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

Jn 2:1-11 in PD and other texts

Expand Messages
  • frides lameris
    Dear Yuri, Thanks for your reaction on my mail in which I asked you a (Gospel of John) dating question in advance. I ll react to that in a separate mail.
    Message 1 of 25 , Apr 14 1:15 PM
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Yuri,

      Thanks for your reaction on my mail in which I asked you a (Gospel of John) dating question in advance. I'll react to that in a separate mail.

      Here's my reaction to your email from 8-04-02 on PD and Jn2:1-11.

      It took me some time to collect (and read) your different mails on Jn 2:1-11 which you posted earlier on the list. They are all quite interesting and have caused myself to first look as deeply as possible into the canonical version of the Cana story. I have consulted several commentaries and lastly I read the chapter on the subject written by John P. Meier in his Marginal Jew II, 934-950, treating the Cana story as a 'so-called nature miracle'.

      I feel therefore now fully 'problem-oriented' when I read Jn 2:1-11. In no way however I can join Meiers conclusion on p. 950: "But if we are asked whether there are sufficient indications that at Cana at Galilee the historical Jesus actually performed some astounding deed involving water/and or wine, a deed that the disciples with him considered a miracle, the answer must be negative."

      In coming exchange with you I would like (if possible) to elaborate my own interpretation that I consider this pericope to report the event historically reliably, although I must admit that many details in the text as it stands now are missing that might help us to understand the text better historically and also psychologically in a straight way.

      Two questions to you:
      1) Am I right that you also consider the Cana-incident to be or to be based on a historical event and that you try to use Magdalene Gospel Version and Diatesseron versions for (a partial?) historical reconstruction of the story in Jn 2:1-11?
      2) Is my knowledge right that A. Loisy in general rejected the historicity of GJ? (J.A.T. Robinson calls this 'the old look'' on the FG). Did he make an exeption in this case, or are you following your own ways here?

      I must say in advance that I like the Persian Diatesseron version more than the Magdalene version of Jn 2:1-11. This is of course easy to explain, because I will take my stand in the coming discussion with you as a kind of 'defender' of the canonical John version of the Cana wine miracle (sounds to me better than wine sign, I'm aware John uses the word semeia).
      Tatian is known to have put all (four) gospels into the framework of John with great accuracy, staying very close to the text(s), which not much later may have received their (official) canonical status. Earliest versions of Tatians gospel harmony, as I understood it, were produced in Greek and Syriac around 175 (?). MG texts seems to be much 'farther' away from the canonical text, which for the time being I take to be an indication of its post-canonical status and you (of course) of its supposedly pre-canonical status!

      A few of my presuppositions which which I approach the canonical John text:

      1) Gospel of John written by one very intelligent and (spiritually much developed) writer, John, the apostle, at the same time being the evangelist, whose visual and oral sources are mainly himself, his co-apostles, and no 1 his master Jesus Christ.
      2) Early dating of this gospel, edited around 70 AD, probably in Efesus. Gospel for the greater part based on eye witness.
      3) Follow John's chronology as historically reliable (means in this case, Cana story happens few days after Jesus has gathered his first disciples (see John 1). We are still in the very beginning of Jesus' public performance.



      Now, in order to avoid a too long mail, I propose as a start to limit the discussion to a part of one verse in John 2:4, viz. ... 'ti emoi kai soi, gunai' and then compare these words to what is in store in:

      1) Persian Diatesseron (PD)
      2) Magdalene Gospel (MG)
      3) Lorber Gospel (19th century revelatory Total Gospel Harmony), (LG), my particular field of interest.

      I will however only take recourse to 3) after a first discusssing text of GJ, PD and MG.

      We first turn therefore to Canonical John 2:4

      Kai legei autij ho Iesous: Ti emoi kai soi, gunai ....., etc. (And Jesus says to her: "O woman, what have you to do with me?" ...)

      Now PD has (your translation): He (i.e. Jesus) said: "Why do you say this, mother?", indicated by you as a notable difference (1) with GJ.

      MG skips (ígnores') Jesus' words to Mary in vs 4 completely, but it mentions 'the hour ..etc. (Note, not like GJ MY hour). This omission clearly needs explanation.

      PROBLEM SEARCH and some comments.

      Now, where is the (exact) problem here in vs 4?

      Obviously it is in the supposedly 'harsh'words spoken by Jesus to Mary (John: 'the mother of Jesus') in GJ. This has been several times in your mails indicated by you.

      The Persian Diatesseron has thus Jesus speak seemingly more polite words to his mother (see above, note that it has also 'mother', in stead of 'woman''. This means there is a double softening compared to GJ.

      The MG has fully eliminated the 'harsh words of Jesus. MG 10:4 reads: And Jesus said that the hour (ms?) has not yet come that he should show his power. This means of course there is also an addition compared to GJ (viz. 'that he should show his power'). I leave this (expalanatory) difefrence now for the moment.

      Now, back to GJ 2:4

      ..Ti emoi kai soi, gunai or, freely translated 'How is my 'business' or interest connected to yours, woman? "What have I to do with you?" Is there some roughness in Jesus' speech to his mother here? Lets have some exegesis of this verse as it stands now.

      One thing is clear to (most) exegetes. GUNAI in the text forms no problem. In this vocative (O woman), there is no harshness or disrespect. There are in the NT more examples of this. C.K. Barret (Gospel acc to John, 1955) points e.g. to Jn 19:26. So the difficulty must lie in the seemingly distancing words ti emoi kai soi (note: as translation of an aramaic saying) that Jesus speaks to Mary.

      To open a discussion on these words, we must however first notice the situation Jesus is in. We may see if he possibly has a good reason to speak words that have a touch of disengagement.

      Fact 1, according to John 2:1+2: Jesus has been invited to this marriage with some disciples, very probabably apart from the invitation to his mother. The bridegroom (or the parents?) have invited Jesus as a spiritual teacher, because the text says: TOGETHER WITH HIS DISCIPLES. So he is not just asking Mary's son and some of huis friends to his feast. He might have not come in that case, I guess.
      When Mary seems to bother Jesus with a (rather earthly) request to provide (some) wine, we may guess he will only be willing to do this when the whole thing will contribute to his 'public' manifestation as the awaited spiritual Agent who is going to bring about a spiritual revolution in Israel.(Note John 2 is connected to John I in which there is no doubt about Jesus'self-awareness as Messiah).

      So, when answering the request of Mary, he speaks words which (probably) are only meant to be a gentle 'rebuke' of a claiming mother whose concern is primarily for the going on of a feast on the food and drink or which we may call the'material level.Nothing of interest for a teacher of the Divine. This means Jesus' words are understandable from the context of all info in chapter 1 (note kai in 1:1, indicating the close connection between ch 2 and 1.

      Many (more) things, of course, can be said about the interpretation of ti emoi kai soi, gunai in 2:4. J.P. Meier, note 217, p. 1014, Marginal Jew II, has an overview over the discussion, also considering the OT background and meaning of this type of question. In all cases, it is true, a certain distancing effect between two 'parties' is expressed, but the specific interpretation however is always depending on its context so that there is no compelling need to take the expression in its most negative sense as e.g. in Mc 1:24 and 5:7 where demons are speaking these words to Jesus).

      Now in GJ vs 4b Jesus also gives a reason for his (gently) distancing speech. 'MY hour has not yet come, which has a first connotation: It is not my turn yet to take action. In the direct context this could refer to a possible 'position' where Jesus and his disciples would (also) have to provide wine as invitees to the party (earthly, material aspect), at the same time it can be words that are indicative of his pre-sensed hour of death (and glorification!) at the cross (spiritual aspect).

      The MG text (by leaving out Jesus' words and PD (by softening and paraphrasing the words spoken by Jesus to Mary) to me seem to want to avoid a possible problem readers may have with the (original) text as given by GJ. They probably want to avoid the reader to get the impression that Jesus is not as perfect or polite as he 'should' be because of words in the text that may be interpreted as unpleasant.

      Now I'm aware discussions on the meaning of ti emoi kai soi, in Jn 2:4 can go on for ever. There will be no final proof to how these words have to be (cor rectly) interpreted however on the level of secular science. With this I don't mean to say that it is not meaningful for us to discuss the point more in detail in an ongoing debate. I would be happy to do so!

      In my personal and 'exegetical' life I have often found it useful to turn to a (19th century) text which has very original suggestions about many details of gospel texts. I will call this text in this discussion 'Lorber Gospel'' (LG), although the work is normally known under its original name 'The Great Gospel of John'. This text, which claims to be of revelatory nature, was 'produced' by the Austrian musician and prophetic medium Jakob Lorber between 1851 and 1864. The text on the wine miracle in Cana is contained in volume one of GGJ, originally edited (in 10/11 volumes) in a German version by Lorber-Verlag, Bietigheim, Germany.

      We take LG comments on Jn 2:4, which we find in GGJ I, vs 11. (Literal) translation into english is mine.

      4. Jesus speaks to her: "Woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come".

      LG comments:

      Whereupon I (i.e..Jesus) give Mary a very ambiguous answer in front of all the guests, but of course, in a very gentle way, and saying to her BECAUSE OF THE USUAL CUSTOM OF THAT TIME AROUND NAZARETH:

      "Woman (mother), what does that concern you and me?! - As invited guest it is not yet my turn to provide for the wine, my time has not yet come!"

      So, this is the complete direct speech Jesus is supposed to have offered to Mary according to LG. The text (Jesus is supposed to be speaking and commenting here) continues, explaining on Jesus'answer to Mary.

      - (At that time and region every invited male wedding guest had to make a voluntary gift of wine. A certain order had however to be maintained according to which the gifts of the most close relatives had to be consumed first. When these would have been finished, only then the gifts of those invitees who had no blood relationships were taken in according to their status. Mary however knew that all supply of wine had been consumed; so she turned to Me, especially because a new guest was arriving (NOTE; this has been explained in GGJ I, before in vs 9 +10), to welcome whom not a drop of wine had been left in supply, and she requested me right away to, this time, skip the customary order, because the mother was particularly fond at such occasions of the old customary habit (German 'Sitte). Although I didn't show myself to be particularly prone (willing) to do this, she knew from Me anyhow, that I had never let something unfulfilled of any of her wishes.

      So, now some remarks on the LG text by me.

      It would be great if we could historically verify all marriage customs in the first century AD in Palastine. It is however very improbable that all of these details will show up. We can take the information in LG as a historical plausibility (or not). Whatever we think about this text, it is (at least) a very serious and I would say a magnificent try to clarify Jn 2:4. Marriage customs also play a role in Jn 2:8ff. We may discuss this later.

      When I did my graduate thesis on the cleansing of the temple (Jn 2:13-25 parr) in 1998, I had great benefit of many original suggestions in LG for the cleansing pericope(s) (it also clarified the synoptic texts for me).

      So Yuri (or any other person interested),

      Hope you can follow my interpretational world a bit. Of course, a complete picture can only be gained by treating canonical Jn 2:1-11 and all other versions of it in more detail in full. I await your answer. I'm open for compelling evidence that shows me that things may be different. Just fire your arguments on me, please!

      With kind regards

      Frides


















      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Peter Hofrichter
      Dear Frides, I read your letter to Yuri Kuchinski. The problem with Jn 2,4 is linked with the priority-question. In John the mother of Jeusus is still
      Message 2 of 25 , Apr 15 11:11 PM
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Frides,
        I read your letter to Yuri Kuchinski. The problem with Jn 2,4 is
        linked with the priority-question. In John the "mother of Jeusus" is
        still anonymous. But there are other women with the name Mary, most
        originally Mary of Magdala. This Mary is originally not only the
        first but the only witness of resurrection. Taking in account that
        Mark used "John" as his model it must have ended here. In his
        appearance to her he calls her "woman". It is obvious that the whole
        New Testament tradition tried to downgrade the role of Mary of
        Magdala. But in a first conception of the Gospel of "John" she plays
        a decisive part as she still does in some apocrypals. The great end
        of the Gospelt must have correswponded to something at the beginning.
        Why should a woman who had nothing to do with Jesus in his livetime
        wheep at his grave and be most honoured of all mankind by the risen
        Chist. This whold become understandabel, if it was she who at the
        beginning by her faith enabled Jesus to perform his first sign and to
        start revealing his glory. Then it is understandable that Jesus asks
        this question: Wife, what have I to do with you? Later in the
        development of the Gospel she was suppressed by being changed to the
        anonymous mother of Jesus. Also in the scene under the cross there
        must have been made similar changes, in order to get rid of Mary of
        Magdala. May be, this had to do with the persiflage shown off by
        Simon Magus who took a prostitute Hellena as his partner and tried to
        make Jesus because of his woman disciple Mary of Magdals ridiculous.
        Peter
        --
        Univ.-Prof. DDr Peter Hofrichter
        Vorstand des Instituts für Kirchengeschichte und Patrologie
        Theologische Fakultät der Universität Salzburg
        Tel +43 662 8044 2700, home +43 6245 85010, mobil +43 664 2027098
        homepage: www.sbg.ac.at/kig
      • Horace Jeffery Hodges
        ... Are you thinking in German here: Weib ? And do you really mean this in the sense of wife -- or in the more general sense of woman ? Jeffery Hodges
        Message 3 of 25 , Apr 16 12:23 AM
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Peter Hofrichter wrote:

          > Jesus asks this question: Wife, what have I to do
          > with you?

          Are you thinking in German here: "Weib"? And do you
          really mean this in the sense of "wife" -- or in the
          more general sense of "woman"?

          Jeffery Hodges

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

          __________________________________________________
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
          http://taxes.yahoo.com/
        • Peter Hofrichter
          Jeffry Hodges wrote to me: ... Oh I have to apologize for my bad English. Of course I ment: Woman!!! Peter Hofrichter --
          Message 4 of 25 , Apr 16 2:09 AM
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Jeffry Hodges wrote to me:

            Ypu wrote:
            >
            >> Jesus asks this question: Wife, what have I to do
            >> with you?
            >
            >Are you thinking in German here: "Weib"? And do you
            >really mean this in the sense of "wife" -- or in the
            >more general sense of "woman"?
            >

            Oh I have to apologize for my bad English. Of course I ment: Woman!!!

            Peter Hofrichter

            --
          • Jack Kilmon
            ... From: Horace Jeffery Hodges To: Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 2:23 AM Subject: Re:
            Message 5 of 25 , Apr 16 7:19 AM
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "Horace Jeffery Hodges" <jefferyhodges@...>
              To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 2:23 AM
              Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Jn 2:1-11 in PD and other texts


              > Peter Hofrichter wrote:
              >
              > > Jesus asks this question: Wife, what have I to do
              > > with you?
              >
              > Are you thinking in German here: "Weib"? And do you
              > really mean this in the sense of "wife" -- or in the
              > more general sense of "woman"?

              In first century Jewish culture, an unmarried man the age of Jesus would
              have been scandalous. The first miracle is at a wedding where the status of
              the wine supply would be the business of the participants and not a guest.
              Jesus ' interaction with Miryam Migdal-itha is always that which would have
              been allowed ONLY to a wife in 1st century middle eastern society. In the
              end, it is Miryam, with the help of her lady friends, that is responsible
              for preparation of the corpse. Only a wife could ask to be given the body
              of a deceased male. Even today, grief stricken wives often see and talk to
              their dead husbands just after death..every one of us, I would venture, have
              been told so by widowed friends. Let us assume the obvious, for the sake of
              argument, that Jesus was married and Miryam was his wife. Not considering
              this at all is one of the flaws of HJ research where theology still
              interferes with historical-critical analysis.

              The only things that get in the way of a married Jesus are:

              1. A higher Christology that would not reach its zenith until just before of
              the dawn of the 2nd century.

              2. The text and canon "shapers" or "re-formatters" who are a brilliant but
              nutty gaggle of misogynistic anti-semites.

              Try as I may, every tenet.... every canon of historical-critical
              methodology, including redaction criticism and cultural anthropology points
              to a married Jesus and Miryam Migdal-itha as Mrs. Y'shua bar Yosef.

              Yes, yes...I know the obvious next question...what about inevitable children
              barring infertility? If Miryam's role in the texts were altered to that of
              a pious groupie, who in the texts in late adolescence might be Jesus, Jr?

              A gentle tad of facetiousness is sometimes a good tool when claiming that
              this issue should be given more serious historical-critical attention.

              Shlama amkhon

              Jack
            • Bob MacDonald
              ... have been scandalous. Why? Bob mailto::BobMacDonald@shaw.ca + + + Victoria, B.C., Canada + + + Catch the foxes for us, the little foxes that make havoc of
              Message 6 of 25 , Apr 16 8:19 AM
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                >>In first century Jewish culture, an unmarried man the age of Jesus would
                have been scandalous.

                Why?

                Bob

                mailto::BobMacDonald@...
                + + + Victoria, B.C., Canada + + +

                Catch the foxes for us,
                the little foxes that make havoc of the vineyards,
                for our vineyards are in flower. (Song 2.15)
                http://bobmacdonald.gx.ca
              • Jack Kilmon
                ... From: Bob MacDonald To: Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 10:19 AM Subject: RE: [John_Lit] Jn
                Message 7 of 25 , Apr 16 1:42 PM
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "Bob MacDonald" <bobmacdonald@...>
                  To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 10:19 AM
                  Subject: RE: [John_Lit] Jn 2:1-11 in PD and other texts


                  > >>In first century Jewish culture, an unmarried man the age of Jesus would
                  > have been scandalous.
                  >
                  > Why?

                  Because the Torah demands it.


                  Jack
                • frides lameris
                  Dear Peter, You wrote to me 15-04-02, have your mail below. Thanks for your reaction. This gives me also the opportunity to apologize for not reacting directly
                  Message 8 of 25 , Apr 16 2:09 PM
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dear Peter,

                    You wrote to me 15-04-02, have your mail below.

                    Thanks for your reaction. This gives me also the opportunity to apologize
                    for not reacting directly on your post on the comparison between some texts
                    in Mark and John. Due to personal circumstances I was late in opening my
                    email and Leonard had already 'popped' in. As my general approach to text
                    comparison is rather different from yours (you +L) I decided to first see
                    what came out of your discussion with Leonard.

                    I Conc. Jn 2:4 ti kai emoi, gunai:

                    You notice that in John 'the mother of Jesus' is 'still' anonymous. This
                    'still' does play no role in my way of exegesis of John (and the synoptics).
                    John (for some of my pressupositions see my earlier mail to Yuri) may have
                    (had) his own reason to keep Mary (Jesus' mother)anonymous in his gospel, as
                    (in my vison
                    or interpretation) he is also keeping his own name anonymous in (t)his
                    gospel.

                    I agree with J.P. Meier, MJ, 938, that '(2) The references to "the mother"
                    of Jesus reflect both the manner of speaking and the overarching theological
                    vision of the evangelist'. If you like to come back to this point, we could
                    go deeper into it, as Meier has very interesting observations on it.

                    II

                    I assume there to be not any (literary) connection between John and
                    synoptics. I follow in this J.A.T. Robinson: his monograph The Priorit of
                    John, 1983).
                    I therefore don't create any theories about the different
                    Mary's. I do think Mary of Magdala was like a great female apostle of the
                    Lord.Patriarchical state of mind of culture at time of writing of NT may not
                    haveallowed honoring her true status.If we read 'Pistis Sophia', a beautiful
                    blending of Christian and Gnostic thought, we see that Jesus fully
                    acknowledges Magadalenes penetrating
                    questions.

                    III

                    Back to Mary, the mother of Jesus:

                    His mothers request to provide some wine and her faith in him to produce
                    some wine (in whatever way) also springs from her trust in him that he has
                    paranormal capabilities, which he may have demonstrated earlier in his life.
                    (I have no doubt about that). Her request just seems to be a simple claiming
                    like a mother to a son (even modern children don't want to be claimed by
                    their mothers!) No need to have 'transpositional' theories at all (in my
                    vsion).

                    So:

                    In my vision (as I interpret GJ) Jesus is present at the Cana marriage as a
                    spiritual teacher and about to reveal him self for the first time
                    'publicly' as Messiah (I take information in John 1 to be based on history!)
                    He is in control of his own mission and destiny and speaking a
                    little bit cryptically but bpolitely to Mary, his mother, (speaking
                    according to the custom around Nazareth - Lorber Gospel) he keeps the
                    decison how to act next to himself.

                    This much as first reaction to your mail.

                    Kind regards

                    Frides

                    P.S. Some list members attach some words they like at the end of their
                    mails:

                    My words today: One Gospel, Many Gospels, 1000 theologians, 1000 opinions!







                    >Dear Frides,
                    I read your letter to Yuri Kuchinski. The problem with Jn 2,4 is
                    linked with the priority-question. In John the "mother of Jeusus" is
                    still anonymous. But there are other women with the name Mary, most
                    originally Mary of Magdala. This Mary is originally not only the
                    first but the only witness of resurrection. Taking in account that
                    Mark used "John" as his model it must have ended here. In his
                    appearance to her he calls her "woman". It is obvious that the whole
                    New Testament tradition tried to downgrade the role of Mary of
                    Magdala. But in a first conception of the Gospel of "John" she plays
                    a decisive part as she still does in some apocrypals. The great end
                    of the Gospelt must have correswponded to something at the beginning.
                    Why should a woman who had nothing to do with Jesus in his livetime
                    wheep at his grave and be most honoured of all mankind by the risen
                    Chist. This whold become understandabel, if it was she who at the
                    beginning by her faith enabled Jesus to perform his first sign and to
                    start revealing his glory. Then it is understandable that Jesus asks
                    this question: Wife, what have I to do with you? Later in the
                    development of the Gospel she was suppressed by being changed to the
                    anonymous mother of Jesus. Also in the scene under the cross there
                    must have been made similar changes, in order to get rid of Mary of
                    Magdala. May be, this had to do with the persiflage shown off by
                    Simon Magus who took a prostitute Hellena as his partner and tried to
                    make Jesus because of his woman disciple Mary of Magdals ridiculous.
                    >Peter
                  • Bob MacDonald
                    Dear Jack thanks for the answer, though it is not exactly to the question. (You re forgiven - the heat of the moment and your gentle tad of foolishness and all
                    Message 9 of 25 , Apr 16 8:27 PM
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Dear Jack

                      thanks for the answer, though it is not exactly to the question. (You're
                      forgiven - the heat of the moment and your gentle tad of foolishness and all
                      that).

                      First, I have a hard time believing the Torah demands marriage. It is not
                      one of the 613 as far as I can see unless Gen 2:24 counts as one of them.

                      Secondly, it is one thing to say Jesus has failed to obey a demand of Torah
                      and another to say that "an unmarried man the age of Jesus would have been
                      scandalous."

                      Would the response of Jesus to Torah be one of conforming to 'demands'?
                      Torah is as much promise as it is order. And failure to respond is hardly
                      'scandalous' - it might be seen as sin under some definitions. Scandal
                      requires a collapse of the legal requirement into embarrassment for others.
                      I take the evidence of Jesus' family's embarrassment as a problem with his
                      teaching more than his failure to conform to civil convention.

                      >>"The text and canon "shapers" or "re-formatters" who are a brilliant but
                      nutty gaggle of misogynistic anti-semites."

                      I also have a hard time believing the 'church' could have constructed so
                      fine a story out of whole cloth. I'll stick to my opinion that this
                      bridegroom, Jesus, who was crucified, had no bride (apart from us),
                      Kasantsakis' imagination notwithstanding. (I hope the book was better than
                      the film).

                      with respect

                      Bob

                      mailto::BobMacDonald@...
                      + + + Victoria, B.C., Canada + + +

                      Catch the foxes for us,
                      the little foxes that make havoc of the vineyards,
                      for our vineyards are in flower. (Song 2.15)
                      http://bobmacdonald.gx.ca
                    • Yuri Kuchinsky
                      Thank you for your reply, Frides. On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, frides lameris wrote: ... I m simply not concerned with this question now. My only purpose at this time
                      Message 10 of 25 , Apr 22 12:25 PM
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Thank you for your reply, Frides.

                        On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, frides lameris wrote:

                        ...

                        > Two questions to you: 1) Am I right that you also consider the
                        > Cana-incident to be or to be based on a historical event and that you
                        > try to use Magdalene Gospel Version and Diatesseron versions for (a
                        > partial?) historical reconstruction of the story in Jn 2:1-11?

                        I'm simply not concerned with this question now. My only purpose at this
                        time is to reconstruct an earlier text of Jn. It's quite a separate matter
                        how would this relate to the Historical Jesus.

                        > 2) Is my knowledge right that A. Loisy in general rejected the
                        > historicity of GJ? (J.A.T. Robinson calls this 'the old look'' on the
                        > FG). Did he make an exeption in this case, or are you following your
                        > own ways here?

                        I think his views in this area may be similar to those of John P. Meier
                        that you've cited.

                        > I must say in advance that I like the Persian Diatesseron version more
                        > than the Magdalene version of Jn 2:1-11. This is of course easy to
                        > explain, because I will take my stand in the coming discussion with
                        > you as a kind of 'defender' of the canonical John version of the Cana
                        > wine miracle (sounds to me better than wine sign, I'm aware John uses
                        > the word semeia). Tatian is known to have put all (four) gospels into
                        > the framework of John with great accuracy, staying very close to the
                        > text(s), which not much later may have received their (official)
                        > canonical status. Earliest versions of Tatians gospel harmony, as I
                        > understood it, were produced in Greek and Syriac around 175 (?).

                        I would say that anything to do with Tatian and his purported relationship
                        to the Diatessaron can be considered as speculative. Recent scholarship
                        has demonstrated that some sort of a Diatessaron already existed well
                        before Tatian, and was used by Justin Martyr.

                        > MG texts seems to be much 'farther' away from the canonical text,
                        > which for the time being I take to be an indication of its
                        > post-canonical status and you (of course) of its supposedly
                        > pre-canonical status!

                        Yes, correct.

                        > A few of my presuppositions which which I approach the canonical John
                        > text:
                        >
                        > 1) Gospel of John written by one very intelligent and (spiritually
                        > much developed) writer, John, the apostle, at the same time being the
                        > evangelist, whose visual and oral sources are mainly himself, his
                        > co-apostles, and no 1 his master Jesus Christ.
                        >
                        > 2) Early dating of this gospel, edited around 70 AD, probably in
                        > Efesus. Gospel for the greater part based on eye witness.
                        >
                        > 3) Follow John's chronology as historically reliable (means in this
                        > case, Cana story happens few days after Jesus has gathered his first
                        > disciples (see John 1). We are still in the very beginning of Jesus'
                        > public performance.

                        Your views may be described as representing a minority position among NT
                        scholars today.

                        ...

                        > One thing is clear to (most) exegetes. GUNAI in the text forms no
                        > problem. In this vocative (O woman), there is no harshness or
                        > disrespect.

                        I would beg to disagree. How often have you addressed your own mother as
                        "woman", for example?

                        ...

                        > The MG text (by leaving out Jesus' words and PD (by softening and
                        > paraphrasing the words spoken by Jesus to Mary) to me seem to want to
                        > avoid a possible problem readers may have with the (original) text as
                        > given by GJ.

                        So this is your opinion then, and we can agree to disagree here. In a case
                        like this, if you consider this phrase in isolation from the rest of the
                        text, it can only be your opinion against mine, and thus inconclusive.

                        As to Lorber, I will defer to what the moderators said, and will not
                        pursue this subject further.

                        Best wishes,

                        Yuri.

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

                        Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority,
                        it is time to reform -=O=- Mark Twain
                      • michael Hardin
                        Yuri, Could you please refer a source or two I might consult on the Diatessaron and Justin Martyr. Thanks. Michael Hardin Floral Park, NY ...
                        Message 11 of 25 , Apr 23 12:43 PM
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Yuri,

                          Could you please refer a source or two I might consult
                          on the Diatessaron and Justin Martyr. Thanks.

                          Michael Hardin
                          Floral Park, NY

                          --- Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Thank you for your reply, Frides.
                          >
                          > On Sun, 14 Apr 2002, frides lameris wrote:
                          >
                          > ...
                          >
                          > > Two questions to you: 1) Am I right that you also
                          > consider the
                          > > Cana-incident to be or to be based on a historical
                          > event and that you
                          > > try to use Magdalene Gospel Version and
                          > Diatesseron versions for (a
                          > > partial?) historical reconstruction of the story
                          > in Jn 2:1-11?
                          >
                          > I'm simply not concerned with this question now. My
                          > only purpose at this
                          > time is to reconstruct an earlier text of Jn. It's
                          > quite a separate matter
                          > how would this relate to the Historical Jesus.
                          >
                          > > 2) Is my knowledge right that A. Loisy in general
                          > rejected the
                          > > historicity of GJ? (J.A.T. Robinson calls this
                          > 'the old look'' on the
                          > > FG). Did he make an exeption in this case, or are
                          > you following your
                          > > own ways here?
                          >
                          > I think his views in this area may be similar to
                          > those of John P. Meier
                          > that you've cited.
                          >
                          > > I must say in advance that I like the Persian
                          > Diatesseron version more
                          > > than the Magdalene version of Jn 2:1-11. This is
                          > of course easy to
                          > > explain, because I will take my stand in the
                          > coming discussion with
                          > > you as a kind of 'defender' of the canonical John
                          > version of the Cana
                          > > wine miracle (sounds to me better than wine sign,
                          > I'm aware John uses
                          > > the word semeia). Tatian is known to have put all
                          > (four) gospels into
                          > > the framework of John with great accuracy, staying
                          > very close to the
                          > > text(s), which not much later may have received
                          > their (official)
                          > > canonical status. Earliest versions of Tatians
                          > gospel harmony, as I
                          > > understood it, were produced in Greek and Syriac
                          > around 175 (?).
                          >
                          > I would say that anything to do with Tatian and his
                          > purported relationship
                          > to the Diatessaron can be considered as speculative.
                          > Recent scholarship
                          > has demonstrated that some sort of a Diatessaron
                          > already existed well
                          > before Tatian, and was used by Justin Martyr.
                          >
                          > > MG texts seems to be much 'farther' away from the
                          > canonical text,
                          > > which for the time being I take to be an
                          > indication of its
                          > > post-canonical status and you (of course) of its
                          > supposedly
                          > > pre-canonical status!
                          >
                          > Yes, correct.
                          >
                          > > A few of my presuppositions which which I approach
                          > the canonical John
                          > > text:
                          > >
                          > > 1) Gospel of John written by one very intelligent
                          > and (spiritually
                          > > much developed) writer, John, the apostle, at the
                          > same time being the
                          > > evangelist, whose visual and oral sources are
                          > mainly himself, his
                          > > co-apostles, and no 1 his master Jesus Christ.
                          > >
                          > > 2) Early dating of this gospel, edited around 70
                          > AD, probably in
                          > > Efesus. Gospel for the greater part based on eye
                          > witness.
                          > >
                          > > 3) Follow John's chronology as historically
                          > reliable (means in this
                          > > case, Cana story happens few days after Jesus has
                          > gathered his first
                          > > disciples (see John 1). We are still in the very
                          > beginning of Jesus'
                          > > public performance.
                          >
                          > Your views may be described as representing a
                          > minority position among NT
                          > scholars today.
                          >
                          > ...
                          >
                          > > One thing is clear to (most) exegetes. GUNAI in
                          > the text forms no
                          > > problem. In this vocative (O woman), there is no
                          > harshness or
                          > > disrespect.
                          >
                          > I would beg to disagree. How often have you
                          > addressed your own mother as
                          > "woman", for example?
                          >
                          > ...
                          >
                          > > The MG text (by leaving out Jesus' words and PD
                          > (by softening and
                          > > paraphrasing the words spoken by Jesus to Mary) to
                          > me seem to want to
                          > > avoid a possible problem readers may have with the
                          > (original) text as
                          > > given by GJ.
                          >
                          > So this is your opinion then, and we can agree to
                          > disagree here. In a case
                          > like this, if you consider this phrase in isolation
                          > from the rest of the
                          > text, it can only be your opinion against mine, and
                          > thus inconclusive.
                          >
                          > As to Lorber, I will defer to what the moderators
                          > said, and will not
                          > pursue this subject further.
                          >
                          > Best wishes,
                          >
                          > Yuri.
                          >
                          > Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
                          >
                          > Whenever you find that you are on the side of the
                          > majority,
                          > it is time to reform -=O=- Mark Twain
                          >
                          >
                          > 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!?
                          Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
                          http://games.yahoo.com/
                        • Yuri Kuchinsky
                          ... Sure, Michael. Here are some relevant refs. W.L. Petersen, _Textual Evidence of Tatian s Dependence upon Justin s APOMNHMONEUMATA_, NTS 36 (1990) 512-534.
                          Message 12 of 25 , Apr 24 8:24 AM
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, michael Hardin wrote:

                            > Yuri,
                            >
                            > Could you please refer a source or two I might consult
                            > on the Diatessaron and Justin Martyr. Thanks.

                            Sure, Michael. Here are some relevant refs.

                            W.L. Petersen, _Textual Evidence of Tatian's Dependence upon Justin's
                            APOMNHMONEUMATA_, NTS 36 (1990) 512-534.

                            The following by Petersen also has lots of additional material,

                            W.L. Petersen, TATIANS DIATESSARON: Its Creation, Dissemination,
                            Significance, and History in Scholarship; Leiden: EJ Brill, 1994

                            George Howard, HARMONISTIC READINGS IN THE OLD SYRIAC GOSPELS, Harvard
                            Theological Review, 73, 1980

                            If you read French, this is a very good and thorough treatment,

                            Boismard, M-E, LE DIATESSARON: De Tatien a Justin, Gabalda, Paris, 1992

                            Best,

                            Yuri.

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

                            I doubt, therefore I might be.
                          • frideslameris
                            Hi Yuri, Thanks for your reply on 22-04-02 I Take up some points from your answers for further discussion: Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Jn 2:1-11 in PD and other
                            Message 13 of 25 , May 16, 2002
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Hi Yuri,

                              Thanks for your reply on 22-04-02

                              I Take up some points from your answers for further discussion:

                              Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Jn 2:1-11 in PD and other texts


                              On my first question:

                              >> Am I right that you also consider the
                              > >Cana-incident to be or to be based on a historical event and that you
                              >> try to use Magdalene Gospel Version and Diatesseron versions for (a
                              >> partial?) historical reconstruction of the story in Jn 2:1-11?
                              >
                              You answered:

                              > I'm simply not concerned with this question now. My only purpose at this
                              > time is to reconstruct an earlier text of Jn. It's quite a separate matter
                              > how would this relate to the Historical Jesus.>

                              Very hard for me to separate these two items. I can't really think of
                              literary decisions without taking into consideration the historical aspect.

                              Could you please also give your view on the historical aspect of this
                              pericope.

                              I wrote:

                              >One thing is clear to (most) exegetes. GUNAI in the text forms no problem.
                              >In this vocative (O woman), there is no harshness or disrespect.

                              You wrote:

                              > I would beg to disagree. How often have you addressed your own mother as
                              > "woman", for example?

                              1) I'll say it more precise. There are many exegetes who think GUNAI in the
                              text does not necessarily have a negative connotation (see e.g. J.P. Meier,
                              MJ II, p. 938,2b).
                              There are also exegetes who think differently at that point. In this you are
                              correct.

                              > > As to Lorber, I will defer to what the moderators said, and will not
                              > pursue this subject further.

                              Better not follow Jack here, I think. The rule should be: First do some
                              research on a text and then make an informed statement or judgement. I know
                              your plate is pretty full already, so I don't
                              expect anything from you on that level. I intend to treat
                              the Cana story first on my forthcoming New Testament and Lorber-related
                              website.

                              In another mail I intend to deal more in detail with the exegesis of
                              'gunai'and 'archtitriklinos'.
                              On the last word there is not much good information available. In bible
                              translations is
                              often translated with great variation. I would be happy if there would be
                              some article available which would deal more extensively with it, but I have
                              not (yet) been able to locate such a thing.

                              Best wishes

                              Frides
                            • Yuri Kuchinsky
                              ... Dear Frides, Indeed, it may not be so easy to separate these two items. And yet, nevertheless, this can also be a very good exercise in trying to view
                              Message 14 of 25 , May 18, 2002
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On Thu, 16 May 2002, frideslameris wrote:

                                > On my first question:
                                >
                                > >> Am I right that you also consider the
                                > > >Cana-incident to be or to be based on a historical event and that you
                                > >> try to use Magdalene Gospel Version and Diatesseron versions for (a
                                > >> partial?) historical reconstruction of the story in Jn 2:1-11?
                                > >
                                > You answered:
                                >
                                > > I'm simply not concerned with this question now. My only purpose at this
                                > > time is to reconstruct an earlier text of Jn. It's quite a separate matter
                                > > how would this relate to the Historical Jesus.>
                                >
                                > Very hard for me to separate these two items. I can't really think of
                                > literary decisions without taking into consideration the historical
                                > aspect.

                                Dear Frides,

                                Indeed, it may not be so easy to separate these two items. And yet,
                                nevertheless, this can also be a very good exercise in trying to view
                                these things objectively.

                                > Could you please also give your view on the historical aspect of this
                                > pericope.

                                I think it should go without saying that the earliest text of this
                                pericope, if we can reconstruct it objectively, will give a much more
                                accurate portrayal of the ideas and beliefs of the early movement, as
                                compared to a later text. And so, this will afford new insights into the
                                ideas of the Historical Jesus, himself, since we can assume that the early
                                movement stood a lot closer to Jesus than the later movement.

                                For example, since the Diatessarons preserve the text of this pericope
                                that is much less mythologised (e.g. a more realistic size of the jugs),
                                and if this is indeed the earlier text, this would indicate that the early
                                movement was more down-to-earth, and more interested in the realistic
                                portrayal of its founder as a man born-to-this-world, rather than some
                                cosmic and other-worldly character from outer space.

                                ...

                                > In another mail I intend to deal more in detail with the exegesis of
                                > 'gunai'and 'archtitriklinos'.
                                >
                                > On the last word there is not much good information available. In
                                > bible translations is often translated with great variation. I would
                                > be happy if there would be some article available which would deal
                                > more extensively with it, but I have not (yet) been able to locate
                                > such a thing.

                                I've done some research previously about 'archtitriklinos'. It does seem
                                like this is a very unusual word, without clear parallels outside GJohn.
                                This makes me think that it may have been a neologism, expressly designed
                                to accommodate the later re-editing of this pericope. The Diatessarons
                                seem to indicate that the 'archtitriklinos' wasn't there in the earlier
                                version of GJohn.

                                Best wishes,

                                Yuri.

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

                                Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority,
                                it is time to reform -=O=- Mark Twain
                              • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                                ... Leaving aside the fact that the word is architriklinos (not arch**t**itriklinos as you ve reproduced it), one has to wonder about the nature and
                                Message 15 of 25 , May 18, 2002
                                View Source
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

                                  > I've done some research previously about 'archtitriklinos'. It does seem
                                  > like this is a very unusual word, without clear parallels outside GJohn.
                                  > This makes me think that it may have been a neologism, expressly designed
                                  > to accommodate the later re-editing of this pericope.

                                  Leaving aside the fact that the word is "architriklinos" (not
                                  "arch**t**itriklinos" as you've reproduced it), one has to wonder about the
                                  nature and extent of your research. Your claim indicates that you are have not
                                  taken what is ordinarily considered the most basic step in researching the
                                  vocabulary of the Greek NT, namely, consulted such standard reference works as
                                  BAGD and LSJ or the TLG --each of which show that the word you claim to be
                                  "unusual" and which is, so far as you know, without clear parallels outside of
                                  GJohn appears, for instance, in Heliodorus Aeth 7.27.7. Moreover, it has an
                                  exact Latin equivalent (architriclinius) as well as a variant equivalent
                                  (trincliniarcha), both of which appear with some frequency in Latin literature
                                  written before GJohn.

                                  So your claim that there are no clear parallels to the word outside of GJohn is
                                  hardly well founded, and your conclusions about the word being a late neologism is
                                  not only belied by the evidence you overlooked, but shows we need to take anything
                                  your research "makes you think", with a vary large grain of salt.

                                  Yours,

                                  JG
                                  --
                                  Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
                                  1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
                                  Floor 1
                                  Chicago, Illinois 60626
                                  e-mail jgibson000@...
                                  jgibson000@...
                                • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                                  ... Since you don t read Arabic, Dutch, Latin, or Persian (let alone Greek or Italian), but have been basing your claims about what the diatessarons have and
                                  Message 16 of 25 , May 18, 2002
                                  View Source
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

                                    > The Diatessarons seem to indicate that the 'archtitriklinos' wasn't there in the
                                    > earlier version of GJohn.

                                    Since you don't read Arabic, Dutch, Latin, or Persian (let alone Greek or
                                    Italian), but have been basing your claims about what the "diatessarons" have and
                                    don't have based upon English (and Bablefishian) translations of late (and
                                    secondary if not tertiary) witnesses to the text and wording of the DT, I think we
                                    should take "seem" as the operative word here.

                                    In any case, one wonders, if 'archtitriklinos' (sic) "wasn't there in the earlier
                                    version of GJohn" how we explain that Clement of Alexandria testifies and makes
                                    much of the fact that it does.


                                    --
                                    Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
                                    1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
                                    Floor 1
                                    Chicago, Illinois 60626
                                    e-mail jgibson000@...
                                    jgibson000@...
                                  • Yuri Kuchinsky
                                    ... Well, so I guess it wasn t a neologism then. Actually, I did look up architriklinos in the Perseus database, which includes Liddell, Scott, Jones
                                    Message 17 of 25 , May 19, 2002
                                    View Source
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      On Sat, 18 May 2002, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:
                                      > Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
                                      >
                                      > > I've done some research previously about 'archtitriklinos'. It does seem
                                      > > like this is a very unusual word, without clear parallels outside GJohn.
                                      > > This makes me think that it may have been a neologism, expressly designed
                                      > > to accommodate the later re-editing of this pericope.
                                      >
                                      > Leaving aside the fact that the word is "architriklinos" (not
                                      > "arch**t**itriklinos" as you've reproduced it), one has to wonder
                                      > about the nature and extent of your research. Your claim indicates
                                      > that you are have not taken what is ordinarily considered the most
                                      > basic step in researching the vocabulary of the Greek NT, namely,
                                      > consulted such standard reference works as BAGD and LSJ or the TLG
                                      > --each of which show that the word you claim to be "unusual" and which
                                      > is, so far as you know, without clear parallels outside of GJohn
                                      > appears, for instance, in Heliodorus Aeth 7.27.7. Moreover, it has an
                                      > exact Latin equivalent (architriclinius) as well as a variant
                                      > equivalent (trincliniarcha), both of which appear with some frequency
                                      > in Latin literature written before GJohn.
                                      >
                                      > So your claim that there are no clear parallels to the word outside of
                                      > GJohn is hardly well founded, and your conclusions about the word
                                      > being a late neologism is not only belied by the evidence you
                                      > overlooked, but shows we need to take anything your research "makes
                                      > you think", with a vary large grain of salt.

                                      Well, so I guess it wasn't a neologism then. Actually, I did look up
                                      architriklinos in the Perseus database, which includes Liddell, Scott,
                                      Jones Greek-English Lexicon, but I've misunderstood the lone rather
                                      cryptic reference to "Hld.7.27". Otherwise, there's nothing outside of the
                                      NT or NT commentaries.

                                      Also, Perseus has nothing coming up for the Latin architriclinius, and
                                      trincliniarcha. So this makes me think that this was a very unusual word
                                      after all.

                                      Also, nothing comes up in Google for architriclinius or trincliniarcha.

                                      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
                                    • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                                      ... You guess? ... Lone and cryptic? It s a standard reference to a fairly well known author. ... You are making the curious mistake of thinking that that LSJ
                                      Message 18 of 25 , May 19, 2002
                                      View Source
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

                                        >
                                        > Well, so I guess it wasn't a neologism then.

                                        You guess?

                                        > Actually, I did look up
                                        > architriklinos in the Perseus database, which includes Liddell, Scott,
                                        > Jones Greek-English Lexicon, but I've misunderstood the lone rather
                                        > cryptic reference to "Hld.7.27".

                                        Lone and cryptic? It's a standard reference to a fairly well known author.

                                        > Otherwise, there's nothing outside of the
                                        > NT or NT commentaries.

                                        You are making the curious mistake of thinking that that LSJ -- even in the
                                        hardly up to date form of the work that appears at Perseus -- is intent to give
                                        every instance of the word in Classical and Hellenistic Greek literature. It is
                                        not. It is intent to cite only as many references as are to document that the
                                        word was used with the sense in which the Lexicon defines it. Finding all (or
                                        all most all) instances of ta given word's occurrence is why one turns to the
                                        TLG.

                                        For instance, LSJ does not cite the use of the word in Clement of Alexandria.
                                        Nevertheless, it does appear in CofA.

                                        In any case, the fact -- as you admit yourself -- that you've limited yourself to
                                        online resources (not to mention based your conclusions about the terms in
                                        question on misunderstandings of what you found there) just goes to prove my
                                        point that the nature and extent of your "research" has not been very deep.

                                        > Also, Perseus has nothing coming up for the Latin architriclinius, and
                                        > trincliniarcha.

                                        That, apparently, is because you don't know how to use the Perseus site well and
                                        have been using the wrong search terms. Try using the stem. And remember, that
                                        just as with the online LSJ, the edition of Lewis and Short is neither the latest
                                        version of the dictionary not was it intent to give every instance in Latin
                                        Literature of the words defined, to define every word in Latin. So even if the
                                        words were not found on the Perseus site, it would be illegitimate to conclude
                                        from this fact -- as you, however, have done, that the words in question were
                                        rare and/or unusual.

                                        > So this makes me think that this was a very unusual word
                                        > after all.
                                        >

                                        Tell that to Petronius and the author of Inscr. Orell. 794; 2952.

                                        Yours,

                                        JG

                                        --
                                        Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
                                        1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
                                        Floor 1
                                        Chicago, Illinois 60626
                                        e-mail jgibson000@...
                                        jgibson000@...
                                      • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                                        ... Let me get this straight. Your original claim was that you had carried out research into archtitriklinos (sic) which convinced you that archtitriklinos
                                        Message 19 of 25 , May 19, 2002
                                        View Source
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

                                          > Actually, I did look up architriklinos in the Perseus database, which includes
                                          > Liddell, Scott, Jones Greek-English Lexicon, but I've misunderstood the lone
                                          > rather cryptic reference to "Hld.7.27".

                                          Let me get this straight.

                                          Your original claim was that you had carried out research into 'archtitriklinos'
                                          (sic) which convinced you that 'archtitriklinos' was a very unusual word which
                                          had no "clear parallels outside GJohn".

                                          But now you assert (note the "actually I did look up ...) that when you were
                                          doing the research that you claimed in your message to Frides you had "previously
                                          done" (i.e, the research which led you to the conclusions about 'archtitriklinos'
                                          that you noted in John Lit Message 2616), you actually saw that the word in
                                          question **was** clearly instanced outside the GJohn, albeit in a work neither
                                          the author or title of which you recognized, but which was obviously *not** a NT
                                          work?

                                          If so, isn't your original message essentially prevarication -- or at least a
                                          doctoring of the truth?

                                          If not, why then give the impression now, as you have done above, that part of
                                          your prior research into 'archtitriklinos'--the research upon which your
                                          conclusion about the word being unusual and as having no clear parallels outside
                                          GJohn is based--consisted in looking at the data in the Perseus LSJ if this
                                          wasn't the case?

                                          It seems to me either that you originally misrepresented in John Lit message 2616
                                          what you knew the evidence to be vis a vis the occurrence outside of GJohn of
                                          'archtitriklinos' or you are now misrepresenting just how much research into the
                                          word you originally claimed you did.

                                          JG

                                          --
                                          Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
                                          1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
                                          Floor 1
                                          Chicago, Illinois 60626
                                          e-mail jgibson000@...
                                          jgibson000@...
                                        • Yuri Kuchinsky
                                          ... This is a false accusation. I object to these personal attacks. If they continue, I will be forced to complain to the Moderators about Mr. Gibson s
                                          Message 20 of 25 , May 20, 2002
                                          View Source
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            On Sat, 18 May 2002, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:
                                            > Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
                                            >
                                            > > The Diatessarons seem to indicate that the 'archtitriklinos' wasn't there in the
                                            > > earlier version of GJohn.
                                            >
                                            > Since you don't read Arabic, Dutch, Latin, or Persian (let alone Greek
                                            > or Italian),

                                            This is a false accusation.

                                            I object to these personal attacks. If they continue, I will be forced to
                                            complain to the Moderators about Mr. Gibson's behaviour.

                                            [snip]

                                            > In any case, one wonders, if 'archtitriklinos' (sic) "wasn't there in
                                            > the earlier version of GJohn" how we explain that Clement of
                                            > Alexandria testifies and makes much of the fact that it does.

                                            Since Irenaeus, who was about 20 years younger than Clement, already had
                                            something pretty close to the present canonical GJohn, I don't see this as
                                            any sort of a problem.

                                            Yours,

                                            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
                                          • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                                            ... So you *do* read each and every one of the languages mentioned above? ... It was not an attack, just a statement of what is (to my knowledge) fact. ...
                                            Message 21 of 25 , May 20, 2002
                                            View Source
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

                                              > On Sat, 18 May 2002, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:
                                              > > Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
                                              > >
                                              > > > The Diatessarons seem to indicate that the 'archtitriklinos' wasn't there in the
                                              > > > earlier version of GJohn.
                                              > >
                                              > > Since you don't read Arabic, Dutch, Latin, or Persian (let alone Greek
                                              > > or Italian),
                                              >
                                              > This is a false accusation.
                                              >

                                              So you *do* read each and every one of the languages mentioned above?

                                              >
                                              > I object to these personal attacks.

                                              It was not an attack, just a statement of what is (to my knowledge) fact.


                                              > > In any case, one wonders, if 'archtitriklinos' (sic) "wasn't there in
                                              > > the earlier version of GJohn" how we explain that Clement of
                                              > > Alexandria testifies and makes much of the fact that it does.
                                              >
                                              > Since Irenaeus, who was about 20 years younger than Clement, already had
                                              > something pretty close to the present canonical GJohn, I don't see this as
                                              > any sort of a problem.
                                              >

                                              Depends. You claim (a) that the original text of GJohn did not contain the word
                                              'archtitriklinos' (sic) and (b) that its presence in witnesses to the gospel's wording
                                              is due to its insertion there when the pericope was subjected to a " later re-editing".

                                              When did this re-editing (and thus this insertion) take place?

                                              JG

                                              --
                                              Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
                                              1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
                                              Floor 1
                                              Chicago, Illinois 60626
                                              e-mail jgibson000@...
                                              jgibson000@...
                                            • frideslameris
                                              Hi Yuri (and others interested), ... In your mail Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2002 8:27 PM Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Jn 2:1-11 in PD and other texts You wrote in
                                              Message 22 of 25 , Jun 1, 2002
                                              View Source
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Hi Yuri (and others interested),

                                                >
                                                In your mail Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2002 8:27 PM
                                                Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Jn 2:1-11 in PD and other texts

                                                You wrote in answer to my statement that it is very hard for me to separate
                                                literary analysis and taking into consideration the historical aspect of the
                                                Cana-pericope:

                                                > Indeed, it may not be so easy to separate these two items. And yet,
                                                > nevertheless, this can also be a very good exercise in trying to view
                                                > these things objectively.
                                                > ..
                                                > I think it should go without saying that the earliest text of this
                                                > pericope, if we can reconstruct it objectively, will give a much more
                                                > accurate portrayal of the ideas and beliefs of the early movement, as
                                                > compared to a later text. And so, this will afford new insights into the
                                                > ideas of the Historical Jesus, himself, since we can assume that the early
                                                > movement stood a lot closer to Jesus than the later movement.

                                                Although what you say is interesting, for me your answer is
                                                too abstract. Please indicate if you think the story is based on some historical fact(s)
                                                or is just a product of (early or later) christian imagination. This makes a big difference in the whole issue!

                                                For me the text as it is (in its canonical form) is (still) the earliest one and fully based on historic realities. Of course I have to admit that the logical (Cartesian?) mind may encounter some interpretational difficulties in this pericope, but this does not inspire me to wildly start cutting around in these texts.

                                                The great mistake of many up till this day is, I think, that they want to separate
                                                the historical Jesus from the spiritual Jesus, something I consider as the
                                                greatest blunder ever made in theology. Theologians would allow the mystical tradition of
                                                Christianity to say (e.g. Meister Eckhart) that people (one) can become one with God to the
                                                extent of being (a part) of God, and they would deny (in NT exegesis) this 'favour' to the
                                                founder of Christianity who would have to be stripped of his Divinity ??!

                                                Old age Theology is too much done in study rooms! In India there is a
                                                saying: Go and learn from the wise'', they 'll teach you about God-realization.
                                                There are thousands of spiritual teachers throughout the ages who have taught and still teach (from there own realized spiritual state) that God is within the deepest core of everybody and that oneness with him can be realized!

                                                To keep all this on a more intellectual discussion level, please see e.g. the book of
                                                F. Dreyfuss: Jésus, savait-il quíl était Dieu? Cerf, Paris, 1994). He is a biblical theology professor at the Ëcole biblique et archéologique francaise de Jerusalem.

                                                I concur here with him that Jesus knew he was divine and would have assented
                                                fully to the Fourth Gospel's portrayal of him as such. I quote Dreyfuss here as I did at the end of the introduction to my graduate thesis, (knowing that at least for you the french is no problem):

                                                'Supposons que, par miracle, Jésus de Nazareth ait eu entre les mains, au
                                                cours de sa vie terrestre, notre évangile selon saint Jean. Comment
                                                aurait-il réagi devant les paroles que lui attribue l'évangéliste: "Avant
                                                qu' Abraham fût, je suis" ou "Père, glorifie-moi de la gloire que j'avais
                                                auprès de toi avant la création du monde"? Aurait-il crié au blasphème et
                                                approuvé ceux qui, selon saint Jean, voulaient le lapider? Ou bien aurait-il
                                                dit: "Oui, c'est bien moi. Cet évangile a bien parlé de moi"? Cette dernière
                                                réponse est la bonne. Cela, la tradition unanime de toutes les Eglises l'a
                                                affirmé pendant dix-huit siècles. Et l'exégèse scientifique moderne a
                                                d'excellents arguments à présenter en sa faveur.'

                                                I hope the above will make my own stand more clear and explicit:

                                                The Jesus of the NT texts and especially of the John text(s) is
                                                completely OK to me!
                                                >
                                                > For example, since the Diatessarons preserve the text of this pericope
                                                > that is much less mythologised (e.g. a more realistic size of the jugs),
                                                > and if this is indeed the earlier text, this would indicate that the early
                                                > movement was more down-to-earth, and more interested in the realistic
                                                > portrayal of its founder as a man born-to-this-world, rather than some
                                                > cosmic and other-worldly character from outer space.

                                                As I am not clinging to what I would call a (Cartesian/Spinozean?) 'oligopistic model', the
                                                (big) size of the jugs in the canonical text is fine for me.
                                                If one drop of water can be made into wine, the amount does not matter
                                                anymore. In Indian tradition a story might be that someone changed an ocean
                                                of water into an ocean of wine. Still on the basis of the same principle!
                                                Somebody in the list remarked about the miraculous wine miracle that the next day the wine would probably have become water again.
                                                I say to this:
                                                Western mind is generally very much afraid of miracles, even of allowing the
                                                principle(s) behind the phenomenon/a. It challenges the intellect in its function as the 'dictator' of reality!

                                                > > In another mail I intend to deal more in detail with the exegesis of
                                                > > 'gunai' and 'architriklinos'.
                                                >
                                                In my absence Jeffrey Gibson has been of help to you (and to me!) with some
                                                more information on arch-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-triklinos, so I leave that subject for the time being.

                                                On 'gunai' in the Cana-pericope. If you keep liking the 'harsh' interpretation, please see John 19:26: "Woman, behold thy son". You think the evangelist turned a simple 'mother' into a (superficially seen) more complex (harsh?) 'woman' ? Or do you consider this a case not comparable with the first one?


                                                Will send a reaction on your post on Jn 6:15 in a different mail.

                                                Hope my spiritual statements are to the point,

                                                Best wishes

                                                Frides




                                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              • frideslameris
                                                Hi Yuri (and others interested), ... In your mail Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2002 8:27 PM Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Jn 2:1-11 in PD and other texts You wrote in
                                                Message 23 of 25 , Jun 1, 2002
                                                View Source
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Hi Yuri (and others interested),

                                                  >
                                                  In your mail Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2002 8:27 PM
                                                  Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Jn 2:1-11 in PD and other texts

                                                  You wrote in answer to my statement that it is very hard for me to separate
                                                  literary analysis and taking into consideration the historical aspect of the
                                                  Cana-pericope:

                                                  > Indeed, it may not be so easy to separate these two items. And yet,
                                                  > nevertheless, this can also be a very good exercise in trying to view
                                                  > these things objectively.
                                                  > ..
                                                  > I think it should go without saying that the earliest text of this
                                                  > pericope, if we can reconstruct it objectively, will give a much more
                                                  > accurate portrayal of the ideas and beliefs of the early movement, as
                                                  > compared to a later text. And so, this will afford new insights into the
                                                  > ideas of the Historical Jesus, himself, since we can assume that the early
                                                  > movement stood a lot closer to Jesus than the later movement.

                                                  Although what you say is interesting, for me your answer is
                                                  too abstract. Please indicate if you think the story is based on some historical fact(s)
                                                  or is just a product of (early or later) christian imagination. This makes a big difference in the whole issue!

                                                  For me the text as it is (in its canonical form) is (still) the earliest one and fully based on historic realities. Of course I have to admit that the logical (Cartesian?) mind may encounter some interpretational difficulties in this pericope, but this does not inspire me to wildly start cutting around in these texts.

                                                  The great mistake of many up till this day is, I think, that they want to separate
                                                  the historical Jesus from the spiritual Jesus, something I consider as the
                                                  greatest blunder ever made in theology. Theologians would allow the mystical tradition of
                                                  Christianity to say (e.g. Meister Eckhart) that people (one) can become one with God to the
                                                  extent of being (a part) of God, and they would deny (in NT exegesis) this 'favour' to the
                                                  founder of Christianity who would have to be stripped of his Divinity ??!

                                                  Old age Theology is too much done in study rooms! In India there is a
                                                  saying: Go and learn from the wise'', they 'll teach you about God-realization.
                                                  There are thousands of spiritual teachers throughout the ages who have taught and still teach (from there own realized spiritual state) that God is within the deepest core of everybody and that oneness with him can be realized!

                                                  To keep all this on a more intellectual discussion level, please see e.g. the book of
                                                  F. Dreyfuss: Jésus, savait-il quíl était Dieu? Cerf, Paris, 1994). He is a biblical theology professor at the Ëcole biblique et archéologique francaise de Jerusalem.

                                                  I concur here with him that Jesus knew he was divine and would have assented
                                                  fully to the Fourth Gospel's portrayal of him as such. I quote Dreyfuss here as I did at the end of the introduction to my graduate thesis, (knowing that at least for you the french is no problem):

                                                  'Supposons que, par miracle, Jésus de Nazareth ait eu entre les mains, au
                                                  cours de sa vie terrestre, notre évangile selon saint Jean. Comment
                                                  aurait-il réagi devant les paroles que lui attribue l'évangéliste: "Avant
                                                  qu' Abraham fût, je suis" ou "Père, glorifie-moi de la gloire que j'avais
                                                  auprès de toi avant la création du monde"? Aurait-il crié au blasphème et
                                                  approuvé ceux qui, selon saint Jean, voulaient le lapider? Ou bien aurait-il
                                                  dit: "Oui, c'est bien moi. Cet évangile a bien parlé de moi"? Cette dernière
                                                  réponse est la bonne. Cela, la tradition unanime de toutes les Eglises l'a
                                                  affirmé pendant dix-huit siècles. Et l'exégèse scientifique moderne a
                                                  d'excellents arguments à présenter en sa faveur.'

                                                  I hope the above will make my own stand more clear and explicit:

                                                  The Jesus of the NT texts and especially of the John text(s) is
                                                  completely OK to me!
                                                  >
                                                  > For example, since the Diatessarons preserve the text of this pericope
                                                  > that is much less mythologised (e.g. a more realistic size of the jugs),
                                                  > and if this is indeed the earlier text, this would indicate that the early
                                                  > movement was more down-to-earth, and more interested in the realistic
                                                  > portrayal of its founder as a man born-to-this-world, rather than some
                                                  > cosmic and other-worldly character from outer space.

                                                  As I am not clinging to what I would call a (Cartesian/Spinozean?) 'oligopistic model', the
                                                  (big) size of the jugs in the canonical text is fine for me.
                                                  If one drop of water can be made into wine, the amount does not matter
                                                  anymore. In Indian tradition a story might be that someone changed an ocean
                                                  of water into an ocean of wine. Still on the basis of the same principle!
                                                  Somebody in the list remarked about the miraculous wine miracle that the next day the wine would probably have become water again.
                                                  I say to this:
                                                  Western mind is generally very much afraid of miracles, even of allowing the
                                                  principle(s) behind the phenomenon/a. It challenges the intellect in its function as the 'dictator' of reality!

                                                  > > In another mail I intend to deal more in detail with the exegesis of
                                                  > > 'gunai' and 'architriklinos'.
                                                  >
                                                  In my absence Jeffrey Gibson has been of help to you (and to me!) with some
                                                  more information on arch-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-triklinos, so I leave that subject for the time being.

                                                  On 'gunai' in the Cana-pericope. If you keep liking the 'harsh' interpretation, please see John 19:26: "Woman, behold thy son". You think the evangelist turned a simple 'mother' into a (superficially seen) more complex (harsh?) 'woman' ? Or do you consider this a case not comparable with the first one?


                                                  Will send a reaction on your post on Jn 6:15 in a different mail.

                                                  Hope my spiritual statements are to the point,

                                                  Best wishes

                                                  Frides




                                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                • frideslameris
                                                  Hi Yuri (and others interested), ... In your mail Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2002 8:27 PM Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Jn 2:1-11 in PD and other texts you wrote in
                                                  Message 24 of 25 , Jun 1, 2002
                                                  View Source
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Hi Yuri (and others interested),

                                                    >
                                                    In your mail Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2002 8:27 PM
                                                    Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Jn 2:1-11 in PD and other texts

                                                    you wrote in answer to my statement that it is very hard for me to separate
                                                    literary analysis and taking into consideration the historical aspect of the
                                                    Cana-pericope:

                                                    > Indeed, it may not be so easy to separate these two items. And yet,
                                                    > nevertheless, this can also be a very good exercise in trying to view
                                                    > these things objectively.
                                                    > ..
                                                    > I think it should go without saying that the earliest text of this
                                                    > pericope, if we can reconstruct it objectively, will give a much more
                                                    > accurate portrayal of the ideas and beliefs of the early movement, as
                                                    > compared to a later text. And so, this will afford new insights into the
                                                    > ideas of the Historical Jesus, himself, since we can assume that the early
                                                    > movement stood a lot closer to Jesus than the later movement.

                                                    Although what you say is an interesting opinion, for me your answer is
                                                    too abstract. Please indicate if you think the story is based on some
                                                    historical fact(s) or is just a product of (early or later) christian
                                                    imagination.
                                                    This makes a big difference in the discussion!

                                                    For me the text as it is (in its canonical form) is the earliest one and
                                                    fully based on historic realities (of course I have to admit that the
                                                    logical (Cartesian?) mind may encounters some interpretational difficulties
                                                    in this pericope.

                                                    The great mistake of many up till this day is I think, they want to separate
                                                    the historical Jesus from the spiritual Jesus, something I consider as the
                                                    greatest blunder ever made in theology. Theologians would allow the mystical
                                                    tradition ofChristianity to say (e.g. Meister Eckhart) that people (one) can
                                                    become one
                                                    with God to the extent of being (a part) of God, and they would deny this
                                                    'favour' to the founder of christianity who would have to be stripped of his
                                                    Divinity ??!
                                                    Old age Theology is too much done in study rooms! In India there is a
                                                    saying: Go and learn from the wise'', they 'll teach you about
                                                    Godrealization. There are thousands of spiritual teachers throughout the
                                                    ages who have taught and still teach
                                                    (from there own realized spiritual state) that God is within the deepest
                                                    core of everybody and that he can be realized!

                                                    To keep all this on a more intellectual discussion level, please consult
                                                    e.g. F. Dreyfuss: Jésus, savait-il quíl était Dieu? Cerf, Paris, 1994).
                                                    I concur here with him that Jesus knew he was divine and would have assented
                                                    fully to the Fourth Gospel's portrayal of him as such.

                                                    I quote Dreyfuss here as I did at the end of the introduction to my graduate
                                                    thesis, (knowing that at least for you the french is no problem):

                                                    'Supposons que, par miracle, Jésus de Nazareth ait eu entre les mains, au
                                                    cours de sa vie terrestre, notre évangile selon saint Jean. Comment
                                                    aurait-il réagi devant les paroles que lui attribue l'évangéliste: "Avant
                                                    qu' Abraham fût, je suis" ou "Père, glorifie-moi de la gloire que j'avais
                                                    auprès de toi avant la création du monde"? Aurait-il crié au blasphème et
                                                    approuvé ceux qui, selon saint Jean, voulaient le lapider? Ou bien aurait-il
                                                    dit: "Oui, c'est bien moi. Cet évangile a bien parlé de moi"? Cette dernière
                                                    réponse est la bonne. Cela, la tradition unanime de toutes les Eglises l'a
                                                    affirmé pendant dix-huit siècles. Et l'exégèse scientifique moderne a
                                                    d'excellents arguments à présenter en sa faveur.'

                                                    The above will make my own stand more clear and explicit.

                                                    The Jesus of the NT texts and especially of the (canonical) John text is
                                                    completely OK to me!
                                                    >
                                                    > For example, since the Diatessarons preserve the text of this pericope
                                                    > that is much less mythologised (e.g. a more realistic size of the jugs),
                                                    > and if this is indeed the earlier text, this would indicate that the early
                                                    > movement was more down-to-earth, and more interested in the realistic
                                                    > portrayal of its founder as a man born-to-this-world, rather than some
                                                    > cosmic and other-worldly character from outer space.

                                                    As I am not clinging to the (Cartesian/Spinozean) 'oligopistic model', the
                                                    size of the jugs in the canonical text is fine for me.
                                                    If one drop of water can be made into wine, the amount does not matter
                                                    anymore. In Indian tradition a story might be that someone changed an ocean
                                                    of water into an ocean of wine. Still on the basis of the same principle!
                                                    Somebody on the list once remarked that if in the Cana-story the water would
                                                    have changed into wine, for sure it would have become water again the next
                                                    day!
                                                    I say to this:
                                                    Western mind is very much afraid of miracles, especially allowing the
                                                    principle(s) behind the phenomenon/a. It challenges very much the conception
                                                    that the intellect is the 'dictator' of reality.

                                                    > > In another mail I intend to deal more in detail with the exegesis of
                                                    > > 'gunai'and 'architriklinos'.
                                                    >
                                                    In my absence Jeffrey Gibson has been of help to you (and to me!) with some
                                                    more information on arch-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-triklinos, so I leave
                                                    that
                                                    subject for the time being.

                                                    On 'gunai' in the Cana-pericope. If you keep liking the 'harsh'
                                                    interpretation, please see John 19:26: "Woman, behold thy son". You think
                                                    the evangelist turned a simple
                                                    'mother' into a (superficially seen) more complex 'woman' ? Why should he.
                                                    For me no need here as in Cana story to assume an earlier text with
                                                    different words!

                                                    Will send a reaction on your post on Jn 6:15 in a different mail.

                                                    Hope my spiritual statements are to the point,

                                                    Best wishes

                                                    Frides
                                                  • Yuri Kuchinsky
                                                    ... Frides, My answer would be that my views on this are quite conventional. Or at least they are conventional in the academic NT field. So I m just taking a
                                                    Message 25 of 25 , Jun 8, 2002
                                                    View Source
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      On Sat, 1 Jun 2002, frideslameris wrote:

                                                      > Hi Yuri (and others interested),
                                                      >
                                                      > In your mail Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2002 8:27 PM
                                                      > Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Jn 2:1-11 in PD and other texts
                                                      >
                                                      > you wrote in answer to my statement that it is very hard for me to
                                                      > separate literary analysis and taking into consideration the
                                                      > historical aspect of the Cana-pericope:
                                                      >
                                                      > > Indeed, it may not be so easy to separate these two items. And yet,
                                                      > > nevertheless, this can also be a very good exercise in trying to view
                                                      > > these things objectively.
                                                      > > ..
                                                      > > I think it should go without saying that the earliest text of this
                                                      > > pericope, if we can reconstruct it objectively, will give a much more
                                                      > > accurate portrayal of the ideas and beliefs of the early movement, as
                                                      > > compared to a later text. And so, this will afford new insights into the
                                                      > > ideas of the Historical Jesus, himself, since we can assume that the early
                                                      > > movement stood a lot closer to Jesus than the later movement.
                                                      >
                                                      > Although what you say is an interesting opinion, for me your answer is
                                                      > too abstract. Please indicate if you think the story is based on some
                                                      > historical fact(s) or is just a product of (early or later) christian
                                                      > imagination. This makes a big difference in the discussion!

                                                      Frides,

                                                      My answer would be that my views on this are quite conventional. Or at
                                                      least they are conventional in the academic NT field. So I'm just taking a
                                                      middle-of-the-road position on this. In other words, some of this
                                                      narrative may well be based on some historical fact(s), and some other
                                                      parts may have come from Christian imagination.

                                                      > For me the text as it is (in its canonical form) is the earliest one

                                                      This is what I'm arguing against...

                                                      > and fully based on historic realities

                                                      And this, I suppose, is what most NT scholars would be arguing against.

                                                      > (of course I have to admit that the logical (Cartesian?) mind may
                                                      > encounters some interpretational difficulties in this pericope.
                                                      >
                                                      > The great mistake of many up till this day is I think, they want to
                                                      > separate the historical Jesus from the spiritual Jesus,

                                                      Who would this be?

                                                      > something I consider as the greatest blunder ever made in theology.

                                                      It may well be a blunder, but I'm not quite sure who are these people
                                                      making this blunder, in your view...

                                                      > Theologians would allow the mystical tradition of Christianity to say
                                                      > (e.g. Meister Eckhart) that people (one) can become one with God to
                                                      > the extent of being (a part) of God, and they would deny this 'favour'
                                                      > to the founder of christianity who would have to be stripped of his
                                                      > Divinity ??!

                                                      At this time, I have little interest in such metaphysical questions. I've
                                                      studied all these things before, but at this time I'm primarily interested
                                                      in the historical questions.

                                                      > Old age Theology is too much done in study rooms!

                                                      But isn't what you're saying in fact quite similar to such an old age
                                                      Theology?

                                                      > In India there is a saying: Go and learn from the wise'', they 'll
                                                      > teach you about Godrealization. There are thousands of spiritual
                                                      > teachers throughout the ages who have taught and still teach (from
                                                      > there own realized spiritual state) that God is within the deepest
                                                      > core of everybody and that he can be realized!
                                                      >
                                                      > To keep all this on a more intellectual discussion level, please
                                                      > consult e.g. F. Dreyfuss: Jésus, savait-il quíl était Dieu? Cerf,
                                                      > Paris, 1994). I concur here with him that Jesus knew he was divine and
                                                      > would have assented fully to the Fourth Gospel's portrayal of him as
                                                      > such.
                                                      >
                                                      > I quote Dreyfuss here as I did at the end of the introduction to my
                                                      > graduate thesis, (knowing that at least for you the french is no
                                                      > problem):
                                                      >
                                                      > 'Supposons que, par miracle, Jésus de Nazareth ait eu entre les mains,
                                                      > au cours de sa vie terrestre, notre évangile selon saint Jean. Comment
                                                      > aurait-il réagi devant les paroles que lui attribue l'évangéliste:
                                                      > "Avant qu' Abraham fût, je suis" ou "Père, glorifie-moi de la gloire
                                                      > que j'avais auprès de toi avant la création du monde"? Aurait-il crié
                                                      > au blasphème et approuvé ceux qui, selon saint Jean, voulaient le
                                                      > lapider?

                                                      This seems like a loaded question, for sure... :) "Would have Jesus
                                                      approved of the people who wanted to stone him?"

                                                      I think a more neutral way to pose this question might be, "Would have
                                                      Jesus approved of the people who wanted to stone someone who would have
                                                      said such things as were ascribed to him in Jn (i.e. that he was before
                                                      Abraham, etc.)?"

                                                      And the answer to this is not really all that clear, at least IMHO.

                                                      > Ou bien aurait-il dit: "Oui, c'est bien moi. Cet évangile a bien parlé
                                                      > de moi"? Cette dernière réponse est la bonne. Cela, la tradition
                                                      > unanime de toutes les Eglises l'a affirmé pendant dix-huit siècles. Et
                                                      > l'exégèse scientifique moderne a d'excellents arguments à présenter en
                                                      > sa faveur.'

                                                      Again, this seems like the "old age Theology" to me... Of course, Dreyfuss
                                                      also claims that "l'exegese scientifique moderne" now supports this
                                                      traditional view, but this might be debatable.

                                                      > The above will make my own stand more clear and explicit.

                                                      Perhaps so, but there's still the question of whether you really reject
                                                      that "old age Theology", or in fact approve of it...

                                                      > The Jesus of the NT texts and especially of the (canonical) John text
                                                      > is completely OK to me!

                                                      Good for you! But there still remains that old pesky question as to
                                                      exactly how much history there is in these accounts.

                                                      > > For example, since the Diatessarons preserve the text of this pericope
                                                      > > that is much less mythologised (e.g. a more realistic size of the jugs),
                                                      > > and if this is indeed the earlier text, this would indicate that the early
                                                      > > movement was more down-to-earth, and more interested in the realistic
                                                      > > portrayal of its founder as a man born-to-this-world, rather than some
                                                      > > cosmic and other-worldly character from outer space.
                                                      >
                                                      > As I am not clinging to the (Cartesian/Spinozean) 'oligopistic model',
                                                      > the size of the jugs in the canonical text is fine for me. If one drop
                                                      > of water can be made into wine, the amount does not matter anymore. In
                                                      > Indian tradition a story might be that someone changed an ocean of
                                                      > water into an ocean of wine. Still on the basis of the same principle!
                                                      > Somebody on the list once remarked that if in the Cana-story the water
                                                      > would have changed into wine, for sure it would have become water
                                                      > again the next day!
                                                      >
                                                      > I say to this: Western mind is very much afraid of miracles,
                                                      > especially allowing the principle(s) behind the phenomenon/a. It
                                                      > challenges very much the conception that the intellect is the
                                                      > 'dictator' of reality.

                                                      So, you're not afraid of miracles, I take it. Have you tried performing
                                                      some yourself, by any chance? If so, what were the results?

                                                      > > > In another mail I intend to deal more in detail with the exegesis of
                                                      > > > 'gunai'and 'architriklinos'.
                                                      >
                                                      > In my absence Jeffrey Gibson has been of help to you (and to me!) with
                                                      > some more information on arch-iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-triklinos, so
                                                      > I leave that subject for the time being.

                                                      I hope, for a long time to come! I suppose a spelling flame can be OK from
                                                      time to time, but I do begin to worry when it begins to acquire what may
                                                      be described as epic proportions. :)

                                                      > On 'gunai' in the Cana-pericope. If you keep liking the 'harsh'
                                                      > interpretation, please see John 19:26: "Woman, behold thy son".

                                                      Actually, the Magdalene Gospel does have this bit (MG 99:12). I'm not
                                                      quite sure what to make of this, and why the text is so different in MG
                                                      10:4. Of course, the circumstances in which Jesus says this in Jn 19:26/MG
                                                      99:12 are very different, compared to "the Cana episode", so this might be
                                                      a part of the explanation.

                                                      Best wishes,

                                                      Yuri.

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

                                                      I doubt, therefore I might be.
                                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.