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

Re: [XTalk] diabolos, diabolou

Expand Messages
  • Jan Sammer
    From: Jack Kilmon ... father? ... If you are right on this, then the filmmaker s interpretation is unforgivably literal, though
    Message 1 of 30 , Mar 4 11:17 PM
      From: "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@...>
      >
      > Also my belief that the VERY uuuggleeeeee baby carried by Satan is an
      > allusion to Jn 8:44 was reinforced by the bracket at the beginning of the
      > film in Gethsemane when Satan asks the agonizing Jesus "Who is your
      father?"
      >
      > Jack

      If you are right on this, then the filmmaker's interpretation is
      unforgivably literal, though derived from a common and probably erroneous
      interpretation of the text of GJohn. If I may I would like to refocus the
      discussion one last time to the question of the meaning and purpose of this
      passage in the hope that we could avoid such tangents, interesting as they
      are, as Paul's native tongue.

      It should be noted, first of all, that the statement in John 8:44 cannot be
      taken literally in any event. Jesus' interlocutors are ordinary people and
      having the diabolos, the an inveterate liar and slanderer, as their father
      can only be understood figuratively in the sense that their actions and
      thoughts are inspired by the diabolos, who is their adoptive or spiritual
      father. Under any reasonable interpretation therefore the statement cannot
      be taken literally. What is then left is to decide is whether the statement
      implies the existence of a diabolical being whom Jesus's interlocutors are
      charged with following or resembling in some way, or whether we are dealing
      with idiomatic language wherein the nature and behavior of Jesus'
      interlocutors is being characterized in a way that is hard to understand for
      speakers of non-Semitic languages. Jesus's interlocutors are charged with
      desiring to adopt the behavior of their father the diabolos and Jesus then
      discusses the nature of the model that they are following: there is no truth
      in him, he has always been a deceiver and a liar, etc. The question remains
      if Jesus's interlocutors are really being accused of being the followers of
      an evil being, in the sense that witches used to be so accused a few
      centuries ago. After all, it is their behavior that is being criticized,
      and which is said to reveal who their true father is. We would say what
      their true nature is. We are apparently dealing with a different linguistic
      idiom.

      Jan Sammer
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.