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

Re: [John_Lit] 3 versions of Jn 2:1-11

Expand Messages
  • Paul Schmehl
    ... From: Yuri Kuchinsky To: Cc: Loisy List Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2002
    Message 1 of 6 , Mar 9, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Yuri Kuchinsky" <yuku@...>
      To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
      Cc: "Loisy List" <loisy@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2002 10:31 AM
      Subject: [John_Lit] 3 versions of Jn 2:1-11
      >
      [snipped]
      >
      > And now, the Magdalene Gospel version of this story. Here, I put MG
      > Special Material in capitals letters.
      >
      > THE MAGDALENE GOSPEL
      > 10 # How Jesus Made Wine Out Of Water.
      >
      > 1 On the third day Jesus CAME TO Galilee, and was LED to a FEAST, with his
      > disciples. And his mother was there. 2 And IT CAME TO PASS that THERE
      > failed wine. 3 And his mother said to him that they had no wine. 4 And
      > Jesus said that the hour (ms?) has not yet come THAT [he] SHOULD SHOW HIS
      > POWER. 5 And then his mother said to the servants that they should do all
      > that he tells them to do. 6 Now, there were six jars that the GOOD MAN AND
      > ALL THE MEN WASHED FROM, each holding THREE gallons. 7 And Jesus told them
      > that they should fill them full of water. 8 And they filled them full
      > RIGHT AWAY. 9 And Jesus told them to take THEM UP, AND TO CARRY THEM TO
      > HIM WHO WAS THE CHIEF OF THE FEAST. 10 And they took THEM UP, AND CARRIED
      > THEM OVER. 11 And as soon as THE GOOD MAN had drank thereof, he called the
      > BUTLER, and said to him, "Every wise man serves the BEST wine first, and
      > when men are [already] drunk, then HE SERVES the one that is NOT AS GOOD.
      > 12 And you have kept the BEST wine even until now." 13 This WAS the first
      > MIRACLE that Jesus did. 14 And BECAUSE OF THAT his disciples believed in
      > him. (215 words)
      >
      > As we can see, the Magdalene version is very similar in length to the
      > canonical version (221 words vs. 215 words). There's a lot of shared
      > material there, as well as some seeming expansions, although these
      > expansions tend to be quite different in the two versions.
      >
      > The biggest and the most striking difference in MG is that, in this text,
      > this is not a wedding, and it's not taking place at Cana. So this is just
      > a feast that Jesus has been invited to.

      I really hate to interject, because it seems that I'm nitpicking, but again,
      there is nothing in this material that says it is *not* a wedding feast, nor
      is there anything that says it's *not* in Cana. Just because those details
      are *missing* from the record does not provide proof that they were not
      there. Reading the parallel records, they certainly appear to be discussing
      the same event.

      1) Both stories begin "on the third day"
      2) In both cases there is a feast. We know that weddings were one of a few
      reasons for a feast.
      3) In both cases Mary is there and Jesus arrives afterwards.
      4) In both cases they run out of wine.
      5) In both cases Mary points out to Jesus that the wine has run out.
      6) In both cases Jesus responds that his hour has not yet come.
      7) In both cases Mary tells the servants to do whatever Jesus tells them

      Many more details are so similar as to make it difficult to believe that
      these accounts are *not* about the same event.

      Now, is there significance in the differences in detail? Yes, but what that
      significance is remains to be seen. I agree with you regarding the textual
      parallels between MG and the Liege, and these may well point to common
      origin in some more ancient source. I just think you find too much
      significance in the differences between the canonical version and the MG.
      In my mind, variants between texts can be explained by many different causes
      whereas parallels between texts are highly significant, pointing to a common
      origin. Variants are much harder to pin down.

      Paul Schmehl pauls@...
      pschmehl@...
      http://www.utdallas.edu/~pauls/
    • Jack Kilmon
      ... From: Paul Schmehl To: Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2002 12:01 PM Subject: Re: [John_Lit] 3
      Message 2 of 6 , Mar 9, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Paul Schmehl" <pschmehl@...>
        To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2002 12:01 PM
        Subject: Re: [John_Lit] 3 versions of Jn 2:1-11



        > > The biggest and the most striking difference in MG is that, in this
        text,
        > > this is not a wedding, and it's not taking place at Cana. So this is
        just
        > > a feast that Jesus has been invited to.
        >
        > I really hate to interject, because it seems that I'm nitpicking, but
        again,
        > there is nothing in this material that says it is *not* a wedding feast,
        nor
        > is there anything that says it's *not* in Cana. Just because those
        details
        > are *missing* from the record does not provide proof that they were not
        > there. Reading the parallel records, they certainly appear to be
        discussing
        > the same event.

        There are two variants in the Greek texts that may shed some light on this.
        Luke 14:8 OTAN KLHQHS (UPO TINOS EIS GAMOUS where the parallel in Codex
        Bezae (Western Text) is DEIPNHSAI. GAMOUS for "wedding" and DEIPNON for
        "feast" distill to ONE word in Aramaic. mishtutha.

        Jack
      • Jeffrey B. Gibson
        ... Is anyone else as taken aback as I am not only that there is no comparison with the Vulgate or Latin Harmonies being undertaken here, but that claims
        Message 3 of 6 , Mar 10, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

          > Dear friends,
          >
          > In this post I will compare 3 versions of that famous incident of Jesus
          > turning water into wine -- the canonical version, the Magdalene Gospel
          > version, and also a very interesting version as found in the Dutch
          > Diatessaron (the Liege Gospel). This Liege Gospel was of course the text
          > that WL Petersen has extensively compared with the Hebrew Gospel of
          > Matthew (Shem-Tob's text), and found lots of special and sometimes unique
          > parallels between the two.
          >
          > These comparisons aim to establish, among other things, that MG and the
          > Liege share a large number of textual parallels against the canonical
          > text. And this seems to indicate that these similarities come from a
          > shared common source, which was most likely an Old Latin Diatessaron, now
          > lost. (Of course, these similarities may also go even further back, and so
          > they may even be resulting from common dependence on a very ancient
          > Semitic-language source, now lost.)

          Is anyone else as taken aback as I am not only that there is no comparison
          with
          the Vulgate or Latin Harmonies being undertaken here, but that claims about
          similarities and differences between and among a Middle English, a Dutch, and
          a
          Greek version of a Johannine text are being based on English **translations**
          of
          these texts?

          One howler here among many -- which obviously arises directly from Yuri's
          working from **translations** of texts instead of the texts themselves -- is
          his claim that there is a not only a difference, but a meaningful difference,
          between the Dutch and the Greek text of Jn 2:6 regarding how much water the
          jars held!!

          Yours,

          Jeffrey Gibson

          --
          Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
          1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
          Floor 1
          Chicago, Illinois 60626
          e-mail jgibson000@...
          jgibson000@...
        • Yuri Kuchinsky
          ... Paul, As far as the wedding feast goes, it should be noted that the story in the Magdalene Gospel completely lacks the word groom . Thus, not only is
          Message 4 of 6 , Mar 11, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            On Sat, 9 Mar 2002, Paul Schmehl wrote:
            > From: "Yuri Kuchinsky" <yuku@...>:

            > > And now, the Magdalene Gospel version of this story. Here, I put MG
            > > Special Material in capitals letters.
            > >
            > > THE MAGDALENE GOSPEL
            > > 10 # How Jesus Made Wine Out Of Water.
            > >
            > > 1 On the third day Jesus CAME TO Galilee, and was LED to a FEAST, with his
            > > disciples. And his mother was there. 2 And IT CAME TO PASS that THERE
            > > failed wine. 3 And his mother said to him that they had no wine. 4 And
            > > Jesus said that the hour (ms?) has not yet come THAT [he] SHOULD SHOW HIS
            > > POWER. 5 And then his mother said to the servants that they should do all
            > > that he tells them to do. 6 Now, there were six jars that the GOOD MAN AND
            > > ALL THE MEN WASHED FROM, each holding THREE gallons. 7 And Jesus told them
            > > that they should fill them full of water. 8 And they filled them full
            > > RIGHT AWAY. 9 And Jesus told them to take THEM UP, AND TO CARRY THEM TO
            > > HIM WHO WAS THE CHIEF OF THE FEAST. 10 And they took THEM UP, AND CARRIED
            > > THEM OVER. 11 And as soon as THE GOOD MAN had drank thereof, he called the
            > > BUTLER, and said to him, "Every wise man serves the BEST wine first, and
            > > when men are [already] drunk, then HE SERVES the one that is NOT AS GOOD.
            > > 12 And you have kept the BEST wine even until now." 13 This WAS the first
            > > MIRACLE that Jesus did. 14 And BECAUSE OF THAT his disciples believed in
            > > him. (215 words)
            > >
            > > As we can see, the Magdalene version is very similar in length to the
            > > canonical version (221 words vs. 215 words). There's a lot of shared
            > > material there, as well as some seeming expansions, although these
            > > expansions tend to be quite different in the two versions.
            > >
            > > The biggest and the most striking difference in MG is that, in this text,
            > > this is not a wedding, and it's not taking place at Cana. So this is just
            > > a feast that Jesus has been invited to.
            >
            > I really hate to interject, because it seems that I'm nitpicking, but
            > again, there is nothing in this material that says it is *not* a
            > wedding feast, nor is there anything that says it's *not* in Cana.
            > Just because those details are *missing* from the record does not
            > provide proof that they were not there.

            Paul,

            As far as the "wedding feast" goes, it should be noted that the story in
            the Magdalene Gospel completely lacks the word "groom". Thus, not only is
            there no explicit identification of this feast as a wedding, but also
            other details indicate that, as found in MG, the story was not meant to be
            about a wedding.

            Now, in regard to Cana, the situation is a little more complicated in MG.
            Because, in fact, Cana _is_ mentioned in MG, in Chapter 14 (as a preamble
            to the healing of a high official's son at Capernaum), and there's even a
            reference to Jesus turning water into wine in Cana.

            MG 14:1 Afterwards, Jesus came down to Cana in
            Galilee, where he had made the water wine.

            So this does raise the possibility that an earlier mention of Cana may
            have been omitted by a later MG editor. But why? It's not so clear at
            all...

            > Reading the parallel records, they certainly appear to be discussing
            > the same event.
            >
            > 1) Both stories begin "on the third day"
            > 2) In both cases there is a feast. We know that weddings were one of
            > a few reasons for a feast.
            > 3) In both cases Mary is there and Jesus arrives afterwards.
            > 4) In both cases they run out of wine.
            > 5) In both cases Mary points out to Jesus that the wine has run out.
            > 6) In both cases Jesus responds that his hour has not yet come.
            > 7) In both cases Mary tells the servants to do whatever Jesus tells them
            >
            > Many more details are so similar as to make it difficult to believe
            > that these accounts are *not* about the same event.

            You're right that there are lots of similar details there, and that these
            accounts are most likely about the same event. So the only question is
            which version of this event is likely to be more original.

            > Now, is there significance in the differences in detail? Yes, but
            > what that significance is remains to be seen. I agree with you
            > regarding the textual parallels between MG and the Liege, and these
            > may well point to common origin in some more ancient source.

            I'm glad that we agree on this. Indeed, the likelihood is that at least
            the material that we find in common in both MG and the Liege does go back
            to ancient times. But the timing needs to be narrowed down further.

            > I just think you find too much significance in the differences between
            > the canonical version and the MG.

            Well, these differences are rather significant, however they are to be
            interpreted...

            > In my mind, variants between texts can be explained by many different
            > causes whereas parallels between texts are highly significant,
            > pointing to a common origin. Variants are much harder to pin down.

            Of course, the rest of the Magdalene Gospel also needs to be brought into
            consideration. There are great many features there indicating that this
            text preserves a lot of primitive material.

            Best wishes,

            Yuri.

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

            What are the things of long ago? Tell us, that we may
            reflect on them, and know their outcome; or declare
            to us the things to come -=O=- Isaiah 41:22
          • Yuri Kuchinsky
            ... This is quite interesting. Myself, of course, I believe that Western Text is the most original (although this still leaves open the question of which of
            Message 5 of 6 , Mar 11, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              On Sat, 9 Mar 2002, Jack Kilmon wrote:

              > There are two variants in the Greek texts that may shed some light on
              > this. Luke 14:8 OTAN KLHQHS (UPO TINOS EIS GAMOUS where the parallel
              > in Codex Bezae (Western Text) is DEIPNHSAI. GAMOUS for "wedding" and
              > DEIPNON for "feast" distill to ONE word in Aramaic. mishtutha.

              This is quite interesting. Myself, of course, I believe that Western Text
              is the most original (although this still leaves open the question of
              which of the Western Texts might be more original, as there's so much
              variability there). So could it be possible that the same word DEIPNON
              also stood originally in Jn 2:1-11? After all, there are quite a few other
              parallels between Jn and Lk.

              Regards,

              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
            • Yuri Kuchinsky
              ... Well, I m always happy to learn new things. So perhaps we can now see some specific suggestions as to how comparison with the Vulgate or Latin Harmonies
              Message 6 of 6 , Mar 11, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                On Sun, 10 Mar 2002, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:

                > Is anyone else as taken aback as I am not only that there is no
                > comparison with the Vulgate or Latin Harmonies being undertaken here,
                > but that claims about similarities and differences between and among a
                > Middle English, a Dutch, and a Greek version of a Johannine text are
                > being based on English **translations** of these texts?

                Well, I'm always happy to learn new things. So perhaps we can now see some
                specific suggestions as to how comparison with the Vulgate or Latin
                Harmonies can be relevant to any of the arguments that I've been making.

                Of course, some of these textual comparisons can be clarified still
                further if the Greek, the Middle Dutch, and Middle English texts are also
                brought into consideration. And, myself, I've certainly done this already.
                Again, some specific suggestions are welcome.

                > One howler here among many -- which obviously arises directly from
                > Yuri's working from **translations** of texts instead of the texts
                > themselves -- is his claim that there is a not only a difference, but
                > a meaningful difference, between the Dutch and the Greek text of Jn
                > 2:6 regarding how much water the jars held!!

                I have never made any such claim in this discussion, so this must be some
                sort of a misunderstanding.

                On the other hand, in a Loisy-L discussion, I did say that the Middle
                Dutch doesn't agree exactly with the Greek text about the size of the
                jugs.

                The Greek text has METRHTHS DUO HE TREIS.
                The Middle Dutch text has "two or three measures" (tween mensuren ochte te
                drien).

                As can be seen here, these two texts do not exactly agree, and Dr. Plooij
                did comment about this in his notes.

                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.