Re: [John_Lit] water jugs
- On Sat, 9 Mar 2002, Paul Schmehl wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----Paul,
> From: "Yuri Kuchinsky" <yuku@...>
> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 10:34 AM
> Subject: Re: [John_Lit] water jugs
> > Hello, Paul,
> > The standard Greek text of course says METRHTHS DUO HE TREIS, as Jack
> > Kilmon has already helpfully noted. So the question then becomes, What did
> > the translator of MG have in his/her source text? Was it METRHTHS, or
> > perhaps some other word?
> > But of course if one accepts your suggestion that our MG translator was
> > aware of a tradition that was different from the standard canonical text,
> > then it's also possible that this tradition was pre-canonical. Which is
> > what my argument is all about.
> This is the part of your argument that bothers me the most. It is
> equally possible that this tradition is post-canonical. ISTM that
> your tendency is to assume early provenance if no evidence supports
> late provenance. Essentially it's an argument from silence, which is
> by far the weakest argument one can make.
I don't agree that it's equally possible that this tradition is
post-canonical. I think that, for a number of reasons, the chances are
greater that it's pre-canonical.
> > As to Jack's suggestion that this variant reading was merely aWell, my only point here is that the smaller size of jugs in MG is
> > mistranslation by the medieval translator, this is undermined somewhat by
> > the fact that some further details in MG story are inconsistent with this.
> > Namely, the same Chapter 10 includes the following,
> > "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."
> > So this looks like the servants are carrying the jugs, themselves, over to
> > "the chief of the feast", rather than just a sample of the wine, like in
> > the canonical version of the story. But this is only possible if the jugs
> > are quite small.
> Why is it only possible if they were quite small? 1) You're assuming
> the servants couldn't carry large jugs full of wine and 2) you're
> assuming that each servant carried one jug. What if they had devised
> a carrier that could hold multiple jugs, with extensions so that
> several servants could carry them? I'm not saying it's true, mind
> you, merely that it's possible. Again I think this points out the
> weakness of arguments from silence. If we don't *know* how it was
> done, there is no warrant to *assume* certain parameters. ISTM there
> is so much speculation in your arguments that I remain thoroughly
consistent with the rest of the story, as we find it in MG. So this
decreases the chances that this was some sort of a mistranslation by a
Of course they could have had a whole army of servants carrying such huge
jugs around, but this is not what our texts are really indicating.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian