Re: Re: [gthomas] saying#13, watery wine
- Patti:<<>It calls to mind when Jesus added water to the empty wine barrels,
and the guests so drunk, they did not recognize the water, here - the Living
Bill: >>>What?? No doubt John intends the water to invoke "the living water"
that's just his style. But to claim that the reason the guests took it to be
wine (and excellent wine at that) was because of their drunkenness, well,
that strikes me as just wild rationalization. Surely you don't take this
story to be historical??>>
Patti: This is not about John. But yes, I think Jesus did pour water in the
dregs at the wedding, and the guests had already drunk so much, they didn't
even notice. (What's so wild about that?) Likely, it was that the finest
wines tended to be diluted more, to have more, being so precious; and so a
dilute wine would be so perceived - especially by a drunk :-) At any rate:
"Because you have drunk you have become intoxicated by
the bubbling spring which I have measured out."
It was as if (or probably so) that Matthew and Peter were drunk, and so
this measure of Jesus' teaching was received only as an intoxicant by them
rather than a quenching to their "thirst."
- At 08:16 AM 05/11/00 EDT, Kanefer@... wrote:
> It was as if (or probably so) that Matthew and Peter were drunk, and soAs I indicated in a message I inadvertently sent to you, rather than to the
>this measure of Jesus' teaching was received only as an intoxicant by them
>rather than a quenching to their "thirst."
list, this interpretation isn't at all likely, since J's words "you have
become drunk" are directed at a singular 'you' (Thomas), not a plural 'you'
(all three). The implication is that Thomas has drunk from J's mouth ("the
bubbling spring I've measured*"), and hence become his "twin" (or close to
it, anyway). There is no such implication for Peter or Matthew. Indeed, I
think that what these two are given to say is important in understanding
the views to which Thomas saw itself in opposition. J seems to be presented
in Thomas as BOTH a wise philosopher and a divine messenger (as opposed to
NEITHER). If Thomas saw itself as providing a reconciliation of these two
views, it's an interesting precursor of the "wholly human, wholly divine"
idea that later came to be accepted as official church doctrine.
Interesting question then becomes: do Peter and Matthew function in Thomas
as straw men for positions that no one actually held, or do they represent
historically diverse strands of early Xian thought whose separateness has
since disappeared from the record?
On the stones and fire thingy, I think the clear implication is that J has
told Thomas something that the other disciples (and by implication,
centrist Xians in general) would consider blasphemy against Xianity (not
Judaism). The fire coming out of the stones back at them I take to indicate
that they would not be right to stone Thomas, hence would be punished for
doing so. UNLESS: Peter and Matthew represent JUDAIC attitudes toward J, on
the order of "they love the tree, they hate the fruit; they love the fruit,
they hate the tree". (This latter possibility has just occurred to me as I
was writing this, so I'll have to mull it over to see if it has some
plausibility. The difference it makes is whether we should look for
something that would have been considered to be blasphemous to Xian or
*BTW, the Gospel of Philip draws a linguistic connection between the words
'messiah' and 'he who measures' (or 'is measured', I don't recall which).
Maybe Jack Kilmon or someone else can say whether there is in fact such a
The Coptic Gospel of Thomas, saying-by-saying