Gringo

<a href="http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=JOHN+1&version=NKJV&language=english &showfn=on&showxref=on&interface=print" target="_blank">John 1</a>

Above is a printer friendly copy of John Chapter 1

To start the conversation: verses 1-5 reads:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

Verses 1-2 seem to indicate that Jesus is not only the Son of God, but is God. The third verse seems to be saying that the Father created everything through His Son, Jesus Christ. I know the Aryans (not the racist group, but a group that views Christ as not being God), such as Christadelphians interpret the Word as being God's plan and Jesus being the culmination of that plan.

What do y'all think?

Vinnie

That so didn't work..... <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

[ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: ilgwamh ]</p>

Vinnie

Wouldn't it be best to start with date, authorship, purpose etc., first? I'll come back and explain my first post and what didn't work at a later time.

Gringo

Sorry. Altough I've participated in some Bible studies, I've never started one. The Bible studies I've been involved in usually accepted whichever book as divinely inspired, so Scripure is seen as ultimately from God in those contexts. I'll shut up now and let someone who with a bit more experience at this start us off.

Peter Kirby

Maybe we had the same problem, ilgwamh? I also had difficulty in getting my messages posted to this thread. If you're reading this, though, I guess the problem has been solved.

I disagree that we have to start with the questions of date, authorship, and so on. For one thing, I seriously doubt that we can answer such questions without undertaking exegesis of some kind of at least some parts of the fourth gospel; for example, of the passages in which aposunagogos appears ('away synagogue', or put out of the synagogue), or of the passages in which the beloved disciple is mentioned. If this is true, then the priority of exegesis over questions of authorship or date is established. Perhaps conclusions of authorship and date based on a partial exegesis can feed back into the hermenuetical circle in tackling questions of the interpretation of other passages, but I hardly think that we have to look at questions of authorship and date before we attempt to understand the message of the fourth gospel.

That said, I think that questions of authorship and date are interesting, and I would be willing to look at anything in that regard, even though I expect that greater agreement will come in the examination of the meaning of the fourth gospel than in the speculation on higher critical issues. I think that they could fit either in this thread or in a separate thread.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

Don't ask me why, but my problem with posting is solved if I use dialup instead of my DSL connection. Weird.

Maybe we could find some interesting material in reading some of the oldest commentaries on the first chapter of John.

<a href="http://www.gnosis.org/library/ptl.htm" target="_blank">http://www.gnosis.org/library/ptl.htm</a>

Ptolemy's Commentary On The Gospel of John Prologue
Translation by Bentley Layton

John, the disciple of the Lord, intentionally spoke of the origination of the entirety, by which the Father emitted all things. And he assumes that the First Being engendered by God is a kind of beginning; he has called it "Son" and "Only-Begotten God." In this (the Only-Begotten) the Father emitted all things in a process involving posterity. By this (Son), he says, was emitted the Word, in which was the entire essence of the aions that the Word later personally formed.

Now since he is speaking of the first origination, he does well to begin the teaching at the beginning, i.e with the Son and the Word. He speaks as follows: "The Word was in the beginning, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. It was in the beginning, with God." [Jn 1:1] First, he distinguishes three things: God; beginning; Word. Then he unites them: this is to show forth both the emanation of the latter two, i.e. the Son and the Word, and their union with one another, and simultaneously with the Father. For the beginning was in the Father and from the Father; and the Word was in the beginning and from the beginning. Well did he say, "The Word was in the beginning", for it was in the Son. "And the Word was with God." So was the beginning. "And the word was God"; reasonably so, for what is engendered from God is God. This shows the order of emanation. "The entirety was made through it, and without it was not anything made." [Jn 1:3] For the Word became the cause of the forming and origination of all the aions that came after it.

But furthermore (he says), "That which came into being in it was Life."[Jn 1:4] Here he discloses a pair. For he says that the entirety came into being through it, but Life is in it. Now, that which came into being in it more intimately belongs to it than what came into being through it: it is joined with it and through it it bears fruit. Indeed, inasmuch as he adds, "and Life was the light of human beings", [Jn 1:4] in speaking of human beings he has now disclosed also the Church by means of a synonym, so that with a single word he might disclose the partnership of the pair. For from the Word and Life, the Human Being and the Church came into being. And he called Life the light of human beings because they are enlightened by her, i.e. formed and made visible. Paul, too, says this: "For anything that becomes visible is light." [Eph 5:13] So since Life made the Human Being and the Church visible and engendered them, she is said to be their light.

Now among other things, John plainly made clear the second quartet, i.e. the Word; Life; the Human Being; the Church.

But what is more, he also disclosed the first quartet. describing the Savior, now, and saying that all things outside the Fullness were formed by him, he says that he is the fruit of the entire fullness. For he calls him a light that "shines in the darkness" [Jn 1:5] and was not overcome by it, inasmuch as after he had fitted together all things that had derived from the passion they did not become acquainted with him. And he calls him Son, Truth, Life, and Word become flesh. We have beheld the latter's glory, he says. And its glory was like that of the Only- Begotten, which was bestowed on him by the Father, "full of grace and truth". [Jn 1:14] And he speaks as follows: "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us; we have beheld its glory, glory as of the Only-Begotten from the Father." [Jn 1:14] So he precisely discloses also the first quartet when he speaks of the Father; Grace; the Only-Begotten; Truth. Thus did John speak of the first octet, the mother of the entirety of aions. For he referred to the Father; Grace; the Only-Begotten; Truth; the Word; Life; the Human Being; the Church.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

Here is another ancient commentator on the first chapter of John.

Fragments of Heracleon's Commentary on John (second century CE), on the first chapter

<a href="http://www.gnosis.org/library/fragh.htm" target="_blank">http://www.gnosis.org/library/fragh.htm</a>

Fragment 1, on John 1:3 (In John 1:3, “All things were made through him, and without him nothing was made.”) The sentence: "All things were made through him" means the world and what is in it. It excludes what is better than the world. The Aeon (i.e. the Fullness), and the things in it, were not made by the Word; they came into existence before the Word. . . “Without him, nothing was made” of what is in the world and the creation. . . "All things were made through Him," means that it was the Word who caused the Craftsman (Demiurge)to make the world, that is it was not the Word “from whom” or “by whom,” but the one “through whom (all things were made).”. . . It was not the Word who made all things, as if he were energized by another, for "through whom" means that another made them and the Word provided the energy.


Fragment 2, on John 1:4 In the saying, “What was made in him was Life" (John 1:4), ‘in him’ means ‘for spiritual people.’ For he (the Word) provided them with their first form at their birth, in that what had been sown by another he brought to form, illumination and into an outline of its own, and set it forth.


Fragment 3, on John 1:18 The words, “No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.” (John 1:18), were spoken, not by the Baptist, but by the disciple. Fragment 4, on John 1:21 (In John 1:21, “And they asked him, ‘What then? Are you Elijah?’ He said, ‘I am not.’ ‘Are you the prophet?’ And he answered, ‘No.’) John acknowledged that he was not the Christ, and neither a prophet, nor Elijah.


Fragment 5, on John 1:23 (In John 1:23, “He said, ‘I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, 'Make straight the way of the Lord,' as the prophet Isaiah said.’”) The Word is the Savior, the voice in the wilderness is that symbolized by John, and the echo is the whole prophetic order. . . A voice which is well fitted to the Word, becomes Word, just as a woman is transformed into a man. . . The echo can be changed in a similar way into a voice, giving the place of a disciple to the voice which is changed into Word., but the place of a slave to the echo which is changed into voice. . . When the Savior speaks of a prophet and Elijah [Matthew 11:9,14], he is speaking not of John himself, but of his attributes. But when he calls him greater than the prophets and than those who are born of women [Matthew 11:9,11], then he is describing the character of John himself. When John is asked about himself, his answers relate to himself, not to attributes. . . His attributes, like clothes, were other than himself. If he were asked about his clothes “Are you your clothes?” he would not have answered "Yes." . . . The Jews sent priests and Levites to question John because it was fitting for these people to concern themselves with, and investigate these matters, for they were firmly devoted to God, and because he (John) was of the Levitical tribe. . . They asked him if he were a prophet, wishing to know this more general fact [John 1:21]. . . It was prophetically arranged that Isaiah would call him (John) “greater,” since no other of all those who prophesied was deemed worthy of this honor by God.


Fragment 6, on John 1:25 (In John 1:25, “They asked him, ‘Then why are you baptizing, if you are neither the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the prophet?’”) The words of the Pharisees imply that the office of baptizing belonged to the Christ and Elijah and to every prophet. On them alone there is an obligation to baptize. . . The Pharisees asked the question from malice, and not from a desire to learn.


Fragment 7, on John 1:26 John's answers to those sent by the Pharisees refer not to what they asked, but to what he wished.


Fragment 8, on John 1:26 (In John 1:26-27, “John answered them, ‘I baptize with water; but there stands among you onewhom you do not know, even he who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie.’”) The words, "there stands among you” are equivalent to "He is already here, and he is in the world and among human beings, and he is already manifest to you all.” . . . The statement, "He who comes after me," shows John to be the forerunner of Christ, for he is in fact a kind of servant running before his master. In the words, “The thong of his sandal I am not worthy to untie,” the Baptist acknowledges that he is not worthy even of the lowliest service for Christ. . . (He means,) "I am not worthy that for my sake he should come down from the Greatness and should assume flesh as his sandal, concerning which I am not able to give any explanation or description, nor to unloose the arrangement of it." . . . The sandal means the world. . . Everything must be understood in relation to that person who was indicated through John, that is the Craftsman of the world, who acknowledges through these words that he is inferior to Christ.


Fragment 9, on John 1:28 In Heracleon we read "Bethany" (rather than the variant “Bethabara” in the text Origen was familiar with).


Fragment 10, on John 1:29 (In John 1:29, “The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, ‘Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!’”) John spoke the words, "Lamb of God" as a prophet, but the words, "who takes away the sin of the world" as more than a prophet. The first expression was spoken with reference to his body, the second with reference to Him who was in that body. The lamb is an imperfect member of the genus of sheep; the same being true of the body as compared with the one that dwells in it. Had he meant to attribute perfection to the body he would have spoken of a ram about to be sacrificed.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

Here's a commentary on the Gospel of John. You may wish to read it and make observations on the sections concerning the prologue and the rest of the first chapter.

<a href="http://www.bible.org/docs/nt/books/joh/harris/toc.htm" target="_blank">http://www.bible.org/docs/nt/books/joh/harris/toc.htm</a>

More links can be found here.

<a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html" target="_blank">http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html</a>

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

Thats Arians, not Aryans.

Toto

Hi Peter, this is all very confusing andy mystical-sounding, but this statement lept out at me in particular. Is there some mystical/gnostic significance to this?

I know Word = Logos, which is often identified with Sophia. But were women routinely transformed into men somehow?