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

Re: [John_Lit] John 20:31

Expand Messages
  • Bill Bullin
    ... Bill: Mark, let me say a little bit more about my odd take on this. It links with my question about what makes 4G distinct from the synoptics. Clearly 4G
    Message 1 of 22 , Apr 30, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      > Bill Bullin wrote:
      > >
      > > If 20:31 was the original Epilogue, does it help to look to
      > > the Prologue and to 1:7? '...so that through him all men
      > > might believe', is aorist subjunctive: commitment and decision.

      Mark Marson replied:
      > Thank you for this notation. Frankly I had never directly connected the
      > colophon with the prologue, but it makes wonderful sense. And frankly
      > the aorist subjunctive in the prologue *might* help decide the textual
      > variant in th 20:31. The way you read this is my initial sense -- it is
      > potential belief: the facts of Jesus are to be laid out, together with
      > an interpretation of who he is in terms of his own dialogues and
      > arguments with opponents (the trial motif), so that a fair decision can
      > be made.
      Bill:
      > > Part of what makes this document so unusual is its balance,
      > > its harmony, its Names and numbers, its almost priestly
      > > incantational ceremonial style. It ends where it begins with
      > > life, life in his Name. Choose Life! ***Deuteronomy***
      Mark:
      > Yes, I think the document is carefully constructed. Again, a vote in
      > favor of a "rhetorical" document. The question is what kind of
      > rhetoric, and what is the "stasis" or issue at hand?

      Bill:

      Mark, let me say a little bit more about my odd take on this. It links with
      my question about what makes 4G distinct from the synoptics.
      Clearly 4G is a gospel, although, unlike Mark (1:1), Matthew (4:23), and
      Luke (Luke 4:18) the term and concept of 'good news' seems to be
      represented / expressed as 'testimony to the truth', the 'trial motif' as
      you say. This apart, in a search for the 'Johnness of John' I have come up
      with a couple of other lines of enquiry perhaps best approached by the
      lateral question, what other material does 'John' and the 'Johannine' remind
      you of? Before offering you my answer, let me introduce three quotes, the
      last two are from the same document:

      "It is my hypothesis that the early Christians used the categories of 'name'
      and 'number' as theological tools. Often they consciously interpreted names
      and numbers in a symbolic way. Even their non-reflexive usage relied on
      implicit conceptualisations very different from our nominalist-based
      thinking. They presupposed that names and numbers are inextricably
      related...Like other Jewish movements, the first churches were immersed in a
      multi-ethnic ocean reflecting centuries of Greek and Babylonian
      mathematics." Francois Bovan (Harvard), S.N.T.S. Tel Aviv, 2000.

      "All attempts to show, in the whole, not only oneness of spirit, but also a
      genetic progress, an all embracing plan, and an organic connection, have
      hitherto failed, and must fail."

      "The critic looks for repetitions of vocabulary and of grammatical forms and
      thus seeks to uncover whatever literary devices involving repetition the
      author may have used, such as inclusions, mots, crchets, anaphora, chiasm,
      symmetry, refrains, announcment of topic and subsequent resumption,
      recapitulation etc....He [sic] searches for numerical patterns which the
      author may have impressed upon his work for one reason or another and which
      can provide clues to the author's conception of the plan of work."

      So in answer to my rhetorical question, what other material does 'John'
      remind you of? My emerging answer has been Genesis 1:1-2:3a; Qoholeth and
      the Greek magical papyri. This may seem quite a strange answer and
      combination but the Prologue and 4G seem entwined and the former has clear
      links to Genesis 1 with its seven fold creation pattern and repeated formula
      // seven signs; the second quote sums up A.G. Wright's summary of earlier
      approaches to Qoholeth, and the third, to the beginning of his fresh
      response in his articles The Riddle of the Sphinx etc. I submit that the
      second and third quotes might easily be applied to 1 John (21 abide/s
      matching 21 'we's in ch.1 before the ' I ', s break in, 'we abide'?) , and 1
      John is quite similar to unusual features of 4G and its discourse material.
      And what about that first sentence of 60 Greek words including 9 KAI's, but
      when taken with the second and third which come to 26 (YHWH) they total 86,
      (Elohim) and that completes the Epistle's Prologue. Finally, reverting to
      Bovan, the name and number mysticism to which s/he? refers is clearly linked
      to christology and the divine Name or Shem and also to Jewish priestly
      ritual, the temple, but also the Greek magical papyri through the magical
      repetition of power words and names (Shemoth).

      All this, it seems to me has a direct bearing on your question concerning
      the meaning of John 20:31:

      "Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are
      not written in this book. But these [seven] are written so that you may come
      to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through
      believing you may have life in his Name."

      Now if we are willing to admit to the presence of merkavah type references
      in 4G, it is a small step to recognise the Prologue as referring to creation
      mysticism and to Wisdom, and a further small step to detect the presence of
      the kind of name~number mysticism that Bovan speaks of in 4G's concern with
      the Father, the Son, Jesus Christ and belief / life in his Name. Virtually
      everything in the New Testament canon relates to the Name. It is only modern
      scholarship's determination to domesticate or exorcise what we as moderns do
      not understand, from the ancient texts (either as believers or unbelievers),
      that reduces 'divine magic' and the 'tabernacling of the great Angel of the
      Face' amongst us, to mere doctrinal ascent and the decent. So:

      "There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness to
      testify to the light so that all *might believe* through him....But to all
      who recieved him, who believed in his Name, he gave power to become children
      of God....The Law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came
      through 'Jesus Christ', IESOUS CHRISTOS,
      (I = 10 + H = 8 + S = 200 + O = 70 + U = 400 + S = 200, total 888, (37 x
      24); and X = 600 + R = 10 + I = 10 + S = 200 + T = 300 + O = 70 + S= 200,
      total 1480, (37 x 40). But together, 2,368, 37 x 64, a cubic number like the
      cubic Holy of Holies.But even more 8+8+8+1+4+8+0= 37, the gematria of the
      Hebrew word Chokmah on a consecutive letter count or else 73, reflected in
      LOGOS: 373. Now to us this seems coincidental or mundane but in Alexandria,
      the Harvard of the Mediterannean, and to Jewish catachumens, it was very
      exciting but not the crunch, the crunch was this: was Jesus the Messiah?
      Maths does not provide the answer but testimony does. To both summarise and
      harmonise very, very badly indeed:

      "We declare to you what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we
      have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands
      concerning the word of life - this life was revealed, and we have seen it
      and testify to it, and declare to you what we have seen and heard so that
      you also may have fellowship with us and truly our fellowship is with the
      Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ." (1 John).

      > > One snag I see is this. Would such a beautiful and complex
      > > document have been put together for say 50 catechumens? I
      > > think not. I think we might be talking about a much larger
      > > number and possibly a city even larger than Ephesus. What
      > > about Alexandria?
      >
      > Bill, I have a kind of gut reaction against these kind of localizing
      > settings. While I think that Alexandria probably did receive much
      > attention (witness the number of texts that end up there), I don't see
      > much evidence for a particular place in the gospel. Aside from a
      > "hunch", is there any internal evidence or external evidence that help
      > us to see (a) the region of Alexandria, or (b) even any one localized
      > community?
      >
      Yes, I know what you mean and Bauckham is a very good corrective but 'non
      localization' and 'John for Readers of Mark' are two seperate but
      intertwined issues. Lets set aside Alexandria for now though, how many
      catachumens would justify this document; what about numbers, that is
      populations and church sizes?

      > And this lack of explicit local setting perhaps tells a bit against the
      > catechumen idea.... I also would think the catechumen "teaching" would
      > show more signs of being liturgical.

      Well, my concept of catechumen is very much linked to discipleship,
      modelling, understanding and oral transmission.
      John had disciples and so did Jesus. They seemed to operate in pairs: 12
      Apostles = six pairs, each pair recruits 12, 6 x 12 is 72 (textual
      uncertainty), now they go out.

      Catechumens are taught from a centrally held document, they ask questions,
      they debate, they learn the testemonia, they believe and are baptised. They
      don't fester; off they go in pairs. When they come back with their questions
      and problems, its back to source, they go deeper into the document, its
      meaning and testimony, its living symbolism and off they go again like the
      dirty bits that float to and fro from the light, the candle flame . If this
      sounds too much like selling technique we have to ask who had it first: The
      'born again Skoda'? Cars dropping from above? Scots whiskey, the 'Water of
      Life' all to divine music!
      As for liturgical (service), patterns of words and numbers certainly aid the
      memory and serve as a double check on accuracy.
      Perhaps the Prologue was recited three times before a new Johannine passage
      was discussed, meditated on, learnt by heart who knows; I think of my Sihk
      friends. I think testimony preceded doctrine but 1 Cor. 8:6 may have been a
      daily recital in the Johannine world and ethics could not be divorced from
      doctrine; "Love God, love one another - off you go!" It didn't work!
      "Love God deeply, from the heart, love one another deeply, from the heart -
      off you go!" PS Don't forget be 'neighbour loving people' too.

      > So, perhaps the gospel was simply directed to a wide geographical area,
      > perhaps even "all who might be interested." But isn't that indeed what
      > I am grappling with? If we know the audience, we know how to interpret
      > PISTEUW. We don't know the audience, so I am trying to back end into it
      > by understanding the use of the word.
      >
      > What I really wonder about is the assumption that we have a "community"
      > that is being addressed. Why?

      "Love one another," its pretty communal stuff. John is all truth, life,
      love, ah, and christology. And the Spirit? Sorry to harmonise again but 1
      Peter seems to me to be very 'Johannine' and John Mark was in the
      background:

      "Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that
      was to be yours made careful search and inquiry, inquiring about the person
      or time that the Spirit of Christ within them indicated when it testified in
      advance to the sufferings destined for Christ and the subsequent glory...You
      know you were ransomed...with the precious blood of Christ. He was destined
      before the foundation of the world...Now that you have purified your souls
      by your obedience to the truth so that you have genuine mutual love, love
      oneanother deeply from the heart. You have been born anew, not of perishable
      but of unperishable seed (cf. 1 John 3:11-17, Wisdom 10:1-4, 14:6-7, Mk
      4:13-20, 1 Peter 3:18-22), through the Living an enduring Word of God.

      Clearly I am emphasising unity over diversity and harmony over conflict.
      >
      > > I can go along way with J. L. Martyn it is tying in the sect
      > > type sociology with +/- 85!!! C.E. and the Benediction against
      > > the Minim that leaves me unconvinced and turning back to
      > > Robinson's dating of 4G. I think Christians were called Minim
      > > before the fall of Jerusalem and that Samuel the Small merely
      > > revived the term and converted it into a benediction.
      >
      > Well, I agree with you in part. I am not sure Christians were called
      > "minim" that early, or even ever (the birkhat ha-minim is not clearly
      > against Christians, see Kimmelman, and was not necessarily universal).
      > But opposition to Christians within certain jewish synagogues and areas
      > seems certain, and well before 85 CE. That would certainly seem to be
      > what is implied by Paul in his "former life" before becoming a Christian
      > apostle. So I too think John can be placed early.

      Bill: I confess I have not read Kimmelman (can you give me a source), but I
      have read several excellent papers that are naunced and exceedingly complex.
      Absolutely central to the debate is the question of MAAMINIM (Aramaic for
      believers) as opposed to MINIM (kind, cf. Genesis, another animal), as in
      'of another kind' as heretics. But who exactly were the heretics, the other
      collective type, before the believers, no doubt the term became generic
      after the fall of Jerusalem and where is the evidence for the use of MINIM
      before the advent of Christianity, slim to non-existent except
      hypothetically if I recall correctly? Samuel the Small was remembering back
      to something before the War.

      > But dating doesn't' really get at the central issue of the purpose of
      > the 4G, and the way that "to believe" is used in the gospel (the most
      > uses of the verb in the NT, around 85 times!).

      Absolutely agreed if we agree that 'high Christology' is not 'late
      Christology'. And 'believers' preceded 'Christians' if Acts is to be
      believed!

      Bill Bullin (Private Student, East Sussex).
    • Martin Edwards
      ... One almost ... to the ... the light ... The ruling class had been Hellenistic in outlook since the Seleucid period. A likely source of the insistence of
      Message 2 of 22 , May 1, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Bullin"
        <bill.bullin@u...> wrote:
        >
        One almost
        > ludicrous notion is that they were Jewish-Greek trained and had been
        to the
        > gym! A far more serious point relates to the Shema and the Johannine
        > emphasis on love, incidentally cropping up in 1 Peter as well as Romans
        > since JM was associated with the ministry of both; the more so in
        the light
        > of Tom Wright's work on 1 Cor 8:6.
        >
        > If it is possible to see more of your line of thinking, I would be most
        > grateful.
        >
        > Bill

        The ruling class had been Hellenistic in outlook since the Seleucid
        period. A likely source of the insistence of the "Sadducees" on the
        written Torah alone is to minimize the burden of ritual observance.
        On the other hand, even if a rich young man had just come from the
        gym, he would probably have put something on.

        Martin Edwards BA(UEA) PGCE(Hull) RT(England and Wales)
        No current institution
      • Bill Bullin
        ... been ... Johannine ... light ... Hello Martin. I suspect our trains of thought are passing each other a bit. The most I was saying, almost too embarrassed
        Message 3 of 22 , May 2, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          > One almost ludicrous notion is that they were Jewish-Greek trained and had
          been
          > to the gym! A far more serious point relates to the Shema and the
          Johannine
          > > emphasis on love, incidentally cropping up in 1 Peter as well as Romans
          > > since JM was associated with the ministry of both; the more so in the
          light
          > > of Tom Wright's work on 1 Cor 8:6.

          > The ruling class had been Hellenistic in outlook since the Seleucid
          > period. A likely source of the insistence of the "Sadducees" on the
          > written Torah alone is to minimize the burden of ritual observance.
          > On the other hand, even if a rich young man had just come from the
          > gym, he would probably have put something on.
          >
          > Martin Edwards BA(UEA) PGCE(Hull) RT(England and Wales)
          >
          Hello Martin. I suspect our trains of thought are passing each other a bit.
          The most I was saying, almost too embarrassed to say really, was that for
          anyone who already posits a connection between the BD, the rich young ruler
          and the fleeing youth, (and some make a connection between John Mark and the
          latter two), is that *running* is a verbal common denominator; in terms of
          the youth he was pretty niffty on his feet. I have no reason to consider him
          merely a piece of symbolic fiction, esp. in Mark. It therefore seems most
          reasonable that he had followed the apostolic group and Jesus to the garden
          from the meal. The night would have been warm, he was minimally clad but not
          'indescent' according to accepted standards of piety, he may have made a
          split-second decision to follow and wasn't expecting to get involved. That
          he fled naked was merely incidental to escaping, no more.

          What I understand you to be saying is that priestly Jews of the ruling class
          of the Sadducees may well have participated in the gymnasium. My comment
          about the style of appraoch of the rich young ruler was not that he ran up
          naked, no, simply that the evangelist notes that he ran up; almost as if,
          presuming for an instance that he was John Mark, that there was something of
          a familiar comment, John Mark is a runner, hence runner, gym, a Greek
          educated Jew. Well, I admit this is not mrely historical thin ice, it is
          walking on water. My more serious point is the importance of this 'rich
          young ruler' (harmonising badly again). His nearness to the Kingdom,
          compared even with the disciples who were almost 'kingdom blind'; Jesus'
          love for him and his enthusiasm not only for the Torah and the Shema but
          also for the neighbour, in theory. It is but a small step from here to love
          'one another' but a million miles when faced with the radical challenge to
          sell, give, and follow.

          It is so tempting to harmonise because it is so, so romantic, (almost a
          Greek romance), to see this guy as the fleeing youth and the BD. But just as
          the historical mind should not be seduced by romance, neither is it a
          sufficient reason to reject historical possibilities. I am much more
          interested in youthfulness as a common theme and Josephian typology in the
          mind of Jesus, particularly at the last supper. Bread and wine, the baker
          and the butler. Joseph and Benjamin, Jesus and the youthful BD. The upper
          room seems to be full of strutting cocks crowing and Jesus is in anguish. He
          can take this crowing babble. He gets up, fills a bowl and shames them. No
          one wants to be first anymore. The position of honour falls to the least,
          the wee laddie running to and fro with the food; the wipper snapper. The
          last is elevated to first. The conversation turns blacker. Even now Peter is
          at it: "Ask him who it is, BD, nudge nudge, wink wink." And then a second
          time, "Not me Lord....". And in anguish and life saving surgery Jesus
          finally cuts to the heart of Petrine infantile psychology with his eyes and
          his tongue: "Dry up you strutting cockrel, you won't even last the night
          out. While you have been crowing I have been praying for you. But for the
          grace of God you and Judas, are merely the butler and the baker, wheras I
          must be both, both for you all. "You run: I hang". Let us depart:...".

          Well, this is the romantic, ecentric form of my own explorations of the last
          supper at present. But the status of the BD, if he was the youngest and
          least at the supper, would have been vastly elevated when the Jerusalem
          cockerels broke into the dawn chorus and Peter broke down; after the BD had
          taken his place in the front row as the lights went out in full 'Mel Gibson
          like' close up, and after the dust had settled and witnesses and testimony
          took pride of place.

          But I am a bit worried that I may have entirely missed your historical point
          which I suspect may be linked to Martin Goodman and his *The Ruling Class of
          Judea*, (1987).

          Bill Bullin (Private Student, East Sussex).
        • Martin Edwards
          ... historical point ... Class of ... Tcherikover: Hellenism and the Jews. Regards, Mart.
          Message 4 of 22 , May 3, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Bullin"
            <bill.bullin@u...> wrote:

            >
            > But I am a bit worried that I may have entirely missed your
            historical point
            > which I suspect may be linked to Martin Goodman and his *The Ruling
            Class of
            > Judea*, (1987).
            >
            > Bill Bullin (Private Student, East Sussex).

            Tcherikover: Hellenism and the Jews.

            Regards,
            Mart.
          • Bill Bullin
            ... *The Ruling ... Bill: As in the Israeli historian and papyrologist, Victor Tcherikover, *Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews*, (1966)? Incidentally,
            Message 5 of 22 , May 4, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              > > But I am a bit worried that I may have entirely missed your
              > historical point which I suspect may be linked to Martin Goodman and his
              *The Ruling
              > Class of Judea*, (1987).
              > >
              > > Bill Bullin
              >
              > Tcherikover: Hellenism and the Jews.
              >
              > Regards,
              > Mart.

              Bill: As in the Israeli historian and papyrologist, Victor Tcherikover,
              *Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews*, (1966)?
              Incidentally, there is a potential economic connecting web linking 1 John
              3:17, Mark 12: 33-34, Luke 18:30, Mark 10:30, Luke 10:12, Mark 10:22 and
              //'s. Luke 22:26 is interesting too, since one might expect the contrast
              with the 'greatest' would be the 'least' not the youngest; the contrast is
              the more so if it is postulated that Peter was the oldest and therefore
              assumed the role of leadership Strangely too the Lucan Jesus seems to be
              referring to the least in the same breath as mentioning the one who serves
              tables. Was the one serving elevated to the place of honour that we know was
              occupied by the BD? Judas appears to have departed having been offered the
              bread but before the wine was distributed. On my Josephian hypothesis, Judas
              shares in the fate of the baker but not in the fate of the butler. Jesus and
              the others.

              For those who postulate John Mark as the BD, it is as well to make the point
              explicitly by paraphrasing Acts; "After some days Paul said to Barnabas,
              'Come, let us return and visit the believers in every city where we
              proclaimed the word of the Lord and see how they are doing'. Barnabas wanted
              to take with them the BD But Paul decided not to take with them one who had
              deserted / withdrew from (APOSTANTA) them in Pamphilia and had not
              accompanied them in the work. The disagreement became so sharp that they
              parted company; Mark took the Beloved Disciple away with him and sailed away
              to Cyprus." Acts 15:36-39. Paul's objection to Mark may relate to him not
              having visited the cities they talked of revisting, rather than his previous
              withdrawl per se.

              Bill Bullin (Private Student, East Sussex).
            • Bill Bullin
              ... Bill Bullin comments: According to Raymond Brown, AB Vol. I (1971), 512-513, PISTEUEIN is used 98 times in the Fourth Gospel. However of these 98 examples
              Message 6 of 22 , May 5, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Mark Matso wrote:

                > But dating doesn't' really get at the central issue of the purpose of
                > the 4G, and the way that "to believe" is used in the gospel (the most
                > uses of the verb in the NT, around 85 times!).
                >
                Bill Bullin comments:

                According to Raymond Brown, AB Vol. I (1971), 512-513, PISTEUEIN is used 98
                times in the Fourth Gospel. However of these 98 examples , 36 (6 x 6) use
                the preposition EIS after PISTEUEIN, 'believe into'. In the whole Johannine
                corpus this construction occurs 37 times of which 31 relate to Jesus. This
                strongly parallels the concept of *baptism into* the Name or into Jesus.
                Brown (513) adds: "Although there are various stages in the development of
                faith..., in general John uses PISTEUEIN EIS for true, salvic faith."

                Later though he also tells us: "It is worthy of note that in the Gospel most
                of the uses of PISTEUEIN (74 out of 98), occur in chs i-xii or the Book of
                Signs. This division of frequency agrees with the thesis that in the Book
                of Signs Jesus is presenting to men the choice of believing, while in the
                Gospel of Glory (chs xiii xx) he is speaking to those who already believe
                and, thus, in presuming faith. It is true that in xiv 10 Jesus decries the
                inadequacy of the faith of the disciples and that he tries to increase their
                commitment (xiv), but the groundwork of faith has been laid. The emphasis on
                the response of the disciples in the Book of Glory is in terms of love which
                is the perfection of the commitment of the believer," 513.

                The 36 examples of PISTEUEIN EIS may represent something of a schema uniting
                the whole document (bearing in mind the distribution of the 144 'pater's as
                noted by Dunn), whilst the 74 examples may be a sub schema in chs 1-12, (73
                the gematria of CHOKMAH is related to 74 through the first prime number
                magic square where 37 is the central square, of the 8 remaining sub-squares
                another is 73 whilst opposite squares equal 74. This prime number square
                appears to be the schema underlying Qoholeth, if A.G. Wright's numerical
                analysis is accepted). It is tempting to search for two 'lost' examples of
                PISTEUEIN in the Johannine variants, since that would give a total of 100
                (10 x 10), dividing into 36 (6 x 6) examples of PISTEUEIN EIS leaving a
                remainder of 64 (8 x 8). As it is, 98 less 74 leaves 24 which is itself a
                priestly number relating to the annual rotation of priestly divisions in the
                temple.

                Are these figures significant and if so what did they mean to the Evangelist
                and those who add their witness to his? And is Brown's acceptance of a
                division into a Book of Signs and a Book of Glory significant in respect of
                the question originally posed concerning John 20:21 and the responses so far
                discussed. Hmmm. Food for thought.

                Bill Bullin (Private Student, East Sussex).
              • geomelick@AOL.com
                Bill: According to my reconstruction of the Last Supper, Mark, as the youngest of the disciples, was washing the disciples feet. When the controversy
                Message 7 of 22 , May 5, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  Bill:

                  According to my reconstruction of the Last Supper, Mark, as the youngest of
                  the disciples, was washing the disciples' feet. When the controversy occurred,
                  Jesus took over the foot washing duties, the greatest becoming as the
                  youngest. He then placed Mark at his side, saying "Whoever receives this child in my
                  name receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me" (Luke
                  9:48). The author or redactor reported this in slightly changed form in John
                  13.20 This is how Mark came to be lying close to the breast of Jesus.

                  George Melick MA
                  Drexel University, Retired


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • McGrath, James
                  An interesting suggestion, but I m probably not alone in desiring more information. What evidence do you have that John Mark was present at this meal, was the
                  Message 8 of 22 , May 5, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    An interesting suggestion, but I'm probably not alone in desiring more
                    information. What evidence do you have that John Mark was present at
                    this meal, was the youngest of the disciples, and perhaps most
                    importantly, that although disciples could not be asked to untie their
                    teacher's sandals, they could be given the duty of footwashing?

                    Looking forward to hearing more about your interesting reconstruction!

                    James McGrath



                    *****************************
                    Dr. James F. McGrath
                    Assistant Professor of Religion
                    Butler University, Indianapolis
                    http://religion.sytes.net
                    *****************************



                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: geomelick@... [mailto:geomelick@...]
                    Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 10:28 AM
                    To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [John_Lit] John 20:31


                    Bill:

                    According to my reconstruction of the Last Supper, Mark, as the youngest
                    of
                    the disciples, was washing the disciples' feet. When the controversy
                    occurred,
                    Jesus took over the foot washing duties, the greatest becoming as the
                    youngest. He then placed Mark at his side, saying "Whoever receives
                    this child in my
                    name receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me"
                    (Luke
                    9:48). The author or redactor reported this in slightly changed form in
                    John
                    13.20 This is how Mark came to be lying close to the breast of Jesus.

                    George Melick MA
                    Drexel University, Retired


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                    SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                    UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                    PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
                    MESSAGE ARCHIVE:
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messages
                    Yahoo! Groups Links
                  • geomelick@AOL.com
                    James: My hypothesis is based on two suggestions about Mark. The first is that he was the BD and the second is that he was the son of Simon Peter. The latter
                    Message 9 of 22 , May 6, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      James:

                      My hypothesis is based on two suggestions about Mark. The first is that he
                      was the BD and the second is that he was the son of Simon Peter. The latter
                      suggestion has a long history. In commenting on 1 Peter 5:13 Henry Alford wrote
                      that Mark was "perhaps the actual son of St. Peter, bearing this name." For
                      this view he cited Oecumenius and Bengel. According to Swete, ho huios mou in
                      this verse does not involve spiritual relationship of the kind expressed by
                      teknon in Paul's letters. In commenting on this verse William Barclay wrote
                      that "Mark might quite well be literally Peter's son." In the Encyclopedia
                      Americana F. C. Grant wrote that the reference "would be more natural if the
                      relationship was physical as well as spiritual." What surprises me is that no one
                      else to my knowledge has tried connecting these two suggestions.

                      As a young boy, Mark would have stayed close to his father when away from
                      Capernaum and thus would have been present at the meal although not initially at
                      the table. According to Richardson, "It would be the duty of the youngest
                      member of the group of disciples attached to a rabbi to perform such acts of
                      menial service as foot-washing."

                      My most recent SBL paper is posted on my website www.beloveddisciple.net, and
                      an earlier paper presented at a national SBL meeting is on
                      www.fourthgospel.com. Go to unpublished papers and click on "M".

                      George Melick, MA
                      Drexel University (Retired)


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.