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

Re: [John_Lit] Re: Info on Logos in John and Philo

Expand Messages
  • FMMCCOY
    This is in response to Kare Sigvald Fuglseth s post of 9-27. Point 1. There are the following correspondences between the Logos, as the true High Priest, as
    Message 1 of 2 , Sep 27, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      This is in response to Kare Sigvald Fuglseth's post of 9-27. Point 1.
      There are the following correspondences between the Logos, as the true High
      Priest, as described by Philo in Flight and Finding (F&F) 108-14
      and the Baptist's description of Jesus in John 4:27ff:: (1) both are
      Son of God, (2) both are Christ, (3) both have received the Spirit as Sophia
      from God, (4) both have been made Viceroy over all things by God, and (5)
      each is betrothed. The similarities are so striking that, I think, the
      burden of proof lies on one who denies that the Baptist identifies Jesus as
      being the Logos as the True High Priest in John 4:27ff..
      Point 2. John the Baptist was not the only one who, upon reading what
      Philo
      states in F&F (108-14), came to the conclusion that the Logos is the
      Bridegroom of the bride. In particular, this was also done by the Jewish
      author of Joseph and Asenath: (J&A).
      For example, in J&A (VI), Asenath states, "Or how shall Joseph the son of
      God see me, for that on my part I have spoken evil things about him? Alas
      me miserable! whither shall I go away and be hidden, because he himself
      seeth every hiding-place, and knoweth all things, an no hidden thing
      escapeth him by reason of the great light that is in him?" Here, Joseph is
      said to be Son of God and to have a great light within him. Similarly, in
      F&F (108-114), the Logos, as the true High Priest, is Son of God and his
      "ruling
      faculty is illumined with a brilliant light". Thus, in this work, Joseph
      symbolizes the Logos as true High Priest.
      This conclusion is re-inforced in J&A (V), "Joseph came in seated in
      the second
      chariot of Pharaoh; and there were yoked four horses white like snow and
      golden bits, and the chariot was of pure gold." Here, Joseph is identified
      as being the Viceroy of God over all things. The four horses are the four
      elements he has mastery over and he is in the second chariiot to signify
      that he is King in the sense of being God's Viceroy. That Joseph is King in
      the sense of being the Viceroy over all things means that he is the Logos,
      as true High Priest: who, in F&F (108-14). is declared to be King in the
      sense of being God's Viceroy.
      Having read F&F (108-114), how did the author of J&A interpret Philo's
      declaration that the Logos, as the true High Priest, is betrothed to a
      virgin? We find the
      answer in J&A (XV), where the Archangel Michael tells Asenath, "Be of good
      cheer, Asenath, the virgin and pure, lo! the Lord God hath given thee to-day
      to Joseph for a bride, and he himself shall be thy bridegroom for ever. And
      no more henceforth shalt thou be called Asenath, but thy name shall be 'City
      of Refuge,' for that in thee many nations shall seek refuge...". There you
      have it: he interpreted it to mean that the Logos, as the true High Priest,
      is the Bridegroom
      of the bride!
      To this last citation from J&S (where Asenath, as the bride of the Logos
      as the true High Priest, is said to be a city of refuge for many nations),
      compare
      Revelation 21:9-10 "I will show you the bride--the Lamb's wife. And he
      carried me away in Spirit to a high and great mountain, and showed me the
      great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of the heaven from God".
      Note that, here, the bridegroom of this city of refuge, i.e., the Logos as
      the true High Priest, is said to be "the Lamb". How can this be unless the
      inventor of
      the idea expressed in Revelation 21:9-10 believed there to be linkage
      between F&F (108-14), where the
      Logos, as the true High Priest, is said to be betrothed to a virgin and F&F
      (132-135), where
      the sacrificial ram is said to be a logos or Logos?

      Frank McCoy
      Maplewood, MN USA

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Kåre Sigvald Fuglseth" <kaare.fuglseth@...>
      To: <johannine_literature@egroups.com>
      Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 5:45 AM
      Subject: [John_Lit] Re: Info on Logos in John and Philo


      Frank McCoy argues that there is a direct link between the Philonic divine
      logos and the Philonic sacrificial ram on the one side and the Johannnine
      logos and the Johannine angus dei on the other ("John the Baptist
      identifies Jesus as being Philo's Logos as described in Flight and Finding
      (F&F)").

      Philo uses logos as hypostasis in several ways and some of these seem to be
      underlying the way the author of John uses it, in John 1 as well as several
      applications of it, e.g. the logos as light (cf. Somn. 1:75 on Gen 1:3). To
      say that there is direct connection between the two writers is of course
      not easy and demands more than some common ideas. As Peter Phillips put it
      on this list earlier: John's Logos is a slightly different kettle of fish.

      Philo reads the sacrificial ram in an allegorical way, but I really doubt
      that Philo identifies the sacrifices as the hypostatic Word of God in the
      passages McCoy quotes. In QE 2:101 it is the function of the horns that
      leads Philo to an understanding of the function of the divine logos, O(
      QEI=OS LO/GOS, not the the animals themselves.

      Regarding John 3:27ff, I also found it difficult to see a connection to the
      high priest, although the pre-existence of Jesus is clearly present. I also
      find it difficult to read the bridegroom metaphor allegorically in the way
      McCoy suggests. The point is simply that John the Baptist, compared to
      Jesus, is the best man and *not* a bridegroom.

      Very little has been written on this subject according to Radice and Runia
      Philo Bibliography, and the reason is probably that there is little to
      find.





      Kaare Fuglseth
      Bodø College
      N-8049 Bodø
      Norway
      Tel.: + 47 75517700
      Fax : + 47 75517798
      The Philo Concordance Project at
      http://webster.hibo.no/alu/krl/kaare/filon.htm



      SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com
      UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com
      PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com
    • Kåre Sigvald Fuglseth
      Frank MCoy wrote (in part): Point 1. ... No, when the text does not explicitly state this claim, the burden of proof lies one the one who reads the text
      Message 2 of 2 , Sep 28, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        Frank MCoy wrote (in part):

        Point 1.
        >There are the following correspondences between the Logos, as the true High
        >Priest, as described by Philo in Flight and Finding (F&F) 108-14
        >and the Baptist's description of Jesus in John 4:27ff:: (1) both are
        >Son of God, (2) both are Christ, (3) both have received the Spirit as Sophia
        >from God, (4) both have been made Viceroy over all things by God, and (5)
        >each is betrothed. The similarities are so striking that, I think, the
        >burden of proof lies on one who denies that the Baptist identifies Jesus as
        >being the Logos as the True High Priest in John 4:27ff..

        No, when the text does not explicitly state this claim, the burden of proof
        lies one the one who reads the text differently. To say that there are
        similarities between to writings is easy enough (a common "pool"), to say
        that the one writer is dependent on the other is difficult.

        No doubt, there are common aspects in the way Philo describes the Hight
        Priest as Logos and in the way John describes Jesus as Logos. However, to
        say that John has read Philo or that the author of the novel Joseph and
        Asenath has read Philo, needs profound literary correspondences, not just
        some common ideas or metaphors that have different meanings within their
        contexts. Note for instance that Philo finds the original text of Num. 35
        incomprehensible and since Moses cannot be suspected to have written
        nonsense, this passage must have another meaning (Fug. 108), which is quite
        different from saying that the High Priest *is* Son of God.

        In John 3:27 (not John 4) John the Baptist, or from 3:31, Jesus?, does not
        refer to the temple cult in any way, and that is perhaps the main
        difficulty if you want to argue that *John* presents Jesus as High Priest?




        Kaare Fuglseth
        Bodø College
        N-8049 Bodø
        Norway
        Tel.: + 47 75517700
        Fax : + 47 75517798
        The Philo Concordance Project at
        http://webster.hibo.no/alu/krl/kaare/filon.htm
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.