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

Re: Mary

Expand Messages
  • kymhsm
    David Trapero, You wrote:
    Message 1 of 48 , Nov 13, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      David Trapero,

      You wrote:

      <<<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?>>>

      Firstly, the idea that the Revelation preceded events about which
      it speaks is not a problem if one accepts that it was God-given
      (as per Rev 1:1 – given by God to Jesus and by Jesus to John)
      `to show…what must soon take place'. That is, the Revelation
      was a prophetic vision rather than someone's creative reflection
      on past and/or current events.

      Secondly, it is a matter of interpretation that the two witnesses of
      Rev 11 refer to Peter and Paul. As the city in which both of them
      die – the holy city where the temple was (11:2) and `where there
      Lord was crucified' (11:8)– seems to refer to Jerusalem, I am not
      convinced that these two enigmatic characters are Peter and
      Paul, both of whom died in Rome.

      <<<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.>>>

      You may be right about this, it could be as simple as you
      suggest. If that is the case, however, it seems to me that there
      should be some link between the person's name and their
      `nickname' before continuing with the nickname. Of course, that
      may just be me wanting John to conform to what is a modern
      practice, but John does this very thing with `Simon son of John'
      being reduced, very often, to only `Peter' after John 1:42.

      <<< This explanation, though having a degree of circumstantial
      plausibility >>>

      I suspect the circumstances of the 60s of the first century provide
      many solutions to questions about the text – particularly of
      Johannine writings – and the inter-relations between these and
      other NT books which the modern tendency to opt for later dates
      and non-apostolic authorships prevent us from seeing.

      Kym Smith
      South Australia
    • 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

        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
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.