Re: John 1:5

Date: Fri May 08 1998 - 11:44:23 EDT

Edgar Foster wrote:

> Carl chastises me for the same reason. It seems that 1:5 cannot be
> read in the light of 1:14. I respectfully disagree. I tend to side
> with Borchert here, who says that we must keep in mind that 1:1-5 is
> written from a *post-resurrection* perspective (Cf. John 2:19-22;
> 20:28-31). It is penned from a victory perspective. John has the
> enfleshment of the LOGOS in mind, even as he writes 1:1-5.

I utterly agree with this approach, but where it gets tricky is when
we try to interpret what is prior in the text 'in the light of' what
is later. The 'later' unfolds the 'prior', but does not define it,
and is instead defined BY it, imo. I see the ORDER of introduction of
terms in John as crucial to its understanding, because this order
defines the building of the context of meaning. The whole of it
begins EN ARCH [1:1] and ends with the inability of TON KOSMON [21:25]
to contain it [with written paper etc.] The KOSMOS does not define
the ARCH, you see, but just the reverse...

George Blaisdell

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:42 EDT