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

Tom Butler's theory on the BD

Expand Messages
  • Joseph Codsi
    Michael S. Tibbs (October 11, 2005) quoted the following passage concerning Mary Magdalene and the disciple Jesus loved.
    Message 1 of 12 , Oct 11, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Michael S. Tibbs (October 11, 2005) quoted the following passage concerning
      Mary Magdalene and the disciple Jesus loved.

      <<It appears that whenever MM and the BD are in close proximity there is a
      problem with the text. But taking up the text from the anointing at
      Bethany, we can note that the anointing took place just nine days before the
      tomb scene. At Bethany, it is a Mary who is commissioned to anoint Jesus
      upon his burial. We note that it is MM who goes to the tomb early in the
      morning to carry out that anointing, but finds the tomb empty. If it is
      another 'Mary' who is commissioned then there must be more than one
      container of nard worth more than a year's wages, which to me is highly
      unlikely unless these are a group of royals with unlimited funds, or, for
      some reason the commissioned one has given over the duty to another.>>

      First, a correction. In GJohn MM does not go to the tomb in order to anoint
      the body of Jesus. Michael S. Tibbs has noticed the mistake as he pointed
      out that no reason is stated for Mary's visit to the tomb.

      Second, I find the following remark interesting: <<It appears that whenever
      MM and the BD are in close proximity there is a problem with the text.>> Can
      someone elaborate on this point? Is it possible that the disciple Jesus
      loved referred originally to Mary Magdalene? Did the Johannine tradition
      transfer the title to one of the Twelve who is never identified? If so, I
      can see why there would be a problem when MM and the BD are mentioned in the
      same text.

      A similar problem seems to exist between Mary, the sister of Lazarus, and
      Mary Magdalene. But this problem is due to the fact that, in the synoptics,
      MM goes to the tomb to anoint Jesus. I think we have to decide here which
      tradition is the historical one.

      The final problem is with the dual anointing in GJohn (At Bethany by MM and
      before the burial by Joseph Arimathea and Nicodemus). If this second
      anointing is historical, then the first one becomes superfluous. The Bethany
      anointing becomes meaningful if Jesus was buried without the ritual.

      There are traces in GJohn of an older burial story, where, at the request of
      the Jewish leadership, Pilate orders the removal of the three corpses. The
      Roman soldiers are likely to have carried out this order and buried Jesus
      with the two others who had been crucified with him. In this scenario, Mary
      Magdalene would have gone not to the tomb but to the place where Jesus had
      been crucified, in order to find out what had happened in her absence from
      the scene.

      Peace,

      Joseph

      ================
      Joseph Codsi
      P.O. Box 116-2088
      Beirut, Lebanon
      Telephone (961) 1 423 145
      joseph5@...

      "Within two decades, most of the world's knowledge will be digitized and
      available, one hopes for free reading on the Internet, just as there is free
      reading in libraries today."

      Michael A. Keller, Stanford University head librarian.
      December 2004
    • Q Bee
      ... True, it is not state baldly in 4G as it is in the synoptics, however, if a Mary has been announced as the one to keep the nard for Jesus burial only
      Message 2 of 12 , Oct 11, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        On Oct 11, 2005, at 8:11 AM, Joseph Codsi wrote:
        >
        > First, a correction. In GJohn MM does not go to the tomb in order to
        > anoint
        > the body of Jesus. Michael S. Tibbs has noticed the mistake as he
        > pointed
        > out that no reason is stated for Mary's visit to the tomb.
        >
        True, it is not state baldly in 4G as it is in the synoptics, however,
        if a 'Mary' has been announced as the one to keep the nard for Jesus'
        burial only nine days before is there a need to specify her purpose for
        going to the tomb?

        > Second, I find the following remark interesting: <<It appears that
        > whenever
        > MM and the BD are in close proximity there is a problem with the
        > text.>> Can
        > someone elaborate on this point? Is it possible that the disciple Jesus
        > loved referred originally to Mary Magdalene? Did the Johannine
        > tradition
        > transfer the title to one of the Twelve who is never identified? If
        > so, I
        > can see why there would be a problem when MM and the BD are mentioned
        > in the
        > same text.

        The material covered by Ramon K. Jusino's thesis,
        http://www.BelovedDisciple.org and Esther de Boer's book cited in my
        last post both cover the material extensively.
        The occurrences are in verses: 19: 25-27 and 20:1-11. Concerning the
        redaction, Jusino posits that the difficulties in the text only occur
        when the BD and MM appear to be in the same scenes and that the
        over-writes are the instances pointed out as redaction by Brown:
        "The redactor's solution to this problem was actually quite simple. In
        those two events where he could not deny the presence of the Magdalene,
        he would rework the text so as to make it appear as if Mary Magdalene
        and the Beloved Disciple were two different people appearing
        simultaneously in the same place, at the same time. Consequently, Mary
        Magdalene and the male Beloved Disciple appear together in the Fourth
        Gospel in only two passages -- 19:25-27 (at the foot of the Cross) and
        20:1-11 (at the Empty Tomb on Sunday morning). ...Isn't that
        interesting? And it is precisely at these two points that we find some
        major structural inconsistencies within the text of the Fourth Gospel.
        Brown discusses the inconsistencies in both of these passages. (That
        shows that I'm not just reading inconsistencies into passages that have
        none.) Notably, Brown finds no such structural defects in any of the
        other passages which contain references to the Beloved Disciple.
        >
        > A similar problem seems to exist between Mary, the sister of Lazarus,
        > and
        > Mary Magdalene. But this problem is due to the fact that, in the
        > synoptics,
        > MM goes to the tomb to anoint Jesus. I think we have to decide here
        > which
        > tradition is the historical one.
        >
        Does that dismiss the fact that a 'Mary' is commissioned to anoint
        Jesus in 4G?

        > The final problem is with the dual anointing in GJohn (At Bethany by
        > MM and
        > before the burial by Joseph Arimathea and Nicodemus). If this second
        > anointing is historical, then the first one becomes superfluous. The
        > Bethany
        > anointing becomes meaningful if Jesus was buried without the ritual.
        >
        If 4G is the eye-witness account from an actual disciple which the
        discovery of the Pool of Bethesda seems to bear out, then it is
        possible that this gospel also includes material that the synoptics did
        not. The idea that the closest disciple would go to attempt to
        accomplish a ritual anointing at the tomb EVEN if Joseph of Arimathea
        and Nicodemus have provided a night burial preparation. But, since the
        specific mention of a second anointing attempt is not reported in 4G,
        it is at least planned that a 'Mary' would keep the nard for the
        eventual event.

        > There are traces in GJohn of an older burial story, where, at the
        > request of
        > the Jewish leadership, Pilate orders the removal of the three corpses.
        > The
        > Roman soldiers are likely to have carried out this order and buried
        > Jesus
        > with the two others who had been crucified with him. In this scenario,
        > Mary
        > Magdalene would have gone not to the tomb but to the place where Jesus
        > had
        > been crucified, in order to find out what had happened in her absence
        > from
        > the scene.
        >
        There seems to be traces of a possible older story. However, I think
        our focus should be in the portions that show signs of redaction rather
        than in other potential possibilities if we are concerning ourselves
        with the identity of the BD.

        Peace,

        Elaine Bessette
        Tacoma, WA
      • Horace Jeffery Hodges
        ... synoptics, however, if a Mary has been announced as the one to keep the nard for Jesus burial only nine days before is there a need to specify her
        Message 3 of 12 , Oct 11, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Elaine wrote:

          >>True, it is not state baldly in 4G as it is in the
          synoptics, however, if a 'Mary' has been announced as
          the one to keep the nard for Jesus' burial only nine
          days before is there a need to specify her purpose for
          going to the tomb?<<

          Your argument is:

          1. Mary of Bethany/Magdalene breaks open a bottle of
          nard and anoints Jesus's feet with it about one week
          before the resurrection. (All of it?)

          2. Jesus says that she had saved this for the day of
          his burial. (Metaphor?)

          3. Therefore she goes to the grave 'three' days after
          his burial to anoint his corpse. (Hasty conclusion?)

          There are a lot of gaps in this argument that would
          need to be filled in to make the argument that she's
          going to the tomb to anoint the corpse of Jesus.

          Jeffery Hodges

          University Degrees:

          Ph.D., History, U.C. Berkeley
          (Doctoral Thesis: "Food as Synecdoche in John's Gospel and Gnostic Texts")
          M.A., History of Science, U.C. Berkeley
          B.A., English Language and Literature, Baylor University

          Email Address:

          jefferyhodges@...

          Blog:

          http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com/

          Office Address:

          Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
          Department of English Language and Literature
          Korea University
          136-701 Anam-dong, Seongbuk-gu
          Seoul
          South Korea

          Home Address:

          Dr. Sun-Ae Hwang and Dr. Horace Jeffery Hodges
          Sehan Apt. 102-2302
          Sinnae-dong 795
          Jungrang-gu
          Seoul 131-770
          South Korea
        • Lee Edgar Tyler
          ... From: Horace Jeffery Hodges To: Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 1:58 PM Subject: Re:
          Message 4 of 12 , Oct 11, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "Horace Jeffery Hodges" <jefferyhodges@...>
            To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 1:58 PM
            Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Tom Butler's theory on the BD


            > Elaine wrote:
            >
            >>>True, it is not state baldly in 4G as it is in the
            > synoptics, however, if a 'Mary' has been announced as
            > the one to keep the nard for Jesus' burial only nine
            > days before is there a need to specify her purpose for
            > going to the tomb?<<
            >
            > Your argument is:
            >
            > 1. Mary of Bethany/Magdalene breaks open a bottle of
            > nard and anoints Jesus's feet with it about one week
            > before the resurrection. (All of it?)
            >
            > 2. Jesus says that she had saved this for the day of
            > his burial. (Metaphor?)
            >
            > 3. Therefore she goes to the grave 'three' days after
            > his burial to anoint his corpse. (Hasty conclusion?)
            >
            > There are a lot of gaps in this argument that would
            > need to be filled in to make the argument that she's
            > going to the tomb to anoint the corpse of Jesus.
            >
            > Jeffery Hodges
            >
            >
            Would anyone anoint a three-day-old corpse at all? Is there any other
            evidence that such an act would be at all likely?

            Ed Tyler
          • Q Bee
            ... Assuming that the death occurred in the afternoon on Friday and that Saturday was the Sabbath day, MM appears early, before daylight on the Sunday. It has
            Message 5 of 12 , Oct 11, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              On Oct 11, 2005, at 11:58 AM, Horace Jeffery Hodges wrote:

              > Elaine wrote:
              >
              >>> True, it is not state baldly in 4G as it is in the
              > synoptics, however, if a 'Mary' has been announced as
              > the one to keep the nard for Jesus' burial only nine
              > days before is there a need to specify her purpose for
              > going to the tomb?<<
              >
              > Your argument is:
              >
              > 1. Mary of Bethany/Magdalene breaks open a bottle of
              > nard and anoints Jesus's feet with it about one week
              > before the resurrection. (All of it?)
              >
              > 2. Jesus says that she had saved this for the day of
              > his burial. (Metaphor?)
              >
              > 3. Therefore she goes to the grave 'three' days after
              > his burial to anoint his corpse. (Hasty conclusion?)
              >
              Assuming that the death occurred in the afternoon on Friday and that
              Saturday was the Sabbath day, MM appears early, before daylight on the
              Sunday. It has actually been about a day and a half. If the anointing
              is forbidden on the Sabbath, the next opportunity is the following
              morning. 3 day? Hmmm, how do you calculate that?

              > There are a lot of gaps in this argument that would
              > need to be filled in to make the argument that she's
              > going to the tomb to anoint the corpse of Jesus.
              >
              True. Still, someone with the first name of Mary is commissioned in
              chapter 12 to accomplish an anointing for Jesus' burial. Where is
              there a jump in logic to expect the person named Mary who goes to the
              tomb at the earliest opportunity to be other than one who intends to
              anoint? There is at least a distinct possibility since the synoptics
              says that she went there to anoint, although that doesn't explain the
              absence of a clear description of her intent to anoint in 4G.

              Elaine Bessette
            • Horace Jeffery Hodges
              ... Friday and that Saturday was the Sabbath day, MM appears early, before daylight on the Sunday. It has actually been about a day and a half. If the
              Message 6 of 12 , Oct 11, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Elaine wrote:

                >>Assuming that the death occurred in the afternoon on
                Friday and that Saturday was the Sabbath day, MM
                appears early, before daylight on the Sunday. It has
                actually been about a day and a half. If the anointing
                is forbidden on the Sabbath, the next opportunity is
                the following morning. 3 day? Hmmm, how do you
                calculate that?<<

                I don't calculate at all. I merely cite in 'scare'
                quotes the traditional calculation.

                I stated that there are a lot of "gaps" in your
                argument, and you agreed:

                >>True. Still, someone with the first name of Mary is
                commissioned in chapter 12 to accomplish an anointing
                for Jesus' burial. Where is there a jump in logic to
                expect the person named Mary who goes to the
                tomb at the earliest opportunity to be other than one
                who intends to anoint? There is at least a distinct
                possibility since the synoptics says that she went
                there to anoint, although that doesn't explain the
                absence of a clear description of her intent to anoint
                in 4G.<<

                If you agree that there are gaps in your argument,
                then you must also agree that there are jumps in your
                logic.

                Anyway, the crucial point in your passage above is
                that Mary was "commissioned" to anoint Jesus, but on
                what basis do you conclude this? And even if you could
                conclude this, and conclude that the commission was to
                occur on the day of Jesus's burial, then how would you
                fit this with Mary going to the tomb on a different
                day?

                I find your argument too loose to be convincing. To
                construct a tighter argument, you'd need to look at
                the specific words, citing the Greek terms and their
                meanings, and base your conclusions on careful
                analysis.

                I think that you've mainly done a loose eisegesis so
                far.

                Jeffery Hodges

                University Degrees:

                Ph.D., History, U.C. Berkeley
                (Doctoral Thesis: "Food as Synecdoche in John's Gospel and Gnostic Texts")
                M.A., History of Science, U.C. Berkeley
                B.A., English Language and Literature, Baylor University

                Email Address:

                jefferyhodges@...

                Blog:

                http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com/

                Office Address:

                Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
                Department of English Language and Literature
                Korea University
                136-701 Anam-dong, Seongbuk-gu
                Seoul
                South Korea

                Home Address:

                Dr. Sun-Ae Hwang and Dr. Horace Jeffery Hodges
                Sehan Apt. 102-2302
                Sinnae-dong 795
                Jungrang-gu
                Seoul 131-770
                South Korea
              • Q Bee
                ... No, what I did was to give you the URL where you could fill in the gaps as well as a book reference. Do you think it would help if I collected the
                Message 7 of 12 , Oct 11, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Oct 11, 2005, at 1:23 PM, Horace Jeffery Hodges wrote:

                  >>> True. Still, someone with the first name of Mary is
                  > commissioned in chapter 12 to accomplish an anointing
                  > for Jesus' burial. Where is there a jump in logic to
                  > expect the person named Mary who goes to the
                  > tomb at the earliest opportunity to be other than one
                  > who intends to anoint? There is at least a distinct
                  > possibility since the synoptics says that she went
                  > there to anoint, although that doesn't explain the
                  > absence of a clear description of her intent to anoint
                  > in 4G.<<
                  >
                  > If you agree that there are gaps in your argument,
                  > then you must also agree that there are jumps in your
                  > logic.
                  >
                  No, what I did was to give you the URL where you could fill in the gaps
                  as well as a book reference. Do you think it would help if I collected
                  the material and pasted it here rather than have you click on a URL?

                  > Anyway, the crucial point in your passage above is
                  > that Mary was "commissioned" to anoint Jesus, but on
                  > what basis do you conclude this? And even if you could
                  > conclude this, and conclude that the commission was to
                  > occur on the day of Jesus's burial, then how would you
                  > fit this with Mary going to the tomb on a different
                  > day?
                  >
                  > I find your argument too loose to be convincing. To
                  > construct a tighter argument, you'd need to look at
                  > the specific words, citing the Greek terms and their
                  > meanings, and base your conclusions on careful
                  > analysis.
                  >
                  > I think that you've mainly done a loose eisegesis so
                  > far.
                  >
                  Thank you for sharing your judgment.

                  Elaine Bessette
                  Tacoma, WA
                • Q Bee
                  ... If you can show me that the corpse is indeed three days old we can go into this further. If, as we have been told, the Passover was on Saturday, and
                  Message 8 of 12 , Oct 11, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Oct 11, 2005, at 12:22 PM, Lee Edgar Tyler wrote:

                    > Would anyone anoint a three-day-old corpse at all? Is there any other
                    > evidence that such an act would be at all likely?
                    >
                    > Ed Tyler
                    >

                    If you can show me that the corpse is indeed 'three days old' we can go
                    into this further. If, as we have been told, the Passover was on
                    Saturday, and Jesus' death happened shortly before sundown on the eve
                    of the Passover, then before daylight on the day after passover is not
                    a three day interval. The gospels seem to imply, I think, that it is
                    the 'third day'. If one counts the day of death as day one, the
                    Sabbath day as day two, and the pre-dawn time of the following morning
                    as day three we have the context in a more reasonable interval, do we
                    not? And that really only leave the Sabbath day as a day on which the
                    alleged anointing cannot happen.

                    Elaine Bessette
                    Tacoma, WA
                  • Horace Jeffery Hodges
                    ... then you must also agree that there are jumps in your logic.
                    Message 9 of 12 , Oct 11, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I wrote:

                      >>If you agree that there are gaps in your argument,
                      then you must also agree that there are jumps in your
                      logic.<<

                      Elaine wrote:

                      >>No, what I did was to give you the URL where you
                      could fill in the gaps as well as a book reference. Do
                      you think it would help if I collected the material
                      and pasted it here rather than have you click on a
                      URL?<<

                      There were jumps in your logic as presented in your
                      argument. It's up to you to fill them in for others on
                      this thread.

                      Elaine wrote:

                      >>Thank you for sharing your judgment.<<

                      You're welcome. That's what we're here for. I also
                      gave some advice, which we're also here for.

                      Jeffery Hodges

                      University Degrees:

                      Ph.D., History, U.C. Berkeley
                      (Doctoral Thesis: "Food as Synecdoche in John's Gospel and Gnostic Texts")
                      M.A., History of Science, U.C. Berkeley
                      B.A., English Language and Literature, Baylor University

                      Email Address:

                      jefferyhodges@...

                      Blog:

                      http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com/

                      Office Address:

                      Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
                      Department of English Language and Literature
                      Korea University
                      136-701 Anam-dong, Seongbuk-gu
                      Seoul
                      South Korea

                      Home Address:

                      Dr. Sun-Ae Hwang and Dr. Horace Jeffery Hodges
                      Sehan Apt. 102-2302
                      Sinnae-dong 795
                      Jungrang-gu
                      Seoul 131-770
                      South Korea
                    • Q Bee
                      ... Jeffrey, I ll work on gathering some of the pertinent passages from de Boer s and Jusino s work and post it as time permits. The gaps you perceive are I
                      Message 10 of 12 , Oct 11, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Oct 11, 2005, at 1:57 PM, Horace Jeffery Hodges wrote:

                        > There were jumps in your logic as presented in your
                        > argument. It's up to you to fill them in for others on
                        > this thread.
                        >
                        > Elaine wrote:
                        >
                        >>> Thank you for sharing your judgment.<<
                        >
                        > You're welcome. That's what we're here for. I also
                        > gave some advice, which we're also here for.
                        >

                        Jeffrey,

                        I'll work on gathering some of the pertinent passages from de Boer's
                        and Jusino's work and post it as time permits. The gaps you perceive
                        are I think adequately filled in by de Boer. It will be awhile before
                        time permits. ... to be continued...

                        Elaine Bessette
                        Tacoma, WA
                      • Horace Jeffery Hodges
                        ... Just for the record, it s Jeffery -- to keep me distinguished from the more distinguished Jeffrey Gibson. Jeffery Hodges University Degrees: Ph.D.,
                        Message 11 of 12 , Oct 11, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Elaine wrote:

                          >>Jeffrey<<

                          Just for the record, it's "Jeffery" -- to keep me
                          distinguished from the more distinguished Jeffrey
                          Gibson.

                          Jeffery Hodges

                          University Degrees:

                          Ph.D., History, U.C. Berkeley
                          (Doctoral Thesis: "Food as Synecdoche in John's Gospel and Gnostic Texts")
                          M.A., History of Science, U.C. Berkeley
                          B.A., English Language and Literature, Baylor University

                          Email Address:

                          jefferyhodges@...

                          Blog:

                          http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com/

                          Office Address:

                          Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
                          Department of English Language and Literature
                          Korea University
                          136-701 Anam-dong, Seongbuk-gu
                          Seoul
                          South Korea

                          Home Address:

                          Dr. Sun-Ae Hwang and Dr. Horace Jeffery Hodges
                          Sehan Apt. 102-2302
                          Sinnae-dong 795
                          Jungrang-gu
                          Seoul 131-770
                          South Korea
                        • Joseph Codsi
                          In her reply to Michael S. Tibbs, Elaine Bessette made the following remark:
                          Message 12 of 12 , Oct 11, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            In her reply to Michael S. Tibbs, Elaine Bessette made the following remark:

                            <<If this trip to the tomb were not meant to be an attempt to fulfill the
                            customary anointing carried out by the female 'next of kin' we then have a
                            new problem in the inconsistency of the previous mention of the substance
                            being saved for the burial.>>

                            This implies that it was customary in the Jewish society of that time to
                            have the female next of kin anoint the body of a man. Is there any evidence
                            to this kind of custom?

                            I have a problem with the second part of the statement. Where is it said in
                            GJohn that the Mary who anointed the feet of Jesus saved a large amount of
                            aromatic oil for the real burial of Jesus? Am I missing something here?

                            Cheers,

                            Joseph

                            ================
                            Joseph Codsi
                            P.O. Box 116-2088
                            Beirut, Lebanon
                            Telephone (961) 1 423 145
                            joseph5@...

                            "Within two decades, most of the world's knowledge will be digitized and
                            available, one hopes for free reading on the Internet, just as there is free
                            reading in libraries today."

                            Michael A. Keller, Stanford University head librarian.
                            December 2004
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.