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

Re: [John_Lit] Re: Oral Tradition

Expand Messages
  • Bill Bullin
    Dear Peter, Thank you for your valuable reference which I will follow up. It is interesting that Schell was not recognised by his colleagues; I don t suppose
    Message 1 of 20 , Feb 2, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Peter,

      Thank you for your valuable reference which I will follow up.

      It is interesting that Schell was not recognised by his colleagues;
      I don't suppose he advocated the primacy of 4G as well did he?!!!

      More seriously I do think my brief notes on 1 Cor. 8:6, Mark 4: 13-20 and
      the Johannine Prologue
      have major implications for:

      (1) New Testament christology and its roots in history;
      (2) Johannine priority;
      (3) Inter communal textual communication during the production of the
      Gospels.

      If Mark 4: 13-20 could be shown to be a likely pericope from Johannine
      circles,
      it would demonstrate that the(se) Johannine circles(s) knew at least one the
      parables of Jesus
      but the Evangelist / B. D. chose not to incorporate it for some reason.

      With regard to the Prologue, the central word of the 373 words of 10-14 is,
      significantly I think, 'Name'
      rather than 'children of God' as in Alan Culpepper's analysis:
      'The Pivot of John's Prologue' NTS 27 (80/81), 1-31.
      I think NAME is extremely relevant to this christological Prologue
      and that it rings bells with the core of the Carmen Christi. Interesting too
      is the fact that the Prologue
      contains between 1117 and 1121 Greek letters whilst 373 x 3 is 1119
      whilst the gematria of the six words of the Shema amounts to 1118.

      I appreciate your response.

      Best wishes Peter.

      Bill Bullin (Private Student, East Sussex, England).

      Post Script: Can anyone *help* me with the letter count of the Prologue:

      There are two variant readings; the first (3-4) does not affect letter
      counts, only the division of the sentence.
      The second variant (vs. 15), relates to two words but only the difference of
      1, in a letter count terms.

      It is also necessary to take into account that the text would originally
      have been written in unicals.
      There are either two or three examples of the iota subscript in my Greek
      text (vs. 1, 2, ARXH) and (vs. 5 TH).

      What are the actual letter counts for the Prologue in the major Greek
      codicies?

      Greetings.

      Bill Bullin (East Sussex, England).











      > One last remark to "Oral Tradition":
      > Dear Bill Bullin,
      > If you are interested in this issue of mysticism of numbers in NT, this
      > is not at all new. Already Claus Schedl, Professor of Old Testament
      > and comparative Religion at the University of Graz (Austria), who died
      > already may be 20 years ago, has intensively worked on this phenomenon,
      > especially on NT and Qumran texts. You will find more information under
      > his name by Google. He was a extremely educated person, but, of course,
      > not recognised by his collegues.
      > Best wishes
      > Peter Hofrichter

      > > From: John E Staton
      >
      > >> Peter, I note you have still not answered my question ...As to
      > >> whether the
      > >> sources of the gospels were written or oral, I will leave others to
      > > comment.
      > >
      > > Bill wrote: Dear John
      > >
      > > If I may squeeze a brief comment in between the 'colliding plates' of
      > > oral
      > > and literary
      > > New Testament 'techtonics': what if some Johannine and other material,
      > > transmitted orally,
      > > was first 'sealed before delivery' with a 'security tag' so to speak.
      > > Perhaps the tag also served a deeply medative purpose. etc.
    • Peter.Hofrichter
      ... No, I took part in a guest seminar Claus Schedl helt in the seventies in Salzburg about the childhood story of Luke and the hidden symbolism of the
      Message 2 of 20 , Feb 5, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Am 02.02.2004 um 15:02 schrieb Bill Bullin:

        >
        > Dear Peter,
        >
        > Thank you for your valuable reference which I will follow up.
        >
        > It is interesting that Schell was not recognised by his colleagues;
        > I don't suppose he advocated the primacy of 4G as well did he?!!!

        No, I took part in a guest seminar Claus Schedl helt in the seventies
        in Salzburg about the childhood story of Luke and the hidden symbolism
        of the numbers of words and letters etc., and I visited him once in
        Graz. He was a great scholar and a sincere and modest personality, but
        athough some observations are really amazing, I would not follow his
        trace.

        >
        > More seriously I do think my brief notes on 1 Cor. 8:6, Mark 4: 13-20
        > and
        > the Johannine Prologue
        > have major implications for:
        >
        > (1) New Testament christology and its roots in history;
        > (2) Johannine priority;
        > (3) Inter communal textual communication during the production of the
        > Gospels.
        >
        > If Mark 4: 13-20 could be shown to be a likely pericope from Johannine
        > circles,
        > it would demonstrate that the(se) Johannine circles(s) knew at least
        > one the
        > parables of Jesus
        > but the Evangelist / B. D. chose not to incorporate it for some reason.

        In my view you have to differenciate between the parable and its
        interpretation. The parable is one thing. It belonged to the traditions
        available to Mark. The interpretation is another thing and was given by
        Mark himself and layed into the mouth of Jesus. One of the purposes or
        probably the main purpose of the interpretation was to explicitely
        de-christologize the term and concept of the Logos like the
        "Hellenistenbuch" already did before. The sawyer is Jesus and the Logos
        is the seed he spreads or his spoken word. Matthew and Luke appearantly
        were no longer aware of this primary intention and changed the absolute
        "Logos" simply to the "logos qeou". After all, I do not hink that the
        pericope of the sawyer has something to do with johannine circles, but
        only with Mark rejceting all Logos-speculations along with he "Gospel
        of John" he had before his eyes. Both, "John" and after him Mark, by
        this same procedure exalted Jesus from the Logos (Philo and Prologue)
        to God himself. This is the line not only of "John" and Mark, but also
        of the following Gospel writers Matthw and Luke. According to all
        Gospels in Jesus has appeared God (= Yaweh) himself, and what he speaks
        is the Logos or the word of God.

        > With regard to the Prologue, the central word of the 373 words of
        > 10-14 is,
        > significantly I think, 'Name'
        > rather than 'children of God' as in Alan Culpepper's analysis:
        > 'The Pivot of John's Prologue' NTS 27 (80/81), 1-31.
        > I think NAME is extremely relevant to this christological Prologue
        > and that it rings bells with the core of the Carmen Christi.
        > Interesting too
        > is the fact that the Prologue
        > contains between 1117 and 1121 Greek letters whilst 373 x 3 is 1119
        > whilst the gematria of the six words of the Shema amounts to 1118.
        >
        > I appreciate your response.

        Unfortunately I have there no knowledge and no opinion.

        All the best!
        Peter Hofrichter
      • Maluflen@aol.com
        ... Yes, particularly in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.
        Message 3 of 20 , Feb 5, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 2/5/2004 12:40:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, Peter.Hofrichter@... writes:

          >> In my view you have to differenciate between the parable and its interpretation. The parable is one thing. It belonged to the traditions available to Mark.>>

          Yes, particularly in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.

          <<The interpretation is another thing and was given by Mark himself and layed into the mouth of Jesus. One of the purposes or probably the main purpose of the interpretation was to explicitely de-christologize the term and concept of the Logos like the "Hellenistenbuch" already did before. The sower is Jesus and the Logos is the seed he spreads or his spoken word. Matthew and Luke appearantly were no longer aware of this primary intention and changed the absolute "Logos" simply to the "logos qeou". >>

          This theory seems counter-intuitive to me. Besides, your data are not accurate. Matthew never uses the expression "logos qeou" in this context. The Synoptic data in fact make more sense if John is left out of the equation.

          With respect to the parable of the sower, the process begins with Matthew, who is first to supply the interpretation of the parable and explains "the seed", in line with his own Gospel message and that proclaimed by Jesus (cf. 4:17, 23; 24:14), as the "message of the kingdom" (ho logos ths basileas, 13:19).

          Next comes Luke, who alters the vocabulary under the influence of terminology found in the Pauline letters, where the Gospel message is described as "the word of God" (1 Thess 2:13). This expression may be abbreviated to ton logon (in the acc.), as it is in Lk 8:13,15 etc., just as it is frequently in Acts, where the same Pauline (or perhaps early church / technical) terminology is used. Finally Mark comes along, and his usage reflects the latest stage of the development in the Synoptics, where ton logon (acc.) in the absolute is now known, without further qualification, to refer to the Gospel message preached and can therefore be used from the start in his (copied) explanation of the parable (4:13). Mark's usage then corresponds to the later Matthean (and Lukan) usage (Matt 13:20,21,22,23) where in Matthew the definite article is anaphoric, pointing to the fuller expression in 13:19, and so is not yet the absolute usage found in Mark. This explanation accounts for the data in a way that is straightforward and simple; we are still a long way from the further Christological development in which Christ himself is identified as the logos tou qeou.

          Leonard Maluf
          Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
          Weston, MA
        • fmmccoy
          ... From: Peter.Hofrichter To: Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 11:40 AM Subject: Re:
          Message 4 of 20 , Feb 5, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "Peter.Hofrichter" <Peter.Hofrichter@...>
            To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 11:40 AM
            Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Re: Oral Tradition


            > In my view you have to differenciate between the parable and its
            > interpretation. The parable is one thing. It belonged to the traditions
            > available to Mark. The interpretation is another thing and was given by
            > Mark himself and layed into the mouth of Jesus. One of the purposes or
            > probably the main purpose of the interpretation was to explicitely
            > de-christologize the term and concept of the Logos like the
            > "Hellenistenbuch" already did before. The sawyer is Jesus and the Logos
            > is the seed he spreads or his spoken word. Matthew and Luke appearantly
            > were no longer aware of this primary intention and changed the absolute
            > "Logos" simply to the "logos qeou". After all, I do not hink that the
            > pericope of the sawyer has something to do with johannine circles, but
            > only with Mark rejceting all Logos-speculations along with he "Gospel
            > of John" he had before his eyes. Both, "John" and after him Mark, by
            > this same procedure exalted Jesus from the Logos (Philo and Prologue)
            > to God himself. This is the line not only of "John" and Mark, but also
            > of the following Gospel writers Matthw and Luke. According to all
            > Gospels in Jesus has appeared God (= Yaweh) himself, and what he speaks
            > is the Logos or the word of God.


            Perhaps, though, the thought in Mark is that Jesus is the Logos of God as a
            personified divine being and that his message is the Logos of God as speech.
            That is to say, I question an either/or alternative as respects the nature
            of the Logos of God in Mark.

            Let us look at these pairs in Mark 8:36-38:
            8:36b my sake and the gospel
            838a me and my words (logoi)
            8:38b The Son of Man and the angels--the holy.

            I suggest that the right column are equivalents, so that the gospel = the
            words (logoi) spoken by Jesus = the angels. The last part of the equation
            is the key one--for Philo believed that the words (logoi) of God are
            personified as angels. So, I suggest, the right hand column consists of the
            Logos of God as broken down into individual spoken words (logoi) of God. In
            this case, the gospel spoken by Jesus is the Logos of God as broken down
            into the individual spoken logoi (words) of God that are personified in the
            angels.

            I suggest that the left column are also equivalents, so that me = me = the
            Son of Man. Since this Son of Man is said to have God as his Father in
            8:38, he is a Son of God. This is significant--for Philo believed that the
            Logos of God as personified in a divine being is a Son of God.

            So, I suggest , in Mark 8:36-38, we have three pairs in which the left pair
            is the Logos of God as personified in a divine being, and in which the right
            pair is the Logos of God as broken down into the individual spoken words
            (logoi) of God that are personified in the angels. If so, then Mark's Jesus
            is the Logos of God as personfied in a divine being and what he speaks,
            i.e., the gospel, is the Logos of God as the individual spoken words (logoi)
            of God that are personified in the angels.

            In this case, there is no exaltation of Jesus from the Logos to God Himself
            in Mark.

            Perhaps it's questionable whether this is the case in John either. Why
            would the Johannine community keep the Prologue in John, where Jesus is the
            Logos of God as a personified divine being, if they later exalted him from
            the Logos to God Himself?

            Frank McCoy
            1809 N. English Apt. 15
            Maplewood, MN 55109
          • Peter.Hofrichter
            ... Dear Colleague Leonard Maluf I know already your two Gospels Theorie. Unfortunately I cannot share it. Mark is the first among the synoptics. The
            Message 5 of 20 , Feb 6, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Am 05.02.2004 um 21:37 schrieb Maluflen@...:

              > In a message dated 2/5/2004 12:40:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,
              > Peter.Hofrichter@... writes:
              >
              >>> In my view you have to differenciate between the parable and its
              >>> interpretation. The parable is one thing. It belonged to the
              >>> traditions available to Mark.>>
              >
              > Yes, particularly in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.
              >
              > <<The interpretation is another thing and was given by Mark himself
              > and layed into the mouth of Jesus. One of the purposes or probably the
              > main purpose of the interpretation was to explicitely de-christologize
              > the term and concept of the Logos like the "Hellenistenbuch" already
              > did before. The sower is Jesus and the Logos is the seed he spreads or
              > his spoken word. Matthew and Luke appearantly were no longer aware of
              > this primary intention and changed the absolute "Logos" simply to the
              > "logos qeou". >>




              > This theory seems counter-intuitive to me. Besides, your data are not
              > accurate. Matthew never uses the expression "logos qeou" in this
              > context. The Synoptic data in fact make more sense if John is left out
              > of the equation.
              > With respect to the parable of the sower, the process begins with
              > Matthew, who is first to supply the interpretation of the parable and
              > explains "the seed", in line with his own Gospel message and that
              > proclaimed by Jesus (cf. 4:17, 23; 24:14), as the "message of the
              > kingdom" (ho logos ths basileas, 13:19).

              Dear Colleague Leonard Maluf
              I know already your two Gospels Theorie. Unfortunately I cannot share
              it. Mark is the first among the synoptics. The development of the
              "Logos" goes differently from what should be expected according to an
              evolution concept. But concerning the christology this means a
              augmentation or lifting up.

              The first step is: The Logos is Jesus, the second step is: the Logos is
              not Jesus, but his word, the word of God, the logos sperrmatikos. God
              himself is Jesus.
              Originally, according the Logos-Hymn and with Philo in the background
              the Logos is Jesus, But according to the interpretation of the
              Hellenistenbuch or "John" and also by the interpretation of Mark the
              Logos is the "Logos spermatikos", the word of God.

              > Next comes Luke, who alters the vocabulary under the influence of
              > terminology found in the Pauline letters, where the Gospel message is
              > described as "the word of God" (1 Thess 2:13). This expression may be
              > abbreviated to ton logon (in the acc.), as it is in Lk 8:13,15 etc.,
              > just as it is frequently in Acts, where the same Pauline (or perhaps
              > early church / technical) terminology is used. Finally Mark comes
              > along, and his usage reflects the latest stage of the development in
              > the Synoptics, where ton logon (acc.) in the absolute is now known,
              > without further qualification, to refer to the Gospel message preached
              > and can therefore be used from the start in his (copied) explanation
              > of the parable (4:13). Mark's usage then corresponds to the later
              > Matthean (and Lukan) usage (Matt 13:20,21,22,23) where in Matthew the
              > definite article is anaphoric, pointing to the fuller expression in
              > 13:19, and so is not yet the absolute usage found in Mark. This
              > explanation accounts for the data in a way that is straightforward and
              > simple; we are still a long way from the further Christological
              > development in which Christ himself is identified as the logos tou
              > qeou.
              >
              > Leonard Maluf
              > Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
              > Weston, MA

              Peter Hofrichter
            • Bill Bullin
              ... Bill Bullin replies concerning Mark 4:10-20 and parallels: First we can argue either that: (1) Mark follows Matthew and Luke (Griesbach); John is latest.
              Message 6 of 20 , Feb 6, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Bill Bullin wrote:

                > > If Mark 4: 13-20 could be shown to be a likely pericope from Johannine
                > > circles,
                > > it would demonstrate that the(se) Johannine circles(s) knew at least
                > > one of the
                > > parables of Jesus
                > > but the Evangelist / B. D. chose not to incorporate it for some reason.
                Peter replied:
                > In my view you have to differenciate between the parable and its
                > interpretation. The parable is one thing. It belonged to the traditions
                > available to Mark. The interpretation is another thing and was given by
                > Mark himself and layed into the mouth of Jesus. One of the purposes or
                > probably the main purpose of the interpretation was to explicitely
                > de-christologize the term and concept of the Logos like the
                > "Hellenistenbuch" already did before. The sawyer is Jesus and the Logos
                > is the seed he spreads or his spoken word. Matthew and Luke appearantly
                > were no longer aware of this primary intention and changed the absolute
                > "Logos" simply to the "logos qeou". After all, I do not hink that the
                > pericope of the sawyer has something to do with johannine circles, but
                > only with Mark rejceting all Logos-speculations along with he "Gospel
                > of John" he had before his eyes. Both, "John" and after him Mark, by
                > this same procedure exalted Jesus from the Logos (Philo and Prologue)
                > to God himself. This is the line not only of "John" and Mark, but also
                > of the following Gospel writers Matthw and Luke. According to all
                > Gospels in Jesus has appeared God (= Yaweh) himself, and what he speaks
                > is the Logos or the word of God.
                >
                Bill Bullin replies concerning Mark 4:10-20 and parallels:

                First we can argue either that:

                (1) Mark follows Matthew and Luke (Griesbach);
                John is latest.

                (2) Matthew and Luke follow Mark and possibly other sources (Streeter).
                John is latest.

                (3) Luke follows Matthew and Matthew follows Mark (Farrar / Goulder);
                John is latest.

                (4) An elaborate theory of synoptic development and inter-reaction.
                John is last (and *first), (Boismard, *Robinsion).

                (5) Johannine material was in circulation before Mark (as it is now known),
                was competed.
                This may have taken the form of both a Hellenistenbuch and or other free
                floating oral material
                or indeed a 'sealed' piece of oral material.

                We can view this material in a number of ways:

                (A) We can read it as a straightforward continuation of Jesus' teaching to
                the disciples, when the crowds were no longer present.

                (B) We can see it as one piece of Marcan redactional material.

                (C) We can see it as two separate pieces of material: 11-12 & 13-20, in
                which case they could be:

                (a) Teaching of Jesus to his disciples (11-12) and then Marcan redactional
                material (13-20).

                (b) Marcan redactional material (11-12) and then a further preserved
                pericope of Jesus' teaching (13-20).

                (c) One piece of Marcan redactional material (11-12) followed by a second
                piece of Marcan redactional material (13-20).

                (d) One piece of Marcan redactional material (11-12) followed by
                an insertion of further redactional material (13-20) from elsewhere.

                (e) Two pieces of redactional material from elsewhere.

                (f) One piece of continuous redactional material inserted from elsewhere.

                I (BB), am arguing for (5) (C) (d, with perhaps as underlying wisdom
                logion).
                I understand you, (PH) to be arguing for (5) (B) or (C) (c).
                I understand Leonard, (LM) to be arguing for (1) (B) (f).

                I understand Frank (F MC) to be introducing a broader christological
                suggestion,
                offering an intermediate concept somewhere between logos and LOGOS; a kind
                of 'anggelogos' rather than an 'ANGGELOGOS'.

                I wonder what those who support an early John and follow (2) or (4) make of
                Mark 4?
              • Maluflen@aol.com
                ... Because you say so? My response is: prove it . And please do not bother to repeat the standard arguments found in New Testament introductions. All five of
                Message 7 of 20 , Feb 6, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  In a message dated 2/6/2004 9:15:01 AM Eastern Standard Time, Peter.Hofrichter@... writes:

                  > Dear Colleague Leonard Maluf
                  > I know already your two Gospels Theorie. Unfortunately I cannot share it. Mark is the first among the synoptics.>

                  Because you say so? My response is: "prove it". And please do not bother to repeat the standard arguments found in New Testament introductions. All five of them have been frequently and decisively exposed as fallacious, or at the very least inconclusive. On the other hand, if you have some new argument in its support (other than that from authority) I, for one, would be most interested in hearing it. What impresses me is that the theory of Markan priority leaves unexplained more detailed phenomena in the Synoptic Gospels than it explains. Try, if you like, to persuade me otherwise, but perhaps you should do so on another list, such as Synoptic-L. Thus far you have only confirmed my view that old Europe is more reliable on the question of preemptive warfare than it is on the question of the order of the Synoptic Gospels.

                  << The development of the "Logos" goes differently from what should be expected according to an evolution concept. But concerning the christology this means a augmentation or lifting up....>

                  Sorry. The theory doesn't become any less counter-intuitive with repetition. I need to know something of the reason why you think Mark's (bzw. Matthew's) use of logos to refer to the teaching of Jesus was a fighting doctrine, attempting to undermine an already established identification of Jesus himself with the logos. I just see no evidence of this whatsoever.

                  Leonard Maluf
                  Blessed John XXIII National Seminary
                  Weston, MA
                • Joseph Codsi
                  Peter Hofrichter wrote on February 5, 2004 in relation to Mark s parable of ... I find this reconstruction of the facts too hasty. In order to reach such a
                  Message 8 of 20 , Feb 7, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Peter Hofrichter wrote on February 5, 2004 in relation to Mark's parable of
                    the sower:

                    > In my view you have to differentiate between the parable and its
                    > interpretation. The parable is one thing. It belonged to the traditions
                    > available to Mark. The interpretation is another thing and was given by
                    > Mark himself and layed into the mouth of Jesus.

                    I find this reconstruction of the facts too hasty. In order to reach such a
                    conclusion, I would expect the existence of two distinct versions of the
                    parable. The first one would narrate the parable without its explanation,
                    and the second one would be Mark's present version. In the absence of such a
                    literary evidence, Peter's conclusion requires some explanation.
                    If Mark has invented the explanation of the parable, then one is to conclude
                    that Jesus had told the parable without its explanation. I find this
                    difficult to maintain.
                    To begin with, the gospel of "Mark" openly contradicts this explanation. The
                    parabolic discourse concludes with the following remark:
                    "With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to
                    hear it; he did not speak to them except in parables, but he explained
                    everything in private to his disciples." (Mark 4:33-34)
                    I will comment on this passage in two points.
                    First point: The parables are not meant to obscure the message. On the
                    contrary, their purpose is to convey the message of Jesus concerning the
                    spiritual reality called the Kingdom of God. The parabolic discourse was a
                    way of adapting the language to the audience, so that the people would
                    understand. This is what is implied in verse 33.
                    Second point: Jesus reserved the explanation of the parable to his
                    disciples, as it is stated in verse 34 and as it is specifically said of the
                    parable of the sower in verses 10-12.
                    In both cases it is implied that the explanation goes back to Jesus himself.
                    The fact of separating the parable from its explanation does not prove, in
                    and of itself, that Mark is responsible of this separation. We must examine
                    Mark's text more carefully.

                    Mark's version does not only separate the parable from its explanation. It
                    moreover conveys the notion that Jesus reserved the explanation to his
                    disciples. It goes even to the point of changing the meaning of the word
                    "parable" from a concrete illustration of the spiritual reality to an
                    "incomprehensible charade" (cf. Mark 4:10-12). There is here a clear
                    contradiction that renders the understanding of Mark very difficult. I will
                    not go now into this difficult problem.
                    There are two ways of reading what pertains to the parables in Mark. The
                    first one is a literal reading. In this case, Jesus himself would have
                    reserved the explanation of the parable to his disciples. The second reading
                    stems from the fact that Jesus could not have done so and could not have
                    given the explanation found in verses 11-12. In this second case, the
                    problem consists in determining who is responsible of verses 11-12, the
                    disciples themselves or "Mark" or someone in between.
                    I think this question must be resolved before we could speak of any relation
                    between "Mark" and "John". This is particularly true if it can be proven
                    that Mark did not invent anything here, but transmitted faithfully and to
                    the letter what he had received, in spite of the fact that what he had
                    received did not make sense, especially in relation to verses 11-12.
                    So long,
                    Joseph.

                    Joseph Codsi
                    P.O.Box 116-2088
                    Beirut, Lebanon
                    Telephone (961) 1 242-545
                    joseph5@...
                  • Peter.Hofrichter
                    ... The same happend once more in the 4th century. After the Logos-christology was renewed be Justinus Martyr it was accepted by almost all theologians (except
                    Message 9 of 20 , Feb 7, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Am 06.02.2004 um 03:42 schrieb fmmccoy:

                      > In this case, there is no exaltation of Jesus from the Logos to God
                      > Himself
                      > in Mark.
                      >
                      > Perhaps it's questionable whether this is the case in John either. Why
                      > would the Johannine community keep the Prologue in John, where Jesus
                      > is the
                      > Logos of God as a personified divine being, if they later exalted him
                      > from
                      > the Logos to God Himself?
                      >
                      > Frank McCoy

                      The same happend once more in the 4th century. After the
                      Logos-christology was renewed be Justinus Martyr it was accepted by
                      almost all theologians (except certain modalists especially in Asia
                      Minor). But the Logos-Christology was and is incompatible with the full
                      godhead of Christ. The Logos is concieved as a being between God and
                      man, between God and his creature, mediator and word of creation.
                      Arius, who was a famous preacher in Alexandria and a consequent
                      montheist and platonist, claimed therefore that the Logos was
                      subordinate to God and that he was created by him before all other
                      creatures. Other theologians claimed that the Son wass of the same
                      divine "substance" and eternal age as the Father. Also they referred
                      the Gospel of John: Me and the Father are one, who sees Me sees the
                      Father. At last the Council of Nicea (325) decided in its creed: We
                      belive in him as "gennhqenta monogenh from the ousia of the Father,
                      light from light ... homoousios tw patri", and so on. The term Logos is
                      not to be found in this creed of Nicea and not even in it revised
                      edition of Constantinople (381), which is used till today by all
                      Curches. Also Arius and his friend Euzoius published a creed where the
                      say at the same place: "gegennhmenon Logon Qeon". They bestowed on the
                      term Logos. The controversy between Arians and Nicaenians as alredy
                      before between Subordinationists and Modalists had its last reason in
                      the contradiction between the Logos-Hymn and the Gospel reinterpreting
                      it and de-cristoloigising the Logos and exalting Jesus to Jahwe himself
                      in the oneness of God Father and Son. The most dazzeling enigma of the
                      Gospel is this "contradiction", if one believes that it was written
                      altogether by the same author. We are used to hear always again that
                      the Logos concept is the crown and peak of all Christology. This was
                      originally for ancient people definitely not at all the case. The Logos
                      is clearly less than and subordinate to the one God of Israel and also
                      less than and beneeth the transcendent God of Plato There the Logos is
                      the soul of the cosmos. In Jewish or Christian terms he is the mediator
                      of creation and revelation. And he is necessary because in Platonism
                      the absolutely transcendent God himself has no relation whatsoever with
                      the material world except through a mediator. Therfore Philo shows not
                      God, but the Logos speaking in the burnig thorn bush, on the mount
                      Sinai, and so on.

                      As to Mark: The parable of the sawer is the only one, which is given an
                      interpretation and an enigmatic question to the understanding of the
                      disciples. Why? As referring to peple with more or less faith it is
                      quite easy to be understood and does not deserve a special explanation.
                      The emphasis in its undestanding must have another reason, it mus be
                      because of the Logos terminology. The logical link between the Sawer,
                      the seed and the problem of the Logos terminology is the concept of the
                      Logos spermatikos. What the readers of the Gospel shall understand is
                      exactly that Jesus is the sawer and his spoken word is the Logos as the
                      logos spermatikos: the seed. One could object that Mark does not deal
                      elsewhere with this problem. that is true. but if his model was the
                      primitive "Gospel of John", he and his readers knew also this problem.

                      The reason of the de-christologisation of the Logos by "John" (that
                      means the later Hellenists) and by Mark may not have been only and on
                      first line the exatation of Jesus from Logos to God himself, but also
                      and even more the struggle against the beginning Gnostic spinneries
                      about the preexisting divine World.

                      Peter Hofrichter
                    • Bill Bullin
                      ... it. Mark is the first among the synoptics. ... Leonard replies: Because you say so? My response is: prove it . Bill Bullin writes: Dear Leonard In a
                      Message 10 of 20 , Feb 7, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        -Peter Hofrichter rights to Leonard:
                        > > I know already your two Gospels Theorie. Unfortunately I cannot share
                        it. Mark is the first among the synoptics.>
                        >
                        Leonard replies: Because you say so? My response is: "prove it".

                        Bill Bullin writes:

                        Dear Leonard

                        In a recent posting to Peter Hofrichter, I set out a scheme of the
                        theoretical possibilities that are most likely to be argued in relation to
                        the origin of
                        Mark 4: 13-20 (//'s Matt. 13:8-23 & Luke 8:11-13). The nature of such a
                        scheme risks being irritating rather than helpful. At the foot I made a note
                        of my understanding of your contribution. I inadvertently designated it: (1)
                        (B) (f) which of course is entirely in error. If I understand you correctly,
                        it should simply read (1) (B). I apologise.

                        Such a position as (1) (B) wields Occam's Razor with great effect; there is
                        no need to involve 4G; Mark is late, indeed late enough to reflect the kind
                        of evolved LOGOS Christology the majority of scholars argue for, together
                        with a post 85CE separation of Church and Synagogue type social situation
                        often linked with the 'benediction of the minim'; (J. L. Martyn (1979); D.
                        Rensberger, (1988) et al.). 4G is, presumably then written in the 90's - 120
                        's CE. This makes a great deal of sense to me but do I detect the faint
                        traces of blood on the wall? What if Occam's razor, is being wielded in the
                        bathroom where a baby has been bathing? What if the baby gets cut and then
                        baby, together with the bathwater, drains away leaving precious little
                        evidence of a more complex series of events? My metaphores are almost as
                        confusingly mixed as in Mark 4: 13-20.

                        For me, a first edition of John, written in the 60's in a Palestinian
                        setting, is a serious possibility. The Temple still stands (John 5:2),
                        tensions between the synagogue and the churches grow with a worsening
                        socio-political climate, they have never been great. Although a post war
                        'benediction' has not been formulated the ma-minim or believers are growing
                        in strength and tensions between the Christian Pharisees and the Synagogue
                        are growing. The parable of the sower is well known, not only to the Petrine
                        Party but also to the economically more independent and communal Johannine
                        Hellenists / Enochian Essene / Samaritans with their 373 ANGGELGOS
                        Christology.

                        A Johannine 'sealed pericope' is formulated orally and somehow passed
                        between the communities; it is a reflection on the parable of the sower,
                        well known to all the believers in Palestine. It warns against conforming
                        either for economic gain or to avoid persecution. It is constructed using
                        the word LOGOS eight times reflecting the gematria of IESOUS 888.
                        Furthermore it uses no more and no less than 146 words, two lots of 73, the
                        gematria of CHOKMAH or Wisdom, reinforcing the message that Jesus in the
                        flesh was none other than Wisdom incarnate, the DaBaR or LOGOS who had been
                        from the beginning. But more, the 146 words are constructed from 730 Greek
                        letters to emphasise the key meditative point yet again!

                        Both communities had been reflecting on their current social situation, the
                        evangel is falling on hard ground, indeed the war clouds are gathering
                        between Rome and the Jews. The Christians are reminded of words of Jesus and
                        of the great prophet Isaiah. Indeed the Beloved disciple had only recently
                        been reflecting prayerfully on the divine shekinah glory and writing about
                        it, (John 12:38-43, Isaiah 6:11-13). Perhaps they would need to flee to
                        Alexandria. Certainly some of the Jewish-Christians were considering fleeing
                        to Pella.

                        Alternatively of course, 'Mark' - writing in a post-war situation, could
                        simply have expanded on the 128 words of Matthew 13:18-23, noticing at the
                        same time that these were composed of 4 to the power of 3 words: (4x4x4=64 +
                        64=4x4x4), a cubic number like the very Holy of Holies both on earth and in
                        heaven. Much depends on the Q or non-Q debate, which, in its broadest terms
                        is clearly something for another list, but in the specific limits of
                        analysing Mark 4 in the light of proposed early Johannine material, must
                        surely remain relevant.

                        It is clearly unlikely that either Matthew or Mark would have followed Luke
                        8:11-15 with his meagre109 words, unless of course the kind of evolutionary
                        model of Christology is applied to synoptic development theory too; but here
                        I must certainly resist the temptation to digress onto John 17 and the two
                        accounts of the Lord's Prayer found in Matthew and Luke.

                        With best wishes from Old Europe.
                        >
                        Bill Bullin (Private Student, East Sussex).
                        >
                      • LeeEdgarTyler@aol.com
                        In a message dated 2/8/2004 1:16:51 PM Central Standard Time, joseph5@inco.com.lb writes: Peter Hofrichter wrote on February 5, 2004 in relation to Mark s
                        Message 11 of 20 , Feb 8, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          In a message dated 2/8/2004 1:16:51 PM Central Standard Time,
                          joseph5@... writes:

                          Peter Hofrichter wrote on February 5, 2004 in relation to Mark's parable of
                          the sower:

                          > In my view you have to differentiate between the parable and its
                          > interpretation. The parable is one thing. It belonged to the traditions
                          > available to Mark. The interpretation is another thing and was given by
                          > Mark himself and layed into the mouth of Jesus.

                          I find this reconstruction of the facts too hasty. In order to reach such a
                          conclusion, I would expect the existence of two distinct versions of the
                          parable. The first one would narrate the parable without its explanation,
                          and the second one would be Mark's present version. In the absence of such a
                          literary evidence, Peter's conclusion requires some explanation.
                          If Mark has invented the explanation of the parable, then one is to conclude
                          that Jesus had told the parable without its explanation. I find this
                          difficult to maintain
                          I wonder why you find this dificult, Joseph? Traditional wisdom forms like
                          the parable and the proverb are typically delivered without explication. It
                          is only once the thing leaves its milieu, often when it is committed to
                          written form, that you start finding explications attached to them.
                          Ed Tyler

                          http://hometown.aol.com/leeedgartyler/myhomepage/index.html


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Peter.Hofrichter
                          Am 06.02.2004 um 15:29 schrieb Bill Bullin: I always wonder how abstract especially NT-scholats are used to think and argue, far away from real life. Our
                          Message 12 of 20 , Feb 9, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Am 06.02.2004 um 15:29 schrieb Bill Bullin:

                            I always wonder how abstract especially NT-scholats are used to think
                            and argue, far away from real life. Our evangelists were not
                            sophisticated puzzle producers or people with too much leisur time or
                            well payed professors motivated by the principle publish or perish.
                            Writing and publishing a new book was a big and expensive task. If they
                            did so they must have experienced an urgent need and necessity,
                            especially if similar books already existed. They must have had a
                            strong motivation to improve or to change or to replace something they
                            were absolutely not content with or did absolutely not agree with to be
                            used in the church. We can be sure that in the young Jesus movement
                            everybody of the leading people knew everybody, but that there were
                            quite different opinions, strives and enimities like it is usual
                            especially in young movements (and even in old ones - think of your
                            parish, convent or whatsoever). Forget the romantic idea of isolated
                            communities with their isolated oral traditions and emerging new tales
                            ("Gemeindebildungen") kept hidden from everybody else for decades.
                            Where should that have been? Somewhere in the desert or on mount Hermon
                            or where? The Jesus people were mainly inhabitants of the big cities
                            with quick communication: Jerusalem, Damascus, Antioch, Caesarea,
                            Ephesus. All Gospels were produced by highly educated people, most
                            probably in Antioch. No author will have written without having before
                            his eyes all similar scriptures already existing. Think of what Luke
                            says in his Prologue, who might have been the last one to write. All
                            these famous theories mentioned below (Griesbach, Streeter, Boismatd,
                            etc.) lack of one important thing: the vital necessity and motivation
                            for each Gospel writer to do what he did.

                            The synoptic question as such belongs to another dicussion group. But
                            why should Mark make an abstract of Matthew and Luke? What is his vital
                            purpose and what is the decisive improvement? People normally want to
                            read more, not less! Abtracts were highly appreciated in antiquity
                            (e.g. Xyphilinus), but only of really lengthy works of about 100
                            volumes, which to buy or to read nobody had enough money and time. But
                            not in the case of one small booklet. What is much more likely and
                            usual is an enlarged edition with an special emphasis, like Matthew
                            made of Mark, also he a propagator of Peter stressing his claims by
                            additional arguments (as to the Jewish law or Mt 16,18). Additional
                            material was a condition of success and will have granted readers.
                            There are plenty of other examples of enlarged editions in secular
                            ancient literature, especially in historiography. About the priority of
                            a written early edition of "John" (Hellenistenbuch) as the partial
                            source and pattern of Mark and to a certain extent also once more of
                            his followers Mt and Lk I wrote already enough in this discussion
                            group. Luke as disciple and propagator of Paul could not be happy with
                            all three predecessors – none of them could be useed in the Pauline
                            Church – and wrote the last – and concerning the literary quality –
                            also the best Gospel. And there is some evidence that he used besides
                            "John", Mark, and Matthew also Matthew’s additional written source Q.
                            Then Luke had at least four earlier writings before his eyes, and his
                            statement that "many before him" have already written seems somehow
                            sincere and serious. Two or three would scarcely justify to speak of
                            "many". By the time several strong reactions on Mark and again on
                            Matthew were inserted into "John": Most Hellenists did not accept the
                            leadership of Peter and his party fovoured there, but others
                            appearently did. Additional texts of both factions were added to the
                            text existing, probably at first in different editions, but finally
                            united into only one and the same (e.g. the two different endings:
                            Thomas-story and chapter 21, and chapter 21once more augmented).

                            A last question: What is your "redactional material"? What kind of
                            substance is that? Something copied, something written from own memory
                            or from having heared from others or something concieved and produced
                            by oneself? Such abstract learned terms – as there are:
                            Gemeindebildung, Traditionsmaterial, redaktionelle Bildung, your
                            floating oral material etc. – conceal the helplessness and ingnorance
                            behind them and not only serve for nothing but poisen and block every
                            honest language in research. Say exactly what you mean and imagine it
                            in real live.

                            All the best for the future
                            Peter Hofrichter





                            > Bill Bullin replies concerning Mark 4:10-20 and parallels:
                            >
                            > First we can argue either that:
                            >
                            > (1) Mark follows Matthew and Luke (Griesbach);
                            > John is latest.
                            >
                            > (2) Matthew and Luke follow Mark and possibly other sources (Streeter).
                            > John is latest.
                            >
                            > (3) Luke follows Matthew and Matthew follows Mark (Farrar / Goulder);
                            > John is latest.
                            >
                            > (4) An elaborate theory of synoptic development and inter-reaction.
                            > John is last (and *first), (Boismard, *Robinsion).
                            >
                            > (5) Johannine material was in circulation before Mark (as it is now
                            > known),
                            > was competed.
                            > This may have taken the form of both a Hellenistenbuch and or other
                            > free
                            > floating oral material
                            > or indeed a 'sealed' piece of oral material.
                            >
                            > We can view this material in a number of ways:
                            >
                            > (A) We can read it as a straightforward continuation of Jesus'
                            > teaching to
                            > the disciples, when the crowds were no longer present.
                            >
                            > (B) We can see it as one piece of Marcan redactional material.
                            >
                            > (C) We can see it as two separate pieces of material: 11-12 & 13-20, in
                            > which case they could be:
                            >
                            > (a) Teaching of Jesus to his disciples (11-12) and then Marcan
                            > redactional
                            > material (13-20).
                            >
                            > (b) Marcan redactional material (11-12) and then a further preserved
                            > pericope of Jesus' teaching (13-20).
                            >
                            > (c) One piece of Marcan redactional material (11-12) followed by a
                            > second
                            > piece of Marcan redactional material (13-20).
                            >
                            > (d) One piece of Marcan redactional material (11-12) followed by
                            > an insertion of further redactional material (13-20) from elsewhere.
                            >
                            > (e) Two pieces of redactional material from elsewhere.
                            >
                            > (f) One piece of continuous redactional material inserted from
                            > elsewhere.
                            >
                            > I (BB), am arguing for (5) (C) (d, with perhaps as underlying wisdom
                            > logion).
                            > I understand you, (PH) to be arguing for (5) (B) or (C) (c).
                            > I understand Leonard, (LM) to be arguing for (1) (B) (f).
                            >
                            > I understand Frank (F MC) to be introducing a broader christological
                            > suggestion,
                            > offering an intermediate concept somewhere between logos and LOGOS; a
                            > kind
                            > of 'anggelogos' rather than an 'ANGGELOGOS'.
                            >
                            > I wonder what those who support an early John and follow (2) or (4)
                            > make of
                            > Mark 4?
                          • fmmccoy
                            ... From: Peter.Hofrichter To: Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 6:05 AM Subject: Re:
                            Message 13 of 20 , Feb 9, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              ----- Original Message -----
                              From: "Peter.Hofrichter" <Peter.Hofrichter@...>
                              To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                              Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 6:05 AM
                              Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Jesus Logos or God Himself


                              >
                              > Am 06.02.2004 um 03:42 schrieb fmmccoy:
                              >
                              > > In this case, there is no exaltation of Jesus from the Logos to God
                              > > Himself
                              > > in Mark.
                              > >
                              > > Perhaps it's questionable whether this is the case in John either. Why
                              > > would the Johannine community keep the Prologue in John, where Jesus
                              > > is the
                              > > Logos of God as a personified divine being, if they later exalted him
                              > > from
                              > > the Logos to God Himself?
                              > >

                              > The same happend once more in the 4th century. After the
                              > Logos-christology was renewed be Justinus Martyr it was accepted by
                              > almost all theologians (except certain modalists especially in Asia
                              > Minor). But the Logos-Christology was and is incompatible with the full
                              > godhead of Christ. The Logos is concieved as a being between God and
                              > man, between God and his creature, mediator and word of creation.
                              > Arius, who was a famous preacher in Alexandria and a consequent
                              > montheist and platonist, claimed therefore that the Logos was
                              > subordinate to God and that he was created by him before all other
                              > creatures.

                              That a Christological progression from Jesus as the Logos to Jesus as God
                              occurred in mainstream Christianity in the 4th century doesn't necessarily
                              mean that a similar Christological progression occurred in the Johannine
                              community in the 1st century.

                              In any event, the position of Arius appears to have been more sophisticated
                              than indicated above, with him distinguishing between the Logos who is the
                              Son (with this Logos being the Logos described above) and the true Logos of
                              God.

                              In Early Arianism-a View of Salvation (Fortress Press), Robert C. Gregg and
                              Dennis E. Groh state (p. 103), "As the structures of reality are differently
                              drawn by the early Arians, they argue that God's 'true' Reason and
                              Wisdom--that is, the Logos and Sophia which belong to his nature alone--are
                              his intrinsic attributes. Contrary to the charges leveled at them, the
                              Arians did not teach that God was ever without *his own* Word and Wisdom.
                              Athanasius knows this, for he preserved their doctrine of the one Wisdom
                              which is God's own and exists in him (ten idian kai synyparchousan tw thew),
                              distinguishable from the Son, and their parallel doctrine of the Word, other
                              than the Son, which is in God. The accusation contained in Alexander's
                              enclyclical is correct: the Arians say that the Son 'is neither similar to
                              the father in essence, nor is he truly and by nature (alethinos kai physei)
                              the Word of God, nor is he true (alethine) Wisdom...".

                              >Other theologians claimed that the Son wass of the same
                              > divine "substance" and eternal age as the Father. Also they referred
                              > the Gospel of John: Me and the Father are one, who sees Me sees the
                              > Father.

                              Certainly, these phrases, in John, of, "Me and the Father are one", and "Who
                              sees Me sees the Father", can be interpreted to mean that Jesus is God.

                              However, they are also intepretable in terms of a Logos Christology

                              See, for example, Fuga (101), where, regarding the Logos, Philo states,
                              "Nay, He is Himself the Image of God, chiefest of all Beings intellectually
                              perceived, placed nearest, with no intervening distance, to the Alone truly
                              existent One. For we read, 'I will talk with thee from above the
                              Mercy-seat, between the two Cherubim' (Ex. xxv. 21), words which shew that
                              while the Logos is the charioteer of the Powers, He Who talks is seated in
                              the chariot, giving directions to the charioteer for the right wielding of
                              the reins of the Universe."

                              Here, we see, the Logos is one with God, his Father, in two senses. First,
                              there is "no intervening distance" between the Logos and God, so that, in
                              some significant sense, they are a single entity. Second, the Logos is one
                              in will with God, obediently obeying whatever God tells him to do.

                              Here, we also see, the Logos is the Image of God, so that, in some
                              significant sense, to see the Logos is to see God.

                              (snip)

                              > We are used to hear always again that
                              > the Logos concept is the crown and peak of all Christology. This was
                              > originally for ancient people definitely not at all the case.

                              Agreed.

                              >The Logos
                              > is clearly less than and subordinate to the one God of Israel and also
                              > less than and beneeth the transcendent God of Plato There the Logos is
                              > the soul of the cosmos. In Jewish or Christian terms he is the mediator
                              > of creation and revelation. And he is necessary because in Platonism
                              > the absolutely transcendent God himself has no relation whatsoever with
                              > the material world except through a mediator. Therfore Philo shows not
                              > God, but the Logos speaking in the burnig thorn bush, on the mount
                              > Sinai, and so on.

                              While Philo's Logos is not Plato's soul of the cosmos, it is important to
                              note that Philo's Logos does play the same role. In Philo (Vol. 1, Harvard
                              University Press, pp. 327-28), Harry Austryn Wolfson states, "While the
                              residence of the Logos in the corporeal world is conceived by him (i.e.,
                              Philo), as we have said, after the analogy of the residence of Plato's
                              preexistent mind or soul in the body of the world, still Philo never
                              describes the immanent Logos as the mind or the soul of the world. His
                              immanent Logos, while performing the same functions as Plato's or the
                              Stoics' world-soul, is not a world-soul."

                              Also, since Philo's Logos is the One through whom the Cosmos is created,
                              Philo's Logos, even though not Plato's Demiurge, does play the same role as
                              Plato's Demiurge.

                              How does one explain why Philo's Logos plays the role of both Plato's
                              Demiurge and world-soul, yet is neither?

                              What I suspect is that Philo was influenced by the Middle Platonist, Eudorus
                              of Alexandria.

                              As respects the teachings of Eudorus, Jerry Dell Ehrlich states in Plato's
                              Gift to Christianity (Academic Christian Press, p. 104) that "the ultimate
                              transcendent God is even further exalted, which was in keeping with the
                              general trend within Middle-Platonism that the First Principle of all was
                              utterly transcendent, and the Creator of the World, the Demiurge, was a
                              Second Principle of creation, and the final principle, the third element of
                              deity, was the World-Soul or World-Spirit. While this is an interpretation
                              of Plato's own thoughts, it can be understood as an attempt at systematizing
                              Plato's Absolute One in the Republic with the Father and Maker of the
                              Universe in the Timaeus and the Living Creature (Cosmos) or World-Soul in
                              the Timaeus. While this view had tremendous influence on Philo of
                              Alexandria and the forming of the doctrine of the Christian Trinity, it
                              seems more likely that Plato himself would not have made a distinction
                              between the God beyond being and the Demiurge, the Father and Maker of the
                              Cosmos."

                              The important point here is that Eudorus did not equate the transcendent God
                              with the Demiurge, so that there are, in his thought, three divine beings,
                              i.e., the transcendent God, the Demiurge, and the World-soul.

                              In Philonic thought, the Logos apparently combines the roles of both
                              Eudorus' Demiurge and World-Soul. The Cosmos was created through the Logos
                              (so that he plays the same role as the Demiurge) and the Cosmos is ruled
                              through the Logos, who suffuses himself through the Cosmos, bonding and
                              knitting together all its parts (so that he plays the role of the
                              World-Soul).

                              Relevant to the discussion is Exodus (Book II, Sect. 68), where Philo
                              states, "And from the divine Logos, as from a spring, there divide and break
                              forth two powers. One is the creative (power), though which the Artificer
                              placed and ordered all things; this is named 'God.' And (the other is) the
                              royal (power), since through it the Creator rules over created things; this
                              is called 'Lord.'"

                              I suggest that, here, we have a clue as to how the roles of Eudorus'
                              Demiurge and the World-soul came to be assigned to Philo's Logos.

                              In particular, there appears to have been an intermediate step in which the
                              role of Eudorus' Demiurge was assigned to an angelic power called the
                              Creative Power and given the title of God and in which the role of Eudorus'
                              World-soul was assigned to an angelic power called the Royal Power and given
                              the title of Lord. This step was presumably taken by an Alexandrian Jew,
                              possibly, but not necessarily, Philo.

                              In the final step, these two angelic powers were taken to be a part of the
                              very self of the Logos. As a result, they emanate from the Logos like two
                              streams from a fountain. As these two angelic powers are of the very self
                              of the Logos, their roles are also the roles of the Logos. This last step,
                              presumably, was taken by Philo.

                              This explains why Philo gives the Logos the titles of God and Lord. The
                              Logos is God because he has the role of "God" (i.e., the Creative Power) and
                              he is Lord because he has the role of "Lord" (i.e., the Royal Power).

                              In this case, the exclamation of Thomas, "My Lord and my God!", can be
                              interpreted to be a recognition, on the part of Thomas, that Jesus is the
                              Logos: who combines, in one divine being, the Royal and Creative powers.

                              To conclude, it certainly is the case that, in John, there are some
                              statements which can be interpreted to mean that Jesus is God, e.g., Jesus'
                              declarations that he and the Father are one and that to see him is to see
                              the Father and Thomas' confession that Jesus is both Lord and God. However,
                              these same statements are also interpretable in terms of a Logos
                              Christology. In this case, there is a consistent Logos Christology in both
                              the Prologue and the main body of John.

                              Frank McCoy
                              1809 N. English Apt. 15
                              Maplewood, MN USA 55109
                            • Peter.Hofrichter
                              Dear Frank, I thank you very for this really learned dissertation. I want to add only some remarks. The task of the Church has always been and is also today
                              Message 14 of 20 , Feb 10, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Dear Frank,
                                I thank you very for this really learned dissertation. I want to add
                                only some remarks. The task of the Church has always been and is also
                                today harmonizing breaks, bridging gaps, saving peace among the sheep
                                and painting pictures of heavenly unanimity. Therefore The Gopel of
                                John has been at least for 1800 to 1900 years read in a harmonizing
                                way. And this was necessary as soon as it was ascribed as a whole to
                                one and the same holy author (what may have happended already against
                                the end of the first century). The last open conflicts are visible with
                                Tertullian’s Adversus Praxeam and Hippolyt’s Philosophoumena, where he
                                argues against Pope Callistus and especially against Noetus to believe
                                in a "sonfather", may be, also with the obscure Alogoi. But the task of
                                critcal historical research is contrary to that of the pastoral efforts
                                of the Church to uncover especially the gaps and the hidden
                                contradictions, the conflicts behind the facade and what really had
                                happend, (Neverftheless I understand myself as a a believer and an
                                ecclesial thologiian.)

                                The danger of the first century was of course not Arianism but
                                Gnosticism with its growing cascades of emanations, the starting point
                                of which had been the Logos christology and the other terms of the
                                Logos-hymn (arche, life, light, man, monogenes etc.). At the other hand
                                the solution of the fourth century as to the Logos was finally reached
                                on the background of the gnostic idea of the divine pleroma, within
                                which all divine entities were thought as homoousioi. Within this
                                concept also the unknown God himself and the Logos-Mediator can be
                                concieved as homoousioi. But concerning the origin and purpose of our
                                hellenistic Gospel "of John" we should think still quite simply. There
                                is an obvious gap between the Logos-hymn and the following text. And my
                                conviction is that the purpose of this book was to give a narrative
                                antignostic commentary to this confession-like hymn quoted at the
                                biginning and already firmly established in the hellenistic church
                                (grown out of the synagogue of the Alexandrinians etc. in Jerusalem).

                                You mention the Thomas confession to be also interpretable in harmony
                                with the Logos christology. Of course, everything is possible but not
                                verisimilar: Thomas says. "Ho kyrios mou kai ho theos mou!" If you
                                compare this with Joh 1,1, you realize that "ho theos" with article is
                                there exactly not the Logos but God himself. In addition we have in
                                the Gospel also the "I am" sayings (Ego eimi) at the capture of Jesus,
                                which remind us of the Name of Yahwe in Gen 3,13: "I am who I am". The
                                Thomas Confession is certainly the summary and the peak of the
                                christological teaching of this Gospel. In some respect it is the
                                conterpart to the confession of Peter in Mark (and in my view a later
                                added reaction to it).

                                Once more, the prupose of the Gospel was to give the hymnic confession
                                of faith of the Helleniists quoted at is beginning a new meaning: Its
                                text should not be underrstood as speking of prexistence and world
                                creation etc. but from it first line of the historical Jesus and his
                                revelation. God ("Ho theos") should be understood as Jesus himself and
                                the Logos as the spoken word of his revelation. This was the intention
                                of this book. And during the first and fist half of the second century
                                this strategy seems to have beeen successful and has been adopted also
                                by the other NT writers.

                                With complemtes
                                Peter Hofrichter

                                PS: Because of a journey I shall not be able to continue the dicussion.
                                Thanks to everybody and good buy!





                                Am 09.02.2004 um 18:49 schrieb fmmccoy:

                                >
                                > ----- Original Message -----
                                > From: "Peter.Hofrichter" <Peter.Hofrichter@...>
                                > To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                                > Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 6:05 AM
                                > Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Jesus Logos or God Himself
                                >
                                >
                                >>
                                >> Am 06.02.2004 um 03:42 schrieb fmmccoy:
                                >>
                                >>> In this case, there is no exaltation of Jesus from the Logos to God
                                >>> Himself
                                >>> in Mark.
                                >>>
                                >>> Perhaps it's questionable whether this is the case in John either.
                                >>> Why
                                >>> would the Johannine community keep the Prologue in John, where Jesus
                                >>> is the
                                >>> Logos of God as a personified divine being, if they later exalted him
                                >>> from
                                >>> the Logos to God Himself?
                                >>>
                                >
                                >> The same happend once more in the 4th century. After the
                                >> Logos-christology was renewed be Justinus Martyr it was accepted by
                                >> almost all theologians (except certain modalists especially in Asia
                                >> Minor). But the Logos-Christology was and is incompatible with the
                                >> full
                                >> godhead of Christ. The Logos is concieved as a being between God and
                                >> man, between God and his creature, mediator and word of creation.
                                >> Arius, who was a famous preacher in Alexandria and a consequent
                                >> montheist and platonist, claimed therefore that the Logos was
                                >> subordinate to God and that he was created by him before all other
                                >> creatures.
                                >
                                > That a Christological progression from Jesus as the Logos to Jesus as
                                > God
                                > occurred in mainstream Christianity in the 4th century doesn't
                                > necessarily
                                > mean that a similar Christological progression occurred in the
                                > Johannine
                                > community in the 1st century.
                                >
                                > In any event, the position of Arius appears to have been more
                                > sophisticated
                                > than indicated above, with him distinguishing between the Logos who is
                                > the
                                > Son (with this Logos being the Logos described above) and the true
                                > Logos of
                                > God.
                                >
                                > In Early Arianism-a View of Salvation (Fortress Press), Robert C.
                                > Gregg and
                                > Dennis E. Groh state (p. 103), "As the structures of reality are
                                > differently
                                > drawn by the early Arians, they argue that God's 'true' Reason and
                                > Wisdom--that is, the Logos and Sophia which belong to his nature
                                > alone--are
                                > his intrinsic attributes. Contrary to the charges leveled at them, the
                                > Arians did not teach that God was ever without *his own* Word and
                                > Wisdom.
                                > Athanasius knows this, for he preserved their doctrine of the one
                                > Wisdom
                                > which is God's own and exists in him (ten idian kai synyparchousan tw
                                > thew),
                                > distinguishable from the Son, and their parallel doctrine of the Word,
                                > other
                                > than the Son, which is in God. The accusation contained in Alexander's
                                > enclyclical is correct: the Arians say that the Son 'is neither
                                > similar to
                                > the father in essence, nor is he truly and by nature (alethinos kai
                                > physei)
                                > the Word of God, nor is he true (alethine) Wisdom...".
                                >
                                >> Other theologians claimed that the Son wass of the same
                                >> divine "substance" and eternal age as the Father. Also they referred
                                >> the Gospel of John: Me and the Father are one, who sees Me sees the
                                >> Father.
                                >
                                > Certainly, these phrases, in John, of, "Me and the Father are one",
                                > and "Who
                                > sees Me sees the Father", can be interpreted to mean that Jesus is God.
                                >
                                > However, they are also intepretable in terms of a Logos Christology
                                >
                                > See, for example, Fuga (101), where, regarding the Logos, Philo states,
                                > "Nay, He is Himself the Image of God, chiefest of all Beings
                                > intellectually
                                > perceived, placed nearest, with no intervening distance, to the Alone
                                > truly
                                > existent One. For we read, 'I will talk with thee from above the
                                > Mercy-seat, between the two Cherubim' (Ex. xxv. 21), words which shew
                                > that
                                > while the Logos is the charioteer of the Powers, He Who talks is
                                > seated in
                                > the chariot, giving directions to the charioteer for the right
                                > wielding of
                                > the reins of the Universe."
                                >
                                > Here, we see, the Logos is one with God, his Father, in two senses.
                                > First,
                                > there is "no intervening distance" between the Logos and God, so that,
                                > in
                                > some significant sense, they are a single entity. Second, the Logos
                                > is one
                                > in will with God, obediently obeying whatever God tells him to do.
                                >
                                > Here, we also see, the Logos is the Image of God, so that, in some
                                > significant sense, to see the Logos is to see God.
                                >
                                > (snip)
                                >
                                >> We are used to hear always again that
                                >> the Logos concept is the crown and peak of all Christology. This was
                                >> originally for ancient people definitely not at all the case.
                                >
                                > Agreed.
                                >
                                >> The Logos
                                >> is clearly less than and subordinate to the one God of Israel and also
                                >> less than and beneeth the transcendent God of Plato There the Logos is
                                >> the soul of the cosmos. In Jewish or Christian terms he is the
                                >> mediator
                                >> of creation and revelation. And he is necessary because in Platonism
                                >> the absolutely transcendent God himself has no relation whatsoever
                                >> with
                                >> the material world except through a mediator. Therfore Philo shows not
                                >> God, but the Logos speaking in the burnig thorn bush, on the mount
                                >> Sinai, and so on.
                                >
                                > While Philo's Logos is not Plato's soul of the cosmos, it is important
                                > to
                                > note that Philo's Logos does play the same role. In Philo (Vol. 1,
                                > Harvard
                                > University Press, pp. 327-28), Harry Austryn Wolfson states, "While the
                                > residence of the Logos in the corporeal world is conceived by him
                                > (i.e.,
                                > Philo), as we have said, after the analogy of the residence of Plato's
                                > preexistent mind or soul in the body of the world, still Philo never
                                > describes the immanent Logos as the mind or the soul of the world. His
                                > immanent Logos, while performing the same functions as Plato's or the
                                > Stoics' world-soul, is not a world-soul."
                                >
                                > Also, since Philo's Logos is the One through whom the Cosmos is
                                > created,
                                > Philo's Logos, even though not Plato's Demiurge, does play the same
                                > role as
                                > Plato's Demiurge.
                                >
                                > How does one explain why Philo's Logos plays the role of both Plato's
                                > Demiurge and world-soul, yet is neither?
                                >
                                > What I suspect is that Philo was influenced by the Middle Platonist,
                                > Eudorus
                                > of Alexandria.
                                >
                                > As respects the teachings of Eudorus, Jerry Dell Ehrlich states in
                                > Plato's
                                > Gift to Christianity (Academic Christian Press, p. 104) that "the
                                > ultimate
                                > transcendent God is even further exalted, which was in keeping with the
                                > general trend within Middle-Platonism that the First Principle of all
                                > was
                                > utterly transcendent, and the Creator of the World, the Demiurge, was a
                                > Second Principle of creation, and the final principle, the third
                                > element of
                                > deity, was the World-Soul or World-Spirit. While this is an
                                > interpretation
                                > of Plato's own thoughts, it can be understood as an attempt at
                                > systematizing
                                > Plato's Absolute One in the Republic with the Father and Maker of the
                                > Universe in the Timaeus and the Living Creature (Cosmos) or World-Soul
                                > in
                                > the Timaeus. While this view had tremendous influence on Philo of
                                > Alexandria and the forming of the doctrine of the Christian Trinity, it
                                > seems more likely that Plato himself would not have made a distinction
                                > between the God beyond being and the Demiurge, the Father and Maker of
                                > the
                                > Cosmos."
                                >
                                > The important point here is that Eudorus did not equate the
                                > transcendent God
                                > with the Demiurge, so that there are, in his thought, three divine
                                > beings,
                                > i.e., the transcendent God, the Demiurge, and the World-soul.
                                >
                                > In Philonic thought, the Logos apparently combines the roles of both
                                > Eudorus' Demiurge and World-Soul. The Cosmos was created through the
                                > Logos
                                > (so that he plays the same role as the Demiurge) and the Cosmos is
                                > ruled
                                > through the Logos, who suffuses himself through the Cosmos, bonding and
                                > knitting together all its parts (so that he plays the role of the
                                > World-Soul).
                                >
                                > Relevant to the discussion is Exodus (Book II, Sect. 68), where Philo
                                > states, "And from the divine Logos, as from a spring, there divide and
                                > break
                                > forth two powers. One is the creative (power), though which the
                                > Artificer
                                > placed and ordered all things; this is named 'God.' And (the other
                                > is) the
                                > royal (power), since through it the Creator rules over created things;
                                > this
                                > is called 'Lord.'"
                                >
                                > I suggest that, here, we have a clue as to how the roles of Eudorus'
                                > Demiurge and the World-soul came to be assigned to Philo's Logos.
                                >
                                > In particular, there appears to have been an intermediate step in
                                > which the
                                > role of Eudorus' Demiurge was assigned to an angelic power called the
                                > Creative Power and given the title of God and in which the role of
                                > Eudorus'
                                > World-soul was assigned to an angelic power called the Royal Power and
                                > given
                                > the title of Lord. This step was presumably taken by an Alexandrian
                                > Jew,
                                > possibly, but not necessarily, Philo.
                                >
                                > In the final step, these two angelic powers were taken to be a part of
                                > the
                                > very self of the Logos. As a result, they emanate from the Logos like
                                > two
                                > streams from a fountain. As these two angelic powers are of the very
                                > self
                                > of the Logos, their roles are also the roles of the Logos. This last
                                > step,
                                > presumably, was taken by Philo.
                                >
                                > This explains why Philo gives the Logos the titles of God and Lord.
                                > The
                                > Logos is God because he has the role of "God" (i.e., the Creative
                                > Power) and
                                > he is Lord because he has the role of "Lord" (i.e., the Royal Power).
                                >
                                > In this case, the exclamation of Thomas, "My Lord and my God!", can be
                                > interpreted to be a recognition, on the part of Thomas, that Jesus is
                                > the
                                > Logos: who combines, in one divine being, the Royal and Creative
                                > powers.
                                >
                                > To conclude, it certainly is the case that, in John, there are some
                                > statements which can be interpreted to mean that Jesus is God, e.g.,
                                > Jesus'
                                > declarations that he and the Father are one and that to see him is to
                                > see
                                > the Father and Thomas' confession that Jesus is both Lord and God.
                                > However,
                                > these same statements are also interpretable in terms of a Logos
                                > Christology. In this case, there is a consistent Logos Christology in
                                > both
                                > the Prologue and the main body of John.
                                >
                                > Frank McCoy
                                > 1809 N. English Apt. 15
                                > Maplewood, MN USA 55109
                              • Peter.Hofrichter
                                ... I wanted to write: Good bye! Sorry, but If it was a Freudian mistake, may be, my Unterbewusstsein wanted to recommad you to buy one of my books. So long!
                                Message 15 of 20 , Feb 10, 2004
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Am 10.02.2004 um 09:30 schrieb Peter.Hofrichter:

                                  > PS: Because of a journey I shall not be able to continue the dicussion.
                                  > Thanks to everybody and good buy!
                                  >
                                  I wanted to write: Good bye! Sorry, but If it was a Freudian mistake,
                                  may be, my Unterbewusstsein wanted to recommad you to buy one of my
                                  books. So long!
                                  P.H.
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.