition has apparently drawn on the Johannine tradition, probably during its oral stages of development. It is not assumed, however, that the bulk of Johannine tradition was available to the Q tradition, as some of it was still in the process of formation. Because these themes are more pervasively Johannine, however, it is most plausible to infer that Q has incorporated an early Johannine motif. Reinforcing, Dialectical, and Corrective. In some ways, the Matthean and Johannine sectors of the church were partners in the growing dialogues with local Jewish communities, especially along the lines of evangelizing the Jewish nation to accept its own Messiah: These traditions also sought to preserve their own material and to make it accessible for later generations.

In doing so, they may even have engaged each other, as well as other Christian traditions, regarding key matters, such as discipleship, leadership and the ongoing work of the risen Christ within the community of faith. A Matthean and Johannine Sectors of Christianity: Several of the contacts or parallels between Matthew and John reveal growing Christian communities which are trying to demonstrate that Jesus was indeed the Jewish Messiah, who is also needed in the world beyond Judaism.

Teaching interests and community maintenance concerns can be inferred most extensively in these two gospels, and such communities may even have reinforced each other in their traveling ministries between fellowships and correspondence otherwise. In the Matthean and Johannine settings alike, one or more Jewish Synagogues must have commanded a significant presence in the community especially for those seeking to follow a Jewish Messiah , although such was an ambiguous presence.

It may be that the Birkat ha-Minim, a ban excluding professing Christians from some Synagogues may have been instrumental in followers of Jesus being 31 A particularly interesting connection is the way Matthew and John both expand the passage from Isaiah 6: Anderson excluded from Synagogue life in both settings, but the tensions need not have followed from such a particular development. A possibility just as likely is that these communities probably experienced a mixed reception of openness and hostility from the local Jewish communities, and this ambivalence may even have precipitated the call for an exclusion clause, which the 12th Jamnian Benediction was designed to accommodate.

Whatever the case, Matthean and Johannine Christians shared a good deal of solidarity with one another. As tensions with Jewish sectors of communities grew and then subsided they appear less acute in the supplementary Johannine material , tensions with Gentile Christians increased. These issues were exacerbated by the stepping up of Roman Emperor worship as a broad requirement under the reign of Domitian CE. A further impact of Synagogue exclusion was that those who were not deemed to be part of the Jewish faith would not have been covered by the Roman dispensation for Jews in deference to their peculiar monotheism, and they would then have been expected to show loyalty to Rome or to suffer for the consequences of refusing to offer Emperor laud.

Jesus suffered and died for us; can we do any less? Anderson was divine, not human. It is a mistake, however, to confuse Docetism here with Gnosticism proper. The latter developed more fully into the second century, but it was not full blown in the first century situation. The great initial appeal of Docetism was simply its implications for an assimilative and less costly view of discipleship. This was the reason it was opposed so vigorously by early Christian communities, especially the Johannine ones, and this explains the emphasis on a suffering and incarnate Jesus so rife in its presentation in the second-edition material and in the Johannine Epistles.

However, not all sectors of the Christian movement responded to these tensions in exhortative ways. Some sought to stave off the threats by means of imposing hierarchical structures of leadership, calling for submission to authoritative church leadership, thereby challenging alternative claims and movements. In doing so, Ignatius built upon the Petrine model of Matthew Some scholars see the only issue here as having been hospitality, but inhospitality was a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself.

The Elder describes writing to the ecclesia the centralizing church? While this dialogue may not have been between Johannine and Matthean leadership directly, all it takes is one bad example for the Johannine leadership to feel this structural innovation may not have been an improvement after all. On the matter of leadership, hierarchies, and the role of the present Christ in the meeting for worship, the Johannine and Matthean leadership as well as other Christian groups in the sub-apostolic era must have invested a good deal of discussion together. At times, however, they may also have disagreed with one another, and such dialogues can be inferred within the dialectical set of relationships between Johannine and Matthean Christianity.

For instance, when asking why Diotrephes excluded Johannine Christians to begin with, it may have been due to their egalitarian and Spirit-based ecclesiology — and well he should have been threatened, because such a position would have undermined his very approach to holding his own church together, which was what the hierarchical innovations were designed to effect. While the Beloved Disciple was alive and ministering authoritatively, the extending of his witness to the rest of the church may not have seemed as pressing.

After his death, however, the compiler of the Fourth Gospel sought to gather and disseminate his witness among the broader Christian movement.

Top Free Books

First, as an antidocetic corrective, this later material emphasizes the fleshly humanity of Jesus and the importance of the way of the Cross for normative discipleship. Second, a great deal of emphasis has been placed in the accessibility and present work of the Holy Spirit as the effective means by which the risen Lord continues to lead the church. Third, the juxtaposition of Peter and the Beloved Disciple, especially clear in this supplementary material, reflects the presen- tation of the Beloved Disciple as the ideal model for Christian leadership in contrast to that which is represented by the miscomprehending Peter.

Most strikingly, at least seven ways can be identified in which Matthew Do these differences suggest a corrective interest? The Johannine Macarisms are not all that striking a contrast to this one in Matthew 16, although the Johannine references to that which is blessed clearly call for a greater spirit of servanthood as far as Peter and those who follow in his wake is concerned and they include those who have not seen beyond the apostolic band and yet believe.

These are both counter-hierarchical themes. It is highly likely that not all members of the apostolic band felt equally enthusiastic about the emerging primacy of Peter, especially if the coinage were used to bolster the authoritarian leader- ship of some over others. Peter is not entrusted with insti- tutional keys in John, but the Beloved Disciple is entrusted with the mother of Jesus, a symbol of familiarity and relationality as bases of au- thority. In both cases a particular disciple given an entrustment by Jesus, and these actions and images must have borne with them implications for carrying forward the ongoing work of Jesus.

Anderson the Matthean image, although familial images within Matthew also abound. Peter gives authority to Jesus. Does John thereby present Peter as returning the Keys of the Kingdom back to Jesus, where they belonged all along? This may be overstating it a bit, but the contrast is striking. It is highly significant ideologically that Peter is portrayed as affirming the immediacy of the ongoing work of the resurrected Lord. Likewise, while Peter is reinsta- ted in John In this passage, the Priesthood of all believers is laid out with stark clarity.

Jesus first pneumatizes his disciples plural in ways that could not be clearer; he breathes on them and says: Finally, Jesus sacerdotalizes his disciples plural by giving them the responsibility to be forgivers of sins in the world. Here we see the expansion of the apostolicity rather than its constriction, and such a movement would have been at odds with proto-Ignatian autocratic modes of governance if they were emerging by this time.

Again, while similarities with Matthew Anderson How long the Johannine and Matthean traditions may have been engaged in such dialogues is impossible to say. They may have been engaged dialogically for several decades, although the material in the M tradition engaged most directly in John appears to be the institutionalizing and organizing inclinations of the post-Markan set of Matthean concerns. Thus, the functionality of Matthean organization is typified by its capacity to be gracious and relational as well as structural. All it takes, however, is one strident example — such as Diotrephes and his kin — for hierarchical wieldings of Petrine authority to be experienced adversely within Johannine Christianity and beyond.

And, from what we know of the historical Jesus, the Johannine corrective was indeed grounded in authentic historical insight on that matter. But just as the Johannine tradition was not derivative from the Synoptic traditions, this does not mean its pervasive independence was the result of isolation or disengagement. The Johannine tradition engaged the pre-Markan tradition in the oral stages of their developments and sought to augment and complement the Markan written Gospel. Anderson which the risen Lord intended and intends to lead the church.

Hengels — auch das war ein Ergebnis der Diskussion um mein Buch — zu einem unbefragten neuerlichen konservativen Konsens geworden, der jedenfalls in Deutschland zur Zeit herrschend ist. Es scheint mir daher geboten, mit einer Auseinandersetzung um die Thesen M. Die Zeugnisse des zweiten Jahrhunderts 1. Das Argument unter 1. Das sind immerhin rund Jahre nach dem von mir, 80 Jahre nach dem von Hengel vermuteten Entstehungdatum. Johannesbriefs in Verbindung zu bringen. Wenn das geschieht, fragt er zuerst nach Andreas, Petrus und Philippus und zu allerletzt — ganz undifferenziert — nach Johannes vgl.

Denn er blieb bei ihnen bis in die Zeit Trajans. Die gemeinsame Tendenz beider Berichte ist: Im Anfang war Johannes S. Der etwas bezeugt, muss nicht der Verfasser eines Dokuments sein. Und der etwas niederschreibt, muss nicht der literarische Autor sein. Er wird jedoch nie mit dem Evangelisten Johannes identifiziert. Dagegen ist es wahrscheinlicher, dass er mit dem Verfasser der Apokalypse identisch ist Eusebius he 3,39,6. Denn Ephesus ist ei- ner der Orte, an die sich die Apokalypse richtet. Auch nur irgendwie Gesichertes geht aus den Textzeugnissen des 2.

Hohe Christologie und Antijudaismus? Jesus hat bisweilen6 seine Worte mit einem Schwur eingeleitet. Er hat sich dabei apokalyptischer Tradition angeschlossen. Die Amen- Worte Jesu, ZNW 63 Der Evangelist hat offenbar den form- geschichtlichen Zusammenhang nicht erkannt, den wir unter 4. Der umgekehrte Vorgang ist nicht belegt. Keine dieser Richtungen ist plausibel zu machen.

Das gilt insbesondere dann, wenn man eine Auslegung des Liebesgebotes als gemeinsame Grundlage entdeckt. Es geht ja in Joh 20,23 um eine archaische Auslegung von Pfingsten. Dazu passen recht genau andere Beobachtungen. Hier geht es dann nicht mehr um den Plural der 1. Person, sondern hier spricht Jesus im Singular.

Jesus wird das dann z. In dieser Phase orientiert er sich ganz am Himmel als dem Ursprungs- und Bezugspunkt des von ihm gebrachten Heils. Lebendig macht doch nur der Heilige Geist. Heiligen Geist und ewiges Leben, das schenken meine Worte. Darum aber geht es seit 3,11f: Jesus versteht sich selbst als die Gabe vom Himmel her. Alles, was er tut und sagt, bezieht sich nur noch auf dieses Einzige, das wichtig ist: Alle Worte Jesu haben einen neuen Fluchtpunkt, eine einzige Bedeutung bekom- men. Diese Krise ist gewiss historisch vorstellbar. Wenn das so ist, dann wird konsequent der Heilige Geist weniger be- deutsam als er es etwa in der paulinischen Theologie ist.

Das ist dann ganz konsequent. Betrachtet er Jesus wegen des Verbotes des Blutessens als Gesetzesbrecher? Im Sinne einer Christologie der Briefe hat Jesus wohl kaum geredet. Es liegt mir nach wie vor fern, diese Frage beantworten zu wollen. Was man indes wohl sagen kann, ist dies: Ende der 60er Jahre: Die vorwiegen- den Formen sind Gleichnis und Chrie. Das JohEv denkt prinzipiell an einen ganz anderen Typus von Jesusrede. Diese Tendenz ist auch nachvollziehbar: Kanon und wohl auch den Kanon selbst.

Paulus steht am Anfang, ihn setzen die Synoptiker voraus, Johannes setzt beide voraus. Dass es gemeinsame Elemente gibt, ist unbestritten. Aber dass sie immer nur auf dem Wege literarischer Zurkenntnisnahme von Geschriebenem vermittelt worden seien, ist eine Hypothese, die viel zu viel zu wissen vorgibt. Vielmehr sollte man mit folgender Hierarchie rechnen: Verbindung von Glauben und Gerechtigkeit, c Schultradition; z.

Mk 4, zu Mt 13, Gleich- nis v. Denn 7,21 bezieht sich auf die Sabbatheilung in Kapitel 5. Zu a Zu 6,1: Denn auch von Jerusalem K. Die Leute, die von K. Dann sucht man Jesus in Kapernaum. Die Umstellungshypothesen sind nicht zwingend. Folge von Geliebtwerden zu be- schreiben ist. Dazu auch die Sorge um Ma- ria. Viel zu leicht vergisst man, dass auch Petrus ein Funktionsname ist.

Reflections on the Essenes and the First Edition of John Preface In as much as many have tried to discern the provenience and date of the extant version of the Gospel of John [John], it seemed wise to me, having explored the intricacies of this gospel for forty years, to discern if a hypothe- tical provenience and date may be imagined for the first edition of this gospel.

The catalyst for this speculative endeavor is a convergence of various probabilities, developed and explained by many in numerous publications heralded internationally. The present search is possible because of advances in five areas of research: Before turning to these five developments, let me clarify one point at the outset. I am fully convinced that the final edition of John with chapter 21 but minus 7: Now we can turn to the five areas of research that help me speculate regarding the first edition of John.

Textual critics have shown that the earliest copies of this gospel do not have the pericope de adultera viz. There is no textual support for that widely held conclusion. Thus, unlike the study of Matthew and Luke, but similar to the study of Mark and its alleged ending, John cannot be assessed until its textual integrity is clarified. Most experts thus wisely admit that we do not know what the Evangelist intended to be the final shape of the gospel. Second, evidence that this gospel has been expanded after 7: The clearest expansions are the final chapter, 1: Charlesworth verse is suspect and thus put in parentheses in critical editions].

There are probably many other expansions and alterations of this gospel; but, we have no guide to deletions, such as at the beginning, or re-writings. Third, scholars once agreed that John was dependent on the Synoptic gospels, or at least upon Mark. The striking similarities between Luke and John were thus explained.

Now, many experts are convinced that the Fourth Evangelist may have known the gospel genre that Mark most likely created and perhaps shared some traditions with Mark; but he or she wrote independently of it, most likely having a direct access to the early traditions about Jesus. I have stressed in The Beloved Disciple that among the intra-canonical gospels only John contains the claim that it is based on an eyewitness account. It is conceivable, even probable to some Johannine experts as evident in the present collection of studies , that Luke knew the first edition of John.

In addition, he claims to have based his work on early narratives about Jesus n. Fourth, in light of developments in the history of religions approach to John most Johannine scholars have moved away from asserting that John should be read with the Greek world of Heraclitus and the Stoics as a background. Most experts contend that this gospel is shaped either indirectly or directly by the ideas, terms termini technici , and pneumatology the Spirit of Truth and the Holy Spirit that are developed in a unique way in the Rule of the Community esp.

Two leading experts Ashton and Ruckstuhl are convinced that the author of this gospel may have once belonged to the Essenes, some of the original thinkers within Judaism before 70 C. How should this influence be explained and how does it help us comprehend the provenience and date of the first edition of John? Fifth, Johannine experts are seldom trained in archaeological reseach.

It is thus understandably why some of them are not conversant with such advances. Yet, those who have been involved in the study of John and active in archaeological work are now pointing out the amazing coherences between some archaeological discoveries and Johannine passages. Charlesworth within pre Judaism. While most Johannine experts are behind in this rapidly advancing field, those who are contributing to the study of the historical Jesus are beginning to depend on John.

Fredriksen in her Jesus of Nazareth: King of the Jews and B. Chilton in his Rabbi Jesus. The following essay is thus the first attempt to imagine a conceivable provenience and date for the first edition of John. The book itself and illustrations are absolutely, incredibly extraordinary. I aquired a number of books i believe to respond to the questions in my mind. So, I began using this one. I would have discovered this book long time ago.

This article is so interesting. I reread this book every year or so and also have created my very own cliff note that i review regularly. I can't recommend it enough. This book is crucial read for anybody! This part is add the most recent and correlated subject prior to your quest. With a lot more files and option available we expect our readers will get whatever they arereally trying to find.