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

Expand Messages
  • Billy Evans
    Lorna and Group: I pause before submitting my idea to such a learned group, but...In the case of the AP, where is the man? It s been my theory that Jesus
    Message 1 of 13 , Oct 31, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      Lorna and Group:

      I pause before submitting my idea to such a learned group, but...In the case
      of the AP, where is the man? It's been my theory that Jesus sensed
      something rotten when the woman was brought to "trial" but the amn was not.
      After all, the OT commands that BOTH the man and woman be killed for such a
      crime. Jesus "changed' the law because the people were involved in a
      coverup. Jesus might have been thinking, "if you expect me to punish this
      woman to the fullest extent of the law when you are as guilty as sin for
      covering for one of your buddies, I'll tell you what I will do....'whoever
      has no sin (they were all guilty at that time with the coverup and at least
      one male was guilty of adultry) let HIM cast the first stone'

      what do you think?

      Billy Evans HUC grad and dissertation sstudent at U of So Africa
      10251 Pendery Drive
      Cincinnati, OH 45242
      bevans@...
    • Billy Evans
      A few thoughts before coming to John 13. The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) says that Jesus had five disciples. Aboth 2:8 refers to Johanan ben Zakkai
      Message 2 of 13 , Dec 25, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        A few thoughts before coming to John 13. The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin
        43a) says that Jesus had five disciples. Aboth 2:8 refers to Johanan ben
        Zakkai having five disciples. John 1 gives the impression that Jesus had
        five disciples: Andrew, the BD, Simon Peter, Philip, and Nathanael. If an
        editor added John 21, it seems he thought there were five disciples (21:2).
        My point? Judas comes on the scene in John 6:70-71 as the betrayer and is
        disciple number six (I think the GosJo is more Semitic than Hellenistic).
        Thus, Judas' sixth position matches the Jewish symbolism for imperfection.
        The sixth commandment is the prohibition against murder (Judas' end result
        to his act of betrayal. So, it might be the plan of the evangelist to
        introduce Thomas as the seventh disciple if he is the BD and "perfect" or
        role model for the disciples. What does this group think? I believe much
        of this info comes from Charlesworth's The Beloved Disciple.
        --William J Evans Jr
        grad of Hebrew Union College--Cincinnati
        Dissertation with UNISA
        10251 Pendery Drive
        Cincinnati, Ohio 45242
        bevans@...
      • Billy Evans
        13:23 No woman is called a MATHATAS even though it is used 78 times in the FG. In chapters 1-20 only three persons are called MATHATAS: Judas Iscariot
        Message 3 of 13 , Dec 26, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          13:23
          No woman is called a MATHATAS even though it is used 78 times in the FG. In
          chapters 1-20 only three persons are called MATHATAS: Judas Iscariot
          (12:4), the BD (beginning in 13:23), and Joseph of Arimathea (19:38).
          Amazing since Jesus has many MATHATAS (4:1).

          Thomas frames the narratives of chapter 11 and 20, and these two pericopes
          feature the BD as noted by S Talmon. The evangelist links the BD
          thematically with the Paraclete and stresses that he will abide (MENEIN).
          While the author shapes Jesus' question to him and the other members of the
          12 (6:67), the BD does not go away but remains--a major thecnical term for
          the Johannine community as we all know.

          Thomas leads the rest in exhorting them to follow Jesus even if it means
          death (11:16). "He who is called Twin" frames the presentation of Thomas
          and the BD (Repetition with syntagmatic value to shape the reader's
          understanding of the BD. Thus we come to the Book of Glory where the BD is
          introduced at the beginning of the meal. Charlesworth says the FG would
          have taken on a mnemonic formulae in the eastern oral culture with the
          phrase EIS EK TON plus "disciple" or "twelve"--as Thomas is "one of the 12"
          so the BD is "one of the disciples." This was the authors way of
          identifying the BD as Thomas without giving away his anonymity. This would
          enable the BD to also serve in a symbolic manner transcending not only the
          narrative but also the fundamental concepts of place and time. Thus the BD
          is the ideal disciple for all who wish to follow Jesus but cannot "see" him
          as did the BD (viz 19:35, 20:8). Charlesworth adds, "The author also
          ostensibly chose 'disciple' instead of 'Twelve' to define the Beloved
          Disciple for the same reason: to allow the historical figure to be also
          symbolical for Christians of the future."


          --William J Evans Jr
          grad of Hebrew Union College--Cincinnati
          Dissertation with UNISA
          10251 Pendery Drive
          Cincinnati, Ohio 45242
          bevans@...
        • Bob MacDonald
          ... away his anonymity. Thomas is the same who says unless I see, I will not believe in 20:25. The BD is the one of whom it is said in 20:8 he saw and
          Message 4 of 13 , Dec 26, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            >>This was the authors way of identifying the BD as Thomas without giving
            away his anonymity.

            Thomas is the same who says "unless I see, I will not believe" in 20:25.
            The BD is the one of whom it is said in 20:8 "he saw and believed".

            Identifying Thomas with BD requires a severe discontinuity in the writer's
            character descriptions.

            Bob

            mailto::BobMacDonald@...
            + + + Victoria, B.C., Canada + + +

            Catch the foxes for us,
            the little foxes that make havoc of the vineyards,
            for our vineyards are in flower. (Song 2.15)
            http://members.home.net/bobmacdonald/homepage.htm
          • Paul Schmehl
            ... From: Bob MacDonald To: Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 5:04 PM Subject: RE: [John_Lit]
            Message 5 of 13 , Dec 26, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "Bob MacDonald" <bobmacdonald@...>
              To: <johannine_literature@egroups.com>
              Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 5:04 PM
              Subject: RE: [John_Lit] Thomas Didymus as BD
              >
              > >>This was the authors way of identifying the BD as Thomas without giving
              > away his anonymity.
              >
              > Thomas is the same who says "unless I see, I will not believe" in 20:25.
              > The BD is the one of whom it is said in 20:8 "he saw and believed".
              >
              > Identifying Thomas with BD requires a severe discontinuity in the writer's
              > character descriptions.

              I'm not sure I see why. It seems to me that both statements could easily
              describe the same person. 20:8 *does not* say, "he believed and saw", it
              says, "he saw and believed". Perhaps you could expand on why you see
              discontinuity here?

              Paul Schmehl
              baldeagl@...
            • Bob MacDonald
              From: Paul Schmehl I m not sure I see why. It seems to me that both statements could easily describe the same person. 20:8 *does not* say, he believed and
              Message 6 of 13 , Dec 26, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                From: Paul Schmehl
                I'm not sure I see why. It seems to me that both statements could easily
                describe the same person. 20:8 *does not* say, "he believed and saw", it
                says, "he saw and believed". Perhaps you could expand on why you see
                discontinuity here?

                From: "Bob MacDonald"

                Thomas is the same who says "unless I see, I will not believe" in 20:25.
                The BD is the one of whom it is said in 20:8 "he saw and believed".

                Identifying Thomas with BD requires a severe discontinuity in the writer's
                character descriptions.

                Expansion:

                I 'see' your point. The order of the verbs shows some continuity of
                character, but I think it is only the character that we all share whether we
                'see' first or not. I can say that I have seen this 'seeing' in v8 as an
                'insight' into the faith that they did not yet know about 'that he should
                rise from the dead' v9 but that they now do know about by this belief that
                the author imputes to them at that moment.

                Now what was the content that he believed? v8 - that he should rise from the
                dead v9. I think this is the author's invitation to follow the BD's
                example - as he says in v31 - 'that ye might believe and believing have life
                through his name'.

                In other words, Thomas is in a position of not believing in v25. If he is
                also the one who believes in v8, then by the sequential nature of the
                narrative, this requires him to go from believing to not believing 'in the
                same day' (v19).

                This is incoherent in my opinion.

                Thanks for asking me to clarify, however. It is a most difficult operation
                to make these things clear no matter how clearly we seem to see them
                ourselves.

                Bob

                mailto::BobMacDonald@...
                + + + Victoria, B.C., Canada + + +

                Catch the foxes for us,
                the little foxes that make havoc of the vineyards,
                for our vineyards are in flower. (Song 2.15)
                http://members.home.net/bobmacdonald/homepage.htm
              • Billy Evans
                Besides considering the three verbs (BLEPEI, THEOREI, HORAO--MENTIONED SO WELL BY RAMSEY EVEN THOUGH HE FAILED TO DEAL WITH WHAT YOU SEE; THAT IS, 20:8-9 THAT
                Message 7 of 13 , Dec 26, 2000
                • 0 Attachment
                  Besides considering the three verbs (BLEPEI, THEOREI, HORAO--MENTIONED SO
                  WELL BY RAMSEY EVEN THOUGH HE FAILED TO DEAL WITH WHAT YOU SEE; THAT IS,
                  20:8-9 THAT JESUS WAS TO RISE FROM THE DEAD), a whole line of exegetes from
                  Luther (Luther added a note to the verb "believed' gleubets in his
                  translation to 20:8 saying that the BD believed what Mary Magdalene had said
                  to him (20:2--"they have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know
                  where they have laid him"), Calvin (Calvin recognized the importance of 20:9
                  in interpreting 20:8 and cautioned that the BD is "still far from the pure
                  and clear knowledge of faith"--The Gospel According to St John 1988 Part 2,
                  page 194, Wesley etc viewed the difficulty either as a kind of
                  reader-response criticism or pre-postmodernism word game. Westcott said,
                  "It is not likely that it [the verb 'believed'] means simply 'believed that
                  the body had been removed as Mary Magdalene reported.' Such a conclusion
                  was rather a matter of natural and immedidate inference from what he saw.
                  The use of the word absolutely rather points to the calm patient acceptance
                  of a mystery as yet in part inexplicable with full confidence in the divine
                  love. The threefold sign of the stone removed, the empty sepulchre, the
                  grave-clothes leisurely arranged, indicated something still to be more fully
                  shewn, and the apostle waited in trustful expectation for the
                  interpretation." The Gospel According to John, 290.

                  L. Morris 1971, pages 833-4, pointed out that the verbs "saw and believed"
                  do not have an object. So when one reaches 20:25f the BD may not have
                  believed in Jesus' resurrection at this time even though he may have had
                  "some sort of faith." Morris added that the option still existed for the BD
                  to have simply have believed in Mary Magdalene's report.

                  The Oxford Greek scholar Whiteley (ANRW II.25.3, 2499-50) argued that
                  "believed" in 20:8 was an inceptive or ingressive aorist and that it 'must
                  be given its full force. Thus, the BD at this point began to believe.

                  For this and more see Charlesworth. Of course one has to admit that the
                  source criticism option is quite strong. Too much to get into right now.

                  In case you're wondering, Charlesworth and MacRae take the position that i
                  quote from MacRae: "The real issue is what the Beloved Disciple 'saw and
                  believed.' It is not actually said that Peter did not believe, and we need
                  not pursue an unexpressed contrast. But what did the beloved disciple
                  believe? Verse 9 says that 'they had not yet understood the teaching of
                  scripture, that he must rise from the dead." 1978, 219.

                  MacRae said that the BD believed"that Jesus had indeed returned to the
                  Father, as he had promised. This is what constitutes true christological
                  faith in the Fourth Gospel. Thus the resurrection as such is not (yet) the
                  object of faith."

                  In addition, the stolen body argument was known and against Mt 28:13 there
                  is narrative proof that one cannot appeal to any disruption caused by
                  thieves or disciples. What did the BD see? the 100 pounds of spices? The
                  BD saw the SUNDARION--a handkerchief. The greek is ENTETULIGMENON, a
                  perfect passive verb that denotes that the face-cloth was "rolled up," or
                  "wrapped around." Charlesworth points out that 'It does not have to mean
                  someone rolled it up after Jesus' resurrection; it can denote that it
                  remained the way it had been rolled: rolled around, or still wrapped as it
                  was when the corpse was there." Page 111.

                  What was important for the author was that Peter and the BD believed the
                  report of Mary: that the tomb was empty.


                  --William J Evans Jr
                  grad of Hebrew Union College--Cincinnati
                  Dissertation with UNISA
                  10251 Pendery Drive
                  Cincinnati, Ohio 45242
                  bevans@...


                  ----------
                  >From: "Bob MacDonald" <bobmacdonald@...>
                  >To: <johannine_literature@egroups.com>
                  >Subject: RE: [John_Lit] Thomas Didymus as BD
                  >Date: Tue, Dec 26, 2000, 6:04 PM
                  >

                  >
                  >>>This was the authors way of identifying the BD as Thomas without giving
                  > away his anonymity.
                  >
                  > Thomas is the same who says "unless I see, I will not believe" in 20:25.
                  > The BD is the one of whom it is said in 20:8 "he saw and believed".
                  >
                  > Identifying Thomas with BD requires a severe discontinuity in the writer's
                  > character descriptions.
                  >
                  > Bob
                  >
                  > mailto::BobMacDonald@...
                  > + + + Victoria, B.C., Canada + + +
                  >
                  > Catch the foxes for us,
                  > the little foxes that make havoc of the vineyards,
                  > for our vineyards are in flower. (Song 2.15)
                  > http://members.home.net/bobmacdonald/homepage.htm
                  >
                  >
                  > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com
                  > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                  > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com
                  >
                • Bob MacDonald
                  Billy Evans wrote ... report of Mary: that the tomb was empty. Not sure if you composed this in parallel to my later response, but here is another exegete
                  Message 8 of 13 , Dec 26, 2000
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Billy Evans wrote
                    >>What was important for the author was that Peter and the BD believed the
                    report of Mary: that the tomb was empty.

                    Not sure if you composed this in parallel to my later response, but here is
                    another exegete that supports the interpretation I read on the surface.

                    William Temple - Readings in John's Gospel, 1938
                    "Perhaps he who was in heart nearest to the Lord had some instinct of
                    understanding which enabled him to interpret what he saw and grasp the
                    truth. Anyhow, the 'disciple whom Jesus loved' was the first to believe in
                    His resurrection."

                    Temple takes for granted the identification of John with the BD. (on 1.35 he
                    writes: The other no doubt was John the Beloved disciple).

                    Bob

                    mailto::BobMacDonald@...
                    + + + Victoria, B.C., Canada + + +

                    Catch the foxes for us,
                    the little foxes that make havoc of the vineyards,
                    for our vineyards are in flower. (Song 2.15)
                    http://members.home.net/bobmacdonald/homepage.htm
                  • Paul Schmehl
                    ... From: Bob MacDonald To: Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 6:30 PM Subject: RE: [John_Lit]
                    Message 9 of 13 , Dec 26, 2000
                    • 0 Attachment
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: "Bob MacDonald" <bobmacdonald@...>
                      To: <johannine_literature@egroups.com>
                      Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 6:30 PM
                      Subject: RE: [John_Lit] Thomas Didymus as BD
                      >
                      > Expansion:
                      >
                      > I 'see' your point. The order of the verbs shows some continuity of
                      > character, but I think it is only the character that we all share whether
                      we
                      > 'see' first or not. I can say that I have seen this 'seeing' in v8 as an
                      > 'insight' into the faith that they did not yet know about 'that he should
                      > rise from the dead' v9 but that they now do know about by this belief that
                      > the author imputes to them at that moment.
                      >
                      > Now what was the content that he believed? v8 - that he should rise from
                      the
                      > dead v9. I think this is the author's invitation to follow the BD's
                      > example - as he says in v31 - 'that ye might believe and believing have
                      life
                      > through his name'.
                      >
                      > In other words, Thomas is in a position of not believing in v25. If he is
                      > also the one who believes in v8, then by the sequential nature of the
                      > narrative, this requires him to go from believing to not believing 'in the
                      > same day' (v19).
                      >
                      That assumes that what Thomas believes in v8 & 9 is the same thing he does
                      not believe in v25.

                      In v8 & 9 Thomas enters the tomb and *sees* that it is empty and believes
                      that what the scriptures had written of His resurrection was true.

                      In v25, he reacts to the statement of the twelve that they had seen Jesus,
                      by saying he would not believe it unless he could see/touch Jesus for
                      himself. (And indeed he *does* believe after he sees him.)

                      In the former case he reacts to the empty tomb by believing (finally) what
                      the scriptures had told him about His resurrection, *after* seeing the empty
                      tomb.

                      In the latter case, he reacts to the *sighting* of the resurrected Jesus by
                      the others by demanding visible proof - not of the resurrection of Jesus,
                      but of his presence on earth *after* the resurrection. These are two
                      entirely different things.

                      Jesus expands on Thomas' reaction by applying it to others who have not seen
                      believing in Him, but it doesn't necessarily follow that Jesus meant that,
                      until that moment, Thomas had *not* believed in His resurrection.

                      In both cases, Thomas didn't believe something until he first saw it. He
                      didn't believe in the resurrection that the scriptures had *told* him about
                      until he *saw* the empty tomb. He didn't believe in the presence of Jesus
                      in his resurrected body when the disciples *told* him about it. He had to
                      *see* for himself. It seems to me his behavior is very consistent
                      throughout.

                      Mind you, I'm not arguing that Thomas is the BD or even the "other" disciple
                      of v8,9 for that matter.) I have no settled opinion on who the BD is, and
                      I'm following closely all the arguments. My only point here is to reveal
                      another point of view of the two passages in question.

                      Paul Schmehl
                      baldeagl@...
                    • Billy Evans
                      ... The list for those concluding that John was the BD is indeed impressive. Charlesworth says, Recent reviews of Johannine research give the reader the
                      Message 10 of 13 , Dec 26, 2000
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Some of what Bob MacDonald wrote:

                        > William Temple - Readings in John's Gospel, 1938
                        > "Perhaps he who was in heart nearest to the Lord had some instinct of
                        > understanding which enabled him to interpret what he saw and grasp the
                        > truth. Anyhow, the 'disciple whom Jesus loved' was the first to believe in
                        > His resurrection."
                        >
                        > Temple takes for granted the identification of John with the BD. (on 1.35 he
                        > writes: The other no doubt was John the Beloved disciple).

                        The list for those concluding that John was the BD is indeed impressive.
                        Charlesworth says, "Recent reviews of Johannine research give the reader the
                        impression that there has been a consensus among scholars regarding the
                        identity of the Beloved Disciple. Many Johannine experts today [1995]
                        assume that we scholars concurred until recently that the Beloved Disciple
                        was John the son of Zebedee. The benchmark is alleged to be the defection
                        of Brown and Schnackenburg from the John-hypothesis to the suggestion that
                        the Beloved Disciple is one of the anonymous disciples mentioned in 21:2
                        (170)."

                        I found the possibilities by Charlesworth amazing. While I hesitate to do
                        this, my "Christmas gift" to this learned group is to reproduce the bare
                        list from Charlesworth. It follows:

                        For the BD:

                        John the Apostle: MacFarlane, Lofthouse, viz. Strauss, Macdonald,
                        Westcott, Godet, Chapman, Nunn, Bernard, Hoernle, Schlatter, Strachan,
                        Morris, Bruce, Hendriksen, Barrett, Tasker, Braun, Strathmann, de Boor,
                        Smalley, Crane, Michaels, Carson, Voigt, Kaufman, Manns, Schmithals,
                        Whitelaw

                        John the Elder: F von Hugel, Bousset, Burney, Dibelius

                        John the Elder blended with John the Apostle: Uechtritz, Streeter, Hengel

                        One of the Two anonymous disciples noted in 21:2: Brown, Schnackenburg

                        Judas, Jesus' brother: J J Gunther

                        John Mark: Volter, Weollhausen, Weiss, Parker, Johnson, Marsh, Eckle

                        Lazarus: Kreyenbuhl, Kickendraht, Griffith, Draper, Lewis, Filson, J N
                        Sanders, Eckhardt, Brownlee, Leonard, Eller, Nepper-Christensen, Stibbe

                        Nathanael: Gutjahr, Spaeth, rovers

                        Philip: Boismard

                        Andrew, Simon Peter's Brother: Lutzelberger

                        Judas Iscariot: Noack, Griffin. [I must comment that in 1876 L Noack
                        argued that Judas understood that he was chosen to deliver Jesus up to make
                        the divine plan work.]

                        The Rich Young Ruler: King, Swete, Erbes, lewis, MacGregor

                        Benjamin: Minear

                        Paul or a Paulinist: Bacon, Hanhart, Goulder

                        Apollos: Tobler, Dechent, Petrement

                        Matthias: Titus

                        A real human whose idenity is lost: Baur, Garvie, Lofthouse, Roloff,
                        Lorenzen, Dauer, Culpepper, Cullmann, D M Smith, Thyen, De Jonge, Moloney,
                        de Rand, Becker, Beasley-Murray, Porsch, Byrne, Zumstein, Ruckstuhl,
                        Bonsack, Quast, Collins, Ernst, Grassi, Whiteley, [S Brown]

                        A symbol of the church: Scott, Bultmann, Pamment

                        A symbol of the apostolic Prophet: Kragerud

                        An ideal, fictitious, or symbolical figure: Scholten, Julicher, Loisy,
                        Schillito, Goguel, Linders, Kugler

                        Ananda: Edmunds, Bruns

                        Impossible to decide: Jackson, Dodd, Colson, MacRae, Martyn

                        A real mouthful. I am amazed at the number of candidates. I am glad to
                        know where W Temple stood--thanks Bob





                        --William J Evans Jr
                        grad of Hebrew Union College--Cincinnati
                        Dissertation with UNISA
                        10251 Pendery Drive
                        Cincinnati, Ohio 45242
                        bevans@...
                      • Billy Evans
                        Ron Price wrote: when do you thing John was written? A. As I see it, there are two approaches to answering the question of date. 1). The tradition that it
                        Message 11 of 13 , Dec 30, 2000
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Ron Price wrote: when do you thing John was written?

                          A. As I see it, there are two approaches to answering the question of date.

                          1). The tradition that it came late in the first century is dependent upon
                          the Ephesus tradition.

                          2). The feeling that the book is later than the other gospels is due to the
                          type of presentation of Jesus in the book...ie, we have further
                          interpretation of Jesus and the events and teachings of his life.

                          B. Early work in Germany attempted to date the book after 150ad....Baur
                          dated the book at 170....Snigal at 135...these dates are based upon the
                          assumption that Alexandrian thought was in this gospel, and thus a lapse of
                          time for that to take place.

                          1). However, the discoveries in Qumran have showed considerable affinities
                          to the gospel to John....thus conceptually and lingusitically , all of the
                          things in the gospel could have been said in Palestine before 70ad.

                          2). The John Rylands fragment of John (which dates around 125ad) would push
                          the date back probably at least 100ad. This supports the John in Ephesus
                          position.

                          3). Tatian's use of John (the Diatesseron in 180ad) shows that the book
                          received canonical standing earlier.

                          C. Perhaps you could supply some other reasons....?

                          thanks



                          --William J Evans Jr
                          grad of Hebrew Union College--Cincinnati
                          Dissertation with UNISA
                          10251 Pendery Drive
                          Cincinnati, Ohio 45242
                          bevans@...
                        • Billy Evans
                          Dear JL members: just a short note of thanks. I have the monies that I need. thanks for your prayers. they were answered quickly. F. Just--thanks for this
                          Message 12 of 13 , Jan 11, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Dear JL members:

                            just a short note of thanks. I have the monies that I need.

                            thanks for your prayers. they were answered quickly. F. Just--thanks for
                            this opportunity.

                            --William J Evans Jr
                            grad of Hebrew Union College--Cincinnati
                            Dissertation with UNISA
                            10251 Pendery Drive
                            Cincinnati, Ohio 45242
                            bevans@...
                          • Billy Evans
                            JL group: Having thought on Tom s paper, something bothers me. It is nothing that Tom or anyone said so this may be off the path a bit. But here it is:
                            Message 13 of 13 , Jan 13, 2001
                            • 0 Attachment
                              JL group:

                              Having thought on Tom's paper, something bothers me. It is nothing that Tom
                              or anyone said so this may be off the path a bit. But here it is: could
                              the writer of the FG have kept the identity of the BD secret for protection?
                              Protection would have been important if the early church wanted to make sure
                              the BD did not die and therefore ruin the credibility of Jesus' words about
                              the BD "possibility only" remaining until Jesus returns.

                              If there is any evidence for this I'm not sure what ramifications it would
                              have if any to Tom's ideas.

                              By the way, Stern's book (mentioned by Tom) is used at Hebrew Union.

                              --William J Evans Jr
                              grad of Hebrew Union College--Cincinnati
                              Dissertation with UNISA
                              10251 Pendery Drive
                              Cincinnati, Ohio 45242
                              bevans@...
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.