Re: 'The Word was toward God' question
- Hi Mark,
Thanks for the encouraging comment. Sorry about the unintentional
anonymity on the earlier posts (perhaps like John? :). Here's my normal
Gary Manning, Ph.D.
Interim Academic Dean
Associate Professor of Bible and Biblical Languages
Pacific Rim Bible College
- 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
"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?
--- In email@example.com, "Gary Henecke"
>first readers, and the community of the first readers, and John's
> A lot of assumptions her as fact: assumptions on the language of the
intent or understanding from the Midrash writings - even John's
knowledge of the Hebrew scriptures versus the LXX.
> Your brother
> Gary Allen Henecke