Ramon K. Jusino, in his article ‘Mary Magdalene: Author of the Fourth Gospel?’
argues in favor of the possibility that Mary Magdalene could be the Beloved Disciple
of the Gospel of John. In his view, Mary Magdalene, who is called the disciple most
loved by Jesus in the Gospel of Philip and the Gospel of Mary, 3 is in the Gospel of
John, after first being mentioned by name...
https://lectio.unibe.ch/article/view/12462
In the Gospel of Thomas Jesus promises Peter that he will lead Mary Magdalene in order to make her male ‘so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.’
In the Acts of Philip the Savior praises Mary Magdalene for her manly character.
the author “doubtless used LOGOS with full knowledge of its
general meaning in the religious and philosophical vocabulary of his day [he presented] a new philosophy based on
the Risen Christ and expressed in a current term.” See John: The Gospel of Belief (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1980), 62–63
that nomenclature of what I may call physiological psychology that is so conspicuous, especially in the Old Testament. Emotions are located in different parts of the anatomy — pity in the bowels, anger in the nostrils, and so forth. The eye is, among other things, the seat of niggardliness as in the phrase of the book of Tobit: “Let not thine eye be grudging when thou doest alms.”
Peder Borgen, “Logos was the True Light: Contributions to the Interpretation of the Prologue of John,” Novum Testamentum 14 (1972)
Jesus embodied the voice of God as the Incarnate Logos.
Frey argues that “‘docetic-like’ ideas in the 2nd century cannot be considered a mere sign of pagan influence or ‘syncretism,’ but are more likely based on ideas developed already swithin Hellenistic Judaism and Jewish Christianity.” Emphasis added. See “‘Docetic-like’ Christologies and the
Polymorphy of Christ,” in Docetism in the Early Church, 30–32.
Jörg Frey “Docetic-like” Christologies and the Polymorphy of Christ: A Plea
for Further Consideration of Diversity in the Discussion of “Docetism”
John’s “the Word became flesh” does not mean the Word was “enfleshed” (Irenaeus’s term, σεσαρκῶσθαι); in fact, “John’s account” being “arguably the most docetic of the Gospels” (14), what John meant by the Word becoming flesh was better understood by the Valentinians than it was
by Irenaeus (10–11).
Frey then attempts to “distinguish—very roughly—
between various concepts of ‘docetic-like’ Christology”: Pneuma-Christology; Logos-
Christology; Angelic Docetism; Docetic Teachings of Satornilus and Cerdo; An
Angelomorphic Jesus in the Pseudo-Clementines; and The Teaching of the Ebionites and
Cerinthus (39–43). One may wonder how helpful it is to include certain names here
(particularly 2 Clement and Justin) along with Satornilus and Cerdo and others as
representatives of docetic-like Christologies, but the treatment has the desired effect of
leveling out the perceived disparity...
Ignatius, and even Paul, we learn, could just as well be called “docetists”
as could Ignatius’s opponents, gor when Paul says that none of the rulers of this age knew
the mystery of God and therefore they crucified the Lord of glory (1 Cor 2:7–8), Jesus is
being viewed as “disguised by his humanity. What he seems to be is other than what he is”
(56). “At issue is whether the human disguise involves a full transformation into fleshly
existence or simply a manifestation in human form; whether the disguise is a matter of
form only or also of substance.” (56).
Ignatius moves beyond Paul by emphasizing that Christ was
recognized as Son of God not merely at his resurrection but also at his birth. Ignatius
emphasizes conception by the Holy Spirit, Mary’s virginity, and Jesus’s Davidic lineage,
Paul mentioning only the third (185–87). Other differentiations include Ignatius’s
declaration that Christ was “nailed fast” to the cross and that Jesus Christ “truly raised
himself” (Ign. Smyrn. 1.1), though Ignatius reverts to the more common New Testament
presentation that Christ was raised by the Father in Ign. Trall. 9.2. Hartog also marks a
shift from Paul’s invoking the prophets as predictors of a Christ event to Ignatius’s
enlisting the prophets as fellow-disciples with us under the gospel, to live according to
Jesus Christ (Ign. Magn. 8.2).
“Even Jn 1:14 could not preclude the impulse felt by later Valentinian interpreters of the prologue to distinguish between and upper (pure) Logos and the Logos that was involved in the creation of the world or was even incarnate. Gnostic or philosophically inspired readers found ways to read the text in their terms, in spite of the terminology of incarnation” (36). It was precisely this ability to read the text in their own terms, terms that required an extratextual supposition of an “upper (pure) Logos” and much else besides, that induced Irenaeus and others to develop new ways of speaking that “shaped what we have received as orthodoxy.”
Peterson also notes the use of “avian imagery” in both accounts. In John’s Gospel, the Spirit of God takes the form of a dove, while Ezekiel’s vision entails four living creatures “with wings like a bird descending from heaven under the administration of Yahweh.”
No comments:
Post a Comment