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

Re: [John_Lit] Word and Spirit in the prologue

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 22 , Feb 5 1:53 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      >
      > 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 2 of 22 , Feb 5 6:33 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 22 , Feb 5 1:07 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 22 , Feb 5 1:51 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            "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 5 of 22 , Feb 5 5:22 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              ----- 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 6 of 22 , Feb 5 6:40 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 22 , Feb 5 7:40 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  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 8 of 22 , Feb 6 1:27 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    .
                    >
                    > 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 9 of 22 , Feb 6 4:38 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      "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 10 of 22 , Feb 6 5:48 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        >
                        > 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 11 of 22 , Feb 6 2:33 PM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          "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 12 of 22 , Feb 6 5:42 PM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            ----- 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 13 of 22 , Feb 6 6:00 PM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              [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.