aiiion4的部落格

As a end product of a previously published ezine article - Reflections:-Talking-to-Self-and-to-God-Can-Yield-Some-New-Revelations--the-Feast-of-Women-and-Health - and else writings, I have had respective folks on Myspace (and new Cyber Sites) innitiate contact near me to dispute my assumption that Mary Magdalene WAS the adult female of Jesus.

Hense - this continuation article:

From otherwise valued authors - comes the justification of my cognitive content. Although their references are not published in this piece - due to outside idiom dimension article bank's restrictions - one can brainstorm them by questioning out the originals.

PBS "From Jesus To Christ" - This FRONTLINE series is an logical and optical pioneer to the new and touchy historical tribute which challenges known assumptions almost the life span of Jesus and the epic increase of Christianity.

"One of the mysteries of the Gospel of John is the personal identity of the follower Jesus precious. Modern exegetes have offered a digit of suggestions as to the individuality of the tantalizingly anonymous figure: John Mark, John the son of Zebedee, John the Elder, Apollos, Paul, a Paulinist, Benjamin, Judas Iskariot, Philip, Nathanael, Judas Jesus' brother, Matthias, a adherent of the Baptist, Thomas, an Essene monastic from Jerusalem, Lazarus, Andrew, or a representative figure, representing the Johannine community, the Hellenistic make of the Church or the wonderful Christian missionary. [2] The humanistic discipline info which have been recommended come and go widely, but they have one item in common: they are all men. Only not long has other indication been put send.

"Ramon K. Jusino, in his nonfictional prose 'Mary Magdalene: Author of the Fourth Gospel?' argues in benignity of the likelihood that Mary Magdalene could be the Beloved Disciple of the Gospel of John. In his view, Mary Magdalene, who is called the disciple record darling by Jesus in the Gospel of Philip and the Gospel of Mary, [3] is in the Gospel of John, after archetypal mortal mentioned by name, demonstrably turned into the unknown and manly Beloved Disciple. In the two instances wherever Mary Magdalene's moniker could not be avoided, that is to say in John 19,25-27 and 20,1-11, the redactor supplementary the Beloved Disciple to produce in no doubt that Mary Magdalene and he would be taken as two different nation. [4]

Jusino suggests, on the foundation of the wide revered investigation of Raymond E. Brown on the Johannine Community, [5] that this was finished as section of a subsequent procedure. [6] According to him, the young-bearing precious adherent is ready-made unknown and young-begetting to be all right to popular orientation. Brown argues that the Johannine communal in a intensely primaeval period of time became segmental because of a religious doctrine fight. The more heretical believers defended a particularly great christology, whereas the much monotheism believers wanted to be part of a set of the mainstream emerging Church which defended Jesus' corporeality. To those nonexistent to embezzle part of a set in the growing organisation Church, Jusino argues, 'the accusation that a young-bearing disciple of Jesus had been their community's archetypical someone and hero rapidly becomes an embarrassment'. [7] According to him, the other, more unorthodox believers of the coalition command on to their mental object. This is the root why Mary Magdalene in many unorthodox hagiographa appears to be the one fair-haired furthermost by Jesus. Jusino supports his dispute by showing wherever and how the redaction of the certificate was finished. Again, plan on Brown, he shows that specially in 19,25-27 and 20,1-11, where on earth Mary Magdalene and the phallic valued follower come about together, location are inconsistencies in the text, which disclose the hand of a redactor. [8] In my view, however, there are no meaningful inconsistencies in these texts.

In this article [9] I privation to argue, resembling Jusino, that Mary Magdalene is buried in the antheral unidentified disciple, but, different Jusino, my altercation does not copy on the Gospel of Mary or the Gospel of Philip nor on Brown's research on the Johannine hamlet. My squabble is not one of a redactional nature, significant a inhibitory situation from outside, but is instead supported on the Gospel of John reasoned as a shrewd integrity. [10] In my view, a inhibitory mood near point to women is main to the Gospel of John as a whole, revealing a repressing environment inside the Johannine community, which corresponds to the one extracurricular. This article, however, does not assume to volunteer a dying cure to the through dilemma of the personal identity of the unidentified disciple Jesus white-haired. It is given as one prospect among others and is intended to impart to the on-going argument. Taking into tale the many and enormously several scholarly solutions that have been offered this far, one can one and only conclude that, if, indeed, the Gospel of John wanted the adherent Jesus white-haired to loiter anonymous, at least possible to outsiders, the playwright has tried to be amazingly eminent.

1. John 19,25-27

The idea, that Mary Magdalene could possibly be known as the adherent Jesus loved, preliminary entered my mind, while I was studying John 19,25-27. If one considers this pericope as a meaty unity, [11] the interpretation, which views 19,25 as a correspondence and suggests that two women are vertical below the cross, alternatively of cardinal or three, [12] seems the most articulate one, literary genre 25 introducing what happens in verses 26 and 27. In these latter verses John describes Jesus as seeing two persons: his mother and the disciple he white-haired. This coincides next to the internal representation that John in elegy 25 as well singular funds two people: the parent of Jesus, for the initial juncture mentioned here by pet name as Mary of Clopas now that she is on the edge of losing her personal identity as a mother, and her relative-in-law or niece, Mary Magdalene. There would have been no one other location. The verbal description of the two women too fits dead near a queer Johannine trait that William Watty discerned: the Gospel's 'massive stab at precision' once introducing places or persons, not single liberal name calling as such, but too individual acquaintances near other places or folks. [13]

So far my basic remonstrance antagonistic this assumption was that the missionary Jesus preferred in John is evidently grammatically masculine. [14] But if namelessness in the valise of the follower Jesus beloved was so exalted to the journalist of John, would so the use of manly grammatical category not pledge the namelessness in a improved way than the use of distaff gender, which would patently make known to the readers at least possible one important part of the disciple, viz. that she is a woman? It as well occurred to me that a female individual referred to as masculine maybe was not so surprising at the time, as it would be to us now. Grace M. Jantzen showed that spiritualty in previous Christianity little by little became known beside gender. [15] She gives individual examples of the fact that 'women whose holding was ancient history interview were described as unearned males'. [16] She as well gives examples of cases of cross-dressing. With regard to Mary Magdalene there is a routine which speaks of her gender. In the Gospel of Thomas Jesus promises Peter that he will organize Mary Magdalene in lay down to sort her masculine 'so that she too may turn a conscious mind resembling you males. For every female person who will cause herself antheral will go into the Kingdom of Heaven.' [17] In the Acts of Philip the Savior praises Mary Magdalene for her manlike traits. Because of this he gives her the work of connection the weaker Philip on his mission travelling. But she is not to interlace him as a adult female. 'As for you, Mary,' he says, 'change your garments and your outer appearance: despise everything which from the extracurricular suggests a female.' [18]

James H. Charlesworth, in his attractive treatise on the follower Jesus loved, leaves unseal the probability that this amount could be a woman, mayhap Mary, Martha, or Mary Magdalene, in spite of the masculine descriptive linguistics. [19] For him, the definitive substantiation that the follower must be male, is not the grammar, but the circumstance that the follower is named 'son'. [20] However, John's Jesus does not address the messenger as 'son', and uses no new masculine address, which would have complete the parallelism:

He aforesaid to his mother:

'Woman, lay eyes on your son.'

Then he same to the disciple

'behold your parent.'

By leaving out any masculine address, and by lone speech 'Behold your mother', he or else declares the adherent to signify him as a son. This quality of interpretation does not necessarily be a sign of that the adherent has to be priapic. That a woman may carry out the activate of a son to a mother is explicit from the yarn of Ruth and Naomi. The pistillate neighbors congratulations the way Ruth cared for her mother-in-law, by mentioning her to Naomi as: 'she, who has been more than to you than vii sons' (Ruth 4,15).

The expression 'son' directed to the mother of Jesus designates her own son: the failing crucified Jesus. The scholarly person austerely relates with Mary once hearing Jesus' words towards her: 'Woman, see your son.' It is lone after Jesus' speech communication to the missionary 'behold your mother' that the scholarly person all of a sudden turns to this 2nd organism and begins to hold that Jesus is invitatory his mother to understand the gist of his demise and to join together his multitude. Turning to the messenger Jesus loved, and sharp-eared those spoken language 'behold your mother' the scholarly person is reminded of earlier farewell language of Jesus:

I will not leave of absence you desolate; I will travel to you. Yet a minuscule while, and the planetary will see me no more, but you will see me. Because I live, you will in performance as well. In that day you will cognise that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. He who has detected my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me; and he who loves me will be idolized by my Father, and I will be mad about him and obvious myself to him. (14,18-21)

The last-ditch pressure of the area in 19,26-27 lies in Jesus' asking to his female parent to gawp away from her dying son to discovery him, alive, in the disciple he blue-eyed. At the aforesaid time Jesus' speech communication are a solemn testimony to this disciple: he or she may act on Jesus' behalf, as if he or she were Jesus himself. To the reader, who remembers Jesus' supplication to his Father for all those who followed him, and who in their turn around will inveigle new masses - '... that the adulation with which one thousand has cherished me, may be in them, and I in them...' (17,26) -, the missionary Jesus loved is the freshman of a endless numeral of those disciples yet to travel.

Both Jesus' female parent and the adherent react to Jesus' speech communication. The follower by fetching Jesus' female parent to him (or her) and the parent by acceptive this. Jesus' spoken language to his parent and the disciple he loved, in cooperation next to their counterattack to them, be the commencing of the budding 'koinonia' of those who shadow Jesus. In this impression of 19,26-27 the idiom 'son' in 19,26 does not say thing going on for the sexual category of the messenger Jesus precious. The 'son' is the on your last legs Jesus, who, alive, can be saved in the adherent he treasured as the one who may be a sign of him. [21]

2. The messenger Jesus favored and John 20,1-18

One can severalise any v passages about the adherent Jesus worshipped (13,23-26; 19,26-27; 20,2-10; 21,7.20-24), or six (plus 18,15-16) or seven (plus 1,37-42). The later two passages are more or less 'another disciple' who, on the cause of 20,2 (interpreted in an explanatory way: 'the other than disciple, the one whom Jesus loved'), is known as the disciple Jesus wanted. [22]

It is chief to note, that in John not sole one anon. missionary is mentioned as state blue-eyed by Jesus. Jesus besides loved, for instance, Lazarus, Martha and Mary (11,5). He loved all his disciples, calling them 'his own' (15,9-17; 13,1.34; cf. 17,6-12), even passionate those disciples who are yet to go (10,16; 14,21; 17,20-26). Jesus compares 'his own' beside bovid who accept his voice, once he calls them by name, and who are guided by him to wish good enough pastures (10,1-10). That Mary Magdalene is one of 'his own' emerges from John's narrative almost her in which she recognizes Jesus' voice once he calls her by name, and listens to his words (20,16-18). [23] In addition, she calls him 'Rabbouni', which finances 'my teacher'(20,16). Moreover, in 20,2 she does not transmit Peter and 'the adherent whom Jesus loved', but John amazingly faithfully describes the missionary existence near Peter as 'the separate follower Jesus loved'. [24] This suggests that any Mary Magdalene or Peter could be the missionary Jesus loved, who is mentioned ahead of time in 19,25-27. However, in most of the pericopes wherever John uses the expression, 'the missionary Jesus loved' is in the guests of Peter. [25] This process that Peter cannot be the one and leaves Mary Magdalene as a real alternative.

When Mary Magdalene discovers that Jesus' burial chamber is stripped and she fetches Peter and the 'other follower Jesus loved', these two run together, the some other follower outrunning Peter. Then Peter looks into the vault and sees the fabric cloth, but the other follower not sole sees, but likewise believes. After that, they each reappear to their own conjugal (20,2-10). After the miracle the disciples bring together Simon Peter who went field sport. They are Thomas titled the Twin, Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, those of Zebedee and 'two others of his disciples' (21,2). The missionary Jesus fair-haired recognizes Jesus on the shore and tells Peter more or less it (21,7). When Jesus then asks Peter to locomote him, Peter, turning, sees that the disciple Jesus favorite so follows (21,20-23). John emphasises that this missionary is the same one who was at Jesus' pectus at the second Supper (21,20). In my view, John here clarifies the aspect 'the messenger Jesus loved' as the one who was at Jesus' chest, because the suggestion to the separate adherent Jesus admired in 20,2 is roughly different character. Continuing this rank of storm it would be significantly probable that 'the follower Jesus loved' in 21,7.20-23 both with the 'other follower Jesus loved' in 20,2 are the two unidentified 'others' of his disciples in 21,2. [26]

3. Why this veil of anonymity?

Still, in attendance are other anonymous disciples in John. In 1,37-42 two disciples of John the Baptist agree on to go Jesus: Andrew and another who is gone anon.. In 18,15-16 not with the sole purpose Peter (as in Mark, Matthew and Luke) but as well 'another disciple' follows Jesus after he has been in remission. This disciple, who is familiar to the superior priest, enters the court, and, after mumbling to the domestic who keeps the door, the one and the same anonymous adherent brings Peter in. It seems crazy that, thereupon, lone Peter is asked if he belongs to Jesus' disciples (18,17.25.26). Why do those modern not overwhelm the else missionary as well? Does this be determined that the other adherent is not glibly to be renowned as disciple? [27]

Why does John command on obscurity ? Why this garment of mystery? John does not recap this, but at the end of the Gospel it is recommended that in attendance is a 'we'- an within category who understands and who knows of the disciple Jesus loved, the one who was at Jesus' chest, since the novelist says:

This is the messenger who is bearing speaker to these things, and who has graphic these things; and we cognize that his testimony is sincere. (21,24)

Why is the truthfulness of the testimony emphasized? Why would in that be any indecision roughly the validity of the witness, if he is the organism whom scholars up until now have suggested is the disciple Jesus loved? Why would the Gospel not just approach Andrew, Lazarus, or Thomas, or John Mark, John son of Zebedee or any of the others? We will never cognise. No reasons are fixed. [28] However, nearby could have been one immensely best reason, at tiniest at the time, to examine the credibleness of the beholder of the follower Jesus idolized and to fur the disciple's identity: if this follower was a female person. I would even proposition that the another unnamed disciples are perchance larboard anonymous for the same reason: because they are women.

4. The legitimacy of a woman's authority

The adherent Jesus cherished allegedly was precise high-status to those who wrote the Gospel. But, if so this follower was a woman, her dominance as the cause losing the handwriting of John could have been seen as unacceptable, since it was a tine of argument if women were allowed to have sway concluded men.

In respective canonical early century letters wives are prompted to be groveling to their husbands, patch the husbands are told to be passionate about their wives (Ephesians 5,21-33; Colossians 3,18-19; 1 Peter 3,1-7). Paul, once challenging that women wear veils once praying or prophesying (1 Corinthians 11,1-16), argues that the common sense for this is that the lead of both man is Christ, the herald of a female person is her husband and the person in charge of Christ is God. However, later in the exchange he changes from wives to adult female in general, referring to the creation: »For man was not ready-made from woman, but adult female from man. Neither was man created for woman, but female for man." (1 Corinthians 11,8-9) In addition, patch 1 Peter 3,1-7 refers to the submissiveness of Sarah to Abraham, in 1 Timothy 2,1-11 the assembly illation is utilised again: »For Adam was definite first, later Eve," continuing gum »and Adam was not deceived, but the female person was deceived and became a wrongdoer." The essayist concludes that a female has to larn with all submissiveness: »I authorization no woman to buccaneer or to have authorisation complete men: she is to resource tight-lipped." This manual and the maybe non-Pauline article in 1 Corinthians 14,34-36 roughly women who are to maintain unspeaking in the assemblies [29] were quoted over again and over again in the centuries that followed to play up that women are not allowed to have sway ended men.

Schüssler Fiorenza refers to the ordinal period of time Dialogue Between a Montanist and an Orthodox which, done routine of a dialogue involving a montanist and an orthodox Christian, shows their several viewpoints. [30] The jewish-orthodox view may parallel a greatly primordial stand, since it corresponds to the arguments in the first-year period of time letters, which asseveration that female is to be submissive to man.

The shadowing passage from the Dialogue notes on women's authority, directed on those women who wrote books, like the 2nd time period Montanist prophetesses Prisca and Maximilla:

Orthodox: We do not rebut the prophecies of women. Blessed Mary prophesied once she said: »Henceforth all generations shall appointment me blessed." And as you yourself say, Philip had daughters who prophesied and Mary, the sister of Aaron, prophesied. But we do not legal instrument women to state in the assemblies, nor to have muscle over men, to the constituent of verbal creation books in their own name: since, such is, indeed, the nuance for them of praying with uncovered person in charge (...) Wasn't Mary, the Mother of God, able to write books in her own name? To stay away from dishonoring her director by introduction herself preceding men, she did not do so.

Montanist: Did you say that to commune or to prognosticate next to undraped head implies not to dash off books?

Orthodox: Perfectly.

Montanist: When Blessed Mary says: »Henceforth all generations shall phone up me blessed," does she or doesn't she declare enthusiastically and openly?

Orthodox: Since the Gospel is not in writing in her name, she has a garment in the Evangelist.

Would a Gospel then, mainly supported on the dominance of Mary Magdalene be acceptable?

Montanist: Is it because they have in writing books that you do not get Prisca and Maximilla?

We can speculation - my gent readers - that the hasty religious body opposed women someone standard as equalised to men.

Yet present - the Catholic Church does not let a woman to enter the profession.

Some another common denominations have come nigh on - seen a wee "The Light"!

Yet not even they recognise "The Gospel Of Mary" or "The Gospel Of Thomas" because of the structure implications that these venerated texts would have. None can probe the believability of any Gospel.

I may endowment more of my investigation and understandings in sequent articles.

* "GOD IS LOVE."

For Me the issues are settled. Mary Magdalene was the better half of Jesus. AND - Women ARE equals of Men.

Rascal :))