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

Re: [John_Lit] Philo

Expand Messages
  • FMMCCOY
    ... From: Robert Raphael To: Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 7:26 PM Subject: [John_Lit] Philo ...
    Message 1 of 5 , Jun 30, 2001
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Robert Raphael" <rraphael3@...>
      To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 7:26 PM
      Subject: [John_Lit] Philo


      > Does anyone on the list have any information and or opinion regarding the
      possibility that Philo of Alexandria's teaching that the logos was God's
      son influenced the content of the Gospel of John, particularly the Prologue.
      >
      Dear Robert Raphael and Other JL Listers:
      >
      I have uncovered evidence of a literary dependency of the author
      of John on Philo's work Fuga. If this is correct, then the author of John
      did consciously identify Jesus as being Philo's Logos, God's Son.

      Lev. 21:10 thusly opens in the Septuagint, "And the priest that is chief
      among his brethren, the oil having been poured upon the head of the
      Christou,..". This means, Philo declares in Fuga 108-109, "The High Priest
      is not a man but a divine Logos....his Father being God." Further, in 110,
      he states, "His head has been kechristai with oil and by this I mean that
      his ruling facility is illumined with a brilliant light.". Thus, for Philo,
      the Logos is Son of God. Further, he is the Christ i.e., Annointed One--a
      fact Philo acknowledges by saying that he has been kechristai, i.e.,
      annointed. .

      As we shall now see, the "oil" by which the Logos, the Son of God, has been
      annointed (an
      "oil" that illumines his mind with brilliant light) is the Spirit as Sophia.
      I say this because, first of all, in Philonic thought, the
      Spirit is also Sophia (See Gig 23, "God called up Bezaleel, he
      says, and 'filled him with the Divine Spirit, with Sophia, Understanding,
      and Knowledge, and knowledge to devise in every work.' In these words we
      have suggested to us a definition of what the Spirit of God is." Also see
      On Genesis (Book I, 90), "For the Divine Spirit is not a movement of
      air but Intelligence and Sophia." Finally, see Deus. 2-3, "That
      something is his words about the Divine Spirit, that nothing is harder than
      that it should abide for ever in the soul with its manifold forms and
      divisions--the soul which has fastened on it the grievous burden of the
      fleshly coil. It is after that Spirit (has gone) that the angels or
      messengers (of falsehood) go into 'the daughters of men'. For while the
      soul is illumined by the bright and pure rays of Sophia , through which the
      sage sees God and His potencies, none of the messengers of falsehood has
      access to the reason (i.e., mind), but are barred from passing the bounds
      which the lustral water has consecrated."). I also say this because, second
      of all, as Sophia, the Spirit is a spiritual oil that lightens-up the
      mind. So, in The Worse Attacks the Better (117), Philo declares, "The
      fountain of the divine Sophia" can come "as material for lighting up the
      soul, even as oil does a lamp."

      Next, in Fuga 111, Philo states that "he (i.e., the Logos) shall never
      remove the mitre from his head; he shall not, that is to say, lay aside his
      kingly diadem, the symbol not of absolute sovereignty, but of an admirable
      viceroyalty.".

      Finally, in Fuga 114, Philo declares that "to him (i.e., the Logos) is
      betrothed a virgin of the hallowed people, pure and undefiled and of ever
      inviolate intention."

      So, in Philo's work, Fuga, we have this sequence regarding the Logos:
      109 His father is God (and, so, he is Son of God)
      110 He is anointed by God with the Spirit-Sophia
      111 He is King of the Cosmos in the sense of being God's Vice-roy
      114 He is betrothed to "a virgin of the hallowed people"

      In Chapter three of John, we have this sequence regarding what the Baptizer
      says about Jesus:
      29. He is the Bridegroom of the bride
      31. He is the King of the Cosmos ("is above all")
      34. He is anointed by God with the Spirit ("for not by measure gives God
      the Spirit")
      35a. His father is God ("The Father loves the Son")

      Note that the sequence in Fuga is in reverse order to that in John:
      109 = 35a
      110 = 34
      111 = 31
      114 = 29
      This is because, I suggest, the author of John was glancing at Fuga in
      reverse order of the narrative flow while writing this section of his
      gospel.

      There is a way to test this hypothesis. That is, if it is true, than
      John 3:35b should directly relate to a passage in Fuga not long before 109.
      Indeed. this is the case! In particular, John 3:35b directly relates to
      Fuga 101.

      In John 3:35b, John declares, the Father "has given all things into his
      (i.e., the Son's) hand." How can the Son govern the Cosmos through his
      hand? The answer is found in Fuga 101, where Philo declares that, "while
      the Logos is the charioteer of the Powers, He Who talks is seated in the
      chariot, giving directions to the charioteer for the right-wielding of the
      reins of the universe." In his right-wielding of the reins of the universe,
      of course, the Logos uses his hand. Therefore, in Fuga 101 we have a scene
      in which God has given the rulership of all things into the hand of the
      Logos--thereby making it an amazing parallel to John 3:35b: where the Father
      has given the rulership of all things into the hand of the Son...

      That this hypothesis passes this test of its validity in a decisive
      fashion means that it likely is true. Therefore, it is likely that the
      author of John was glancing at Fuga 101-14 in reverse order of its
      narrative flow while writing John 3:29-35.

      I think that this literary relationship can be expanded beyond 3:35 to 4:24:
      with 4:10-15 relating to 97, 4:16-18 relating to 94, 4:22 relating to 82
      and 4:23-24 relating to 77-81. In this
      case, from 3:29 to 4:24, we have allusions to Fuga made in reverse order,
      i.e., first an allusion to 111, then to 110, then to 109, then to 101, then
      to 97, then to 94, then to 82 and then to 77-81. Certainly, John 3:29-4:24
      is a deliberately contrived literary unit, for it is immediately preceded,
      in 3:28, by the Baptizer's cry that he is not the Christ and it is
      immediately followed, in 4:25-26, with Jesus' proclation that he is the
      Christ!

      In 4:10-15, Jesus engages in a discussion with a Samaritan woman over
      water: with Jesus referring to a living water that he has and that can
      become a fountain of water springing up into eternal life within oneself..
      There is an allusion here, I believe, to Fuga 97: where Philo exhorts one to
      "pass forward to the supreme Divine Logos, who is the fountain of (the
      Spirit as) Sophia, in order that he may draw from the stream and, released
      from death, gain life eternal as his prize." Hence, in 4:10-15, Jesus
      identifies himself as being the Logos.

      In 4:16-18, we have a curious exchange between the Samaritan woman and
      Jesus in which Jesus tells her that she has had five husbands and that the
      one she is with is not her husband. There is an allusion here, I believe,
      to Fuga. 94: where Philo states that the are six cities of refuge, with the
      chief and best city being the Logos. Therefore, in 4:16-18, the five
      "husbands" the woman has had are the five inferior cities of refuge (the
      royal power, the creative power, the gracious power, the legislative power,
      and the prohibitions on what we should do). With each of these five cities
      of refuge, she has spent some time in the past "honoring and obeying" . The
      city of refuge she is
      currently with (i.e., Jesus: the Logos who is the chief and best city of
      refuge), is not her husband because she has not (at least up till this point
      in time) ever "honored and obeyed" him.

      In 4:22, Jesus tells the Samaritan woman, " You worship who you know
      not, we worship what we know--for salvation is of the Jews." I believe that
      this relates to Fuga 82: where, Philo states, "For to know Him is true
      wisdom and virtue, and ignorance of Him is manifest stupidity and
      wickedness." Therefore, here, Jesus is very critical of the Samaritans.
      The Jews know God. Hence, as they know what is wisdom and virtue, salvation
      is of them. In contrast, the Samaritans do not know God and, so, know only
      what is stupid and wicked. They need help and it is from the Jews that they
      should seek it.

      In 4:23-24, Jesus tells the Samaritan woman, "But is coming (and now is!)
      an hour when the true worshippers will worship the Father within Spirit and
      Truth (rather than at Mt. Gerizim or the Jerusalem temple). God is a Spirit
      and they that worship Him must worship within Spirit and Truth." I believe
      that this relates to Fuga. 77-81: which Philo thusly begins by citing Exodus
      21:14a, "'If a man set upon his neighbor to slay him by guile and flee for
      refuge' to God, even to Him Who has been symbolically called a place."
      Here, Philo goes beyond the six cities of refuge to the ultimate refuge,
      i.e., God. Next, commenting on Exodus 21:14b, "You shall take him from My
      altar and put him to death.", Philo speaks of "the refuge which is a place
      of deliverance
      and safety for suppliants only, namely, the altar. Is not this meet and
      right? For the place of sacrifice is wholly occupied by victims free from
      blemish, that is by innocent and purified souls". This altar, where one
      finds refuge with God Himself, then, is not to be found on Mt Gerizim or in
      Jerusalem: for it is a spiritual altar open only to unblemished souls.
      Where, then, is this spiritual altar (and God!) located? Philo gives a clue
      by referring to the locacation as being "the hallowed precincts". This
      tells us that the location is the heavenly temple or tabernacle, i.e., the
      Spirit-Sophia, which is the true house of God. (e.g., see Cong. 116, "And
      further on he will speak of God's dwelling-place, the tabernacle, as being
      'ten curtains', for to the structure which includes the whole of (the Spirit
      as) Sophia, the perfect number ten belongs, and (the Spirit as) Sophia is
      the court and palace of the All-ruler, the sole Monarch, the Sovereign
      Lord."). Those who find refuge in God, then do so within the Spirit-Sophia,
      the heavenly temple or tabernacle: which, rather than any earthly temple
      (even the one at Jerusalem!), is the true house of God.. In worshipping God,
      then, they worship him within the Spirit-Sophia. Or, to use Johannine
      language, since the author of John took to Spirit to also be Truth (e.g.,
      see 14:17, 15:26 and 16:13), they worship God within Spirit and Truth.

      To recap:
      Passage from Fuga Relates to Passage from John
      77-81 4:23-24
      82 4:22
      94 4:16-18
      97 4:10-15
      101 3:35b
      109 3:35a
      110 3:34
      111 3:31
      114 3:29
      Suggested reason: the author of John was glancing at Fuga in reverse of the
      narrative flow while writing John 3:29-4:24. If so, then Jesus is
      identified as Philo's Logos, God's Son, in this part of John. And, if he is
      identifed as Philo's Logos, God's Son, in this part of John, the reasonable
      expectation is that he is identified as Philo's Logos, God's Son, in other
      parts of John as well--particularly the Prologue.

      Regards,

      Frank McCoy
      Maplewood, MN USA
    • Robert Raphael
      Thanks a bunch. Robert Raphael ... From: FMMCCOY To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com Date:
      Message 2 of 5 , Jun 30, 2001
        Thanks a bunch.

        Robert Raphael
        -----Original Message-----
        From: FMMCCOY <FMMCCOY@...>
        To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
        <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
        Date: Saturday, June 30, 2001 11:18 PM
        Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Philo


        >
        >----- Original Message -----
        >From: "Robert Raphael" <rraphael3@...>
        >To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
        >Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 7:26 PM
        >Subject: [John_Lit] Philo
        >
        >
        >> Does anyone on the list have any information and or opinion regarding
        the
        >possibility that Philo of Alexandria's teaching that the logos was God's
        >son influenced the content of the Gospel of John, particularly the
        Prologue.
        >>
        >Dear Robert Raphael and Other JL Listers:
        >>
        >I have uncovered evidence of a literary dependency of the author
        >of John on Philo's work Fuga. If this is correct, then the author of John
        >did consciously identify Jesus as being Philo's Logos, God's Son.
        >
        > Lev. 21:10 thusly opens in the Septuagint, "And the priest that is chief
        >among his brethren, the oil having been poured upon the head of the
        >Christou,..". This means, Philo declares in Fuga 108-109, "The High Priest
        >is not a man but a divine Logos....his Father being God." Further, in 110,
        >he states, "His head has been kechristai with oil and by this I mean that
        >his ruling facility is illumined with a brilliant light.". Thus, for
        Philo,
        >the Logos is Son of God. Further, he is the Christ i.e., Annointed One--a
        >fact Philo acknowledges by saying that he has been kechristai, i.e.,
        >annointed. .
        >
        >As we shall now see, the "oil" by which the Logos, the Son of God, has been
        >annointed (an
        >"oil" that illumines his mind with brilliant light) is the Spirit as
        Sophia.
        >I say this because, first of all, in Philonic thought, the
        >Spirit is also Sophia (See Gig 23, "God called up Bezaleel, he
        >says, and 'filled him with the Divine Spirit, with Sophia, Understanding,
        >and Knowledge, and knowledge to devise in every work.' In these words we
        >have suggested to us a definition of what the Spirit of God is." Also see
        >On Genesis (Book I, 90), "For the Divine Spirit is not a movement of
        >air but Intelligence and Sophia." Finally, see Deus. 2-3, "That
        >something is his words about the Divine Spirit, that nothing is harder than
        >that it should abide for ever in the soul with its manifold forms and
        >divisions--the soul which has fastened on it the grievous burden of the
        >fleshly coil. It is after that Spirit (has gone) that the angels or
        >messengers (of falsehood) go into 'the daughters of men'. For while the
        >soul is illumined by the bright and pure rays of Sophia , through which the
        >sage sees God and His potencies, none of the messengers of falsehood has
        >access to the reason (i.e., mind), but are barred from passing the bounds
        >which the lustral water has consecrated."). I also say this because,
        second
        >of all, as Sophia, the Spirit is a spiritual oil that lightens-up the
        >mind. So, in The Worse Attacks the Better (117), Philo declares, "The
        >fountain of the divine Sophia" can come "as material for lighting up the
        >soul, even as oil does a lamp."
        >
        >Next, in Fuga 111, Philo states that "he (i.e., the Logos) shall never
        >remove the mitre from his head; he shall not, that is to say, lay aside his
        >kingly diadem, the symbol not of absolute sovereignty, but of an admirable
        >viceroyalty.".
        >
        >Finally, in Fuga 114, Philo declares that "to him (i.e., the Logos) is
        >betrothed a virgin of the hallowed people, pure and undefiled and of ever
        >inviolate intention."
        >
        >So, in Philo's work, Fuga, we have this sequence regarding the Logos:
        > 109 His father is God (and, so, he is Son of God)
        > 110 He is anointed by God with the Spirit-Sophia
        > 111 He is King of the Cosmos in the sense of being God's Vice-roy
        > 114 He is betrothed to "a virgin of the hallowed people"
        >
        >In Chapter three of John, we have this sequence regarding what the Baptizer
        >says about Jesus:
        > 29. He is the Bridegroom of the bride
        > 31. He is the King of the Cosmos ("is above all")
        > 34. He is anointed by God with the Spirit ("for not by measure gives God
        > the Spirit")
        > 35a. His father is God ("The Father loves the Son")
        >
        >Note that the sequence in Fuga is in reverse order to that in John:
        >109 = 35a
        >110 = 34
        >111 = 31
        >114 = 29
        >This is because, I suggest, the author of John was glancing at Fuga in
        >reverse order of the narrative flow while writing this section of his
        >gospel.
        >
        >There is a way to test this hypothesis. That is, if it is true, than
        >John 3:35b should directly relate to a passage in Fuga not long before 109.
        >Indeed. this is the case! In particular, John 3:35b directly relates to
        >Fuga 101.
        >
        >In John 3:35b, John declares, the Father "has given all things into his
        >(i.e., the Son's) hand." How can the Son govern the Cosmos through his
        >hand? The answer is found in Fuga 101, where Philo declares that, "while
        >the Logos is the charioteer of the Powers, He Who talks is seated in the
        >chariot, giving directions to the charioteer for the right-wielding of the
        >reins of the universe." In his right-wielding of the reins of the
        universe,
        >of course, the Logos uses his hand. Therefore, in Fuga 101 we have a scene
        >in which God has given the rulership of all things into the hand of the
        >Logos--thereby making it an amazing parallel to John 3:35b: where the
        Father
        >has given the rulership of all things into the hand of the Son...
        >
        >That this hypothesis passes this test of its validity in a decisive
        >fashion means that it likely is true. Therefore, it is likely that the
        >author of John was glancing at Fuga 101-14 in reverse order of its
        >narrative flow while writing John 3:29-35.
        >
        >I think that this literary relationship can be expanded beyond 3:35 to
        4:24:
        >with 4:10-15 relating to 97, 4:16-18 relating to 94, 4:22 relating to 82
        >and 4:23-24 relating to 77-81. In this
        >case, from 3:29 to 4:24, we have allusions to Fuga made in reverse order,
        >i.e., first an allusion to 111, then to 110, then to 109, then to 101, then
        >to 97, then to 94, then to 82 and then to 77-81. Certainly, John
        3:29-4:24
        >is a deliberately contrived literary unit, for it is immediately preceded,
        >in 3:28, by the Baptizer's cry that he is not the Christ and it is
        >immediately followed, in 4:25-26, with Jesus' proclation that he is the
        >Christ!
        >
        >In 4:10-15, Jesus engages in a discussion with a Samaritan woman over
        >water: with Jesus referring to a living water that he has and that can
        >become a fountain of water springing up into eternal life within oneself..
        >There is an allusion here, I believe, to Fuga 97: where Philo exhorts one
        to
        >"pass forward to the supreme Divine Logos, who is the fountain of (the
        >Spirit as) Sophia, in order that he may draw from the stream and, released
        >from death, gain life eternal as his prize." Hence, in 4:10-15, Jesus
        >identifies himself as being the Logos.
        >
        >In 4:16-18, we have a curious exchange between the Samaritan woman and
        >Jesus in which Jesus tells her that she has had five husbands and that the
        >one she is with is not her husband. There is an allusion here, I believe,
        >to Fuga. 94: where Philo states that the are six cities of refuge, with the
        >chief and best city being the Logos. Therefore, in 4:16-18, the five
        >"husbands" the woman has had are the five inferior cities of refuge (the
        >royal power, the creative power, the gracious power, the legislative power,
        >and the prohibitions on what we should do). With each of these five cities
        >of refuge, she has spent some time in the past "honoring and obeying" .
        The
        >city of refuge she is
        >currently with (i.e., Jesus: the Logos who is the chief and best city of
        >refuge), is not her husband because she has not (at least up till this
        point
        >in time) ever "honored and obeyed" him.
        >
        >In 4:22, Jesus tells the Samaritan woman, " You worship who you know
        >not, we worship what we know--for salvation is of the Jews." I believe
        that
        >this relates to Fuga 82: where, Philo states, "For to know Him is true
        >wisdom and virtue, and ignorance of Him is manifest stupidity and
        >wickedness." Therefore, here, Jesus is very critical of the Samaritans.
        >The Jews know God. Hence, as they know what is wisdom and virtue,
        salvation
        >is of them. In contrast, the Samaritans do not know God and, so, know only
        >what is stupid and wicked. They need help and it is from the Jews that
        they
        >should seek it.
        >
        >In 4:23-24, Jesus tells the Samaritan woman, "But is coming (and now is!)
        >an hour when the true worshippers will worship the Father within Spirit and
        >Truth (rather than at Mt. Gerizim or the Jerusalem temple). God is a
        Spirit
        >and they that worship Him must worship within Spirit and Truth." I believe
        >that this relates to Fuga. 77-81: which Philo thusly begins by citing
        Exodus
        >21:14a, "'If a man set upon his neighbor to slay him by guile and flee for
        >refuge' to God, even to Him Who has been symbolically called a place."
        >Here, Philo goes beyond the six cities of refuge to the ultimate refuge,
        >i.e., God. Next, commenting on Exodus 21:14b, "You shall take him from My
        >altar and put him to death.", Philo speaks of "the refuge which is a place
        >of deliverance
        >and safety for suppliants only, namely, the altar. Is not this meet and
        >right? For the place of sacrifice is wholly occupied by victims free from
        >blemish, that is by innocent and purified souls". This altar, where one
        >finds refuge with God Himself, then, is not to be found on Mt Gerizim or in
        >Jerusalem: for it is a spiritual altar open only to unblemished souls.
        >Where, then, is this spiritual altar (and God!) located? Philo gives a
        clue
        >by referring to the locacation as being "the hallowed precincts". This
        >tells us that the location is the heavenly temple or tabernacle, i.e., the
        >Spirit-Sophia, which is the true house of God. (e.g., see Cong. 116, "And
        >further on he will speak of God's dwelling-place, the tabernacle, as being
        >'ten curtains', for to the structure which includes the whole of (the
        Spirit
        >as) Sophia, the perfect number ten belongs, and (the Spirit as) Sophia is
        >the court and palace of the All-ruler, the sole Monarch, the Sovereign
        >Lord."). Those who find refuge in God, then do so within the
        Spirit-Sophia,
        >the heavenly temple or tabernacle: which, rather than any earthly temple
        >(even the one at Jerusalem!), is the true house of God.. In worshipping
        God,
        >then, they worship him within the Spirit-Sophia. Or, to use Johannine
        >language, since the author of John took to Spirit to also be Truth (e.g.,
        >see 14:17, 15:26 and 16:13), they worship God within Spirit and Truth.
        >
        >To recap:
        >Passage from Fuga Relates to Passage from John
        >77-81 4:23-24
        >82 4:22
        >94 4:16-18
        >97 4:10-15
        >101 3:35b
        >109 3:35a
        >110 3:34
        >111 3:31
        >114 3:29
        >Suggested reason: the author of John was glancing at Fuga in reverse of the
        >narrative flow while writing John 3:29-4:24. If so, then Jesus is
        >identified as Philo's Logos, God's Son, in this part of John. And, if he
        is
        >identifed as Philo's Logos, God's Son, in this part of John, the reasonable
        >expectation is that he is identified as Philo's Logos, God's Son, in other
        >parts of John as well--particularly the Prologue.
        >
        >Regards,
        >
        >Frank McCoy
        >Maplewood, MN USA
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >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/
        >
        >
      • Peter Hofrichter
        ... possibility that Philo of Alexandria s teaching that the logos was God s son influenced the content of the Gospel of John, particularly the Prologue.
        Message 3 of 5 , Jul 1, 2001
          >----- Original Message -----
          >From: "Robert Raphael" <rraphael3@...>
          >To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
          >Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 7:26 PM
          >Subject: [John_Lit] Philo

          > Does anyone on the list have any information and or opinion regarding the
          possibility that Philo of Alexandria's teaching that the logos was God's
          son influenced the content of the Gospel of John, particularly the Prologue.

          Yes, look up my book: Peter Hofrichter, Im Anfang war der
          "Johannesprolog". Das urchristliche Logosbekenntnis - die Basis
          neutestamentlicher und gnostischer Theologie (Biblische
          Untersuchungen 17), Regensburg (Pustet) 1986, 481 Seiten, pages
          336-258.

          All the best
          P.H.
          --
          Univ.-Prof. DDr Peter Hofrichter
          Vorstand des Instituts für Kirchengeschichte und Patrologie
          Theologische Fakultät der Universität Salzburg
          Tel +43 662 8044 2700, home +43 6245 85010, mobil +43 664 2027098
          homepage: www.sbg.ac.at/kig
        • Robert Raphael
          Thanks a bunch. Robert raphael ... From: Peter Hofrichter To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
          Message 4 of 5 , Jul 3, 2001
            Thanks a bunch.

            Robert raphael
            -----Original Message-----
            From: Peter Hofrichter <Peter.Hofrichter@...>
            To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
            <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
            Date: Sunday, July 01, 2001 2:52 PM
            Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Philo


            >----- Original Message -----
            >From: "Robert Raphael" <rraphael3@...>
            >To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
            >Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 7:26 PM
            >Subject: [John_Lit] Philo

            > Does anyone on the list have any information and or opinion regarding
            the
            possibility that Philo of Alexandria's teaching that the logos was God's
            son influenced the content of the Gospel of John, particularly the Prologue.

            Yes, look up my book: Peter Hofrichter, Im Anfang war der
            "Johannesprolog". Das urchristliche Logosbekenntnis - die Basis
            neutestamentlicher und gnostischer Theologie (Biblische
            Untersuchungen 17), Regensburg (Pustet) 1986, 481 Seiten, pages
            336-258.

            All the best
            P.H.
            --
            Univ.-Prof. DDr Peter Hofrichter
            Vorstand des Instituts für Kirchengeschichte und Patrologie
            Theologische Fakultät der Universität Salzburg
            Tel +43 662 8044 2700, home +43 6245 85010, mobil +43 664 2027098
            homepage: www.sbg.ac.at/kig

            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/
          • FMMCCOY
            ... From: RHS To: Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 7:06 PM Subject: [John_Lit] Philo ... Dear
            Message 5 of 5 , Dec 11, 2001
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "RHS" <diadem@...>
              To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 7:06 PM
              Subject: [John_Lit] Philo


              > My question about Philo is this.
              > What firm evidence do we have that Philo's writings were widely
              > disseminated and read in Jerusalem and/or wherever the author/s of the
              > FG were writing from?
              > There are more than five pages of references to logos in Hatch and
              > Redpath's Concordance to the LXX. Why do we have to link the FG's usage
              > to Philo when the LXX was already so familiar?
              > I am interested in the extent to which first and second century authors'
              > works were distributed and read. I have a feeling we tend to assume a
              > too ready availability of their works, which is why I am asking for firm
              > eveidence rather than speculation.
              > Ross Saunders from DownUnder.
              >
              >

              >
              Dear Ross Saunders:

              What follows is a repeat of my posting of June 30, in which I outline
              evidence that the author of John at least had a copy of Philo's work Fuga
              (On Flight and Finding):

              I have uncovered evidence of a literary dependency of the author
              of John on Philo's work Fuga. If this is correct, then the author of John
              did consciously identify Jesus as being Philo's Logos, God's Son.

              Lev. 21:10 thusly opens in the Septuagint, "And the priest that is chief
              among his brethren, the oil having been poured upon the head of the
              Christou,..". This means, Philo declares in Fuga 108-109, "The High Priest
              is not a man but a divine Logos....his Father being God." Further, in 110,
              he states, "His head has been kechristai with oil and by this I mean that
              his ruling facility is illumined with a brilliant light.". Thus, for Philo,
              the Logos is Son of God. Further, he is the Christ i.e., Annointed One--a
              fact Philo acknowledges by saying that he has been kechristai, i.e.,
              annointed. .

              As we shall now see, the "oil" by which the Logos, the Son of God, has been
              annointed (an
              "oil" that illumines his mind with brilliant light) is the Spirit as Sophia.
              I say this because, first of all, in Philonic thought, the
              Spirit is also Sophia (See Gig 23, "God called up Bezaleel, he
              says, and 'filled him with the Divine Spirit, with Sophia, Understanding,
              and Knowledge, and knowledge to devise in every work.' In these words we
              have suggested to us a definition of what the Spirit of God is." Also see
              On Genesis (Book I, 90), "For the Divine Spirit is not a movement of
              air but Intelligence and Sophia." Finally, see Deus. 2-3, "That
              something is his words about the Divine Spirit, that nothing is harder than
              that it should abide for ever in the soul with its manifold forms and
              divisions--the soul which has fastened on it the grievous burden of the
              fleshly coil. It is after that Spirit (has gone) that the angels or
              messengers (of falsehood) go into 'the daughters of men'. For while the
              soul is illumined by the bright and pure rays of Sophia , through which the
              sage sees God and His potencies, none of the messengers of falsehood has
              access to the reason (i.e., mind), but are barred from passing the bounds
              which the lustral water has consecrated."). I also say this because, second
              of all, as Sophia, the Spirit is a spiritual oil that lightens-up the
              mind. So, in The Worse Attacks the Better (117), Philo declares, "The
              fountain of the divine Sophia" can come "as material for lighting up the
              soul, even as oil does a lamp."

              Next, in Fuga 111, Philo states that "he (i.e., the Logos) shall never
              remove the mitre from his head; he shall not, that is to say, lay aside his
              kingly diadem, the symbol not of absolute sovereignty, but of an admirable
              viceroyalty.".

              Finally, in Fuga 114, Philo declares that "to him (i.e., the Logos) is
              betrothed a virgin of the hallowed people, pure and undefiled and of ever
              inviolate intention."

              So, in Philo's work, Fuga, we have this sequence regarding the Logos:
              109 His father is God (and, so, he is Son of God)
              110 He is anointed by God with the Spirit-Sophia
              111 He is King of the Cosmos in the sense of being God's Vice-roy
              114 He is betrothed to "a virgin of the hallowed people"

              In Chapter three of John, we have this sequence regarding what the Baptizer
              says about Jesus:
              29. He is the Bridegroom of the bride
              31. He is the King of the Cosmos ("is above all")
              34. He is anointed by God with the Spirit ("for not by measure gives God
              the Spirit")
              35a. His father is God ("The Father loves the Son")

              Note that the sequence in Fuga is in reverse order to that in John:
              109 = 35a
              110 = 34
              111 = 31
              114 = 29
              This is because, I suggest, the author of John was glancing at Fuga in
              reverse order of the narrative flow while writing this section of his
              gospel.

              There is a way to test this hypothesis. That is, if it is true, than
              John 3:35b should directly relate to a passage in Fuga not long before 109.
              Indeed. this is the case! In particular, John 3:35b directly relates to
              Fuga 101.

              In John 3:35b, John declares, the Father "has given all things into his
              (i.e., the Son's) hand." How can the Son govern the Cosmos through his
              hand? The answer is found in Fuga 101, where Philo declares that, "while
              the Logos is the charioteer of the Powers, He Who talks is seated in the
              chariot, giving directions to the charioteer for the right-wielding of the
              reins of the universe." In his right-wielding of the reins of the universe,
              of course, the Logos uses his hand. Therefore, in Fuga 101 we have a scene
              in which God has given the rulership of all things into the hand of the
              Logos--thereby making it an amazing parallel to John 3:35b: where the Father
              has given the rulership of all things into the hand of the Son...

              That this hypothesis passes this test of its validity in a decisive
              fashion means that it likely is true. Therefore, it is likely that the
              author of John was glancing at Fuga 101-14 in reverse order of its
              narrative flow while writing John 3:29-35.

              I think that this literary relationship can be expanded beyond 3:35 to 4:24:
              with 4:10-15 relating to 97, 4:16-18 relating to 94, 4:22 relating to 82
              and 4:23-24 relating to 77-81. In this
              case, from 3:29 to 4:24, we have allusions to Fuga made in reverse order,
              i.e., first an allusion to 111, then to 110, then to 109, then to 101, then
              to 97, then to 94, then to 82 and then to 77-81. Certainly, John 3:29-4:24
              is a deliberately contrived literary unit, for it is immediately preceded,
              in 3:28, by the Baptizer's cry that he is not the Christ and it is
              immediately followed, in 4:25-26, with Jesus' proclation that he is the
              Christ!

              In 4:10-15, Jesus engages in a discussion with a Samaritan woman over
              water: with Jesus referring to a living water that he has and that can
              become a fountain of water springing up into eternal life within oneself..
              There is an allusion here, I believe, to Fuga 97: where Philo exhorts one to
              "pass forward to the supreme Divine Logos, who is the fountain of (the
              Spirit as) Sophia, in order that he may draw from the stream and, released
              from death, gain life eternal as his prize." Hence, in 4:10-15, Jesus
              identifies himself as being the Logos.

              In 4:16-18, we have a curious exchange between the Samaritan woman and
              Jesus in which Jesus tells her that she has had five husbands and that the
              one she is with is not her husband. There is an allusion here, I believe,
              to Fuga. 94: where Philo states that the are six cities of refuge, with the
              chief and best city being the Logos. Therefore, in 4:16-18, the five
              "husbands" the woman has had are the five inferior cities of refuge (the
              royal power, the creative power, the gracious power, the legislative power,
              and the prohibitions on what we should do). With each of these five cities
              of refuge, she has spent some time in the past "honoring and obeying" . The
              city of refuge she is
              currently with (i.e., Jesus: the Logos who is the chief and best city of
              refuge), is not her husband because she has not (at least up till this point
              in time) ever "honored and obeyed" him.

              In 4:22, Jesus tells the Samaritan woman, " You worship who you know
              not, we worship what we know--for salvation is of the Jews." I believe that
              this relates to Fuga 82: where, Philo states, "For to know Him is true
              wisdom and virtue, and ignorance of Him is manifest stupidity and
              wickedness." Therefore, here, Jesus is very critical of the Samaritans.
              The Jews know God. Hence, as they know what is wisdom and virtue, salvation
              is of them. In contrast, the Samaritans do not know God and, so, know only
              what is stupid and wicked. They need help and it is from the Jews that they
              should seek it.

              In 4:23-24, Jesus tells the Samaritan woman, "But is coming (and now is!)
              an hour when the true worshippers will worship the Father within Spirit and
              Truth (rather than at Mt. Gerizim or the Jerusalem temple). God is a Spirit
              and they that worship Him must worship within Spirit and Truth." I believe
              that this relates to Fuga. 77-81: which Philo thusly begins by citing Exodus
              21:14a, "'If a man set upon his neighbor to slay him by guile and flee for
              refuge' to God, even to Him Who has been symbolically called a place."
              Here, Philo goes beyond the six cities of refuge to the ultimate refuge,
              i.e., God. Next, commenting on Exodus 21:14b, "You shall take him from My
              altar and put him to death.", Philo speaks of "the refuge which is a place
              of deliverance
              and safety for suppliants only, namely, the altar. Is not this meet and
              right? For the place of sacrifice is wholly occupied by victims free from
              blemish, that is by innocent and purified souls". This altar, where one
              finds refuge with God Himself, then, is not to be found on Mt Gerizim or in
              Jerusalem: for it is a spiritual altar open only to unblemished souls.
              Where, then, is this spiritual altar (and God!) located? Philo gives a clue
              by referring to the locacation as being "the hallowed precincts". This
              tells us that the location is the heavenly temple or tabernacle, i.e., the
              Spirit-Sophia, which is the true house of God. (e.g., see Cong. 116, "And
              further on he will speak of God's dwelling-place, the tabernacle, as being
              'ten curtains', for to the structure which includes the whole of (the Spirit
              as) Sophia, the perfect number ten belongs, and (the Spirit as) Sophia is
              the court and palace of the All-ruler, the sole Monarch, the Sovereign
              Lord."). Those who find refuge in God, then do so within the Spirit-Sophia,
              the heavenly temple or tabernacle: which, rather than any earthly temple
              (even the one at Jerusalem!), is the true house of God.. In worshipping God,
              then, they worship him within the Spirit-Sophia. Or, to use Johannine
              language, since the author of John took to Spirit to also be Truth (e.g.,
              see 14:17, 15:26 and 16:13), they worship God within Spirit and Truth.

              To recap:
              Passage from Fuga Relates to Passage from John
              77-81 4:23-24
              82 4:22
              94 4:16-18
              97 4:10-15
              101 3:35b
              109 3:35a
              110 3:34
              111 3:31
              114 3:29
              Suggested reason: the author of John was glancing at Fuga in reverse of the
              narrative flow while writing John 3:29-4:24. If so, then Jesus is
              identified as Philo's Logos, God's Son, in this part of John. And, if he is
              identifed as Philo's Logos, God's Son, in this part of John, the reasonable
              expectation is that he is identified as Philo's Logos, God's Son, in other
              parts of John as well--particularly the Prologue.

              Regards,

              Frank McCoy
              Maplewood, MN USA
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.