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

Re: [John_Lit] James and Clopas

Expand Messages
  • Frank McCoy
    ... From: Q Bee To: Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 5:04 PM Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Digest Number
    Message 1 of 2 , Jun 17, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Q Bee" <artforms@...>
      To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 5:04 PM
      Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Digest Number 900


      > On 6/15/04 1:45 PM,
      "johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com"
      > <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

      > > Message: 9
      > > Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 06:09:28 -0700 (PDT)
      > > From: Frank McCoy <silvanus55109@...>
      > > Subject: Re: James and Clopas

      > > There is, beside the four women, a named male,
      i.e., Clopas. This is perhaps significant, as will be
      pointed out later in this post.
      >>

      > Clopas is not address as being present. Only a
      'wife of Clopas' is in the list.
      >

      Dear Elaine:

      Regarding19:25-27, there are three possibilities as
      respects the BD:
      1. This person is explicitly said to present--in
      which case this person is one of the explicitly
      present women
      2. This person is unmentioned--in which case this
      person could be almost anybody
      3. This person is not explicitly said to be present
      but is named--in which case this person is Clopas.

      This third possibility does not have the weakness of
      the first possibility, i.e., the air of implausibility
      to the notion that the BD, who is spoken of in
      masculine language in 19:25-27 and elsewhere as well,
      is a female. It also does not have the weakness of
      the second possibility, i.e., the air of
      implausibility that the BD would not be one of the
      named people in 19:25-27. So, perhaps, it is the best
      of all worlds?

      (snip)

      > > You appear to be assuming that the unnamed
      disciple of John in 1:38 is the BD. What evidence do
      you have to support this apparently unwarranted
      assumption?
      >>

      > For one thing, the author goes to great detail on
      the other disciples, if not in great detail in that
      passage, then is subsequent passages. (It is as if a
      woman wrote the news details of these personages.)
      >

      Are you suggesting that a woman wrote John? If so, do
      you have any particular woman in mind?

      > The passages follow 'In the beginning was the Word',
      then John's word about the 'Word', then the primary
      pair of disciples, the 'sons of Thunder'.
      >

      Thunder follows lightning so, I take it, as you note
      that John the Baptist is mentioned after the Word in
      John, you understand the Word to be the "Lightning",
      John the Baptist to be the "Thunder" and his two
      disciples of 1:38 to, therefore, be the "sons" of this
      "Thunder". Please correct me if I am mis-interpreting
      your position.

      The fly in this ointment is that, according to Mark
      3:17, it is the two sons of Zebedee, named James and
      John, who are the Sons of Thunder. However, in John
      1:38, one of the disciples is named Andrew. So, on the
      face of it, the two disciples in 1:38 do not appear to
      be the Sons of Thunder.

      >If, as we see later, the BD is the writer of the
      account, then that person had to be there from the
      very beginning. That unidentified person would have
      been able to witness and record the events concerning
      John the Baptist and gone on to witness Andrew
      informing his brother Simon, etc. That person
      witnesses the entire mission in order to report on it.
      >

      Certainly, if one (1) takes John 21:24 literally and
      (2) takes "these things" of this passage to be the
      whole Gospel of John and (3) takes this gospel to be
      the reporting of actual history, then the probability
      greatly increases that the unnamed disciple in 1:38 is
      the BD. However, I think the probability of all three
      of these considerations being true is close to zero.

      > Now, if this is not so, where does the unknown
      author get the information if John 21:24-25 is
      incorrect? And further, why then is the other
      disciple who is with Andrew at the very beginning of
      the ministry in John 1 never named or described as the
      others are?
      >

      You appear to assume that the burden of proof lies
      with anyone who questions the assertion that John is
      solely based on the memories and notes of its author.
      How do you justify this assumption?

      Also, there are a number of unnamed disciples in John:
      1. 1:38--a disciple of John the Baptist
      2. several passages--a disciple loved by Jesus
      3.18:19--a disciple known to the High Priest
      4. 19:35--a disciple who witnessed the flow of blood
      and water from the side of Jesus.

      So, the unnamed person in 1:38 is hardly unique in
      this respect.

      (snip)

      > Before we get entangled in the James/Jacob naming
      and whether or not he is married, could we first
      address whether or not the 'son' being mentioned in
      the address Jesus makes in John 19:25-27 to his mother
      or when saying 'behold, your mother' is in fact being
      address to a male or is it being address to her
      'offspring' or 'progeny'?
      >

      IMO, in 19:25, the question of whether Clopas is James
      as the betrothed/husband of Mary and the question of
      whether huios is to be taken in its most common sense
      as a son should not be separately addressed because
      they are linked in that, if James is Clopas, then
      James/Clopas was a son of the mother of Jesus and, so,
      is the logical candidate for being the BD--with, in
      this case, huios having its most common sense as a
      son. Further, in this case Mary of Clopas was a
      sister-in-law of Jesus.

      Indeed, there is evidence that Mary of Clopas might
      have been, in some sense, a sister of Jesus.

      I am referring to the Gospel of Philip (59), "There
      were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary his
      mother and her sister and Magdalene, the one who was
      called his companion. His sister and his mother and
      his companion were each a Mary."

      Here, four people are mentioned: (1) Mary, the mother
      of Jesus, (2) her sister, (3) his (i.e., Jesus')
      sister, and (4) Mary the Magdalene. They are, I
      suggest, the women mentioned in John 19:25. Further,
      the first sentence ("There were three who always
      walked with the Lord: Mary his mother and her sister
      and Magdalene, the one who was called his companion.")
      appears to also have Mark 15:40-41a in mind, "And
      there were also women from a distance looking on,
      among whom were both Mary the Magdalene and Mary the
      mother of James the Lesser and of Joses and
      Salome--who were following him and serving him when he
      was in Galilee." As a result, the author of Philip
      apparently took the sister of Jesus to be Salome.
      Further, this person apparently took Mary the mother
      of James the Lesser and Joses to be the mother of
      Jesus. Indeed, in Mark 6:3, two brothers of Jesus
      (and, so, sons of the mother of Jesus) are identified
      as having the names of James and Joses!

      In this case, the author of Philip took Mary of Clopas
      to be a sister of Jesus. Indeed, if Clopas is her
      husband/betrothed and is James the brother of Jesus,
      then Mary of Clopas is the sister of Jesus in the
      sense of being his sister-in-law! So, I suggest, in
      19:25, huios is to be taken in its usual meaning as
      son: with the BD being James, the brother of Jesus,
      and, as such, a son of the mother of Jesus--in
      particular, the son of the mother of Jesus who is
      called Clopas in 19:25 and James the Lesser in Mark
      15:40-41 and James in Mark 6:3.

      Regards,

      Frank McCoy
      1809 N. English Apt. 15
      Maplewood, MN USA 55109








      __________________________________
      Do you Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
      http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.