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

Thanks to De Boer and Hakola

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 9 , Mar 11, 2001
      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 2 of 9 , Mar 18, 2001
        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 3 of 9 , Mar 22, 2001
          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 4 of 9 , Mar 22, 2001
            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 5 of 9 , Mar 22, 2001
              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 6 of 9 , Mar 24, 2001
                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 7 of 9 , Mar 24, 2001
                  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 8 of 9 , Mar 25, 2001
                    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.