Re: [John_Lit] James and Clopas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Q Bee" <artforms@...>
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Digest Number 900
> On 6/15/04 1:45 PM,
> <email@example.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.
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
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?
> > 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
> 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
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
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
> 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.
1809 N. English Apt. 15
Maplewood, MN USA 55109
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.