Richard K. Min The University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, Texas, USA

1. Circular Rhetoric and Paradox in John 1:15, 30 Society of Biblical Literature International Meeting 2014 University of Vienna, Vienna, AustriaJuly 6-10, 20148-15 Johannine Literature7/08/2014 Tuesday 8:30-11:15AMRoom: Elise-Richter-Saal - Hauptgebäude Richard K. Min The University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, Texas, USA Instituto Teologico Bauptista Pablo (ITBP), Chiapas, Mexico email: min75243@hotmail.com http://biblicalparadox.wordpress.com

2. Acknowledgements • Gopal Gupta for his support and guidance in my study and research at University of Texas at Dallas. • Moses (HyunGu) Kim and yungGuen Lee at Paul Theological Seminary (ITBP) and Ko-Mex Mission in Chiapas, Mexico, Sam Underwood at FBC Farmers Branch, Jung-O Kim at Dallas Eastern Presbyterian Church, In-Gyun Oh at Hanuri Church, Richard Crawford at FBC Richardson, Katy Barnwell at Wycliffe Bible Translators & SIL, David (Hosik) Kim at Korean Bible University, Paul Miller at Gramcord, and SeJune Hong at IBM, for research opportunity, support, and encouragement. • E. Earle Ellis for New Testament studies, and Carl F. H. Henry for my study in John, Theology, and Christian Philosophy. • Cathy Drewry for Editorial Support. • Mi Min (my wife) for her support and encouragement, and being my first and best audience.

3. Note on Terminology These terms are used somewhat informally and interchangeably: • Cycle סבֵב) or κύκλοςin Ecclesiastes 1:6) • Circularity, Vicious Circle, Circular Reasoning • (Infinite) Loop • Self-reference, Self-witness, Self-testimony • Co-induction, Coinduction, Coinductive Logic

4. Circular Rhetoric and Paradox in Biblical Studies In the past, • The major work on circular rhetoric is done through “Semitic influence” in repetitive or tautological expression (often useless or nonsensical) [Howard “Semitisms in NT”, 1929] • Only serious and major scholarly works on circular rhetoric • the reciprocal indwelling relationships in 1 John by Malatesta (1978), followed by Brown (1982). • Paradoxes: mostly in Philosophy or Theology except one recent and noteworthy work on Mark by Santos (1995). • self-denial discipleship (Mark 8:34), • saving by losing one’s life (Mark 8:35), and • servant-leadership (Mark 9:35).

5. Negative Bias (?) on Circular Rhetoric & Paradox • Russell’s Paradox (1910, and logical atomism) (Barber’s Paradox) A barber is “one who shaves all those, and those only, who do not shave themselves." ** Does the barber shave himself? Yes? or No? (Russell 1918 Lecture: The Philosophy of Logical Atomism) cf. “Physician, Heal yourself!” (Luke 4:24) • The Liar Paradox (Titus 1:12) Even one of their own prophet has said, “Cretans are always liars.” “Κρῆτες, ἀεὶ ψευδεῖς, κακὰ θηρία, γαστέρες ἀργαί” Epimenides [circa 600BC] as identified by Clement of Alexandria.

6. Two Traditional Approaches • Logical Atomism (Russell & Tarski): • Philosophy to provide a sound epistemological foundation • Classical Logic (by Tarski): to avoid circularity (paradox), to treat circular reasoning as invalid, and to have a hierarchy of language (to be linear) to prevent the circularity • Logical Atomism (Wittgenstein): • Philosophy to point out linguistic mistake (weakness or inability): “metaphysics and ethics were literally nonsensical” • Deconstructionism (Postmodernism) (by Derrida): to treat the languages as incapable and helpless. • “Is Zombie alive or dead?” • Destroy to reconstruct one’s own personal & “subjective” meaning of the text (for there is no such a thing as “objective” truth).

7. Circularity in Everyday Life, Computational Disciplines, Computer Science, etc. • Circularity (Circular Reasoning) in every day life • Social interactions are cyclical: • Conversation = (1stspeaker speaks, (2ndspeaker speaks, (Conversation))) • Many natural phenomena are cyclical • Cyclical movement of the earth, four seasons, day & night, etc. • Self-reference as a proof-method “I think; therefore I exist.” (Descartes) Scripture explains by Scripture (Augustine) • Numerous examples in (Barwise & Moss 1996) • Any 7x24 system or process (once up and running, meant to run forever): web server, mobile server, operating systems, life-support system, GPS & navigation system, in circular process (infinite loop).

8. Breakthrough by Kripke (1975) and Emerging new development with Circular Logic Kripke (1975): “Outline of a Theory of Truth” and “Kripke-Kleene 3-valued Semantics for Logic Programs” by Fitting (1985), and its various computational approaches and implementations: • Coinductive Logic Programming (co-LP) by Simon et al (2006), Coinductive Logic Programming with Negation as Failure by Min et al (2009), and • Its application to the study of Biblical Paradox by Min and Gupta (SBL IM 2010), Min (SBL IM 2011), Min (SBL IM2012), Min (SBL IM2013), and Min (SBL AM2013). http://biblicalparadox.wordpress.com

9. Example 1. Exodus 3:14

10. Example 2. John 14:10

11. Example 3. Titus 1:12The Liar Paradox

12. Example 4. Three Paradoxes in Matthew 22:15-46(1) Matthew 22:15-22 (Pay Tax to Caesar or Not) 1. The Solution is Circular, Modal, and a Model-Set cf. “A if A” and “B if B” (or “not A if not A”) • It is Modal: a model-set of two contradicting models. • “possible world semantics” of a model-set with 1) one model (“paying Tax to Caesar”) istrue 2) another model (“paying Tax to God”) is true • A Complete Answer with Two Solutions • Give back to Caesar what are Caesar’s • Give back to God what are God’s • Many Similar examples in the Bible of a “Model Set” • Luke 17:20-30. “Already” and “Not Yet” of Two-Stage coming of Kingdom of God (Oscar Cullmann – Salvation History)

13. Example 4. Three Paradoxes in Matthew 15-46(2) Matthew 22:23-33 - Marriage vs Resurrection

14. Example 4. Three Paradoxes in Matthew 22:15-46(2) Matthew 22:23-33 Circular, Modal, & Nonmonotonic • Nonmonotonic as her life-status and marital-status keep changing (vs. monotonic: once true then be true forever) • “Circular, Modal, and Nonmonotonic Reasoning” used as one of the most common motifs, methods, and themes used in the Bible seemingly contradictory to monotonic reasoning and principles. (cf. Ecclesiastes 3:1-10, 7:14) Ecclesiastes 7:14 When times are good, be happy; but when times are bad, consider: God has made the one (good times) as well as the other (bad times). Therefore, a man cannot discover anything about his future. Job 1-2 or Matthew 5:10-12. Paradox of being Cursed to be Blessed? Further if the righteous are blessed and the evil are cursed, then how can a righteous man be cursed and persecuted in this world, to be blessed?

15. Example 4. Three Paradoxes in Matthew 15-46(3) Paradox in Matthew 22:41-46Christ - Whose son is he? Son of David. Paradox of Lord-Servant (Father-Son) RelationshipWhat is Human vs Divine in crash!

16. Two Proof Methods in John 8:12-20“I am” the light of the world inCircular Logic (Self-Testimony) & Lawful Two Witnesses John 8:12-20 (NIV) 12 When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.” 13 The Pharisees challenged him, “Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid.” (1) John 8:12. one of “I am” sayings in John. ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσμου (2) John 8:13. Objection and Accusation by the Pharisees It is “Self-witness” (Circular Reasoning).

17. Two Proof Methods in John 8:12-20 John 8:12-20 (NIV) 14 Jesus answered, “Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going. 15You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one. 16But if I do judge, my decisions are right, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me. 17 In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two men is valid. 18 I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me.” • John 8:12 “I am …” as Self-Testimony – Circular or Coinductive Reasoning • John 8:17 Testimony of two men according to the Law – Inductive Reasoning • Thus all metaphorical “I am” sayings of Jesus in John are essentially Circular.

18. A Parallel: Exodus 3:14-15 in the Light of John 8:12-20 (Exodus 3:14 ASV – Coinductive Reasoning & Self-Referencing God) And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.  (Exodus 3:15 ASV – Inductive Reasoning – God in reference with His people) And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Jehovah, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all generations. Also noted in Matthew 22:23-33: God is God of the living.

19. Toward A Unifying Interpretive Framework for Jesus’ “I am” sayings in John Summary for 7 Metaphorical “I am” sayings in John. With Two Rhetoric/Biblical Basis/Templates (John 8:12-20, 10:1-21). • All “I am” sayings by Jesus are essentially self-testimony (circular rhetoric and logic in effect). John 8:12-20 • “I am” as the Interpretive Key, (in John 10:1-21) providing • Partial Interpretation (and Modal solutions) • Unfolding Story (παροιμία) and its True Meaning (Interpretation) • Blended with the Real and the Symbolic (Figurative) materials “I am” sayings with (or without) an opening (parabolic) story with well-known OT story, a case of “Sitz Im Leben”, Signs, Miracle, etc. In Continuous, Progressive, Dynamic narrative-frame. [Proem (Midrash): opening scripture/story, exposition (with the supporting scripture and additional exposition), a concluding scripture/remark]

20. Two-Stage Coming of the Kingdom of God“Already” and “Not Yet” in Tension (Luke 17:20-30)Salvation History (Heilsgeschichte) by Oscar Cullmann

21. John 1:15 & 30 • The similar circular rhetoric of “already” and “not yet” is found in the public testimony (John 1:15,30) of John the Baptist • (In John 1:19–23) John the Baptist testified himself as the forerunner of the coming Christ (Isaiah 40:3). • At this time, the Christ is “not yet” revealed in public, but is to be identified by John the Baptist through his baptism with the sign of the Holy Spirit (John 1:26–34).

22. John 1:15 & 30 • This is “John the Baptist’s unique description” about the coming Christ with respect to himself • In Circular Rhetoric (and Paradox) • The passage in three simple and distinctive Prepositional phrases [in temporal or spatial (in rank or order) meaning] • to generate an interesting enigma and paradox in exegesis. • ὁ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος the one who come after me ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν, was [perfect] greater than me ὅτι πρῶτός μου ἦν for he was before me [imperfect] • ὀπίσω μου ἔρχεται ἀνὴρ ὃς - ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν, - ὅτι πρῶτός μου ἦν

23. John 1:15 & 30 • The first prepositional phrase (ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος) can be viewed as either (1) temporal (“who comes after me” in a before-after relationship) or (2) spatial in order or rank (“who comes after me” in rank or “who follows me” in a teacher-disciple relationship). • The second phrase (ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν) can be also viewed as either (1) temporal (“has been before me” in timeline) or (2) spatial (“has surpassed me” or “has been superior to me” in rank or superiority). • The third clause (πρῶτός μου ἦν) is viewed either as (1) temporal in a relative or comparative sense (“was earlier than I” in time) or as (2) temporal in an absolute temporal sense (“was before me” from the beginning of John 1:1).

24. John 1:15 & 1:30 • The first and third phrases (traditionally) treated as temporal which is in circular rhetoric and a paradox. A is after B, …. for A was before B. • Alternatively an exegetical choice to take both the second and the third as temporal (or even spatial) would also means “he was before me because he was before me.” (circular rhetoric) A is before B because A is before B.

25. John 1:15 & 1:30 • John 1:15 & 30 is clearly in circular rhetoric. • For this reason, a careful exegetical elaboration has been noted in the past in order to avoid the passage from being simply tautological (circular). • For example, proposed by Cullmann, one alternative is to place or qualify its temporal point of the Christ in the third clause (πρῶτός μου ἦν) to the time in “the beginning” in John 1:1 (in order to avoid “circular” logic as “meaningless” or “nonsensical”) in deductive reasoning.

26. Conclusion • Circular Rhetoric and Paradox • ubiquitous and pervasive throughout John • with the selected Biblical examples • John 8:12-20 for “I am” Sayings • Salvation History (“Already” and “Not Yet”) • John 1:15 & 30 Testimony of John the Baptist in Circular Rhetoric and Logic of Paradox

27. Afterword by Solomon 13 Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind. 14 For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil. (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 NIV)