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

1937Re: [John_Lit] What did the BD believe (20:8)?

Expand Messages
  • Yuri Kuchinsky
    Sep 2, 2001
      On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 khs@... wrote:

      > > This use of plural "we" seems to indicate that the Johannine account
      > is > based on some previous source that was rather closer to the
      > Synoptic > accounts of women at the tomb. But otherwise, I don't think
      > this is > significant for the general meaning of the Johannine
      > account, itself. >
      > Two things. Firstly, I believe that there was a very strong
      > relationship between John and the Synoptics. I have given some
      > detail to it in the Synoptic-L list, post #6631. I posted this in
      > response to an earlier note to John Lupia on this list when the
      > darte of the FG was being discussed.
      > Secondly, John's intimation that other women were involved may
      > not be particularly relevant to the response of the BD, but it
      > shows that he knew the full story about who went to the tomb that
      > morning.


      This of course assumes that Jn story represents historical reporting.

      > It makes it more obvious that the FG's concentration on
      > Mary was deliberate.

      Yes, this is probable.

      > As I said a couple of posts back, I think it has to do with John's use
      > of Genesis 1&2 as a framework for 1:1-20:29 of this gospel.

      Not sure about this.

      > You said something about breaking new ground in relation to the BD's
      > belief or unbelief. I am not sure that we are.

      I think you're being modest. <g>

      > I think the two issues I have raised above do break new ground,
      > however,

      This is assuming your analysis is valid...

      > and it surprises me that there has been so little response to the
      > former and none to the latter. Perhaps others can see that these ideas
      > are so obviously impossible that it is thought to be kinder not to
      > respond. Perhaps it reveals my own arrogance that I should expect some
      > interest in them.

      My dear friend, when you're presenting some highly complex theory of your
      own that is very different from all other theories in the area, the
      surprising thing would be if everybody just jumped on it and welcomed it
      with open arms.

      On the other hand, if, for whatever reason, your theory were to be seen as
      offensive, it will not be surprising in the least if people will jump at
      you with negative comments. But if it just different, silence will be the
      predictable response.

      > Whatever, I do think that there must be some emphasis placed
      > on the 'natural reading' of the text, and that - to my mind - plays
      > against the BD's believing anything other than Mary's report at
      > that time.

      I'm all for the 'natural reading' of the text! The 'natural reading' is
      always the best reading. I wish all biblical scholars would see the value
      in this.



      Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=- Toronto

      I doubt, therefore I might be.
    • Show all 21 messages in this topic