Nevo Posted July 21, 2007 Share Posted July 21, 2007 Because it came down through the ages of editing, changing, warping, etc., whilst the Acts of John more than likely didn't get edited to say what later writers thought it ought to say, as they have done to the Bible.The Acts of John apparently did undergo editing.Five "major" compositions emerged in the period ca. 150-ca. 225: Acts of Andrew, John, Paul, Peter, and Thomas. Mutual imitation and contamination complicate the task of establishing literary relations among them. These acts have suffered from both popularity and condemnation. Because of the former, they underwent repeated expansion or abbreviation, as well as editing toward conformity with orthodox taste. Use by Manicheans and others judged heretical led to their eventual suppression. As a result, none of these acts survives in its original form, and only one is complete. . . . [The Acts of John] continues 'heretical' trends opposed in 1-3 John. Subsequent editing thrust this work into the realm of Valentinian Gnosticism.-- Richard I. Pervo, "Acts, Apocryphal," Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, ed. David Noel Freedman (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 14-15. Link to comment
Hammer Posted July 22, 2007 Share Posted July 22, 2007 Having set forth what appear to be a number of striking similarities between Book of Mormon resurrection stories and those contained in The Acts of John, I would be interested in knowing what others may think.All the Best!--ConsiglieriAnother keeper. Thanks! Link to comment
Magical Alma Posted July 22, 2007 Share Posted July 22, 2007 It's obvious to even the most casual observer that the Prophet Joseph Smith had access to the Acts of John in his vast library, so Consig, this isn't all that exciting.Move along folks, nothing to see here.He may have, but it's well-known that he was very uneducated and likely barely read the bible. I also hear that he couldn't read at all, let alone write. Link to comment
e=mc2 Posted July 22, 2007 Share Posted July 22, 2007 Magical Alma:He may have, but it's well-known that he was very uneducated and likely barely read the bible. This is interesting because I performed a very amateur survey in my own Priesthood Meeting here a few months back and found only one or two who has read the Bible as of yet, and many of us are over 30! Link to comment
Thinking Posted July 22, 2007 Share Posted July 22, 2007 ...but it's well-known that he was very uneducated and likely barely read the bible. I also hear that he couldn't read at all, let alone write.Uneducated does not mean unintelligent. Prophet or not, I believe that JS was very intelligent. His lack of education is evident from the grammar of the first edition BoM.By his own account, "I was one day reading the epistle of James..." Link to comment
consiglieri Posted July 23, 2007 Author Share Posted July 23, 2007 In Alma 19 individuals are not "struck dead but subsequently brought back to life." Not literally, anyway. It is not a "resurrection story" but a conversion story. Lamoni and his household, overcome by the Spirit, fall to the earth in a trance. Later, they are raised from the earth one by one, beginning with Lamoni's queen, who exclaims: "O blessed Jesus, who has saved me from an awful hell! O blessed God, have mercy on this people!" (Alma 19:29). The only person who actually dies in the story stays dead. Hi, Nevo!I think it depends on how you look at it. If a person is subsequently "revived," were they ever really dead in the first place? On the other hand, just because they were subsequently "revived" does not necessarily mean that they were not dead.It seems that the Book of Mormon goes to great pains to point out that everybody thought King Lamoni was dead, even to the point of saying his body had started to stink. His wife appears to have been the one exception when she says to Ammon that "to me he stinketh not."If a person is dead and upon being brought to life is converted, we could certainly look at it as a "conversion story" as well as a "resurrection story."Interestingly, in Acts of John, when Fortunatus is raised from the dead by Drusiana, he does not convert but runs away from the tomb. He doesn't make it too far before the venom of the serpent that bit him makes it to his heart and he keels over.All the Best!--Consiglieri Link to comment
consiglieri Posted July 23, 2007 Author Share Posted July 23, 2007 Consiglieri:Because it came down through the ages of editing, changing, warping, etc., whilst the Acts of John more than likely didn't get edited to say what later writers thought it ought to say, as they have done to the Bible.Although I don't want to take this idea of women raising men from the dead in Acts of John too far, I can't help but notice that in John's gospel it is a woman who goes to Christ's tomb on the morning of his resurrection.And of course, in the Synoptics, although they can't agree on how many or who precisely, it is always the same--women go to the tomb on Easter morning.All the Best!--Consiglieri Link to comment
Nevo Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 Hi Consiglieri. Thanks for your response. I just noticed it. Threads get buried so fast around here -- at least the good ones do! You note that "it seems that the Book of Mormon goes to great pains to point out that everybody thought King Lamoni was dead"--everybody except his wife, that is. But that's not quite accurate. The queen tells Ammon that "some say that he is not dead, but others say that he is dead and that he stinketh" (Alma 19:5). This is good storytelling, leaving the reader to wonder who is correct. However, the question is resolved for the reader in verse 7: "[Ammon] saw the king and knew that he was not dead." So I don't think we're dealing here with a "resurrection story" per se.By the way, in my reading today I came across a rather striking "modern" parallel to Alma 18-19.While itinerating near Wilmington, Delaware, in the early 1780s, [Methodist preacher Benjamin] Abbott discovered that some feared to sit too near him, "having been informed that the people on the circuit fell like dead men" when he preached. Indeed, people fainting during his sermons was the hallmark of his career. On one occasion a "young man was struck to the floor, and many said that he was dead." Abbott, who had seen similar episodes many times before, assured the people that the man was not dead. But after three hours even he became alarmed. The man's skin grew cold and his fingers were stiff and could not be straightened. Abbott "concluded to go home, and not proceed one step further, for killing people would not answer." But eventually the man revived, "prais[ing] God for what he had done for his soul," and restoring Abbott's confidence in his ministry.-- John H. Wigger, Taking Heaven by Storm: Methodism and the Rise of Popular Christianity in America (1998; repr., Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2001), 108.Interesting, no? Link to comment
charity Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 If I do not use the term "bull's-eye" for this, what term do you think would be appropriate?All the Best!--ConsiglieriSlam Dunk! Rip City! One more such and you get a Hat Trick. Link to comment
urroner Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 Slam Dunk! Rip City! One more such and you get a Hat Trick.How about a "Really Damn Good Guess." Link to comment
consiglieri Posted July 28, 2007 Author Share Posted July 28, 2007 Dear Nevo,That is indeed an interesting account that you provided, and I am not so obdurate as to not see the parallel involved. Thanks for your research.As I read the account of the Methodist preacher, I was waiting to see if a third-party woman went and raised the insensate individual from the ground, or if some time during the occurrence everybody was so stunned that they stood silent for the space of an hour, but that apparently did not happen.All the Best!--Consiglieri Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.