#Fun With Complex Authorship Theories! My favorite! (Unironic)

[demethinkstoomuch]

NONA SPOILERS: How do you recon, is there anything parallel with Paul and John both being apostle names? Intertextual reference-style, reflecting their roles /functions/something? Pardon me for banging on your door, I have no biblical knowledge at all (wrong religion), so I'm just wondering aloud in the presence of as many possibly interested and knowledgable tumblr personage as I find.

Oh, I don't mind at all! I love the idea of someone to talk to!

As for the apostle parallels/contrasts...I'll be honest, I'm not sure I can make anything out of it; somehow, my education on Christianity kind of didn't really dwell on some of the apostles, which is the flaw of most of it being my choice of topics. But, I was raised Catholic-ish and went to a Jesuit university (it had a good writing program; anyway, about a third of my religious studies requirements were about religious art in India), so let's see what I can do.

My quest here is also probably not helped by the sheer number of contradictory or confused attributions in regards to John specifically; Is the John of the Gospel of John the Apostle? Traditionally, yes, but scholarship these days says "Probably not." Are the Three Epistles of John from John the Apostle? Traditionally, yes, but again, probably not -- though folks do think the three letters were written at least be the same person. Not the same one as wrote the Gospel, but it's at least *A* person. What about the Book of Revelations -- which might be fun to look at to compare, as tales of an apocalypse and all? That's a different guy, who probably was named John, at least, but definitely not the same guy as the others. There's a further John, John the Presbyter, who appears in some fragments and has been traditionally identified with both and/or all of these Johns, as all of these Johns have been with each-other, but we just do not know. Paul isn't completely free of attribution muddles, but there's a bit more of a solid base to work from with him. We can say with solid confidence that he wrote some things we still have copies of, though.

So, it's much harder to say anything about John from an apostle take, because which guy(s) are we counting?

Of course, I think there might be something relevant to be said, if I step away from authorship and look at narrative. John the Apostle is often identified with and referred to as "The Beloved Disciple," the "Disciple Jesus Loved." Which does, to me, evoke the whole "For the world so loved John" bit. John is Traditionally the last apostle to have died, and the only one to have died of natural causes -- in some cases, he's specifically charged with being the one to observe and remember what happened. In a way, I can kind of make a very thin concept of John as a "failed" John the apostle, a Beloved Chosen One gone wrong, the one Charged With Remembering who holds on too tightly. Wouldn't call it a slam dunk of a referential concept, but it's an idea one can play around with, and at least adds just a little spice to the name -- not a lot, the "This is a very generic name" factor still feels the most relevant, but John can have a little multi-interpretation of his name, as a treat for us. If we're then doing a compare and contrast, we've got the notion of Paul as having come to his position through rebirth -- he is blinded by a vision, is healed, and changes his name from "Saul" to "Paul" -- and having come to it later, after Jesus' death: most of his work in the Early Church, at least that which we know of aside from the biography in the book of Acts, is recorded through letters he wrote himself, or were attributed to him (which is a fun little parallel for the heir of the characters most associated with letter-writing, too). Which, if I were making a list of Apostles, would mean I would leave him off of the list. I did not, however, make the list. I'd probably bet, without looking it up, that Paul made the list, or at least extensively influenced it, because his hands are pretty much all over the Early Christian Church. I spent a while trying to wrestle with furnishing this answer with a more thorough looking-over of Paul's writings, writings that are attributed to him, and the influence of both of these on the Church, since there's a good bit of disliking to do there; it mostly is not nearly as good as 1 Corinthians Chapter 13, sadly. But then, between the various constructions and counter-constructions, interpretations and re-interpretations, and then the confusion of attribution in some places, I decided I was in way over my head. Generally not a fan of the Apostle Paul, so in that vein, if we imagine John as a sort of Apostle John, Subverted, I'd hope for a similar subversiveness, but in the opposite direction, out of Our Paul. Which they're already doing, honestly: writing traditionally attributed (but disputed, scholastically) to Paul tends to be the most anti-woman in the New Testament, and his more firmly attributable bits are some favorites for homophobes looking for a bludgeon -- and I don't have to explain why an absolute blender-gender who thinks Mustache Rides Should Be Free subverts that pretty clearly, directly, and decisively by existing. I'm not the only one to point it out, and they're right and they should say it.

#The Locked Tomb #Nona the Ninth Spoilers #TLT Spoilers #John Gaius #Paul the Sixth #Also Other Guys Possibly named John and Probably named Paul #The bible has a serious problem #too many Johns #Which is not helped by adding an uncertain number of Johns #Hope this helps it at least nicely occupied some time going down a research hole #Christian Imagery #Fun With Complex Authorship Theories! My favorite! (Unironic) #There's something Shaped Like Something in the idea that so much of John the Apostle is legend or tradition vs fact