Re: [John_Lit] architriklinos once more
- Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> > In any event, as I know from personal contact with Barret himself (whoDo you really have to have this spelled out for you?.
> > is, by the way, a card carrying member of the Guild you find so
> > corrupt and lazy and bigoted and biased, whose members you claim
> > rarely these days ever engage in "rigorous and stringent critical
> > analysis"), his statement that the story may have an Hellenistic
> > origin is not to be taken as if he was saying it was composed, let
> > alone edited, by a Gentile -- as you seem to want to do.
> So then how is Barrett's statement to be interpreted?
> It's clear that the Diatessaronic versions, with their "master of theSeveral questions::
> house", rather than "architriklinos", preserve a story that fits a lot
> more comfortably into the context of a rural Jewish household. And, of
> course, there are also some other items in the Diatessaronic story that
> indicate a closer connection with rural Galilee and with traditional
> Judaism, rather than with the Hellenistic social milieu.
> These considerations seem to point to our Diatessaronic witnesses
> preserving a version of the miracle of Jesus that is earlier than what we
> find in the canonical text.
1. Is it your belief that a "master of a **house** is a **lower** position
socially than a master of a **room** in a house?
2. What is the actual Persian word used in the Persian version of the Diatessaron
that you claim is to be translated as "master of the house"? What is the Syrian
in Ephraim's commentary? The Dutch in the Liege Harmony? The ME term in the PGH?
And what is the Latin word used in the Syriac/Latin agreements of the Cana story
that you keep mentioning?
3. Why do you assume, as you do, that Cana was not Hellenized? Given that it was
walled, it was a town, not a village. It was close to, and came within the
cultural sphere emanating from, Sepphoris-Diocaesarea. It was, as Avi-Yonah
has shown, inhabited and administered by a BASILIKOS, a "royal man" or a "king's
man, who oversaw the royal estates of the Valley of Asochis. Archeological
evidence shows that it was laid out on a Hellenistic pattern. It was situated by
a major east-west road that ran from Ptolemais-Acco in the west through the
Valley of Asochis east through the Wadi Hammam to the west shores of the Sea of
Galilee, which also linked Cana both to Capernaum and to Tiberius, and therefore
would have had trade contact with these Hellenized cities and towns. Rabbinnic
evidence suggests that in the first century C.E. it was viewed as ritually
unclean and it took a declaration of Judah the Prince and his law court to
overcome the stigma attached to it. And it seems that Roman coins have been found
4. Why do you assume that the size and the number of the stone jars mentioned in
the canonical account makes the canonical account not only a later version of an
earlier story but less connected with Jewish custom than your hypothetical
earlier version of the story? One of the striking archeological features of Cana
is that it is riddled with large cisterns. As has been noted on this List, the
size and number of the jars are grounded in thoroughly Jewish eschatological
expectation about the age to come and contribute to the demonstrably Johannine
theme of Jesus as the one who fulfills these expectations. And, as Rouseau and
Arav have noted, stone jars of a size comparable to those described in Jn 2:6
have been found in several locations in Herodian Jerusalem.
5. On what grounds do you assert, as you do in your "analysis" of Jn 2:1-11
and particularly your comparison of the phrase "metretas duo he treis" found in
GJohn with what is found in the PGH, The Leige Harmony, and the Persian DT, "that
"Metron" is a very large amphora"?
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,