From: Polycarp66@aol.com
Date: Thu Feb 24 2000 - 00:01:35 EST
In a message dated 2/23/2000 11:14:37 PM Central Daylight Time,
baldeagl@airmail.net writes:
<< Considering that John's authorship of Revelation has been questioned
by some, and given that it was written later than the Gospel, what
justification would there be for importing possible meanings from
Revelation back into John's gospel?
It seems to me that John very clearly does not refer to a pre-existent
Christ in the prologue, but rather refers to the "word" of God. As
has been discussed here, that carries much depth of meaning depending
upon the viewpoint of the reader, be he Greek, Hebrew, Alexandrian or
whatever. >>
(1) Revelation was not possibly written by the author of the gospel or the
epistles. See R.H. Charles _Revelation_, vol I. In the intro. he details
the differences in language which make it clear that this was not by the same
author. Also, as you said, it was written much later.
He doesn't refer to the pre-existent Christ in the prologue (I assume you are
referring to 1.1-14). Will you acknowledge that to whomever or whatever he
refers, this LOGOS is pre-existent?
QEOS HN hO LOGOS. hOUTOS HN EN ARCHi PROS TON QEON . . .
gfsomsel
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:59 EDT