Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Re: [gthomas] saying#13, watery wine

Expand Messages
  • Kanefer@aol.com
    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 Water.
    Message 1 of 2 , May 11 5:16 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      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
      Water.

      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."

      Patti
    • Michael Grondin
      ... As I indicated in a message I inadvertently sent to you, rather than to the list, this interpretation isn t at all likely, since J s words you have become
      Message 2 of 2 , May 11 10:01 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        At 08:16 AM 05/11/00 EDT, Kanefer@... wrote:
        > 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."

        As I indicated in a message I inadvertently sent to you, rather than to the
        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
        Judaic sensibilities.)

        *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
        connection.

        Mike

        The Coptic Gospel of Thomas, saying-by-saying
        http://www.geocities.com/athens/9068/sayings.htm
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.