Of course Jesus is God's Son, but it's worth noting that Luke 1:32-35 does not negate Jesus' preexistence. He is called "Son" at different points like at his baptism, then later after he's raised from the dead.
Additionally, the very narrow and simple point I was trying to make is that one cannot press the neuter argument for John 1:10ff too far. And what is more, John switches to the masculine form later in the Prologue, which he employs for the Logos.
"In recent decades a significant number of theologians have demonstrated that John 1:1 speaks of only one person, namely the Father, and that 'the Word' is not a person, not Jesus Christ ; but is, in fact, God's word that brought forth the Genesis creation as in Psalm 33:6 'By the word of Jehovah the heavens were made.'"
It would be more correct to say that theologians have asserted that 1 person is mentioned in John 1:1, but they have not demonstrated this point beyond a shadow of a doubt or even in a convincing way for most theologians--Trinitarian or otherwise.
For Logos, see also https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/search?q=logos+burnet
The position of John the Baptist in the prologue is generally glossed over as little significance. I have no problem with logos/wisdom becoming flesh. But the general wisdom content of this gospel is being overshadowd by an ambiguous prologue. The content should define the prologue.
One problem with the theory set forth on the Textkit boards:
In John 1:10, αὐτοῦ could be masculine or neuter, but αὐτὸν (the object of ἔγνω) is masculine.
VWS:
Him (αὐτὸν)
The preceding him (αὐτοῦ) is, in itself, ambiguous as to gender. So far as its form is concerned, it might be neuter, in which case it would refer to the light, "the Word regarded as a luminous principle," as it, in John 1:5. But αὐτὸν is masculine, Him, so that the Word now appears as a person. This determines the gender of the preceding αὐτοῦ.
I don't see how anyone can prove beyond a doubt that John 1:1 refers to 1 person. The belief that John 1:1 teaches 2 persons has been a part of ecclesial life for over 1,600 years. Read the numerous commentaries on GJohn or check out the recent journal articles on John 1:1. I'm not a Trinitarian, but yet I believe John 1:1 teaches 2 persons, not just 1.
William Loader on preexistence: https://books.google.com/books?id=LMeFDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA311&lpg=PA311&dq=caragounis+john+1:1&source=bl&ots=aAdziT4sXy&sig=ACfU3U0hRC5nDkkV29hQ2SKddzlGA_Bxug&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiDkPKO5ovoAhXuRd8KHfqqCa4Q6AEwBXoECAwQAQ#v=onepage&q=caragounis%20john%201%3A1&f=false
According to de Wette and Meyer, this exclamation relates to the idea of the bloody death of the Messiah, the great cause of stumbling to the Jews, which had been implied in the preceding declarations; according to Weiss, to the overthrow of all their Messianic hopes which resulted from all these discourses; according to Tholuck and Hengstenberg, to the apparent pride with which Jesus connected the salvation of the world with His own person, according to several of the older writers, Lampe and others, to the claim of Jesus to be a personage who had come down from heaven.
Undoubtedly all these ideas are expressed in what precedes; but the most striking idea was evidently the obligation to eat His flesh and drink His blood in order to have life, and there was here indeed, also, the most paradoxical and most offensive idea. Grossly understood, it might indeed be revolting even to the disciples, and might force from them the cry: This is going too far; He talks irrationally! The term μαθηταί, disciples, here denotes persons who attached themselves to Jesus, who followed Him habitually, and who had even broken off from their ordinary occupations in order to accompany Him (John 6:66); it was from among them that Jesus had, a short time before, chosen the Twelve. Some of them were afterwards found undoubtedly among the five hundred of whom Paul speaks (1 Corinthians 15:6). σκληρός (properly, hard, tough), does not here signify obscure (Chrysostom, Grotius, Olshausen), but difficult to receive. They think they understand it, but they cannot admit it.— τίς δύναται, "who has power to ...?"— ᾿ακούειν, "to listen calmly, without stopping the ears."
John 1:1 is talking about one person and one teaching - not quite the same thing.
Using ecclesial life is a non starter. What about the fact that the earliest father's are quoting and alluding to sirach with reasonable frequency and then it fades out of view?
The trajectory of opinion can be easily traced, as are the things that are conspicuous by omission.
I'm familiar with Sirach and had read those verses previously. Many Trinitarian scholars are also familiar with those passages and they still affirm Christ's preexistence and apply wisdom passages from the Apocrypha to Christ.
See https://www.catholicherald.com/Faith/Your_Faith/Why_is_Jesus_called__the_wisdom_of_God__/
I have John Ashton's 2nd edition, but have not completed it yet.
It's pretty difficult to prove John 1:1 is referring to just 1 person: you go round in circles trying to dispute the two person view. It could be interpreted as 1 or 2 persons.
When I referred to ecclesial life, I was just pointing out that members of the ecclesia have long understood John 1:1 to be teaching 2 persons, whether that view is correct or not.
Since when has Sirach ever faded from view in the church? See the link above, which is a Catholic site and it's quite favorable to Sirach. It was the Protestants who began to look askance at the book: the church fathers viewed Sirach with esteem.
" While in Proverbs we read that “The Lord by wisdom founded the earth; by understanding he established the heavens” (3:19), in rabbinical sources we read that “God consulted the Torah and created the world” (Genesis Rabba 1:1). In the 1st-2nd century BCE book Wisdom of Sirach, a work ostensibly alluded to by Jesus and his disciples,[1] God’s wisdom is equated with the Torah, the law handed down to Moses at Sinai:"
"[1] Compare Matt 6:19-20 with Sirach 29:11; Matt 7:16, 20 with Sirach 27:6; Matt 11:28 with Sirach 51:27; James 1:19 with Sirach 5:11; Matt 7:16-20 with Sirach 27:6; Matt 6:12 with Sirach 28:2."
"It's pretty difficult to prove John 1:1 is referring to just 1 person: you go round in circles trying to dispute the two person view."
Don't need to with that level of ambiguity. None of the arguments stand on the prologue alone. IMO it has been successfully amputated from its "supporting" verses. The meaning and implication of Genesis language is also problematic. Sir 15:14,15
The things you say are omitted are quoted ad nauseam/ad infinitum in Trinitarian works and that includes Ben Witherington's book on Jesus the Sage. Most every scholar in NT circles is aware of what you're citing and they've quoted and analyzed the data. It's then just a matter of how we're going to interpret it. Even if the writers you quote understand the Jewish materials correctly, the question remains as to whether the early Christians went beyond their Jewish counterparts in how they understood the Jewish texts.
By the two person view, I mean that John 1:1 is discussing God (the Father/Jehovah) and his Logos/son, who was beside him as a (created) co-worker. By "person," I mean a rational center of consciousness who is able to relate lovingly and conversantly with another person. Person here also refers to a divine person although I do not view the Logos as ho theos.
The two person view doesn't stand on the Prologue alone and I never said it did. It also stymies me that ho Logos is masculine grammatically, but those who argue that autos should be rendered "it" in John 1, apparently do not believe we should give the same regard to ho Logos and think of the word in masculine or personal terms.
While it's true that God speaks his word in Genesis, which seems impersonal, the early fathers understood Christ to be referenced there and arguably, so did Paul. See 2 Cor. 4:4-6.
I just do not concur with the attitude that Christianity could never reappropriate Jewish texts or understand them differently--the 1st century Christians unequivocally did reappropriate the texts.
These are the kind of comments that emerge from conventional scholarship:-
"The account in 1:27 underscores John’s subservient position by reference to his slave’s service (the tying of the sandals) (Schneider 1976:68). Noting the grammatical peculiarity of the expression o{ti prw’tov~ mou h\n, Leon Morris interprets it as an emphatic expression of ‘absolute priority’, a superiority deriving from Jesus’s pre-existence (Morris 1971:109). While in antiquity chronological priority meant superiority in status, and thus on the human level the Baptist could claim higher status than Jesus, by effecting a chronological reversal (‘a reversion to priority in time’) in that Jesus actually existed before John, a status reversal is established. And although Morris points to the alternative possibility of prw’tov~ mou denoting status (as in ‘first in importance’), >>>he nevertheless opts for the conventional chronological interpretation of first in time<<<, thus pre- existence (Morris 1971:109)."
The options that do not the pre understanding get side lined.
So how many scholars have analysed the date of "Sirach takes the attributes of Lady Wisdom in Ch. 24 and lauds Simon for those same attributes in Ch. 50. " ?
The whole point of GJohn is how the Father works through the Son. Many verses and John 17 & 21 testify to this point. See also John 14:6.
Johannine scholarship is vast: some scholars do weigh the options, but Tribune thinking will prevail. My comment about 2 Corinthians pertains to how Paul reads Genesis 1. I'm a christological way.
There is plenty written on the date of Sirach and on the work as a whole.
My comment about John 17 & 21 were addressing these remarks of yours:
"Do you really think that anything Jesus said in GJohn is telling us contemplate his nature?
When the whole point of GJohn is to focus on the father even when Jesus speaks or does. Is the prologue contradicting the body of the text?"
"Anything said in John" takes us beyond the Prologue's scope, right? Additionally, when you mention "the whole point of GJohn," I assume the whole Gospel is fair game. But even the Prologue points to the Father working through Christ (vv. 17-18). You also juxtapose the Prologue and body of GJohn text. That's why I mentioned John 17 & 21.
On Sirach and Christ, see https://books.google.com/books?id=Z-QYBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA197&lpg=PA197&dq=sirach+50+and+jesus+christ&source=bl&ots=1pvHDXqm-0&sig=ACfU3U3StQpEomnrYDdl5ElOD9Y4IB0WkQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi-jZXEkI_oAhVLnOAKHbHUDwMQ6AEwBnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=sirach%2050%20and%20jesus%20christ&f=false
To be clear on this, I am not claiming that the language in Sirach 50 can be equated or transferred to Gjohn & neither does smith. The main thrust of the argument is that the nature of the high priest is known from other sources that do not concur with Sirach 50. Sirach 50 does portray the high priest as living embodiment of lady wisdom. I cannot see all of the above book from your link but I am not sure that it is addressing this point.
"The first 115 pages of the book are simply an introduction to OT and apocryphal wisdom literature, the last 150 discuss "Wisdom Christologies" in the NT. Concerning the former: I would recommend simply reading the primary sources yourself (Prov., Eccl., Job, Wisdom of Solomon, and Ben Sirach) as Witherington is not a specialist in this literature and adds little to what you will likely gain from a(nother) run through it. "
Use "Sirach" as a search term for the link and it will help you to see what Chris Tilling is arguing: he does interact extensively with Sirach 50 and so does Crispin Fletcher-Louis
John 21 sums up the whole purpose of GJohn and John 17 tells us how God works through Christ. Philosophical discussions of the divine nature don't appear in the GNT.
On John 1:18, Trinitarians normally believe it affirms Christ's deity, but at the same time, they believe God's Son explained the Father rather than himself. So they would agree he's not exegeting/explaining himself.
I don't know who made the aforementioned evaluation of Witherington's work, but it goes against what others have said about the book. Regardless, there is plenty of literature on Sirach, and we can even find works on Sirach 50. I've given you two works with Tilling and Crispin-Fletcher.
See https://jesusmonotheism.com/ben-siras-incorporative-and-cosmic-messianism/
Here's another work discussing Sirach 51 and Christ: https://books.google.com/books?id=mnsjUqD66JsC&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&dq=sirach+51+christology&source=bl&ots=PzMy9oKFK5&sig=ACfU3U1zeCvLO8bAJerLpl4aMbUkmFHKAQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjf4fndnZDoAhVyUt8KHeLQDJsQ6AEwCHoECAsQAQ#v=onepage&q=sirach%2051%20christology&f=false
I have copies of the DSS fragments which are limited. It demonstrates one stream but the Latin as pointed out could be giving us something a little different from another Hebrew source.
The last PDF post as per the others is skirting around the connections between 24 & 50 that now seem obvious. These all seem to be playing with Sirach and not fully engaging with the text.
Crispin does make such connections in this work. He's written a lot about Sirach. See https://books.google.com/books?id=kfTHgsWb0ToC&pg=PA74&lpg=PA74&dq=crispin+sirach+50&source=bl&ots=R_iKIKd1Ay&sig=ACfU3U3svUSD4qNttCjEgZtVsvLkOc6mXQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwie7_CxqZDoAhVSTt8KHficAckQ6AEwAXoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=crispin%20sirach%2050&f=false
Maybe 1:18 of GJohn does take us beyond the resurrection
52 comments:
https://carelinks.net/doc/theword
John 3:18,Luke 1:32-33,Luke 1:35
Of course Jesus is God's Son, but it's worth noting that Luke 1:32-35 does not negate Jesus' preexistence. He is called "Son" at different points like at his baptism, then later after he's raised from the dead.
Additionally, the very narrow and simple point I was trying to make is that one cannot press the neuter argument for John 1:10ff too far. And what is more, John switches to the masculine form later in the Prologue, which he employs for the Logos.
The carelinks website states:
"In recent decades a significant number of theologians have demonstrated that John 1:1 speaks of only one person, namely the Father, and that 'the Word' is not a person, not Jesus Christ ; but is, in fact, God's word that brought forth the Genesis creation as in Psalm 33:6 'By the word of Jehovah the heavens were made.'"
It would be more correct to say that theologians have asserted that 1 person is mentioned in John 1:1, but they have not demonstrated this point beyond a shadow of a doubt or even in a convincing way for most theologians--Trinitarian or otherwise.
For Logos, see also https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/search?q=logos+burnet
How convincing does it need to be?
As far as I can see the argument stands alone & the other "proof" texts have very viable alternative explanations.
The position of John the Baptist in the prologue is generally glossed over as little significance. I have no problem with logos/wisdom becoming flesh. But the general wisdom content of this gospel is being overshadowd by an ambiguous prologue. The content should define the prologue.
https://biblehub.com/lexicon/john/6-60.htm
https://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?t=60003
I am now going to look at the problematic transmission of the Philonic corpus.
https://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/60901/frontmatter/9780521860901_frontmatter.pdf
One problem with the theory set forth on the Textkit boards:
In John 1:10, αὐτοῦ could be masculine or neuter, but αὐτὸν (the object of ἔγνω) is masculine.
VWS:
Him (αὐτὸν)
The preceding him (αὐτοῦ) is, in itself, ambiguous as to gender. So far as its form is concerned, it might be neuter, in which case it would refer to the light, "the Word regarded as a luminous principle," as it, in John 1:5. But αὐτὸν is masculine, Him, so that the Word now appears as a person. This determines the gender of the preceding αὐτοῦ.
I don't see how anyone can prove beyond a doubt that John 1:1 refers to 1 person. The belief that John 1:1 teaches 2 persons has been a part of ecclesial life for over 1,600 years. Read the numerous commentaries on GJohn or check out the recent journal articles on John 1:1. I'm not a Trinitarian, but yet I believe John 1:1 teaches 2 persons, not just 1.
William Loader on preexistence: https://books.google.com/books?id=LMeFDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA311&lpg=PA311&dq=caragounis+john+1:1&source=bl&ots=aAdziT4sXy&sig=ACfU3U0hRC5nDkkV29hQ2SKddzlGA_Bxug&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiDkPKO5ovoAhXuRd8KHfqqCa4Q6AEwBXoECAwQAQ#v=onepage&q=caragounis%20john%201%3A1&f=false
Frederic L. Godet on John 6:60:
According to de Wette and Meyer, this exclamation relates to the idea of the bloody death of the Messiah, the great cause of stumbling to the Jews, which had been implied in the preceding declarations; according to Weiss, to the overthrow of all their Messianic hopes which resulted from all these discourses; according to Tholuck and Hengstenberg, to the apparent pride with which Jesus connected the salvation of the world with His own person, according to several of the older writers, Lampe and others, to the claim of Jesus to be a personage who had come down from heaven.
Undoubtedly all these ideas are expressed in what precedes; but the most striking idea was evidently the obligation to eat His flesh and drink His blood in order to have life, and there was here indeed, also, the most paradoxical and most offensive idea. Grossly understood, it might indeed be revolting even to the disciples, and might force from them the cry: This is going too far; He talks irrationally! The term μαθηταί, disciples, here denotes persons who attached themselves to Jesus, who followed Him habitually, and who had even broken off from their ordinary occupations in order to accompany Him (John 6:66); it was from among them that Jesus had, a short time before, chosen the Twelve. Some of them were afterwards found undoubtedly among the five hundred of whom Paul speaks (1 Corinthians 15:6). σκληρός (properly, hard, tough), does not here signify obscure (Chrysostom, Grotius, Olshausen), but difficult to receive. They think they understand it, but they cannot admit it.— τίς δύναται, "who has power to ...?"— ᾿ακούειν, "to listen calmly, without stopping the ears."
See Sirach 43:31-33
I take it that you have read John Ashton's book in 2 ed?
John 1:1 is talking about one person and one teaching - not quite the same thing.
Using ecclesial life is a non starter. What about the fact that the earliest father's are quoting and alluding to sirach with reasonable frequency and then it fades out of view?
The trajectory of opinion can be easily traced, as are the things that are conspicuous by omission.
I'm familiar with Sirach and had read those verses previously. Many Trinitarian scholars are also familiar with those passages and they still affirm Christ's preexistence and apply wisdom passages from the Apocrypha to Christ.
See https://www.catholicherald.com/Faith/Your_Faith/Why_is_Jesus_called__the_wisdom_of_God__/
I have John Ashton's 2nd edition, but have not completed it yet.
It's pretty difficult to prove John 1:1 is referring to just 1 person: you go round in circles trying to dispute the two person view. It could be interpreted as 1 or 2 persons.
When I referred to ecclesial life, I was just pointing out that members of the ecclesia have long understood John 1:1 to be teaching 2 persons, whether that view is correct or not.
Since when has Sirach ever faded from view in the church? See the link above, which is a Catholic site and it's quite favorable to Sirach. It was the Protestants who began to look askance at the book: the church fathers viewed Sirach with esteem.
See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05263a.htm
As I said, "the things that are conspicuous by omission."
https://burieddeepblog.wordpress.com/2017/03/10/dr-dustin-smith-on-the-embodiment-of-wisdom/
" While in Proverbs we read that “The Lord by wisdom founded the earth; by understanding he established the heavens” (3:19), in rabbinical sources we read that “God consulted the Torah and created the world” (Genesis Rabba 1:1). In the 1st-2nd century BCE book Wisdom of Sirach, a work ostensibly alluded to by Jesus and his disciples,[1] God’s wisdom is equated with the Torah, the law handed down to Moses at Sinai:"
"[1] Compare Matt 6:19-20 with Sirach 29:11; Matt 7:16, 20 with Sirach 27:6; Matt 11:28 with Sirach 51:27; James 1:19 with Sirach 5:11; Matt 7:16-20 with Sirach 27:6; Matt 6:12 with Sirach 28:2."
"It's pretty difficult to prove John 1:1 is referring to just 1 person: you go round in circles trying to dispute the two person view."
Don't need to with that level of ambiguity. None of the arguments stand on the prologue alone. IMO it has been successfully amputated from its "supporting" verses. The meaning and implication of Genesis language is also problematic. Sir 15:14,15
John 8:37 many reject his logos.
The things you say are omitted are quoted ad nauseam/ad infinitum in Trinitarian works and that includes Ben Witherington's book on Jesus the Sage. Most every scholar in NT circles is aware of what you're citing and they've quoted and analyzed the data. It's then just a matter of how we're going to interpret it. Even if the writers you quote understand the Jewish materials correctly, the question remains as to whether the early Christians went beyond their Jewish counterparts in how they understood the Jewish texts.
By the two person view, I mean that John 1:1 is discussing God (the Father/Jehovah) and his Logos/son, who was beside him as a (created) co-worker. By "person," I mean a rational center of consciousness who is able to relate lovingly and conversantly with another person. Person here also refers to a divine person although I do not view the Logos as ho theos.
The two person view doesn't stand on the Prologue alone and I never said it did. It also stymies me that ho Logos is masculine grammatically, but those who argue that autos should be rendered "it" in John 1, apparently do not believe we should give the same regard to ho Logos and think of the word in masculine or personal terms.
While it's true that God speaks his word in Genesis, which seems impersonal, the early fathers understood Christ to be referenced there and arguably, so did Paul. See 2 Cor. 4:4-6.
I just do not concur with the attitude that Christianity could never reappropriate Jewish texts or understand them differently--the 1st century Christians unequivocally did reappropriate the texts.
How is it ambiguous anyway, to say that John 1:1 is probably not referring to 1 person? Most people in the know would understand what I meant. :)
Even the United in Worship book uses similar language when discussing John 1:1 and it was not written for theologues.
Regarding John 8:37, we can definitely agree on that, prima facie. My position is also that Logos should be interpreted/understood contextually.
Do you really think that anything Jesus said in GJohn is telling us contemplate his nature?
When the whole point of GJohn is to focus on the father even when Jesus speaks or does. Is the prologue contradicting the body of the text?
These are the kind of comments that emerge from conventional scholarship:-
"The account in 1:27 underscores John’s subservient position by reference to his slave’s service (the tying of the sandals) (Schneider 1976:68). Noting the grammatical peculiarity of the expression o{ti prw’tov~ mou h\n, Leon Morris interprets it as an emphatic expression of ‘absolute priority’, a superiority deriving from Jesus’s pre-existence (Morris 1971:109). While in antiquity chronological priority meant superiority in status, and thus on the human level the Baptist could claim higher status than Jesus, by effecting a chronological reversal (‘a reversion to priority in time’) in that Jesus actually existed before John, a status reversal is established. And although Morris points to the alternative possibility of prw’tov~ mou denoting status (as in ‘first in importance’), >>>he nevertheless opts for the conventional chronological interpretation of first in time<<<, thus pre- existence (Morris 1971:109)."
The options that do not the pre understanding get side lined.
"glory of God in the face of Christ" - What face did Paul see?
So how many scholars have analysed the date of "Sirach takes the attributes of Lady Wisdom in Ch. 24 and lauds Simon for those same attributes in Ch. 50. " ?
The whole point of GJohn is how the Father works through the Son. Many verses and John 17 & 21 testify to this point. See also John 14:6.
Johannine scholarship is vast: some scholars do weigh the options, but Tribune thinking will prevail. My comment about 2 Corinthians pertains to how Paul reads Genesis 1. I'm a christological way.
There is plenty written on the date of Sirach and on the work as a whole.
Read "Jesus the Sage."
Sirach 24:25.
John 17 & 21 are post Resurrection, so they are in another category. Not the word becoming flesh.
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/30361/is-there-an-extant-source-for-jeromes-version-of-ecclesiasticus-2425
Duncan, you wrote: "So how many scholars have analysed the date of . . ."
Instead of date, did you mean data?
Above, my tablet auto-corrected to Tribune when it should have been triune.
My comment about John 17 & 21 were addressing these remarks of yours:
"Do you really think that anything Jesus said in GJohn is telling us contemplate his nature?
When the whole point of GJohn is to focus on the father even when Jesus speaks or does. Is the prologue contradicting the body of the text?"
"Anything said in John" takes us beyond the Prologue's scope, right? Additionally, when you mention "the whole point of GJohn," I assume the whole Gospel is fair game. But even the Prologue points to the Father working through Christ (vv. 17-18). You also juxtapose the Prologue and body of GJohn text. That's why I mentioned John 17 & 21.
On Sirach and Christ, see https://books.google.com/books?id=Z-QYBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA197&lpg=PA197&dq=sirach+50+and+jesus+christ&source=bl&ots=1pvHDXqm-0&sig=ACfU3U3StQpEomnrYDdl5ElOD9Y4IB0WkQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi-jZXEkI_oAhVLnOAKHbHUDwMQ6AEwBnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=sirach%2050%20and%20jesus%20christ&f=false
John 17 is about authority.
How does 21 deal with his nature?
V25 is a hermetic parallel.
To be clear on this, I am not claiming that the language in Sirach 50 can be equated or transferred to Gjohn & neither does smith. The main thrust of the argument is that the nature of the high priest is known from other sources that do not concur with Sirach 50. Sirach 50 does portray the high priest as living embodiment of lady wisdom. I cannot see all of the above book from your link but I am not sure that it is addressing this point.
18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained "Him".
Not "himself".
From a review of "Jesus the sage":-
"The first 115 pages of the book are simply an introduction to OT and apocryphal wisdom literature, the last 150 discuss "Wisdom Christologies" in the NT. Concerning the former: I would recommend simply reading the primary sources yourself (Prov., Eccl., Job, Wisdom of Solomon, and Ben Sirach) as Witherington is not a specialist in this literature and adds little to what you will likely gain from a(nother) run through it. "
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=CQX1BgAAQBAJ&pg=PA205&lpg=PA205&dq=Mt+11:28-30+Sir+6:23-31&source=bl&ots=S2lTr6Mnok&sig=ACfU3U0epk4qnAahrfR5lMRbfuw62lEiNQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjaiZTcjpDoAhXINcAKHU4lCAoQ6AEwAHoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=high%20priest&f=false
Another work on a similar vain that still makes no connection with the high priest language.
https://www.academia.edu/21634868/AN_EXEGETICAL_COMPARISON_OF_MATTHEW_11_25_30_AND_SIRACH_51_23_27
http://christpantokrator.blogspot.com/2013/09/pauls-divine-christology-review.html
Use "Sirach" as a search term for the link and it will help you to see what Chris Tilling is arguing: he does interact extensively with Sirach 50 and so does Crispin Fletcher-Louis
John 21 sums up the whole purpose of GJohn and John 17 tells us how God works through Christ. Philosophical discussions of the divine nature don't appear in the GNT.
On John 1:18, Trinitarians normally believe it affirms Christ's deity, but at the same time, they believe God's Son explained the Father rather than himself. So they would agree he's not exegeting/explaining himself.
I don't know who made the aforementioned evaluation of Witherington's work, but it goes against what others have said about the book. Regardless, there is plenty of literature on Sirach, and we can even find works on Sirach 50. I've given you two works with Tilling and Crispin-Fletcher.
See https://jesusmonotheism.com/ben-siras-incorporative-and-cosmic-messianism/
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Jewish_Roots_of_Christological_Monot/9ST5wISvTaQC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=davila+and+sirach+50&pg=PA116&printsec=frontcover
Here's another work discussing Sirach 51 and Christ: https://books.google.com/books?id=mnsjUqD66JsC&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&dq=sirach+51+christology&source=bl&ots=PzMy9oKFK5&sig=ACfU3U1zeCvLO8bAJerLpl4aMbUkmFHKAQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjf4fndnZDoAhVyUt8KHeLQDJsQ6AEwCHoECAsQAQ#v=onepage&q=sirach%2051%20christology&f=false
One more: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b76e/f958841a4198810d36e1bcdf41e9621abb88.pdf
Terry J. Wright, again, is all well and good but he is comparing & contrasting with Pauline & not the Johannine.
https://jesusmonotheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/BenSira50TextStAndrews2018.pdf
Only two references to Sir 24.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Jewish_Roots_of_Christological_Monot/9ST5wISvTaQC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=davila+and+sirach+24&pg=PA116&printsec=frontcover
No Connections made to Sir 24.
I have copies of the DSS fragments which are limited. It demonstrates one stream but the Latin as pointed out could be giving us something a little different from another Hebrew source.
The last PDF post as per the others is skirting around the connections between 24 & 50 that now seem obvious. These all seem to be playing with Sirach and not fully engaging with the text.
My point on GJohn 1:18 is that reading through the prologue does not get us beyond the resurrection - or does it?
Crispin does make such connections in this work. He's written a lot about Sirach. See https://books.google.com/books?id=kfTHgsWb0ToC&pg=PA74&lpg=PA74&dq=crispin+sirach+50&source=bl&ots=R_iKIKd1Ay&sig=ACfU3U3svUSD4qNttCjEgZtVsvLkOc6mXQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwie7_CxqZDoAhVSTt8KHficAckQ6AEwAXoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=crispin%20sirach%2050&f=false
Maybe 1:18 of GJohn does take us beyond the resurrection
Ah, now we are getting somewhere. Crispin gives a useful account, although not es extensive as Smith's observations.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kfTHgsWb0ToC&pg=PA74&lpg=PA74&dq=crispin+sirach+50&source=bl&ots=R_iKIKd1Ay&sig=ACfU3U3svUSD4qNttCjEgZtVsvLkOc6mXQ&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=john%201%3A14&f=false
Something here relating to John 1:14 is also of interest.
Post a Comment