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

[John_Lit] Re: Water symbolism in John's Gospel and I John 5:7-8

Expand Messages
  • mwgrondin@comcast.net
    ... Let s start with this latter claim. You speak of the noun DOXA, but there s also the verb-form glorify . With respect to the noun DOXA, so far is your
    Message 1 of 69 , Dec 16, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      --- Matthew Estrada wrote:
      > [John] designed [the Cana] miracle to BE the miracle of the Cross
      > and Resurrection and outpouring of the Holy Spirit. This is why
      > the disciples "believe" and see Jesus' DOXA (a word only used in
      > John to refer to cross/resurrection).

      Let's start with this latter claim. You speak of the noun DOXA, but
      there's also the verb-form "glorify". With respect to the noun DOXA,
      so far is your claim from being true that I'm unable to find ANY of
      the 12 occurrences of DOXA in GJn that clearly refer to resurrection
      (there is no "miracle of the cross"). Sometimes, DOXA is used to
      refer to the glory of God. Where it refers to Jesus, however, it
      invariably invokes his original and on-going glory. At 17.5, for
      example, Jesus is made to refer to the glory that he had with the
      Father before the world came into existence. This is presumably
      also "the glory you have given me" that is referred to in the last
      two occurrences of DOXA at 17.22 and 17.24. There is no occurrence
      of DOXA after that - neither at the cross nor at the resurrection,
      nor in any of the post-resurrection scenes.

      With respect to the verb-form, I think you must have in mind 7.39
      ("... the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet
      glorified.") But this passage (which is in the nature of an aside)
      can't be taken as sole indicator of the thinking of the author -
      not only because it appears to be the only one that refers to J's
      resurrection (correct me if I'm wrong), but also because there's
      another miracle story wherein Jesus is said to be glorified, namely
      the raising of Lazarus. At 11.4, Jesus is made to say "This sickness
      (of Lazarus) is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the
      Son of God may be glorified by it." There's also the element of
      belief in the story - this time not of the disciples, but of
      outsiders: "Many of the Jews (or Judeans) who had come to Mary,
      and having beheld what he did, believed in him."

      If one had to choose which of the two miracle-stories - Cana or the
      raising of Lazarus - represented the resurrection, the Lazarus story
      would clearly win out. I suppose one could argue that the water
      that's put into the jars at Cana was in some sense "resurrected"
      into the form of spirit - as represented by the "new/good wine".
      But this kind of metaphorical "resurrection" would seem to be
      antithetical to our author's view of the resurrection itself -
      according to which the resurrected Jesus is most definitely not
      just a spirit. Which brings me back to my suggested revision to
      your theory. In order for Cana to represent the resurrection, the
      "new/good wine" must, I think, be taken to represent both spirit
      and blood - just as the resurrected Jesus was for our author both a
      spiritual being who could walk through locked doors and a material
      being whom Thomas could touch. Putting it another way, IF Cana is
      a microcosm of the author's Christology, then to fix on one
      connotation of "wine" to the exclusion of others (ironic, given
      that you find THREE levels of meaning to ARXH!) is to ignore the
      author's gospel-wide insistence on BOTH body/blood and spirit.

      Regards,
      Mike Grondin
      Mt. Clemens, MI
    • Jeffrey B. Gibson
      ... Oh come on, Frank. It is petitio principii to assume, as you do, that what Philo was allegedly up to in his use of (a somewhat different) portion of
      Message 69 of 69 , Jan 4, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        fmmccoy wrote:


        > Further, this phrase immediately follows this part of Gen 22:4 quoted by
        > So, it is Philo's interpretation of something in this quote.
        >
        > Further, it cannot be his interpretation of the phrase, "at the place
        > (TOPON) which God had told him of"--for Philo interpreted this place to be
        > the Logos. See Som i (65-66), "'He came to the place (TOPON) of which God
        > had told him; and lifting up his eyes he saw the place (TOPON) from afar.'
        > Tell me, pray, did he who had come to the place see it from afar? Nay, it
        > would seem that one and the same word is used of two different things: one
        > of these is a divine Logos, the other God Who was before the Logos. One who
        > has come from abroad under Sophia's guidance arrives at the former place,
        > thus attaining in the divine Logos the sum and consummation of service."

        Oh come on, Frank. It is petitio principii to assume, as you do, that what
        Philo was allegedly up to in his use of (a somewhat different) portion of Gen.
        22:4 in On Dreams is the key to understanding what he was up to when he uses Gen
        22:4 in Migration or that the key to the terms he uses Migration is to be found
        in their use in On Dreams. This never allows for variance in Philo. More
        importantly, it takes no account of how the Rabbinic technique Philo employs in
        both texts -- midrashic appeal to a biblical text as a warrant for some truth he
        has derived from elsewhere -- was never employed as you think it was, with there
        meaning that was drawn by a particular Rabbi from one biblical text always being
        the same one he drew from that same text when employed within a different
        context or argument. Besides that, was not On Dreams written **after**
        Migration? Why do you expect that the meaning that Philo draws in On Dreams from
        a different portion of Gen 22:4 than is drawn upon in Migrations, to support a
        point that is entirely different from the one he is trying to make in Migration
        with the Genesis quotation, is the meaning that the terms of that quote have in
        Migrations?

        Have you actually looked at what the purpose of Migration is? Of On Dreams?


        > By elimination, then, Philo's comment, "having passed the greater number of
        > the divisions of time and already quitting them for the the existence that
        > is timeless (which means, "having passed the first two of the three
        > divisions of time (i.e., the past and the present) and entering into the
        > third division of the future that merges into timeless eternity")"

        Um, no it doesn't. It has to do with the Platonic idea of distinctions between
        appearance and reality, and how the true seeker of wisdom will not allow himself
        to be guided by appearance, rather than chronological divisions of past present
        and future.

        > is
        > his.interpretation of this phrase, "TH hMERA TH TRITH". Hence, in the
        > context of Mig (139), Philo allegorically interprets this phrase to mean "on
        > the third "day" of the future"

        See above. And also -- to interpret it this way makes nonsense of the appeal to
        the biblical text and the interpretation he places upon it and of the larger
        context preceding 139 which is discussing ethics.

        >
        >
        > >what on earth makes you think that John's readers, never mind
        > John,
        > > were familiar with The Migrations of Abraham?
        >
        > What makes you think they weren't familiar with On the Migration of Abraham?

        Sorry, but this is a shifting of the burden of proof. So I won't answer.

        > Doesn't there appear to be something anomalous about (5)? Why call it the
        > third day when there already has been a third day?

        It's an idiom, as Barret and others note..

        But knowing that yo won't trust me on what I say above, let me suggest that you
        run your interpretation of Migrations 139 by David Satran, at the Department of
        Comparative Religion at Hebrew University? He is the fellow who has been
        commissioned by the editorial board of the Brill Philo of Alexandria Commentary
        Series (see http://www.nd.edu/~philojud/38.htm) to write the commentary on
        Migrations.

        I'd be curious to know not only if he thinks your interpretation of the
        expression in question is correct, but whether he agrees with you that at Jn 2
        John was drawing upon a(n alleged) meaning of TH hHMERAS TH TRITHS that
        **only** Philo gave to it.

        He may be contacted at: satran@...

        Yours,

        Jeffrey
        --

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

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

        jgibson000@...
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.