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

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

Expand Messages
  • Thomas W Butler
    ... Thank you, John, for conceding that what I am saying about Thomas and James is fair enough. My point, of course, is that the question Why should the
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 23, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      On Wed, 21 Nov 2001 "John E Staton" <jestaton@...> wrote:
      >
      > 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.

      Thank you, John, for conceding that what I am saying about
      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
      identity?

      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'm
      > afraid.

      You 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,
      Tom Butler
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.