Re: [John_Lit] Re: What did the BD believe (20:8)
- On Wed, 21 Nov 2001 "John E Staton" <jestaton@...> wrote:
>Thank you, John, for conceding that what I am saying about
> Tom wrote:
> > The question as to "why" the identity is being intentionally
> > obscured is an important one that I suggest should be
> > addressed by any scholar offering a theory about the
> > BD's identity. Why, for example, would it be necessary
> > to hide the identity of Thomas or James?
> Sorry, Tom, I have to jump in here. What you say about
> Thomas and James is fair enough, but if the BD had only
> the status of a "disciple," rather than an "apostle" (I grant
> there is considerable discussion concerning the meaning
> of both words, and concerning the distinction between them,
> but there surely can be no doubt that the early church made
> such a distinction), then there may well be an incentive to
> cloak the BD's identity. This could well have been the case
> if (as I believe, following Hengel) the BD was the elder John.
Thomas and James is fair enough. My point, of course, is
that the question "Why should the identity of anyone who might
be the BD be obscured?" ought to be addressed by anyone
with a candidate. Does your comment (that this is fair enough
to ask this question regarding Thomas or James) mean that you
agree that this question should, indeed, be asked of any scholar
with a theory as to the BD's identity?
Perhaps you could elaborate further as to the importance that
you see in distinguishing between disciples and apostles. Do you
mean to suggest that if the BD was a mere disciple, and not an
apostle, that this would be reason for obscuring that disciple's
If you mean, by making this distinction, that a disciple is a
follower, while an apostle is one who is sent (ie: as an emissary),
then do you mean to say that you see no evidence that the BD
is an apostle (ie, was not sent by Jesus)? Or are you suggesting
that the BD is sent and the disciples, being only followers were
not? It would be helpful if you could elaborate your point.
> The case for a female author has not yet been made, I'mYou are quite right. There is still an abundance of evidence to
present and debate before I or anyone else can claim that the
case has been made.
Please note that I am making the case that the BD is a woman
named Mary, not that the author of the FG is a female. These
are different questions. The answer to each question may be
the same, but the evidence required to answer each question is
different. I submit that the open question as to who wrote the
Fourth Gospel is one that has been addressed and will be
addressed again on this list. If permitted, I will gladly enter into
that thread as well, but for now, I am content to stick with the
issue at hand: Could the BD have been a woman named Mary?
Yours in Christ's service,