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

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

Expand Messages
  • Horace Jeffery Hodges
    ... The evidence for a textual variant in which the second person is Jesus sister comes from The Gospel of Philip (59), There were three who always walked
    Message 1 of 47 , Nov 7, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Frank wrote:

      -------------------------------------------------------
      The evidence for a textual variant in which the second
      person is Jesus' sister comes from The Gospel of
      Philip (59), "There were three who always walked with
      the Lord: Mary, his mother and *her sister* and
      Magdalene, the one who was called his companion. *His
      sister* and his mother and his companion were each a
      Mary." (Note: I have given Philip (59) as rendered by
      Wesley W. Isenberg in The Nag Hammadi Library, Marvin
      W. Meyer, Managing Editor). I have not seen the Coptic
      text, nor would I be able to read it. If someone has
      read this gospel in the Coptic, I would appreciate
      comments as to accuracy of this English translation).
      -------------------------------------------------------

      I know Coptic, but don't have access to the Coptic
      version of "The Gospel of Philip". Let's assume that
      Isenberg is correct.

      The Coptic for "her sister" would be "pesswne". The
      Coptic of "his sister" would be "pefswne". Since the
      double "ss" of "pesswne" could easily assimilate to a
      single "s", as in "peswne" (literally, "the sister"),
      then a (somewhat careless or ignorant) copyist might
      have felt that the possessive was missing and thus
      have supplied the "f" of the form "pefswne" that we
      (presumably) have.

      So, the original might really have been "her sister"
      despite the extant Coptic evidence.

      But perhaps somebody with access to the Coptic text
      (and having other text-critical ideas?) can check and
      report back.

      Jeffery Hodges

      =====
      Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
      Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
      447-791 Kyunggido Osan-City
      Yangsandong 411
      South Korea

      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Find a job, post your resume.
      http://careers.yahoo.com
    • 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
      • 0 Attachment
        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?)
        (APHLQON OUN PALIN PROS AUTOUS OI MAQHTAI).
        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

        Yes.

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

        Yes.

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

        Yes.

        > 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.