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

Re: [John_Lit] Re: Water pots

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.