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

[John_Lit] Re: Oral Tradition

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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@...
    • 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.