Biblical Hebrew Forum

[GregStffrd AT aol.com]

Dear Lloyd:

Since you did not address the issues I raised regarding the quotation of
passages in John 12:36-41, from Isaiah 6 and 53, it is hard for me to take
your last reply very seriously. 

You also make a number of assumptions that you did not even attempt to defend,
but merely presented as something "everyone knows," etc. This is hardly a
scholarly approach, and one that I cannot accept, especially when no evidence
is offered to support it.

But, I will say this:


GREG
 <>
 

LLOYD
 I believe I did.  I favor the clearly stated near context (Isa 6) of
 distant contexts (Isa 53 etc).
 

That is not the issue. Texts from both chapters of Isaiah are quoted _for a
reason_. I articulated those reasons very clearly, and you have yet to address
them, nor have you offered an explanation of the use of these texts in the
context of John 12:36-41.

If you are not interested in a serious consideration of these passages, but
merely wish to tell me what you _think_, not having studied the NT in much
detail, or at least the Johannine corpus, then just say so, and drop the
thread. But to continue posting messages that avoid the substance of my
replies is, as I said to one other board participant, a waste of our time. 


GREG
 <>
 

LLOYD
 As I said, I do not think you share the view of the author of our text. 


Since I believe precisely the same in relation to your view and the author of
our subject text, and since that is rather obvious when one considers both my
posts and yours, why not simply concentrate on _proving_ your point by a
consideration of the subject author(s')'s writings, or at least by a
consideration of the context of our subject texts, which is what I presented
in my previous two posts? 

Telling me what  _you_ "think," apart from such analyses, is not important,
unless the subject of our discussion is what _you_ think.


LLOYD
 Isaiah saw Jesus' glory, "his glory" in the temple vision.  He did not see
 a distinction between Yahweh and a hypostatized Shekeniah-like "Glory" you
 are supposing to be Jesus. 


Here you make several assumptions that fail to consider what I have said on
this issue, as it relates to A) whether or not John is referring to Isaiah 6
or 53 in his reference to "his glory" (if you had interacted with my
discussion of John 12:36-41 you would perhaps recognize the problems with such
a view); B) as it relates to a potential polemical use of an underlying
"Targumic" tradition regarding the glory of the Shekinah of Jehovah, by John,
in reference to Jesus and those who 'refused to believe'; and C) you take no
account (see below) of the Johannine (NT) view of Jesus as Jehovah's "glory." 

Until you consider these salient points, why go on?


LLOYD
 My point is it is most natural to equate *his
 glory* in Isaiah 6 to *his glory* in John 12.  The identification of the
 two is the point of 12:21.  I submit that this interpretation is natural,
 simple and straight-foward.  I think you problems with it may be
 theological, not exegetical.



Again, you tell us what you "think," but you offer no considerable critique of
my references to the texts under consideration or to existing views and NT
Christology as a whole. To say that your view is the "most natural," without
discussing these issues, and without offering a counter consideration of John
12:36-41's use of passages from Isaiah 6 and 53, is to beg the question. It
also shows that your problems with my consideration of the subject texts may
indeed be other than exegetical.

 
GREG 
 <<Also, since you are OT person, as you said, check the Targum to Isaiah 6
and
 you will notice that the "glory of the Shekinah" of Jehovah is in view,>>


LLOYD 
 Alas, I have no access to the Targums at the present time.
 

Then how is it that you can so quickly deny one of the points I made without
having considered all the facts? Clearly you have "jumped the gun," as it
were, and not carefully considered all the issues that may pertain to our
subject texts. Had you not stated your position as dogmatically as you have,
it would not be so embarrassing, but to speak as you have without considered
all the information, is most unfortunate.


GREG
 <<and there may have been a tradition existing at the time John wrote his
 Gospel which he made use of in identifying Jesus to others, as the "glory" of
 Jehovah,>>
 

LLOYD
 "May have been..." doesn't help me.



Well, it should, Lloyd, for we need to consider what "may have been" true
regarding our subject texts if we are going to exhaust the available options,
and narrow down, hopefully, the correct understanding. 

Would it help if I used the words "I think" instead, which you seem to use
with increasing frequency?


GREG 
 << which is precisely what his brother Paul did in Hebrews 1:3.>>
 

LLOYD
 I like to think that Apollos wrote Hebrews! 


Thank you for telling us (again) what you "think," Lloyd, but since you offer
no proof for your view I cannot take your statement seriously. I find no
evidence to dispute the manuscript (note the cataloging of this letter in P46)
and Church tradition that Paul was indeed the author. He certainly was very
close to Timothy. (Heb. 13:23, 24), and had a knowledge of OT theology that
bespeaks of Pauline authorship. 

Of course, you have a view of OT and NT composition that is not in line with
the text itself, and is thus hopelessly built upon a colorful variety of
assumptions.



LLOYD
 Yes, Hebrews does see Jesus as
 the glory of the father.  But being brothers in the faith does not mean
 that they thought the same on every matter. 



It does in this case, if one carefully considers the relevant literature. John
himself recorded Jesus' statements to the effect that his followers should all
be "one" (John 17:21-22) and Paul emphasized this fact when he said they
should all think and speak in agreement.---1 Cor. 1:9-11. 

To suggest that two of the pillars in support of Jesus as the Christ would not
be in agreement about who he was/is, is disingenuous, or in the very least
reflects a defective understanding of Christian thought in the first century. 


LLOYD
 The Johannine school is a
 distinctive tradition as everyone knows.  As I stated, I don't know if any
 other early Christian thinkers identified Jesus and Yahweh, but I am
 convinced that our text does, even in the face of your counter-arguments.
 I am beginning to wonder what the commentary literature has to say on this.
  But again, this is B-Hebrew.



Lloyd, you are entitled to believe whatever you want, but when a consideration
of the subject texts is presented to you, and you simply brush it aside and
reaffirm your previously stated view, a view that was not presented with
supporting articulation of the passages in question, do not expect us to take
it very seriously.

Regards,

Greg Stafford







 

  >>