Stephen said
The problem is that we aren’t certain of the original reading.Porphyry could you point me to a discussion of this issue? I don’t have any commentaries on John and the only comment I found was buried in a wholly irrelevant discussion.
Did you see the link in the original post? It does a nice job laying out the data.
Stephen said
The problem is that we aren’t certain of the original reading.Porphyry could you point me to a discussion of this issue? I don’t have any commentaries on John and the only comment I found was buried in a wholly irrelevant discussion.
For he says that the former is of bloods (αἱμάτων), which is a Hebraism for blood, meaning the blood of man, produced by food.
There will always be an editor…
Jarek you are assuming authorial intent. How could you possibly know this?
The direction of content development is determined mainly by competitive considerations. There are more characters, new situations, episodes, threads, flashbacks. Like in the comics.
Paul did not know Joseph and Mary either.
In the first limited version of the gospel of Luke (as BDE called Marcion’s gospel) there is no Joseph the father of Jesus and no Mary the mother of Jesus. In Mark, Mary appears, but still no Joseph, the father of Jesus. Matthew was the first to oppose Jesus, the son of lonely Mary, and added a guardian in the form of an old man who accepts “a virgin with a child”. The miracle is the source of Mary’s personal humiliation and social ostracism in Matthew’s eyes.
So the chronological order:
1. Paul – one episode, and “Jesus born of woman”, no time-space location, no characters
2. Luke Limited Edition – more episodes, more characters, space-time location, no Mary, no Joseph
3. Mark- Mary,
4. Matthew – Joseph and Mary
5. John – new stories
5. Luke Extended Edition – Joseph, Mary, circumcision, knowledge of previous ones including John
It looks simple..
It’s good to know my JSTOR password still works. I prefer academia.edu because they allow you to download free PDFs of the articles. But then you wind up with a hard drive stuffed full of articles you may or may not ever get around to reading.
I’m a Mark guy. It’s been a while since I dug into John. Like the word itself John’s Logos passage is subject to many interpretations. I don’t really know what to make of it. Jesus, or the Logos, seems to be viewed as a pre-existent emanation of God who in some sense assumes a separate existence while retaining a close identification. You can see a direct line back to the creation account in Genesis where God creates through his word. But in Genesis there is no sense in which the Word has a separate existence.
I still can’t get the Virgin Birth out of any of this. Just the opposite. If you took the Logos passage as a stand-alone you almost might think Jesus appeared one day as a fully grown man. I still think what we’re dealing with in John are multiple sources with multiple views of Jesus whether or not such a thing as a Johannine community ever existed.
It’s good to know my JSTOR password still works. I prefer academia.edu because they allow you to download free PDFs of the articles.
They are very different–JSTOR gives the official published version from the publisher. Academia give you the copy the author makes available: occasionally that is the published and paginated version, sometimes it is an unpaginated penultimate draft, sometimes it is something else, often it is just the bibliographical info with no text of the article at all, and all this is moot if the author doesn’t have an academia account.
And apropos of nothing: there is a website called sci-hub. If you were to google it, you might or might not find its existence interesting.
And apropos of nothing: there is a website called sci-hub. If you were to google it, you might or might not find its existence interesting.
Yes I am aware of such sites. I have mixed emotions. While they are perhaps the inevitable result of the incipient literary Satanism of such publishers as Brill, I would nevertheless still object if the work were being distributed without the permission of the authors. That is not always an issue. ** you do not have permission to see this link ** is a site done with the cooperation of the authors to get their stuff out there. It helps if you’re interested in Jewish mysticism and Eastern Christianity of course.
Stephen said
And apropos of nothing: there is a website called sci-hub. If you were to google it, you might or might not find its existence interesting.Yes I am aware of such sites. I have mixed emotions. While they are perhaps the inevitable result of the incipient literary Satanism of such publishers as Brill, I would nevertheless still object if the work were being distributed without the permission of the authors. . . .
And we are back to authorial intent.
Well, to the extent that the author’s consent or objection is at issue, it’s perhaps worth pointing out that, in the case of journal articles, authors aren’t compensated for their work, and they are generally eager to have their work read widely; if they aren’t handing out copies and posting them to public archives it is usually because they are contractually prohibited (per the publication agreement), so public distribution would jeopardize their relationship to their publisher. But I’ve never heard of a scholar being upset that people were reading his articles without paying the publisher.
Books are a bit more complicated, since royalties are involved. I’ve known authors who got quite touchy at the idea that their book was being copied illicitly, but I’ve known others whose attitude was, “I’d never ask an individual to pay the insane UP prices, those are just for libraries.”
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)