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

Water pots

Expand Messages
  • RHS
    I think the reason the author is specific about the ewers being stone and having a specific capacity was to show that these were the usual ones holding water
    Message 1 of 5 , Mar 7, 2002
      I think the reason the author is specific about the ewers being stone
      and having a specific capacity was to show that these were the usual
      ones holding water for only one specific purpose: to provide water for
      the purification rituals. They were required to be made of stone and not
      earthenware to make sure the water in them was not polluted.
      Noone ever drank the water from these ewers. That Jesus told the
      servants to draw water from ewers not supposed to be drunk from is part
      of the whole point.
      I think Jesus ordered the ewers to filled to the brim with water so that
      everybody could see that they contained only water.
      I still maintain that the grammar clearly indicates that only the water
      drawn out became wine.
      Here is Jesus shown as taking something (water) that was used for one
      specific purpose (ritual cleansing) and changing it into something
      (wine) for a different purpose (saving the embarrassment and shame of
      the host of the feast).
      I also find it interesting that this is followed by Jesus criticising
      the temple bureaucracy for changing the use of a temple court from the
      place where gentiles can watch the people of God at worship into a
      market place where goods are sold and money exchanged. I think this
      juxtaposition is not accidental.
      But then, we each view these writings from different perspectives and
      come to different conclusions. Isn't that a good thing?
      Ross Saunders from Down Under
    • historynow2002
      Ross from Down Under - You write: I think the reason the author is specific about the ewers being stone and having a specific capacity was to show that these
      Message 2 of 5 , Mar 10, 2002
        Ross from Down Under -

        You write:

        "I think the reason the author is specific about the ewers
        being stone and having a specific capacity was to show that
        these were the usual ones holding water for only one specific
        purpose: to provide water for the purification rituals.
        They were required to be made of stone and not earthenware
        to make sure the water in them was not polluted. No one
        ever drank the water from these ewers."

        I didn't know this aspects of the ewers. But if these
        things are true, I would think this actually helps convince
        me, the reader, that Jesus was NOT just a guest at this
        wedding. And that this wedding was NOT about two people
        getting married. It was a "spiritual wedding" ceremony
        of some sort.

        And for Jesus to be messing with the ewers at all, would
        suggest that HE was either another "official" of the wedding,
        or that he was representing the "bridegroom" in some important
        way.

        It makes no sense to have "holy" water at a wedding where
        there shouldn't be "holy" water, and turn it into wine for
        everyone to drink... when it isn't even HIS ceremony.

        George
      • michael Hardin
        When I raised the question of the measurement of the ewers I had no idea the discussion would be this interesting and not a little amusing (in bonum partem ...
        Message 3 of 5 , Mar 10, 2002
          When I raised the question of the measurement of the
          ewers I had no idea the discussion would be this
          interesting and not a little amusing (in bonum partem
          :)...

          1) it seems to me that an awareness of Jewish wedding
          customs of the first century would clear up a lot of
          guessing going on here and there is plenty of material
          written on this. The scene in Chana John 2 is most
          assuredly a wedding.

          2) the jars for purification measure out to about 150
          'gallons.' Not particularly a lot, especially if
          found in the home of an elite or in a village
          community area such as a synagogue.

          3) that the author uses the 'sign' at this event to
          have a much more nuanced meaning is also
          incontrovertible; new vs old, new wine vs old
          wineskins, messianic feast, etc.

          4) Regarding the MG text: The MG text (as far as I
          have been able to read on this board) cannot represent
          a pre-canonical tradition for several reaons:

          a) It's ties to the Diatessaron already indicate a
          synchronization process which did not begin until the
          mid second century. There is no other evidence to
          support a pre-Ephesian tradition that highly regarded
          either the holy family or the Jews in general.

          b) that the gospel of John is not anti-Semitic I am
          fairly sure. It constitutes an inner-Jewish dialogue
          with a fairly steady eye on the Gentile world. One of
          the merits of Yuri's suggestive work on the MG is that
          perhaps it is important to examine this tradition
          through other lenses and see the close relationship
          between Judaism and Christianity reflected in the Gos
          John(not that it is pretty but it is close)

          c) If one identifies the hand of the author of the
          prologue throughout the MG, then it is not difficult
          to suppose that this is a textual tradition that would
          have developed post Tatian. I have before mentioned
          the 'sacralizing' that takes place in the MG. The
          'differences' between the MG and the Gos John can be
          accounted for as a third or more possibly fourth
          century harmonization. Thus differences become
          'changes' and represent the editor/author's
          perspective and worldview.

          d) Are the 'differences/changes' consistent and what
          social context do they reveal?

          e) the quest for putative sources behind the canonical
          gospels reveals our thirst for the concrete, the real
          Jesus. Fascinating..

          Thanks for listening,

          Michael Hardin
          Floral Park, NY
          michael1517@...
          --- historynow2002 <historynow2002@...> wrote:
          > Ross from Down Under -
          >
          > You write:
          >
          > "I think the reason the author is specific about the
          > ewers
          > being stone and having a specific capacity was to
          > show that
          > these were the usual ones holding water for only one
          > specific
          > purpose: to provide water for the purification
          > rituals.
          > They were required to be made of stone and not
          > earthenware
          > to make sure the water in them was not polluted. No
          > one
          > ever drank the water from these ewers."
          >
          > I didn't know this aspects of the ewers. But if
          > these
          > things are true, I would think this actually helps
          > convince
          > me, the reader, that Jesus was NOT just a guest at
          > this
          > wedding. And that this wedding was NOT about two
          > people
          > getting married. It was a "spiritual wedding"
          > ceremony
          > of some sort.
          >
          > And for Jesus to be messing with the ewers at all,
          > would
          > suggest that HE was either another "official" of the
          > wedding,
          > or that he was representing the "bridegroom" in some
          > important
          > way.
          >
          > It makes no sense to have "holy" water at a wedding
          > where
          > there shouldn't be "holy" water, and turn it into
          > wine for
          > everyone to drink... when it isn't even HIS
          > ceremony.
          >
          > George
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail
          > johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
          > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail
          > johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          > PROBLEMS?: e-mail
          > johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >
          >


          __________________________________________________
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email!
          http://mail.yahoo.com/
        • Horace Jeffery Hodges
          ... even ... Holy is not the same as pure. In Jewish religious thought, there are three possible states of things in the world: pure, impure, and holy.
          Message 4 of 5 , Mar 10, 2002
            George = historynow2002 wrote:

            > It makes no sense to have "holy" water at a wedding
            > where there shouldn't be "holy" water, and turn it
            > into wine for everyone to drink... when it isn't
            even
            > HIS ceremony.

            "Holy" is not the same as "pure." In Jewish religious
            thought, there are three possible states of things in
            the world: pure, impure, and holy. Ritual water for
            purification would not be holy water but ritually
            purified water.

            Why should it make no sense for Jews to have ritually
            pure water available?

            Jeffery Hodges

            =====
            Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
            Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
            447-791 Kyunggido Osan-City
            Yangsandong 411
            South Korea

            __________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email!
            http://mail.yahoo.com/
          • Yuri Kuchinsky
            On Sun, 10 Mar 2002, michael Hardin wrote: ... Michael, This is not quite correct. We have some evidence that a synchronization process already began before
            Message 5 of 5 , Mar 11, 2002
              On Sun, 10 Mar 2002, michael Hardin wrote:

              ...

              > 4) Regarding the MG text: The MG text (as far as I
              > have been able to read on this board) cannot represent
              > a pre-canonical tradition for several reaons:
              >
              > a) It's ties to the Diatessaron already indicate a
              > synchronization process which did not begin until the
              > mid second century.

              Michael,

              This is not quite correct. We have some evidence that a "synchronization
              process" already began before the mid second century. Some refs can be
              provided, if you're interested.

              And in any case, this particular passage of Jn 2:1-11 has nothing to do
              with harmonisation between different gospels. This is a Johannine text,
              although not the same as the canonical version.

              Also, in so far as one admits that this MG passage does go back to the mid
              second century, of course this would also open the possibility that this
              text contains some pre-canonical elements. After all, our canonical
              version of Jn 2:1-11 dates much after the mid second century...

              > There is no other evidence to support a pre-Ephesian tradition that
              > highly regarded either the holy family or the Jews in general.

              What do you mean by "a pre-Ephesian tradition"?

              ...

              > c) If one identifies the hand of the author of the
              > prologue throughout the MG, then it is not difficult
              > to suppose that this is a textual tradition that would
              > have developed post Tatian. I have before mentioned
              > the 'sacralizing' that takes place in the MG. The
              > 'differences' between the MG and the Gos John can be
              > accounted for as a third or more possibly fourth
              > century harmonization.

              It would be nice to see how you would argue this. And, again, as I say,
              harmonization is not a factor in Jn 2:1-11.

              Best wishes,

              Yuri.

              Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku

              The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
              equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.