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

Re: [John_Lit] Re: The Third Day

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
    ... [snip] ... I think to be exact one should run the **exact** phrase found in John 2 -- (EN) TRISIN hHMERAIS -- not only through the Biblical corpus, but
    Message 1 of 69 , Jan 1, 2004
      Timothy Jenney wrote:

      > Mike, Matt, Et. Al.,
      > I've read with interest the various comments on this thread [which I
      > initiated sometime before the holidays].
      > I agree that the third day is likely a reference [forward] to the
      > resurrection. I suspect it also refers [backward] to one or more OT
      > passages (ie Gen. 22[?]).


      > Just for fun, I ran the phrase "third day" through my electronic
      > concordance [Accordance, a really GREAT program]. I've appended the
      > results to the end of this message, in case anyone wants to have more
      > fun with numbers. ;-) There are some really interesting possibilities
      > herein.

      I think to be exact one should run the **exact** phrase found in John 2 -- (EN)
      TRISIN hHMERAIS -- not only through the Biblical corpus, but through the secular
      Greek corpus as well, to get a sense of what John was on about when he employed
      the expression in question.

      Excluding the two instances in John (2.19, 20) and the two in Matthew and Mark
      respectively (Matt 27.40
      Marc 15.29), here, according to the TLG E disk, are all of the instances of the
      use of that phrase in Greek literature (note -- not in the epigraphical data)
      from the 8th cent. BCE throught the first CE. I wonder in the light of this
      data whether it can really be maintained that the expression is allusive, let
      alone that John was using it allegorically? Does not this data show that, like
      Freud's famous cigar, the expression had a fairly fixed and non allusive
      meaning, and should be taken literally and not symobolically?


      Jeffrey Gibson

      Isocrates Orat.
      Paneg 87.5

      Xenophon Hist.

      Plato Phil.
      Menex 240.b.4

      Hippocrates Med. et Corpus
      De morbis popularibus
      Aphorismi 7.50.1
      Coa praesagia 183.1
      De flatibus 12.13
      De morbis i-iii 2.20.4

      Demosthenes Orat.
      Or42 2.3

      Aristoteles Phil. et Corpus
      HA 551a.17
      HA 555b.1

      Timaeus Hist.
      Fragmenta 3b,566,F.50.9

      Polybius Hist.

      Posidonius Phil.
      Fragmenta 19.22
      Fragmenta 89.104
      Fragmenta 136b.91
      1052 003 2a,87,F.47.24
      1052 003 2a,87,F.108a.171
      1052 003 2a,87,F.117.91

      Philo Judaeus Phil.
      Migr 154.4
      Mos 1.123.7
      Mos 1.181.3

      Diodorus Siculus Hist.
      Bibliotheca historica
      Bibliotheca historica
      Bibliotheca historica
      Bibliotheca historica 34/

      Strabo Geogr.

      Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil.
      Eum 8.9.2

      Flavius Arrianus Hist. et Phi

      Josephus Hist.
      AJ 2.65.4
      AJ 11.148.3
      AJ 11.148.6
      AJ 11.232.2
      AJ 16.283.3
      BJ 2.522.1

      Appianus Hist.
      Iber 188.4
      Mac 6.1.2
      Mith 114.8

      Soranus Ephesius Med.
      Gynaeciorum libri iv


      Esd1 9.4.1
      Esd1 9.5.2

      Historia Alexandri MagniRecensio Byzantina poetica 2229

      Scholia in Euripidem
      sch Rh.528.36

      Scholia in Hesiodum
      Scholia in opera et dies sch.485b.5

      Scholia in Theocritum
      Scholia in Theocritum Bom Dos.9-12.4

      Jeffrey B. Gibson
      Chicago, Illinois
      e-mail jgibson000@...
    • 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
        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

        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

        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@...



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

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

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