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

RE: [John_Lit] BD 20:2-10

Expand Messages
  • Thomas (Tom) Butler
    Felix and other J.L. Listers, Jn. 20: 1-10 tells us 1. The BD is not Peter and is not Mary Magdalene, since the BD, Peter and Mary Magdalene are each presented
    Message 1 of 22 , Dec 27, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      Felix and other J.L. Listers,

      Jn. 20: 1-10 tells us

      1. The BD is not Peter and is not Mary Magdalene, since the BD,
      Peter and Mary Magdalene are each presented in the story as
      separate characters with different behaviors.

      2. The text includes two material links to 11: 38-44.
      a.The setting is similar - the site of a tomb, where the stone
      is already removed (20: 1) or the stone is removed within the
      context of the story (11: 39).
      b.The linen wrappings (grave cloths) are already removed and
      rolled up or folded (20: 6-7) or are to be removed (11: 44).

      Note also that the Magdalene does not see the grave cloths, but does see angels, one where the head of the body of Jesus had been and the other where the feet of the body of Jesus had been(20:12) while someone with Jesus (Mary? Martha?) is told by Jesus to re- move the grave cloths from Lazarus' hands, feet and face (11:44).

      I suggest that what is important in each of these passages regarding linen (grave) cloths is their position, which is related to where they have been on the body in the tomb. They serve as a sign of the resurrection.

      Peter and the BD both see the cloths in their separate places. There is no indication that the cloths or their locations had any meaning at all to Peter. Seeing them caused the BD to believe, but we are not told WHAT the BD believed.

      Why would the BD know what this sign meant when Peter did not? Could it be that the BD had recently been assigned the task of removing grave cloths from a resurrected body, perhaps even having folded or rolled such cloths in a manner similar to the way they were found in the tomb?

      Any of the disciples following Jesus when Lazarus is raised could have performed such humble duty as to remove the grave cloths, but I suggest that in the story of the raising of Lazarus, the main characters (besides Jesus and a silent Lazarus) are Martha and Mary, who are presented as the sisters of Lazarus. It seems likely that either of them would have taken it upon themselves to do as Jesus instructs in removing the no-longer-needed linen grave cloths from the no-longer-corpse of their brother. Either of them could have taken note of the significant detail of where the cloths were placed and how they were folded or rolled.

      Conclusion:

      A material link between the story of the raising of Lazarus and the resurrection story of Jesus exists in 20: 1-10. That link is the existence, position, and belief-producing power (for the BD) of the grave cloths. The link hints that the BD is a disciple who was present at the raising of Lazarus, probably a disciple who obeyed the command of Jesus to remove the grave cloths. In the context of the Lazarus story, the only named characters beside Jesus and Lazarus are Martha and Mary of Bethany.

      Yours in Christ's service,
      Tom Butler
    • Ken Durkin
      ... From: FMMCCOY Thank you Frank for posting your historical reconstruction. I find a number of problems with your theory: 20:2-10,
      Message 2 of 22 , Dec 28, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "FMMCCOY" <FMMCCOY@...>


        Thank you Frank for posting your historical reconstruction. I find a number
        of problems with your theory:

        20:2-10, 13:23-25, 19:26-27...
        > these three passages are the only passages, outside of the appendix (i.e.,
        > Chapter 21), where the BD is explicitly mentioned. This tells us that
        the
        > Johannine community linked the BD with Peter and Mary Magdalene, making
        > them, in some significant sense, a special group of three.

        If you include 21 there is no special group of 3.

        > What, though, is the common feature to them that made them a special
        > group of three? A clue comes from what follows 20:2-10, i.e., the
        narration
        > of a special post-resurrection appearance of the risen Jesus to Mary
        > Magdalene. I suggest, then, that the common feature to all three people,
        a
        > feature which made them a special group in the eyes of the Johannine
        > community, is that the risen Jesus made a special post-resurrection
        > appearance to each of them.

        There's not a hint of this in FG.

        > In this regard, it is significant that, in I Cor. 15:3-7, Paul tells of
        > two people to whom, according to traditions he knew, the risen Jesus made
        a
        > special post-resurrection appearance: a man named Cephas and James, the
        > brother of Jesus...So, based on what Paul states in I Cor. 15:3-7, it
        would appear that, besides his special post-resurrection appearance to Mary
        Magdalene, the
        > risen Jesus also made two more special post-resurrection appearances to an
        > individual--first to Cephas (Peter) and second to James, the brother of
        > Jesus.

        The "special post-resurrection appearance" to James is well down the list.
        "Second" is misleading. James ranks behind Cephas, 12, and 500.

        > each of the three people in 20:2-10 were
        > individually visited by the risen Jesus, then, based on what Paul states
        in
        > I Cor 15:3-7, the BD is James, the brother of Jesus!

        Where is the individual appearance to the BD mentioned?

        > Supporting this conclusion is the fact that 20:2-10 introduces these
        > three people in the order of first Mary
        > Magdalene, second Peter, and third the BD. This, almost certainly,
        reflects
        > the order in which the risen Jesus visited Mary Magdalene, Peter, and
        James.
        > First, as recorded in John,
        > he appeared to Mary Magdalene. Next, following the chronology given by
        > Paul, he first visited Peter before visiting James.

        This line of reasoning requires evidence of an individual appearance to the
        BD in FG.

        > Was Paul ignorant of the post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to Mary
        > Magdalene that made her as special as Cephas (Peter) and James? I don't
        > think so. Rather, I suggest, he deliberately left it out of I Cor 15:3-7
        > because it undercuts his argument, in I Cor 11:1-10. that women ought to
        be
        > subordinate to men in churches.

        It's just as easy to argue that if Paul had been aware of a special status
        accorded to Mary Magdalene his attitude to women would have been different.

        > .... the original
        > third pillar was Mary Magdalene and that he [Paul] strongly dis-approved
        of her
        > elevation to a leadership position in the Jerusalem Church Council and,
        so,
        > deliberately snubbed her on his first visit.

        She could have "snubbed" him.

        > Then, sometime before Paul's
        > second visit, she died and one of the elders on the Jerusalem Church
        > Council, whose name was John, was selected to succeed her as the third
        > "pillar".

        A simpler solution is to suggest MM was never one of the "three pillars".
        This explanation would be more in keeping with the available evidence.

        > In 20:2-10 and the ensuing two verses of 20:11-12, it is the case that
        > (1) the first person to take a look inside the tomb is the BD, (2) the
        > second person to take a look inside the tomb is Peter, and (3) the third
        > person to take a look inside the tomb is Mary Magdalene.

        MM looked in first, otherwise she would not have been able to say, "They
        have taken the Lord out of the tomb..."

        This order tells
        > us, I suggest, the authority ladder among the original three "pillars".
        > On the top rung was the BD, i.e., James, the brother of Jesus. On the
        > middle rung was Peter. Finally, on the lowest rung, was Mary Magdalene.

        In FG MM is first to the tomb, first to look inside, and first to meet the
        Risen Lord.

        > In 20:2-10, it is twice said that, in a race between the BD and Peter to
        > the tomb, the BD won. The meaning of this is that Peter did not
        graciously
        > let James, the brother of Jesus, become the head "pillar". Rather, he
        vied
        > with James for this position and lost out in the contest.

        Chapter 21 does not support this interpretation of a "contest" between Peter
        and the BD with Peter losing out.

        KenDurkin
      • ProfRam@aol.com
        In Jn 20:8, the BD saw and believed. 1. What did he see? Did he see what he and Peter had seen a moment before (graveclothes arranged in a certain way)? Or
        Message 3 of 22 , Dec 28, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          In Jn 20:8, the BD "saw and believed."

          1. What did he see? Did he see what he and Peter had seen a moment before
          (graveclothes arranged in a certain way)? Or what Mary saw a moment later
          (two angels dramatizing by their positioning that the body was gone)?

          2. Why did he not share his newfound belief with Mary, who was standing
          outside, still wondering who had taken the body? He seems as uncommunicative
          here as in chap 13 when he refused to reveal who the betrayer was?

          Ramsey Michaels
        • Bob MacDonald
          I was at first asking the question who did what - and by implication; what would the writer be trying to say to the reader - - then I narrowed my focus to the
          Message 4 of 22 , Dec 28, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            I was at first asking the question who did what - and by implication; what
            would the writer be trying to say to the reader - - then I narrowed my focus
            to the different meanings of the words used for 'seeing' in the text.

            Just on the surface of the Greek, there are several words that suggest
            different modes of seeing - are these as significant as perceive vs know vs
            understand? Or are they as innocuous as seeing vs beholding vs observing in
            English?

            I'll leave my early morning homework below, showing the narrative actions
            and the context of the seeing verbs (and a few aside questions)

            Subject - verb - object
            Mary Magdalen - came - to the sepulchre
            MM - saw (blepei) - no stone
            MM - runs to Simon Peter and BD (why efilei?)
            MM - says - her interpretation of the open sepulchre

            Peter - went forth
            Peter - came to the tomb

            BD - went forth
            BD - came to the tomb

            v4 - interpretation by the writer for the reader
            They both - ran together
            BD - outran - Peter
            BD - came first - to the sepulchre

            BD - stoops down
            BD - saw (blepei) - the linen clothes lying,
            BD - did not go in

            Peter - comes (repeat second place finish)
            Peter - went into
            Peter - sees (theorei) the linen clothes and the napkin

            v7 Narrator explains the positioning of the graveclothes - 'observations'
            BD - went in also (repeat first place finish)
            BD - saw (eiden)
            BD - believed

            the disciples - went away -

            MM - stayed
            MM - wept
            MM - stooped down
            MM - sees (theorei) - angels

            << snip>>

            MM - told the disciples she had seen (hEORAKA)

            << snip>>

            Disciples told Thomas they had seen (hEORAKAMEN)

            << snip>>

            Thomas insists on seeing (ido) = BD's word

            << snip>>

            Jesus says to Thomas - behold (ide) my hands

            <<snip>>

            Jesus contrasts seeing (hEORAKAS) with seeing (idontes)

            -----------------------

            I think the contrast in seeing words supports the surface meaning in English
            that Temple (1938) assumes and does not support the identification of Thomas
            with BD. The one who 'sees and believes' in v8 is not about to 'demand
            another revelation' in v25 - his heart has already been filled.

            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
          • Ron Price
            ... In my opinion this is the only text that matters when trying to identify the BD. All the other references are intended simply to show the high status of
            Message 5 of 22 , Dec 28, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              Felix Just wrote:

              > ....... let's also move on to the third text, in which "the other
              >disciple, the one whom Jesus loved" is mentioned. What does 20:2-10
              >tell us about the identity of this person?

              In my opinion this is the only text that matters when trying to
              identify the BD. All the other references are intended simply to show
              the high status of the BD in contrast with the earliest disciples of
              Jesus.
              Here the presentation of the BD as being in a race with Peter makes it
              abundantly clear that the BD was in some sense Peter's greatest rival.
              The idea that this was James the brother of Jesus can be dismissed
              immediately because according to John 7:5 Jesus' brothers did not
              believe in him. This was the ultimate condemnation from an author to
              whom belief was paramount.
              On the other hand in 1 Clement, which was written about the same time
              as the First Edition of John's gospel, we see Peter and Paul bracketed
              together (1 Clem. 5:1-6:1). A generation after their deaths these two
              apostolic heroes had become rivals for the admiration of Christians.
              Looking in more detail at the race to the tomb we are told that Peter
              "saw" but the BD "saw and believed". This implied denigration of Peter
              parallels that of Mark's gospel in which Peter is portrayed as seeing
              Jesus only as the Messiah (Mark 8:29) and not as the Son of God. In
              John's gospel, Peter saw the earthly Jesus, but it was Paul who
              "believed" in the resurrection of the Son of God. Such praise by the
              author of John's gospel was natural from someone who had adapted Pauline
              theology and taken it to new heights. There may be another link in the
              probable association of both John's gospel and the collection of Paul's
              letters with Ephesus.
              So the BD was none other than Paul. This is why the BD's identity
              could not be revealed, for everyone knew that Paul had played no part in
              the story of Jesus' life or earliest appearances.

              Ron Price

              Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

              e-mail: ron.price@...

              Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
            • Paul Schmehl
              ... From: Ron Price To: Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 3:40 PM Subject: Re: [John_Lit] BD
              Message 6 of 22 , Dec 28, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: "Ron Price" <ron.price@...>
                To: <johannine_literature@egroups.com>
                Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 3:40 PM
                Subject: Re: [John_Lit] BD 20:2-10
                >

                > So the BD was none other than Paul. This is why the BD's identity
                > could not be revealed, for everyone knew that Paul had played no part in
                > the story of Jesus' life or earliest appearances.

                So the stories in John are falsified "history" to make a point that he
                doesn't even bother to clarify?

                That hardly seems logical. Why does he portray the BD, on the night of the
                Last Supper, as reclining on the bosom of Jesus? This places the BD in a
                very prominent position in the story. It would seem we would see arguments
                from the patristics regarding this, if anyone actually believed it was Paul.
                Is there any evidence at all of anyone advancing this opinion?

                Paul Schmehl
                baldeagl@...
              • Billy Evans
                Paul as the BD? As I listed a few days ago, no scholar (I assume of note) had ever advanced the notion that the BD was Paul (according to Charlesworth that
                Message 7 of 22 , Dec 28, 2000
                • 0 Attachment
                  Paul as the BD?

                  As I listed a few days ago, no scholar (I assume of note) had ever advanced
                  the notion that the BD was Paul (according to Charlesworth that is). My
                  question regarding this is this: if Acts has Paul concenting to the death of
                  Jesus years after Jeus' resurrection, how could Paul ever have been willing
                  to cuddle up the the Lord? Am I missing something here? Perhaps I
                  misunderstood the Question? Of course Paul could have been the BD during
                  the life of Jesus, but then he would have had to become a disbeliever in
                  order to be converted on the road to Damascus. That seems unlikely to say
                  the least since Paul would have confessed it as he did "everything" else.
                  Personally I'm still chewing on the possibilities of Thomas.

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


                  ----------
                  >From: "Paul Schmehl" <baldeagl@...>
                  >To: <johannine_literature@egroups.com>
                  >Subject: Re: [John_Lit] BD 20:2-10
                  >Date: Thu, Dec 28, 2000, 5:09 PM
                  >

                  > ----- Original Message -----
                  > From: "Ron Price" <ron.price@...>
                  > To: <johannine_literature@egroups.com>
                  > Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 3:40 PM
                  > Subject: Re: [John_Lit] BD 20:2-10
                  >>
                  >
                  >> So the BD was none other than Paul. This is why the BD's identity
                  >> could not be revealed, for everyone knew that Paul had played no part in
                  >> the story of Jesus' life or earliest appearances.
                  >
                  > So the stories in John are falsified "history" to make a point that he
                  > doesn't even bother to clarify?
                  >
                  > That hardly seems logical. Why does he portray the BD, on the night of the
                  > Last Supper, as reclining on the bosom of Jesus? This places the BD in a
                  > very prominent position in the story. It would seem we would see arguments
                  > from the patristics regarding this, if anyone actually believed it was Paul.
                  > Is there any evidence at all of anyone advancing this opinion?
                  >
                  > Paul Schmehl
                  > baldeagl@...
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com
                  > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                  > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com
                  >
                • FMMCCOY
                  ... From: Ron Price To: Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 3:40 PM Subject: Re: [John_Lit] BD
                  Message 8 of 22 , Dec 28, 2000
                  • 0 Attachment
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: "Ron Price" <ron.price@...>
                    To: <johannine_literature@egroups.com>
                    Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 3:40 PM
                    Subject: Re: [John_Lit] BD 20:2-10


                    > Felix Just wrote:
                    >
                    > > ....... let's also move on to the third text, in which "the other
                    > >disciple, the one whom Jesus loved" is mentioned. What does 20:2-10
                    > >tell us about the identity of this person?
                    >
                    > In my opinion this is the only text that matters when trying to
                    > identify the BD. All the other references are intended simply to show
                    > the high status of the BD in contrast with the earliest disciples of
                    > Jesus.
                    > Here the presentation of the BD as being in a race with Peter makes it
                    > abundantly clear that the BD was in some sense Peter's greatest rival.
                    > The idea that this was James the brother of Jesus can be dismissed
                    > immediately because according to John 7:5 Jesus' brothers did not
                    > believe in him. This was the ultimate condemnation from an author to
                    > whom belief was paramount.
                    > On the other hand in 1 Clement, which was written about the same time
                    > as the First Edition of John's gospel, we see Peter and Paul bracketed
                    > together (1 Clem. 5:1-6:1). A generation after their deaths these two
                    > apostolic heroes had become rivals for the admiration of Christians.
                    > Looking in more detail at the race to the tomb we are told that Peter
                    > "saw" but the BD "saw and believed". This implied denigration of Peter
                    > parallels that of Mark's gospel in which Peter is portrayed as seeing
                    > Jesus only as the Messiah (Mark 8:29) and not as the Son of God. In
                    > John's gospel, Peter saw the earthly Jesus, but it was Paul who
                    > "believed" in the resurrection of the Son of God. Such praise by the
                    > author of John's gospel was natural from someone who had adapted Pauline
                    > theology and taken it to new heights. There may be another link in the
                    > probable association of both John's gospel and the collection of Paul's
                    > letters with Ephesus.
                    > So the BD was none other than Paul. This is why the BD's identity
                    > could not be revealed, for everyone knew that Paul had played no part in
                    > the story of Jesus' life or earliest appearances.
                    >
                    Dear Ron Price and Other JL Listers:
                    In 6:67-69, Peter acts as the spokesman for the 12, so he is their
                    leader. In 13:23-25, Peter speaks to Jesus through the BD. This means that
                    the BD has an even higher status than the leader of the 12. Only one person
                    had such a status in the movement founded by Jesus--his brother James.
                    Therefore, he is the BD. What the race to the tomb means is that Peter
                    contested the BD for dominance and lost. The first explicit mention of the
                    BD is in 13:23-25. I think that, this means, he came to believe in Jesus
                    only shortly before the Last Supper and, therefore, at the time of 7:5, he
                    did not believe in Jesus.. Again, this is in accord with James being the
                    BD--for, at the time of 7:5, he did not believe in Jesus.
                    As respects the hypothesis that the first edition of John came out
                    about the same time as I
                    Clement, it is noteworthy that, .in Jesus (p. 36), Alvar Ellegard states,
                    "Referring to Irenaeus
                    and the fourth-century church historian Eusebius, most modern scholars date
                    the Clement letter to c. AD 95. Internal evidence, however, points to an
                    earlier date, which might be at the time of the emperor Nero, in the sixties
                    of the first century. If so, I Clement would be only slightly later than
                    the Letter of Paul, whose letter to the Corinthians is directly referred to
                    in Clement's letter." Thus, even if the hypothesis that
                    the first edition of John came out about the same time as I Clement is true
                    (which I seriously doubt), this is still
                    consistent with my thesis that 19:25-27 dates to the early sixties when
                    Clopas briefly became a "name" in Christian circles and, so, did not have to
                    be further identified by the author of John.
                    Jesus was a Galilean who spent most of his ministry period in Galilee.
                    Why, then, does most of John focus on Jesus while he is in Jerusalem
                    observing festivals? The hypothesis that John was written at Ephesus cannot
                    answer this question. Conversely, the answer becomes self-evident if the
                    Johannine community was the Jerusalem Church and its BD was James, its first
                    leader.
                    In the prologue to John, the Law is deemed to be an inferior revelation
                    in comparison to the revelation given by Jesus as the incarnate Logos.
                    Also, it is nowhere said in John that one must obey the Law of Moses to be
                    saved. However, by the same token, it is nowhere said in John that the Law
                    has been annulled. Indeed, in 7:23, Jesus appeals to the ordinances of the
                    Law regarding circumcision to justify his healing on the Sabbath!! Hence,
                    it would appear, the message in John is that the Law of Moses is an inferior
                    revelation and its observance is not necessary for one to be saved, but it
                    has not been annulled and, therefore, people of the covenant (i.e., Jews)
                    ought to continue obeying it--including its ordinances regarding
                    circumcision. This is not the message one would expect if Paul is the BD.
                    It is, though, just the message one would expect if James is the BD. We
                    know that he did not think that Mosaic Law was necessary for salvation
                    (which was the belief of the circumcision party) and came down hard against
                    this doctrine at the Jerusalem Church Council meeting c. 49 CE by decreeing
                    that Gentiles who are Christians need not observe Mosaic Law. On the other
                    hand, he believed that the Law remained in effect for the people of the
                    covenant and, so, zealously observed the Law himself and tried to get other
                    Christian Jews to do likewise.

                    Regards,

                    Frank McCoy
                  • Stephen C. Carlson
                    ... I thought your wonderful list from Charlesworth included the ... I don t know which ones of these, however, advanced Paul and which ones advanced a
                    Message 9 of 22 , Dec 28, 2000
                    • 0 Attachment
                      At 06:02 PM 12/28/00 -0500, Billy Evans wrote:
                      >Paul as the BD?
                      >
                      >As I listed a few days ago, no scholar (I assume of note) had ever advanced
                      >the notion that the BD was Paul (according to Charlesworth that is).

                      I thought your wonderful list from Charlesworth included the
                      following entry:

                      >Paul or a Paulinist: Bacon, Hanhart, Goulder

                      I don't know which ones of these, however, advanced Paul and which
                      ones advanced a Paulinist.

                      Stephen Carlson
                      --
                      Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                      Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
                      "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                    • Lorna Wilson
                      Dear Frank, My understanding of the scene in 13:23-25 differs from your interpretation. I do not interpret Peter speaking to Jesus through the BD implicit of
                      Message 10 of 22 , Dec 28, 2000
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Dear Frank,
                        My understanding of the scene in 13:23-25 differs from your interpretation.
                        I do not interpret Peter speaking to Jesus through the BD implicit of his
                        status. Note that in 13:6 Peter speaks directly to Jesus when he begins to
                        wash the disciples feet. However in 13:23-25 Jesus is now positioned at the
                        table w/his disciples.

                        Raymond Brown suggests that perhaps Peter was a distance from Jesus in
                        13:23-25 and therefore motioned to the BD to get Jesus attention. Instead,
                        the position of Jesus and the disciples around the table is a more solid
                        indicator of status. Brown notes the position of the BD compared to the
                        other disciples, i.e. "on the side of Jesus" which would indicate a place of
                        honor at the table (Anchor, 574).

                        Also, if speaking through the BD was an indicator of status then this same
                        pattern should continue through the rest of the narrative. But does the BD
                        serve as proxy for the other disciples throughout the rest of the narrative?
                        So why doesn't Peter continue to speak to Jesus through the BD?

                        In Jn 21 Peter has direct communication w/Jesus. Note that in 21:20, the BD
                        is identified as the one who "reclined next to Jesus at the supper" in
                        13:23-25. And in 21:21 when Peter saw the BD he spoke directly to Jesus
                        about him (versus speaking through the BD).

                        Now Frank, I am in no way saying that Peter has an elevated status in the
                        4G. I agree with you in regards to the lower status of Peter in the 4G and I
                        think that is portrayed through the betrayal scenes, etc... However, my
                        personal thoughts on this differ from yours in that I do not interpret Peter
                        speaking through the BD in 13:23-25 as an indicator of his status as
                        compared to the BD because it is not consistent with Peter's actions in
                        21:21.

                        Lorna Wilson
                        ===============================cut here=================================
                        >From: "FMMCCOY" <FMMCCOY@...>
                        >Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 19:26:51 -0600
                        >Dear Ron Price and Other JL Listers:
                        > In 6:67-69, Peter acts as the spokesman for the 12, so he is their
                        >leader. In 13:23-25, Peter speaks to Jesus through the BD. This means
                        >that
                        >the BD has an even higher status than the leader of the 12. Only one
                        >person
                        >had such a status in the movement founded by Jesus--his brother James.
                        >Therefore, he is the BD. What the race to the tomb means is that Peter
                        >contested the BD for dominance and lost. The first explicit mention of the
                        >BD is in 13:23-25. I think that, this means, he came to believe in Jesus
                        >only shortly before the Last Supper and, therefore, at the time of 7:5, he
                        >did not believe in Jesus.. Again, this is in accord with James being the
                        >BD--for, at the time of 7:5, he did not believe in Jesus.
                        > As respects the hypothesis that the first edition of John came out
                        >about the same time as I
                        >Clement, it is noteworthy that, .in Jesus (p. 36), Alvar Ellegard states,
                        >"Referring to Irenaeus
                        >and the fourth-century church historian Eusebius, most modern scholars date
                        >the Clement letter to c. AD 95. Internal evidence, however, points to an
                        >earlier date, which might be at the time of the emperor Nero, in the
                        >sixties
                        >of the first century. If so, I Clement would be only slightly later than
                        >the Letter of Paul, whose letter to the Corinthians is directly referred to
                        >in Clement's letter." Thus, even if the hypothesis that
                        >the first edition of John came out about the same time as I Clement is true
                        >(which I seriously doubt), this is still
                        >consistent with my thesis that 19:25-27 dates to the early sixties when
                        >Clopas briefly became a "name" in Christian circles and, so, did not have
                        >to
                        >be further identified by the author of John.
                        > Jesus was a Galilean who spent most of his ministry period in Galilee.
                        >Why, then, does most of John focus on Jesus while he is in Jerusalem
                        >observing festivals? The hypothesis that John was written at Ephesus
                        >cannot
                        >answer this question. Conversely, the answer becomes self-evident if the
                        >Johannine community was the Jerusalem Church and its BD was James, its
                        >first
                        >leader.
                        > In the prologue to John, the Law is deemed to be an inferior revelation
                        >in comparison to the revelation given by Jesus as the incarnate Logos.
                        >Also, it is nowhere said in John that one must obey the Law of Moses to be
                        >saved. However, by the same token, it is nowhere said in John that the Law
                        >has been annulled. Indeed, in 7:23, Jesus appeals to the ordinances of the
                        >Law regarding circumcision to justify his healing on the Sabbath!! Hence,
                        >it would appear, the message in John is that the Law of Moses is an
                        >inferior
                        >revelation and its observance is not necessary for one to be saved, but it
                        >has not been annulled and, therefore, people of the covenant (i.e., Jews)
                        >ought to continue obeying it--including its ordinances regarding
                        >circumcision. This is not the message one would expect if Paul is the BD.
                        >It is, though, just the message one would expect if James is the BD. We
                        >know that he did not think that Mosaic Law was necessary for salvation
                        >(which was the belief of the circumcision party) and came down hard against
                        >this doctrine at the Jerusalem Church Council meeting c. 49 CE by decreeing
                        >that Gentiles who are Christians need not observe Mosaic Law. On the other
                        >hand, he believed that the Law remained in effect for the people of the
                        >covenant and, so, zealously observed the Law himself and tried to get other
                        >Christian Jews to do likewise.
                        >
                        >Regards,
                        >
                        >Frank McCoy
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com
                        >UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                        >PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com
                        >

                        _________________________________________________________________
                        Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
                      • Billy Evans
                        To Stephen: Thanks. The list of 22 represented amazing work by Charlesworth. I too wondered about Paul on the list when I said no scholar (of note) voted for
                        Message 11 of 22 , Dec 28, 2000
                        • 0 Attachment
                          To Stephen: Thanks.

                          The list of 22 represented amazing work by Charlesworth. I too wondered
                          about Paul on the list when I said no scholar (of note) voted for Paul.../
                          It Was B W Bacon in 1907 who opted for Paul being the BD; however, it is
                          questioned now as then if he meant a "purely ideal figure". For instance,
                          Bacon thought that the Last Supper in John 13 was not history but "doctrinal
                          interpretation" in line with the teaching of Paul in I Cor 10 and 11.
                          Likewise, the BD in John 20 is phantasmal according to Bacon. John 20's BD
                          was only a type of faith. According to Bacon, "he [the BD] was, in
                          summation, 'a Greek-speaking, Pauline Christian of 100 A.D.' who has been
                          idealized" (Bacon, The Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate:....New York:
                          Moffat, Yard and Company, 1910, 331.).

                          Hanhart, in 1984, said the Evangelist was apparently thinking about Paul
                          when he created the Beloved Disciple" Charlesworth, p.161.

                          Goulder, in 1992, argued that the BD could not be Paul, but asked "could
                          John have thought he was?" (Scottish J of Theology 45 (1992), 495.)

                          Bultmann thought Bacon's view regarding Paul was the best argument even
                          though Bultmann rejected it.

                          SO...1), I did not think these scholars were of the highest reputation, 2),
                          Charlesworth treated these three scholars without much confidence, and 3), I
                          didn 't put any stock in a scholar who "created" a situation off a whim. I
                          hope my words help you determine which were Paul and Paulist.

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


                          ----------
                          >From: "Stephen C. Carlson" <scarlson@...>
                          >To: johannine_literature@egroups.com
                          >Subject: Re: [John_Lit] BD 20:2-10
                          >Date: Thu, Dec 28, 2000, 9:26 PM
                          >

                          > At 06:02 PM 12/28/00 -0500, Billy Evans wrote:
                          >>Paul as the BD?
                          >>
                          >>As I listed a few days ago, no scholar (I assume of note) had ever advanced
                          >>the notion that the BD was Paul (according to Charlesworth that is).
                          >
                          > I thought your wonderful list from Charlesworth included the
                          > following entry:
                          >
                          >>Paul or a Paulinist: Bacon, Hanhart, Goulder
                          >
                          > I don't know which ones of these, however, advanced Paul and which
                          > ones advanced a Paulinist.
                          >
                          > Stephen Carlson
                          > --
                          > Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                          > Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
                          > "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                          >
                          > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@egroups.com
                          > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                          > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@egroups.com
                          >
                        • Ron Price
                          ... Paul, ... Thus the First Edition of John follows Mark in denigrating the original disciples. Why did they do this? Presumably because the respective
                          Message 12 of 22 , Dec 29, 2000
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Paul Schmehl wrote:

                            > Why does he portray the BD, on the night of the
                            >Last Supper, as reclining on the bosom of Jesus? This places the BD in a
                            >very prominent position in the story.

                            Paul,
                            I have already explained these other references as follows:

                            >> All the other references are intended simply to show
                            >>the high status of the BD in contrast with the earliest disciples of
                            >>Jesus.

                            Thus the First Edition of John follows Mark in denigrating the
                            original disciples.
                            Why did they do this? Presumably because the respective authors were
                            aware that the original disciples although followers of Jesus, had
                            remained Jews. For there is no reliable evidence that they ever broke
                            away from Judaism, or that they followed Paul in proclaiming Jesus as
                            the Son of God.

                            Ron Price

                            Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

                            e-mail: ron.price@...

                            Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
                          • Ron Price
                            ... Billy, Yes. John is not straight history. Its portrayal of Paul is surreal, just like its portrayal of Christians eating the flesh and drinking the blood
                            Message 13 of 22 , Dec 29, 2000
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Billy Evans wrote:

                              > My
                              >question regarding this is this: if Acts has Paul concenting to the death of
                              >Jesus years after Jeus' resurrection, how could Paul ever have been willing
                              >to cuddle up the the Lord? Am I missing something here?

                              Billy,
                              Yes. John is not straight history. Its portrayal of Paul is surreal,
                              just like its portrayal of Christians eating the flesh and drinking the
                              blood of someone who had, at the time of writing, been dead for 60 or 70
                              years. The presentation of Paul as the BD "cuddling up to the Lord" was
                              meant to convey an image of Paul, arguably the most dedicated and
                              successful Christian missionary of all time, not the unconverted Saul.

                              >It Was B W Bacon in 1907 who opted for Paul being the BD;

                              >Hanhart, in 1984, said the Evangelist was apparently thinking about Paul
                              >when he created the Beloved Disciple" Charlesworth, p.161.

                              >Goulder, in 1992, argued that the BD could not be Paul, but asked "could
                              >John have thought he was?" (Scottish J of Theology 45 (1992), 495.)

                              >SO... I did not think these scholars were of the highest reputation

                              B.W.Bacon is arguably the only scholar to have deciphered the major
                              structure of a NT document (Matthew). He deserves a high reputation for
                              this if for nothing else. Also Prof. Michael Goulder *does* have a high
                              reputation in at least two other academic discussion lists of which I am
                              a member.

                              Frank McCoy wrote:

                              >the BD has an even higher status than the leader of the 12. Only one person
                              >had such a status in the movement founded by Jesus--his brother James.

                              Frank,
                              Yes, the BD has a higher status than the 12. But your next deduction
                              treats John as if it were a historical account. We must allow for its
                              surreal elements (see above).

                              > As respects the hypothesis that the first edition of John came out
                              >about the same time as I
                              >Clement, it is noteworthy that, .in Jesus (p. 36), Alvar Ellegard states
                              > .......

                              Having discovered on XTalk that according to Alvar Ellegard, the Jesus
                              of the gospels never existed and the four canonical gospels are totally
                              fictional biographies all written after 110 CE, I'm not inclined to take
                              much notice of what Ellegard said about 1 Clement.

                              Ron Price

                              Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK

                              e-mail: ron.price@...

                              Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
                            • Billy Evans
                              Ron: thnnks for the info. My judgment about the who s who in scholarship came from a Harvard and a Princeton grad. I asked them since I was ignorant of
                              Message 14 of 22 , Dec 29, 2000
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Ron: thnnks for the info. My judgment about the who's who in scholarship
                                came from a Harvard and a Princeton grad. I asked them since I was ignorant
                                of everyone mentioned by Charlesworth. Whether this was a postmodern
                                approach I know not.

                                I have always accepted an early date for the FG as all my profs have (They
                                came from Harvard, Yale, Emory, Princeton, U of Chicago, Vanderbilt and even
                                Hebrew Union. Of course I am aware of the 2nd century dating, but even
                                Lightfoot disproved that before the papyri were found.

                                Concerning symbolic language or deconstructionism, I am also aware of
                                hermeneutical and philosophical presuppositions influencing the texts in
                                question. I take it that anything short of direct revelation form the Lord
                                today remains theory. An interesting question to those who presupose the
                                historical reliability of Jesus and the FG follows: What would you say if I
                                told you that I had direct revelation concerning the historicity of the FG?
                                In light of modern literary theory, no one would be able to discount my
                                private interpretation whether it be reader-response or deconstructionism,
                                etc. So, how can you speak with such confidence about your theories of the
                                FG and the non-Jesus? Not a personal attack you understand; just a question
                                from one in search of truth. I'd rather hear that the propounding of the BD
                                by the evangelist to be cryptic prophecy for Paul is Paul has to the the BD.

                                I am aware that I need to restrict the number of postings that I make per
                                day. So, to this wonderful group, if I fail to answer so quickly from now
                                on, please know that it is not due to a failure to care. I will try to
                                always respond within a few days. Of course, most may wish that I remain
                                silent. Haha. That may, indeed, be my best idea yet.

                                Happy New Year



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


                                ----------
                                >From: "Ron Price" <ron.price@...>
                                >To: johannine_literature@egroups.com
                                >Subject: Re: [John_Lit] BD 20:2-10
                                >Date: Fri, Dec 29, 2000, 1:54 PM
                                >

                                > Billy Evans wrote:
                                >
                                >> My
                                >>question regarding this is this: if Acts has Paul concenting to the death of
                                >>Jesus years after Jeus' resurrection, how could Paul ever have been willing
                                >>to cuddle up the the Lord? Am I missing something here?
                                >
                                > Billy,
                                > Yes. John is not straight history. Its portrayal of Paul is surreal,
                                > just like its portrayal of Christians eating the flesh and drinking the
                                > blood of someone who had, at the time of writing, been dead for 60 or 70
                                > years. The presentation of Paul as the BD "cuddling up to the Lord" was
                                > meant to convey an image of Paul, arguably the most dedicated and
                                > successful Christian missionary of all time, not the unconverted Saul.
                                >
                                >>It Was B W Bacon in 1907 who opted for Paul being the BD;
                                >
                                >>Hanhart, in 1984, said the Evangelist was apparently thinking about Paul
                                >>when he created the Beloved Disciple" Charlesworth, p.161.
                                >
                                >>Goulder, in 1992, argued that the BD could not be Paul, but asked "could
                                >>John have thought he was?" (Scottish J of Theology 45 (1992), 495.)
                                >
                                >>SO... I did not think these scholars were of the highest reputation
                                >
                                > B.W.Bacon is arguably the only scholar to have deciphered the major
                                > structure of a NT document (Matthew). He deserves a high reputation for
                                > this if for nothing else. Also Prof. Michael Goulder *does* have a high
                                > reputation in at least two other academic discussion lists of which I am
                                > a member.
                                >
                                > Frank McCoy wrote:
                                >
                                >>the BD has an even higher status than the leader of the 12. Only one person
                                >>had such a status in the movement founded by Jesus--his brother James.
                                >
                                > Frank,
                                > Yes, the BD has a higher status than the 12. But your next deduction
                                > treats John as if it were a historical account. We must allow for its
                                > surreal elements (see above).
                                >
                                >> As respects the hypothesis that the first edition of John came out
                                >>about the same time as I
                                >>Clement, it is noteworthy that, .in Jesus (p. 36), Alvar Ellegard states
                                >> .......
                                >
                                > Having discovered on XTalk that according to Alvar Ellegard, the Jesus
                                > of the gospels never existed and the four canonical gospels are totally
                                > fictional biographies all written after 110 CE, I'm not inclined to take
                                > much notice of what Ellegard said about 1 Clement.
                                >
                                > Ron Price
                                >
                                > Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK
                                >
                                > e-mail: ron.price@...
                                >
                                > Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.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
                                >
                              • FMMCCOY
                                ... From: Ken Durkin Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 7:04 AM ... number ... (i.e., ... Ken, what is said in 21 confirms
                                Message 15 of 22 , Dec 30, 2000
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  From: "Ken Durkin" <ind.fin.choices@...>
                                  Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 7:04 AM

                                  > Thank you Frank for posting your historical reconstruction. I find a
                                  number
                                  > of problems with your theory:
                                  >
                                  > 20:2-10, 13:23-25, 19:26-27...
                                  > > these three passages are the only passages, outside of the appendix
                                  (i.e.,
                                  > > Chapter 21), where the BD is explicitly mentioned. This tells us that
                                  > the
                                  > > Johannine community linked the BD with Peter and Mary Magdalene, making
                                  > > them, in some significant sense, a special group of three.
                                  >
                                  > If you include 21 there is no special group of 3.
                                  >
                                  Ken, what is said in 21 confirms that 20:2-10, 13:23-25, and 19:26-27 are
                                  inter-connected. As you have noted in a previous post, Jesus loves the
                                  beloved disciple in the sense of AGAPAN in 13:23-25, in the sense of AGAPAN
                                  in 19:26-27, and in the sense of
                                  FILEIN in 20:2-10. Note that, in 21, Jesus first asks Peter if he loves
                                  him in the sense of AGAPAN, then asks him if he loves him in the sense of
                                  AGAPAN, and then asks him if he loves him in the sense of FILEIN. What I
                                  suggest is that the author of 21, recognizing that these three passages are
                                  inter-related, purposefully mimicked their AGAPAN, AGAPAN, FILEIN pattern
                                  when narrating the account of what the risen Jesus said to Peter.
                                  It is very important that these three passages are inter-related: for the
                                  BD and Peter are mentioned in two of them and the BD and Mary Magdalene in
                                  two of them. In one, i.e., 20:2-10, they are the three sole "actors" in the
                                  drama. What this means is that they are a very special group of people in
                                  the eyes of the Johannine community. Since I believe that the BD is James
                                  and that the Johannine community is the Jerusalem Church, this means that, I
                                  think, James, Peter, and MM formed a very special group in the Jerusalem
                                  Church, making them pillars of the community so to speak. Indeed, I go
                                  further and suggest that, this means, they were the original three pillars
                                  of the Jerusalem Church Council. Finally, since they are the "movers and
                                  the shakers" in the tomb scene (i.e., 20:2-10), this leads me to think that
                                  their special status had some connection with the resurrection of Jesus.
                                  What could be the connection be but that each one of them received a special
                                  visit from the risen Jesus?

                                  > > What, though, is the common feature to them that made them a special
                                  > > group of three? A clue comes from what follows 20:2-10, i.e., the
                                  > narration
                                  > > of a special post-resurrection appearance of the risen Jesus to Mary
                                  > > Magdalene. I suggest, then, that the common feature to all three
                                  people,
                                  > a
                                  > > feature which made them a special group in the eyes of the Johannine
                                  > > community, is that the risen Jesus made a special post-resurrection
                                  > > appearance to each of them.
                                  >
                                  > There's not a hint of this in FG.

                                  Ken, see my comments above. There is, at least, a hint of this in John.
                                  >
                                  > > In this regard, it is significant that, in I Cor. 15:3-7, Paul tells
                                  of
                                  > > two people to whom, according to traditions he knew, the risen Jesus
                                  made
                                  > a
                                  > > special post-resurrection appearance: a man named Cephas and James, the
                                  > > brother of Jesus...So, based on what Paul states in I Cor. 15:3-7, it
                                  > would appear that, besides his special post-resurrection appearance to
                                  Mary
                                  > Magdalene, the
                                  > > risen Jesus also made two more special post-resurrection appearances to
                                  an
                                  > > individual--first to Cephas (Peter) and second to James, the brother of
                                  > > Jesus.
                                  >
                                  > The "special post-resurrection appearance" to James is well down the list.
                                  > "Second" is misleading. James ranks behind Cephas, 12, and 500.
                                  >
                                  Ken, neither the 12 nor the 500 is an individual. In Paul's list,
                                  therefore, the appearance of the risen Jesus to James is his second
                                  appearance to an individual--the first being Cephas (Peter).

                                  > > each of the three people in 20:2-10 were
                                  > > individually visited by the risen Jesus, then, based on what Paul states
                                  > in
                                  > > I Cor 15:3-7, the BD is James, the brother of Jesus!
                                  >
                                  > Where is the individual appearance to the BD mentioned?

                                  Ken, my apologies for poorly wording this phrase. My basic argument is
                                  this: If (1) the three people in 20:2-10 (i.e., MM, Peter, and the BD) each
                                  were individually visited by the risen Jesus, then, as (2) there are three
                                  individuals in the New Testament who were individually visited by the risen
                                  Jesus (i.e., MM in John and Peter and James in I Corinthians), it is likely
                                  the case that (3) the BD is James.
                                  >
                                  > > Supporting this conclusion is the fact that 20:2-10 introduces these
                                  > > three people in the order of first Mary
                                  > > Magdalene, second Peter, and third the BD. This, almost certainly,
                                  > reflects
                                  > > the order in which the risen Jesus visited Mary Magdalene, Peter, and
                                  > James.
                                  > > First, as recorded in John,
                                  > > he appeared to Mary Magdalene. Next, following the chronology given by
                                  > > Paul, he first visited Peter before visiting James.
                                  >
                                  > This line of reasoning requires evidence of an individual appearance to
                                  the
                                  > BD in FG.

                                  Ken, what Paul says in I Corinthians suggests that, while the appearances of
                                  the risen Jesus to Peter and James were being widely circulated, this is not
                                  true of the appearance of the risen Jesus to MM. I suggest, then, that the
                                  author of John only mentions the appearance of the risen Jesus to MM in John
                                  because this person knew that the intended readers of John already were
                                  aware of the appearances of the risen Jesus to Peter and to James, but
                                  likely did not know about the appearance of the risen Jesus to MM.. Note,
                                  too, that the author of John has the risen Jesus appear to MM almost
                                  immediately after Peter and BD (i.e., James) leave the scene, so as to make
                                  it crystal clear that the risen Jesus appeared to her before either Peter or
                                  James. This is, I think, for the benefit of the intended readers, so that
                                  they will become aware that the risen Jesus appeared to her first of all..
                                  >
                                  > > Then, sometime before Paul's
                                  > > second visit, she died and one of the elders on the Jerusalem Church
                                  > > Council, whose name was John, was selected to succeed her as the third
                                  > > "pillar".
                                  >
                                  > A simpler solution is to suggest MM was never one of the "three pillars".
                                  > This explanation would be more in keeping with the available evidence.
                                  >
                                  Ken, the only "hard" information we have on the three pillars is one
                                  sentence by Paul and, from it, we learn that, c. 49 CE, the three pillars
                                  were Cephas (Peter), James, and John. Whether the third pillar in the
                                  thirties and early forties was John or MM is, therefore, something we can't
                                  know for sure. Having said that, I think it significant that there is
                                  available evidence, in the Gospel of Mary, that MM was one of the original
                                  three pillars.. According to it, MM received a special revelation from the
                                  risen Jesus. When she told this to the male disciples, Andrew accused her
                                  of being a liar. Peter then confessed that he found her story hard to
                                  believe because he didn't think that Jesus would ever give a special
                                  revelation to a woman rather than to his male disciples. Then, Levi said,
                                  as Jesus loved MM, there is no reason to doubt her truthfulness. Further,
                                  he maintained, that the risen Jesus gave a special revelation to MM means
                                  that she is as worthy as any male disciple. Peter then accepted what Levi
                                  said. I suggest that this tradition has its roots in a real historical
                                  situation in which Peter grudgingly granted MM a status as a fellow "pillar"
                                  on the basis of the truthfulness of her story that the risen Jesus had made
                                  a special individual visit to her.

                                  > > In 20:2-10 and the ensuing two verses of 20:11-12, it is the case that
                                  > > (1) the first person to take a look inside the tomb is the BD, (2) the
                                  > > second person to take a look inside the tomb is Peter, and (3) the third
                                  > > person to take a look inside the tomb is Mary Magdalene.
                                  >
                                  > MM looked in first, otherwise she would not have been able to say, "They
                                  > have taken the Lord out of the tomb..."
                                  >

                                  > This order tells
                                  > > us, I suggest, the authority ladder among the original three "pillars".
                                  > > On the top rung was the BD, i.e., James, the brother of Jesus. On the
                                  > > middle rung was Peter. Finally, on the lowest rung, was Mary Magdalene.
                                  >
                                  > In FG MM is first to the tomb, first to look inside, and first to meet the
                                  > Risen Lord.
                                  >
                                  Ken, the author of John does not say that Mary looked inside the tomb on her
                                  first visit there. Rather, this person says, she saw the stone rolled away
                                  from the tomb entrance. It would appear, then, that MM incorrectly
                                  inferred, from the fact that the stone had been moved, that a group of
                                  people had entered the tomb and stolen the body of
                                  Jesus. Because it was dark and because there was a possibility that grave
                                  robbers could still be inside the tomb, I think that MM, upon beholding the
                                  stone rolled away, ran away from the tomb as fast as her legs could carry
                                  her. The bottom line: I think that MM didn't look into the tomb until her
                                  second visit, and, so, looked into the tomb later than either the BD or
                                  Peter.

                                  > > In 20:2-10, it is twice said that, in a race between the BD and Peter to
                                  > > the tomb, the BD won. The meaning of this is that Peter did not
                                  > graciously
                                  > > let James, the brother of Jesus, become the head "pillar". Rather, he
                                  > vied
                                  > > with James for this position and lost out in the contest.
                                  >
                                  > Chapter 21 does not support this interpretation of a "contest" between
                                  Peter
                                  > and the BD with Peter losing out.
                                  >
                                  Ken, that the author of 20:2-10 twice states that the BD beat Peter to
                                  the tomb means that it had an important symbolic meaning to this person.
                                  What can this symbolic meaning be but that there was a power struggle
                                  between the BD and Peter that the BD won? In this case, of course, the BD
                                  is James.
                                  Since this event happened decades before the
                                  writing of John, it should come as no surpirse that there is only one
                                  allusion to it in John, i.e., in 20:2-10. Indeed, how can you possibly
                                  expect there to be another allusion to this ancient event in 21 of all
                                  places--where the focus is on the much more recent deaths of Peter and the
                                  BD?

                                  Regards,

                                  Frank McCoy
                                  Maplewood, MN USA
                                • Thomas (Tom) Butler
                                  ... From: FMMCCOY To: johannine_literature@egroups.com Sent: December 30, 2000 2:37:13 PM GMT Subject: Re: [John_Lit] BD 20:2-10
                                  Message 16 of 22 , Dec 30, 2000
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    ------Original Message------
                                    From: "FMMCCOY" <FMMCCOY@...>
                                    To: johannine_literature@egroups.com
                                    Sent: December 30, 2000 2:37:13 PM GMT
                                    Subject: Re: [John_Lit] BD 20:2-10

                                    (Responding to Ken Durkin's post:)

                                    > Ken, what is said in 21 confirms that 20:2-10, 13:23-25, and >19:26-27 are inter-connected. As you have noted in a previous >post, Jesus loves the beloved disciple in the sense of AGAPAN >in 13:23-25, in the sense of AGAPAN in 19:26-27, and in the >sense of FILEIN in 20:2-10. Note that, in 21, Jesus first asks >Peter if he loves him in the sense of AGAPAN, then asks him if >he loves him in the sense of AGAPAN, and then asks him if he >loves him in the sense of FILEIN.

                                    > What I suggest is that the author of 21, recognizing that >these three passages are inter-related, purposefully mimicked >their AGAPAN, AGAPAN, FILEIN pattern when narrating the account >of what the risen Jesus said to Peter.

                                    > It is very important that these three passages are inter- >related: for the BD and Peter are mentioned in two of them and >the BD and Mary Magdalene in two of them.

                                    Frank,
                                    To carry your point one step further, it seems to me that AGAPAN indicates the kind of love that God has for all people, while FILEIN suggests the kind of love a human being has for another human being, especially another member of the family.
                                    (The phrase EN TO KOLPO in 13: 23 also suggests a familial relationship with the one that Jesus loved, as I indicated in a previous post).

                                    AGAPAN is used in three other places in the FG. In 5: 42 it is clearly the love of God. In 13: 35 it clearly indicates the love shared between disciples. In 15: 12-13 Jesus draws a connection between these two meanings, making it clear that AGAPE is divine love expressed by human beings for each other in a manner similar to the sacrificial way that Jesus offers it.

                                    EFILEI (was loving) is the term used in 20: 2 to describe the relationship between the BD and Jesus. This form is also used in describing the relationship between Jesus and Lazarus in 11: 34 when the Ioudaioi take note of Jesus' tears as he approaches the tomb. (The sisters of Lazarus use another form of this word - FILEIS - when they send a note to Jesus describing the condition of Lazarus in 11: 2). EFILEI is also the term that Jesus uses to describe the world's love for the disciples (if there were such love) in 15: 19 and the term that Jesus uses when he asks Simon Peter "do you love me" for the third time (as you have pointed out) in 21: 17.

                                    Each of these forms of FILEIN suggest that this is a human kind of love, especially a familial type of love. Jesus uses one other form of this verb (FILEI) in 5: 20 and 16: 26 to make the same kind of connection as he makes with regard to AGAPAN in 15: 13, namely that (in 5: 20) The Father loves the Son (divine love of God the Father for the Son of God - still a familial love) and (in 16: 26) an extension of that divine love for the disciples as a result of the love the disciples have for Jesus, again, defining the loving relationship as a familial type of love. Even when it is God that is doing the loving, when this word is used in the FG, it reflects the kind of love that originates from a human being or from human beings in the world.

                                    In 21: 17-17 Simon Peter consistently responds to the question repeated by Jesus three times with FILW.

                                    Conclusion:

                                    I suggest that the significance of these two words for love is that Peter is longing for the kind of relationship that already exists between Jesus and the BD. Jesus, in the process of re-establishing the authority that had previously been granted to Peter as a disciple (which was lost when Peter denied even knowing Jesus three times during the trial), asks twice as Peter's Lord and finally as Peter's brother for Peter to give witness to his love for Jesus, thus granting to Peter an acknowledgement of the kind of love that was already shared between Jesus and the BD. This raises for Peter the question about what the relationship between Jesus and the BD is, following Peter's exchange with Jesus (21: 21). It may be that Peter is assuming that he has now replaced the BD. Jesus rebuffs Peter for that assumption in 21: 22.

                                    Following your line of thinking, it seems likely to me that the final redactor of the FG was forced to acknowledge that the orthodox leaders of the Jerusalem church, specifically Peter as leader of the 12, did have authority from the resurrected Jesus. As Brown and others have suggested, however, the Johannine church was not a part of that orthodox church, but was an independent, even theologically unorthodox church, lead by the BD. Therefore, even after bowing to the political situation that existed at the time, one that would determine whether the FG would be accepted at all in the existing churches, the final redactor had to point out that Peter's status and authority did not erase the importance of the BD and the BD's authority.

                                    Yours in Christ's service,
                                    Tom Butler
                                  • FMMCCOY
                                    ... From: Thomas (Tom) Butler Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2000 4:22 PM ... angels, one where the head of the body of Jesus had been
                                    Message 17 of 22 , Dec 31, 2000
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      ----- Original Message -----
                                      From: "Thomas (Tom) Butler" <butlerfam5@...>
                                      Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2000 4:22 PM



                                      > Felix and other J.L. Listers,
                                      >
                                      > Jn. 20: 1-10 tells us
                                      >
                                      > 1. The BD is not Peter and is not Mary Magdalene, since the BD,
                                      > Peter and Mary Magdalene are each presented in the story as
                                      > separate characters with different behaviors.
                                      >
                                      > 2. The text includes two material links to 11: 38-44.
                                      > a.The setting is similar - the site of a tomb, where the stone
                                      > is already removed (20: 1) or the stone is removed within the
                                      > context of the story (11: 39).
                                      > b.The linen wrappings (grave cloths) are already removed and
                                      > rolled up or folded (20: 6-7) or are to be removed (11: 44).
                                      >
                                      > Note also that the Magdalene does not see the grave cloths, but does see
                                      angels, one where the head of the body of Jesus had been and the other where
                                      the feet of the body of Jesus had been(20:12) while someone with Jesus
                                      (Mary? Martha?) is told by Jesus to re- move the grave cloths from Lazarus'
                                      hands, feet and face (11:44).
                                      >

                                      Dear Tom and Other JL Listers:
                                      The situation is more complicated than as you describe it. There are
                                      three strong material links between 11:38-44 and the description of the
                                      resurrection of Osiris given by J.H. Breasted in The Development of
                                      Religion and Thought in Ancient Egypt (p. 33), "'Horus comes to thee, he
                                      separates thy bandages, he throws off thy bonds.'...We see the tomb opened
                                      for him: 'The bricks are drawn for thee out of the great tomb,' and then
                                      'Osiris awakes, the weary god wakens, the god stands up, he gains control of
                                      his body'" These three strong material links are: (1) in each case someone
                                      is resurrected from the dead, (2) in each case, an opening is made in the
                                      tomb so that the resurrected person can walk out of it and (3) in each case,
                                      someone removes the burial wrappings.
                                      There is also a material link between the Osiris myth and the Johannine
                                      narrative of the Lazarus incident in that, in each case, we have a brother
                                      who is being mourned by two sisters. In the case of the Osisris myth, they
                                      are Isis and Nepthys. So, Braested (Ibid., p. 27) states. "'Weep for thy
                                      brother, Isis! Weep for thy brother Nepthys!'...The lamentations of Isis
                                      and Nepthys became the most sacred exptession of sorrow known to the heart
                                      of the Egyptian, and many were the varied forms which they took until they
                                      emerged in the Osirian mysteries of Europe". In the Johannine narrative,
                                      the two sisters mourning for their dead brother are Martha and Mary.
                                      Even more striking, Martha is an Isis-figure and Mary is a
                                      Nepthys-figure, In The Gods of the Egyptians (Vo. 2, p. 258), E,A,
                                      Wallace Budge relates, "Isis and Nepthys represent respectively...birth and
                                      death, and life and death." Thus, that Martha can look ahead to her
                                      brother's future resurrection into eternal life, while Mary can only see
                                      his death, links them, respectively to Isis and Nepthys. Too, when Jesus
                                      arrives, Mary is in the house--which links her to Nepthys, whose Egyptian
                                      name of Nebt-het means, "the lady of the house".
                                      The bottom line: on the literary level of the Johannine narrative, the
                                      Lazarus incident is strongly and deliberately linked to the Osiris myth, In
                                      the case of 11:38-44, this leads to three material linkages between the
                                      resurrection of Osiris and the resurrection of Lazarus: (1) a brother is
                                      resurrected from the dead, (2) an opening is made in the tomb so that this
                                      brother can walk out of it, and (3) someone removes this brother's burial
                                      wrappings..
                                      Why does the author of John do this? An indication comes from 20:2-10,
                                      where: (1) a body is no longer in the tomb, (2) the tomb has
                                      been opened so that one can walk in or out of it, and (3) this person's
                                      burial wrappings have been removed by someone else and carefully laid down.
                                      The obvious inference: the author of John makes strong and deliberate
                                      links between his narrative of the Lazarus incident and the Osiris myth to
                                      fore-warn the reader that, in 20:2-10, the three clues (i.e., (1) Jesus'
                                      body is no longer in the tomb, (2) the tomb has been opened, (3) Jesus'
                                      burial wrappings have been removed by another and placed down) mean
                                      that Jesus was a brother who was resurrected from the dead as an opening was
                                      made in the tomb for him to walk out and as someone came and removed his
                                      burial wrappings!
                                      Indeed, in order to "telegraph" the reader that this is his/her intent,
                                      the author of John makes a strong and unmistakable allusion to the Osiris
                                      myth in the immediately ensuring 2:11-12: where, as you
                                      point out, Mary perceives two angels, one where the feet of Jesus had been
                                      and the other where the head of Jesus had been. This is a clear allusion to
                                      the Osiris myth, in which the dead and interred Osiris is frequently
                                      depicted with one divine being at his head and another divine
                                      being at his foot.. In The Gods of the Egyptians, Vol. 2 (pp.132-138),
                                      examples given by E.A. Wallace Budge include (1)Nepthys at head, Isis at
                                      foot, (2) Isis at head, Horus at foot, (3)Isis at head, Nepthys at foot, (4)
                                      Nekbhebet at head, Uatchet at foot, etc.. Particularly interesting is one
                                      he thusly describes, "At the head kneels Hathor,...and at the foot is a
                                      frog, symbol of the goddess HEQET,...The frog-headed Heqet, who was a form
                                      of Hathor, was connected by the Christians with the Christian Resurrection;
                                      in proof of this may be cited the lamp described by Signor Lanzone, whereon,
                                      he tells us, is a figure of a frog and the legend Ego eimi Anastasis, 'I am
                                      the resurrection.'"
                                      The bottom line: the reason why the author of John makes strong and
                                      deliberate allusions to the Osiris myth on the literary level of the Lazarus
                                      incident is to fore-warn the reader that, in 20:2-10, the clues that (1)
                                      Jesus' body is gone, (2) the tomb has been opened, and (3) someone has
                                      removed
                                      Jesus' burial wrappings and carefully laid them down, mean that, as was the
                                      case with both Osiris and Lazarus, Jesus was a brother who was resurrected
                                      from the dead as an opening was made in the tomb for him to walk out and as
                                      another person removed his burial wrappings.
                                      In the Osiris myth and the Lazarus incident, the dead person is a
                                      brother in the sense of being the male sibling of two sisters. However, in
                                      20:2-10, we do not have mention of two sisters. Hence, in it, Jesus is a
                                      brother of someone else: a person who is mentioned in 20:2-10. That is to
                                      say, he is a brother of Mary Magdalene, Peter, or the BD. There is no
                                      tradition that MM was a sister of Jesus. Peter could not have been a
                                      brother of Jesus--for his father was named Zebedee. Further, none of
                                      Jesus' brothers had the name of Simon or Peter. By elimination, then,
                                      Jesus is a brother of the BD. Indeed, in 19:26-27. is not the BD said to be
                                      a son of the mother of Jesus and, so, to be a brother of Jesus?
                                      In summary, the linkage of the Osiris myth to the Lazarus incident and
                                      their linkage, in turn, to 20:2-10 implies that Jesus was a brother of the
                                      BD. It is, thus, yet more evidence that the BD was the brother of Jesus
                                      called James the Just.

                                      Regards,

                                      Frank McCoy
                                      Maplewood, MN USA
                                      .
                                    • Thomas (Tom) Butler
                                      Dear Frank McCoy and other JL listers, I shall forward this response through our list manager, since I do not want to interrupt the process he has outlined for
                                      Message 18 of 22 , Jan 19, 2001
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Dear Frank McCoy and other JL listers,

                                        I shall forward this response through our list manager, since I do not want to interrupt the process he has outlined for discussion of SBL papers. However, I do want to reply to Frank's post on 12-31. I will trust that this comment will be made available to the list when the timing is appropriate.

                                        As we were considering what can be learned from 20: 2-10 re: the BD, Frank offered a very interesting article showing a material connection between 11: 38-44 and J.H. Breasted's description of the resurrection of Osiris, thus suggesting that the value of the connection between 20: 2-10 and 11: 38-44 can best be seen via the connection between 11: 38-44 and the ancient myth of Osiris, namely by concluding that the BD is the brother of Jesus: James the Just.
                                        I have no expertise re: the ancient myth, and therefore do not feel qualified to dialog on that particular point. I would like to point out, however, that the material connection between the empty tomb of Jesus and the story of the resurrection of Lazarus has significance within the narrative world of the FG, without regard to any connection to the ancient myth of the resurrection of Osiris. I would like to focus the attention of our group there, since I believe that it points to a different conclusion, namely that the BD is someone who understands the importance of the semeia listed in both stories: the head, the hands and the feet.

                                        Specifically, consider 11: 44 in which the resurrected Lazarus emerges from the tomb with "his hands and feet bound with strips of cloth and his face wrapped in a cloth" (NRSV) and 20: 5-8, 12 in which Peter sees the cloths that have bound the body of Jesus, including "the cloth that had been on Jesus' head, not lying with the linen wrappings, but rolled up in a place by itself," and seems to make no conclusion based upon what he has seen, while the BD enters the empty tomb and sees the same set of signs, "and he saw and believed." Later Mary Magdalene sees two angels "sitting where the body of Jesus had been lying, one at the head and the other at the feet."

                                        What meaning does the BD see that Peter does not see? The clue is in the material connection with 11: 44, where "the dead man (Lazarus) came out, his hands and his feet bound with strips of cloth, and his face wrapped in a cloth. Jesus said to them, 'Unbind him, and let him go.'"

                                        KEIRIAIS (wrappings), SOUDARION (handkerchief), and OQONIA (linen strips) are all part of a specific linguistic domain: burial cloths. They are distinguished only by where they are used on a corpse. The SOUDARION


                                        ------Original Message------
                                        From: "FMMCCOY" <FMMCCOY@...>
                                        To: johannine_literature@egroups.com
                                        Sent: December 31, 2000 5:21:29 PM GMT
                                        Subject: Re: [John_Lit] BD 20:2-10

                                        Dear Tom and Other JL Listers:
                                        The situation is more complicated than as you describe it. There are three strong material links between 11:38-44 and the
                                        description of the resurrection of Osiris given by J.H.Breasted
                                        in The Development of Religion and Thought in Ancient Egypt(p.33)
                                        . . .
                                        In summary, the linkage of the Osiris myth to the Lazarus incident and their linkage, in turn, to 20:2-10 implies that Jesus was a brother of the BD. It is, thus, yet more evidence that the BD was the brother of Jesus called James the Just.

                                        ----- Original Message -----
                                        From: "Thomas (Tom) Butler" <butlerfam5@...>
                                        Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2000 4:22 PM

                                        > Felix and other J.L. Listers,
                                        >
                                        > Jn. 20: 1-10 tells us
                                        >
                                        > 1. The BD is not Peter and is not Mary Magdalene, since the BD,
                                        > Peter and Mary Magdalene are each presented in the story as
                                        > separate characters with different behaviors.
                                        >
                                        > 2. The text includes two material links to 11: 38-44.
                                        > a.The setting is similar - the site of a tomb, where the stone
                                        > is already removed (20: 1) or the stone is removed within
                                        > the context of the story (11: 39).
                                        > b.The linen wrappings (grave cloths) are already removed and
                                        > rolled up or folded (20: 6-7) or are to be removed (11: 44).
                                        >
                                        > Note also that the Magdalene does not see the grave cloths,
                                        > but does see angels, one where the head of the body of Jesus
                                        > had been and the other where the feet of the body of Jesus had
                                        > been(20:12) while someone with Jesus (Mary? Martha?) is told
                                        > by Jesus to re-move the grave cloths from Lazarus' hands, feet
                                        > and face (11:44).
                                      • Thomas (Tom) Butler
                                        Dear Frank McCoy and other JL listers, I shall forward this response through our list manager, since I do not want to interrupt the process he has outlined for
                                        Message 19 of 22 , Jan 19, 2001
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Dear Frank McCoy and other JL listers,

                                          I shall forward this response through our list manager, since I do not want to interrupt the process he has outlined for discussion of SBL papers. However, I do want to reply to Frank's post on 12-31. I will trust that this comment will be made available to the list when the timing is appropriate.

                                          As we were considering what can be learned from 20: 2-10 re: the BD, Frank offered a very interesting article showing a material connection between 11: 38-44 and J.H. Breasted's description of the resurrection of Osiris, thus suggesting that the value of the connection between 20: 2-10 and 11: 38-44 can best be seen via the connection between 11: 38-44 and the ancient myth of Osiris, namely by concluding that the BD is the brother of Jesus: James the Just.

                                          I have no expertise re: the ancient myth, and therefore do not feel qualified to dialog on that particular point. I would like to point out, however, that the material connection between the empty tomb of Jesus and the story of the resurrection of Lazarus has significance within the narrative world of the FG, without regard to any connection to the ancient myth of the resurrection of Osiris.

                                          I would like to focus the attention of our group on this internal material connection, since I believe that it points to a different conclusion, namely that the BD is someone who under- stands the importance of the semeia listed in both stories: the head, the hands and the feet.

                                          Specifically, consider 11: 44 in which the resurrected Lazarus emerges from the tomb with "his hands and feet bound with strips of cloth and his face wrapped in a cloth" (NRSV) and 20: 5-8 in which Peter sees the cloths that have bound the body of Jesus, including "the cloth that had been on Jesus' head, not lying with the linen wrappings, but rolled up in a place by itself," and seems to make no conclusion based upon what he has seen, while the BD enters the empty tomb and sees the same set of signs, "and he saw and believed."

                                          What meaning does the BD see that Peter does not see? The clue is in the material connection with 11: 44, where "the dead man (Lazarus) came out, his hands and his feet bound with strips of cloth, and his face wrapped in a cloth. Jesus said to them, 'Unbind him, and let him go.'" (NRSV)

                                          KEIRIAIS (wrappings), SOUDARION (handkerchief), and OQONIA (linen strips) are all part of a specific linguistic domain: burial cloths. They are distinguished only by where they are used on a corpse. The SOUDARION is used only on the head, while either the KEIRIAIS or the OQONIA are used on the hands and on the feet.

                                          The command of Jesus in 11: 44 is LUSATE AUTON KAI AFETE AUTON UPAGEIN "Loose him and let him go." or "unbind him and set him free." That which was binding him was the burial cloths wrapped around his hands, his feet and his head. The specific order given by Jesus in this passage relates to the removal of those binding cloths, so that Lazarus could be free to go, to move.

                                          It would appear that whoever it was that complied with this command would be in a position to recognize what the meaning of such cloths and their relative positions in the tomb would mean: that the one who had been bound in them was now free to go, to move about, i.e.: was alive.

                                          In 20: 6, while Peter sees these cloths, he does not apparently understand what they mean, while the BD does. They prompt the BD to believe. Could that be because the BD has recently taken the grave clothes off of the hands, feet and head of Lazarus? Such a service would only be required if the body were again alive. There would have been no need to remove them if either body (Lazarus or Jesus) had been dead.

                                          Who was there when Lazarus was raised? We are told in 11: 16 that Thomas and his fellow disciples were there. We are told in 11: 31 that Mary of Bethany followed by the Jews who had come to console her and her sister Martha (11: 19) were there. We know from 11: 39 that Martha was there. In fact, it is Martha and Mary who have lead Jesus, his disciples and the Jews who were following Mary at that time to the tomb of Lazarus.

                                          It seems unlikely that the Jews would have complied with the command to remove grave cloths. Though it could be argued that these linen strips and handkerchief were no longer grave cloths because the body of Lazarus was no longer a corpse, the fact that they had once touched a dead body would have defiled them for anyone who was concerned about ritual purity.

                                          However, in 19: 39 we are told that Nicodemus, who was a Pharisee and leader of the Jews (3: 1) DID participate in the burial of Jesus, along with Joseph of Arimathea, who was a secret disciple "because of his fear of the Jews." One is given the impression that while Joseph of Arimathea was NOT a Jew, Nicodemus WAS both a Jew AND (by his association with Joseph of Arimathea) a secret disciple, so Nicodemus becomes the only Jew who could be a candidate for BD. (I am reading Jew as a technical term borrowed from Nehemiah 2: 16, which refers to the high officials of Jerusalem: the priests, the nobles, the officials.)

                                          If Nicodemus was willing to prepare the body of Jesus for burial, would he have been willing to remove the grave cloths from Lazarus whom Jesus had raised? Would he not, having applied the burial cloths to Jesus, know something about how they had been applied and have been capable of recognizing whether or not they remained folded the same way that he had folded them to bind the hands and feet of Jesus? Does the removal of the burial cloths of Lazarus serve as a rehearsal for the BD, so that their meaning could be discerned in the empty tomb of Jesus?

                                          We must also consider Thomas, the un-named disciples, Mary and Martha as candidates for the BD. No specific mention is made of James, the brother of Jesus, unless one accepts the theory that James and Thomas are the same person, based upon the reference to Thomas as a twin (of Jesus? 11: 16; 20: 24). This theory is hard to square with the tradition of the nativity stories in Matthew and Luke, where Jesus is the first born of Mary, not one of a pair of twins. It would seem only to work if Thomas was LIKE a twin to Jesus, which is not what the language says. A spiritual twin perhaps?

                                          Charlesworth has made the case for Thomas as the BD, but, like nearly every other scholar, fails to consider Mary or Martha.

                                          I want to suggest that the material connection between 11: 38-44 (and its larger context 11: 1-44) recommends Martha or Mary.
                                          I have shown (in my book, Let Her Keep It), that the story of the raising of Lazarus is the first part of a trilogy, which also includes the anointing story in 12: 1-8 and the foot washing story in 13: 1-20, a trilogy connected by references to feet, and specifically by references to Mary at the feet of Jesus (11:32; 12: 3)

                                          The semeia (signs) of head, hand, body and feet are used extensively in the Pentateuch in describing the temple, the rituals of sacrifice and the priests. The acutrements of the altar follow the semeiotic pattern. The altar: head (horns), hands (brass shovels and knives), side (against which blood is cast) and foot (basin where blood is collected).

                                          The hands and feet of the priests must be washed before and after a sacrifice is made on the altar. The high priest, when he is ordained, has blood applied to his right ear lobe (head), right thumb (hand) and right big toe (foot) (Ex. 29: 19-20)

                                          The animal, when is sacrificed, has its head and its feet severed from its body, then its side is cut open so that fat from the entrails can be removed. The head, the feet and the entrails, its "parts," are what is actually burned in the sacrifice on the altar (Lev. 8: 20-21)

                                          Mary of Bethany (12: 3) consecrates the feet of Jesus as the new altar, retaining the semeiotic meaning first set by Moses when he anointed the altar with perfumed oil (Lev. 8: 11)

                                          The grave cloths point to the head, the hands and the feet of Jesus because the Mosaic semeia are being used to signify and assert that Jesus has replaced the temple, the sacrifices and the priesthood, while all of the sacred symbols have been retained. The temple and the priesthood have been cleansed, but replaced only in terms of their temporal appearance. Symbolically they remain the same as they were in the days of Moses.

                                          I suggest that it is this significance that the BD sees in 20: 8. Only one character in the FG (other than Peter who sees it, but is not granted it in 13: 9-10) is specifically identified as one who understood the semeiotic importance of what Jesus was doing. That person is Mary of Bethany.

                                          Yours in Christ's service,
                                          Tom Butler

                                          ------Original Message------
                                          From: "FMMCCOY" <FMMCCOY@...>
                                          To: johannine_literature@egroups.com
                                          Sent: December 31, 2000 5:21:29 PM GMT
                                          Subject: Re: [John_Lit] BD 20:2-10

                                          Dear Tom and Other JL Listers:
                                          The situation is more complicated than as you describe it. There are three strong material links between 11:38-44 and the
                                          description of the resurrection of Osiris given by J.H.Breasted
                                          in The Development of Religion and Thought in Ancient Egypt(p.33)
                                          . . .
                                          In summary, the linkage of the Osiris myth to the Lazarus incident and their linkage, in turn, to 20:2-10 implies that Jesus was a brother of the BD. It is, thus, yet more evidence that the BD was the brother of Jesus called James the Just.

                                          ----- Original Message -----
                                          From: "Thomas (Tom) Butler" <butlerfam5@...>
                                          Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2000 4:22 PM

                                          > Felix and other J.L. Listers,
                                          >
                                          > Jn. 20: 1-10 tells us
                                          >
                                          > 1. The BD is not Peter and is not Mary Magdalene, since the BD,
                                          > Peter and Mary Magdalene are each presented in the story as
                                          > separate characters with different behaviors.
                                          >
                                          > 2. The text includes two material links to 11: 38-44.
                                          > a.The setting is similar - the site of a tomb, where the stone
                                          > is already removed (20: 1) or the stone is removed within
                                          > the context of the story (11: 39).
                                          > b.The linen wrappings (grave cloths) are already removed and
                                          > rolled up or folded (20: 6-7) or are to be removed (11: 44).
                                          >
                                          > Note also that the Magdalene does not see the grave cloths,
                                          > but does see angels, one where the head of the body of Jesus
                                          > had been and the other where the feet of the body of Jesus had
                                          > been(20:12) while someone with Jesus (Mary? Martha?) is told
                                          > by Jesus to re-move the grave cloths from Lazarus' hands, feet
                                          > and face (11:44).
                                        • FMMCCOY
                                          ... From: Thomas (Tom) Butler Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 6:59 PM Subject: Re: [John_Lit] BD 20:2-10 ... want to interrupt the
                                          Message 20 of 22 , Jan 25, 2001
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            ----- Original Message -----
                                            From: "Thomas (Tom) Butler" <butlerfam5@...>
                                            Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 6:59 PM
                                            Subject: Re: [John_Lit] BD 20:2-10


                                            > Dear Frank McCoy and other JL listers,
                                            >
                                            > I shall forward this response through our list manager, since I do not
                                            want to interrupt the process he has outlined for discussion of SBL papers.
                                            However, I do want to reply to Frank's post on 12-31. I will trust that
                                            this comment will be made available to the list when the timing is
                                            appropriate.
                                            >
                                            > As we were considering what can be learned from 20: 2-10 re: the BD, Frank
                                            offered a very interesting article showing a material connection between 11:
                                            38-44 and J.H. Breasted's description of the resurrection of Osiris, thus
                                            suggesting that the value of the connection between 20: 2-10 and 11: 38-44
                                            can best be seen via the connection between 11: 38-44 and the ancient myth
                                            of Osiris, namely by concluding that the BD is the brother of Jesus: James
                                            the Just.
                                            >
                                            > I have no expertise re: the ancient myth, and therefore do not feel
                                            qualified to dialog on that particular point. I would like to point out,
                                            however, that the material connection between the empty tomb of Jesus and
                                            the story of the resurrection of Lazarus has significance within the
                                            narrative world of the FG, without regard to any connection to the ancient
                                            myth of the resurrection of Osiris.
                                            >
                                            > I would like to focus the attention of our group on this internal material
                                            connection, since I believe that it points to a different conclusion, namely
                                            that the BD is someone who under- stands the importance of the semeia listed
                                            in both stories: the head, the hands and the feet.
                                            >
                                            > Specifically, consider 11: 44 in which the resurrected Lazarus emerges
                                            from the tomb with "his hands and feet bound with strips of cloth and his
                                            face wrapped in a cloth" (NRSV) and 20: 5-8 in which Peter sees the cloths
                                            that have bound the body of Jesus, including "the cloth that had been on
                                            Jesus' head, not lying with the linen wrappings, but rolled up in a place by
                                            itself," and seems to make no conclusion based upon what he has seen, while
                                            the BD enters the empty tomb and sees the same set of signs, "and he saw and
                                            believed."


                                            Dear Tom Butler and Other JL Listers:

                                            I do not see where the head, the hands and the feet play an important
                                            role in 20:5-8. Rather, in 20:5-8, the emphasis is solely on the soudarion
                                            that had been on the head of Jesus. Indeed, neither the hands nor the
                                            feet of Jesus are even mentioned.
                                            Also, one of the advantages of the hypothesis that there are allusions to
                                            the Osiris myth in 11:38-44 and 20:2-8 is that it can explain why: (1) in
                                            11:44, it is emphasised that Lazarus had special protection for his head,
                                            hands, and feet and why: (2) in 20:5-8, it is emphasised that the soudarion
                                            was "rolled up in a place by itself."
                                            In Tutankhamen, Christiane Desroches-Noblecourt notes (p. 165), this
                                            Pharaoh (aka King Tut) was interred with "all the Osirian rites". That is
                                            to say, he had been buried in the same fashion that, it was believed,
                                            Osiris had been buried. This relates to shortly before (p. 164), where
                                            Desroches-Noblecourt states, "Too many oils were lavished on Tutankhamen,
                                            burning away nearly all of the tissues and attacking the bones. Only the
                                            parts protected by gold were preserved: the face covered by the mask and the
                                            hands and feet guarded by finger stalls." Here, we learn, extra special
                                            care had been taken to protect the head, hands, and feet of Tutankhamen.
                                            Since he had been buried in the same fashion that, it was believed, Osiris
                                            had been buried, this means that, it was understood, Osiris had been
                                            buried with extra special care taken to protect his head, hands. and feet.
                                            What this means is that the stress, in 11:44, that Lazarus had special
                                            protection for his head, hands, and feet could very well be a literary means
                                            of alerting the intended readers that he is being likened to Osiris. If so,
                                            then this is one more piece of evidence that, in 11:38-44, Lazarus is being
                                            likened to Osiris.
                                            In 20:5-8, why is it emphasised that the soudarion for Jesus was
                                            "rolled up"? Well, if Jesus is being likened to Osiris in 20:2-8, then, as
                                            the head of Osiris had been protected by a mask, the meaning of this is that
                                            the soudarion of Jesus had been, in effect, a mask which had preserved the
                                            outline of his head even after he or someone else took it off and placed it
                                            apart from the other burial clothes. Compare Raymond Brown who, in The
                                            Gospel According to John (p. 987), states, "However, John may simply mean
                                            that the soudarion was rolled up in an oval loop, i.e., the shape it had
                                            when it was around the head of the corpse."
                                            One final point: While it is correct to
                                            speak of "the ancient myth of the resurrection of Osiris", this should not
                                            delude us into thinking that it was unknown in the first century CE.
                                            Rather, at that time, the Isis-Osiris mystery religion was very popular in
                                            the Roman Empire and might even have been the leading religion. Hence,
                                            knowledge about its key divinities and its key doctrines was widespread in
                                            the Roman Empire, especially among those who were literate. Note that
                                            Josephus, immediately after his passage on Jesus (unfortunately, only
                                            preserved as altered by an early Christian), relates a story of how a man,
                                            at a temple of Isis in Rome, seduced a woman by claiming to be Anubis.
                                            What is significant is that Josephus does not tell his intended readers
                                            anything about Isis or Anubis. Hence, he understood, they already were
                                            knowledgeable concerning these two major dieties in the Isis-Osiris mystery
                                            religion. The bottom line: the author of John likely knew about the
                                            Isis-Osiris mystery religion, including its myth of the resurrection of
                                            Oisiris, and, probably, so did most of the intended readers.

                                            Regards,

                                            Frank McCoy
                                            Maplewood, MN 55109
                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.