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

De Boer and Hakola

Expand Messages
  • Adele Reinhartz
    Dear friends, I have just returned from a week’s vacation in Istanbul to find the substantial and interesting discussion about Martin and Raimo’s papers.
    Message 1 of 9 , Mar 5, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear friends,

      I have just returned from a week’s vacation in Istanbul to find the
      substantial and interesting discussion about Martin and Raimo’s papers. I
      will weigh in with just a few points, based primarily on the papers
      themselves, since I have not yet had time to do more than glance through the
      other postings.

      To Martin:

      Thank you for your interesting paper. I appreciate your attempt to tackle
      this very difficult question in a new way. It will come as no surprise to
      you that I am not convinced! But I did enjoy the opportunity to read the
      paper and think through the arguments. Just a few comments now.

      1. On Jews as “the disciples of Moses”: I chased this one down some years
      ago, like you, trying to find solid evidence beyond what is cited in
      Strack-Billerbeck for this phrase as a self-designation for Jews in
      first-century Palestine. I came up with almost nothing. The term “disciple
      of Moses” does appear a number of times in the rabbinic corpus, but
      generally, maybe always, with respect to Joshua as Moses’ disciple. Even
      the baraita as cited by Strack-Billerbeck is not without difficulties,
      since, if memory serves, there are textual variants among the major editions
      of the Talmud at that point. So one cannot argue on the basis of rabbinic
      literature that “disciples of Moses” was the self-designation of Jews, or
      even of a particular group of Jews. The most pervasive self-designations
      are “sons of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob”, “sons of Israel,” or just plain
      “Israel”. (Actually, the designation “disciples of Moses” seems closer to
      the Philonic usage, particularly if Philo’s Moses is understood along the
      lines suggested by Goodenough, as the “hierophant” of a particular form of
      “mystical” Judaism.) This does not necessarily invalidate the argument you
      are trying to make in this section of the paper, but in my opinion it does
      weaken it somewhat. At stake, as you point out, is the question of who has
      claim to Jewish identity markers. As I read your paper, you suggest that the
      Johannine Jewish Christians abandoned the label “ioudaioi” because their
      claims for Jewish identity were rejected by “certain authoritative, learned
      (Pharisaic) Jews”. This would account for the fact that the implied author
      almost always avoids the term “Jew” for Jesus (except in 4:9) and always
      avoids it for the disciples, though the Johannine Jesus and his earliest
      followers (as depicted in the narrative) were Jewish in the ethnic/religious
      sense. But the reverse could be true: that the implied author avoids using
      the term “Jew” for the “good guys” in his narrative in order that it may be
      applied more or less unequivocally to the “bad guys” and thus maintain the
      rather sharp polarities (dark/light, unbelief/faith, flesh/spirit, them/us,
      death/life) around which Johannine rhetoric revolves. As you can imagine,
      I support the latter view. In my opinions these identity-designations are
      not based so much in historical events or processes as in rhetorical needs.
      Finally, on this point, 9:28 does not convey the Jews’ self-representation,
      but rather the lines that the narrator places in the mouths of the Johannine
      Jews. In my view it is crucial to keep this point in mind throughout one’s
      reading of the Gospel.

      2. On the three introductory points with which your paper begins:
      a. The possibility that the Gospel reflects an inner-Jewish debate (however
      one would define that) does not in my view obviate the anti-Judaism of the
      Gospel itself. When I speak of anti-Judaism I am not suggesting that the
      author sought to vilify all Jews of all times, since it is obvious that his
      target is those Jews who do not assent to his own views about Jesus as the
      Christ and Son of God. Rather, I refer to the (in my view, intentional)
      effect of his language to convey hostility towards those Jews who do not
      believe. The fact that non-believers are persistently labelled simply “the
      Jews” suggests (to me) that the Gospel invites its readers to develop
      negative feelings about or against those whom they would call “the Jews.”
      It is this usage that also suggests to me that members of the Johannine
      community, if such existed, already had stopped referring to themselves as
      Jews and that the debate thus was in the process from an inner-Jewish debate
      to one between two groups that, at least from the Johannine perspective,
      were mutually exclusive. Finally, it must be said that the reading of the
      Gospel as anti-Jewish is not based only on 8:44 and other problematic
      passages but also on other elements, e.g. what is commonly (and
      controversially) known as “replacement theology” by which the
      Christ-confessors take over the identity-markers (Torah, Temple, covenant)
      that the Johannine Jews would claim as their own (e.g. 8:31-59).

      b.I am not sure we will ever know whether Jews, in one synagogue, one town,
      one region, or perhaps throughout the “Jewish world” expelled some of their
      number for confessing Jesus to be the Christ. The argument that where there
      is smoke there must be fire does not hold much weight when there are a
      number of different possibilities as to what that fire could be. As I and
      others have argued, there are several different ways in which one could
      account for the “expulsion” passages without positing a historical
      experience of expulsion or worse. This is not to cast doubt on the
      possibility that some Johannine Christ-confessors felt themselves to be
      pushed out, excluded or unwelcome.

      c. No doubt there is some basis in experience for the evangelist’s charges
      against the Jews, but this does not mean that we must take the specific
      charges as historical references. Perhaps his main gripe is simply that
      most Jews failed to accept his understanding of Jesus’ identity despite what
      he sees as the patent evidence that Jesus is the fulfilment of God’s
      revelation through Moses.

      Having gone on for too long, I will add only one more point: it is splitting
      hairs to argue that 8:44 addresses only the Jews’ behaviour and not the Jews
      themselves. The whole point of the verse, in its context in John 8, is one
      of genealogy, or better, paternity. The Jews claim to be the children of
      God; the Johannine Jesus denies them this identity, and instead states that
      the devil is their father. Their behavior, according to Jesus, demonstrates
      that he is correct in his repudiation of their genealogical claims.

      To Raimo:
      Thank you for a very interesting paper. Your main point – that the
      exposition of Jesus’ Jewishness does not provide an antidote to
      anti-Judaism – is a very important one in the current climate of New
      Testament research. The reclaiming of the Jewish Jesus is useful as a part
      of historical inquiry but it does not solve the anti-Judaism problem. In
      John, we contend not only with a Jewish Jesus (as you point out well) but
      also, paradoxically, with a Jewish Jesus who is almost never called a Jew.
      This contributes to the sense that Jesus’ Jewishness may well feed into the
      supersessionism that is at least implicit and perhaps even explicit in this
      Gospel.




      Adele Reinhartz
      Institute for Advanced Studies
      Hebrew University of Jerusalem
      Givat Ram
      Jerusalem 91904 ISRAEL
      Tel: 972-2-6584 504
      Fax: 972-2-6523 429

      Professor, Department of Religious Studies
      McMaster University
      Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4K1
    • Felix Just, S.J.
      Thanks to Martin DeBoer and Raimo Hakola for making their papers available to our group, and to all those who participated in the discussions over the past two
      Message 2 of 9 , Mar 11, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks to Martin DeBoer and Raimo Hakola for making their papers available
        to our group, and to all those who participated in the discussions over the
        past two weeks (not many, but some very substantial and interesting posts)!

        Things have been quiet the last few days, but I suspect it's mainly because
        folks are very busy with other academic tasks as we've entered into March.

        We now have another "break week" (March 12-18), followed on March 19-25 by
        discussion of Adam English's "Zeal that Consumes: Feeding Imagery in the
        Gospel of John" (now available at
        http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~fjust/John/SBL-Discussions.html or
        http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~fjust/John/SBL2000.html).

        By special request, we will also ADD to our schedule (on March 26-April 1) a
        discussion of Jeffery Hodges' 1999 SLB paper, entitled “'Ethical' Dualism of
        Food in The Gospel of John” and possibly a second closely-realted paper of
        his (not yet available online, but they will be in a few days).

        BTW, I hope no one misunderstood the "one-a-day" request, which was designed
        to prevent our SBL-paper authors from being overwhelmed by too much e-mail.
        It asks each person not to write more than one message per day during these
        scheduled discussions, but does NOT mean that only one person per day may
        post a message. More list members are certainly welcome and encouraged to
        join the discussion (including myself--I'll try to "practice what I
        preach"!).

        Felix
        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        Felix Just, S.J. - Dept. of Theological Studies
        Loyola Marymount University - 7900 Loyola Blvd.
        Los Angeles, CA 90045-8400 - Ph (310) 338-5933
        Homepage: http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~fjust
        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      • Horace Jeffery Hodges
        It s another Korean Monday morning, so I ll start this week s discussion of Adam English s paper on feeding imagery. Adam English wrote: “despite widespread
        Message 3 of 9 , Mar 18, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          It's another Korean Monday morning, so I'll start this
          week's discussion of Adam English's paper on feeding
          imagery.

          Adam English wrote:

          �despite widespread interest in and employment of
          literary criticism, one of the fourth gospel�s most
          recurrent literary devices has been largely
          overlooked: the device of feeding imagery� [Plus:
          Footnote 2: �no systematic, fully developed study has
          yet been produced�].

          Except for my dissertation: Horace Jeffery Hodges,
          �Food as Synecdoche in John�s Gospel and Gnostic
          Texts�, Berkeley Ph.D., 1995. It hasn�t been
          published, which probably accounts for its obscurity
          -- but it�s on microfilm with UMI.

          Adam English wrote:

          �The story continues as the disciples return gulping
          down whatever they managed to scrounge up in town.�

          Do you have a textual reason for thinking that the
          disciples were eating before urging Jesus to eat? My
          impression is that they were returning with food for
          themselves and Jesus.

          Adam English wrote:

          �As with the water in the stone jars, Jesus bypasses
          the temptation to brandish his divine powers.�

          Similar question: Do you have a textual reason for
          thinking Jesus is tempted to display his divine power?

          Adam English wrote:

          �Immediately following the miraculous feeding of the
          five thousand in chapter six, Jesus interprets and
          expands the significance of the feeding miracle. He
          warns his disciples not to be trapped by the physical
          gratification of the feeding, but rather encourages
          them to seek an even more permanent sustenance. He
          explains that the true "bread of God" is not . . . his
          own fish and loaves, however supernatural they may
          seem. The eternal bread of God is something much more:
          "the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven"
          (6:33).�

          I have a different view of this, but I�ll save it for
          next week, when we come to my papers. I will ask,
          however, how this passage fits with your view on the
          unity of the physical and the spiritual -- in
          particular, why does the bread that Jesus gives
          provide purely �physical gratification�?

          Adam English wrote:

          �The listeners grow nauseous . . .�

          Try �nauseated�. (Sorry, but being an English
          instructor for so long to support my studies has left
          me unable to resist proofreading everything that I
          read.)

          Adam English wrote:

          �The actual eating of the meal is bypassed except for
          a brief moment in which Jesus dips a piece of bread
          and hands it to Judas Iscariot. And even this is not a
          display of Jesus� feeding powers: immediately upon
          receiving the bread, Satan enters Judas. Such a
          pronounced void of positive feeding images does not
          necessarily mean that the Passover is insignificant to
          the fourth gospel.�

          It�s important to note that in the verse that you
          refer to here, the Greek prepostion �meta� means that
          Satan entered Judas �after� Judas�s having received (=
          eaten) the morsel, not �with�. There has been a lot of
          scholarly ink spilled over whether this morsel was a
          type of �magical� or even �Satanic� sacrament --
          primarily based upon a misunderstanding of the
          preposition �meta� as �with�. Your choice of wording
          -- �immediately upon� -- does not make entirely clear
          which translation you prefer. Try �immediately after
          Judas�s partaking of the morsel, Satan enters him�.
          (My other alterations here are to help you avoid a
          dangling modifier and to align your paraphrase with
          the Johannine wording [e.g., �morsel� rathar than
          �bread�].) I will save my own interpretation of this
          Johannnine passage until next week.

          Adam English wrote:

          �Figuratively, the water of eternal life that Jesus so
          freely offered to the woman at the well has now been
          contaminated with blood and wasted on the cross.�

          Why would Jesus�s blood �contaminate� the water of
          eternal life? Isn�t it itself this water of eternal
          life? And how is this water of life being �wasted�?
          Isn�t Jesus giving it to the world?

          Adam English wrote:

          �Although Borgen repudiates any dualism in the fourth
          gospel, he observes a "sharp distinction" between what
          he calls the "external" and the "spiritual."�

          Well . . . there�s certainly dualism in John. There�s
          dualism in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, et al. The
          question is -- dualism of what sort? More on this next
          week. But I will say for now that I agree that there
          is an important unity of spiritual and physical.

          Adam English wrote:

          �Moreover, the excessively large catch of fish (153
          fish to be exact) . . .�

          I�m curious -- has any scholar conclusively
          demonstrated the significance of this number?

          [Note to Adam: You will certainly want to take a look
          at my dissertation. See also my two online papers (as
          of next week), which should be helpful for your
          research as well. There are many commonalities to our
          thinking on food in John, and you can learn from my
          mistakes.]

          Jeffery Hodges

          =====
          Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
          Department of English Language and Literature
          Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
          447-791 Kyunggido Osan-City
          Yangsandong 411
          South Korea

          __________________________________________________
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
          http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
        • Horace Jeffery Hodges
          Adam English, are you out there? Did you see my comments on your SBL paper? Jeffery Hodges ===== Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges Department of
          Message 4 of 9 , Mar 22, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            Adam English, are you out there? Did you see my
            comments on your SBL paper?

            Jeffery Hodges

            =====
            Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
            Department of English Language and Literature
            Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
            447-791 Kyunggido Osan-City
            Yangsandong 411
            South Korea

            __________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
            http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
          • Piet van Veldhuizen
            Dear Mr English, Having read your paper last monday, I had the feeling that it lacked something quite fundamental. Now that others, except Jeffery Hodges,
            Message 5 of 9 , Mar 22, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Mr English,

              Having read your paper last monday, I had the feeling that it lacked
              something quite fundamental. Now that others, except Jeffery Hodges, remain
              silent, I will try to formulate what, in my opinion, is missing.

              First of all, I think a paper about feeding imagery in John should contain
              some reflexion about the essence of feeding imagery or food and drink as
              symbols. Why are food and drink essential metaphors in life and in biblical
              literature, and how can they become carriers of existential (and
              theological) truth?

              Secondly, there might have been some fundamental reflexion on the
              sacramental character of food and drink in the Bible and in John. When you
              call the Fourth Gospel "anti-sacramental", I presume that you are referring
              to the sacraments of Eucharist and Baptism as institutions within the early
              church. In a less institutional sense, I think John's usage of food and
              drink as bearers of the central truth is quite sacramental. "Sacramentality"
              is precisely the way in which "the literal and the figurative, the physical
              and the spiritual" are united (not "blended and blurred" as you call it).
              This sacramental usage of food and drink imagery, however, does not lead
              necessarily to a fixed ecclesiastical practice of Holy Supper, or whatever.
              It is a way of thinking about bread, water, light, fire, wind, wine
              etcetera.

              Thirdly, I think you should have noticed that John, when food is concerned,
              is not about Hamburgers and Coca Cola. It is about bread, flesh, fish, water
              and wine. These are very fundamental symbols. Food in John is not the same
              as food in post-industrial societies. When you describe the masses of John 6
              as an insatiable crowd missing the point of a free meal, I am afraid that
              these MacDonalds-like categories must be rather (y)ours than the theirs.

              Jeffery Hodges has already made some remarks about your reading of some
              passages. In addition to these, I was wondering about "the dirty hands of a
              boy holding five small barley loaves" - what do you mean to imply there? And
              what makes you think that the crowds are longing for "a welfare state in
              which they would never have to work again"?
              Again, what tells you that Jesus at the last supper "tries to take their
              minds off of food by suggesting they all go pray together", and in what
              sense is "the whole evening .. tainted by the smell of death"?

              Finally: your interpretation of John 21:18 is interesting, but I have some
              doubts about the "feeding of the sheep": the verb boskoo can be translated
              as "feed", but its root is from bous, cow. It is about "shepherding",
              "tending", "allowing to graze". In my opinion it takes no part in the
              feeding imagery of John. Peter is not appointed a feeder but a shepherd -
              who will give his life for his sheep. It would be "blending and blurring" of
              symbols indeed if you had the sheep consume the shepherd.

              I really hope to evoke some discussion.
              Kind regards,

              Piet van Veldhuizen
              Rotterdam
            • FMMCCOY
              Dear Adam English: You thusly close your paper, Studying the fourth gospel s feeding imagery has brought to light the way in which John blends and blurs the
              Message 6 of 9 , Mar 22, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear Adam English:

                You thusly close your paper, "Studying the fourth gospel's feeding
                imagery has brought to light the way in which John blends and blurs the
                literal and the figurative and thus the material and the spiritual. In fact,
                although literal/figurative, material/spiritual, and external/internal
                distinctions are helpful for the sake of analysis, they are foreign to
                John's thinking. For the evangelist, there is no dualism, nor even an
                identifiably "sharp distinction" between the two, as Borgen and others
                believe. The literal is immured in the figurative, the ironic collapses into
                the paradoxical, and consequently, earthly matters fold into heavenly ones,
                or to use the patristics' neo-Platonic image, the earthly "participates" in
                the heavenly"
                In response, I think that John, on occasion, makes dualistic contrasts
                in his gospel, sometimes (but not always) for the purpose of creating
                multi-level narratives. The first dualism he uses is between, on one
                hand, certain material things and, on the other hand, their spiritual
                analogs in terms of Philionic thought.
                For example, in Philo's thought, the Logos is filled with a feminine
                divine being, through whom one can gain eternal life, variously called
                Sophia, the Spirit, Arete, and Knowledge. I will short-hand her to her two
                main titles of Spirit-Sophia. In Philionic thought, she is the spiritual
                analog of water and, as such, she flows from the Logos. So, in Fuga 97,
                Philo exhorts one to "pass forward to the supreme Divine Logos, who is the
                fountain of Sophia, in order that he may draw from the stream and, released
                from death, gain eternal.life."
                This readily relates to the discussion between Jesus and the Samaritan
                woman--in which there is a dualistic contrast between the material water in
                the well and a spiritual water, giving life, that comes from Jesus. In it,
                then, Jesus identifies himself as being the Logos--he from whom flows the
                spiritual analog of material water that gives one eternal life.
                Again, in Philionic thought, one's mind, as a receptacle for the spritual
                water, is the spiritual equivalent of a material water pitcher (hudrian)
                used as a receptacle for the material water. So, in Post. 136, Philo states
                "Rebecca, it says, went down to.the spring to fill her pitcher (hudrian),
                and came up again. For whence is it likely that a mind thirsting for sound
                sense should be filled save the the Sophia of God, that never-failing
                spring?"
                This readily relates to 4:28, where the Samaritan woman leaves her
                pitcher (hudrian) near Jesus. That is, on the spiritual level of the
                narrative, she keeps her mind in close communication
                with the Logos, so that it can receive and store the spiritual water of the
                Spirit-Sophia that pours out from him.
                A second dualistic element in John is a dualism between an incident on
                the literal level of the text and a later event that involves in some way
                the Jerusalem Church. In passages with this temporal dualism, on the later
                event level, Jesus is his brother, James the Just--the leader of the
                Jerusalem Church Council.
                An example of this is found in 4:38, which is a statement of Jesus to
                his disciples while they are by the well in Samaria, "I sent you to reap on
                which you have not labored. Others have labored and you have entered into
                their labor." On the later date level of the narrative, the reference is
                to roughly 38 CE, when, according to Acts 8:14-16, "the apostles" sent two
                of Jesus' former disciples, Peter and John, to complete the missionary work
                in Samaria started by Philip. Hence, on the later event level of the
                narrative, Jesus is James the Just: who was, as the leader of the Jerusalem
                Church Council, also the head apostle and, so, was the one who presumably
                directed two of Jesus' former disciples to complete the missionary work in
                Samaria.
                Sometimes John uses both dualistic contrasts simultaneously, thereby
                creating a multi-level narrative. An example is found in the first
                feeding incident in John--the turning ot the water into wine at Cana.
                I think that, in it, the temporal dualism is between the literal text
                date level and a later date level that regards what is described in
                Acts 6:2-6. In this passage,
                the Twelve complain to the Jerusalem Church Council that it is not
                fitting for them to diakonein tables. Rather, they say, they should
                work full time on prayer and on the diaconia of the Logos. So,
                in effect, they ask to not be deacons in an administrative sense so that
                they put their full effort into being deacons of the Logos. The Jerusalem
                Church Council responds by approving seven to be the deacons in an
                administrative sense. The Twelve then laid their hands on the seven.
                I think one part of Luke's narrative is incorrect. That
                is, he states, the seven were filled with the Spirit and Sophia even before
                they became deacons. However, I think this unlikely because, I think, the
                whole point of having the Twelve lay their hands on the seven was to impart
                to them the Spirit-Sophia (Compare Acts 8:17, "Then they laid their hands
                on them, and they received the Spirit (RSV).").
                Also, I think that Luke's narrative has a serious omission, i.e., the
                role of James the Just. As the head of the Jerusalem Church Council, it
                would have been he who formally approved the appointment of the seven and
                who told the Twelve, the
                self-proclaimed deacons of the Logos, to give the Spirit to the seven
                through their laying on of hands.
                In John's narrative of the wedding at Cana, Jesus tells some deacons to
                fill six water ptichers (hudriai) with water. In these pitchers, the water
                changes to wine. The deacons then take some of this water become wine and
                give it to the head waiter. He then praises the bridegroom for having saved
                the best wine for the last.
                On the spiritual level of the narrative, the water that becomes wine is
                the Spirit-Sophia, the six hudrias are six minds, and the bridegroom is the
                Logos--who (as I point out in a post of Sept. 14, 2000) is the Bridegroom of
                the bride. On the later
                date level, Jesus is James; the deacons are the Twelve, the deacons of the
                Logos; the head-waiter is Stephen, the leader of the seven; and the six
                minds are the minds of the rest of the seven. What it relates, then, is
                how, following the order of James, the Twelve, the deacons of the spiritual
                bridegroom (i.e., the Logos), first gave the Spirit-Sophia
                to six of the seven appointees by laying their hands on them. Then,
                following his further order, they had
                Stephen receive some of this Spirit-Sophia already given to the six by
                laying their hands on him. When the six received the Spirit-Sophia, they
                became spiritually intoxicated (compare Acts 2:1-13, where, upon
                receiving an outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost, the members of the
                Jerusalem Church are accused by others of drinking new wine).
                This also happened to Stephen, who then cried out to the spiritual
                bridegroom (i.e., the Logos) how this spiritual wine,
                saved until the last days (compare Acts 2:14-18), is far better than the
                material wine they
                already knew about. In doing so, he recognized that this Logos is the
                origin for the Spirit-Sophia he received from the Twelve. First, the Logos
                poured this Spirit-Sophia into the minds of the Twelve. Then they, in turn,
                gave her to the him and the rest of the seven through the laying on of
                hands.
                I would like to make three more points regarding the Cana wedding
                narrative. First, we learn details about the appointment of the seven that
                are lacking in Acts. For example, we learn, the Twelve first laid their
                hands on the six and then, secondly on Stephen--thereby recognizing his
                special status as the leader of the seven. Again, we learn, all seven, upon
                receiving the Spirit, became spiritually intoxicated--perhaps, I suppose,
                even speaking in tongues..
                Second, it is noteworthy that, John
                emphasises, the six pitchers (hudriai) were of varying sizes and each was
                filled to the brim by the deacons. This reflects two Philionic doctrines.
                First, our spiritual pitchers, i.e., our minds, vary in their capacity for
                the spiritual water of the Wisdom-Sophia. Second, when pouring her from
                one's own hudrian, i.e., mind) into another mind, one should try to fill
                that other mind to its capacity for her. Thus, in 145-47, Philo
                states, "And so in
                His desire that we should enjoy benefit from the gifts which He bestows, God
                proportions the things which He gives to the strength of those who receive
                them....Rebecca is therefore to be commended for...letting down from a
                higher position the vessel which contains Sophia called the hudrian, on to
                her arms, and for holding out to the learner the teaching which he is able
                to receive. Among the other traits before which I stand in amazement is her
                lavishness. As for a little to drink she gives much, until she has filled
                the whole soul of the learner with draughts of speculation."
                Third, for those (like myself) who believe that James the Just is the
                Beloved Disciple, John gives us a major clue, in his narrative of the
                wedding at Cana, that it has a temporal dualism in which, on the later
                date level, Jesus is his brother, James the Just. That is, Jesus tells his
                mother, they don't have anything to do with each other because his "hour"
                has not come. There is an allusion here to 19:26-27 (note that Mary is
                addressed as "woman" in both) and, hence, this is James telling Mary that
                they basically have nothing to do with each other until the "hour" when he,
                as the Beloved
                Disciple who is her (step-?)son, will assume responsibility for her care and
                take her to his residence.
                To conclude, I think that John sometimes makes deliberate dualistic
                contrasts along at least two dimensions: (1) a material-spiritual dimension
                in which the spiritual end of it consists of Philo's spiritual analogs of
                material things and (2) a literal text date-later date temporal dimension in
                which the later date level deals with an event or situation in the history
                of the Jerusalem Church. In his narrative of the wedding at Cana, John even
                makes use of both of them simultaneously. They add additional levels of
                meaning to some of his narratives, making the reading of John a true
                adventure of the mind.

                Regards,

                Frank McCoy
                Maplewood, MN USA
              • FMMCCOY
                Dear Adam English: On March 22, I suggested to you that there are at least two dualistic dimentions in John: (1) a dualism between a material thing and its
                Message 7 of 9 , Mar 24, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear Adam English:

                  On March 22, I suggested to you that there are at least two
                  dualistic dimentions in John: (1) a dualism between a material thing and its
                  spiritual analog in terms of Philionic thought and (2) a temporal dualism
                  between the literal text and the history of the Jerusalem Church. I
                  suggested
                  that the first type of dualism is present in the narrative of Jesus and the
                  Samaritan woman at the well and that both types of dualism are present in
                  the narrative of the turning of the water into wine.
                  In this post, I would like to point out that the first type of dualism
                  can get more complex because, in Philionic thought, a spiritual thing can
                  have more than one material analog. For example, as Philo takes the
                  logoi, as the spiritual heavenly bread or manna, to be a spiritual
                  unleavened bread, he deems them to be the spiritual analog of several kinds
                  of material unleavened bread.
                  So, in Cong.161, he notes that the unleavened bread of the Passover is
                  called "bread of affliction". Then, in 167-168, he links this "bread of
                  affliction" to both the logoi as utterances (which he calls "the lessons of
                  instruction's doctrine") and the unleavened shew bread (which he calls "the
                  loaves of setting forth"). Finally, in 173-174, he identifies the logoi,
                  who are of the very self of the Spirit-Sophia, as being the true manna. As
                  a result, in Philionic thought, the logoi, as the spiritual heavenly bread
                  or manna, have material analogs in both the bread of the Passover meal and
                  the shew bread.
                  To further complicate matters, these logoi, the spiritual manna, are, as
                  utterances, the spiritual analogs of material fish.
                  So, in Som. ii 260, Philo declares, "By fish thoughts are symbolized. For
                  thoughts swim and are bred in speech as in a river." These spiritual fish,
                  the "thoughts", present in speech are the logoi. So, in Mig 80, Philo
                  declares that "'thoughts' are nothing else than God's 'logoi' or hrematon"
                  All this relates to the Johannine narrative of the multiplication of
                  loaves and fishes. For example, John specifies, the Passover is nigh. As a
                  result, the boy's material bread is the unleavened Passover bread. Further,
                  there are twelve baskets of this material bread left over after everyone is
                  fed. This links the unleavened Passover bread distributed to the crowd to
                  the twelve loaves of the unleavened shew bread. The multiplication of this
                  material unleavened bread and of the material fish is a material replication
                  of how the logoi, as the spiritual manna, can multiply. Someone tells you
                  some "lessons of instruction's doctrine", i.e., utters to you some of the
                  logoi. You store them in your mind, and then tell them to a crowd of, say,
                  5000 people. Now they are present in the minds of all these 5,000 people as
                  well. There simply is no end to how far this multiplication of the logoi
                  can go, for they can tell yet others. So, just as the material bread and
                  material fish multiplied as they were distributed to the crowd, so their
                  spiritual analogs, the logoi, can multiply as they are distributed to
                  people. As a result, there is a spiritual
                  level to the narrative of the multiplication of loaves in which the
                  multiplication of the material bread and the material fish reflects how the
                  logoi, as the spiritual manna, can spread and multiply in people's minds.
                  Therefore, this narrative contains a dualistic contrast between the logoi as
                  the spiritual manna and three of their material analogs--the Passover bread,
                  the shew-bread, and fish.
                  Another example of where a spiritual thing can have more than one
                  material analog is found in the Spirit-Sophia. As I mentioned in the
                  previous post to you, she is the spiritual analog of material water. As I
                  mentioned in another post of Feb. 14, she is the spiritual analog of the
                  blood of the covenant. So, she has both water and blood as material
                  analogs.
                  I suggest that his relates to 19:34, where water and blood pour forth
                  from Jesus. In particular, I suggest, these two material analogs of the
                  Spirit-Sophia pour forth from Jesus to signify that he is the Logos--he from
                  whom pours out the spiritual water and spiritual blood of the Spirit-Sophia.
                  Supporting this suggestion is I John 5:8-9, "There are three witnesses,
                  the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree. If we receive
                  the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for this is the
                  testimony of God that He has borne witness to His Son. (RSV)" There are
                  three witnesses: the Spirit and its two material analogs of the water and
                  the blood. They witness what God Himself witnesses--that Jesus is Philo's
                  Son of God, the Logos.
                  Therefore, I think you are incorrect in your statement, "As a final
                  sign of the depletion, decomposition, and destruction, the soldiers puncture
                  Jesus' side with a spear, and from his side pour blood and water (19:34).
                  Literally, the little remaining fluids in Jesus' body are drained out of the
                  wound. Figuratively, the water of eternal life that Jesus so freely offered
                  to the woman at the well has now been contaminated with blood and wasted on
                  the cross. The literal and the symbolic are mixed together as the blood and
                  water."
                  Beyond this, I think you are incorrect in your statement, "Yet, as
                  seen in the wedding at Cana, the woman at the well, the feeding of
                  the five thousand, and now at the crucifixion, there is not a sharp
                  distinction between the external and spiritual primarily because there is
                  not a sharp distinction between the literal and the figurative. Certainly,
                  both dimensions are present, but one does not necessarily lead to the other
                  in accordance with some formula; rather John lays the literal and figurative
                  and ergo the earthly and heavenly side by side, indistinguishable." I think
                  I have shown in this and the previous post to you that, in the narratives of
                  these incidents, there is an inherent dualism between some material things
                  and their spiritual analogs in terms of Philionic thought that enable us to
                  "see" some of the "deeper" levels of meaning to these narratives--"deeper"
                  levels of meaning that give us, so to speak, food for thought..

                  Regards,

                  Frank McCoy
                  Maplewood, MN USA
                • Horace Jeffery Hodges
                  It s Sunday aftenoon in Korea, so I want to make a couple of remarks before the reading and discussion of my papers begins. To all of those interested in
                  Message 8 of 9 , Mar 24, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    It's Sunday aftenoon in Korea, so I want to make a
                    couple of remarks before the reading and discussion of
                    my papers begins.

                    To all of those interested in discussing my two papers
                    this coming week, I'd like you first to read my SBL
                    paper "Ethical Dualism" and only then to read my AAR
                    paper "Gift-Giving". The latter paper extends the
                    theoretical analysis of food in John by applying a
                    Maussian understanding of gifts and giving.

                    Incidently, I think that I need to clarify one thing
                    for everybody. In my "Ethical Dualism" paper, I make
                    the following statement:

                    "The fourth evangelist is therefore not presenting
                    Jesus as a Gnostic revealer and is not presupposing a
                    substance dualism."

                    My "Gift-Giving" paper contains a similar statement:

                    "In contrast to a Gnostic dualism of substances,
                    John�s Gospel presents an ethical dualism."

                    Let me be more precise. There is a substance dualism
                    in John -- between matter and spirit. What I meant
                    here (perhaps clear from the larger context of the two
                    papers) is that the ethical dualism of evil and good
                    does not map isomorphically onto the substance dualism
                    of matter and spirit. A close reading of both of my
                    papers should help to clarify my meaning. At any rate,
                    we can discuss this point, among others.

                    I hope that a fruitful discussion will follow. I have
                    noted a falling off in the intensity of discussion,
                    especially recently, and I hope that people will not
                    be put off from reading and discussing my two papers
                    -- especially since Adam English's paper covered a
                    very closely related theme.

                    Jeffery Hodges

                    =====
                    Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
                    Department of English Language and Literature
                    Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
                    447-791 Kyunggido Osan-City
                    Yangsandong 411
                    South Korea

                    __________________________________________________
                    Do You Yahoo!?
                    Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
                    http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
                  • Horace Jeffery Hodges
                    In my previous message, I made a slip of the tongue (or whatever the equivalent). I said: Let me be more precise. There is a substance dualism in John --
                    Message 9 of 9 , Mar 25, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      In my previous message, I made a slip of the tongue
                      (or whatever the equivalent). I said:

                      "Let me be more precise. There is a substance dualism
                      in John -- between matter and spirit. What I meant
                      here (perhaps clear from the larger context of the two
                      papers) is that the ethical dualism of evil and good
                      does not map isomorphically onto the substance dualism
                      of matter and spirit. A close reading of both of my
                      papers should help to clarify my meaning. At any rate,
                      we can discuss this point, among others."

                      I should have said that John's substance dualism is
                      "between flesh and spirit" -- or perhaps "between the
                      world and spirit". John's Gospel does not even mention
                      matter. My basic point is that while there is a
                      substance dualism in John, this substance dualism does
                      not ground John's ethical dualism.

                      Sorry for the careless use of terminology.

                      Jeffery Hodges

                      =====
                      Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
                      Department of English Language and Literature
                      Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
                      447-791 Kyunggido Osan-City
                      Yangsandong 411
                      South Korea

                      __________________________________________________
                      Do You Yahoo!?
                      Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
                      http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.