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

Re: [John_Lit] Philo

Expand Messages
  • Robert Raphael
    Thanks a bunch. Robert Raphael ... From: FMMCCOY To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com Date:
    Message 1 of 5 , Jun 30, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 5 , Jul 1, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        >----- 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 3 of 5 , Jul 3, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 5 , Dec 11, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            ----- 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.