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

Re: [John_Lit] Word and Spirit in the prologue

Expand Messages
  • Horace Jeffery Hodges
    James responded to Ramsey:
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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.