Pastor Pete,

In part, I’m writing to myself, to see what I’ve learned recently looks like in a religio-theological context. The only one in the philosophy department from whom I have learned a great deal and who is aware of New Testament references is staunch RC and finds my suggestions uninteresting.

When last I paid attention, there was much disagreement about the date of John — some said very early, others very late. I recall John’s image of "logos" taken simply as evidence of the early church’s move (as is evident in Paul’s epistles) toward Hellenism.

An issue for me now is the extent to which Platonism can be credited to the popularity of the Greek mystery religions, and the post-scientific revolution’s struggle to free itself from that form of Greek metaphysics. One consequence of the struggle has been the linguistic turn.

To the degree that Christian theology still includes its primitive version of natural science, it’s going nowhere. "Logos" as John understood it is primitive science. To refer to Jesus as "the Logos" no longer justifies John; rather John must explain his interpretation of Jesus as leading to rather than coming from "the Logos."

So, John cannot be understood only on his own terms. To what extent that then raises interest in Thomas depends on the possible role it played for the early church. Was it Iraeneus who offered the first NT canon? If so, his preference for John over Thomas shut down a dialogue that still needs to happen, don’t you think?

In part I also have in mind the recent declaration of the UK RC bishops about the Bible, which suggests their readiness to welcome historical textual criticism of the records. That is also part of the linguistic turn. I do not have my hopes up that it will soon lead to a re-evaluation of the RC’s dependence on platonism, whose usefulness grows more problematic by the minute.

I cannot imagine the luxury of centuries to correct past mistakes.

PS. At least since Kant, the distinction between religion and philosophy, for philosophy, is the difference between knowledge and a way of life. I can be a philosopher without seeking salvation. I cannot be religious without that search, and my liberalism tells me it is never once and for all. Despite all the flaws and failures of our western civilization, it is the Christian church’s service to humanity that keeps us civilized. The rest is all midrash.