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
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.