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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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.