- View SourceMark Goodacre wrote:
>Right you are. Michael and I have been discussing this for the last ten
> On 1 Mar 99 at 17:39, K. Hanhart wrote:
> > 2. As I wrote in my post on the question of the anonymous Beloved
> > Disiciple appearing three times in John 13,23: 19,26; 21,2.7 etc, I
> > maintain that there John does indeed introduce the "thirteenth apostle"
> > into the Gospel at three critical points of the story. If it is true
> > that the 'neaniskos' is a retrojection of Paul's later role in the
> > ecclesia, John would be simply follow Mark's example in this instance.
> This is similar to Michael Goulder's argument in "An Old Friend Incognito",
> _SJT_ 45 (1992), pp. 487-513, which suggests that for John, the Beloved
> Disciple is a retrojected Paul "incognito".
> Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
> Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
> University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
> Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom
> Aseneth Home Page
> Recommended New Testament Web Resources
> World Without Q
years. I knew he had been working on this article. We differ only in
that I find two anonymous disciples in John (cf 21,2); one is, I think,
John of Jerusalem (the author of Revelation?) the John that silently
accompanies Peter in the beginning of Acts, one of the three pillars.
And the other anonymous disciple is Paul. Paul only in chpts 13; 19,26;
and chpt 21. There he is explicitly called, whom Jesus loved.
- View SourceIn a message dated 3/1/1999 12:40:29 PM Eastern Standard Time,
<< Elsewhere I have argued that the anonymous neaniskos is a retrojection
of the apostle Paul into the Gospel story.
1. Neaniskos means little boy and Paulus is Latin for small,
4. In Mark 14,51 this 'neaniskos' co-followed Jesus (sun-ekolouthei)
inferring the idea that he was a thirteenth apostle, untimely born.
5. This converted Pharisee took Judas' place in Acts and he appears on
the scene precisely at the moment that Judas is about to 'hand over'
Jesus to the high priest.
Karel, I was away last week and so just now read your post from which the
above are taken. I find the suggestion intriguing, but some of the arguments
for it a bit weak. I hope, for example, that you will respond to the questions
of Sakari. Also, in #5 above, what about Matthias? Isn't he the one who
ostensibly takes the place of Judas in Acts? And #4 seems a bit weak to me
too, because the young man ends up by running away from (and therefore not
following) Jesus in the scene.
I have recently completed an article on Lk 9:46-48, presented in part at the
CBA meeting last fall, and due to be published this year in a collection of
essays in honor of Ghislain Lafont, in which I argue that the person alluded
by the expression ho...mikroteros en pasin hymin hyparchon of v.48c, and also
described there as [ho] megas, is Paul, the thirteenth apostle, one "greater
than" the twelve. The question posed inside the minds of the disciples in this
very much altered Lukan "version" of Matt 18:1-5 should be rendered "..who
might be greater than they", not "which of them might be the greatest"
(contrast the wording of Lk 22:24). This was noted by several German scholars
early this century (including the two prominent Weisses) and has been rejected
repeatedly by commentators this century, beginning with Lagrange and Plummer,
but without good reason. I give strong contextual arguments to support my
hypothesis from the setting of the pericope in the Gospel of Luke.
"mikroteros" is of course also a much closer play on "Paulus" than is
neaniskos, and in the following pericope, Luke has Jesus quote a famous remark
of Cicero (speaking of Julius Caesar, and his benevolence toward non-party
members: "he who is not against you is for you"). So there is a high incidence
of Latinitas in the entire section. In the OT, Paul's tribal ancestor Beniamin
is also referred to as ho mikroteros in a Gen text, and there are also echoes
in Lk's text of an OT passage that describes Paul's namesake (in Luke's