Quick quiz:

"Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel..."

Who said this?

Ken Durkin

Was it Papias?

-Bill Skelton
wskelton76@...

----- Original Message -----
From: Ken Durkin <ind.fin.choices@...>
To: <johannine_literature@egroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2000 7:19 PM
Subject: [John_Lit] Spiritual Gospel


> Quick quiz:
>
> "Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel..."
>
> Who said this?
>
> Ken Durkin
>
>
>
>
>
> Subscribe: send e-mail briefly describing your academic background &
research interests to johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com
>
> Unsubscribe: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
> Contact list managers: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com
>
>
>

At 00:19 16/06/00 +0100, you wrote:
>Quick quiz:
>
>"Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel..."
>
>Who said this?
>
>Ken Durkin
>
>
>
>
>
>Subscribe: send e-mail briefly describing your academic background &
>research interests to johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com
>
>Unsubscribe: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>Contact list managers: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com
>

Rev Nigel Hanscamp
Matamata Union Parish
Matamata
New Zealand
hanscamps@...

OOppss let's try that again

At 00:19 16/06/00 +0100, you wrote:
>Quick quiz:
>
>"Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel..."
>
>Who said this?
>
>Ken Durkin


It was Clement (of Alexandria) in Hypotyposeis 4 (found in Eusebius Hist.
Eccl. 6.14.7)
TON MENTOI IWANNHN ESKATON .... PNEUMATI QEOFORHQENTA PNEUMATIKON TOIHSAI
EUAGGELION.


Nigel

Rev Nigel Hanscamp
Matamata Union Parish
Matamata
New Zealand
hanscamps@...

In a message dated 6/15/2000 9:24:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
hanscamps@... writes:

<< Eccl. 6.14.7)
  TON MENTOI IWANNHN ESKATON .... PNEUMATI QEOFORHQENTA PNEUMATIKON TOIHSAI
  EUAGGELION. >>

Should that be POIHSAI?

Leonard Maluf

From: Bill Skelton

> Was it Papias?
>
> -Bill Skelton

Bill, I've checked "Fragments" of Papias again and I can't see anything
about a "spiritual gospel". I've added a few more words of the quotation in
a post to Nigel.

Ken Durkin

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ken Durkin

> > Quick quiz:
> >
> > "Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel..."
> >
> > Who said this?
> >
> > Ken Durkin

From: N & RJ Hanscamp

> At 00:19 16/06/00 +0100, you wrote:
> >Quick quiz:
> >
> >"Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel..."
> >
> >Who said this?
> >
> >Ken Durkin
>
>
> It was Clement (of Alexandria) in Hypotyposeis 4 (found in Eusebius Hist.
> Eccl. 6.14.7)
> TON MENTOI IWANNHN ESKATON .... PNEUMATI QEOFORHQENTA PNEUMATIKON TOIHSAI
> EUAGGELION.
>
>
> Nigel

OK Nigel, close. The original though is: SUNETAXE PNEUMATIKWTERON
EUAGGELION...

However, just a few words further on -"but to the stories
already written he added yet others..."

ALLA TAIS PROGEGRAMMENAIS PRAXESIN EPITHEIS...

Ken Durkin

"Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel..."

"...but to the stories already written he added yet others, and... brought
in certain sayings... which he knew... would... lead... into that truth
hidden by seven veils..."

Ken Durkin

I am doing a PhD on the Prologue with special attention to the creation of
meaning in/through a text and the development of a Johannine anti-language. 
Part of my thesis is an exegesis (I don't like the word though) of the Prologue.
In my investigation of verse 5 I wondered whether there was anything to prevent
the first occasion of ZWH being a qualitative pre-verbal anarthrous predicate
like QEOS in verse 1c.  It seems to meet the same criteria as Colwell and
Wallace and BDF suggest are needed.  This could then lead to the translation -
what came to be in him had the quality of life and that life was the light of
humanity....  I realise there are hidden arguments re punctuation but if you
could limit your responses to the issue about the q.p-v.a.predicate, please!!! 
Am I barking up the wrong tree???

Pete


Peter Phillips
New Testament Lecturer and Director of Studies,
Cliff College,
Calver,
Hope Valley, Derbyshire, UK

Tel: +44 1246 582321 x122
Fax: +44 1246 583739

In a message dated Fri, 23 Jun 2000  3:44:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Pete
Phillips <p.m.phillips@...> writes:

<< I am doing a PhD on the Prologue with special attention to the creation of
meaning in/through a text and the development of a Johannine anti-language. 
Part of my thesis is an exegesis (I don't like the word though) of the Prologue.
In my investigation of verse 5 I wondered whether there was anything to prevent
the first occasion of ZWH being a qualitative pre-verbal anarthrous predicate
like QEOS in verse 1c.  It seems to meet the same criteria as Colwell and
Wallace and BDF suggest are needed.  This could then lead to the translation -
what came to be in him had the quality of life and that life was the light of
humanity....  I realise there are hidden arguments re punctuation but if you
could limit your responses to the issue about the q.p-v.a.predicate, please!!! 
Am I barking up the wrong tree??>>

Peter, I think this translation (and the word division it implies) is exactly
correct. At least, if I remember correctly, this is the way the verse is
rendered by I. de la Potterie in his treatment of the prologue (which, by the
way, you should definitely look at, if you haven't already).

Leonard Maluf

Thanks Leonard - I've seen de la Potterie's articles and the influence shows!

Pete

Peter Phillips
New Testament Lecturer and Director of Studies,
Cliff College,
Calver,
Hope Valley, Derbyshire, UK

Tel: +44 1246 582321 x122
Fax: +44 1246 583739




-----Original Message-----
From: Maluflen@... [SMTP:Maluflen@...]
Sent: 23 June 2000 07:42
To: johannine_literature@egroups.com
Subject: Re: [John_Lit] John's Prologue - 1.5 - zwh

In a message dated Fri, 23 Jun 2000  3:44:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Pete
Phillips <p.m.phillips@...> writes:

<< I am doing a PhD on the Prologue with special attention to the creation of
meaning in/through a text and the development of a Johannine anti-language. 
Part of my thesis is an exegesis (I don't like the word though) of the Prologue.
In my investigation of verse 5 I wondered whether there was anything to prevent
the first occasion of ZWH being a qualitative pre-verbal anarthrous predicate
like QEOS in verse 1c.  It seems to meet the same criteria as Colwell and
Wallace and BDF suggest are needed.  This could then lead to the translation -
what came to be in him had the quality of life and that life was the light of
humanity....  I realise there are hidden arguments re punctuation but if you
could limit your responses to the issue about the q.p-v.a.predicate, please!!! 
Am I barking up the wrong tree??>>

Peter, I think this translation (and the word division it implies) is exactly
correct. At least, if I remember correctly, this is the way the verse is
rendered by I. de la Potterie in his treatment of the prologue (which, by the
way, you should definitely look at, if you haven't already).

Leonard Maluf







Subscribe: send e-mail briefly describing your academic background & research
interests to johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com

Unsubscribe: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com

Contact list managers: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com

For a fifth century understanding of this section, I refer you to the
Paraphrase by Nonnos of Panopolis. My present work, and English verse
translation, is available in part at the URL below. The Greek is hard to
find, but if you communicate with me, perhaps we can make arrangements.

Regards,
Tony Prost
All Nonnos All Day
http://nonnos.iscool.net

For anyone that likes to discuss the theories of the end times and
related current events the RaptureDiscussion group is great. Just
click on the line below and you can sign up. Come on and join in.

http://www.egroups.com/group/RaptureDiscussion

In a message dated 7/25/2000 6:19:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
rsavari@... writes:

<<  One of the my students asked this question concerning "Satan entering into
  Judas". The
  question was if Satan entered into Judas then it was of no fault of Judas to
  betray Jesus. Satan used Judas as a pawn. Using the premise that God is all
  and governs all including the Devil, then it is safe to say that God allowed
  / condoned the action of Satan entering Judas. My student's conclusion is
  that if anyone is to take the responsibility, it should be God and Satan
  because man's nature is corruptible and has no power against God. >>

I think one can deduce from the text, not that Judas committed no fault, but
that evil in many of its forms has dimensions to it that surpass the human
subject and his capacity to act.  There is such a thing as a "mystery of
evil", something beyond the realm of pure moralism. John is interested in
things at this level of consideration (the great conflict between the powers
of darkness and the power of Light), but this does not mean that he totally
ignores or would deny the realm of human activity and responsibility. The
latter, however, is neither the total explanation nor the focus of John's
particular interest. Whether one can conclude directly from John's
presentation that Judas was culpable is debatable. But it is here that the
principle of sola scriptura reveals its limitations. Philosophy must enter
in, and does so in fact whether one denies or asserts the human
responsibility for evil.

Leonard Maluf

In a message dated 7/25/00 6:19:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
rsavari@... writes:

<< One of the my students asked this question concerning "Satan entering into
  Judas". The
  question was if Satan entered into Judas then it was of no fault of Judas to
  betray Jesus. Satan used Judas as a pawn.>>

The answer to the riddle of Judas' responsibility reached by your student I
believe is a very logical answer and very possibly what the writer of the 4th
gospel intended. Of course, as a Catholic I realize my church has so
demonized Judas through the centuries that your student's answer could not
possibly be accepted by my church. To my church Judas is complicit in Jesus'
death.

  The other question you ask about Lazarus is an interesting question. Luke
has a curious passage concerning Lazarus. Here it is

"There was a certain rich man who dressed in a purple robe and fine linen and
every day he feasted in great splendor. (20) At his gate was placed a certain
man named Lazarus, covered with sores, 21) who was desiring to eat the food
falling from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

(22) "When the poor man died he was carried away by the angels to the arms of
Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried. (23) And in Hell he was in
torment and he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his
arms. So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me and send Lazarus
that he may dip his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am
suffering in this flame.'

(24) "But Abraham said, 'Son, remember that you received good things in your
life, and likewise Lazarus the bad things. Now he is comforted here and you
are suffering. (26) And besides all this, between us and you there is a great
chasm firmly fixed, so that anyone wishing to pass from here to you cannot,
neither can anyone cross from there to us.'

(27) "Then he said, 'I beg you Father, send him to the house of my father,
for I have five brothers, so that he may witness to them, lest they also come
to this place of torment.'

(29) "Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the prophets. Let them hear
them.'

(30) "But he said, 'No, Father Abraham, but if someone from the dead should
go to them they will repent.'

( 31) "But he said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the prophets,
neither would they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead.'"

It is strange that Jesus gives us a parable with a proper name. The gospels
almost never give proper names in the narrative, never mind in a parable. I'd
like you to focus on the last verse. It speaks of someone rising from the
dead. The confluence of the name Lazarus and the idea of raising someone from
the dead is not, I believe, coincidence. In the gospel of John, Lazarus'
raising does not bring people further to the cause of Jesus but actually
precipitates his death. I wonder if there was not such a memory in the minds
of early Christians which only John and his group put to paper. Could Luke's
parable be an allusion to Lazarus' raising and the fact that it did not
persuade most of the Jews to follow Jesus?

Roberto Scrofani

Roberto, greetings:

>  The other question you ask about Lazarus is an >interesting question.
Luke
> has a curious passage concerning Lazarus. Here it is
>
> "There was a certain rich man who dressed in a purple robe and fine linen

[rich man dressed in purple is a description of high priest]

  (27) "Then he said, 'I beg you Father, send him to the house of my father,
> for I have five brothers, so that he may witness to them, lest they also
come
> to this place of torment.'

for I have five brothers is an explicit reference to one of the reigning
high priest, who as one of the sons of Annas had at least three brothers who
served as High Priests and one famous brother-in-law, Caiaphas.  At least
one grandson of Annas served as high Priest.

The plot thickens because there was a man named Theophilus who served as
high priest from 37 to 41 C.E.
>
> (29) "Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the prophets. Let them hear
> them.'
>
> (30) "But he said, 'No, Father Abraham, but if someone from the dead
should
> go to them they will repent.'


If this high priest was a member of the saduccees, he did not believe in the
resurrection nor did he believe in heaven except possibly on the day of
judgment for all of humanity.  I am not certain as what the saduccees
believe about angels and angelic messengers.
>
> It is strange that Jesus gives us a parable with a proper name. The
gospels
> almost never give proper names in the narrative, never mind in a parable.

I'd
> like you to focus on the last verse. It speaks of someone rising from the
> dead. The confluence of the name Lazarus and the idea of raising someone
from
> the dead is not, I believe, coincidence.

There are a number of parallels between Luke and John



>Could Luke's
> parable be an allusion to Lazarus' raising and the fact >that it did not
> persuade most of the Jews to follow Jesus?

Yes.   This chapter (16) in my opinion was directed to the high priest just
as the previous chapter (15) was directed to the pharisees.

Richard H. Anderson

http://www.geocities.com/gospelofluke

Concerning the Lazarus parable, Richard Anderson
wrote:

> the rich man dressed in purple is a description of
> the high priest

Why do you say this? Why couldn't this be a King? Or
perhaps simply a rich man wearing expensive clothing?

Richard Anderson then added:

> for I have five brothers is an explicit reference to
> one of the reigning high priest, who as one of the
> sons of Annas had at least three brothers who served
> as High Priests and one famous brother-in-law,
> Caiaphas.  At least one grandson of Annas served as
> high Priest.

How does this add up to five brothers?

Richard Anderson then added:

> The plot thickens because there was a man named
> Theophilus who served as high priest from 37 to 41
> C.E.

I don't see what the connection is here. Could you
elaborate on your meaning?

Jeffery Hodges

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/

In a message dated 7/25/2000 9:08:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
Jgabriel22@... writes:

<< It is strange that Jesus gives us a parable with a proper name.>>

Or, perhaps, it was Luke who gave us this parable.

<< The gospels
  almost never give proper names in the narrative, never mind in a parable.
I'd
  like you to focus on the last verse. It speaks of someone rising from the
  dead. The confluence of the name Lazarus and the idea of raising someone
from
  the dead is not, I believe, coincidence. In the gospel of John, Lazarus'
  raising does not bring people further to the cause of Jesus but actually
  precipitates his death. I wonder if there was not such a memory in the minds
  of early Christians which only John and his group put to paper. Could Luke's
  parable be an allusion to Lazarus' raising and the fact that it did not
  persuade most of the Jews to follow Jesus?>>


An alternative, and more radical explanation would be that John 11 is
"theological narrative" and not history, based on the historical fact that
Jesus' raised people from the dead (the Synoptic Gospels), the conclusion of
the parable regarding Lazarus in Luke 16, and the theological conviction that
Jesus is the life of the world (John: passim). It is interesting that we have
in John BOTH an absence of the stories of raising from the dead found in the
Synoptics AND the presence of this elaborate and highly theological account
of the raising of "Lazarus" (= God is my help). Could this simply be John's
VERSION of the stories of raising from the dead that came down in the
tradition? True, the distance between the accounts in the Synoptics and that
of John is great; but it is hardly greater than the distance between the
discourse of Jesus in John and the words of Jesus in the Synoptics.
This argument is of exactly the same shape as the argument (quite reasonable,
I think) that would claim that the story of the woman-sinner in Lk 7 is
Luke's version of the story of the woman who anoints Jesus head in Matt 26
par.

Leonard Maluf

> Concerning the Lazarus parable, Richard Anderson
> wrote:
>
> > the rich man dressed in purple is a description of
> > the high priest

> Why do you say this? Why couldn't this be a King? Or
> perhaps simply a rich man wearing expensive clothing?
>

William Barclay stated in his Daily Study Bible series on Luke commenting on
this verse wrote: "That is the description of the robes of the High Priests.
. . ."


> Richard Anderson then added:
>
> > for I have five brothers is an explicit reference to
> > one of the reigning high priest, who as one of the
> > sons of Annas had at least three brothers who served
> > as High Priests and one famous brother-in-law,
> > Caiaphas.  At least one grandson of Annas served as
> > high Priest.
>
> How does this add up to five brothers?

We know that Annas had a large family. I only included the ones I could
specifically identify as family members serving as high priests. It is my
opinion that I am expressing. see below.
>
> Richard Anderson then added:
>
> > The plot thickens because there was a man named
> > Theophilus who served as high priest from 37 to 41
> > C.E.
>
> I don't see what the connection is here. Could you
> elaborate on your meaning?
>
Luke addressed his gospel to "most excellent Theophilus"

Richard H. Anderson
see my published articles for add. details at
http://www.geocities.com/gospelofluke

About the rich man dressed in purple, Richard Anderson
wrote:

> William Barclay stated in his Daily Study Bible
> series on Luke commenting on
> this verse wrote: "That is the description of the
> robes of the High Priests.
> . . ."

Why is Barclay's opinion the correct one? Does he give
an argument?

To my question "How does this add up to five
brothers?", Richard Anderson wrote:

> We know that Annas had a large family. I only
> included the ones I could
> specifically identify as family members serving as
> high priests. It is my
> opinion that I am expressing.

I think that you would have to prove that there were
only five brothers in order to make a stronger
argument.

Concerning the man named Theophilus who served as high
priest from 37 to 41 C.E., Richard Anderson wrote:

> Luke addressed his gospel to "most excellent
> Theophilus"

That would be about 45 years later--if the accepted
scholarly dating is correct. Would this be the same
Theophilus? Why?

Concerning his views, Richard H. Anderson suggested:

> see my published articles for add. details at
> http://www.geocities.com/gospelofluke

I haven't yet had an opportunity.

Jeffery Hodges

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com/

I apologize about posting this on the Johannine
listserve, but I don't have Jeffrey Staley's email
address.

Jeff, I just finished reading your fine and thoughtful
article "Changing Woman: Postcolonial Reflections on
Acts 16:6-40".

I was surprised to read that "Acts 16.9 has played an
important role in the colonizing rhetoric of European
empires from the sixteenth century to the present day"
(p. 115), but I suppose that I should not be, for I do
know about the American colonists use of the Hebrew
scriptures' label "Amalakites" to justify
exterminating Native Americans.

I'm not a scholar of Luke-Acts, so I suppose that I am
naive about its history of interpretation -- even
though I proofread James Scott's "Paul and the
Nations" for Mohr while I was doing my doctoral
research as an exchange student in Tuebingen (from
1989 to 1995, initially as a Fulbright Scholar, then
supported by the Friedrich Naumann Foundation).

I found very interesting Origen and Wink's
interpretation of Paul's "man of Macedonia"
dream-vision as a vision of the angel of the region.

The parallels to other dreams/visions encouraging or
discouraging imperialistic advance were also very
interesting and do put Paul's vision into a
not-so-innocent light.

I don't have access to a library these days, but I
recall reading of a story of one of Mani's followers
(or was it Mani himself?) having a vision of being
stopped from entering India by a goddess-like figure
until he had proven his worthiness by the greatness of
his wisdom.

Similarly, I recall reading of a Sufi saint being
enabled to enter India only after converting a
(divine?) Hindu woman to Sufi Islam.

I wish that I could provide more details of these
since they seem to fit your and Musa Dube Shomanah's
views on 'border-women'. Unfortunately, I am these
days in the wrong place for providing bibliographical
information.

Anyway, Paul's dream-vision does seem to fit a
long-established pattern of 'imperialistic'
dream-visions, doesn't it.

Or does it? If we wanted to deconstruct the
imperialistic hermeneutic of Paul's mission to
Macedonia, we could begin to do so by noting that he
was called by the 'angel' of the region to help the
Macedonians who were dominated by the imperialist
Romans -- and thus by the angel of Rome, who thus must
have played some role in crucifying Jesus?

In this case, couldn't Paul be seen as coming to the
spiritual aid of those dominated by both spiritually
and politically by Rome? He isn't bringing a physical
army, after all, but spiritual power.

I'm not sure how to bring this interpretation to bear
on the two women in Acts 16, Lydia and the
'charismatic' slave-girl. But I would like to note
that the slaveowners seize Paul (and Silas) after he
has exorcised the spirit from the slave-girl and bring
him before the city magistrates complaining that he
has been "advocating customs unlawful for us Romans to
accept or practice". Note that the slaveowners
identify themselves as Romans, which might thereby
associate with Rome the spirit that had possessed the
slave-girl. She was not only possessed but oppressed!

I realize that this analysis is complicated by the
fact that text later goes on to identify Paul as a
Roman citizen, but doesn't this itself also make Paul
the Pharisaical Jew from Tarsus into a kind of liminal
figure -- or a 'halfbreed' like Tayo (p. 132).

Or am I pushing this too far?

Aside from all that, I found helpful your manner of
conscious self-reflection upon yourself as a reader in
a particular place at a particular time with a
particular history interacting with a text from a
different particular time and place and with a long,
subsequent history of interpretation attached to
whatever prior history it had had in its making.

No wonder you "vacillate[d] and procrastinate[d]" (p.
116).

So ... how do we apply a postcolonialist analysis to
John? Musa Dube Shomanah applied it to the
passion-week story of Jesus in John's Gospel -- as I
noted a couple of months ago. Who else is doing this,
and what do they say?

Jeffery Hodges

P.S. I was appalled by the remarks about the
slave-girl made by some of the scholars whom you cite.
I would say more, but this forum is too public.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com/

Didn't know Jef Staley was listening in.  I read the essay some time ago
and thought it was brilliant - a bit postcolonial but then it was bound to
be.  The question is whether postcolonialism is a historical anomaly of
postmodernism or whether the NT is a postcolonial text itself and so
demands a postcolonial interpretation.
Intreging that postcolonialism and autobiographic criticism as coming so
close together...another reference back to to John?

If Jeff Staley is listening - could you let me know your e'mail address. I
am doing my PhD on the Prologue and using your cyclical/spiral learning
pattern as a basis for understanding what's going on - I would appreciate a
chat.

Pete Phillips

Peter Phillips
New Testament Lecturer and Director of Studies,
Cliff College,
Calver,
Hope Valley, Derbyshire, UK

Tel: +44 1246 582321 x122
Fax: +44 1246 583739




-----Original Message-----
From: Horace Jeffery Hodges [SMTP:jefferyhodges@...]
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2000 03:33
To: johannine_literature@egroups.com
Subject: [John_Lit] Staley's Changing Woman and Postcolonialism

I apologize about posting this on the Johannine
listserve, but I don't have Jeffrey Staley's email
address.

Jeff, I just finished reading your fine and thoughtful
article "Changing Woman: Postcolonial Reflections on
Acts 16:6-40".

I was surprised to read that "Acts 16.9 has played an
important role in the colonizing rhetoric of European
empires from the sixteenth century to the present day"
(p. 115), but I suppose that I should not be, for I do
know about the American colonists use of the Hebrew
scriptures' label "Amalakites" to justify
exterminating Native Americans.

I'm not a scholar of Luke-Acts, so I suppose that I am
naive about its history of interpretation -- even
though I proofread James Scott's "Paul and the
Nations" for Mohr while I was doing my doctoral
research as an exchange student in Tuebingen (from
1989 to 1995, initially as a Fulbright Scholar, then
supported by the Friedrich Naumann Foundation).

I found very interesting Origen and Wink's
interpretation of Paul's "man of Macedonia"
dream-vision as a vision of the angel of the region.

The parallels to other dreams/visions encouraging or
discouraging imperialistic advance were also very
interesting and do put Paul's vision into a
not-so-innocent light.

I don't have access to a library these days, but I
recall reading of a story of one of Mani's followers
(or was it Mani himself?) having a vision of being
stopped from entering India by a goddess-like figure
until he had proven his worthiness by the greatness of
his wisdom.

Similarly, I recall reading of a Sufi saint being
enabled to enter India only after converting a
(divine?) Hindu woman to Sufi Islam.

I wish that I could provide more details of these
since they seem to fit your and Musa Dube Shomanah's
views on 'border-women'. Unfortunately, I am these
days in the wrong place for providing bibliographical
information.

Anyway, Paul's dream-vision does seem to fit a
long-established pattern of 'imperialistic'
dream-visions, doesn't it.

Or does it? If we wanted to deconstruct the
imperialistic hermeneutic of Paul's mission to
Macedonia, we could begin to do so by noting that he
was called by the 'angel' of the region to help the
Macedonians who were dominated by the imperialist
Romans -- and thus by the angel of Rome, who thus must
have played some role in crucifying Jesus?

In this case, couldn't Paul be seen as coming to the
spiritual aid of those dominated by both spiritually
and politically by Rome? He isn't bringing a physical
army, after all, but spiritual power.

I'm not sure how to bring this interpretation to bear
on the two women in Acts 16, Lydia and the
'charismatic' slave-girl. But I would like to note
that the slaveowners seize Paul (and Silas) after he
has exorcised the spirit from the slave-girl and bring
him before the city magistrates complaining that he
has been "advocating customs unlawful for us Romans to
accept or practice". Note that the slaveowners
identify themselves as Romans, which might thereby
associate with Rome the spirit that had possessed the
slave-girl. She was not only possessed but oppressed!

I realize that this analysis is complicated by the
fact that text later goes on to identify Paul as a
Roman citizen, but doesn't this itself also make Paul
the Pharisaical Jew from Tarsus into a kind of liminal
figure -- or a 'halfbreed' like Tayo (p. 132).

Or am I pushing this too far?

Aside from all that, I found helpful your manner of
conscious self-reflection upon yourself as a reader in
a particular place at a particular time with a
particular history interacting with a text from a
different particular time and place and with a long,
subsequent history of interpretation attached to
whatever prior history it had had in its making.

No wonder you "vacillate[d] and procrastinate[d]" (p.
116).

So ... how do we apply a postcolonialist analysis to
John? Musa Dube Shomanah applied it to the
passion-week story of Jesus in John's Gospel -- as I
noted a couple of months ago. Who else is doing this,
and what do they say?

Jeffery Hodges

P.S. I was appalled by the remarks about the
slave-girl made by some of the scholars whom you cite.
I would say more, but this forum is too public.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com/

SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com
UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com
PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com

Didn't know Jeff Staley was listening in.

I have been out of town for a few weeks, and am just getting back to look at
my email.

The question is whether postcolonialism is a historical anomaly of
postmodernism or whether the NT is a postcolonial text itself and so demands
a postcolonial interpretation.

I think it would be anachronistic to say that the NT is a postcolonial text.
However, I do believe it can be used in ways amenable to postcolonial
interests.

Jeff, could you let me know your e'mail address.

My home email address is: staleyjl@...  I'd like to talk to you further
about Johannine issues and your dissertation topic.

Jeff

Jeff, I just finished reading your fine and thoughtful
article "Changing Woman: Postcolonial Reflections on
Acts 16:6-40".

Before the Johannine delete this message, you should know that the starting
point for my analysis of Acts 16:6-40 was Musa Dube's Semeia 76 article
entitled "Reading for Decolonization (john 4:1-42)


I don't have access to a library these days, but I
recall reading of a story of one of Mani's followers
(or was it Mani himself?) having a vision of being
stopped from entering India by a goddess-like figure
until he had proven his worthiness by the greatness of
his wisdom.

This is an interesting parallel!  Wish I had it when I wrote the essay.
Anyone know the exact "Mani" reference Jeffery is referring to?

Or does it? If we wanted to deconstruct the
imperialistic hermeneutic of Paul's mission to
Macedonia,

Jeffery, please send your Acts response to my home email (staleyj@...).
We'll talk about it "Offline" so to speak.

So ... how do we apply a postcolonialist analysis to
John? Who else is doing this, and what do they say?

A group of us are exploring this in a volume of collected essays on
postcolonialism and John for Sheffield Academic Press. It is envigorating,
exciting work, but will take some time to come to any consensus.  By and
large, we do not start from any historicist assumption that the NT "is"
"postcolonial."

Dear Jeff Staley,

About my citation:

> I don't have access to a library these days, but I
> recall reading of a story of one of Mani's followers
> (or was it Mani himself?) having a vision of being
> stopped from entering India by a goddess-like figure
> until he had proven his worthiness by the greatness
> of
> his wisdom.
>
> This is an interesting parallel!  Wish I had it when
> I wrote the essay.
> Anyone know the exact "Mani" reference Jeffery is
> referring to?

I have asked and received an answer from my friend
Samuel Lieu and am posting it on the Johannine
listserve as well in case anybody else is interested:

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Dear Jeffery,
The story is about Mar Ammo at the gates of Kushan. It
comes from the famous Manichaean manuscript M2 and is
in Middle Persian. It can be found in translation in
Klimkeit, Gnosis on the Silk Road, p. 204.
Yours,
Sam

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————

As you see, it was a follower of Mani rather than Mani
himself.

Hope that this helps,

Jeffery Hodges

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com/

I have been thinking again about 21:23 and the tradition that the BD was not
to die - in relation to the "John" of Revelation.

This "John" hears "Jesus Christ" (via an angel) say that events (which
include the Parousia) "must soon take place" (1:1; 22:6), and more to the
point hears "I am coming soon" four times (3:11; 22:7; 22:12; 22:20).

This must have led to a popular belief that this "John" would not die before
the
Parousia.

I'm working on the idea that the two traditions are related.
Does anyone else think along these lines?

Ken Durkin

Dear Colleagues,

The E-Groups server was down for about a week in early August.  LMU's
College of Liberal Arts webserver was also moved and renamed recently,
so our group's homepage
(http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~fjust/Johannine_List.htm) was also
unavailable for about a week.

Everything on the technological end seems to be up and running again
now. But in case you missed any messages in the meantime (as I did!),
see the group's archives at
http://www.egroups.com/messages/johannine_literature

Felix
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Felix Just, S.J. -- Dept. of Theological Studies
Loyola Marymount University -- 7900 Loyola Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90045-8400 -- (310) 338-5933
Website: http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~fjust
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A few weeks ago my webpage collection of "Art and Images related to the
Gospel of John"  (http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~fjust/John/Art.html)  was
updated and expanded. In case anyone wants to make use of this
collection for any biblical courses you teach, feel free to do so.

These pages primarily contain hyperlinks to artworks available elsewhere
on the internet, but also some photographs of my own and a few pictures
I have scanned in. In all of this, I have tried to respect applicable
copyright laws and restrictions, but please let me know if you know of
any error or violation.

Also, if you know of any relevant artworks on the internet that are not
yet on these pages, please e-mail me directly (fjust@...) with the
pertinent information so that I can add them to this collection.

Thanks!
Felix
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Felix Just, S.J. -- Dept. of Theological Studies
Loyola Marymount University -- 7900 Loyola Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90045-8400 -- (310) 338-5933
Website: http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~fjust
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear Felix,

Thank you so much.  It's a wonderful resource.

Poling Sun
Hong Kong Baptist Theological Seminary

"Felix Just, S.J." wrote:

> A few weeks ago my webpage collection of "Art and Images related to the
> Gospel of John"  (http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~fjust/John/Art.html)  was
> updated and expanded. In case anyone wants to make use of this
> collection for any biblical courses you teach, feel free to do so.
>
> These pages primarily contain hyperlinks to artworks available elsewhere
> on the internet, but also some photographs of my own and a few pictures
> I have scanned in. In all of this, I have tried to respect applicable
> copyright laws and restrictions, but please let me know if you know of
> any error or violation.
>
> Also, if you know of any relevant artworks on the internet that are not
> yet on these pages, please e-mail me directly (fjust@...) with the
> pertinent information so that I can add them to this collection.
>
> Thanks!
> Felix
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Felix Just, S.J. -- Dept. of Theological Studies
> Loyola Marymount University -- 7900 Loyola Blvd.
> Los Angeles, CA 90045-8400 -- (310) 338-5933
> Website: http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~fjust
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com
> UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com
> PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com