Re: #114: Beloved Disciple
- --- Jim Bauer wrote:
> It is my theory that Mary "making herself male ..." was a--- to which my response was:
> Gnostic redaction, as was the first passage in Thomas, "Whoever
> experiences the meaning of these words will not experience
> death". Since "the first shall be last" the passage here
> returns to the beginning.
> ... I don't see any particularly significant connection between...to which your response was two-fold: (1) I'm not thinking like
> #114 and #1.
a mystic of the time, and (2) I'm ignoring your main thesis about
MM supplanting Peter. The only sense I can make of this response
is that you in fact have _two_ theses in mind, both of which have
to do with "the first shall be last", and that you're conflating
the two in your mind. Thus, when I respond to thesis #1, you see
me as ignoring your thesis, because you think of the two theses as
one. The way I look at it, thesis #1 is that Gnostics wrote both
logion 1 and the ending of logion 114. Thus, the first saying is
connected with the last not in any semantic way, but simply becuz
Gnostics wrote both. My response to this thesis is the same as
before: since there's no evident connection between (the end of)
114 and logion 1, I see no reason to say that "the passage here
[at the end of 114] returns to the beginning [i.e., saying #1]".
In fact, I think you may have a different (though somewhat similar)
saying in mind, namely "Where the beginning is, there the end will
be." That saying is in Th18, whereas "Many of the first will become
last" is in Th4.
Your thesis #2 is strictly about Th114, and in this thesis "the
first" is evidently Peter, not logion 1. To my mind, you confuse
the issue by bringing in the apparently irrelevant question of
whether MM wrote the 4th gospel - irrelevant because your thesis
about the redaction of 114 isn't even connected with, still less
does it depend on, whether or not she wrote GJn. So I'm going to
ignore that and concentrate on the two-step process that you
suggest underlies the current form of #114:
(1) The original form was just Peter's statement, constructed
to "take power and authority away from Mary Magdelene."
(2) "Then, some Gnostic tacked on two Gnostic statements
#114(b) ... "I myself shall lead her ..." [and] #114(c) For every
woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."
Now what I would say about this is that it simply cannot have been
so. I say that because it's simply inconceivable to me that a Xian
writer, whether orthodox or Gnostic, would ever have ended such a
sayings collection with a saying attributed to someone other than
Jesus. I'm open to the suggestion that "114c" was later added to
a+b, but that wouldn't help your case, since you want to claim that
Th114 was originally anti-MM, and 114b already counters the anti-MM
sentiment of 114a. It's clear to me that 114a was never a separate
saying, but rather was constructed as simply a "foil" for 114b.
That is to say, the original construction was point-counterpoint:
Peter says A, then Jesus corrects and/or modifies his statement.
You find that construction all the time in Xian writings. What
you _don't_ find is someone other than Jesus making a definitive
statement to which Jesus doesn't respond (e.g., 114a by itself).
On an entirely different subject (which you throw in for no
apparent reason other than a loose connection of names):
> Another text which has been selected as possibly Q is the GospelOf course it is. This pamphlet you refer to was obviously very
> of Peter. Several years ago, my brother John showed me a pamphlet
> he'd picked up at a lecture at Northwestern about how Peter might
> have been Q as in the extant fragments it gives to the Romans the
> distinciton of being the first to see Jesus risen from the dead.
> Personally, I think Thomas is closer to Q than Peter ...
confused. "Q" is understood as a sayings source, and what we have
of the Gospel of Peter (which is basically the passion narrative)
is not a sayings source.