Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Mary Magdalene as Jesus' Wife in the Gospel of Philip]]

Expand Messages
  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
    Here s a response I had from Darrell Bock to John s claims. ******** Jeffrey: Hard to comment without versification on Philip, I will have to look at this. Of
    Message 1 of 1 , Mar 13 7:54 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Here's a response I had from Darrell Bock to John's claims.

      ********

      Jeffrey:

      Hard to comment without versification on Philip, I will have to look
      at this. Of course, the major critique is the lateness of Mary and
      the fact most do not take it to show Jesus was really married as a
      result. If I do recall and we are discussing the same thing, I am
      aware of the context of Philip being appealed to. I never treated it
      because it fuses mother-sister-wife, showing that whatever it means
      it is a highly figurative description from which a conclusion about a
      social social relationship cannot be made. How is one mother and wife
      at the same time? What that shows is a highly symbolic use from which
      little can be drawn. In such a highly symbolic context it is hard to
      know what to make of a description of someone as a "yoke-partner".

      As for Intellectuals and Gnostics. That looks like a caricature of my
      position or emphasis. It takes a portion of a quote from Mathews-
      Green I note (not even the part I was most concerned about) and makes
      the word mine. The point was that gnosticism was an elitist religion
      of secret knowledge working with a Greek philosophical syncretistic
      reaction to Judaism and Christianity. In that sense it was
      intellectual and pointed to a claim of "secret" and elitist
      knowledge. I think that point is quite correct from the sources we
      have. So I stand by the point of a movment rooted in a claim to
      "secret" understanding of a philosophically oriented type.

      As for Montanism I am not discussing the NT as a whole, but the
      gospels (a key distinction). Here my point is that Ireneaus's
      reaction against such movements was he rejected the attempt to add to
      the four gospels. In addition, we are making the larger point that
      the position of the four gospels was fixed by the end of the second
      century not by Nicea, a point virtually all working on the
      development of the canon accept. I stand by that description as well.
      They are not errors.

      Darrell Bock
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.