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

Re: [John_Lit] Re: Hofrichter's and Berger's views?

Expand Messages
  • Bill Bullin
    Dear David ... From: David Trapero To: Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 2:23 PM Subject: [John_Lit] Re:
    Message 1 of 17 , Jan 17, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear David

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: David Trapero <Dtrap303@...>
      To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 2:23 PM
      Subject: [John_Lit] Re: Hofrichter's and Berger's views?


      > --- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com, "williambullin"
      > <bill.bullin@u...> wrote:
      > >
      > > In this context my **innocent question** is this:
      > >
      > > Is it possible that N.T.christology
      > > reflects a very rapid development of Jewish and Jewish Greek
      > > sectarian thought...

      > You replied:

      > I think if we knew the half of it our heads would spin.

      I cannot agree with you more David; it leaves our heads spinning, wheels
      within wheels as it were!
      Nevertheless, as students of the New Testament and its history
      we must do our best to enter into another world, phenomenologically
      speaking, and try to interpret it from the inside.
      I think that this presents an enormous adventure and challenge but the
      rewards may be great.
      >
      > Several verses come immediately to mind:
      >
      (Jn.1:50,51)
      >
      (Jn.3:13)
      >
      (Jn.5:37b)
      >
      (Jn.6:46)
      >
      > (Jn. 6:61b-63)
      >
      > (Jn.15:8)
      >
      > (Jn.17:8)
      >
      > (Lk.10:18)
      >
      > Luke's quasi-technical way of introducing his Johannine lightning
      > bolt is also suggestive:
      >
      > (Lk.10:21-23)
      >
      > It seems to me that the evidence is everywhere (and yet nowhere) that
      > Jesus practiced some form of chariot-throne mysticism.

      Yes, again I agree with you entirely.

      We need material to work with, a few solid facts with which to begin to
      construct, and a rational methodology.

      On the gematria and letter number symbolism, Richard Bauckham's chapter in
      *The Climax of Prophecy* is very valuable and he has some useful statistics
      in *Theology of the Book of Revelation* (1993); of course Chris Rowland's
      Open Heaven is invaluable on the mystical rabbis and on Luke-Acts Crispin
      Fletcher-Louis (1997).On 4G Odeberg is an invaluable launch pad; of course
      we have the Dead Sea Scrolls and I think, following Charlesworth and others,
      that the *Odes of Solomon* are 'not Gnostic' in any developed sense and are
      extremely relevant. Some basic statistical number crunching is called for
      and here I have found some chapters of A.Q. Morton and J. McLeman's *The
      Genesis of John* (1980) as an independant source and check of data; I John
      presents a promising field and a manageable task and it is interesting to
      note it is composed of 144 sentences (12x12). M.J.J Menken, Sup. Nov.
      Testamentum (1985) has done valuable work on parts of 4G including 4G 17. On
      the Wisdom literature, A.G. Wright's three early articles in CBQ on
      Qoheleth: 'The Riddle of the Sphynx ' etc. are, I think, very important if
      his premise that the versification is original is acceptable. I think I have
      been able to take this work a step further forward.

      Most intriguing of all, it seems to me, are the implications of the little
      article by Matthew Morgenstern (JJS) I mentioned in my original posting. In
      rough summary, he notes that the remaining stitched 'pages' of the Genesis
      Apocryphon are numbered using Hebrew letters and that a consecutive
      numbering systen is used ie ALEPH to TAW: 1-22. On this numbering basis the
      gematria of CHOKMAH (Wisdom) is 37, the same as the number for HEBEL
      (Vanity). Could this be the origin of a Jewish sectarian dualism? The
      Apocalypse of John refers to the beast 37 times *in the Greek text*, so
      presumably we are being told the beast is or represents 'vanity' rather like
      the fallen light bearer. Most intriguing is that CHOKMAH has the number 37
      on the system used in the Genesis Apocryphon, but 73 on the better known
      system where letters are numbered from 1-10 and then in tens and finally
      hundreds. Meanwhile the Greek word LOGOS has the number 373, a chiastic
      combination making it the best way of transmitting the Hebrew word and its
      numbers into Greek. Meanwhile the Hebrew DABAR (word) shares the same
      number as YHWH (26): The DaBaR was with God and the DaBaR was God (Word =
      Wisdom). Back to 1 Cor. 8:6 and the Johannine Prologue. This needs to be
      considered in the wider context and debate of recent christological work:
      Jewish monotheism including A. Segal, J. Fossum, M. Barker, L. Hurtado,

      You fast and
      > pray for forty days and see if YOU don't have conversations with the
      > devil! That this practice helped develop and define the core of
      > Jesus' religious experience and self understanding is indicated by
      > his baptismal theophany and alluded to frequently in 4G.
      > Paradoxically, Jesus' ecstatic/mystical experiences would suggest
      > that he did indeed have a rather "elevated" (no pun intended) self
      > awareness/self concept from the beginning and yet because it was
      > phenomenoligically based, a very human one.

      Surely Ben Witherington III is correct to ask about Jesus' own christology.
      I should keep quiet for a while but thanks for your reply David.

      Best wishes

      Bill

      This approach makes sense to me and seems promising as a line of inquiry. I
      have long
      > thought that it really does not make sense for the early Christians
      > to have a high christology that was not based in some sense on Jesus'
      > own self-concept. I believe that Jesus' own religious
      > practice/experience of number and chariot-throne mysticism is the
      > missing link between our high and low christologies. It's not so
      > much a question of low and high but of shifting christologies along a
      > horizontal axis.
      >
      > Does anyone else see this and if so, can you provide more background,
      > context and details as to how this process/method (number and chariot-
      > throne mysticism) worked?
      > >
      > Regards,
      >
      > David
      >
      > David Trapero M.Div.
      > 818 2nd St. PL NE # 95
      > Hickory, NC 28601
      > Dtrap303@...
      >
      >
      >
      > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
      > MESSAGE ARCHIVE:
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messages
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      > To visit your group on the web, go to:
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/
      >
      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
      > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
      >
    • Bill Bullin
      Brief Reply ... From: David Trapero To: Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 7:39 PM Subject: [John_Lit]
      Message 2 of 17 , Jan 17, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Brief Reply

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: David Trapero <Dtrap303@...>
        To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 7:39 PM
        Subject: [John_Lit] Re: Hofrichter's and Berger's views?


        > --- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com, "williambullin"
        > <bill.bullin@u...> wrote:
        > >
        > > Is it possible that N.T.christology
        > > reflects a very rapid development of Jewish and Jewish Greek
        > > sectarian thought, based on pre-Christian angeology (and linked by a
        > > form of number and chariot-throne mysticism), to the Jewish divine
        > > Name and to the Hebrew word for Wisdom (cf. Heb.1:4ff)?
        > >
        > The almost universal assumption is that what is referred to as "high
        > christology" required a long slow, fermentation process spanning
        > forty years or more. This in turn seems to rest on the assumption
        > that this was primarily a rational or analytical process, carefully
        > reasoned and developed over time. I believe it was neither. Three
        > years after the crucifixion, upon his conversion (not upon careful
        > thought and reflection developed over decades), Paul began to preach
        > boldly in the synagogues (at risk of immediate imprisonment and
        > death) "that Jesus was indeed the Son of God!" Acts 9:20
        >
        I am curious to learn on what 'solution' to the Synoptic problem colleagues
        who date 4G before Luke are working on,
        whether they accept a Proto Luke theory and whether a pro-Acts might have
        been published before Luke.
        I am interested in 1 Cor, 8:6 partly because it circumnavigates the 'dating
        and the historical reliability of Acts' debate and focuses on a specific and
        datable Pauline passage which links (in my view) with 4G material.

        > So many of these "long development" assumptions rest on simplistic
        > notions of evolution, i.e. that evolution is a slow steady (non-
        > exponential) curve. However, in evolutionary theory there is a
        > concept known as "punctuated equilibrium". As the theory goes
        > (please correct me if I'm wrong) evolution does indeed progress at a
        > slow steady rate EXCEPT during "spikes" which suddenly shoot up
        > vertically and then once again plateau. It is these spikes which
        > account for genetic mutation, novelty and real evolutionary change.
        > I see a very similar phenomenon at work in early Christianity.

        It is also a useful refining model for a common sociological model of
        scientifc advancement.

        I believe that within the first few months and years, the essential
        > components of our so-called "high Christology" were already in
        > place. This was a charismatic movement bristling with paranormal
        > phenomenea. It is the nature of ecstatic/mystical experiences to
        > evoke huge paradigm shifts. The first few years of the Jerusalem
        > church are exactly this kind of theological cauldron from which
        > our "high Christology" might very well have sprang forth fully
        > formed, itself a kind of new creation.
        >
        Yes, my only methodological reservation is that our understanding of
        'charismatic' in the primitive church context may be mediated through
        contemporary experience of the modern church movement, blurring the
        proposed Jewish mystical elements that we are struggling so hard to get a
        handle on.

        If I were to do a crude 'this is that' I would be tempted to say in
        Johannine terms: Wisdom was in YHWH breathing the big bang into being and
        YHWH was in Wisdom reconciling the world to Himself. (Ontological,
        Functional and Personal Identity: Monotheistic christology). I think the
        little story of Fiona Dunn, her snowflakes and her daddy bring us close to
        the meaning of all this incarnational christology.

        Best wishes,

        Bill

        > If I understand you correctly, William, I think we are in agreement
        > on this.
        >
        > Kindly,
        >
        > David
        >
        > David Trapero M.Div.
        > 818 2nd St. PL NE # 95
        > Hickory, NC 28601
        > Dtrap303@...
        >
        >
        > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
        > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
        > MESSAGE ARCHIVE:
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messages
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        > To visit your group on the web, go to:
        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/
        >
        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
        > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        >
        >
      • Peter.Hofrichter
        ... If I may interfere here: According to my research already Mark and, of course, Luke used John – still without the chapters 15-17 and without the Easter
        Message 3 of 17 , Jan 18, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Am 18.01.2004 um 00:07 schrieb Bill Bullin:

          >> The almost universal assumption is that what is referred to as "high
          >> christology" required a long slow, fermentation process spanning
          >> forty years or more. This in turn seems to rest on the assumption
          >> that this was primarily a rational or analytical process, carefully
          >> reasoned and developed over time. I believe it was neither. Three
          >> years after the crucifixion, upon his conversion (not upon careful
          >> thought and reflection developed over decades), Paul began to preach
          >> boldly in the synagogues (at risk of immediate imprisonment and
          >> death) "that Jesus was indeed the Son of God!" Acts 9:20
          >>
          > I am curious to learn on what 'solution' to the Synoptic problem
          > colleagues
          > who date 4G before Luke are working on,
          > whether they accept a Proto Luke theory and whether a pro-Acts might
          > have
          > been published before Luke.
          > I am interested in 1 Cor, 8:6 partly because it circumnavigates the
          > 'dating
          > and the historical reliability of Acts' debate and focuses on a
          > specific and
          > datable Pauline passage which links (in my view) with 4G material.
          >
          If I may interfere here: According to my research already Mark and, of
          course, Luke used "John" � still without the chapters 15-17 and without
          the Easter stories after the appearance to Mary of Magdala and some
          minor additions (I call this ProtoJohn "Hellenistenbuch" = booklet of
          the hellenists). The purpose of this biographical-doctrinal scripture
          was to re-interprete the Logos-Hymn in an antignostic and ecclesial way
          dealing not with the preexistence but with the earthly life of Jesus
          and commenting the terms of the hymn by his own mouth in fictive
          docrinal sermons. That means that the Logos-hymn was the starting point
          of the whole development. It must have had its origin alredy in the
          early thirties, may-be in the synagogue of the Alexandrinians etc.,
          where the ideas of Philo were known and his Logos-concept could be
          linked to the experience and enthusiasm of the hellenistic
          Jesus-believers. That means also that already Paul could have become
          acqainted to this Logos-christology. But very soon the gnostic
          spinneries about the preexistent Logos must have emerged among some
          hellenistic Jesus people. Therefore the more serious parts of the
          movement violently re-interpreted the Logos of the hymn as the spoken
          word of Jesus (cf. Gospel of John or Mark 4,13-20) and definietely
          avoided for the future any christological use of the term Logos, even
          if it�s original concept was exceptionally alluded like by Paul e.g. in
          1Cor 8,6. But in general, contrary and in opposition to the gnostics,
          the ecclesial (=NT) authors retained from speaking any more about
          preexistence at all, but stressed like Paul the postexistence of Jesus
          or concentrated on his earthly life as the evangelists did. At the
          other hand 1Cor 8,6 seems to prove that already Paul has known the
          hellenistic Logos-hymn and still understood in it's original
          significance. In addition, the pre-Pauline Hymn Phil 2,.2-6 proves that
          the idea of preexistence was already popular independently from Paul.
          May-be in this respect it is interesting that Phil is written to the
          episcopes and deacons of Philippi. If deacons were the ministers of the
          hellenists, that could point to a hellenistic part of the community in
          Philippi and once more to preexistence as a special and quite early
          feature of hellenistic christology.
          Peter Hofrichter


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Mike Grondin
          ... Does this not fly in the face of Jn 1:14 ( And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory ... )? The Logos is not here being
          Message 4 of 17 , Jan 18, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            --- Peter.Hofrichter wrote to Bill Bullin:
            > ... very soon the gnostic spinneries about the preexistent Logos
            > must have emerged among some hellenistic Jesus people. Therefore
            > the more serious parts of the movement violently re-interpreted
            > the Logos of the hymn as the spoken word of Jesus (cf. Gospel of
            > John or Mark 4,13-20) ...

            Does this not fly in the face of Jn 1:14 ("And the Word became flesh
            and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory ...")? The Logos is not
            here being "re-interpreted ... as the spoken word of Jesus" - it's
            being identified as Jesus himself. (Other counter-examples abound:
            e.g., "I am the bread of life" not "My word is the bread of life")

            > ... and definietely avoided for the future any christological use
            > of the term Logos, even if it`s original concept was exceptionally
            > alluded like by Paul e.g. in 1Cor 8,6. But in general, contrary
            > and in opposition to the gnostics, the ecclesial (=NT) authors
            > re[fr]ained from speaking any more about preexistence at all, but
            > stressed like Paul the postexistence of Jesus or concentrated on
            > his earthly life as the evangelists did.

            I do believe that the canonical GJn was combating docetism, but it
            seems to me that it did so in rather direct ways that "proved"
            that Jesus lived, died, and was resurrected in the flesh (e.g.,
            the Thomas scene), not by refraining from any allusion to pre-
            existence, whether by that term you mean existence pre-kosmos or
            pre-incarnation.

            Mike Grondin
            Mt. Clemens, MI
          • Peter.Hofrichter
            ... You are totally right: The verse 14 of the Logos hymn was and remained the stumbling block against the reinterpretation of the Logos as the spoken word of
            Message 5 of 17 , Jan 19, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Am 19.01.2004 um 05:03 schrieb Mike Grondin:

              > --- Peter.Hofrichter wrote to Bill Bullin:
              >> ... very soon the gnostic spinneries about the preexistent Logos
              >> must have emerged among some hellenistic Jesus people. Therefore
              >> the more serious parts of the movement violently re-interpreted
              >> the Logos of the hymn as the spoken word of Jesus (cf. Gospel of
              >> John or Mark 4,13-20) ...
              >
              > Does this not fly in the face of Jn 1:14 ("And the Word became flesh
              > and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory ...")? The Logos is not
              > here being "re-interpreted ... as the spoken word of Jesus" - it's
              > being identified as Jesus himself. (Other counter-examples abound:
              > e.g., "I am the bread of life" not "My word is the bread of life")

              You are totally right: The verse 14 of the Logos hymn was and remained
              the stumbling block against the reinterpretation of the Logos as the
              spoken word of revelation, wich was in fact at long term not
              successsful. Starting with Justinus the Logos was again undestood as
              Jesus himself and beginning with Irenaeus Jn 1,14 was staedily used
              against gnostic docetism. But in the Gospel of "John" and in the
              further NT reception this re-interpretation was upheld. So Joh 1,14 was
              disliked by the gnostics and by the NT writers as well, although from
              quite different reasons. The Gospel of "John" never comes back to this
              issue. May-be it should be understood together with "and dwelt in us"
              in the sense of: "Who hears my word and keeps it ..." I don‘t know.
              Anyhow, in the childhood story of Luke, which seems to be a
              midrash-like paraphrase to the Logos hymn, Jn 1,14 is obviously alluded
              there where the sheperts come to Bethlehem and say: "Let us see the
              word having become (reality)". The "word" which is here changed to
              "rhema" is now the word of the angel spoken before to the sheperts, but
              clearly not the preexistant Jesus himself. Also at the beginning of the
              first letter of John the Logos-hymn is alluded, but it is understood as
              speaking exclusively of the earthly revelation of Jesus, and obviously
              the Logos is there interpreted as the word of revelation and tradition.

              >> ... and definitely avoided for the future any christological use
              >> of the term Logos, even if it`s original concept was exceptionally
              >> alluded like by Paul e.g. in 1Cor 8,6. But in general, contrary
              >> and in opposition to the gnostics, the ecclesial (=NT) authors
              >> re[fr]ained from speaking any more about preexistence at all, but
              >> stressed like Paul the postexistence of Jesus or concentrated on
              >> his earthly life as the evangelists did.
              >
              > I do believe that the canonical GJn was combating docetism, but it
              > seems to me that it did so in rather direct ways that "proved"
              > that Jesus lived, died, and was resurrected in the flesh (e.g.,
              > the Thomas scene), not by refraining from any allusion to pre-
              > existence, whether by that term you mean existence pre-kosmos or
              > pre-incarnation.

              The preexistence of Jesus in the Gospel of John is of course somehow a
              silent precondition in so far as Jesus is God, is sent by the Father
              and "has come", but it is never made an issue of reflection in the
              Gospel (quite contrary to gnostic literature). Even when Jesus says:
              "Before Abraham was am I" (if I quote it righly in English) he refers
              to the eternal presence of God outside of any time. The only real
              reference to preexistence and probably moreover to Jn 1,10 is Jn 17,24.
              But chapters Jn 15-17 are later additions, and Jn 17 is probably the
              latest one. Meanwhile the original theological intentions of the
              Gospel may have been weakend.

              Peter Hofrichter
            • Matson, Mark (Academic)
              ... Well, I ll bite, since I have been fairly straightforward in seeing an influence of the 4G on Luke (hence dating it, or a great portion of it) earlier than
              Message 6 of 17 , Jan 19, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Bill Bullin [mailto:bill.bullin@...] wrote:

                > I am curious to learn on what 'solution' to the Synoptic
                > problem colleagues who date 4G before Luke are working on,
                > whether they accept a Proto Luke theory and whether a
                > pro-Acts might have been published before Luke. I am
                > interested in 1 Cor, 8:6 partly because it circumnavigates
                > the 'dating and the historical reliability of Acts' debate
                > and focuses on a specific and datable Pauline passage which
                > links (in my view) with 4G material.

                Well, I'll bite, since I have been fairly straightforward in seeing an
                influence of the 4G on Luke (hence dating it, or a great portion of it)
                earlier than Luke.

                I personally am most convinced of the Farrer theory (i.e. Markan
                priority without Q). Which means that I would see something like this:

                Mark and John (at least the main narrative section, including the
                passion) are independently constructed fairly early, possibly as early
                as 60.

                Matthew then relies on Mark, with other oral tradition, some of which
                may have been influenced by Johannine oral tradition.

                Luke, the most literary of gospels, used Mark, Matthew, John and some
                oral traditions to write the his gospel. No Q, since the use of Matthew
                pretty much makes that unnecessary, unless you define Q as the Matthean
                material that Luke used.

                BTW, I think this comports fairly well with Barbara Shellard's view. We
                both worked on our theories independently, and have arrived at pretty
                much the same position.

                mark


                Mark A. Matson
                Academic Dean
                Milligan College
                http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/personal.htm
              • Roberta Allen
                In message , Peter. Hofrichter writes ... I just couldn t resist adding to this
                Message 7 of 17 , Jan 19, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  In message <240630EE-4A72-11D8-8454-000393D92B98@...>, Peter.
                  Hofrichter <Peter.Hofrichter@...> writes
                  >
                  >You are totally right: The verse 14 of the Logos hymn was and remained
                  >the stumbling block against the reinterpretation of the Logos as the
                  >spoken word of revelation, wich was in fact at long term not
                  >successsful. Starting with Justinus the Logos was again undestood as
                  >Jesus himself and beginning with Irenaeus Jn 1,14 was staedily used
                  >against gnostic docetism. But in the Gospel of "John" and in the
                  >further NT reception this re-interpretation was upheld. So Joh 1,14 was
                  >disliked by the gnostics and by the NT writers as well, although from
                  >quite different reasons. The Gospel of "John" never comes back to this
                  >issue.

                  I just couldn't resist adding to this discussion because I think the
                  Gospel does come back to this issue in 12:36 - 43, particularly 12:41.
                  I know this is a rather cheeky plug but I have recently put up my book
                  on John's Gospel on my web site in PDF and Part One is largely devoted
                  to the Prologue. The relevance of 1.14 is discussed in Ch3.



                  So onto my pluggery

                  A few years ago I wrote a book on John's Gospel and asked on the list if
                  there was anyone local to me who could read the first draft. (I only had
                  a manuscript at that time.) One person offered and I duly delivered it
                  to Exeter College , Oxford. But I never saw it again nor had any
                  response from the person who had kindly offered to read it.

                  So, as far as I am aware one has actually read the book yet, although
                  Professor John Barton read the first few chapters of an even earlier
                  draft and kindly gave me the encouragement to go on with the task.

                  I spent a lot more time on it and finished it and then the computer that
                  it was on died! It has recently been rescued from the old computer, and
                  transferred to PDF and I have at last learnt how to write web pages in
                  order to 'publish' it. Because it was completed in 1998 it does not
                  embrace all the latest scholarship and if I wrote it again now it would
                  probably be quite different. However, I am still quite proud of it and
                  would be very honoured if anyone from this list would be prepared to
                  read and comment on it.

                  I am not in the academic world but do have a degree in Theology from
                  Westminster College, Oxford and a Diploma in Theology from Oxford
                  University. I attempted to draw on established scholarly, academic
                  conventions of research in writing the book.

                  The book is an exegetical study of John 1 - 4, a rather popular subject
                  at the moment hereabouts, and includes quite a few new and often radical
                  insights.
                  At present the introduction is available in HTML and part One, the
                  introduction and first 3 chapters and Part Two are available in PDF. The
                  Final part will follow shortly. It is located at:

                  http://www.kton.demon.co.uk/mybook.htm


                  --
                  Roberta Allen
                • Peter.Hofrichter
                  ... Your intervention is totally right, The term doxa of Jn 14c is in the Gospel several times referred to in relation to Jesus, but never the Logos or the
                  Message 8 of 17 , Jan 19, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Am 19.01.2004 um 13:28 schrieb Roberta Allen:

                    > In message <240630EE-4A72-11D8-8454-000393D92B98@...>, Peter.
                    > Hofrichter <Peter.Hofrichter@...> writes
                    >>
                    >> You are totally right: The verse 14 of the Logos hymn was and remained
                    >> the stumbling block against the reinterpretation of the Logos as the
                    >> spoken word of revelation, wich was in fact at long term not
                    >> successsful. Starting with Justinus the Logos was again undestood as
                    >> Jesus himself and beginning with Irenaeus Jn 1,14 was staedily used
                    >> against gnostic docetism. But in the Gospel of "John" and in the
                    >> further NT reception this re-interpretation was upheld. So Joh 1,14
                    >> was
                    >> disliked by the gnostics and by the NT writers as well, although from
                    >> quite different reasons. The Gospel of "John" never comes back to this
                    >> issue.
                    >
                    > I just couldn't resist adding to this discussion because I think the
                    > Gospel does come back to this issue in 12:36 - 43, particularly 12:41.
                    > I know this is a rather cheeky plug but I have recently put up my book
                    > on John's Gospel on my web site in PDF and Part One is largely devoted
                    > to the Prologue. The relevance of 1.14 is discussed in Ch3.
                    >
                    Your intervention is totally right, The term "doxa" of Jn 14c is in the
                    Gospel several times referred to in relation to Jesus, but never the
                    "Logos" or the "Logos having become flesh". Idon’t want to stress
                    anybodies readiness to accept at once too many – may be for him new –
                    considerations: But it seems that Jn 1,14bc "And we have seen his glory
                    ... " was understood by the author of the Gospel not with the
                    grammatical object "logos". Who then should be the "he"? Apperantly the
                    earthly Jesus. But Is there any basis to such an understanding apart
                    from the original meaning of the text? One has to go back behind Jn 14:
                    He came in his property and his own did not recieve him" ... This is
                    also the earthly Jesus. May be, the verses 13 and 14ab were explained
                    as if continuing verse 12 speaqking about the children of God beleiving
                    in his name, born not from blood ..., but from God, in whom the spoken
                    word of Jesus/God had become flesh and in whom he dwelt.

                    For further informations and discussionns please consult my
                    publications.
                    With best regards

                    Peter Hofrichter
                  • Peter.Hofrichter
                    ... I agree with you exept that I think to have proved that already Mark is based on John (without some later additions) and of course his own material, and
                    Message 9 of 17 , Jan 19, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Am 19.01.2004 um 12:47 schrieb Matson, Mark ((Academic)):

                      > Bill Bullin [mailto:bill.bullin@...] wrote:
                      >
                      >> I am curious to learn on what 'solution' to the Synoptic
                      >> problem colleagues who date 4G before Luke are working on,
                      >> whether they accept a Proto Luke theory and whether a
                      >> pro-Acts might have been published before Luke. I am
                      >> interested in 1 Cor, 8:6 partly because it circumnavigates
                      >> the 'dating and the historical reliability of Acts' debate
                      >> and focuses on a specific and datable Pauline passage which
                      >> links (in my view) with 4G material.
                      >
                      > Well, I'll bite, since I have been fairly straightforward in seeing an
                      > influence of the 4G on Luke (hence dating it, or a great portion of it)
                      > earlier than Luke.
                      >
                      > I personally am most convinced of the Farrer theory (i.e. Markan
                      > priority without Q). Which means that I would see something like this:
                      >
                      > Mark and John (at least the main narrative section, including the
                      > passion) are independently constructed fairly early, possibly as early
                      > as 60.
                      >
                      > Matthew then relies on Mark, with other oral tradition, some of which
                      > may have been influenced by Johannine oral tradition.
                      >
                      > Luke, the most literary of gospels, used Mark, Matthew, John and some
                      > oral traditions to write the his gospel. No Q, since the use of Matthew
                      > pretty much makes that unnecessary, unless you define Q as the Matthean
                      > material that Luke used.
                      >
                      > BTW, I think this comports fairly well with Barbara Shellard's view.
                      > We
                      > both worked on our theories independently, and have arrived at pretty
                      > much the same position.
                      >
                      > mark

                      I agree with you exept that I think to have proved that already Mark is
                      based on John (without some later additions) and of course his own
                      material, and also Mt knew John but was much less by him influenced
                      than Lk.

                      Peter Hofrichter
                    • Bill Bullin
                      Dear Peter Thank you for your patient and helpful reply. It links in nicely with the *Philo publication thread* for us. The seamlessness quality of 4G
                      Message 10 of 17 , Jan 19, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Dear Peter

                        Thank you for your patient and helpful reply.
                        It links in nicely with the *Philo publication thread* for us.

                        The seamlessness quality of 4G certainly seems to flow from the Prologue in
                        a 'hide and seek Wisdom game'
                        as John Ashton highlights in his essay. Seamless and patchy ~ the Jesus of
                        Johannine history
                        and the Christ of Johannine faith: 4G certainly seems to be the 'double
                        helix' of N.T. christology!

                        For the present I will confine myself to one little open question and a
                        comment on the pericope
                        John 4:13-20 woops!!! Mark 4:13-20:
                        you know the one I mean, the one that uses the term logos
                        eight times (IESOUS CHRISTOS 888), four times in the first 73 Greek words
                        (Wisdom)
                        and four times in the second 73 Greek words (Wisdom) and that uses the
                        unusual term
                        MUSTERION as in Wisdom 2:21b-24.

                        Open Question: is this pericope (a) Marcan, (b) Pauline (c) Johannine or
                        (d) something else?
                        Comment: Here is Wisdom.

                        Thank you for your many insights. I look forward to being able to read the
                        book and have already
                        added 'Hellenistenbuch' to my faltering German vocabulary.

                        Best wishes

                        Bill Bullin (Student) East Sussex, England



                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: Peter.Hofrichter <Peter.Hofrichter@...>
                        To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                        Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 10:54 PM
                        Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Re: Hofrichter's and Berger's views?



                        Am 18.01.2004 um 00:07 schrieb Bill Bullin:

                        >> The almost universal assumption is that what is referred to as "high
                        >> christology" required a long slow, fermentation process spanning
                        >> forty years or more. This in turn seems to rest on the assumption
                        >> that this was primarily a rational or analytical process, carefully
                        >> reasoned and developed over time. I believe it was neither. Three
                        >> years after the crucifixion, upon his conversion (not upon careful
                        >> thought and reflection developed over decades), Paul began to preach
                        >> boldly in the synagogues (at risk of immediate imprisonment and
                        >> death) "that Jesus was indeed the Son of God!" Acts 9:20
                        >>
                        > I am curious to learn on what 'solution' to the Synoptic problem
                        > colleagues
                        > who date 4G before Luke are working on,
                        > whether they accept a Proto Luke theory and whether a pro-Acts might
                        > have
                        > been published before Luke.
                        > I am interested in 1 Cor, 8:6 partly because it circumnavigates the
                        > 'dating
                        > and the historical reliability of Acts' debate and focuses on a
                        > specific and
                        > datable Pauline passage which links (in my view) with 4G material.
                        >
                        If I may interfere here: According to my research already Mark and, of
                        course, Luke used "John" - still without the chapters 15-17 and without
                        the Easter stories after the appearance to Mary of Magdala and some
                        minor additions (I call this ProtoJohn "Hellenistenbuch" = booklet of
                        the hellenists). The purpose of this biographical-doctrinal scripture
                        was to re-interprete the Logos-Hymn in an antignostic and ecclesial way
                        dealing not with the preexistence but with the earthly life of Jesus
                        and commenting the terms of the hymn by his own mouth in fictive
                        docrinal sermons. That means that the Logos-hymn was the starting point
                        of the whole development. It must have had its origin alredy in the
                        early thirties, may-be in the synagogue of the Alexandrinians etc.,
                        where the ideas of Philo were known and his Logos-concept could be
                        linked to the experience and enthusiasm of the hellenistic
                        Jesus-believers. That means also that already Paul could have become
                        acqainted to this Logos-christology. But very soon the gnostic
                        spinneries about the preexistent Logos must have emerged among some
                        hellenistic Jesus people. Therefore the more serious parts of the
                        movement violently re-interpreted the Logos of the hymn as the spoken
                        word of Jesus (cf. Gospel of John or Mark 4,13-20) and definietely
                        avoided for the future any christological use of the term Logos, even
                        if it's original concept was exceptionally alluded like by Paul e.g. in
                        1Cor 8,6. But in general, contrary and in opposition to the gnostics,
                        the ecclesial (=NT) authors retained from speaking any more about
                        preexistence at all, but stressed like Paul the postexistence of Jesus
                        or concentrated on his earthly life as the evangelists did. At the
                        other hand 1Cor 8,6 seems to prove that already Paul has known the
                        hellenistic Logos-hymn and still understood in it's original
                        significance. In addition, the pre-Pauline Hymn Phil 2,.2-6 proves that
                        the idea of preexistence was already popular independently from Paul.
                        May-be in this respect it is interesting that Phil is written to the
                        episcopes and deacons of Philippi. If deacons were the ministers of the
                        hellenists, that could point to a hellenistic part of the community in
                        Philippi and once more to preexistence as a special and quite early
                        feature of hellenistic christology.
                        Peter Hofrichter


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


                        SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                        UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                        PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
                        MESSAGE ARCHIVE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messages

                        Yahoo! Groups Links

                        To visit your group on the web, go to:
                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/

                        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                      • David Trapero
                        David T. wrote: It is these spikes which ... change. ... of ... David T. writes: It is essentially the creative process: preparation,incubation, illumination
                        Message 11 of 17 , Jan 19, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          David T. wrote:

                          It is these spikes which
                          > > account for genetic mutation, novelty and real evolutionary
                          change.
                          > > I see a very similar phenomenon at work in early Christianity.

                          Bill B. wrote:
                          >
                          > It is also a useful refining model for a common sociological model
                          of
                          > scientifc advancement.

                          David T. writes:

                          It is essentially the creative process: preparation,incubation,
                          illumination and verification. The illumination phase comes
                          suddenly, forcefully and illicits feelings of awe and wonder
                          bordering on the religious, regardless of ones' philosophical
                          orientation. So, in some sense, the Christ-event can be understood
                          as THE Creative Process identifying/communicating itself to itself.

                          David T. wrote:
                          >
                          > I believe that within the first few months and years, the essential
                          > > components of our so-called "high Christology" were already in
                          > > place. This was a charismatic movement bristling with paranormal
                          > > phenomenea. It is the nature of ecstatic/mystical experiences to
                          > > evoke huge paradigm shifts. The first few years of the Jerusalem
                          > > church are exactly this kind of theological cauldron from which
                          > > our "high Christology" might very well have sprang forth fully
                          > > formed, itself a kind of new creation.

                          Bill B. wrote:
                          > >
                          > Yes, my only methodological reservation is that our understanding of
                          > 'charismatic' in the primitive church context may be mediated
                          through
                          > contemporary experience of the modern church movement, blurring the
                          > proposed Jewish mystical elements that we are struggling so hard to
                          get a
                          > handle on.

                          David T. writes:

                          Agreed. I use "charismatic" for lack of a better word and most
                          definitely not in the modern sense. Part of the enormous difficulty
                          we face is that there truly is nothing like primitive Christianity in
                          existence today. What we see today are copies of copies of copies...
                          of edies twisting off in multiple directions... pale relections of
                          something historically unprecedented. I believe that 4G came the
                          closest to preserving what by its very nature could not be
                          preserved/contained. Ever.

                          "Whoever loses his life shall find it, whoever clings to his life
                          shall lose it."

                          I would think that one of our criterion for identifying "it" would be
                          that it would be alien to our experience, counter-intuitive.

                          We need a theory that accounts for this at its core. Everybody's
                          nibbling around the edges. We need something that accounts for all
                          the data, something with explanatory power, something like a unified
                          field theory of early Christianity that avoids the usual cliches.
                          > > >
                          > > Kindly,
                          > >
                          > > David
                          > >
                          > > David Trapero M.Div.
                          > > 818 2nd St. PL NE # 95
                          > > Hickory, NC 28601
                          > > Dtrap303@...
                        • williambullin
                          -Not so much a double helix then, more multi-dimensional string theory? N.T. studies in a post-Newtonian world! Hmm, that sounds good to me. In this case I
                          Message 12 of 17 , Jan 20, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            -Not so much a double helix then, more multi-dimensional string
                            theory? N.T. studies in a post-Newtonian world! Hmm, that sounds good
                            to me. In this case I think Johannine studies is certainly the best
                            place to start.

                            Incidentally, while we are talking GUT theory and cosmic dimensions,
                            why *EGO TO ALFA KAI O* and not:*EGO TO ALPHA KAI OMEGA*? Solution:
                            ALPHA =532,O = 800, total 1332 (36 x 37 CHOKMAH).

                            Best wishes

                            Bill Bullin (Private N.T. Student: East Sussex, England)



                            - In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com, "David Trapero"
                            <Dtrap303@A...> wrote:
                            > David T. wrote:
                            >
                            > It is these spikes which
                            > > > account for genetic mutation, novelty and real evolutionary
                            > change.
                            > > > I see a very similar phenomenon at work in early Christianity.
                            >
                            > >
                            > I would think that one of our criterion for identifying "it" would
                            be
                            > that it would be alien to our experience, counter-intuitive.
                            >
                            > We need a theory that accounts for this at its core. Everybody's
                            > nibbling around the edges. We need something that accounts for all
                            > the data, something with explanatory power, something like a
                            unified
                            > field theory of early Christianity that avoids the usual cliches.
                            > > > >
                            > > > Kindly,
                            > > >
                            > > > David
                            > > >
                            > > > David Trapero M.Div.
                            > > > 818 2nd St. PL NE # 95
                            > > > Hickory, NC 28601
                            > > > Dtrap303@a...
                          • frideslameris
                            Hi David, ... From: David Trapero To: Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 1:00 AM Subject: [John_Lit] Re:
                            Message 13 of 17 , Jan 21, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Hi David,


                              ----- Original Message -----
                              From: David Trapero <Dtrap303@...>
                              To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                              Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 1:00 AM
                              Subject: [John_Lit] Re: Hofrichter's and Berger's views?
                              > David T. writes:
                              >
                              > Agreed. I use "charismatic" for lack of a better word and most
                              > definitely not in the modern sense. Part of the enormous difficulty
                              > we face is that there truly is nothing like primitive Christianity in
                              > existence today. What we see today are copies of copies of copies...
                              > of edies twisting off in multiple directions... pale relections of
                              > something historically unprecedented. I believe that 4G came the
                              > closest to preserving what by its very nature could not be
                              > preserved/contained. Ever.

                              Yes!
                              >
                              > "Whoever loses his life shall find it, whoever clings to his life
                              > shall lose it."
                              >
                              > I would think that one of our criterion for identifying "it" would be
                              > that it would be alien to our experience, counter-intuitive.
                              >
                              > We need a theory that accounts for this at its core. Everybody's
                              > nibbling around the edges. We need something that accounts for all
                              > the data, something with explanatory power, something like a unified
                              > field theory of early Christianity that avoids the usual cliches.


                              "unified field theory of early Christianity" that avoids the usual cliches.

                              Sounds great!

                              I have more often thought of putting the biblical gospels in the
                              physics scheme of 4 fundamental forces of nature which these
                              days are sought to be unified in one theory of a 'unified field'.

                              The old (theological) model would be: Fourfold Gospel,
                              hold together by One Spirit (Irenaeus), and in 2004 we seek
                              for an analogy with modern physics! As John Gospel seems
                              to be most spiritual, in itself GJ would be a candidate to be
                              analogous to the (a?) unified field, I think.

                              In another list somebody brought up that in 4 ways, existing
                              in Jewish exegesis, represented by the word PARDES,
                              John would stand forthe so called SOD -value, the level which
                              would bring out the most hidden level of exegesis.

                              If we take physics, the fields are basic to the molecular structure,
                              atoms, finer particles. The unified field value would then be the
                              SOD value of modern physics!

                              Grand unified field theories try to put everything in One category
                              (Einstein was looking for it).

                              In my second post to this list I give some suggestions how we
                              can lay a better basis for the new approach to the study of
                              christianity.

                              I appreciate very much you have brought up a unifield field
                              approach to Christianity. This should be a very basic approach!


                              Best wishes

                              Frides
                            • Peter.Hofrichter
                              Am 19.01.2004 um 20:51 schrieb Bill Bullin: Dear Bill, Unfortunally I don’t understand your question. Can you explain it more clearely? ... Peter Hofrichter
                              Message 14 of 17 , Jan 21, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Am 19.01.2004 um 20:51 schrieb Bill Bullin:

                                Dear Bill,
                                Unfortunally I don’t understand your question. Can you explain it more
                                clearely?

                                > For the present I will confine myself to one little open question and a
                                > comment on the pericope
                                > John 4:13-20 woops!!! Mark 4:13-20:
                                > you know the one I mean, the one that uses the term logos
                                > eight times (IESOUS CHRISTOS 888), four times in the first 73 Greek
                                > words
                                > (Wisdom)
                                > and four times in the second 73 Greek words (Wisdom) and that uses the
                                > unusual term
                                > MUSTERION as in Wisdom 2:21b-24.
                                >
                                > Open Question: is this pericope (a) Marcan, (b) Pauline (c) Johannine
                                > or
                                > (d) something else?
                                > Comment: Here is Wisdom.

                                Peter Hofrichter
                              • williambullin
                                ... more clearely? ... and a comment on the pericope John 4:13-20 woops!!! Mark 4:13-20: you know the one I mean, the one that uses the term logos eight times
                                Message 15 of 17 , Jan 22, 2004
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com, Peter.Hofrichter
                                  <Peter.Hofrichter@s...> wrote:

                                  > Unfortunally I don't understand your question. Can you explain it
                                  more clearely?
                                  >
                                  Bill had written:

                                  >For the present I will confine myself to one little open question
                                  and a comment on the pericope John 4:13-20 woops!!! Mark 4:13-20:
                                  you know the one I mean, the one that uses the term logos
                                  eight times (IESOUS CHRISTOS 888), four times in the first 73 Greek
                                  words(Wisdom)and four times in the second 73 Greek words (Wisdom) and
                                  that uses the unusual term MUSTERION as in Wisdom 2:21b-24.
                                  Open Question: is this pericope (a) Marcan, (b) Pauline (c)
                                  Johannine or(d) something else? Comment: Here is Wisdom.
                                  >
                                  Bill replies:

                                  Dear Peter

                                  I am sorry that my message has caused confusion.

                                  First I was seeking to imply a feined Freudian slip by referring to
                                  Mark 4 :13-20 as John 4:13-20 as a way of indicating that this
                                  pericope appear to me to exude Johannine christological features.

                                  Actually there seem to be two seperate but related pericopes, 4:11-12
                                  and 4:13-20. Depending on the solution to the synoptic problem that
                                  is applied, but assuming Marcan priority, the //'s in Matthew (13:18-
                                  23)and Luke (8:11-15)ditch some of the repetative references to LOGOS
                                  for understandable reasons. Matthew uses the word LOGOS six times
                                  whilst Luke uses it four times filling in in various ways, sometimes
                                  returning to variants of the term seed/sowing (SPOROS).

                                  This is nothing to get excited about in itself but scholars have noted
                                  unusual vocabulary in the Marcan pericopes, suggesting that they were
                                  somehow intruded. Together with this, scholars who take notice of
                                  word and syllable counts have noted that the second pericope is
                                  composed of 146 Greek words or two groups of 73 words and that the
                                  word LOGOS is used 4 times in the first 73 words and four times in
                                  the second group, not quite a chiasm but something similar. Now if we
                                  are willing to recognise 73 as the gematria of CHOKMAH (Heb. Wisdom),
                                  a link between the christological concept of Wisdom and Logos may be
                                  controlling the pericope which would be a distinctly Johannine
                                  feature. Further more the use of the word Logos eight times is
                                  suggestive of the gematria of the name IESOUS which bears the number
                                  888 and is 24 x 37 when the Greek letters are awarded consecutive
                                  values in a Palestinian style as in the numbering of the pages in the
                                  Genesis Apocryphon as attested by Matthew Morgenstern (see earlier
                                  message. Smit Singa has published on Peter's Speech in Acts 2 which
                                  has a syllable count of 888 (the gematria of IESOUS), which is
                                  suggestive that the 8 references to LOGOS is suggestive and no
                                  accident. Furthermore, the first pericope contains the
                                  unusual 'trigger' or 'clue'word MYSTERY which scholars have
                                  associated with Daniel or Wisdom (I think the latter,
                                  and which again points in the direction of a Johannine theology.

                                  My question is therefore: is this passage (a) Marcan, (b) Johannine,
                                  (c) Pauline or (d)something else.

                                  I add the comment: Here is 'Wisdom' to again suggest a Johannine style
                                  and alude to the Apocalypse of John which is sometimes embraced under
                                  the heading of Johannine.

                                  My further two comments are: I think I can demonstrate that this type
                                  of feature is frequently found in some parts of the New Testament and
                                  is associated with Jewish Wisdom and Apocalyptic in the Greek period.
                                  I think it would be idiosyncratic to refer to it as Gnostic or proto-
                                  Gnostic, it is a feature of Jewish Creation and Chariot throne
                                  mysticism that eventually gave rise to some aspects of Jewish and
                                  Christian gnosticism, magical incantations using combinations Jewish
                                  divine names etc. but was an accepted feature with some of the
                                  earliest groupings within the primitive Christian church, perhaps
                                  especially amongst Hellenists, Essenes and Samaritans but eschewed
                                  by non-mystical Pharisees. I further propose that it has a major
                                  bearing on New Testament christology and is rooted in the meaning of
                                  the divine tetragrammaton, a name that was considerd to have been
                                  bestowed on the resurrected Jesus.

                                  In an earlier posting I pointed out that John 17 from 1b to 26
                                  contains the vocative PATER six times, suggestive of an underlying
                                  ABBA and that the pericope contains 486 words which is the gematria
                                  of the vocative Pater. In conclusion I am arguing that 4G is not
                                  Gnostic but a Wisdom Gospel based on Jewish mysticism with roots in
                                  the Hebrew Bible and the LXX. This is why it appears to have so
                                  manty 'redundancies' which are a feature of the Prologue in
                                  particular. Here I argue it is not based on Philo but Philo has some
                                  knowledge of the Therapeuta, who practiced this thouroughlt Jewish
                                  Creation and Chariot throne mysticism, composed hymns and lived in
                                  Johannine style communities. Apollos may have come from the
                                  Alexandrian Therapeuta. I refer you to Odeberg and to Martin Hengel's
                                  reference to him in his essay, the Son of God: part Six: The Problem
                                  of the Rise of Early Christology.

                                  Do let me know what you think?


                                  Bill Bullin (Private Student, East Sussex, England).
                                • Maluflen@aol.com
                                  In a message dated 1/19/2004 3:24:10 AM Pacific Standard Time, ... I m sorry, but this is anything but obvious to me. I would rate the likelihood of any
                                  Message 16 of 17 , Feb 14, 2004
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    In a message dated 1/19/2004 3:24:10 AM Pacific Standard Time,
                                    Peter.Hofrichter@... writes:


                                    > Anyhow, in the childhood story of Luke, which seems to be a
                                    > midrash-like paraphrase to the Logos hymn, Jn 1,14 is obviously alluded
                                    > there where the sheperts come to Bethlehem and say: "Let us see the
                                    > word having become (reality)". The "word" which is here changed to
                                    > "rhema" is now the word of the angel spoken before to the sheperts, but
                                    > clearly not the preexistant Jesus himself.

                                    I'm sorry, but this is anything but "obvious" to me. I would rate the
                                    likelihood of any relationship of this Lukan text to Jn 1:14 as theoretically
                                    conceivable, but extremely unlikely.

                                    Leonard Maluf


                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • Peter.Hofrichter
                                    ... Dear Leonard I published an article about this evidence already 12 years ago: Johannesprolog und lukanische Vorgeschichte, in: A. Denaux (Hg.), John and
                                    Message 17 of 17 , Feb 18, 2004
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Am 15.02.2004 um 02:36 schrieb Maluflen@...:

                                      > In a message dated 1/19/2004 3:24:10 AM Pacific Standard Time,
                                      > Peter.Hofrichter@... writes:
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >> Anyhow, in the childhood story of Luke, which seems to be a
                                      >> midrash-like paraphrase to the Logos hymn, Jn 1,14 is obviously
                                      >> alluded
                                      >> there where the sheperts come to Bethlehem and say: "Let us see the
                                      >> word having become (reality)". The "word" which is here changed to
                                      >> "rhema" is now the word of the angel spoken before to the sheperts,
                                      >> but
                                      >> clearly not the preexistant Jesus himself.
                                      >
                                      > I'm sorry, but this is anything but "obvious" to me. I would rate the
                                      > likelihood of any relationship of this Lukan text to Jn 1:14 as
                                      > theoretically
                                      > conceivable, but extremely unlikely.
                                      >
                                      > Leonard Maluf

                                      Dear Leonard

                                      I published an article about this evidence already 12 years ago:
                                      Johannesprolog und lukanische Vorgeschichte, in: A. Denaux (Hg.), John
                                      and the Synoptics (BETL 101), Leuven 1992, 488-497. It is printed again
                                      in my collection: Logoslied, Gnosis und Neues Testament, Hildesheim
                                      (Olms) 2004. In my book "Modell und Vorlage der Synoptiker", Hildesheim
                                      (Olms) 2002, you can find also two chapters on this relation.

                                      Here only some short hints. Let us start from the end: "ekeinos
                                      ex�g�sato": Jesus is sitting among the scribes and explaining the
                                      scripture. "ho wn eis ton kolpon tou patros": He says to his parents:
                                      Did you not know that I must be in what belongs to My Father? "Kai
                                      etheasametha t�n doxan autou": cf. the brightness shining around the
                                      sheperts and the song of the angels: Glory is with God in the hight...
                                      "kai hoi idioi auton ou katelaben": In the hostel there was no space
                                      for them. "eis ta idia �lthen": Joseph went with his spouse to his
                                      father-town Bethlehem. "kai ho kosmos auton ouk egnw": It happened at
                                      the time of Emperor Augustus. � Let us jump to the beginning: In his
                                      introduction Lk1,1-3 Luke uses all key terms of Joh 1-3: arch�, logos,
                                      panta, God ("Theo"phile), of course, in the significance of the earthly
                                      life of Jesus. The diptychon of the annunciations and birthes of John
                                      and Jesus in the middle needs some more detailled explanation.

                                      Sincerely
                                      Peter Hofrichter







                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.