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

sour wine

Expand Messages
  • Kevin O'Brien
    Greetings, re sour wine. I ve come late into this particular topic. Hoping my efforts are of help. (1) Granting vinegar or vinegar laced with myrrh was offered
    Message 1 of 24 , Mar 3, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Greetings,

      re sour wine.

      I've come late into this particular topic. Hoping my efforts are of help.

      (1) Granting vinegar or vinegar laced with myrrh was offered to Jesus on the cross, it being identified as sour wine,
      (2) Granting that Luke 22.17-18 par. "fruit of the vine" = wine and refers as well to sour wine,
      (3) Granting that Luke 22.18 par. is a vow to abstain from wine or its substitute ,
      (4) Granting that Luke 22.20 par. is Jesus' vow to abstain from wine of any kind and is not to be placed at the Last Supper in the space of the same meal (which is hardly credible) but in a post-Resurrection context such as the Lukan Acts 10.41 -- and finally that Jesus on the cross did not break his vow made at the Last Supper to abstain from wine of any kind, we can understand why in the three Synoptics Jesus did not drink what was offered, i.e. he refused the sour wine or any of its substitutes.

      All this has decided reference to the report in the Fourth Gospel, "... ELABEN TO OXOS hO IHSOUS". The verb here cannot be translated in the sense that Jesus drank the fluid since firstly it contradicts the three Synoptic reports and secondly it would follow that Jesus on the cross broke the Last Supper vow before the coming of the era of the Kingdom of God.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • diadem
      To Jefferey Hodges, Of course I did not mean to imply that real events do not have symbolic meanings . Far from it. What I felt was that, if we could
      Message 2 of 24 , Apr 1, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        To Jefferey Hodges,
        Of course I did not mean to imply that 'real events' do not have
        'symbolic meanings'. Far from it.
        What I felt was that, if we could understand why the 'vinegar', which
        was sour wine in those days, was invariably present at crucifixions, we
        could make the symbolism more realistic and representative of how both
        the author(s) and first readers/listeners understood it. There have been
        various medical studies published on the effects of crucifixion on the
        human body. I do not have these in front of me right now. There was
        also, some years ago, a book called something like, 'A Doctor Looks at
        the Crucifixion of Jesus'. From these I gathered that sour wine and a
        narcotic had the effect of delaying the trauma of the shock that finally
        caused death. The aim was not to ease the pain but to prolong the
        spectactle. The fact that, when the people heard sounds like 'Elijah'
        coming from Jesus' mouth, and then offered him the mixture with, 'Wait,
        let us see if Elijah will come and take him down', must mean they
        believed the mixture would prolong his stay on the cross and not just
        ease the pain. This was to give Elijah time to hurtle down from the
        skies and carry him aloft!
        Did Jesus actually drink this mixture, according to the synoptics? When
        two of them actually state he did not when it was first offered soon
        after he was nailed up, I guess you can argue that he refused it on the
        second occasion. However, I suspect that, if it was important to state
        that he refused it each time they would have repeated his refusal.
        Thanks for your response.
        Ross Saunders from DownUnder.
      • Horace Jeffery Hodges
        ... One thing that I am not yet convinced is that the wine mixed with gall (or whatever the correct translation) is the same drink as the vinegar. I will need
        Message 3 of 24 , Apr 1, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Ross Saunders wrote:

          > Did Jesus actually drink this mixture, according to
          > the synoptics? When
          > two of them actually state he did not when it was
          > first offered soon
          > after he was nailed up, I guess you can argue that
          > he refused it on the
          > second occasion. However, I suspect that, if it was
          > important to state
          > that he refused it each time they would have
          > repeated his refusal.

          One thing that I am not yet convinced is that the wine
          mixed with gall (or whatever the correct translation)
          is the same drink as the vinegar. I will need to hear
          a defense of this point first.

          As for the synoptics' silence on whether or not Jesus
          accepted the vinegar, I suspect that it means that
          they didn't attach as much theological significance to
          the act as the fourth evangelist did.

          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/?.refer=text
        • Felix Just, S.J.
          Dear Colleagues and Friends, First, thanks to Jeffery Hodges and those few who participated in the discussion of his paper(s). Conversation may of course
          Message 4 of 24 , Apr 2, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Colleagues and Friends,

            First, thanks to Jeffery Hodges and those few who participated in the
            discussion of his paper(s). Conversation may of course continue on his or
            anyone else's papers, or any other topics, as people wish.

            For the coming week, we were scheduled to discuss Leticia A.
            Guardiola-Saenz' “Female Bodies Mapping Jesus' Ministry in the Gospel of
            John”. However, Leticia has not submitted her paper and just informed me
            that she does not have time to finish it. Thus, we now have a two-week
            break before the final two papers on our calendar:

            April 2-15 (break weeks)
            April 16-22 Paul N. Anderson: “Truth and Liberation: The Work of the
            Parakletos and the Transformation of the Self”
            April 23-29 Elizabeth Danna: “Characterization of the Greeks in John 12”

            Elizabeth's paper is already available at
            http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~fjust/John/SBL-Discussions.html, and Paul's paper
            will be available shortly.

            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
            ... So far as I can see, it was wine -- not vinegar -- that was laced with gall/myrrh. ... Why should one grant that it also refers to vinegar? Yes, I know
            Message 5 of 24 , Apr 3, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              Kevin O'Brien wrote:

              > (1) Granting vinegar or vinegar laced with myrrh was
              > offered to Jesus
              > on the cross, it being identified as sour wine,

              So far as I can see, it was wine -- not vinegar --
              that was laced with gall/myrrh.

              > (2) Granting that Luke 22.17-18 par. "fruit of the
              > vine" = wine and
              > refers as well to sour wine,

              Why should one grant that it also refers to vinegar?
              Yes, I know that vinegar in those days was soured
              wine, but the terms were different: "oksos" vs.
              "oinos". So, why grant that "fruit of the vine"
              included vinegar? Surely the expression referred to
              "oinos" and was understood that way. After all, Jesus
              was drinking wine, not vinegar, at the Last Supper,
              wasn't he? Doesn't the verse mean that Jesus would
              abstain from wine (and indicate nothing for or against
              vinegar)?

              > (3) Granting that Luke 22.18 par. is a vow to
              > abstain
              > from wine or its
              > substitute ,

              By substitute, "vinegar"? Again, why grant this?

              > (4) Granting that Luke 22.20 par. is Jesus' vow to
              > abstain from wine of
              > any kind and is not to be placed at the Last Supper
              > in
              > the space of the
              > same meal (which is hardly credible) but in a
              > post-Resurrection context
              > such as the Lukan Acts 10.41

              Your point here is a bit unclear to me. Could you
              clarify this?

              > -- and finally that
              > Jesus
              > on the cross did
              > not break his vow made at the Last Supper to abstain
              > from wine of any
              > kind, we can understand why in the three Synoptics
              > Jesus did not drink
              > what was offered, i.e. he refused the sour wine or
              > any
              > of its
              > substitutes.

              So far as I can see, he is shown as explicitly
              refusing the wine mixed with gall/myrrh, but is he
              explicitly shown refusing the vinegar? Can you cite
              the verse?

              > All this has decided reference to the report
              > in the Fourth
              > Gospel, "... ELABEN TO OXOS hO IHSOUS". The verb
              > here
              > cannot be translated
              > in the sense that Jesus drank the fluid since
              > firstly
              > it contradicts
              > the three Synoptic reports

              Does it? How? Can you cite the contradiction? And how
              would you translate "elaben"? It certainly does not
              sound as though Jesus rejected the vinegar.

              > and secondly it would
              > follow that Jesus on the
              > cross broke the Last Supper vow before the coming of
              > the era of the
              > Kingdom of God.

              Only if one grants your premise, that "fruit of the
              vine" refers both to "oinos" and to "oksos", but I see
              no obvious reason to grant this.

              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
              Isn t this the week for Paul N. Anderson: “Truth and Liberation: The Work of the Parakletos and the Transformation of the Self”? So . . . why this delay
              Message 6 of 24 , Apr 16, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                Isn't this the week for "Paul N. Anderson: �Truth and
                Liberation: The Work of the Parakletos and the
                Transformation of the Self�? So . . . why this delay
                of the Parakletos?

                =====
                Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
                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/
              • Paul Anderson
                ... Thanks, Jeffery; my mistake in not getting the paper to Felix until after he had departed for the weekend -- and where he has gone we could not come -- nor
                Message 7 of 24 , Apr 16, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com writes:
                  >why this delay

                  >of the Parakletos?

                  Thanks, Jeffery; my mistake in not getting the paper to Felix until after
                  he had departed for the weekend -- and where he has gone we could not come
                  -- nor could our e-mail messages. But he will return, at any moment, and
                  we await with anticipation the joy of his coming.

                  The paper was presented at the Christian Theology and Biblical Studies
                  Section of the Nashville meetings, where the larger theme was on a
                  theology of self. As the NT presenter (among four), the theme they asked
                  me to develop was on the impact of the Holy Spirit upon the self as
                  described in John, so that's the way I approached the issue.

                  In getting into the task, I developed first the theological and
                  applicational impressions of the text, and then moved toward the
                  exegetical task. The latter produced a fair bit of dissonance when viewed
                  in the light of the former; I'd be interested to see what folks think of
                  the interplay. (It has been requested by the editors of Horizons in
                  Biblical Theology, so that's the publication venue I have in mind.)

                  Thanks, Jeffery, for the nudge.

                  Paul
                • Felix Just, S.J.
                  Dear Colleagues, Do not let your hearts be troubled... if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again... (Jn 14:1-3). Sorry about the mixup in the
                  Message 8 of 24 , Apr 17, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dear Colleagues,

                    "Do not let your hearts be troubled... if I go and prepare a place for you,
                    I will come again..." (Jn 14:1-3).

                    Sorry about the mixup in the discussion schedule, but as Paul Anderson told
                    you, he didn't send his paper to me before I left for Holy Week and the
                    Easter weekend. Now I'm back at the computer, and as soon as my student
                    assistant has a chance to convert his paper to HTML format, I'll post it to
                    the JL website.

                    Meanwhile, we thought it would be good to postpone the discussion of Paul's
                    paper (so more people have a chance to read it) until after Elizabeth's
                    paper. Thus the upcoming schedule is:
                    now until April 22 - continued "open" discussion
                    April 23 - April 29 - Elizabeth Danna, “Characterization of the Greeks
                    in John 12”
                    April 30 - May 6 - Paul Anderson, “Truth and Liberation: The Work of
                    the Parakletos and the Transformation of the Self”

                    Elizabeth's paper is still available at
                    http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~fjust/John/SBL1999.html or
                    http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~fjust/John/SBL-Discussions.html, and Paul's will
                    be there soon, by Thursday at the latest.

                    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
                    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                  • Paul Anderson
                    ... Thanks, Felix; I support this plan. Again, I apologize for the delay. Verily, Paul
                    Message 9 of 24 , Apr 17, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com writes:
                      >Meanwhile, we thought it would be good to postpone the discussion of
                      >Paul's
                      >paper (so more people have a chance to read it) until after Elizabeth's
                      >paper.

                      Thanks, Felix; I support this plan. Again, I apologize for the delay.

                      Verily,

                      Paul
                    • Horace Jeffery Hodges
                      I hesitate to post an email on Greeks since everybody may already be tired of hearing about them, but this is the week for discussing Elizabeth Danna s
                      Message 10 of 24 , Apr 22, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I hesitate to post an email on "Greeks" since
                        everybody may already be tired of hearing about them,
                        but this is the week for discussing Elizabeth Danna's
                        paper. Anyway, here goes. Elizabeth states the
                        following:

                        -------------------------------------------------------

                        Let us now turn to characterisation. (In this paper I
                        am building on studies done by Mark Allan Powell on
                        the Synoptics and by David Gowler on Luke-Acts, using
                        a selection of their categories of characterisation).
                        The first of our categories of characterisation is
                        that of direct definition. The first thing that comes
                        under this category is that the Greeks have come up to
                        Jerusalem for Passover (12:20). This indicates that
                        they are either God-fearers or full-fledged
                        proselytes. To which group do they belong? Scholars
                        are divided on the question. Those who think that the
                        Greeks are God-fearers include Carson, Morris,
                        Lindars, and Lagrange; those who think that they are
                        proselytes include Marsh, Brown, Bultmann, and Kossen.
                        My own view is that the text does not make it clear
                        into which group they fall. This leads me to ask
                        whether the matter is really that important to the
                        implied author. If it were, he would specify to which
                        group they belong. What is important to him, I
                        suggest, is that they are Greeks, that is, that they
                        are Gentiles.

                        -------------------------------------------------------

                        I'd like to draw attention to the following statement:

                        "This indicates that they are either God-fearers or
                        full-fledged proselytes".

                        Are these the only alternatives? Couldn't they also be
                        Greek-speaking Jews who had been born as Jews? The
                        answer to this question might depend upon who the
                        Greeks are in John 7:35. If the answer is that they
                        are Greek-speaking Jews who had been born as Jews,
                        then -- of course -- they are not Gentiles (which
                        would, I presume, alter Elizabeth's analysis of the
                        significance of the emergence of the Gentiles for
                        Jesus's hour of crucifixion).

                        Jeffery Hodges

                        =====
                        Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
                        Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
                        447-791 Kyunggido Osan-City
                        Yangsandong 411
                        South Korea

                        __________________________________________________
                        Do You Yahoo!?
                        Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
                        http://auctions.yahoo.com/
                      • Horace Jeffery Hodges
                        I forgot to mention one other point. If the Greeks in John 12 were full-fledged proselytes , wouldn t they be considered Jews rather than Gentiles anyway?
                        Message 11 of 24 , Apr 22, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          I forgot to mention one other point. If the Greeks in
                          John 12 were "full-fledged proselytes", wouldn't they
                          be considered Jews rather than Gentiles anyway?

                          =====
                          Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
                          Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
                          447-791 Kyunggido Osan-City
                          Yangsandong 411
                          South Korea

                          __________________________________________________
                          Do You Yahoo!?
                          Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
                          http://auctions.yahoo.com/
                        • Richard Anderson
                          Prof. Hodges asks: If the Greeks in John 12 were full-fledged proselytes , wouldn t they be considered Jews rather than Gentiles anyway? In Reclaiming the
                          Message 12 of 24 , Apr 23, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Prof. Hodges asks: If the Greeks in
                            John 12 were "full-fledged proselytes", wouldn't they
                            be considered Jews rather than Gentiles anyway?

                            In Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, Schiffman writes:

                            "No doubt non-Jews would have been prohibited from entering
                            the temple since even proselytes were forbidden entry into the
                            middle Court until the fourth generation (Temple Scroll 39:5-7).
                            Indeed, in the End of Days, non-Jews as well as proselytes were
                            to be excluded from the sanctuary described in Florigium (1-
                            2I4)."

                            The relevant portion is that "even proselytes were forbidden entry into the
                            middle Court until the fourth generation (Temple Scroll 39:5-7)."


                            Richard H. Anderson
                            Wallingford PA
                            http://www.geocities.com/gospelofluke
                          • Piet van Veldhuizen
                            Thank you, Elizabeth Danna, for your paper. I had never studied this pericope. Reading it superficially, and perhaps under influence of long-ago sunday school
                            Message 13 of 24 , Apr 24, 2001
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Thank you, Elizabeth Danna, for your paper.

                              I had never studied this pericope. Reading it superficially, and perhaps
                              under influence of long-ago sunday school teaching, I always saw those
                              Greeks as the religious tourists, by whom Jesus does not want to be
                              distracted from his mission. This is not the time for sightseeing, this is
                              the hour of decision.
                              Now your paper shows quite convincingly that John uses discipleship
                              terminology here, and that the Greeks come in much the same chain-like way
                              in which the disciples came in John 1.

                              Speaking about the "much-anticipated hour", you state that it has been
                              mentioned several times before, "and always it has been said that the hour
                              has not yet come." This is not true: in John 4 Jesus says that "the hour
                              will come and is now" - and here we have a difficult kind of contrast
                              between John 4 and John 12. In John 4, the immediacy of the "hour" is
                              realized in Jesus presenting himself in a very direct way to the woman: "I
                              am (the Messiah), the one who is talking to you". It is a moment of
                              revelation, of reciprocal disclosure between Jesus and this woman. In John
                              12 the presence of the "hour" seems not to be realized in a fullness of
                              contact and disclosure, but rather seems to isolate Jesus from the people
                              around him. The last part of 12,36 confirms this. Therefore I have some
                              difficulty in reading the coming of the Greeks as an open-ended story in
                              which we can "step in" - it seems rather to be open-ended because in this
                              moment, nobody can pretend to be a follower of Jesus.

                              Why did you not comment upon the role of Philip and Andrew in this pericope?
                              They played this mediating role already in John 6, and of course they were
                              part of a longer chain in John 1. Comparing with the Synoptics, where they
                              are only mentioned in the list of twelve, I must conclude that John
                              deliberately gives them a (relatively) prominent role. When you speak about
                              the anonymity of the Greeks and the focussing of attention, I think
                              something should be said about those two disciples mentioned by name.

                              Finally, I think it is not all-important to know the ethnic and religious
                              status of these Greeks. Essential is the kind of figure drawn by their
                              appearance: at the moment that Jesus reaches the centre-point of his mission
                              (Jerusalem, the "hour"), these Greeks evoke the wide world. Their appearance
                              underlines, by contrast, the utter concentration on this centre-point in
                              place and time. The question remains: are they presented as a threat to
                              Jesus' concentration (the perspective of worldwide discipleship could have
                              distracted him from this ultimate concentration), or are they rather by
                              their appearance confirming the world-wide significance of Jesus' mission in
                              that very hour of truth?

                              Kind greetings,

                              Piet van Veldhuizen
                              <mailto:pi.veldhuizen@...>
                            • Maluflen@aol.com
                              In a message dated 4/24/2001 7:04:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time, pi.veldhuizen@wxs.nl writes:
                              Message 14 of 24 , Apr 24, 2001
                              • 0 Attachment
                                In a message dated 4/24/2001 7:04:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
                                pi.veldhuizen@... writes:

                                << Why did you not comment upon the role of Philip and Andrew in this
                                pericope?
                                They played this mediating role already in John 6, and of course they were
                                part of a longer chain in John 1. Comparing with the Synoptics, where they
                                are only mentioned in the list of twelve, I must conclude that John
                                deliberately gives them a (relatively) prominent role.>>

                                Almost, but not quite true. Andrew is mentioned in Matt 4:18 and in the
                                Markan parallel to this text -- not, however, in the calling of Simon (plus
                                James and John) as told in Lk 5:1-11. Thus, what you say about the Synoptics
                                in general is true of Luke. And I would agree with you that John seems to
                                give especially Andrew, but also Philip, a prominent role because of his
                                virtual suppression in Lk. Is there significance, for this particular
                                passage, in the fact that these two apostles alone have Greek names? I don't
                                have the means of checking this at the moment, but I suspect this point is
                                routinely made in the commentaries. Also, what do you think of the recent
                                arguments of Klaus Berger that Andrew is the beloved disciple in John?

                                Leonard Maluf
                              • Elizabeth Danna
                                ... Thanks Richard for the help. I haven t got access to many books at the monent, so I can t give references. But I do remember hearing that many Jews
                                Message 15 of 24 , Apr 24, 2001
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Richard Anderson wrote:

                                  > Prof. Hodges asks: If the Greeks in
                                  > John 12 were "full-fledged proselytes", wouldn't they
                                  > be considered Jews rather than Gentiles anyway?
                                  >
                                  > In Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, Schiffman writes:
                                  >
                                  > "No doubt non-Jews would have been prohibited from entering
                                  > the temple since even proselytes were forbidden entry into the
                                  > middle Court until the fourth generation (Temple Scroll 39:5-7).
                                  > Indeed, in the End of Days, non-Jews as well as proselytes were
                                  > to be excluded from the sanctuary described in Florigium (1-
                                  > 2I4)."
                                  >
                                  > The relevant portion is that "even proselytes were forbidden entry into the
                                  > middle Court until the fourth generation (Temple Scroll 39:5-7)."

                                  Thanks Richard for the help. I haven't got access to many books at the monent,
                                  so I can't give references. But I do remember hearing that many Jews
                                  considered proselytes to be second-class Jews.


                                  Elizabeth Danna
                                • Horace Jeffery Hodges
                                  Paul, thank you for an interesting paper. I suspect that the anxiety of doing theology and biblical exegesis in tandem has a social as well as personal
                                  Message 16 of 24 , Apr 29, 2001
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Paul, thank you for an interesting paper. I suspect
                                    that the anxiety of doing theology and biblical
                                    exegesis in tandem has a social as well as personal
                                    dimension -- �well, he's doing theology, not serious
                                    biblical scholarship�.

                                    More specifically, you worry about your
                                    theological/(experienced) approach being at odds with
                                    your exegetical/(perceived) approach. You point toward
                                    a resolution of this tension in the �eschatologically
                                    present workings of God� in bringing to bear �the
                                    existential impact of these texts�, which opens one
                                    �to the truth about oneself [that] ultimately leads
                                    one to openings regarding the character of our
                                    Ultimate Concern � God � and vice versa�. I take it
                                    that you mean that the divided self, by recognizing
                                    its division, is opened up to unity offered by God�s
                                    truth as revealed by the workings of the spirit (i.e.,
                                    the Paraclete).

                                    I�m not sure that I see how this all fits together in
                                    its details. Probably, I need to reread your paper and
                                    reflect upon it (but have grading to do instead).

                                    However, I wonder if you could link your interest in
                                    the divided self with the biblical tradition of
                                    �double-heartedness�. I�m not sure if these are the
                                    same, but it might be profitable to engage them
                                    together. Moreover, perhaps some value could come of
                                    reflecting upon what it means �to remember� (a faculty
                                    of the heart) in the biblical tradition. Remembering
                                    is more than recall; it is performative, doing. To
                                    remember the covenant means to fulfill the covenant.
                                    The Paraclete is characterized as one who will
                                    �remind� the disciples (and later believers, I
                                    presume) of everthing that Jesus said to them (John
                                    14:26). To remember what Jesus said means to do what
                                    Jesus said, and while this occurs in the context of
                                    community, it surely has a personal aspect as well.

                                    I�ve probably muddied the waters by stirring around in
                                    them, but others can perhaps clarify them again.

                                    By the way, there appears to be a typo in one
                                    sentence:

                                    �Further, in the fifth Parakletos passage
                                    (16:12-15)[,] the emphasis is upon the upon the way
                                    the Spirit of Truth will lead people into all truth,
                                    not speaking on his own behalf, but only that which
                                    [he] hears from Jesus.�

                                    I think that �he� is missing. (As for the added comma,
                                    it�s only a suggestion.)

                                    Jeffery Hodges

                                    =====
                                    Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
                                    Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
                                    447-791 Kyunggido Osan-City
                                    Yangsandong 411
                                    South Korea

                                    __________________________________________________
                                    Do You Yahoo!?
                                    Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
                                    http://auctions.yahoo.com/
                                  • Paul Anderson
                                    Thanks, Jeffery, you are correct on the typo. On the anxiety motif, don t psychologize it too far; I am really quite at home in doing theological and
                                    Message 17 of 24 , Apr 30, 2001
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Thanks, Jeffery, you are correct on the typo. On the "anxiety" motif,
                                      don't psychologize it too far; I am really quite at home in doing
                                      theological and exegetical interpretation. My use of the term roots in
                                      the Rogerian model I was using, where Rogers sees anxiety as a result of
                                      incongruity between one's perceived and experienced self. You might look
                                      at that part again.

                                      Overall, it fits into the structure of theological analysis producing
                                      interpretation "x", and exegetical analysis producing interpretation "y".
                                      On the surface, they look incongruent, and yet, as one looks at the
                                      existential and theological meaning of "y", it is entirely congruent with
                                      "x".

                                      Take care,

                                      Paul
                                    • Horace Jeffery Hodges
                                      Paul, sorry to reply so late, but my whole family has been sick with colds, and I ve been staying home to ... Okay, I ll read the anxiety as a trope rather
                                      Message 18 of 24 , May 6 5:50 PM
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Paul, sorry to reply so late, but my whole family has
                                        been sick with colds, and I've been staying home to
                                        care for my son. You wrote:

                                        > On the "anxiety" motif,
                                        > don't psychologize it too far;

                                        Okay, I'll read the 'anxiety' as a trope rather than
                                        your psychological state.

                                        > I am really quite at
                                        > home in doing
                                        > theological and exegetical interpretation.

                                        On this point, I think that you might want to reword
                                        the following passage:

                                        "All of a sudden, however, I come to feel a bit of
                                        anxiety creeping up. My self perception as one who
                                        takes seriously the plain meaning of the text first
                                        before eisegetically reading into the text what one
                                        thinks it ought to mean has just been eclipsed by the
                                        possibility that I may have done exactly that!"

                                        Do you really mean "before eisegetically reading", or
                                        do you mean "rather than eisegetically reading"? Also,
                                        the ending of this sentence is ambiguous -- done
                                        exactly what? I think that I know what you mean, but
                                        it's possible for the reader to be baffled even upon a
                                        re-reading.

                                        > My use of the term roots in
                                        > the Rogerian model I was using, where Rogers sees
                                        > anxiety as a result of
                                        > incongruity between one's perceived and experienced
                                        > self. You might look
                                        > at that part again.

                                        It's been many years since I looked at Rogers. My
                                        second field was psychology, but I left it behind. I
                                        rather like Rogers, though, and I appreciate your
                                        making him relevant again for me.

                                        Actually, this part about incongruity was what led to
                                        my psychologizing of your remark about anxiety. I
                                        wonder if your paper might not lend itself too readily
                                        to a psychologistic reading. Have you encountered this
                                        with anyone other than me? If not, maybe it's just me.

                                        > Overall, it fits into the structure of theological
                                        > analysis producing
                                        > interpretation "x", and exegetical analysis
                                        > producing interpretation "y".
                                        > On the surface, they look incongruent, and yet, as
                                        > one looks at the
                                        > existential and theological meaning of "y", it is
                                        > entirely congruent with
                                        > "x".

                                        I'll think some more about this in the context of your
                                        paper, and get back to you if I have any questions or
                                        observations.

                                        Jeffery Hodges

                                        =====
                                        Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
                                        Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
                                        447-791 Kyunggido Osan-City
                                        Yangsandong 411
                                        South Korea

                                        __________________________________________________
                                        Do You Yahoo!?
                                        Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
                                        http://auctions.yahoo.com/
                                      • Paul Anderson
                                        Thanks, Jeffery, for the comments; any coments on the contents of the essay? Paul
                                        Message 19 of 24 , May 6 10:35 PM
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Thanks, Jeffery, for the comments; any coments on the contents of the
                                          essay?

                                          Paul
                                        • Horace Jeffery Hodges
                                          ... I ve had trouble focusing for the past week, but I ll try now. First, I wonder about the divided self in your summary of how Carl Rogers sees it: anxiety
                                          Message 20 of 24 , May 7 5:31 PM
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Paul Anderson wrote:

                                            > Thanks, Jeffery, for the comments; any coments on
                                            > the contents of the
                                            > essay?

                                            I've had trouble focusing for the past week, but I'll
                                            try now.

                                            First, I wonder about the divided self in your summary
                                            of how Carl Rogers sees it:

                                            "anxiety ... is at least partially caused by the
                                            degree of incongruity between one�s perceived self and
                                            one�s experienced self."

                                            I recognize the helpfulness of this distinction, but
                                            it seems to me that there is a third element here --
                                            one's ideal self. I think that I have a perceived
                                            self, an experienced self, and an ideal self, and I
                                            would like to think that the Parakletos would help me
                                            toward being my ideal self -- indeed, even helping me
                                            to see what my ideal self should be.

                                            The therapeutic goal of congruence is a worthy one,
                                            but it seems to me that there has to be a telos beyond
                                            congruence. I think that this is the difference
                                            between psychology's therapeutic goal and religion's
                                            moral aim.

                                            So, this probably leaves me a bit uneasy about
                                            interpreting religious aims in psychological terms. I
                                            have a similar unease about interpreting John's Gospel
                                            in existentialist terms. Authenticity is -- I agree --
                                            a worthy personal goal, but moral language points
                                            further, higher, than existentialist language.

                                            I think that this tension between the therapeutic and
                                            religious worldviews characterizes your paper, but
                                            it's not easy to identify those points where the
                                            tension threatens to tear your synthesis apart.

                                            I can try, however. Here is a passage where you
                                            express the work of the Parakletos in bringing us to
                                            truth:

                                            "We are delivered from fear, from anxiety, from
                                            inauthenticity, from duplicity. Being opened to the
                                            truth sets us free inwardly because our perceived and
                                            experienced selves move toward greater congruity, and
                                            our divided selves move closer to life-producing
                                            wholeness."

                                            My intuition is that the Parakletos is doing more than
                                            bringing about congruity between the perceived and
                                            experienced selves -- it is making clear to us that
                                            both of these selves fall short of our ideal self.

                                            I pointed to John 14:26 last week -- the work of the
                                            Parakletos in "reminding" us of what Jesus said. What
                                            the Johannine Jesus said can be greatly at odds with
                                            both our perceived and experienced selves. For
                                            instance, John 13:12-17 exhorts one to the ideal of
                                            service. Perhaps I have a perceived self that says
                                            that I am a good person and an experienced self that
                                            confirms this -- until I discover that being "good" is
                                            quite different than I thought. I begin to form a
                                            conception of an ideal self that corresponds neither
                                            to my perceived self nor to my experienced self.

                                            Maybe this gets at my feeling of hesitancy about
                                            affirming your paper's analysis. I'll leave it at this
                                            for now and see what you (and/or others) think.

                                            Jeffery Hodges

                                            =====
                                            Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
                                            Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
                                            447-791 Kyunggido Osan-City
                                            Yangsandong 411
                                            South Korea

                                            __________________________________________________
                                            Do You Yahoo!?
                                            Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
                                            http://auctions.yahoo.com/
                                          • Lorna Wilson
                                            Jeffery, This is an off-list comment and I hope you can help me... I am a member of the forum but not sure which paper or individual topics we are discussing
                                            Message 21 of 24 , May 8 11:05 AM
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Jeffery,

                                              This is an off-list comment and I hope you can help me...

                                              I am a member of the forum but not sure which paper or individual topics we
                                              are discussing right now.

                                              I know a couple of weeks ago we were going to have "free discussion" for a
                                              while until we went back to the papers.

                                              Can you let me know if we have started reviewing papers again and if so what
                                              is the website address to view them.

                                              Thanks,

                                              Lorna Wilson


                                              >From: Horace Jeffery Hodges <jefferyhodges@...>
                                              >Reply-To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                                              >To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                                              >Subject: Re: Re(2): [John_Lit] Paul Anderson's "Truth and Liberation: The
                                              >Function of the Joha
                                              >Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 17:31:24 -0700 (PDT)
                                              >
                                              >Paul Anderson wrote:
                                              >
                                              > > Thanks, Jeffery, for the comments; any coments on
                                              > > the contents of the
                                              > > essay?
                                              >
                                              >I've had trouble focusing for the past week, but I'll
                                              >try now.
                                              >
                                              >First, I wonder about the divided self in your summary
                                              >of how Carl Rogers sees it:
                                              >
                                              >"anxiety ... is at least partially caused by the
                                              >degree of incongruity between one�s perceived self and
                                              >one�s experienced self."
                                              >
                                              >I recognize the helpfulness of this distinction, but
                                              >it seems to me that there is a third element here --
                                              >one's ideal self. I think that I have a perceived
                                              >self, an experienced self, and an ideal self, and I
                                              >would like to think that the Parakletos would help me
                                              >toward being my ideal self -- indeed, even helping me
                                              >to see what my ideal self should be.
                                              >
                                              >The therapeutic goal of congruence is a worthy one,
                                              >but it seems to me that there has to be a telos beyond
                                              >congruence. I think that this is the difference
                                              >between psychology's therapeutic goal and religion's
                                              >moral aim.
                                              >
                                              >So, this probably leaves me a bit uneasy about
                                              >interpreting religious aims in psychological terms. I
                                              >have a similar unease about interpreting John's Gospel
                                              >in existentialist terms. Authenticity is -- I agree --
                                              >a worthy personal goal, but moral language points
                                              >further, higher, than existentialist language.
                                              >
                                              >I think that this tension between the therapeutic and
                                              >religious worldviews characterizes your paper, but
                                              >it's not easy to identify those points where the
                                              >tension threatens to tear your synthesis apart.
                                              >
                                              >I can try, however. Here is a passage where you
                                              >express the work of the Parakletos in bringing us to
                                              >truth:
                                              >
                                              >"We are delivered from fear, from anxiety, from
                                              >inauthenticity, from duplicity. Being opened to the
                                              >truth sets us free inwardly because our perceived and
                                              >experienced selves move toward greater congruity, and
                                              >our divided selves move closer to life-producing
                                              >wholeness."
                                              >
                                              >My intuition is that the Parakletos is doing more than
                                              >bringing about congruity between the perceived and
                                              >experienced selves -- it is making clear to us that
                                              >both of these selves fall short of our ideal self.
                                              >
                                              >I pointed to John 14:26 last week -- the work of the
                                              >Parakletos in "reminding" us of what Jesus said. What
                                              >the Johannine Jesus said can be greatly at odds with
                                              >both our perceived and experienced selves. For
                                              >instance, John 13:12-17 exhorts one to the ideal of
                                              >service. Perhaps I have a perceived self that says
                                              >that I am a good person and an experienced self that
                                              >confirms this -- until I discover that being "good" is
                                              >quite different than I thought. I begin to form a
                                              >conception of an ideal self that corresponds neither
                                              >to my perceived self nor to my experienced self.
                                              >
                                              >Maybe this gets at my feeling of hesitancy about
                                              >affirming your paper's analysis. I'll leave it at this
                                              >for now and see what you (and/or others) think.
                                              >
                                              >Jeffery Hodges
                                              >
                                              >=====
                                              >Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
                                              >Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
                                              >447-791 Kyunggido Osan-City
                                              >Yangsandong 411
                                              >South Korea
                                              >
                                              >__________________________________________________
                                              >Do You Yahoo!?
                                              >Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
                                              >http://auctions.yahoo.com/
                                              >
                                              >SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                              >UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                              >PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
                                              >
                                              >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                              >
                                              >

                                              _________________________________________________________________
                                              Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
                                            • Paul Anderson
                                              ... I agree, Jeffery, and yet, rather than seeing the ideal self as a third category, I would regard it (in Johannine terms) as the truth into which the
                                              Message 22 of 24 , May 8 9:44 PM
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                >I think that I have a perceived
                                                >self, an experienced self, and an ideal self, and I
                                                >would like to think that the Parakletos would help me
                                                >toward being my ideal self -- indeed, even helping me
                                                >to see what my ideal self should be.

                                                I agree, Jeffery, and yet, rather than seeing the ideal self as a third
                                                category, I would regard it (in Johannine terms) as "the truth" into which
                                                the Spirit of Truth, the Parakletos, guides one. In that sense, "the
                                                truth" of Christ informs one's experienced self and one's perceived self.

                                                > Authenticity is -- I agree --
                                                >a worthy personal goal, but moral language points
                                                >further, higher, than existentialist language.

                                                Existential is different from existentialist; the later is not my
                                                perspective. However, when you look at Bultmann's NT Theology as well as
                                                his commentary on John, there is ample room for discussing Johannine
                                                theology in existential terms. Of course, congruity and incongruity
                                                relate to moral realities as well as one's aspirations and ideals, so I
                                                don't think I've overlooked that. The point here is to identify how it is
                                                that one is liberated by truth, at least inwardly, and the Rogerian
                                                theraputic model seems quite parallel to the convincing work of the
                                                Parakletos here in John 16.
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >What
                                                >the Johannine Jesus said can be greatly at odds with
                                                >both our perceived and experienced selves. For
                                                >instance, John 13:12-17 exhorts one to the ideal of
                                                >service. Perhaps I have a perceived self that says
                                                >that I am a good person and an experienced self that
                                                >confirms this -- until I discover that being "good" is
                                                >quite different than I thought. I begin to form a
                                                >conception of an ideal self that corresponds neither
                                                >to my perceived self nor to my experienced self.
                                                >
                                                Right. And here's where I connect the liberating/transforming work of the
                                                Parakletos with John's Christology. The saving/revealing initiative of
                                                God scandalizes all that is of human origin -- including religious and
                                                conventional understandings of what is expected, and even what is "ideal."
                                                Here's where the works of Martyn/Brown/Rensberger and Bultmann converge.
                                                The cosmos is scandalized by the truth-bearing initiative of God in that
                                                it must take a stand for or against the Revealer. In so doing, it too is
                                                convicted of the truth.

                                                This is more fully developed in the second part of the paper, and as I
                                                continue to think about it, the exegetical part indeed seems quite
                                                congruent with the earlier theological analysis.

                                                Thanks, Jeffery, for your meaningful engagement!


                                                Paul Anderson
                                                >
                                                >
                                              • Horace Jeffery Hodges
                                                Paul, thanks for your substantive reply. It doesn t entirely allay my concerns, but I see that you have already considered these concerns even before my
                                                Message 23 of 24 , May 8 11:16 PM
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Paul, thanks for your substantive reply. It doesn't
                                                  entirely allay my concerns, but I see that you have
                                                  already considered these concerns even before my
                                                  voicing of them.

                                                  > The point here is to identify how it is
                                                  > that one is liberated by truth, at least inwardly,
                                                  > and the Rogerian theraputic model seems quite
                                                  > parallel to the convincing work of the
                                                  > Parakletos here in John 16.

                                                  Is the therapist a (the?) Paraclete? This is not meant
                                                  as a facetious remark. I am curious about how far your
                                                  use of Rogers takes you.

                                                  On a different point: Do you know of any critically
                                                  sound works that defend the construction of a Biblical
                                                  theology? I'm working on a little theological project
                                                  (maybe a big one) on the Biblical understanding of the
                                                  heart as the active core of the human being and of
                                                  remembering as doing. The project entails drawing upon
                                                  different Biblical passages to construct a Biblical
                                                  theology of remembering, but I don't want my method to
                                                  degenerate into a parody of prooftexting. My intuition
                                                  is that there is a certain kind of unity to the Bible
                                                  but that it's not an unproblematic unity. How does one
                                                  legitimately construct a Biblical theology that
                                                  presuppose some sort of unity despite the varied
                                                  voices that one finds in the text? Any suggestions?

                                                  Jeffery Hodges

                                                  =====
                                                  Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
                                                  Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
                                                  447-791 Kyunggido Osan-City
                                                  Yangsandong 411
                                                  South Korea

                                                  __________________________________________________
                                                  Do You Yahoo!?
                                                  Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
                                                  http://auctions.yahoo.com/
                                                • Paul Anderson
                                                  ... I use the modest language of a parallel with intentionality, Jeffery. I think there may be some overlap, and in the best cases I might imagine a
                                                  Message 24 of 24 , May 9 9:41 AM
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com writes:
                                                    >Paul, thanks for your substantive reply. It doesn't
                                                    >entirely allay my concerns, but I see that you have
                                                    >already considered these concerns even before my
                                                    >voicing of them.
                                                    >
                                                    >> The point here is to identify how it is
                                                    >> that one is liberated by truth, at least inwardly,
                                                    >> and the Rogerian theraputic model seems quite
                                                    >> parallel to the convincing work of the
                                                    >> Parakletos here in John 16.
                                                    >
                                                    >Is the therapist a (the?) Paraclete? This is not meant
                                                    >as a facetious remark. I am curious about how far your
                                                    >use of Rogers takes you.

                                                    I use the modest language of a "parallel" with intentionality, Jeffery. I
                                                    think there may be some overlap, and in the best cases I might imagine a
                                                    therapist furthering the work of the Parakletos. Likewise, I believe the
                                                    convincing work of the Parakletos is therapeutic, although I see that work
                                                    as having a larger goal than personal transformation, as important as that
                                                    is. So, I would envision the parallel to have some overlap, but not
                                                    necessarily so.

                                                    In terms of continuity with the Johannine tradition, I envision closer
                                                    connections with the personal transformation that happens in the meeting
                                                    for worship. Across traditions and forms, the human-divine encounter
                                                    evokes a renewed perspective, including one's appraisal of self. The
                                                    Johannine theology of encounter emerges epistemologically, I believe, from
                                                    transformative experiences, and it likewise draws the reader into such
                                                    experiences.
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > How does one
                                                    >legitimately construct a Biblical theology that
                                                    >presuppose some sort of unity despite the varied
                                                    >voices that one finds in the text? Any suggestions?

                                                    The work of the Bible and Christian Theology section of SBL, along with
                                                    the Lilly-funded consultation headed up by Ulrich Mauser has done some
                                                    good work here (the session in which my paper was presented), and standard
                                                    texts on biblical theology abound. The challenge, of course, is that one
                                                    must take seriously the "theologies" within the canonical corpus even in
                                                    coming out with a "biblical" perspective on any theological topic.

                                                    Any comments from others?

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