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

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

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In a message dated 11/6/2001 3:28:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, butlerfam5@juno.com writes:
    Message 1 of 47 , Nov 7 2:10 PM
      In a message dated 11/6/2001 3:28:12 PM Eastern Standard Time,
      butlerfam5@... writes:

      << Dear Leonard,

      I am serious in arguing that the Beloved Disciple in Jn.
      is a woman named Mary. This is not a joke. My agenda
      is a scholarly one, not a means toward "doing violence
      to exegesis" or advancing a contemporary PC agenda
      or even "whatever.">>

      This is good to hear, and I surely take your word for it.

      << I have been amused, as I suspect others have been,
      by your response and the responses of others to your
      response, but rest assured that I take your reply seriously.
      I ask only that you give me the same courtesy. Clearly
      you disagree with my thesis. Be assured that I have
      expected disagreement. What I seek is serious dialogue
      and discussion of my exegesis, which, of course, is much
      more in depth than I have presented so far on this list.

      As you may know, I have published my ideas and will
      gladly provide a free copy of my book to any scholar who
      will read it and provide a critique of it in any published
      format, including this list (if that is permitted by the list
      owner). I pray that those whose minds have been
      closed to such ideas will consider the possibility that a
      new approach to this sacred text might uncover some
      new understandings that differ from established ones.>>

      I doubt that my reason for resisting your view on the gender of the BD has
      anything to do with its incongruity with tradition. I am quite used to the
      phenomenon of scholarship in our field challenging established theological
      and other ideological positions, and I can handle that -- in spite of a
      slight instinctive inclination in favor of tradition. What I need is a bit of
      initial plausibility in a proposal to justify even spending the time
      attempting to follow an argument in its support. There are so many possible
      avenues to pursue in NT scholarship and we have only a limited time on this
      earth. If I were in temporary custody, supplied with nothing but your book
      for my library, I would gladly spend otherwise wasted hours investigating
      your proposal. In the absence of this happy eventuality, your courteous
      response and offer may just be enough to substitute for the denied
      incarceration and push me to inquire further into this question at some
      future time.

      A note of hope. I must admit something else, now that I think of it, which
      might work in your favor. I myself have been known to propose an
      interpretation of a Gospel passage that is low on initial plausibility, but
      that I believe I have been able to support with an impressive number of
      converging exegetical arguments. See my "The Least Among All of You is the
      Great One: Lk 9:46-48 in the Light of the Two Gospel Hypothesis", in
      "Imaginer la theologie catholique", Studia Anselmiana 129, Rome 2000,
      543-562, where I argue that the text intends to allude to Paul as the least
      of all the apostles -- who (for Luke) is the great one.

      Leonard Maluf
    • Thomas W Butler
      Dear Paul, I m still trying to catch up on previous e-mails. ... Obviously I inferred that from the contrast between 20: 6 where Simon Peter went in and saw,
      Message 47 of 47 , Dec 18, 2001
        Dear Paul,
        I'm still trying to catch up on previous e-mails.

        On Fri, 7 Dec 2001 "Paul Schmehl" <p.l.schmehl@...> wrote:

        > (snip)
        > I'm afraid I'm not following you here. First let's look at what
        > the text does not say.
        > 1) It does not say that Peter did not believe.

        Obviously I inferred that from the contrast between 20: 6 where
        Simon Peter went in and saw, while in 20: 8 the "other disciple"
        who reached the tomb first (the BD) also went in, and saw and
        believed. The parallel structure in those two verses seems to be
        suggesting that there is a contrast between how Simon Peter and
        the BD responded to what they saw.

        We are told in 20: 9 that neither of them understood the scripture
        that explained the meaning of what they were seeing - that Jesus
        must rise from the dead. I take that to mean that neither of them
        was expecting the resurrection based upon their knowledge of
        the scriptures. ISTM that it can be inferred that the identification
        of those scriptures and the declaration that what Peter and the BD
        saw was confirmation of the resurrection came after this event.
        For the BD this look into the empty tomb generated belief, for
        Peter we are at least not told that it generated belief.

        I'm just pointing out that the hair I'm splitting here was split by
        the way the text was written.

        > 2) It does not say that the BD believed *until* (s)he went into
        > the tomb

        Are you suggesting that something I wrote indicates that the BD
        stopped believing after (s)he went into the tomb? If I said any
        thing to suggest that, I must have said what I meant poorly. I
        have no intention of saying that the event stopped her believing.

        If you mean that the text does not say that the BD believed
        *before* (s)he went into the tomb, my reply would have to
        be much longer, since I have made an extensive exegesis of
        Jn. 11, 12 and 13 that suggests otherwise.

        > 3) It does not say that the BD "understood more fully what the
        > meaning of Jesus' ministry was than Peter did.

        That point is made in the way Jesus interacts with each of them.
        I've already pointed out the contrast between 12: 7 and 13: 8.
        In 12: 7 Jesus is responding to Judas, not Peter, but he is defending
        the anointing ritual performed by Mary of Bethany. In 13: 8 Jesus
        is clearly rebukes Peter for not submitting to the footwashing ritual
        that Jesus is performing.

        Consider also 21: 20-21 in contrast to 21: 22. Peter is presented
        as concerned about what to do about the BD. There is something
        about the BD that bothers Peter. Could it be that the ritual that
        Jesus has just completed -Do you love me / Feed my sheep- gives
        Peter a different status among the disciples than before, one that
        may appear to be in conflict with the status that Jesus has previously
        given to Mary of Bethany, the BD, in 12: 7? (Again, my exegesis
        of 11: 55- 12: 8 is much longer than I'm presenting here.)

        > 4) It does not say whether Peter and the BD were in the tomb
        > at the same time.

        No, it says in 20: 6 that Simon Peter went into the tomb, then in
        20: 8 it says that the other disciple also went in. In 20: 10 both
        of them are described as returning to their homes (NRSV). The
        Greek is more vague than that. It simply says that the disciples
        went off again (toward their own? toward the other disciples?)
        Again, the impression is that first Peter entered, then the BD
        entered, then both of them left.

        > 5) It does not say whether Peter and the BD discussed what
        > they saw.

        Agreed. I can't imagine them not talking about it with each other
        and everyone else they encountered, especially other disciples,
        but you are right. The text does not say that they discussed what
        they saw with each other.
        > What the text *does* say is that:
        > 1) Peter and the BD ran together


        > 2) The BD arrived at the tomb first and looked in


        > 3) The BD went in to the tomb after Peter did


        > 4) *After* entering the tomb, the BD "saw and believed"

        The word *after* is not used. The belief of the BD is
        reported after the reader is told that the BD saw the same
        things that Peter saw. We do not know from the text when
        that belief began.

        [Paul asked]
        > I'm not arguing that the BD *is* John, mind you, but I am
        > curious to hear your response to the question - why is John
        > never mentioned in the FG?

        "John" IS mentioned prominently in the FG. John the Baptist.

        > I'm not particularly attached to any of these theories, mind you,
        > I'm simply offering what appear to me to be logical alternatives
        > to your conclusion that the BD *must* have been a woman and
        > the phrase "BD" was used to "conceal" or "hide" the identity of
        > the BD for fear that the book would be rejected as heretical.
        > There *are* other equally logical reasons for the use of the term
        > BD, some of which make a good deal of sense.

        Paul, I appreciate your efforts to articulate the kind of assumptions
        that may well have been used when interpreting the Fourth Gospel
        throughout Christian history. To advance a new idea, one must be
        able to address such assumptions. I cannot claim to have disproved
        those assumptions. I hope that I have offered replies that suggest
        that the conclusions I have drawn from studying the text are at least
        as logical and appropriate as those that other scholars have long
        assumed were the correct ones.

        Yours in Christ's service,
        Tom Butler
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.