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

RE: [John_Lit] A Proposed Re-construction of a Postulated Hymn-li ke Composition to the Word

Expand Messages
  • Thatcher, Tom
    Paul et. al., Further to Paul s point, let me observe that the whole Prologue is structured around three verbs in the Greek text--en (past tense of eimi;
    Message 1 of 16 , Jan 24, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Paul et. al.,

      Further to Paul's point, let me observe that the whole Prologue is
      structured around three verbs in the Greek text--en (past tense of eimi;
      "was"); forms of ginomai ("became"); and forms of erchomai ("came")--sorry
      about the lack of Greek fonts here. The dominance of these three verbs in
      the architecture of the passage is obvious even with a casual skim down the
      page. I think that that the juxtaposition of these three verbs has
      significant theological implications in this passage, but for now let me
      limit my remarks to the tradition-history question.

      Very notably, all three of these verbs appear together in the Baptist's
      statement at 1:15 about "the one coming behind me," which involves several
      significant Christological implications--including Jesus' pre-existence and
      his relationship to the Baptizer. To thicken the plot a little, 1:15 is
      cast in the form a traditional speech unit, the riddle. Some of you are
      aware of my obsession with riddles in the Johannine sayings, but that
      statement is a riddle by any definition any folklorist would use. "The one
      coming behind me became ahead of me because he was before me" is just
      nonsense when the terms are taken in the literal, spatial sense--you can't
      be "behind" and "ahead of" someone at the same time, so the statement must
      resolve itself at a deeper level.

      My conclusion--and please don't steal this idea, because I'm gradually
      working up an article on it: the whole Prologue was spun out of the riddle
      at 1:15. In other words, it makes more sense to me that the verbal
      structure of the Prologue was derived from the three verbs in this
      traditional saying, than to argue that someone crafted the Prologue and then
      boiled it down to an obtuse remark that is put on the lips of the Baptist.
      Specifically, I'd see the whole thing as a midrashic commentary on that
      traditional saying, combining elements of Genesis 1 and the Exodus story.

      What do you think? Any opinion, Paul?

      Respectfully,
      --tom

      Tom Thatcher
      Cincinnati Bible Seminary
      2700 Glenway Ave.
      Cincinnati, Oh 45204
      (513) 244-8172
      tom.thatcher@... <mailto:tom.thatcher@...>
      "the truth will set you free"


      -----Original Message-----
      From: Paul Anderson [SMTP:panderso@...]
      Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 2:12 PM
      To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [John_Lit] A Proposed Re-construction of a
      Postulated Hymn-like Composition to the Word

      Excellent points, Ramsey; I've been wondering lately about the
      possibility of the poetic sections of the Prologue being expansions on the
      Baptist's testimony and memory.

      Paul Anderson

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Ramsey Michaels [mailto:profram@...]
      Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 6:30 AM
      To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [John_Lit] A Proposed Re-construction of a Postulated
      Hymn-like Composition to the Word


      The question of whether the so-called "Prolog" is poetry is an
      important
      one. When it is read as poetry, the sections that are patently
      prose, such
      as vv 6-8 and 15 are viewed as "interpolations" and sometimes
      virtually
      dismissed. But if it is prose, then they are not interpolations, and
      the
      whole thing reads differently.

      For example, verse 6 looks very much like the narrative beginning to
      the
      Gospel, a beginning not unlike the beginning of Mark. This goes
      against the
      conventional wisdom that verse 19 is the narrative beginning. If the
      narrative begins at verse 6 and not verse 19, then the real "prolog"
      (or
      preface, or introduction, call it what you will) consists of vv
      1-5, not vv
      1-18.

      In short, perhaps the search for poetry or a hymnic source behind
      the text
      as we have it has skewed our reading of the existing text. Perhaps
      what
      conventional wisdom has regarded as "interpolations" are actually
      the key to
      understanding the whole.

      Ramsey Michaels


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Peter Phillips" <p.m.phillips@...>
      To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 12:55 PM
      Subject: Re: [John_Lit] A Proposed Re-construction of a Postulated
      Hymn-like
      Composition to the Word


      > Frank,
      > You tread on well worn territory here. There are so many versions
      of the
      > possible hymn structure of the Prologue. But here are just two
      questions
      as
      > a first toss of the coin, but I hope to have a fuller look at it
      > tomorrow...:
      >
      > What Greek metre is this if it is a hymn?
      > If there is no metre it is prose and so is not a hymn!
      >
      > When does anti in v.17 ever mean upon - anti = instead of or in
      place of.
      >
      > Pete Phillips
      > Cliff College
      > Sheffield, UK
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: "fmmccoy" <FMMCCOY@...>
      > To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
      > Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 4:55 PM
      > Subject: Re: [John_Lit] A Proposed Re-construction of a Postulated
      Hymn-like
      > Composition to the Word
      >
      >
      > > INTRODUCTION
      > >
      > > It has long been recognized that much of John 1:1-18 is likely
      based on
      > > hymn-like composition to the Word. This is the proposed
      re-construction
      > of
      > > it as given by R.A. Brown in The Gospel According to John (Vol.
      1, pp.
      > 3-4):
      > >
      > > First Strophe
      > > 1 In the beginning was the Word;
      > > the Word was in God's presence,
      > > and the Word was God.
      > > 2 He was present with God in the beginning.
      > >
      > > Second Strophe
      > > 3 Through him all things came into being,
      > > and apart from him not a thing came to be.
      > > 4 That which had come to be in him was life,
      > > and this life was the light of men.
      > > 5 The light shines on in the darkness,
      > > for the darkness did not overcome it.
      > >
      > > Third Strophe
      > > 10 He was in the world,
      > > and the world was made by him;
      > > yet the world did not recognize him.
      > > 11 To his own he came;
      > > yet his own people did not accept him.
      > > 12 But all those who did accept him
      > > he empowered to become God's children.
      > >
      > > Fourth Strophe
      > > 14 And the Word became flesh
      > > and made his dwelling among us.
      > > And we have seen his glory,
      > > the glory of an only Son coming from the Father,
      > > filled with enduring love.
      > > 16 And of his fullness
      > > we have all had a share--
      > > love in place of love.
      > >
      > > I suggest that the following changes be made to this proposed
      > > re-construction by Brown:
      > > 1. The addition of verse nine. As R.A. Brown notes (Ibid., p.
      9), some
      > have
      > > taken it to be a part of the original composition and give it
      this
      > > structure:
      > > He was the real light
      > > that gives light to every man;
      > > he was coming into the world.
      > > 2. The addition of verse 17
      > > 3. The division of the composition into three sections, each
      consisting
      of
      > > ten lines and each containing two strophes of three lines each
      and two
      > > strophes of two lines each:
      > > a. The Word at the Beginning of Time and Space
      > > b. The Pre-incarnational Activity of the Word in the World
      > > c. The Word becomes Flesh.
      > >
      > > THE PROPOSED RE-CONSTRUCTION IN THE GREEK
      > >
      > > Section A The Word at the Beginning of Time and Space
      > >
      > > En Arche en ho Logos,
      > > Kai ho Logos en pros ton Theon,
      > > Kai Theos en ho Logos.
      > >
      > > Houtos en en Arche pros ton Theon,
      > > Panta di autou egenato,
      > > Kai chwris autou egeneto oude hen.
      > >
      > > Ho gegonen en autw Zwe en,
      > > Kai he Zwe en to Phws ton anthrowpwn.
      > >
      > > Kai to Phws en te Skotia phainei,
      > > Kai he Skotia auto ou katalaben.
      > >
      > > Section B The Pre-incarnational Activity of the Word
      > >
      > > En to Phws to alethinon
      > > ho phwtizei panta anthrwpon erchoumenon
      > > eis ton kosmon,
      > >
      > > En tou kosmw en,
      > > Kai ho kosmos di qutou egeneto,
      > > Kai ho kosmos autou ouk egnw,
      > >
      > > Eis to idia elthen
      > > Kai oi idioi ou parelabon.
      > >
      > > Hosoi de elabon auton edwken
      > > Autois ezousian tekna Theou genesthai.
      > >
      > > Section C The Word Becomes Flesh
      > >
      > > Kai ho Logos sarz egeneto
      > > Kai eskenwsen en hemin,
      > > Kai etheasametha ten dozan autou,
      > >
      > > Dozan hws monogenous para Patros,
      > > Pleres Charitos kai Aletheias.
      > >
      > > Hoti ek to plerowmatos auto
      > > hemeis pantes elabomen,
      > > Kai charin anti charitos,
      > >
      > > Hoti ho Nomos dia Mwusews edothe,
      > > He Charis kai he Aletheia dia Hisou Christou egeneto.
      > >
      > > Note that, in the third section, where the Word becomes flesh,
      the
      strophe
      >
      > > pattern changes from the previous 3/3/2/2 to 3/2/3/2.
      > >
      > > THE PROPOSED RE-CONSTRUCTION IN TRANSLATION
      > >
      > > Here is the proposed re-constuction of the postulated hymn-like
      > composition
      > > in a rough English translation:
      > >
      > > Section A The Word in the Beginning of Time and Space
      > >
      > > In the Beginning was the Word,
      > > And the Word was with God,
      > > And the Word was God.
      > >
      > > He was in the Beginning with God,
      > > Everything though him came into being,
      > > And without him came into being no thing.
      > >
      > > That which came into being In him was Life,
      > > And the Life was the Light of mankind.
      > >
      > > And the Light shines in the Darkness,
      > > And the Darkness did not overcome it.
      > >
      > > Section B The Pre-incarnational Activity of the Word in the
      World
      > >
      > > The true Light
      > > That enlightens mankind
      > > Was coming into the World.
      > >
      > > He was within the World,
      > > And the World came into being through him,
      > > And the World knew him not.
      > >
      > > To his own he came,
      > > And his own received him not.
      > >
      > > But as many as received him
      > > He gave to them authority to be children of God,
      > >
      > > Section C The Word becomes Flesh
      > >
      > > And the Logos became flesh
      > > And tabernacled among us.
      > > And we beheld his glory:
      > >
      > > A glory as of a one of a kind with a Father,
      > > Full of Grace and Truth.
      > >
      > > And of his Fullness
      > > We have all received,
      > > Grace upon grace:
      > >
      > > For the Law was given through Moses,
      > > And the Grace and the Truth came through Christ Jesus.
      > >
      > > How does the proposed re-construction of the postulated
      hymn-like
      > > composition look to you? Do you recommend any changes to it?
      Also, do
      > you
      > > recommend any changes in the English translation of it?
      > >
      > > Frank McCoy
      > > 1809 N. English Apt. 17
      > > Maplewood, MN USA 55109
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > 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/
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      > 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/
      >
      >


      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/



      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/
    • kymhsm <khs@picknowl.com.au>
      Dear Tom, Paul and others, I offer a structure for the Prologue of John below which is from my book, The Amazing Structure of the Gospel of John . It picks up
      Message 2 of 16 , Jan 28, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Tom, Paul and others,

        I offer a structure for the Prologue of John below which is from
        my book, 'The Amazing Structure of the Gospel of John'. It picks
        up on some of the verbs you mention, Tom, and centres your
        'riddle' in the second part.

        I agree with you that John is using Genesis here. In fact, I have
        argued that the whole gospel is stretched over a frame of
        Genesis 1&2.

        I am currently rewriting the book and adding some significant
        new material, but a very primitive version of it is (as I have
        mentioned once or twice) is on the www at
        http://homepages.picknowl.com.au/sherpub .
        The Genesis structure is in Parts 6&7.

        I believe the Prologue is made up of two of the seventy chiastic
        structures which make up the whole gospel.


        Prologue (P) — 1:1-18
        P1 — 1:1-13

        a 1:1 In the beginning was the Word...with God, and...was God.
        b 2 He was in the beginning with God;
        c 3a all things were made through him,
        d 3b and without him was not anything made that was made.
        e 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
        f 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not
        overcome it.
        g 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
        g' 7 He came...to bear witness to the light...that all might
        believe through him.
        f' 8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness to the
        light.
        e' 9 The true light that enlightens every man was coming into
        the world.
        d' 10a He was in the world, and the world was made through
        him,
        c' 10b yet the world knew him not.
        b' 11-12 To...all...who believed...gave power to become children
        of God;
        a' 13 who were born, not of blood nor...flesh nor...man, but of
        God.

        P2 — 1:14-18

        a 14a And the Word became flesh
        b 14b and dwelt among us,
        c 14d we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from
        the Father.
        d 14c full of grace and truth; [Here in the Greek]
        e 15a (John bore witness to him,
        f 15a and cried, "This was he of whom I said, `He who comes
        after me
        g15b ranks before me,

        g' 15c for he was before me.'")
        f' 16 And from his fullness have we all received, grace upon
        grace.
        e' 17a For the law was given through Moses;
        d' 17b grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
        c' 18a No one has ever seen God;
        b' 18b the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father,
        a' 18c he has made him known. top

        Sincerely,

        Kym Smith
        Adelaide
        South Australia
        khs@...

         
      • Roberta Allen
        Hi All Sorry for butting in here unannounced but the recent posts on the Prologue finally stirred me into action. I agree with Tom that 1.15 is certainly a
        Message 3 of 16 , Jan 29, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi All

          Sorry for butting in here unannounced but the recent posts on the
          Prologue finally stirred me into action.

          I agree with Tom that 1.15 is certainly a riddle but personally would
          not put quite so much emphasis on its importance in the Prologue.

          Interestingly I also agree with Kym and I too have argued that the
          gospel is based on Gen 1 and 2 but with a difference.

          In a book written about three years ago which lazily languishes still on
          my computer I have argued that the Prologue as it stands is a solid
          piece of theological writing of the apocalyptic genre. The Prologue
          holds the key to the interpretation of the gospel. The author has used a
          contemporary method of Jewish exegesis (popularly now known as
          intertextual midrash) to bring together the two 'creation' stories of
          Genesis and the story of 'wisdom' contained in the Scriptures to explain
          the Christ event.

          The 'new' interpretation of the creation myths not only gives the
          background to the Christology of this gospel with Christ being
          understood as the 'man' of Genesis 1.27 but it also challenges the
          traditional interpretation of the 'fall' story and nature of man. John,
          on the other hand, sort of represents Adam.

          1.30 is a clear reference back to 1.15. There is, however, a slight but
          significant difference in the statements. In 1.15 'he who comes after
          me' is replaced in 1.30 by 'after me comes a man'. There were plenty of
          speculations around at the time concerning the 'man' of Genesis in
          relation to the coming one or Messiah. With the specific mention of a
          man who is revealed to Israel another factor becomes relevant. In
          apocalyptic speak man frequently refers to an 'angel'. Israel obviously
          refer to God's people but it is also quite likely that it is an allusion
          to Gen 32 where Jacob struggled with a 'man', who was in fact an 'angel'
          but whom Jacob identified as 'God'.

          Just my two pennysworth for what its worth.

          --
          Roberta Allen
        • Peter Phillips
          Interesting stuff. Why is the book still on your computer? I wonder whether some of this has links to Philo and his concept of the perfect man and logos - see
          Message 4 of 16 , Jan 29, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Interesting stuff. Why is the book still on your computer?

            I wonder whether some of this has links to Philo and his concept of the
            perfect man and logos - see Dodd's discussion in Interpretation. Moreover,
            the whole Stoic-Hellenistic background needs to be considered as well.

            The idea that the Prologue is a midrashic exegesis of Gen 1 is also found in
            Peder Borgen's work. The only problem is that the Prologue as a whole does
            not match the language and pattern of the Genesis creation myths. why not
            be more focussed on exegeting the actual words. Midrash is marked by
            keywords taken from the original text and 'played' around with. That is not
            really the feeling of the Prologue. So if you read the Mishnah, especially
            the Gemara sections, and them compare these to the Prologue, you see the
            glaring difference between what is midrash (the Mishnah and possibly Philo)
            and what is not (the Prologue). Speculative prose, perhaps in the tradition
            we also find in the Hermetic material or what we find in the later Gnostic
            texts, but not really midrash as such?

            Just some thoughts...but please, get the book out so we can read it.

            Pete Phillips
            Cliff College
            Sheffield UK
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "Roberta Allen" <roberta.allen@...>
            To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 10:26 AM
            Subject: Re: [John_Lit] A Proposed Re-construction of a Postulated Hymn-li
            ke Composition


            > Hi All
            >
            > Sorry for butting in here unannounced but the recent posts on the
            > Prologue finally stirred me into action.
            >
            > I agree with Tom that 1.15 is certainly a riddle but personally would
            > not put quite so much emphasis on its importance in the Prologue.
            >
            > Interestingly I also agree with Kym and I too have argued that the
            > gospel is based on Gen 1 and 2 but with a difference.
            >
            > In a book written about three years ago which lazily languishes still on
            > my computer I have argued that the Prologue as it stands is a solid
            > piece of theological writing of the apocalyptic genre. The Prologue
            > holds the key to the interpretation of the gospel. The author has used a
            > contemporary method of Jewish exegesis (popularly now known as
            > intertextual midrash) to bring together the two 'creation' stories of
            > Genesis and the story of 'wisdom' contained in the Scriptures to explain
            > the Christ event.
            >
            > The 'new' interpretation of the creation myths not only gives the
            > background to the Christology of this gospel with Christ being
            > understood as the 'man' of Genesis 1.27 but it also challenges the
            > traditional interpretation of the 'fall' story and nature of man. John,
            > on the other hand, sort of represents Adam.
            >
            > 1.30 is a clear reference back to 1.15. There is, however, a slight but
            > significant difference in the statements. In 1.15 'he who comes after
            > me' is replaced in 1.30 by 'after me comes a man'. There were plenty of
            > speculations around at the time concerning the 'man' of Genesis in
            > relation to the coming one or Messiah. With the specific mention of a
            > man who is revealed to Israel another factor becomes relevant. In
            > apocalyptic speak man frequently refers to an 'angel'. Israel obviously
            > refer to God's people but it is also quite likely that it is an allusion
            > to Gen 32 where Jacob struggled with a 'man', who was in fact an 'angel'
            > but whom Jacob identified as 'God'.
            >
            > Just my two pennysworth for what its worth.
            >
            > --
            > Roberta Allen
            >
            >
            > 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/
            >
            >
            >
          • Roberta Allen
            In message , Peter Phillips writes ... Thank you for your interest. Because I am not part
            Message 5 of 16 , Jan 29, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              In message <007d01c2c785$32ea9f50$0600000a@pete>, Peter Phillips
              <p.m.phillips@...> writes
              >Interesting stuff. Why is the book still on your computer?
              >
              Thank you for your interest. Because I am not part of the academic world
              and I am unlikely to be considered worthy of publication.
              >I wonder whether some of this has links to Philo and his concept of the
              >perfect man and logos - see Dodd's discussion in Interpretation. Moreover,
              >the whole Stoic-Hellenistic background needs to be considered as well.
              >

              I have considered Philo's interpretation alongside other contemporary
              views including Paul's and those at Qumran and come to the conclusion
              that John's is similar but radically different from any of these. In
              Paul's understanding Christ is a type of Adam who did not fall and is so
              in effect a new creation whereas in John's thought Christ is the first
              man ever to be made in the image of God.
              >The idea that the Prologue is a midrashic exegesis of Gen 1 is also found in
              >Peder Borgen's work. The only problem is that the Prologue as a whole does
              >not match the language and pattern of the Genesis creation myths.

              I am not exactly arguing that the Prologue is a midrashic exegesis of
              Gen I but that the Prologue can be shown to follow the pattern of Gen 1
              and 2. I am loathe to use the word midrash because so many people
              associate it with later rabbinic exegesis.
              > why not
              >be more focussed on exegeting the actual words. Midrash is marked by
              >keywords taken from the original text and 'played' around with.
              Yes I am aware of that and I have found John uses this continually
              throughout the Gospel - this is what led me to my conclusions by
              following these key words through the Scriptures.
              > That is not
              >really the feeling of the Prologue. So if you read the Mishnah, especially
              >the Gemara sections, and them compare these to the Prologue, you see the
              >glaring difference between what is midrash (the Mishnah and possibly Philo)
              >and what is not (the Prologue). Speculative prose, perhaps in the tradition
              >we also find in the Hermetic material or what we find in the later Gnostic
              >texts, but not really midrash as such?
              >
              I like speculative prose - Yes I would agree John probably uses that :)

              --
              Roberta Allen
            • Ramsey Michaels
              You might look at Masanobu Endo, Creation and Christology: A Study on the Johannine Prologue in the Light of Early Jewish Creation Accounts. WUNT 149,
              Message 6 of 16 , Jan 29, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                You might look at Masanobu Endo, Creation and Christology: A Study on the
                Johannine Prologue in the Light of Early Jewish Creation Accounts. WUNT 149,
                Tuebingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002.

                Ramsey Michaels

                ----- Original Message -----
                From: "Peter Phillips" <p.m.phillips@...>
                To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 5:57 AM
                Subject: Re: [John_Lit] A Proposed Re-construction of a Postulated Hymn-li
                ke Composition


                > Interesting stuff. Why is the book still on your computer?
                >
                > I wonder whether some of this has links to Philo and his concept of the
                > perfect man and logos - see Dodd's discussion in Interpretation.
                Moreover,
                > the whole Stoic-Hellenistic background needs to be considered as well.
                >
                > The idea that the Prologue is a midrashic exegesis of Gen 1 is also found
                in
                > Peder Borgen's work. The only problem is that the Prologue as a whole
                does
                > not match the language and pattern of the Genesis creation myths. why not
                > be more focussed on exegeting the actual words. Midrash is marked by
                > keywords taken from the original text and 'played' around with. That is
                not
                > really the feeling of the Prologue. So if you read the Mishnah,
                especially
                > the Gemara sections, and them compare these to the Prologue, you see the
                > glaring difference between what is midrash (the Mishnah and possibly
                Philo)
                > and what is not (the Prologue). Speculative prose, perhaps in the
                tradition
                > we also find in the Hermetic material or what we find in the later Gnostic
                > texts, but not really midrash as such?
                >
                > Just some thoughts...but please, get the book out so we can read it.
                >
                > Pete Phillips
                > Cliff College
                > Sheffield UK
                > ----- Original Message -----
                > From: "Roberta Allen" <roberta.allen@...>
                > To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 10:26 AM
                > Subject: Re: [John_Lit] A Proposed Re-construction of a Postulated Hymn-li
                > ke Composition
                >
                >
                > > Hi All
                > >
                > > Sorry for butting in here unannounced but the recent posts on the
                > > Prologue finally stirred me into action.
                > >
                > > I agree with Tom that 1.15 is certainly a riddle but personally would
                > > not put quite so much emphasis on its importance in the Prologue.
                > >
                > > Interestingly I also agree with Kym and I too have argued that the
                > > gospel is based on Gen 1 and 2 but with a difference.
                > >
                > > In a book written about three years ago which lazily languishes still on
                > > my computer I have argued that the Prologue as it stands is a solid
                > > piece of theological writing of the apocalyptic genre. The Prologue
                > > holds the key to the interpretation of the gospel. The author has used a
                > > contemporary method of Jewish exegesis (popularly now known as
                > > intertextual midrash) to bring together the two 'creation' stories of
                > > Genesis and the story of 'wisdom' contained in the Scriptures to explain
                > > the Christ event.
                > >
                > > The 'new' interpretation of the creation myths not only gives the
                > > background to the Christology of this gospel with Christ being
                > > understood as the 'man' of Genesis 1.27 but it also challenges the
                > > traditional interpretation of the 'fall' story and nature of man. John,
                > > on the other hand, sort of represents Adam.
                > >
                > > 1.30 is a clear reference back to 1.15. There is, however, a slight but
                > > significant difference in the statements. In 1.15 'he who comes after
                > > me' is replaced in 1.30 by 'after me comes a man'. There were plenty of
                > > speculations around at the time concerning the 'man' of Genesis in
                > > relation to the coming one or Messiah. With the specific mention of a
                > > man who is revealed to Israel another factor becomes relevant. In
                > > apocalyptic speak man frequently refers to an 'angel'. Israel obviously
                > > refer to God's people but it is also quite likely that it is an allusion
                > > to Gen 32 where Jacob struggled with a 'man', who was in fact an 'angel'
                > > but whom Jacob identified as 'God'.
                > >
                > > Just my two pennysworth for what its worth.
                > >
                > > --
                > > Roberta Allen
                > >
                > >
                > > 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/
                > >
                > >
                > >
                >
                >
                > 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/
                >
                >
              • Roberta Allen
                In message , Ramsey Michaels writes ... Thank you - I did correspond with him when
                Message 7 of 16 , Jan 29, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  In message <002401c2c794$fd8da180$46c03d18@...>,
                  Ramsey Michaels <profram@...> writes
                  >You might look at Masanobu Endo, Creation and Christology: A Study on the
                  >Johannine Prologue in the Light of Early Jewish Creation Accounts. WUNT 149,
                  >Tuebingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002.

                  Thank you - I did correspond with him when he first presented a paper
                  on the subject.
                  --
                  Roberta Allen
                • Horace Jeffery Hodges
                  Roberta wrote:
                  Message 8 of 16 , Jan 29, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Roberta wrote:

                    <I have considered Philo's interpretation alongside
                    other contemporary views including Paul's and those at
                    Qumran and come to the conclusion that John's is
                    similar but radically different from any of these. In
                    Paul's understanding Christ is a type of Adam who did
                    not fall and is so in effect a new creation whereas in
                    John's thought Christ is the first man ever to be made
                    in the image of God.>

                    Interesting stuff. But why do you interpret John's
                    Christ in this way?

                    Also -- if this isn't too far from Johannine-list
                    protocol -- does your interpretation make John's or
                    Paul's Christology higher? One could argue that since
                    Paul calls Christ the image of God, then his
                    Christology is higher than a Christology that holds
                    that Christ was the first man ever to be made in the
                    image of God. What's your opinion on this?

                    Jeffery Hodges

                    =====
                    Horace Jeffery Hodges (Ph.D., U.C. Berkeley)
                    Assistant Professor
                    Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
                    447-791 Kyunggido, Osan-City
                    Yangsandong 411
                    South Korea

                    __________________________________________________
                    Do you Yahoo!?
                    Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
                    http://mailplus.yahoo.com
                  • Roberta Allen
                    In message , Horace Jeffery Hodges writes ... Basically because of the
                    Message 9 of 16 , Jan 30, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      In message <20030129203950.56712.qmail@...>, Horace
                      Jeffery Hodges <jefferyhodges@...> writes
                      >Interesting stuff. But why do you interpret John's
                      >Christ in this way?
                      >
                      Basically because of the Christology contained in the Prologue. The
                      Prologue expresses albeit in esoteric language the author's
                      understanding of who Jesus Christ is, what the author understands by
                      Messiah and intimates, by setting it as a new creation story, that a
                      cosmic event has occurred. At the same time there are many indications
                      in the Gospel that it is of eschatological import too.

                      If I have interpreted John correctly then the first creation story of
                      Genesis may be understood not so much as 'history' but as God's plan
                      (logos) for mankind which is finally fulfilled in the Christ event. The
                      Gospel attempts to convey the Truth about Christ (who is divine) through
                      stories of Jesus (who is a man) and to some extent representative of all
                      historical humanity.

                      It is widely accepted that the Gospel of John suggests that Christ is
                      divine and can in some sense be equated with God. But I think the
                      question or problem that this evangelist was wrestling with was not so
                      much how or why God became man but the far more difficult and
                      controversial question, at least for Jews, of how or why a man had
                      become divine and what this meant for mankind in general.

                      One of the most important themes in the beginning of the Gospel is
                      'transformation'. There is the transformation of water into wine and the
                      concept of new birth. It seems that this theme not only addresses the
                      question of how Jesus became divine but also how others might follow
                      him. The question of how this transformation may occur seems to depend
                      on what beliefs are held which in turn depend on how the scriptures are
                      interpreted.

                      In chapter one of the gospel virtually all the possible messianic
                      expectations are introduced demonstrating that the author is aware of
                      the various speculations and entering in dialogue with them.

                      >Also -- if this isn't too far from Johannine-list
                      >protocol -- does your interpretation make John's or
                      >Paul's Christology higher? One could argue that since
                      >Paul calls Christ the image of God, then his
                      >Christology is higher than a Christology that holds
                      >that Christ was the first man ever to be made in the
                      >image of God. What's your opinion on this?
                      I think John's Christology is frighteningly ambiguous and probably
                      purposely so. Hence scholars have been able to find in it the lowest and
                      highest Christologies. I am inclined to agree with L. Hurtado that the
                      high Christology arose from experience of the risen Christ and that it
                      is to some such experience that the expression 'we have beheld his
                      glory' arises from.

                      I think an obvious difference between John and Paul is that Paul did not
                      consider Jesus' life as a man very important but clearly this is not the
                      case with John. But Paul's idea that Christ was a new Adam, a type of
                      Adam, differs too. A type of means that there was a precursor but the
                      'first' man to be made in the image of God means absolute uniqueness. It
                      is also a denial that Christ could be equated in any sense with any
                      other previous figure from history for they were all part of the old
                      order. Perhaps its not a question of whose Christology is 'highest' but
                      which is most plausible in the light of contemporary Jewish
                      understanding.

                      --
                      Roberta Allen
                    • Paul Anderson
                      Here s a question: why is the language and content of the Prologue so similar to that of I John? Was the author of the Epistles the compiler of the Gospel?
                      Message 10 of 16 , Jan 30, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Here's a question: why is the language and content of the Prologue so similar to that of I John? Was the author of the Epistles the compiler of the Gospel? Here's one place where I find myself agreeing with Bultmann on the evidence and resulting inferences (at least some of them).

                        Paul Anderson

                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: Roberta Allen [mailto:roberta.allen@...]
                        Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 7:56 AM
                        To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: Re: [John_Lit] A Proposed Re-construction of a Postulated
                        Hymn-li ke Composition


                        In message <20030129203950.56712.qmail@...>, Horace
                        Jeffery Hodges <jefferyhodges@...> writes
                        >Interesting stuff. But why do you interpret John's
                        >Christ in this way?
                        >
                        Basically because of the Christology contained in the Prologue. The
                        Prologue expresses albeit in esoteric language the author's
                        understanding of who Jesus Christ is, what the author understands by
                        Messiah and intimates, by setting it as a new creation story, that a
                        cosmic event has occurred. At the same time there are many indications
                        in the Gospel that it is of eschatological import too.

                        If I have interpreted John correctly then the first creation story of
                        Genesis may be understood not so much as 'history' but as God's plan
                        (logos) for mankind which is finally fulfilled in the Christ event. The
                        Gospel attempts to convey the Truth about Christ (who is divine) through
                        stories of Jesus (who is a man) and to some extent representative of all
                        historical humanity.

                        It is widely accepted that the Gospel of John suggests that Christ is
                        divine and can in some sense be equated with God. But I think the
                        question or problem that this evangelist was wrestling with was not so
                        much how or why God became man but the far more difficult and
                        controversial question, at least for Jews, of how or why a man had
                        become divine and what this meant for mankind in general.

                        One of the most important themes in the beginning of the Gospel is
                        'transformation'. There is the transformation of water into wine and the
                        concept of new birth. It seems that this theme not only addresses the
                        question of how Jesus became divine but also how others might follow
                        him. The question of how this transformation may occur seems to depend
                        on what beliefs are held which in turn depend on how the scriptures are
                        interpreted.

                        In chapter one of the gospel virtually all the possible messianic
                        expectations are introduced demonstrating that the author is aware of
                        the various speculations and entering in dialogue with them.

                        >Also -- if this isn't too far from Johannine-list
                        >protocol -- does your interpretation make John's or
                        >Paul's Christology higher? One could argue that since
                        >Paul calls Christ the image of God, then his
                        >Christology is higher than a Christology that holds
                        >that Christ was the first man ever to be made in the
                        >image of God. What's your opinion on this?
                        I think John's Christology is frighteningly ambiguous and probably
                        purposely so. Hence scholars have been able to find in it the lowest and
                        highest Christologies. I am inclined to agree with L. Hurtado that the
                        high Christology arose from experience of the risen Christ and that it
                        is to some such experience that the expression 'we have beheld his
                        glory' arises from.

                        I think an obvious difference between John and Paul is that Paul did not
                        consider Jesus' life as a man very important but clearly this is not the
                        case with John. But Paul's idea that Christ was a new Adam, a type of
                        Adam, differs too. A type of means that there was a precursor but the
                        'first' man to be made in the image of God means absolute uniqueness. It
                        is also a denial that Christ could be equated in any sense with any
                        other previous figure from history for they were all part of the old
                        order. Perhaps its not a question of whose Christology is 'highest' but
                        which is most plausible in the light of contemporary Jewish
                        understanding.

                        --
                        Roberta Allen


                        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/
                      • Roberta Allen
                        In message , Paul Anderson writes ... I do hope that question
                        Message 11 of 16 , Jan 30, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          In message
                          <A6E83C2D8A947E43BFB5593D766E1AC307D136@...>,
                          Paul Anderson <panderso@...> writes
                          >Here's a question: why is the language and content of the Prologue so
                          >similar to that of I John? Was the author of the Epistles the compiler
                          >of the Gospel? Here's one place where I find myself agreeing with
                          >Bultmann on the evidence and resulting inferences (at least some of them).

                          I do hope that question wasn't directed specifically to me. I tackled
                          the Gospel by immersing myself totally in it as suggested by Sir Edwyn
                          Hoskyns. I did not have time to involve myself with myriad of other
                          questions surrounding authorship and dependencies.
                          --
                          Roberta Allen
                        • Peter Phillips
                          It isn t similar...well...it is but it isn t. For example the use of logos which simply does not tie in at all. See Wendy Sproston North - Lazarus Story in
                          Message 12 of 16 , Jan 30, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            It isn't similar...well...it is but it isn't. For example the use of logos
                            which simply does not tie in at all. See Wendy Sproston North - Lazarus
                            Story in the Johannine Tradition for a good background cover for all this.

                            Pete Phillips

                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: "Paul Anderson" <panderso@...>
                            To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                            Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 4:07 PM
                            Subject: RE: [John_Lit] A Proposed Re-construction of a Postulated Hymn-li
                            ke Composition


                            > Here's a question: why is the language and content of the Prologue so
                            similar to that of I John? Was the author of the Epistles the compiler of
                            the Gospel? Here's one place where I find myself agreeing with Bultmann on
                            the evidence and resulting inferences (at least some of them).
                            >
                            > Paul Anderson
                            >
                            > -----Original Message-----
                            > From: Roberta Allen [mailto:roberta.allen@...]
                            > Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 7:56 AM
                            > To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                            > Subject: Re: [John_Lit] A Proposed Re-construction of a Postulated
                            > Hymn-li ke Composition
                            >
                            >
                            > In message <20030129203950.56712.qmail@...>, Horace
                            > Jeffery Hodges <jefferyhodges@...> writes
                            > >Interesting stuff. But why do you interpret John's
                            > >Christ in this way?
                            > >
                            > Basically because of the Christology contained in the Prologue. The
                            > Prologue expresses albeit in esoteric language the author's
                            > understanding of who Jesus Christ is, what the author understands by
                            > Messiah and intimates, by setting it as a new creation story, that a
                            > cosmic event has occurred. At the same time there are many indications
                            > in the Gospel that it is of eschatological import too.
                            >
                            > If I have interpreted John correctly then the first creation story of
                            > Genesis may be understood not so much as 'history' but as God's plan
                            > (logos) for mankind which is finally fulfilled in the Christ event. The
                            > Gospel attempts to convey the Truth about Christ (who is divine) through
                            > stories of Jesus (who is a man) and to some extent representative of all
                            > historical humanity.
                            >
                            > It is widely accepted that the Gospel of John suggests that Christ is
                            > divine and can in some sense be equated with God. But I think the
                            > question or problem that this evangelist was wrestling with was not so
                            > much how or why God became man but the far more difficult and
                            > controversial question, at least for Jews, of how or why a man had
                            > become divine and what this meant for mankind in general.
                            >
                            > One of the most important themes in the beginning of the Gospel is
                            > 'transformation'. There is the transformation of water into wine and the
                            > concept of new birth. It seems that this theme not only addresses the
                            > question of how Jesus became divine but also how others might follow
                            > him. The question of how this transformation may occur seems to depend
                            > on what beliefs are held which in turn depend on how the scriptures are
                            > interpreted.
                            >
                            > In chapter one of the gospel virtually all the possible messianic
                            > expectations are introduced demonstrating that the author is aware of
                            > the various speculations and entering in dialogue with them.
                            >
                            > >Also -- if this isn't too far from Johannine-list
                            > >protocol -- does your interpretation make John's or
                            > >Paul's Christology higher? One could argue that since
                            > >Paul calls Christ the image of God, then his
                            > >Christology is higher than a Christology that holds
                            > >that Christ was the first man ever to be made in the
                            > >image of God. What's your opinion on this?
                            > I think John's Christology is frighteningly ambiguous and probably
                            > purposely so. Hence scholars have been able to find in it the lowest and
                            > highest Christologies. I am inclined to agree with L. Hurtado that the
                            > high Christology arose from experience of the risen Christ and that it
                            > is to some such experience that the expression 'we have beheld his
                            > glory' arises from.
                            >
                            > I think an obvious difference between John and Paul is that Paul did not
                            > consider Jesus' life as a man very important but clearly this is not the
                            > case with John. But Paul's idea that Christ was a new Adam, a type of
                            > Adam, differs too. A type of means that there was a precursor but the
                            > 'first' man to be made in the image of God means absolute uniqueness. It
                            > is also a denial that Christ could be equated in any sense with any
                            > other previous figure from history for they were all part of the old
                            > order. Perhaps its not a question of whose Christology is 'highest' but
                            > which is most plausible in the light of contemporary Jewish
                            > understanding.
                            >
                            > --
                            > Roberta Allen
                            >
                            >
                            > 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/
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > 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/
                            >
                            >
                            >
                          • Paul Anderson
                            Thanks for asking, Roberta; no, I was agreeing with you and taking the provenance of the Prologue beyond the Gospel to the Johannine corpus and the worship
                            Message 13 of 16 , Jan 30, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Thanks for asking, Roberta; no, I was agreeing with you and taking the provenance of the Prologue beyond the Gospel to the Johannine corpus and the worship experience of Johannine Christians. As I think about it, though, my point was a bit deflective, so let's stay with your good points about its relation to Chapter 1.

                              Paul

                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: Roberta Allen [mailto:roberta.allen@...]
                              Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 8:29 AM
                              To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: Re: [John_Lit] A Proposed Re-construction of a Postulated
                              Hymn-li ke Composition


                              In message
                              <A6E83C2D8A947E43BFB5593D766E1AC307D136@...>,
                              Paul Anderson <panderso@...> writes
                              >Here's a question: why is the language and content of the Prologue so
                              >similar to that of I John? Was the author of the Epistles the compiler
                              >of the Gospel? Here's one place where I find myself agreeing with
                              >Bultmann on the evidence and resulting inferences (at least some of them).

                              I do hope that question wasn't directed specifically to me. I tackled
                              the Gospel by immersing myself totally in it as suggested by Sir Edwyn
                              Hoskyns. I did not have time to involve myself with myriad of other
                              questions surrounding authorship and dependencies.
                              --
                              Roberta Allen


                              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/
                            • Mary Coloe
                              I have been away and so missed this lively discussion on the prologue. Thanks for the generous sharing of ideas and the suggested reading. I have also noted
                              Message 14 of 16 , Feb 1, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                I have been away and so missed this lively discussion on the prologue.
                                Thanks for the generous sharing of ideas and the suggested reading. I have
                                also noted strong similarlities - at least structurally - between Genesis 1
                                and the Prologue; and also the prologue to 1John and the Gospel.

                                my questions began with the double use of John the Baptist and I noted
                                also the change in the narration that happens in v. 14. vs 1-13 are
                                written in the third person as the story of the Word is told in its various
                                stages. Then at v. 14 narration changes to testimony as the story is
                                retold from the perspective of a first person witness. This led me to set
                                these verses out in two parallel arrays, each with three stophes in between
                                an introduction vs. 1 & 2, and a conclusion v. 18. This is structurally
                                similar to the Genesis 1 creation account.

                                The focus on the physical apprehension of this story is striking in the
                                three stophes - of seeing 3-5, 14 hearing 6-8, 15 and experiencing 9-13,
                                16-17, is similar to the introduction to 1John.

                                I wrote about this in my book God Dwells with Us chapter 1, then in chapter
                                2 lloked at the various traditions speaking of God's presence with Israel
                                from the Ark through to the Wisdom literature.

                                I look forward to reading Endo's work on this rich and complex passage.
                                Regards,
                              • kymhsm <khs@picknowl.com.au>
                                Dear Mary,
                                Message 15 of 16 , Feb 2, 2003
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Dear Mary,

                                  <<< I have also noted strong similarlities - at least structurally -
                                  between Genesis 1 and the Prologue... my questions began
                                  with the double use of John the Baptist>>>

                                  John the Baptist is introduced into the Prologue precisely
                                  because of the Genesis structure. The reason John is
                                  mentioned in what seems a most inappropriate place is
                                  because with him - though it is not stated till later in the first
                                  chapter – is the next part of the Genesis pattern. John had more
                                  to say about the Word / Jesus, and he returned to it, but his
                                  mentioning John exactly where he did in the first part of the
                                  Prologue - and he returns to him in the second part to ensure
                                  that he is still in mind – is because what the Baptist witnessed
                                  is
                                  what John used to continue the Genesis structure. What John
                                  had to match next was, `and the Spirit of God was moving over
                                  the face of the waters.' It was John who saw the Spirit of God
                                  hovering/moving/descending over the waters of the Jordan. See
                                  an abbreviated comparison below.

                                  GEN - [1] In the beginning
                                  JOHN - [1] In the beginning
                                  GEN - God
                                  JOHN - was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
                                  was God. [2] He was in the beginning with God;
                                  GEN - created the heavens and the earth.
                                  JOHN - [3] all things were made through him, and without him
                                  was not anything made that was made.
                                  GEN - [2] The earth was without form and void, and darkness
                                  was upon the face of the deep;
                                  JOHN - [4] In him was life, and the life was the light of men. [5]
                                  The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not
                                  overcome it.
                                  GEN - and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the
                                  waters.
                                  JOHN - [6] There was a man sent from God, whose name was
                                  John. [7] He came for testimony, to bear witness to the light, that
                                  all might believe through him. [8] He was not the light, but came
                                  to bear witness to the light…. [31] I myself did not know him;
                                  but
                                  for this I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to
                                  Israel." [32] And John bore witness, "I saw the Spirit descend as
                                  a dove from heaven, and it remained on him. [33] I myself did not
                                  know him; but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me,
                                  `He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he
                                  who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.' [34] And I have seen and have
                                  borne witness that this is the Son of God."

                                  Sincerely,

                                  Kym Smith
                                  Adelaide
                                  South Australia
                                  khs@...
                                • Thomas W Butler
                                  Dear Kym and Mary, As both of you know, it seems to me that there is yet another reason for the close attention being given in first five verses in the Prolog
                                  Message 16 of 16 , Feb 2, 2003
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Dear Kym and Mary,
                                    As both of you know, it seems to me that there is yet another
                                    reason for the close attention being given in first five verses in the
                                    Prolog of the Fourth Gospel to the first five verses of Genesis (and
                                    thus to the Torah). That is that the Fourth Gospel, particularly
                                    chapters 1-13, makes extensive use of Mosaic oracles as signs.
                                    I have shown how one can define the meaning of these signs by
                                    locating identical symbols or symbolic language (via the Septuagint
                                    version) in the Torah.
                                    The opening of the Prolog "In the beginning..." is an unmistakable
                                    reference to the opening three words of the Torah. I see this as a
                                    sign in itself, pointing the reader to the Torah. If the Fourth Gospel
                                    was used as a text book within the Johannine community, it would
                                    take very little guidance from a teacher within that community to
                                    start those reading that text on a learning process that would
                                    link this gospel with the ancient Law.
                                    Your work, Kym, reveals this dynamic from a structural point of
                                    view. I have provided a concordance of Mosaic signs found in the
                                    Fourth Gospel, which takes a word-study approach. Mary, you
                                    seem to focus upon the role of the narrative as it relates to the
                                    temple language / metaphors / symbols of the Torah. While I
                                    appreciate that your study is focused specifically upon the temple,
                                    it seems to me that some of what you observe about the narrative
                                    connection between the Fourth Gospel and the temple-related
                                    texts of the Torah could be applied to other elements of the
                                    Mosaic narrative as well, such as the festivals of sacrifice and
                                    the priesthood.
                                    At the Johannine Studies section of the SBL annual meeting, it
                                    was suggested that scholars of the Fourth Gospel need a new
                                    framework from which to study it. I believe the so-called Reader-
                                    Response Criticism as presented by R. Allen Culpepper in Anatomy
                                    of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design is such a framework.
                                    The observations that you and I have made, Kym and Mary, seem
                                    to me to fit within that sort of framework.

                                    Yours in Christ's service,
                                    Tom Butler


                                    On Sun, 02 Feb 2003 23:05:42 -0000 "kymhsm <khs@...>"
                                    <khs@...> writes:
                                    > Dear Mary,
                                    >
                                    > <<< I have also noted strong similarlities - at least structurally -
                                    >
                                    > between Genesis 1 and the Prologue... my questions began
                                    > with the double use of John the Baptist>>>
                                    >
                                    > John the Baptist is introduced into the Prologue precisely
                                    > because of the Genesis structure. The reason John is
                                    > mentioned in what seems a most inappropriate place is
                                    > because with him - though it is not stated till later in the first
                                    > chapter – is the next part of the Genesis pattern. John had more
                                    > to say about the Word / Jesus, and he returned to it, but his
                                    > mentioning John exactly where he did in the first part of the
                                    > Prologue - and he returns to him in the second part to ensure
                                    > that he is still in mind – is because what the Baptist witnessed is
                                    > what John used to continue the Genesis structure. What John
                                    > had to match next was, `and the Spirit of God was moving over
                                    > the face of the waters.' It was John who saw the Spirit of God
                                    > hovering/moving/descending over the waters of the Jordan. See
                                    > an abbreviated comparison below.
                                    >
                                    > GEN - [1] In the beginning
                                    > JOHN - [1] In the beginning
                                    > GEN - God
                                    > JOHN - was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
                                    > was God. [2] He was in the beginning with God;
                                    > GEN - created the heavens and the earth.
                                    > JOHN - [3] all things were made through him, and without him
                                    > was not anything made that was made.
                                    > GEN - [2] The earth was without form and void, and darkness
                                    > was upon the face of the deep;
                                    > JOHN - [4] In him was life, and the life was the light of men. [5]
                                    >
                                    > The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not
                                    > overcome it.
                                    > GEN - and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the
                                    > waters.
                                    > JOHN - [6] There was a man sent from God, whose name was
                                    > John. [7] He came for testimony, to bear witness to the light, that
                                    > all might believe through him. [8] He was not the light, but came
                                    > to bear witness to the light…. [31] I myself did not know him;
                                    > but
                                    > for this I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to
                                    > Israel." [32] And John bore witness, "I saw the Spirit descend as
                                    > a dove from heaven, and it remained on him. [33] I myself did not
                                    > know him; but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me,
                                    > `He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he
                                    > who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.' [34] And I have seen and have
                                    > borne witness that this is the Son of God."
                                    >
                                    > Sincerely,
                                    >
                                    > Kym Smith
                                    > Adelaide
                                    > South Australia
                                    > khs@...

                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.