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

Re: [John_Lit] Word and Spirit in the prologue

Expand Messages
  • Ramsey Michaels
    Maybe we did have this conversation before. I think I had it with someone, maybe it was you :-) Two more questions: If the Incarnation begins when the Spirit
    Message 1 of 22 , Feb 4, 2003
      Maybe we did have this conversation before. I think I had it with someone,
      maybe it was you :-)

      Two more questions: If the Incarnation begins when the Spirit comes on Jesus
      (1:32), does it end when he "gives up" or "delivers" the Spirit in 19:30?
      And does it begin again when he breathes again and says to the disciples
      "Receive Holy Spirit" (20:22)? Ignatius, as I recall, has him "in the flesh
      even after the Resurrection" (Smyrn 3:1-3).

      John does imply in 6:51 and 58 that Jesus' *flesh* came down from heaven,
      and this seems to me not incompatible with 1:14, where egeneto (like the
      other egeneto's in the prolog) probably means "came," not "became."

      Interesting discussion.

      Ramsey
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "McGrath, James" <jfmcgrat@...>
      To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 10:44 AM
      Subject: [John_Lit] Word and Spirit in the prologue


      > Ramsey,
      >
      > Thanks for your quick reply. The second text you cite might well be
      > counter-evidence. The first, unless it is taken to mean that Jesus
      > descended from heaven as a complete, flesh-and-blood human being,
      > probably doesn't prove anything one way or the other.
      >
      > As for 18:37, one of the questions I wrestle with is how the 'I' of
      > Jesus and the 'I' of the Word relate to one another. I know that the
      > later church answered 'without division, without confusion, without
      > separation...', but I am determined to try to listen to John on his own
      > terms. John 8:40, in which Jesus speaks of himself as 'a man who tells
      > what he heard from God', doesn't sound like the sort of thing one would
      > expect the pre-existent Word to say. John Robinson, in his book The
      > Priority of John, asks how much of the language of being 'from God' in
      > John's Gospel is metaphysical and how much refers to Jesus as a human
      > being sent by God. I don't have a clear-cut answer to the question, but
      > presumably, in light of John 17:14-18, one is no more obliged to take
      > all references to 'coming into this world' and 'being sent into this
      > world' to refer to the incarnation, than to view Jesus' followers as
      > likewise of literal heavenly origin!
      >
      > So I'm not sure that either of the references you cited is incompatible
      > with the view that I suggested about Word and Spirit. BTW, am I right in
      > vaguely recollecting that we have had this conversation before? :) I
      > hope it continues!
      >
      > Thanks for your feedback!
      >
      > James
      >
      > *****************************
      > Dr. James F. McGrath
      > Assistant Professor of Religion
      > Butler University, Indianapolis
      > http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/
      > *****************************
      >
      >
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Ramsey Michaels [mailto:profram@...]
      > Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 10:15 AM
      > To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Word and Spirit in the prologue
      >
      >
      > James:
      >
      > As to the identification of Jn 1:14 and 1:32, with the so-called
      > adoptionism that this implies:
      >
      > 1. Is it something of a problem for this view that Jesus says "I" came
      > down from heaven (6:38)? And even that the "bread" that "came down from
      > heaven" is his "flesh" (6:51).
      >
      > 2. And is it even more of a problem that Jesus tells Pilate, "I was born
      > for this, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth"
      > (18:37). Doesn't the parallelism suggest that the Word "came into the
      > world" by birth, just like everyone else, not by baptism?
      >
      > Ramsey Michaels
      >
      >
      >
      > 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/
      >
      >
    • John Lupia
      ... Dear James: Thank you for the citations on Watson, Talbert and Fuller. However, the essential source for the historical context in which interpretations
      Message 2 of 22 , Feb 4, 2003
        --- "McGrath, James" <jfmcgrat@...> wrote:

        > I'm interested in discussing this further, so let me
        > know your thoughts!
        >

        Dear James:

        Thank you for the citations on Watson, Talbert and
        Fuller. However, the essential source for the
        historical context in which interpretations of
        Christology emerged is Fr. Aloys Grillmeier's
        multi-volumed work: Christ in Christian Tradition
        (1965-1997). This work has been much sadly neglected
        and remarkably does not even appear in doctoral
        dissertations on Johannine Christology. This is a sad
        commentary on the poor state of current research.

        John

        =====
        John N. Lupia, III
        31 Norwich Drive
        Toms River, New Jersey 08757 USA
        Phone: (732) 341-8689
        Email: jlupia2@...
        Editor, Roman Catholic News
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Roman-Catholic-News

        __________________________________________________
        Do you Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
        http://mailplus.yahoo.com
      • Horace Jeffery Hodges
        James responded to Ramsey:
        Message 3 of 22 , Feb 4, 2003
          James responded to Ramsey:

          <Thanks for your quick reply. The second text you cite
          might well be counter-evidence. The first, unless it
          is taken to mean that Jesus descended from heaven as a
          complete, flesh-and-blood human being, probably
          doesn't prove anything one way or the other.>

          I wonder if the expression "the Logos became flesh"
          was intended to cover this sort of problem. If the
          fourth evangelist meant that the Logos, which is
          spirit, became flesh, then he could reconcile his
          presentation of Jesus's statment about his flesh being
          from heaven with his view that Jesus was born in a
          human way.

          If the evangelist meant something like this, then his
          view distantly echoes that of some later Gnostics who
          believed, according to Irenaeus, that Jesus became
          incarnate but "passed through Mary like water through
          a tube" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies III, 11, 3).

          Interestingly, this point is noted by Irenaeus in his
          discussion of the Gnostics' use of John's Gospel.
          Could these Gnostics have noted the fourth
          evangelist's use of "the Logos became flesh" to hold
          that Jesus became incarnate without taking on human
          flesh?

          But what did the fourth evangelist mean by it?

          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
        • kymhsm <khs@picknowl.com.au>
          Dear Jeffery, James wrote (to Ramsay):
          Message 4 of 22 , Feb 4, 2003
            Dear Jeffery,

            James wrote (to Ramsay):

            <<<Thanks for your quick reply. The second text you cite might
            well be counter-evidence. The first, unless it is taken to mean
            that Jesus descended from heaven as a complete, flesh -and-
            blood human being, probably doesn't prove anything one way or
            the other.>>>

            To which you peplied (in part):

            <<< I wonder if the expression "the Logos became flesh" was
            intended to cover this sort of problem.....But what did the fourth
            evangelist mean by it? >>>

            I suspect that a good sense of what John meant by it can be
            found in the opening of 1 John.

            [1] That which was from the beginning, which we have heard,
            which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon
            and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life -- [2] the
            life was made manifest, and we saw it, and testify to it, and
            proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father and
            was made manifest to us -- [3] that which we have seen and
            heard we proclaim also to you, so that you may have fellowship
            with us; and our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son
            Jesus Christ.

            As a further comment, James' words "unless it is taken to mean
            that Jesus descended from heaven as a complete, flesh -and-
            blood human being" need some clarification. James seems to
            want to read John in isolation - I am not sure that even John
            intended it to be so read. But from the moment of the Spirit's
            coming upon Mary and the overshadowing of the Most High (Lk
            1:35), i.e. from the moment of conception, before even the first
            cell had divided, there was the Word made flesh (cf Lk 1:41-45).

            The Prologue tells us that the Word pre-existed with God and as
            God and that the Word became flesh. If God is Spirit (Jn 4:24)
            then we cannot understand that the Word who was God had a
            body of flesh with which to descend (as per James statement
            perhaps slightly misrepresented). If he did then he would not be
            truly human as we are and as he needed to be to redeem
            humanity. The Word becoming flesh begins with the conception
            as I have mentioned. That the Word made flesh rose from the
            dead and ascended to the Father in truly human form is another
            - though wonderful - issue altoghether.

            Sincerely,

            Kym Smith
            Adelaide
            South Australia
            khs@...




            S
          • kymhsm <khs@picknowl.com.au>
            Dear Jeffery, James wrote (to Ramsay):
            Message 5 of 22 , Feb 4, 2003
              Dear Jeffery,

              James wrote (to Ramsay):

              <<<Thanks for your quick reply. The second text you cite might
              well be counter-evidence. The first, unless it is taken to mean
              that Jesus descended from heaven as a complete, flesh -and-
              blood human being, probably doesn't prove anything one way or
              the other.>>>

              To which you peplied (in part):

              <<< I wonder if the expression "the Logos became flesh" was
              intended to cover this sort of problem.....But what did the fourth
              evangelist mean by it? >>>

              I suspect that a good sense of what John meant by it can be
              found in the opening of 1 John.

              [1] That which was from the beginning, which we have heard,
              which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon
              and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life -- [2] the
              life was made manifest, and we saw it, and testify to it, and
              proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father and
              was made manifest to us -- [3] that which we have seen and
              heard we proclaim also to you, so that you may have fellowship
              with us; and our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son
              Jesus Christ.

              As a further comment, James' words "unless it is taken to mean
              that Jesus descended from heaven as a complete, flesh -and-
              blood human being" need some clarification. James seems to
              want to read John in isolation - I am not sure that even John
              intended it to be so read. But from the moment of the Spirit's
              coming upon Mary and the overshadowing of the Most High (Lk
              1:35), i.e. from the moment of conception, before even the first
              cell had divided, there was the Word made flesh (cf Lk 1:41-45).

              The Prologue tells us that the Word pre-existed with God and as
              God and that the Word became flesh. If God is Spirit (Jn 4:24)
              then we cannot understand that the Word who was God had a
              body of flesh with which to descend (as per James statement
              perhaps slightly misrepresented). If he did then he would not be
              truly human as we are and as he needed to be to redeem
              humanity. The Word becoming flesh begins with the conception
              as I have mentioned. That the Word made flesh rose from the
              dead and ascended to the Father in truly human form is another
              - though wonderful - issue altoghether.

              Sincerely,

              Kym Smith
              Adelaide
              South Australia
              khs@...




              S
            • Horace Jeffery Hodges
              Perhaps I was too vague:
              Message 6 of 22 , Feb 4, 2003
                Perhaps I was too vague:

                <<< I wonder if the expression "the Logos became
                flesh" was intended to cover this sort of problem ....
                But what did the fourth evangelist mean by it? >>>

                I meant that there can be a difference between stating
                that "the Logos became flesh" and stating something
                like "the Logos took on flesh." In the former case,
                one could claim that the flesh, being
                spirit-transformed-into-flesh, had in fact descended
                from heaven in its pre-transformed state. In the
                latter case, the spirit did not become flesh in a
                strict sense but simply took on flesh, such that the
                statement about the flesh descending from heaven might
                be purely metaphorical.

                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
              • Big_Mart_98 <big_mart_98@yahoo.com>
                ... He does not mention Jesus being born. He does later refer to his mother, but such inconsistencies do not seem to have bothered ancient people very much,
                Message 7 of 22 , Feb 5, 2003
                  >
                  > I wonder if the expression "the Logos became flesh"
                  > was intended to cover this sort of problem. If the
                  > fourth evangelist meant that the Logos, which is
                  > spirit, became flesh, then he could reconcile his
                  > presentation of Jesus's statment about his flesh being
                  > from heaven with his view that Jesus was born in a
                  > human way.
                  >
                  He does not mention Jesus being born. He does later refer to his
                  mother, but such inconsistencies do not seem to have bothered ancient
                  people very much, either the learned or the masses. On the other
                  hand they bother us, anyway those of us who think about such things
                  at all, quite a lot. On the basis of the evidence we have, the
                  Christ myth theory is tenable. If you believe in a historic Jesus,
                  the Loisy thesis, that his followers still felt him to be with them
                  in a spiritual way, and a mythology evolved from this, is the most
                  tenable. Je ne crois plus au Pere Noel.
                  Martin Edwards.
                • GustavSym@aol.com
                  In a message dated 2/4/2003 7:09:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, ... Kym: I appreciate your systematic response to this difficult question. I also find it
                  Message 8 of 22 , Feb 5, 2003
                    In a message dated 2/4/2003 7:09:46 PM Eastern Standard Time,
                    khs@... writes:

                    > The Prologue tells us that the Word pre-existed with God and as
                    > God and that the Word became flesh. If God is Spirit (Jn 4:24)
                    > then we cannot understand that the Word who was God had a
                    > body of flesh with which to descend (as per James statement
                    > perhaps slightly misrepresented). If he did then he would not be
                    > truly human as we are and as he needed to be to redeem
                    > humanity. The Word becoming flesh begins with the conception
                    > as I have mentioned. That the Word made flesh rose from the
                    > dead and ascended to the Father in truly human form is another
                    > - though wonderful - issue altoghether.
                    >

                    Kym:

                    I appreciate your systematic response to this difficult question. I also find
                    it problematical to see the word-becoming-flesh structurally similar to the
                    "bread from heaven" discourse.

                    kai [h]o logos sarx egeneto: the Word became flesh

                    About this statement, Jeff Hodges offers the following analysis:

                    >>I meant that there can be a difference between stating
                    that "the Logos became flesh" and stating something
                    like "the Logos took on flesh." In the former case,
                    one could claim that the flesh, being
                    spirit-transformed-into-flesh, had in fact descended
                    from heaven in its pre-transformed state. In the
                    latter case, the spirit did not become flesh in a
                    strict sense but simply took on flesh, such that the
                    statement about the flesh descending from heaven might
                    be purely metaphorical.<<

                    I agree that there is a great difference between the two readings explored
                    here. Strictly speaking, translations such as 'took on flesh,' or 'was made
                    flesh' are difficult because *egeneto*, aorist indicative of *ginomai* ('come
                    into being' , 'become' etc), disallows a passive construct ('was made');
                    moreover, 'to take on flesh' is already a commitment to a specific reading of
                    the text that is far more exclusive than the more literal (and grammatically
                    'correct'), 'became flesh.'

                    Nonetheless, Jeff Hodges' metaphorical sense of "descent" informs all
                    Christologies "from above," even though the prologue offers no such motion
                    explicitly. Only from subsequent pericopes( intra-, or para-textually) do we
                    learn of such motion, and these are the pericopes that function as a lens
                    through which the prologue is read. *Egeneto* implies no descent, no vector,
                    no direction from which the "Word" comes; rather it gently implies a *time*.
                    Dimensionally then, the word became flesh not from above but from the
                    beginning (*arche*). Perhaps the structurally essential pericope (as a lens
                    for reading the prologue) is not the "bread from heaven," but the stunning
                    image of time in Jesus' most succinct rebuttal: "before Abraham was, I AM"
                    [Jn. 8:58].

                    Joseph Calandrino (henceforth, Joe C.)



                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • John Lupia
                    The Prologue of John contains central key statements or propositions that are essential themes and threads that run throughout the Gospel. A few examples (just
                    Message 9 of 22 , Feb 5, 2003
                      The Prologue of John contains central key statements
                      or propositions that are essential themes and threads
                      that run throughout the Gospel. A few examples (just
                      enough to give you the hint) are given below.

                      The Johannine Prologue is certainly modeled on the
                      Genesis Prologue where EN ARCH has a cosmogenetic
                      meaning found in antique Greek philosophical writings
                      that predate the supposed LXX translation at
                      Alexandria.

                      Aristotle's Metaphysics 983b11, TOUTO STOICEION KAI
                      TAUTHN ARCHN FASIN EINAI TON ONTON is a discussion on
                      "the first principle element" that signifies the
                      primordial element which in his theory as well as
                      Anaximander's meant "the first principle and cause of
                      all things (creation)". According to Simplicius,
                      Aristotelis physica commentaria 150.23 the concept
                      first appeared in Anaximander.

                      These same Greek ideas were certainly absorbed
                      becoming part of Hellenistic Jewish thinking and St.
                      John saw the value in borrowing them to express the
                      Jewish concept of creation. The Jewish idea is that
                      God spoke the eternal word from which all things come.
                      John 1,1 expresses this in the Peripatetic formula:

                      1.1a EN ARCH EN hO LOGOS
                      "The first principle and cause of all things was the
                      Word.

                      1.1b KAI hO LOGOS EN PROS TON QEON
                      and the Word was with God

                      1.1c KAI QEOS EN hO LOGOS
                      and the Word was God.

                      The first verse is syllogistic with each clause
                      having propositions: 1.1a + 1.1b Q.E.D. 1.1c

                      John then paints a picture that the Word is the
                      creator of all things and humans, and that His life is
                      the light of humankind. The light shone in the
                      darkness but the darkness could not comprehend it.

                      This final note by John is a play on words where the
                      darkness (SKOTIA) is unenlightened humanity. So God
                      sent John (vv. 1-8) who was not himself the light but
                      a witness of it to the world so that could come to see
                      through the eyes of faith that the light was Jesus
                      Christ, whom they did not recognize (v.10), nor
                      accepted (v.11 and repeated in v. 33).

                      However, those who did accept Him (Jesus) he made
                      children of God (v.12). In v. 13 John introduces the
                      theme that this transformation into children of God
                      is not through biological reproductive means (repeated
                      in John 3:3).

                      In v. 14 John tells us that the Word became flesh (KAI
                      hO LOGOS SARX EGENETO = Et Verbum caro factum est)
                      immediately after he just finished speaking about
                      natural human biological birth contrastively with the
                      new birth that Word brings to humankind. The logic of
                      the Prologue is very lucid and clearly shows a
                      pre-existent Christ who became a living man of flesh
                      and blood, themes which John will develop in
                      Eucharistic theology.


                      John


                      =====
                      John N. Lupia, III
                      31 Norwich Drive
                      Toms River, New Jersey 08757 USA
                      Phone: (732) 341-8689
                      Email: jlupia2@...
                      Editor, Roman Catholic News
                      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Roman-Catholic-News

                      __________________________________________________
                      Do you Yahoo!?
                      Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
                      http://mailplus.yahoo.com
                    • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                      ... The claim implicit within this statement is that you have, at the very least, scoured the Patristic commentary and sermonic tradition on John -- where
                      Message 10 of 22 , Feb 5, 2003
                        "Big_Mart_98 " wrote:

                        > >
                        > > I wonder if the expression "the Logos became flesh"
                        > > was intended to cover this sort of problem. If the
                        > > fourth evangelist meant that the Logos, which is
                        > > spirit, became flesh, then he could reconcile his
                        > > presentation of Jesus's statment about his flesh being
                        > > from heaven with his view that Jesus was born in a
                        > > human way.
                        > >
                        > He does not mention Jesus being born. He does later refer to his
                        > mother, but such inconsistencies do not seem to have bothered ancient
                        > people very much, either the learned or the masses.

                        The claim implicit within this statement is that you have, at the very
                        least, scoured the Patristic commentary and sermonic tradition on John --
                        where one would expect any "bother" on the part of ancient peoples to have
                        been expressed -- and have found nothing in this regard. How else would you
                        be able to make your claim with such certainty.

                        So I wonder if you'd be kind enough to tell us just how much of -- and what
                        it is specifically within -- the patristic commentary and sermonic tradition
                        on John you have actually read so that we can evaluate juts how well
                        established your claim actually is.

                        Thanks in advance.

                        Yours,

                        Jeffrey Gibson
                        --

                        Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

                        1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
                        Chicago, IL 60626

                        jgibson000@...
                      • Paul Schmehl
                        ... From: Jeffrey B. Gibson To: Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 3:51 PM Subject: Re:
                        Message 11 of 22 , Feb 5, 2003
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: "Jeffrey B. Gibson" <jgibson000@...>
                          To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                          Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 3:51 PM
                          Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Word and Spirit in the prologue
                          >
                          > So I wonder if you'd be kind enough to tell us just how much of -- and
                          what
                          > it is specifically within -- the patristic commentary and sermonic
                          tradition
                          > on John you have actually read so that we can evaluate juts how well
                          > established your claim actually is.
                          >
                          This now makes two of us who have requested the same evidence. I hope it
                          will be forthcoming.

                          Paul Schmehl
                          pschmehl@...
                          http://www.utdallas.edu/~pauls/
                        • Horace Jeffery Hodges
                          I was wondering, too, and was on the verge of inquiring but decided to wait. Jeffrey Gibson has posed the query much better than I could have. Jeffery Hodges
                          Message 12 of 22 , Feb 5, 2003
                            I was wondering, too, and was on the verge of
                            inquiring but decided to wait. Jeffrey Gibson has
                            posed the query much better than I could have.

                            Jeffery Hodges

                            --- Paul Schmehl <pschmehl@...> wrote:
                            > ----- Original Message -----
                            > From: "Jeffrey B. Gibson" <jgibson000@...>
                            > To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                            > Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 3:51 PM
                            > Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Word and Spirit in the
                            > prologue
                            > >
                            > > So I wonder if you'd be kind enough to tell us
                            > just how much of -- and
                            > what
                            > > it is specifically within -- the patristic
                            > commentary and sermonic
                            > tradition
                            > > on John you have actually read so that we can
                            > evaluate juts how well
                            > > established your claim actually is.
                            > >
                            > This now makes two of us who have requested the same
                            > evidence. I hope it
                            > will be forthcoming.
                            >
                            > Paul Schmehl
                            > pschmehl@...
                            > http://www.utdallas.edu/~pauls/
                            >
                            >
                            > 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/
                            >
                            >


                            =====
                            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
                          • kymhsm <khs@picknowl.com.au>
                            Dear Joe C. I am concerned about the frequency with which I am posting to this list and the time involved in doing so. However, I wonder if you could say a
                            Message 13 of 22 , Feb 5, 2003
                              Dear Joe C.

                              I am concerned about the frequency with which I am posting to
                              this list and the time involved in doing so. However, I wonder if
                              you could say a little more about what you wrote, especially the
                              second half which I have enclosed with [[[-]]]?

                              <<<Jeff Hodges' metaphorical sense of "descent" informs all
                              Christologies "from above," even though the prologue offers no
                              such motion explicitly. Only from subsequent pericopes( intra-, or
                              para-textually) do we learn of such motion, and these are the
                              pericopes that function as a lens through which the prologue is
                              read. *Egeneto* implies no descent, no vector, no direction from
                              which the "Word" comes; rather it gently implies a *time*.
                              [[[Dimensionally then, the word became flesh not from above but
                              from the beginning (*arche*). Perhaps the structurally essential
                              pericope (as a lens for reading the prologue) is not the "bread
                              from heaven," but the stunning image of time in Jesus' most
                              succinct rebuttal: "before Abraham was, I AM" [Jn. 8:58].]]]>>>

                              Now I am a `bear-of-little-brain' and often miss the subtleties that
                              most see at a glance so perhaps I just can't grasp what you
                              mean. It seems to me that you are saying that the Word / Son /
                              Jesus was always in the flesh. I can understand if, by that, you
                              mean that it was always part of the Father's plan for him to
                              become one with us in our humanity. However, that is different
                              from saying that he was `flesh' from `the beginning' (eternally?),
                              `before Abraham...'. I understand that he took on flesh – or the
                              appearance of flesh – to appear to Abraham (e.g. Gen 18), but
                              that is different from `becoming flesh'.

                              Thankyou,

                              Kym Smith
                              Adelaide
                              South Australia
                              khs@...
                            • Big_Mart_98 <big_mart_98@yahoo.com>
                              . ... and what ... tradition ... You re right, I haven t read any of it. Perhaps you could refer me to those fathers who expressed concern that John does not
                              Message 14 of 22 , Feb 6, 2003
                                .
                                >
                                > So I wonder if you'd be kind enough to tell us just how much of --
                                and what
                                > it is specifically within -- the patristic commentary and sermonic
                                tradition
                                > on John you have actually read so that we can evaluate juts how well
                                > established your claim actually is.

                                You're right, I haven't read any of it. Perhaps you could refer me
                                to those fathers who expressed concern that John does not mention
                                Jesus being born but later refers to his mother. I should also be
                                interested to know which fathers were worried by the fact that, in
                                the Synoptics, Jesus's is mother is called Mary; but, while John does
                                not name her, he names her sister Mary of Clopas. This would be a
                                good place to start my patristic studies.

                                Martin Edwards BA (UEA), PGCE (Hull), RT.
                              • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                                ... I think before I do, I d like to be sure about what it is that you are owning up to in your admission above. Are you acknowledging not only (a) that your
                                Message 15 of 22 , Feb 6, 2003
                                  "Big_Mart_98 " wrote:

                                  > .
                                  > >
                                  > > So I wonder if you'd be kind enough to tell us just how much of --
                                  > and what
                                  > > it is specifically within -- the patristic commentary and sermonic
                                  > tradition
                                  > > on John you have actually read so that we can evaluate juts how well
                                  > > established your claim actually is.
                                  >
                                  > You're right, I haven't read any of it. Perhaps you could refer me

                                  > to those fathers who expressed concern that John does not mention
                                  > Jesus being born but later refers to his mother. I should also be
                                  > interested to know which fathers were worried by the fact that, in
                                  > the Synoptics, Jesus's is mother is called Mary; but, while John does
                                  > not name her, he names her sister Mary of Clopas. This would be a
                                  > good place to start my patristic studies

                                  I think before I do, I'd like to be sure about what it is that you are owning
                                  up to in your admission above.

                                  Are you acknowledging not only (a) that your claim about what ancient peoples
                                  were not bothered with has no real grounding (since you have had no direct
                                  contact with what ancient people thought) and therefore was just a surmise;
                                  but also (b) that your claim is wrong?

                                  Yours,

                                  JG

                                  --

                                  Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

                                  1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
                                  Chicago, IL 60626

                                  jgibson000@...
                                • Big_Mart_98 <big_mart_98@yahoo.com>
                                  ... ancient peoples ... no direct ... surmise; ... a)My use of the word seem implies a surmise. b)It may be right or wrong: I am asking you to demonstrate
                                  Message 16 of 22 , Feb 6, 2003
                                    >
                                    > Are you acknowledging not only (a) that your claim about what
                                    ancient peoples
                                    > were not bothered with has no real grounding (since you have had
                                    no direct
                                    > contact with what ancient people thought) and therefore was just a
                                    surmise;
                                    > but also (b) that your claim is wrong?
                                    >
                                    > Yours,
                                    >
                                    > JG
                                    >
                                    > --
                                    >
                                    > Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

                                    a)My use of the word "seem" implies a surmise.
                                    b)It may be right or wrong: I am asking you to demonstrate that it
                                    was wrong.
                                    Mart.
                                  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                                    ... Sorry, but this is to shift the burden of proof, a tactic which is unacceptable on academic lists. You made a claim. The burden for demonstrating its
                                    Message 17 of 22 , Feb 6, 2003
                                      "Big_Mart_98 " wrote:

                                      > >
                                      > > Are you acknowledging not only (a) that your claim about what
                                      > ancient peoples
                                      > > were not bothered with has no real grounding (since you have had
                                      > no direct
                                      > > contact with what ancient people thought) and therefore was just a
                                      > surmise;
                                      > > but also (b) that your claim is wrong?
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      > a)My use of the word "seem" implies a surmise.
                                      > b)It may be right or wrong: I am asking you to demonstrate that it
                                      > was wrong.
                                      > Mart.

                                      Sorry, but this is to shift the burden of proof, a tactic which is
                                      unacceptable on academic lists.

                                      You made a claim. The burden for demonstrating its truth, let alone that you
                                      had any right to make it, is yours.

                                      JG
                                      --

                                      Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

                                      1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
                                      Chicago, IL 60626

                                      jgibson000@...
                                    • Paul Schmehl
                                      ... From: To: Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 7:48 AM Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Word and Spirit
                                      Message 18 of 22 , Feb 6, 2003
                                        ----- Original Message -----
                                        From: <big_mart_98@...>
                                        To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                                        Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 7:48 AM
                                        Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Word and Spirit in the prologue
                                        >
                                        > a)My use of the word "seem" implies a surmise.

                                        This is equivocating. You clearly stated (twice) a belief that the ancients
                                        were not concerned with illogical statements. You *never* indicated that it
                                        was a surmise. Had you stated that it was a surmise, I would have rebutted
                                        it rather than requesting the evidence for your statement.

                                        > b)It may be right or wrong: I am asking you to demonstrate that it
                                        > was wrong.

                                        Bzzz! Wrong answer. *You* made the statement. Now *you* get to back it
                                        up. But you can't, because you've admitted you haven't read the patristics
                                        *at all*.

                                        Here's some food for thought. If the ancients weren't concerned with
                                        illogical statements, why do we find so many corrections to the text in
                                        places where the "original" was illogical? Why do we find the clear removal
                                        or replacement of "troubling" statements or "contradictory" statements
                                        (commonly known as "difficult readings")? Why did Tatian write his
                                        Diatessaron? Why was so much work done on harmonization of the texts?

                                        The answers to these questions point clearly in the direction of people who
                                        were troubled by contradictions and illogical statements in the text.

                                        Frankly, I think the assumption that we moderns are "more logical" or "more
                                        rational" than the ancients points clearly to hubris. In some ways we have
                                        never even approached the level of their achievements. Think about it.
                                        *All* modern law is based upon the code of Hammurabi, which dates to 1800
                                        years BCE (and I could easily argue that Hammurabi stole his ideas from even
                                        older civilizations.) All modern philosophy is built upon the foundation of
                                        Socrates, Plato and the other great Greek thinkers. What can modern man
                                        point to that is as lofty as those accomplishments?

                                        Paul Schmehl
                                        pschmehl@...
                                        http://www.utdallas.edu/~pauls/
                                      • Horace Jeffery Hodges
                                        [I attempted to send this some hours ago, but my server was, apparently, having problems, so my post bounced.] Big_Mart_98 --
                                        Message 19 of 22 , Feb 6, 2003
                                          [I attempted to send this some hours ago, but my
                                          server was, apparently, having problems, so my post
                                          bounced.]

                                          Big_Mart_98 <big_mart_98@...> -- concerning
                                          Jeffrey Gibson's challenge to his statement that
                                          ancient people were unconcerned with logical
                                          consistency -- wrote:

                                          "It may be right or wrong: I am asking you to
                                          demonstrate that it was wrong."

                                          But why should Jeffrey Gibson have to do this? You
                                          made the assertion (originally, in response to one of
                                          my posts), so you need to back it up.

                                          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
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.