Roger Elliott wrote:
> I do think it best if all of those interested continue their discussion
> privately - away from this forum. Personally I feel all the energy being
> used in this area could be used in more fruitful areas. The biblical
> teachers of the law spent energies discussing subjects that did not magnify
> the name of the Lord. Christ was scathing about that sort of discussion -
> would He approve of the discussions that are ongoing at present in our
Roger - You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but please remember
that this discussion group is intended for the "academic" discussion of
John, and so the historical/exegetical discussion being proposed by Tom,
Frank, Ken, and Heiwa is certainly appropriate for this forum, even if
it covers some well-worn ground that some people are not interested in
pursuing again at this time.
As you may or may not know, in May 1999 the former JOHNLITR list was
split into two groups, one for academic/scholarly discussion and one for
more religious/spiritual discussion. Both are legitimate types of
conversation, even if some people are interested in one more than the
You or anyone else looking for the latter should consider participating
in the "Gospel of John" group (see
in addition to,
or instead of, this group. But please don't tell other people that they
shouldn't have an academic discussion here.
On the other hand, to make it easier for people who are not interested
in the BD topic to delete or ignore this thread, I repeat the request I
made yesterday, that messages on this topic be clearly labelled "BD:..."
or something like that.
Personally, I agree with Tom's 5-stage approach, and with Ken's critique
of Frank's numerical-order list of passages. So why not start with the
texts that mention the BD explicitly, then discuss the "anonymous/other
disciple" passages, and only later the passages outside of John. In
Felix Just, S.J. -- Dept. of Theological Studies
Loyola Marymount University -- 7900 Loyola Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90045-8400 -- (310) 338-5933