From: Will Wagers (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Feb 02 1996 - 01:17:22 EST
Jim Beale writes:
>What makes you think that it is ignored or disavowed?
“It is very improbable that those fragments of the philosopher Heraclitus
… that contain the word lovgo" [logos] have anything to do with John’s
Logos-doctrine, or indeed any New Testament doctrine.”
- Barrett, NT Background,p. 59.
“In the Hermetica pneu~ma [pneuma] has not the same meaning as in the Bible”.
-Barrett, NT Background,p. 96.
I just noticed they're both from Barrett. I suppose it could be my ecelectic
reading selections, but I hardly ever read of the connection, and I am
*looking* for it. In my readings, I seem to find the worlds of Greek thought
and Christian thought separated out and regarded separately in separate
volumes or, at least, chapers with seldom a look back. As for this scholarly
list itself, perhaps everyone is aware of and assumes the connection, which
I didn't realize.
>The main difference it seems that John wanted to
>claim for the true Logos is in vs. 14 where it is said that the Logos
>becomes flesh, which is something that would probably not have been
>acceptable to Heraclitus or Plato either for that matter.
Incarnations in the mythological flesh are common (e.g. all the Greek gods),
but incarnations in the flesh flesh are rare to non-existent (?). As for the
logos, all gods representing bottle necks through which the mundane and
divine worlds must interact would incorporate at least some of the
attributes, e.g. Hermes.
Do you know, I've been messing around on the Internet so long, I've
forgotten where things are in my notes?
Thx to both Carl and Jim for their responses.
(P.S. When the heck does Ken graduate? ;-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:37 EDT