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

Re: Water pots

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 5 , Mar 10 5:21 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 5 , Mar 10 6:52 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 5 , Mar 10 3:26 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 5 , Mar 11 11:07 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            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.