Early reception of the Gospel of John

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Early reception of the Gospel of John

Post by neilgodfrey »

Judith M. Lieu notes
In addressing his mother as "woman" (y6vat), Jesus is not being rude, for it is an acceptable form of address; he addresses both the woman of Samaria and Mary Magdalene in the same terms.13 Yet neither is he following convention, for the external parallels would suggest that yuvvat would not normally be used in speaking to one's mother. . . .

https://doi.org/10.2307/3266392.
"Woman" alerts us to other passages that the author wants to bring to mind. He sets up allusions to the Garden of Eden -- Jesus breathing the spirit into the disciples, the scene of burial and resurrection is said to be a garden, a woman is present. We also hear allusions to the woman who knows joy after the distress of childbirth, and this is the metaphor of Jesus "hour" that is "yet to come" when Jesus addresses his mother as "woman'" at Cana.

There are other women mentioned in the gospel, of course, including several Marys. There is a good case, surely, to be made for seeing all of these as different aspects of the one metaphor, the woman who gives life, protects, suffers (womb is also a symbol of grave), knows joy, ... cf the true Israel and the new Israel of the church.

Addressing the mother as "woman" in the first and last signs, with the first pointing to the last with its prediction of "the hour to come", drives these analogies home more than the address of "mother" would.
rgprice
Posts: 2062
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Early reception of the Gospel of John

Post by rgprice »

neilgodfrey wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 8:54 am You are not impressed, I take it, with the idea of the author arranging symbolic anecdotes in a chiastic order to bring out theological meanings -- so that he decides to place the mother at the beginning and ending of the signs, and to have her symbolic status as a woman stressed in a way that requires taking the reader attention away from her name. If this is how the end product appears is it so unlikely that the author had a purpose in arranging it this way?

We think the author had a problem with writing a decent narrative with more semblance of realism. Mothers and sons don't talk properly to each other, people are confused always about meanings, etc.... What if the author had another mindset? Realism be blowed. There is nothing in the gospel to suggest the author had any interest in realism or proper narrative. It was all about patterns, chiastic structures, number meanings, symbols.
It's a possibility, but I wouldn't call it a sure thing. It's one among several possibilities. But the introduction of Lazarus and Mary in John 11 is also very strange. It appears as if we should already know about them, like this is just part of some larger story in which those characters should already have been introduced: "11:3 So the sisters sent word to Him, saying, 'Lord, behold, he whom You love is sick.'"

These are literally the first words spoken by Mary to Jesus in John. That seems very off-base. Then we are told: "11:5 (Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister, and Lazarus.) 6 So when He heard that he was sick, He then stayed two days longer in the place where He was."

This sounds like someone is filling in backstory that should have been made known though some part of a narrative that is missing.

As it is in GJohn, the very first time we hear about Mary and Lazarus we know nothing about them, but are told that Jesus loves them, and not just that he loves them, but that he has a special relationship with them. Where id this come from? How to Martha and Mary know to send word to Jesus? Why do they call him Lord when they have never met him before? How do they know that Jesus loves Lazarus?

The typical Christian answers are simply that Jesus loved everyone and that his reputation preceded him, but this obviously makes no real sense. Clearly, this is part of some story in which Jesus has already met Mary, Martha and Lazarus. Something is missing.

The only Gospels that mention Martha and Lazarus are Luke and John. Luke, of course, is derived from Marcion's Gospel, so it seems that there may have been some narrative about Mary, Martha and Lazarus floating around in Marcionite circles and derivatives of Marcionism.

I'm going to start a new thread to explore the issue of Jesus familial relations.
yakovzutolmai
Posts: 296
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 6:03 am

Re: Early reception of the Gospel of John

Post by yakovzutolmai »

rgprice wrote: Fri Sep 24, 2021 3:15 am As it is in GJohn, the very first time we hear about Mary and Lazarus we know nothing about them, but are told that Jesus loves them, and not just that he loves them, but that he has a special relationship with them. Where id this come from?

I'm going to start a new thread to explore the issue of Jesus familial relations.
Lazarus and Martha are Elionaeus and Martha Boethus. Elionaeus was the High Priest for Herod Agrippa, and was replaced with an Ananian just before Agrippa's own - apparent - assassination.

Scholars have read into the "Lazarus and the Rich Man" parable an attack by Annas against Lazarus, and this would seem to be the cause for Lazarus's condition.

The removal of Elionaeus and the death of Agrippa immediately precede the ministry of Theudas. Leaving my other theories aside, I would suggest that Theudas is a reaction contra the Ananians, to this attack against the Boethusians.

In this light, these events would have been very well known. It concerns the death of King Agrippa, the last true ruler of Judea. The role of Theudas in the development of Christianity is unclear, but we might assume it could have been significant. Theudas's revolt leads to the persecution of James and Simon, and by the 50s we have fully encountered the era of zealotry.

On the other hand - the exact basis slips my memory - but the washing of feet and raising of the dead represent an older motif applied in the mythology of some god or another (Babylonian, I think).

I suspect the story involves Lazarus being poisoned like Agrippa, and then receiving some basic medicine from Theudas or this faction (Therapeutae?) perhaps. This historical narrative is then highly exaggerated and conflated with well-known mythological motifs, in order to partly euhemerize these characters. We might assume the audience is aware of both the history (vaguely) and the motifs.
Post Reply