From: Will Wagers (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Sep 15 1997 - 07:33:17 EDT
David Perkins writes on 9/14/97:
> The Johannine narrator sets the table in his Gospel with the Logos
> concept. To ignore the remainder of the Gospel divorces this text from
> the larger whole and makes its understanding dependent on your
> reconstructed historical/philosophical background rather than on the
> Johannine writer's (or writers') interpretive narrative.
But, you see, it is precisely the setting of the table which concerns me.
And, as you point out, it is done with the logos concept, a foundational
concept of Greek philosophy. And, the larger whole, in this case, is not
the rest of According to John, but the whole of Greek philosophical
speculations. I see little hope of understanding John after ignoring the
very purpose of Jn, which is to map the logos onto Jesus. Witness the
inability of the list to resolve the issue of "a god".
> Also, this statement begs the question. That is exactly the point you
> must establish.
There is a fish in the milk.
> Just which school (s) of thought does John depend
> on/draw from/resonate with? You only have named one and you have assumed
> that as THE answer.
Good question, but not for this list.
> How did Charles I get into this discussion?
> The Johannine portrait of Jesus stands within
> the Gospel itself, not over hundreds of years of complex development.
Viewed from the perspective of history of philosophy, According to John
is a significant episode in the long development of logos, which predates
it by over half a millennium and continues today.
> Your "it," the philosophical speculations behind the
> Logos concept (assuming they are Greek speculations and leaving aside the
> question as to what extent they are in view here), is itself a
> reconstruction. So, why are we to vote for you over Charles I?
I merely intended to call it to your attention. I had no idea that you
would contest the obvious. Regrettably, this is not a suitable forum
for making the case. Further, given the literature, it would be your
responsibility to demonstrate that they are *not* related while
accounting for "a god".
Will Wagers firstname.lastname@example.org "Reality is the best metaphor."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:28 EDT