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
  • 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 1 of 16 , Jan 29, 2003
      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 2 of 16 , Jan 29, 2003
        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 3 of 16 , Jan 29, 2003
          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 4 of 16 , Jan 29, 2003
            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 5 of 16 , Jan 29, 2003
              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 6 of 16 , Jan 30, 2003
                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 7 of 16 , Jan 30, 2003
                  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 8 of 16 , Jan 30, 2003
                    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 9 of 16 , Jan 30, 2003
                      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 10 of 16 , Jan 30, 2003
                        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 11 of 16 , Feb 1, 2003
                          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 12 of 16 , Feb 2, 2003
                            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 13 of 16 , Feb 2, 2003
                              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.