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

Re: [John_Lit] Digest Number 371

Expand Messages
  • John E Staton
    Tom wrote: Does your comment (that this is fair enough ... Yes ... Again, yes. This is a very unclear area, and one on which I still have some work to do, but
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 24, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Tom wrote: 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?

      Yes
      >
      > 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?

      Again, yes. This is a very unclear area, and one on which I still have some
      work to do, but I am a full-time pastor and the project must necessarily be
      long-term. However I do believe the early church, in the apostolic and
      sub-apostolic age, did make a distinction between "apostles" and
      "disciples", in the sense that all apostles are disciples, but the reverse
      is not necessarily true.
      The problem is in defining the two terms. The New Testament gives
      little help. Acts 1 gives a list of qualifications for one of "the Twelve"
      ( should have been with Jesus from the beginning of his ministry until the
      end, and have been an eye-witness of the resurrection), but there is some
      evidence that the Twelve were a sub-group within "the apostles", and the
      term covered a much wider group. Many scholars are also sceptical of the
      historical accuracy of Luke's account, anyway. Paul (1 Corinthians 9) gives
      only one qualification ("have I not seen the Lord?" - presumably a
      resurrection appearance, probably referring to the "Damascus Road"
      incident). Maybe he sees all 500 people mentioned as witnesses to the
      resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 as apostles! Who lnows? And we have not
      even mentioned yet the "apostles of the churches" - regarded by most as a
      lesser group.
      When it comes to the word "disciples", the NT uses this word for the
      generality of believers. The Gospels, and some sub-apostolic texts uses it
      as a reference to those who followed Jesus during his earthly ministry,
      which could cover a considerable number of people, most of whom have been
      completely forgotten by history.
      The Papias text which refers to "John the elder", appears to rank him
      with a group including Aristion, who appear to be on a lower level (in
      esteem by the Christian community) than Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas,
      James, John, or Matthew, whose names are separated from those of John the
      elder and Aristion. Confusingly, all are referred to as "disciples of the
      Lord", but the position in the text of the last two names, and the fact that
      no-one has posited Aristion as an apostle, suggests a distinction is being
      drawn here, at the beginning of the second century. Perhaps Papias knew
      these latter two figures had been companions of Jesus (he valued their
      reports of what Jesus had said), but maybe they were junior figures (perhaps
      in age. Aristion is credited in one document with the authorship of the
      longer ending of Mark - he must have been of a younger generation than Peter
      et al.
      Hengel seems to be suggesting this "John the elder" had a kind of
      "adopted favourite son status" with Jesus, and that this gave him special
      insight into Jesus' teaching. But because he was not one of the "first rank"
      leaders of the new community (and they may well have resented his closeness
      to Jesus), he may well have found it necessary to conceal his identity. And
      followers of his (I believe "a" follower was the final author of the FG,
      based on the BD's teaching and discussions between the BD and his disciples)
      may well have decided to follow the same practice
      > > 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?

      I take your point here. Everyone has their own view, and given the history
      of study on this matter, it is highly unlikely there will be any resolution
      of the question this side of the parousia. For my part, however, I still
      remain to be convinced of your identification of the BD.

      Best Wishes

      JOHN E STATON
      www.christianreflection.org.uk
      jestaton@...
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.