From: Edward Hobbs (EHOBBS@wellesley.edu)
Date: Fri Feb 02 1996 - 10:46:45 EST
In the midst of these exchanges about John 1, I am hesitant to
append anything after reading the excellent comments by Edgar Krentz; but
perhaps a direct response to the question Will Wagers asked is in order.
He wondered why an extra-biblical background for John 1 was ignored, or
denied, in the literature. The answer is, nothing could be further from
the facts. The literature is FULL of discussions of the issue, for about a
century now. And even C. H. Dodd, a relative conservative on John (see,
for example, Bultmann's deservedly famous review of his IFG in the early
1950's--made available in English by _Harvard Theological Review_,
contrasting his own work on John with Dodd's), went into great detail about
Stoic, Wisdom, and Hermetic backgrounds to John 1.
Kingsley Barrett, though no conservative by American "conservative"
standards. was to some extent fighting a rearguard action in his comments
and in his commentary (which, however, I do love).
But of course we should re-read Ed Krentz's fine post, after
this rambling response.
Edward (never "Ed"!) Hobbs
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:37 EDT