Re: [John_Lit] architriklinos once more
- Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> Greetings, friends,(With thanks to Terrence Lockyer) Heliodoros' identity - like his date - is
> Some time ago, I expressed my doubt that the word architriklinos (Jn 2:8)
> was a very common Greek word, and was even used before its use in the
> Fourth Gospel. In reply, Jeffrey Gibson objected that this word is in fact
> found in Heliodorus _Aethiopica_ 7.27.7, the citation that I previously
> At the time, I failed to follow up this reference. But, more recently,
> I've looked into this author, and found out that he in fact wrote well
> after the time when the Fourth Gospel was written. As I understand it,
> nowadays scholars generally date Heliodorus to third or fourth century CE.
> And some even think that he was a Christian bishop in Thessaly!
problematic. It is the lay church-historian Sokrates (Socrates Scholasticus),
in his Historia Ekklesiastika (a continuation of Eusebius of Caesarea) 5.22
(specific reference from OCD3) who claims he was a bishop of Trikka in
Thessaly and insisted upon celibacy for the clergy. There is a Byzantine
tradition that he preferred to resign his bishopric rather than disown his
novel. But most scholars doubt the identification and the story. The brief
sphragis at the end of Aithiopika 10.41, incidentally, identifies the author
as Heliodoros, son of Thedosios, and as a Phoenician
from the city of Emesa, but this has not so far proved helpful in identifying
either him or him dates.
> So it seems like we are still lacking any use of architriklinos in GreekYou forgot the epigraphical material such as BCH11.385, 15.186, 204
> before Jn was written.
> In my view, as I've already argued on this list, the original version ofAnd what is the Greek or Latin or Hebrew/Aramaic term that stands behind this
> Jn 2:1-11 did not yet feature the figure of an architriklinos. I suggest
> that this term was introduced by a later editor, in the process of a major
> re-editing of the whole story. In the original text, rather than
> architriklinos, the story most likely featured "the master of the house",
"master of the house"?
> a figure with a significantly higher social standing. This is what theReally? Please see below on what the epigraphical, literary, and social
> Diatessaronic texts indicate.
scientific evidence indicates regarding the social standing of the
> A triclinium is generally believed to be a small dining area, with spaceUm .. believed by whom? What is your source for such an assertion? To my
> perhaps for 6 people.
knowledge, and as a host of reference works indicate, a triclinium had to be
able to accommodate a minimum of **nine** people, not including servants or
> So one wonders if the term archi-triklinos could beUseful? Meaningful?
> such a useful and meaningful term, even on the surface of it.
> At best, theI guess that's why the term is used as the title of an imperial official in
> job of being in charge of a triclinium should have been reserved for a
> rather lowly servant or slave. But this is not how this gentleman is
> portrayed in Jn.
CIL3.536, right? See also CIL 06, 00966* = ILMN-01, 00636)
Aponiae Successae /
a tutul() ornatr(ici) /
C(aius) Batonius Epigonus /
Ti(berius) Laius Paratus /
a corinthis //
Blicio Aborten/nio tricliniarch(o) //
Nymphe habe Hel/vius Aug(usti) lecticar(ius)
CIL 05, 07894 = IANice 046.
Placidia Prima [L(ucio?)] An[ic]/io
Tertio marito suo / et M(arco) Anicio Alpino /
pientissimo / militi [e]t tricl(i)n(iarcha?) /
cocho(rtis) XIIII / urbanae
|(centuria) Q(uinti) / Volusi Severi / [f(aciendum)]
In any case, your supposition that the job of being in charge of a triclinium
would "at best" be something that should (?) have been reserved for a rather
**lowly** servant or slave not only ignores what LSJ and Lewis and Short say
about the term and its Latin equivalent (he is a **major domo** or **head
butler** at feats, a director of [and never a server at] a feast and the term
is a title "directorship of feats" not necessarily held in a triniculum), but
also (a) the fact that, as Peck notes, the Tricliniarcha was someone whose
role was that of a superintendent who took great care that everything was
called for at a feast was done correctly and proceeded in through slaves who
were **subordinate to him** (think Alan Bates in Gosford Park) and (b) the
social importance dinner parties held with in a triclinium had for those who
threw them. Since these were held to impress others and often to advance the
social standing of the one who held the party and/or to create ties of
obligation between the host and his guests, a poorly run dinner party, let
alone one overseen by "lowly" slaves, would not only ruin the hosts chances of
obtaining the goals for which the dinner party was thrown and bring shame upon
him, but would be an affront to his guests.
> Also I've now looked up this word in the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, but IUmm ... Petronius 22??!!
> didn't see it cited any time before the Fourth Gospel was written.
> So is there any indication at all that this word was common before Jn wasSince it appears in inscriptions without explanation and since Petronius
assumes that the character of the tricliniarches is a familiar one, the answer
> What am I missing?Probably how to search the TLL properly? And access to the epigraphical
data?. And the fact that your usual "sources" -- i.e., Google and Perseus --
are not, as you seem to think, the only tools that those committed to the sort
of "rigorous and stringent critical analysis" that you claim stands behind
your "research", and for which you excoriate the NT guild for hardly ever
undertaking, should use?
Also, have you consulted Forcellini's Lexicon? his indicates further
inscriptional evidence for
tricliniarcha/es at Orelli 2952 (as well as 794), at Henzen 6337, and at
Gruter 474.4, 578.1, and 579.7.
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
Chicago, Illinois 60626
- --- In johannine_literature@y..., michael Hardin <michael1517@y...>
>Michael, I am more of a student than a scholar of the fourth
> For some time now I have been studying the usage of
> words with 'double meanings' in 4G. I am curious to
> know if others have also found the 'author's' use of
> words that have a double meaning to be of value . . . .
gospel. Nevertheless, even (maybe, especially) students have
opinions, too. It would indeed be an interesting and controversial
study to tabulate and classify the most obvious ones. The most
frequent reason I can see for the double (and sometimes more)
meanings is in support of the Johannine technique I call "dialogues
with dummies." The poor sap who is shown as questioning Jesus almost
always misunderstands what Jesus is telling him and, regarding words
with more than one possible meaning, only gets the infelicitous one
and is blind to what Jesus is actually saying. Jesus is then given
the opportunity to explain further for the benefit of the intended
audience. (The dummy is almost never shown as ever getting the
point.) I think this goes so far as to include instances in which
both meanings have to be in the listener/reader's mind in order to
have any hope of following Jesus. Perhaps the most obvious example
is John 3:3. Nicodemus interprets *gennhth anwthen* as meaning
only "born again." The usually excellent NAB makes the opposite
error, interpreting the words as meaning only "born from above." A
proper understanding, in my opinion, requires that Jesus be
understood as meaning both things. One must be reborn in the Spirit
in order to see the kingdom of God.
To say the same thing with different words, I think that the author
wants his or her audience to think and not to merely swallow dogma.
He is as much as saying that just as Jesus is more than appears on
the surface, Jesus' message is more profound than surface appearances
might lead one to believe.
Yours in Christ,