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

Re: 'The Word was toward God' question

Expand Messages
  • Gary
    Hi Mark, Thanks for the encouraging comment. Sorry about the unintentional anonymity on the earlier posts (perhaps like John? :). Here s my normal email
    Message 1 of 15 , Dec 30, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Mark,

      Thanks for the encouraging comment. Sorry about the unintentional
      anonymity on the earlier posts (perhaps like John? :). Here's my normal
      email signature:
      _________________________________________
      Gary Manning, Ph.D.
      http://eutychusnerd.blogspot.com/
      Interim Academic Dean
      Associate Professor of Bible and Biblical Languages
      Pacific Rim Bible College
    • Kevin Snapp
      Hello, Gary, If the purpose of your post was to warn someone without background in NT scholarship that what I suggested should not be taken as authoritative,
      Message 2 of 15 , Jan 1, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Hello, Gary,

        If the purpose of your post was to warn someone without background in
        NT scholarship that what I suggested should not be taken as
        authoritative, fine, but I doubt that anyone could make that mistake.
        If you want to teach me or advance the discussion, you will need to
        be specific.

        "Fact" and "assumption" are a false dichotomy. We have no "facts"
        in the sense of generally undisputed historical truths concerning the
        author of the Fourth Gospel and his community; there is debate even
        as to who the author was. There are only inferences, more or less
        supported (or supportable) and more or less accepted among scholars.
        In calling into question the accepted understanding of "pros ton
        theon" I was proposing something outside the scholarly "mainstream,"
        but in proposing it I don't believe I was assuming anything outside
        the mainstream with respect to the matters you cryptically mention.

        I did assert (or "assume") certain things without giving reasons, but
        I believe they are reasonably well-supported in the literature. I
        accept that the author of John's Gospel -- the first author, not
        necessarily the last contributor -- was a Palestinian Jew, that
        his own community was Jewish, that he knew Jewish laws and customs,
        that he was familiar with much of the Bible in Hebrew as well as in
        Greek, and that the prologue reflects familiarity with Jewish
        extra-canonical oral and written traditions relating the "Wisdom"
        figure of Proverbs, the Torah and God. The author wrote the Gospel
        intending both that it would be preserved within his own
        Jewish-Christian community and be disseminated among other Christian
        communities, Jewish, Gentile and mixed.

        I am aware that some highly-respected scholars have taken the position
        that the prologue was originally a separate composition, but my
        assumption (I have reasons, but assume it here) that it is an integral
        part of the Gospel is, if anything, a conservative one.

        I think this is all mainstream, even if not all undisputed. What
        assumptions do you believe I am making that are unsupported and/or
        outside the mainstream of Johannine scholarship?

        Kevin

        --- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Henecke"
        <ghenecke@...> wrote:
        >
        > A lot of assumptions her as fact: assumptions on the language of the
        first readers, and the community of the first readers, and John's
        intent or understanding from the Midrash writings - even John's
        knowledge of the Hebrew scriptures versus the LXX.
        >
        > Your brother
        > Gary Allen Henecke
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.