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

Re: John 21:24: Antecedent of 'the disciple who wrote these things'

Expand Messages
  • jestaton@zoom.co.uk
    ... antecedent ... things ? ... John?) ... I think the Beloved Disciple (whoever he/she may be!), who is also the subject of verse 23. Best Wishes JOHN E
    Message 1 of 5 , May 11, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In johannine_literature@y..., "Bob MacDonald" <bobmacdonald@h...>
      wrote:
      > What is the generally accepted opinion on who is intended as the
      antecedent
      > for OUTOS in verse 24 'this is the disciple who... wrote these
      things'?
      > (Peter, the unknown author, the Beloved Disciple, someone named
      John?)
      >
      > Thanks
      >
      > Bob

      I think the Beloved Disciple (whoever he/she may be!), who is also
      the subject of verse 23.

      Best Wishes

      JOHN E STATON
      www.jestaton.org
      jestaton@...
    • jestaton@zoom.co.uk
      For my own part, Jeffrey, pressure of work has prevented me reading these estimable papers, and I will not insult the authors by commenting on work I have not
      Message 2 of 5 , May 11, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        For my own part, Jeffrey, pressure of work has prevented me reading
        these estimable papers, and I will not insult the authors by
        commenting on work I have not read. I have downloaded the papers, and
        will read them when time permits.

        Best Wishes

        JOHN E STATON
        --- In johannine_literature@y..., Horace Jeffery Hodges
        <jefferyhodges@y...> wrote:
        > I think that there would be little disagreement on
        > this listserve that our discussion-schedule aims have
        > not been met as we had wished. There was no real
        > discussion of Paul Anderson's paper on the Paraclete
        > and little discussion of the last several papers --
        > including Elizabeth Danna's paper and my own two
        > papers on the dualism of food in John.
        >
        > Only the first few papers received an adequate
        > discussion.
        >
        > Doubtless, many reasons could be advanced to explain
        > this decline in the number of participants in the
        > discussions and in the intensity of the discussions,
        > and I won't hazard any guesses about what these
        > reasons might be, but I will emphasize that the
        > decline has nothing to do with any decline in the
        > quality of the later papers. (Yes, I realize that this
        > is a self-interested remark.)
        >
        > I think that we need to think about how to reform any
        > future discussions of papers in order to better meet
        > our aims. I have one suggestion that, if agreed upon
        > and adhered to, would radically transform future
        > discussions. Here is my proposal:
        >
        > In future discussions, everyone who posts a paper for
        > discussion must formally agree to read and comment
        > upon all other papers posted for discussion within a
        > specified and agreed upon time frame.
        >
        > This seems eminently fair to me (or I wouldn't be
        > proposing it), but I would like to know what others
        > think.
        >
        > Jeffery Hodges
        >
        > =====
        > Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
        > Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
        > 447-791 Kyunggido Osan-City
        > Yangsandong 411
        > South Korea
        >
        > __________________________________________________
        > Do You Yahoo!?
        > Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
        > http://auctions.yahoo.com/
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.