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

Re: Mary

Expand Messages
  • David Trapero
    ... I think the sequence you suggest of Revelation first and John later has merit but I m confused on the dates. How could Revelation, which refers to the
    Message 1 of 48 , Nov 12, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com, "kymhsm" <khs@p...>
      wrote:
      > Mart,
      >
      > <<<Any idea why this Gospel does not name Jesus's is
      > mother? It cannot be just sexism , because of the women who
      > are named.>>>
      >
      > I suspect John's not naming Mary may be for the same reason
      > that he is not named. As you would (most likely) know, I believe
      > that the Gospel of John followed the Revelation (their dates
      > being 62 and 68 respectively).

      I think the sequence you suggest of Revelation first and John later
      has merit but I'm confused on the dates. How could Revelation, which
      refers to the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul in chapter 11, be written
      in 62 when Peter and Paul were killed sometime between 64 and 67?

      He does not name himself in
      > the gospel – using, instead, the `Beloved Disciple' – to avoid any
      > connection with the John of the Revelation and the possible
      > consequences if the Roman authorities were to obtain a copy of
      > the Apocalypse and pursue its author. In the Gospel John, the
      > BD takes Mary into his own care, tradition has it that she went
      > with him to Ephesus. As the mother of Jesus, the `Lord of lords
      > and King of kings' whose followers worshipped him in place of
      > Caesar, she was also in some danger. The silence, then, was
      > protection for these two major characters at a time still so close
      > to the violence and – to whatever degree – continuing hatred of
      > Christians which would have made them persons of
      > considerable interest to the authorities.

      This explanation, though having a degree of circumstantial
      plausibility, is not necessary. The names John and Mary were common
      at this time and merely mentioning their names in the Gospel would not
      have put them in greater jeapardy. It's not as if they were giving
      out their social security numbers or driver's liscence numbers! In
      fact, I think a much simpler, less sensational reason for not naming
      the BD and mother of Jesus is that the names John and Mary were
      ubiquitous in the Jewish/Christian communities. The reason for not
      naming Mary is because it was universally understood/taken for granted
      that Jesus' mother's name was Mary and that what distinguished this
      Mary from all others is that she was "the mother of Jesus" and hence
      she is referred to in this way in GJn. There were many Johns in the
      movement too (John the Baptist, John ben Zebedee, John Mark, John the
      elder, etc.), what distinguished the Gospel's John from the others was
      that this John was "the beloved disciple" and well known as such. One
      is often referred to by ones' nickname (beloved disciple) among close
      friends/associates. This indicates a tightknit community where John
      was known and honored as Jesus' bossom buddy.

      David Trapero M. Div.
      Hickory
      North Carol
    • geomelick@AOL.com
      Frank: F. C. Grant saw no problem in a combination of figurative and literal meanings in 1 Peter 5:13. In his article on Mark in the Encyclopedia Americana he
      Message 48 of 48 , Dec 4, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Frank:

        F. C. Grant saw no problem in a combination of figurative and literal
        meanings in 1 Peter 5:13. In his article on Mark in the Encyclopedia Americana he
        wrote: "Further, the intimate reference in 1 Peter, joining Mark's greeting
        with Peter's and those of the church in 'Babylon' (Rome?), would be more natural
        if the relationship was physical as well as spiritual." According to Swete,
        huios does not involve a spiritual relationship which in the Pauline Epistles
        is expressed by teknon.

        I have argued previously that Mark was forbidden by Jesus to accompany Peter
        during the Galilean ministry. This did not preclude him from being a disciple
        of John the Baptist. (Mathetes means learner or pupil.) J. E. Bruns wrote
        two articles about the confusion between John and John Mark. In one he quotes
        a document which claims Mark was with the servants at Cana. According to Mark
        6:31, the trip which ended in the feeding of the five thousand was supposed
        to be for a rest and there was no reason to make Mark stay home. Mark could
        have been present when his grandmother was healed, in the fishing boat, and with
        Peter when he went to Jerusalem for the Passover.

        Mark's limited contact with Jesus explains why we have just these relatively
        few stories about Jesus. There were many other things which Jesus did. Could
        John 21:24f be Mark's ending to his notes?

        George Melick, Drexel University (Retired)
        9 Attleboro Court
        Red Bank, NJ 07701
        http://georgemelick.tripod.com
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.