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

Re: [John_Lit] Son of Man

Expand Messages
  • Peter Hofrichter
    Idou ho anthropos (Jn 19,5) in the mouth of Pilate corresponds to and recalls the originally christological text quoted at he beginning of the Gospel:
    Message 1 of 15 , Dec 31, 1969
    • 0 Attachment
      "Idou ho anthropos" (Jn 19,5) in the mouth of Pilate corresponds to and recalls the originally christological text quoted at he beginning of the Gospel: "Anthropos egeneto apestalmenos para theou, hina martyrese peri tou fotos ...; En to phos alethinon o photizei panta anthropon..." This text was also the basis for mission-motiv of the Gospel of "John". The insertion "his name was John, this one came for witness" changed the "man sent from God" to the Baptist, may be to cancel the contradiction, that Jesus is the witness for the light and the light itselve. But in Jn 8, 12-20 Jesus saiy that he is the light and he gives witness for himself.
      Peter Hofrichter

      Univ.-Prof. DDr. Peter Hofrichter
      Vorstand des Instituts f├╝r Kirchengeschichte und Patrologie
      Universit├Ątsplatz 1, A-5020 Salzburg, Austria
      Tel +43/662/8044/2700, 2704, Fax 2709
      privat: Wallmannhofstrasse 3, A-5400 Hallein, Austria
      Tel/Fax +43/6245/85010, +43/664/2027098
      Homepage: http://www.sbg.ac.at/kig/fs2.htm
    • Bill Skelton
      Francis: You have my address for the thesis. I may possibly not be on line for a period of a week or so because of computer problems, so make sure to inclose
      Message 2 of 15 , Oct 10, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        Francis:
         
        You have my address for the thesis. I may possibly not be on line for a period of a week or so because of computer problems, so make sure to inclose your snail mail address with the book when you send it, so I will be able to pay you.
         
        -Bill
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 1:45 PM
        Subject: [John_Lit] Son of Man

        Felix asked the question about the use of the two articles in "ho huios tou anthropou."  This is odd Greek indeed.  The semitic background (already mentioned), and Ramsey's suggestion of the parallel between Son of Man and Son of God is helpful.
         
        However, the reference to Hooker's remarks need to be taken further.  I am in a rush for class, but might I refer everyone to a most important discussion of this issue which is rarely noticed: C. F. D. Moule, "Neglected Features in the Problem of 'the Son of Man'," in Neues Testament und Kirche: Fuer Rudolf Schnackenburg (ed. J. Gnilka; Freiburg: Herder, 1974), 413-28.
         
        The three issues mentioned above (semitic, Son of God, and Hooker's suggestions) are all there ... along with Moule's little known suggestion of the Son of Man issue.
         
        Must rush to class.
         
        Frank Moloney
         
        The Catholic University of America

        SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com 
        UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com 
        PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com 

      • Maluflen@aol.com
        In a message dated 10/14/2000 6:19:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time, wskelton76@earthlink.net writes:
        Message 3 of 15 , Oct 14, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 10/14/2000 6:19:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
          wskelton76@... writes:

          << Would Pilate's "idou ho anthropos", "behold the man" in John 19:5 be
          intended to recall in irony the "ho huios tou anthropou", Son of Man,
          self-designation of Jesus?>>

          Bill, this long-time crux interpretum has been resolved (definitively, in my
          view) by Dieter Boehler, S.J., in a short article in BZ 39 (1995) 104-108:
          "'Ecce homo' (Joh 19,5) ein Zitat aus dem Alten Testament". It is here argued
          that the text is a (partial) citation of 1 Sam 9:17 (LXX). In n.6, on p. 105,
          Boehler cites Frank Moloney's book "The Johannine Son of Man", 202, to the
          effect that a Son of Man allusion here was hypothesized by Westcott in 1880.
          The author allows for a possible "Vielzahl von Bedeutungen, Anspielungen" in
          the expression, but his convincing connection of the passage, together with
          its entire context, with the 1 Sam text, in my view renders improbable all
          previous scholarly guesses (seven are listed)...in spite of the author's own
          modesty in presenting his view. This five-page article is, in any case, a
          must-read for all who have lingering doubts about the meaning and background
          of this Johannine text.

          Leonard Maluf
        • Francis Moloney
          Bill, You will find that I argue that 19:5 looks back to the S of M sayings. I would still claim that is the case. On the second remark of your note: when I
          Message 4 of 15 , Oct 15, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            Bill,

            You will find that I argue that 19:5 looks back to the S of M sayings. I
            would still claim that is the case.

            On the second remark of your note: when I started my D. Phil. dissertation
            at the University of Oxford, Geza Vermes (of Qumran, Aramaic and also Son of
            Man fame) announced (when my thesis topic was published in the University
            Gazette): "This is theological suicide!" Fortunately, he was not on the
            examining board!

            Frank Moloney

            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Bill Skelton <wskelton76@...>
            To: <johannine_literature@...>
            Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2000 3:24 PM
            Subject: [John_Lit] Son of Man


            > Would Pilate's "idou ho anthropos", "behold the man" in John 19:5 be
            > intended to recall in irony the "ho huios tou anthropou", Son of Man,
            > self-designation of Jesus? If so it would seem to support Wink's idea of
            the
            > latter phrase's as referring to "the Man" as an archetypal figure. Well,
            > perhaps I won't know until I receive my copy of Francis' thesis.
            >
            > I can't resist passing on what N. T. Wright heard a coleague of his mutter
            > at a scholarly meeting where the "Son of Man" issue was being discussed-
            > "Son of Man, Son of Man, that way lies madness."
            >
            > A warning to the curious?
            >
            > -Bill skelton
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com
            > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com
            > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com
            >
          • Maluflen@aol.com
            In a message dated 10/15/2000 4:20:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time, moloney@cua.edu writes:
            Message 5 of 15 , Oct 16, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 10/15/2000 4:20:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
              moloney@... writes:

              << You will find that I argue that 19:5 looks back to the S of M sayings. I
              would still claim that is the case.>>

              Frank, can you explain in a sentence or two why you don't think Boehler's
              article renders this view superfluous? Thanks. (Is it just the general
              principle of multivalence in John, or something more specific?)

              Leonard Maluf
            • Francis J. Moloney, SDB
              As I am totally occupied with bringing a major commentary on Mark to its conclusion, I have not been able to keep up with my Johannine reading. My reaction to
              Message 6 of 15 , Oct 16, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                As I am totally occupied with bringing a major commentary on Mark to its
                conclusion, I have not been able to keep up with my Johannine reading. My
                reaction to Leanard's outline - not having read the article yet - would be
                to warn against a uniquely diachronic reading of any text, including John
                19:5. Whatever contribution 1 Sam might make (yet to see), what impact
                do 1:51; 3:13, 14; 5:27; 6:27, 53, 62; 8:28; 9:35; 12:23 (32); 13:31-32 make
                upon the reader on arrival at 19:5?

                Will try to catch the artucle mentioned, but Mark 16:1-8 has me bamboozled
                at the moment.

                Regards,

                Frank Moloney

                -----Original Message-----
                From: Maluflen@... <Maluflen@...>
                To: johannine_literature@egroups.com <johannine_literature@egroups.com>
                Date: Monday, October 16, 2000 6:59 AM
                Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Son of Man


                >In a message dated 10/15/2000 4:20:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                >moloney@... writes:
                >
                ><< You will find that I argue that 19:5 looks back to the S of M sayings.
                I
                > would still claim that is the case.>>
                >
                >Frank, can you explain in a sentence or two why you don't think Boehler's
                >article renders this view superfluous? Thanks. (Is it just the general
                >principle of multivalence in John, or something more specific?)
                >
                >Leonard Maluf
                >
                >SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com
                >UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                >PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com
                >
              • FMMCCOY
                This is in response to Francis J. Maloney s post of 10-16-00. If I understand you correctly, you think that, for understanding John19:5, it is useful to first
                Message 7 of 15 , Oct 17, 2000
                • 0 Attachment
                  This is in response to Francis J. Maloney's post of 10-16-00.
                  If I understand you correctly, you think that, for understanding
                  John19:5, it is useful to first look at some passages
                  regarding the Son of (the) Man. It's not self-evident to me why one should
                  do this because 19:5 regards the Man rather than the Son of (the) Man. If
                  you can spare the time, I'd appreciate your input as to *why* reading these
                  Son of (the) Man sayings can help one to understand 19:5.
                  I do think that, in 19:5, we are dealing with the equation Man = the Son
                  of God. The reason is that, I believe, Pilate, in his statement,
                  "Behold the man", is alluding to the beginning of Zech. 6:12, "Behold a
                  man...". As we learn from Zech. 6:11, the words in Zech 6:12 are to be
                  uttered right after a man named Jesus has been crowned. Similarly,
                  Pilate utters, "Behold the man", in 19:5 right after a man named Jesus
                  has been crowned in 19:2. A one chance in a million coincidence? I think
                  not!
                  However, I do not think that Philo, in his statement, "Idou ho
                  anthropos" is alluding to Zech 6:12 as rendered in the Septuagint (Idou
                  aner), but, rather, as rendered by Philo in Conf. 62 (Idou anthropos). Of
                  course, to say that Pilate is alluding to Zech 6:12 as rendered by Philo in
                  Conf. 62 is to say that he is alluding in a broader sense to the rest of
                  Conf. 62: where Philo identifies this anthropos as being a Son begotten by
                  the Father, i.e., as being the Logos (see my post of Sept. 28). Hence, I
                  suggest, Pilate's proclamation (probably made in jest) is, in effect, this,
                  "Behold the Logos: the Man who is the Son of God."
                  Indeed, shortly after Pilate proclaims, "Idou ho anthropos" in 19:5, "the
                  Jews" cry out in 19:7, "We have a law, and, according to our law, he ought
                  to die because he made himself Son of God." I suggest that, "the Jews"
                  knew, Pilate was alluding to Conf. 62 and, therefore, was (in jest?)
                  identifying Jesus as being this Logos: the Man who is the Son of God.
                  Hence, with Pilate showing hesitancy over crucifying Jesus, they try to
                  convince him to go ahead by telling him that Jesus has claimed to be this
                  Son of God and, for this reason alone, he deserves to die according to the
                  Law of Moses.
                  I do believe that the equation Man = the Son of the Man is to be found in
                  the gospels, e.g., in Mark 13:32-37 and John 1:46b-51. I just don't see it
                  in John 19:5 and its immediate context of John 19:2-7.
                  .
                  Frank McCoy
                  Maplewood, MN USA
                • Maluflen@aol.com
                  Frank, your suggestion of a link between Jn 19:5 and Philo Conf.62 is really rendered superfluous and improbable in light of the article by Dieter Boehler I
                  Message 8 of 15 , Oct 18, 2000
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Frank, your suggestion of a link between Jn 19:5 and Philo Conf.62 is really
                    rendered superfluous and improbable in light of the article by Dieter Boehler
                    I referred to a few days ago in the following message:

                    << Bill, this long-time crux interpretum has been resolved (definitively, in
                    my
                    view) by Dieter Boehler, S.J., in a short article in BZ 39 (1995) 104-108:
                    "'Ecce homo' (Joh 19,5) ein Zitat aus dem Alten Testament". It is here argued
                    that the text is a (partial) citation of 1 Sam 9:17 (LXX). In n.6, on p. 105,
                    Boehler cites Frank Moloney's book "The Johannine Son of Man", 202, to the
                    effect that a Son of Man allusion here was hypothesized by Westcott in 1880.
                    The author allows for a possible "Vielzahl von Bedeutungen, Anspielungen" in
                    the expression, but his convincing connection of the passage, together with
                    its entire context, with the 1 Sam text, in my view renders improbable all
                    previous scholarly guesses (seven are listed)...in spite of the author's own
                    modesty in presenting his view. This five-page article is, in any case, a
                    must-read for all who have lingering doubts about the meaning and background
                    of this Johannine text.>>

                    Incidently, Boehler cites and rejects the connection you also mentioned of
                    the Johannine text with Zech 6:12. The earlier Johannine "Son of Man" texts
                    cited by Moloney also still seem superfluous to me as background for Jn 19:5,
                    even though I accept in principle the importance of a synchronic (as opposed
                    to a merely diachronic) reading of texts. In this particular case, the
                    diachronic allusion in the Johannine trial-before-Pilate text as a whole to 1
                    Sam 9:17 LXX and its context is so strong as to adequately explain the
                    expression idou ho anthrwpos. The significant synchronic observation here
                    would be the striking parallel in the same extended passage between 19:5
                    (idou ho anthrwpos) and 19:14: ide ho basileus hymwn, which has the effect of
                    confirming the diachronic relationship of the passage as a whole with the 1
                    Sam text. I would urge you once again to find and read the Boehler article. I
                    empathize with initial resistence to the idea that an article written in 1995
                    (especially a five-page article!) could definitively settle an interpretive
                    crux that has been debated and pondered for a couple of millennia. This does
                    happen, though, on occasion, and we should probably welcome such occasions
                    precisely because they are so rare.

                    Leonard Maluf
                  • Francis J. Moloney, SDB
                    Leonard, I must say that I am amazed at your confidence ... a 5 page article has solved a 2 millenia long exegetical debate! I really must get to that
                    Message 9 of 15 , Oct 19, 2000
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Leonard,

                      I must say that I am amazed at your confidence ... a 5 page article has
                      solved a 2 millenia long exegetical debate! I really must get to that
                      article! I still suspect that the reader may have the earlier experience of
                      reading more present than 1 Sam. However, I would humbly suggest that we
                      may not ever get further than agreeing that there are many (although not
                      "any" - Ricoeur) interpretations which will arise from a text. The longer I
                      am in this game, the less dogmatic I am about my conclusions!

                      Frank Moloney

                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: Maluflen@... <Maluflen@...>
                      To: johannine_literature@egroups.com <johannine_literature@egroups.com>
                      Date: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 9:59 PM
                      Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Son of Man


                      >Frank, your suggestion of a link between Jn 19:5 and Philo Conf.62 is
                      really
                      >rendered superfluous and improbable in light of the article by Dieter
                      Boehler
                      >I referred to a few days ago in the following message:
                      >
                      ><< Bill, this long-time crux interpretum has been resolved (definitively,
                      in
                      >my
                      >view) by Dieter Boehler, S.J., in a short article in BZ 39 (1995) 104-108:
                      >"'Ecce homo' (Joh 19,5) ein Zitat aus dem Alten Testament". It is here
                      argued
                      >that the text is a (partial) citation of 1 Sam 9:17 (LXX). In n.6, on p.
                      105,
                      >Boehler cites Frank Moloney's book "The Johannine Son of Man", 202, to the
                      >effect that a Son of Man allusion here was hypothesized by Westcott in
                      1880.
                      >The author allows for a possible "Vielzahl von Bedeutungen, Anspielungen"
                      in
                      >the expression, but his convincing connection of the passage, together with
                      >its entire context, with the 1 Sam text, in my view renders improbable all
                      >previous scholarly guesses (seven are listed)...in spite of the author's
                      own
                      >modesty in presenting his view. This five-page article is, in any case, a
                      >must-read for all who have lingering doubts about the meaning and
                      background
                      >of this Johannine text.>>
                      >
                      >Incidently, Boehler cites and rejects the connection you also mentioned of
                      >the Johannine text with Zech 6:12. The earlier Johannine "Son of Man" texts
                      >cited by Moloney also still seem superfluous to me as background for Jn
                      19:5,
                      >even though I accept in principle the importance of a synchronic (as
                      opposed
                      >to a merely diachronic) reading of texts. In this particular case, the
                      >diachronic allusion in the Johannine trial-before-Pilate text as a whole to
                      1
                      >Sam 9:17 LXX and its context is so strong as to adequately explain the
                      >expression idou ho anthrwpos. The significant synchronic observation here
                      >would be the striking parallel in the same extended passage between 19:5
                      >(idou ho anthrwpos) and 19:14: ide ho basileus hymwn, which has the effect
                      of
                      >confirming the diachronic relationship of the passage as a whole with the 1
                      >Sam text. I would urge you once again to find and read the Boehler article.
                      I
                      >empathize with initial resistence to the idea that an article written in
                      1995
                      >(especially a five-page article!) could definitively settle an interpretive
                      >crux that has been debated and pondered for a couple of millennia. This
                      does
                      >happen, though, on occasion, and we should probably welcome such occasions
                      >precisely because they are so rare.
                      >
                      >Leonard Maluf
                      >
                      >SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com
                      >UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                      >PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com
                      >
                    • Maluflen@aol.com
                      In a message dated 10/19/2000 9:43:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time, moloney@cua.edu writes:
                      Message 10 of 15 , Oct 19, 2000
                      • 0 Attachment
                        In a message dated 10/19/2000 9:43:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
                        moloney@... writes:

                        << Leonard,

                        I must say that I am amazed at your confidence ... a 5 page article has
                        solved a 2 millenia long exegetical debate! I really must get to that
                        article! I still suspect that the reader may have the earlier experience of
                        reading more present than 1 Sam. However, I would humbly suggest that we
                        may not ever get further than agreeing that there are many (although not
                        "any" - Ricoeur) interpretations which will arise from a text. The longer I
                        am in this game, the less dogmatic I am about my conclusions!>>

                        I would just like to remind the list that the evaluation of Boehler's
                        interpretation of Jn 19:5, in his 1995 article, as "definitive" is my own,
                        not that of the author. I of course stated this in a deliberately provocative
                        way, because I have no doubt that if the provocation results in the reading
                        of the article, the reader will regard his/her efforts as well repaid. On the
                        other hand, there are very few articles about which I would use such strong
                        language, even for rhetorical effect.

                        Leonard Maluf
                      • Francis Moloney
                        Dear Fred, Sorry I have taken some time to get back, and I simply cannot keep up with this. I have a million things going on - three blurbs to write on long
                        Message 11 of 15 , Oct 19, 2000
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Dear Fred,

                          Sorry I have taken some time to get back, and I simply cannot keep up with
                          this. I have a million things going on - three blurbs to write on long
                          books before tomorrow is this evening's challenge!

                          I hope that my responses to Leonard have given you some idea of how I would
                          handle your difficulties. I do not agree that anywhere in the NT "Son of
                          Man" = Man, especially not in the passages that you cite. If we must be
                          diachronic (and we must!) the background comes from the traditional places
                          (Ezek and Daniel). I do not think Philo plays any part in the issue. But
                          for John I would add the role of Son of Man in the tradition (in Dodd's
                          sense of historical tradition in John). That makes three sources. To this
                          one might add Zech or 1 Sam, as is being suggested here. I am not yet
                          convinced, but have not had time to look at any of it closely, and thus may
                          come to agree, on weighing up the evidence.

                          One then must appreciate the cumulative impact of the reading experience
                          (synchrony). The texts I listed are not "some" passages from John, but ALL
                          passages from John where the Son of Man appears. As I said (in different
                          words) in my recent response to Leonard, I would not die for my suggestion,
                          but there is a relationship between the "lifting up" of the Son of Man (the
                          Johannine form of the passion predictions: 3:14; 8:28; 12:32-34 [three ...
                          interesting?]) and the presentation of Jesus as "the Man," and the immediate
                          request that he be crucified (i.e., lifted up - see 12:32-33). 8:28 is
                          particularly interesting. "When YOU have lifted up the Son of Man" - who is
                          the "you"? The people who cry out for crucifixion in 19:6, after being
                          presented with "the Man" in v. 5? A lot also depends upon what one makes of
                          the structure and theology of the Johannine passion narrative. I would not
                          read 19:1-5 as you have. Indeed, there are two scenes involved: 19:1-3
                          (coronation) and 19:4-7: "the Man" which parallels 18:38b-40, where Pilate
                          proclaimed Jesus as "the King of the Jews" (v. 39). The irony is deep
                          (Pilate proclaiming the truth about Jesus in his "king" and "Man" language)
                          ... but then again, not all read it this way.

                          This gives the list some idea (however sketchy) of how I would view 19:5
                          within the broad synchronic reading of the Gospel ... not neglecting the
                          diachronic question (on which, see Moloney, Son of Man, 208-20; 221-47
                          [second edition])

                          Regards,

                          Frank

                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: FMMCCOY <FMMCCOY@...>
                          To: <johannine_literature@egroups.com>
                          Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 9:28 PM
                          Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Son of Man


                          > This is in response to Francis J. Maloney's post of 10-16-00.
                          > If I understand you correctly, you think that, for understanding
                          > John19:5, it is useful to first look at some passages
                          > regarding the Son of (the) Man. It's not self-evident to me why one
                          should
                          > do this because 19:5 regards the Man rather than the Son of (the) Man.
                          If
                          > you can spare the time, I'd appreciate your input as to *why* reading
                          these
                          > Son of (the) Man sayings can help one to understand 19:5.
                          > I do think that, in 19:5, we are dealing with the equation Man = the
                          Son
                          > of God. The reason is that, I believe, Pilate, in his statement,
                          > "Behold the man", is alluding to the beginning of Zech. 6:12, "Behold a
                          > man...". As we learn from Zech. 6:11, the words in Zech 6:12 are to be
                          > uttered right after a man named Jesus has been crowned. Similarly,
                          > Pilate utters, "Behold the man", in 19:5 right after a man named Jesus
                          > has been crowned in 19:2. A one chance in a million coincidence? I think
                          > not!
                          > However, I do not think that Philo, in his statement, "Idou ho
                          > anthropos" is alluding to Zech 6:12 as rendered in the Septuagint (Idou
                          > aner), but, rather, as rendered by Philo in Conf. 62 (Idou anthropos).
                          Of
                          > course, to say that Pilate is alluding to Zech 6:12 as rendered by Philo
                          in
                          > Conf. 62 is to say that he is alluding in a broader sense to the rest of
                          > Conf. 62: where Philo identifies this anthropos as being a Son begotten by
                          > the Father, i.e., as being the Logos (see my post of Sept. 28). Hence,
                          I
                          > suggest, Pilate's proclamation (probably made in jest) is, in effect,
                          this,
                          > "Behold the Logos: the Man who is the Son of God."
                          > Indeed, shortly after Pilate proclaims, "Idou ho anthropos" in 19:5,
                          "the
                          > Jews" cry out in 19:7, "We have a law, and, according to our law, he ought
                          > to die because he made himself Son of God." I suggest that, "the Jews"
                          > knew, Pilate was alluding to Conf. 62 and, therefore, was (in jest?)
                          > identifying Jesus as being this Logos: the Man who is the Son of God.
                          > Hence, with Pilate showing hesitancy over crucifying Jesus, they try to
                          > convince him to go ahead by telling him that Jesus has claimed to be this
                          > Son of God and, for this reason alone, he deserves to die according to the
                          > Law of Moses.
                          > I do believe that the equation Man = the Son of the Man is to be found
                          in
                          > the gospels, e.g., in Mark 13:32-37 and John 1:46b-51. I just don't see
                          it
                          > in John 19:5 and its immediate context of John 19:2-7.
                          > .
                          > Frank McCoy
                          > Maplewood, MN USA
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com
                          > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                          > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com
                          >
                        • FMMCCOY
                          This is a response to Leonard Maluf s post of the 18th: Leonard, I don t know German, so I can t read the article--it is, so to speak, Greek to me! I m
                          Message 12 of 15 , Oct 21, 2000
                          • 0 Attachment
                            This is a response to Leonard Maluf's post of the 18th:
                            Leonard, I don't know German, so I can't read the article--it is, so to
                            speak, Greek to me! I'm
                            ashamed to say this because Germany has long been the world center for
                            Christian theological thinking and because, in my estimation, Rudolph
                            Bultmann will go down in the history books as the greatest 20th century
                            theologian. My excuse, feeble as it is, is that I am a layman. I also
                            admit ignorance of the meaning of synchronic and
                            of the meaning of diachronic. As a result, I'm not sure if I understand
                            your argument.
                            I don't see the relevance of Pilate's proclamation in19:14, "Ide ho
                            basileus hymwm", to either 1 Samuel 9:17 LXX: or to 19:5--for neither
                            contains the word "basileus". What "Ide ho basileus hymwm" certainly is
                            relevant
                            to is 12:15: where the "daughter of Zion" is told, "Idou ho basileus
                            sou.".
                            In 12:15, the author of John is quoting Zech 9:9. Hence, in 19:14, Pilate
                            is alluding to Zech
                            9:9. This greatly increases the probability that, in 19:5, he is alluding
                            to another passage from Zech.. Therefore, I conclude, 19:14, far from
                            supporting the proposition that Pilate's statement in19:5 alludes to I
                            Samuel 9:17 LXX , actually
                            supports the proposition that it alludes to Zech 6:12 as rendered by Philo
                            in Conf. 62 and, beyond that, to the rest of what Philo states in Conf. 62.
                            Pilate, in his statement, "Ide ho basileus hymwm (which alludes to Zech.
                            9:9)" could very well be
                            (sarcastically?) saying that Jesus is the Logos: for the Logos is the King
                            of a "daughter of Zion", i.e., a citizen of Jerusalem. This is because
                            this Logos, as he is Melchizedek, is the King of Jerusalem.. Philo
                            identifies the Logos as being Melchizedek in L.A. iii 82: where, he states,
                            Melchizedek "is a
                            priest, even the Logos". He explains (in 79) that Melchizedek's title of
                            King of Salem means that he is King of Peace. However, this isn't the full
                            story: for Jews at the time of Jesus knew full well that Salem is the
                            original Caananite name for Jerusalem. So, in 1QapGen XXII
                            (as translated by Geza Vermes), it is said, the King of Sodom "went to
                            Salem, which is Jerusalem." As a result, being Melchizedek, the Logos is
                            the King of Salem = Jerusalem.
                            Compare John 1:11: where, it is declared, the
                            Logos "came to his own, and his own received him not." I suggest that,
                            here, "his own" are the people of Jerusalem: over whom he reigns as
                            Melchizedek, their spiritual King--but who ended up denying to Pilate that
                            he is their King and who exhorted Pilate to crucify him. Also compare John
                            4:43-44, "But after the two days he went forth from there and went away into
                            Galilee: for Jesus himself testified that a prophet has not honor in his own
                            country. When, therefore, he came into Galilee, the Galileans received him,
                            having seen all the things which he did in Jerusalem." Here, a Galilean
                            named Jesus is honored by the Galileans, even though a prophet has no honor
                            in his own country, because, being the Logos, and being, as such,
                            Melchizedek, his true country is not the Galilee where he was raised and
                            stills resides, but the Jerusalem.where, since it was founded by the
                            Caananites, he has reigned as its spiritual King.
                            In 12:15, the author of John cites Zech. 9:9 in order to explain why
                            Jesus entered Jerusalem on a young ass. If he is correct, then Jesus' entry
                            into Jerusalem was symbolic in nature and its message to the daughters of
                            Zion (i.e., the citizens of Jerusalem) is that he is their true King. If
                            so, then the question arises as to whether Jesus believed himself to be the
                            Logos and to be, as such, the Melchizedek who has reigned over Jerusalem as
                            its spiritual King since its inception by the Caananites.
                            Indeed, there is evidence to support this idea. See, for example, Luke
                            13:34 (Q tradition), where Jesus declares, "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills
                            the prophets and stones those who have been sent to her. How often would I
                            have gathered your children in the way a bird (gathers) her brood under
                            (her) wings, and you would not!" Here, I suggest, he speaks as the Logos:
                            the Melchizedek who has been the spiritual King of Jerusalem since its
                            founding and, so, has a special concern for the people of Jerusalem
                            that he does not have for all the other people on earth.

                            Frank McCoy
                            Maplewood, MN USA
                          • Maluflen@aol.com
                            In a message dated 10/21/2000 11:25:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time, FMMCCOY@email.msn.com writes:
                            Message 13 of 15 , Oct 22, 2000
                            • 0 Attachment
                              In a message dated 10/21/2000 11:25:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                              FMMCCOY@... writes:

                              << This is a response to Leonard Maul's post of the 18th:
                              Leonard, I don't know German, so I can't read the article--it is, so to
                              speak, Greek to me! I'm
                              ashamed to say this because Germany has long been the world center for
                              Christian theological thinking and because, in my estimation, Rudolph
                              Bultmann will go down in the history books as the greatest 20th century
                              theologian. My excuse, feeble as it is, is that I am a layman. I also
                              admit ignorance of the meaning of synchronic and
                              of the meaning of diachronic.>>

                              Frank, I don't have time at the moment to fully respond to your post, but let
                              me make a few points. A synchronic reading of the text looks at the text as
                              we have it, without speculating on, or considering the history (the
                              diachronic process) by which it came to be, or the "sources" that stand
                              behind the text. One important synchronic methodology, for example, is a
                              careful analysis of the structure and composition of a text. This approach is
                              followed, very effectively, in the German article I cited. The author
                              demonstrates that there is a (synchronic) connection between Jn 19:5 and its
                              surrounding material. I cannot reproduce the structure of Jn 18:28 -- 19:17ff
                              as outlined by Boehler here (because of technical difficulties doing so in an
                              on-line message), but this is essential to his argument, and extremely
                              convincing. He shows, among other things, how Jesus has been referred to as
                              "this MAN" in 18:29, and that this terminology here is more pointedly
                              relevant to our passage than are earlier references to "the Son of Man" in
                              John's Gospel. I guess I could try to give his summary of the structural
                              evidence, and hope it transmits all right:

                              -- This man.. (18:29) --> King of the Jews (18:39) --> Not this one!
                              (18:40)

                              (Followed by the scene of the mocking: "Hail, King of the Jews" [19:1-3])

                              -- Behold the man (19:5) --> See, your king (19:14) --> ..no king but C.!
                              (19:15)

                              (Followed by the scene of the crucifixion: Jesus of Nazareth, King of the
                              Jews!)

                              So you have two parallel sequences here, in which in the first it is Jesus
                              himself who witnesses to his identity as a king, and by the second, Pilate
                              has gradually taken over the task of witnessing to Jesus' kingship himself
                              (whereupon this kingship is, ironically, definitively rejected by the King's
                              proper subjects themselves).

                              With regard to the "background" of the text and its terminology (a diachronic
                              perspective) Boehler shows that the only OT LXX text that can be said to be
                              cited here is 1 Sam 9:17 (he does not exclude the possibility that other OT
                              texts could possibly be simultaneously alluded to). He writes, in part (my
                              translation):

                              "The context of the passage 1 Sam 9:17 is the founding of the kingly
                              institution in Israel with the designation of Saul by Samuel. In 1 Sam 8
                              Israel had, against the warning of Samuel, rejected Yahweh's kingship and
                              chosen to rely instead on a human ruler after the pattern of the surrounding
                              nations. In 1 Sam 9 Samuel is in the process of finding and anointing the
                              chosen one, at Yahweh's behest.... "Ecce homo" is here the designation of
                              Israel's king by God himself. In 19:5 John has Pilate take over these very
                              words. They serve, on his lips, as a still somewhat concealed royal
                              designation, which will climax in 19:14 with the open proclamation: "Behold
                              your king!"... As back then, Yahweh, speaking to the seer Samuel with the
                              words 'Behold the man', revealed Saul, as yet unrecognized by the seer and
                              the people, as the God-chosen king of Israel, so now, through Pilate, God
                              designates as King of Israel the one whom God has chosen, standing as yet
                              unknown before the governor and the people... Just as Israel, in 1 Sam 8,
                              rejected Yahweh's kingship over his people, and thereby agreed, like all the
                              other peoples, to live under a human king, so now Israel chooses to live
                              under Caesar, like all the other nations, to recognize no other king but
                              Caesar -- and in doing so, once again, she rejects God himself as her king."

                              << As a result, I'm not sure if I understand
                              your argument.
                              I don't see the relevance of Pilate's proclamation in19:14, "Ide ho
                              basileus hymwm", to either 1 Samuel 9:17 LXX: or to 19:5--for neither
                              contains the word "basileus".>>

                              I hope the above has resolved your difficulty here.

                              << What "Ide ho basileus hymwm" certainly is
                              relevant to is 12:15: where the "daughter of Zion" is told, "Idou ho
                              basileus
                              sou.".
                              In 12:15, the author of John is quoting Zech 9:9. Hence, in 19:14, Pilate
                              is alluding to Zech 9:9. This greatly increases the probability that, in
                              19:5, he is alluding to another passage from Zech.. Therefore, I conclude,
                              19:14, far from
                              supporting the proposition that Pilate's statement in19:5 alludes to I
                              Samuel 9:17 LXX , actually supports the proposition that it alludes to Zech
                              6:12...>>

                              Again, I hope the above will convince you that your judgment here is
                              premature. In addition, it is very important to realize, in my view, that in
                              12:15, besides an indisputable allusion to, and even partial citation of Zech
                              9:9, John is above all developing the existing evangelical traditions, and in
                              particular those found in Matthew (see especially Matt 21:1-11). Of course
                              this Zech text is not totally irrelevant to the Jn 19:5 text (and you are
                              right in pointing to it as a likely background of the formulation in 19:14),
                              but it does not follow that the most likely immediate OT background of 19:5
                              must therefore also be a Zecharian text.

                              The remainder of your comments, those relating the Johannine text to various
                              passages in Philo, are too new for me to have assimilated and pondered. My
                              initial inclination, however, in light of the above-cited paragraphs of
                              Boehler, is to think that any possible allusions to Philo in this Johannine
                              text can only be of relatively minor importance for its proper understanding,
                              and in this sense, superfluous. This judgment may, of course, be premature.

                              Leonard Maluf
                            • Paul Schmehl
                              ... From: FMMCCOY To: Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2000 10:18 PM Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Son of Man
                              Message 14 of 15 , Oct 22, 2000
                              • 0 Attachment
                                ----- Original Message -----
                                From: "FMMCCOY" <FMMCCOY@...>
                                To: <johannine_literature@egroups.com>
                                Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2000 10:18 PM
                                Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Son of Man


                                > I also
                                > admit ignorance of the meaning of synchronic and
                                > of the meaning of diachronic.

                                Both are linguist's terms.

                                Layman's definitions (somewhat symplistic):

                                synchronic - looks at a particular item (text, event, etc.) with no
                                regard to past or future information (the timeline) - made up of the
                                greek syn+chronos

                                diachronic - looks at a section (or the entire) of a timeline to
                                determine the significance of a particular item within the context of
                                time - made up of the greek dia+chonos

                                Paul Schmehl
                                baldeagl@...
                              • FMMCCOY
                                ... From: Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 9:58 AM Leonard, I want to thank both you and Paul Schmel for explaining synchronic and
                                Message 15 of 15 , Oct 23, 2000
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  From: <Maluflen@...>
                                  Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 9:58 AM

                                  Leonard, I want to thank both you and Paul Schmel for explaining
                                  "synchronic" and "diachronic". I also want to thank you for giving this
                                  schema proposed by Beohler:
                                  >
                                  > -- This man.. (18:29) --> King of the Jews (18:39) --> Not this one!
                                  > (18:40)
                                  >
                                  > (Followed by the scene of the mocking: "Hail, King of the Jews" [19:1-3])
                                  >
                                  > -- Behold the man (19:5) --> See, your king (19:14) --> ..no king but
                                  C.!
                                  > (19:15)
                                  >
                                  > (Followed by the scene of the crucifixion: Jesus of Nazareth, King of the
                                  > Jews!)
                                  >.
                                  From what you say later in your post, I take it that, Boemer maintains, the
                                  first triple sequence of 18:29,39,40 and the second triple sequence of
                                  19:4,14,15 are similar in meaning. However, this is not self-evidently the
                                  case.. Indeed, there is evidence that the two triple sequences are to be
                                  contrasted. For example, the first sequence begins with Pilate
                                  contemptuously referring to Jesus as "this man" while the second sequence
                                  begins with him proclaiming, "Behold the man!" Again, the first sequence
                                  closes with the crowd clamoring for the release of a lestai (i.e., a rebel
                                  against Rome) while the second sequence closes with the crowd avowing their
                                  unwavering allegiance to Caesar!!!.
                                  Why would John first narrate a triple sequence and, then, later follow it
                                  up with a contrasting second triple sequeence? I think
                                  he wants to show us two quite different Pilates.. In the first series, we
                                  have a Pilate who is the Pilate of the traditions known to John: a Pilate
                                  who sees Jesus as a contemptible man who foolishly aspires to be the King of
                                  the Jews In the second series, we have an invented Pilate who is a
                                  surrogate for John and, so, is a Pilate who, like John himself, sees Jesus
                                  as the Logos: the
                                  Man.and the Melchizedek who is the spiritual King of the people of
                                  Jerusalem.
                                  If one removes 19:4-16, then 18:38b-19:23a
                                  forms a narrative sequence very similar to what we find is Mark 14:6-27 (1)
                                  Pilate gives the people a choice between Barabbas, a rebel against Rome, and
                                  "the King of the Jews", i.e., Jesus, (2) Jesus is mock coronated by Roman
                                  soldiers, who call him the King of the Jews, (3) Jesus is forced to go to
                                  Golgotha, (4) Jesus is crucified between two men, while Roman soldiers
                                  divide up his clothes, and his cross has a placard declaring him to be the
                                  King of the Jews. This suggests that 19:4-16 is a massive insert into
                                  traditional material known to John and, therefore, is the deliberate and
                                  artificial creation of John for some literary purpose, i.e., to give himself
                                  an opportunity to use a surrogate Pilate to convey to the reader his own
                                  ideas about Jesus.
                                  I see two areas of support for this position. First is 18::35-38a:
                                  which has no parallel in Synoptic accounts and, so, is probably another
                                  insert into traditional materials that has been invented by John for some
                                  literary purpose. In it,
                                  Jesus denies that he has any political kingdom in this world. He admits to
                                  being a King, but this is only in the sense that he proclaims the Truth so
                                  that those who are not deaf can listen to the Truth. Here, I think, Jesus
                                  speaks of himself as being a King in the sense of being the Logos in his
                                  role as Melchizedek, the King of Jerusalem. So, in L.A.iii 80, Philo, while
                                  speaking of Melchizedek's title of "King", declares that "the King in the
                                  first place resorts to persuasion rather than decrees, and in the next
                                  place issues directions such, as to enable a vessel, the living being I
                                  mean, to make life's voyage successfully, piloted by the good pilot, who is
                                  ho orthos Logos." Therefore, I think, John invented 18:35-38 as a literay
                                  device to enable his
                                  intended readers to understand that, in 19:40, "Pilate" proclaims Jesus
                                  to be the King in the sense of being the Logos in his role as
                                  Melchizedek--whose spiritual rule is based on trying to
                                  persuade his subjects to follow the Truth.
                                  The second is 19:13, where Pilate leads out Jesus "eis topos
                                  lithostrwton (into a place (called) Stone Pavement)"--although, in the
                                  process, Pilate sits down, leaving Jesus standing by himself on the stone
                                  pavement..
                                  I think there is an allusion, here, to the Philionic concept that
                                  heaven is a "topos" where one finds the spiritual "stones" called the logoi.
                                  Thus, regarding Genesis 28:20, where Jacob comes to a place and takes one of
                                  the stones there to use as a pillow, Philo states in Som.i, 127-28, "In
                                  doing so it is of importance to know that the divine topos and the holy land
                                  is full of incorporeal logoi; and these logoi are immortal souls. Of these
                                  logoi, he takes one, choosing as the best the topmost one (i.e., the
                                  Logos)". In this case, then John is hinting, in his strange phraeology,
                                  that, on a symbolic level of understanding, Pilate and Jesus entered into
                                  the "place" of heaven where are the "stones" of the logoi and where Jesus,
                                  in standing by himself on top of the stone pavement, is revealed to be the
                                  topmost stone,
                                  i.e., to be the Stone--the Logos. This re-inforces the point that Pilate's
                                  ensuing cry, "Behold your King". is a cry that Jesus is the Logos in his
                                  role as Melchizedek--the spiritual King of the people of Jerusalem to whom
                                  Pilate addresses this cry. It also means that the people of Jerusalem who
                                  heard Pilate's cry (and many, perhaps even most, of them would have been
                                  members of the high priestly aristocracy (see 19:6)), in
                                  rejecting Jesus, have rejected the Stone--thereby, unwittingly, fulfilling
                                  Psalm 118:22: which speaks of the builders rejecting the stone (compare Mark
                                  12:10-11 and Acts 4:8-11--for, in both of them, the builders who reject the
                                  stone are the authorities in Jerusalem, particularly the members of the high
                                  priestly aristocracy ).

                                  Frank McCoy
                                  Maplewood, MN USA
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.