butler/bridegroom (Re: architriklinos once more
- On Wed, 3 Jul 2002, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:
> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:(MG 10:6a) "Now, there were six jars that the good man and all the men
> > In the Magdalene Gospel, instead of the "architriklinos" we have the
> > "chief of the feast". As to the "good man" in MG 10:6, this is probably
> > the very same individual, assuming he happened to be the head of the
> > household.
> No, the "gode man" is not (probably or otherwise) the same person as
> "the chief of the feast" since the PGH clearly has the "gode man" take
> the water that Jesus changes into wine **to** the chief of the feast".
This is the only time "the good man" is mentioned in this text. Nothing
about him "taking the water" anywhere...
> > In MG, "architriklinos" is not the "botiler/butler". It's the bridegroomYou misunderstood. In MG, there's no "bridegroom". Rather, the word
> > who is the butler.
> On what grounds do you say this? In the PGH there is no wedding
> mentioned. Only a feast. There is none of the ME terminology of
> weddings used within the story -- terminology the "author of the PGH
> certainly knows -- to even hint that the feast was meant to be seen as
> a wedding. And if no wedding, no bridegroom.
> Moreover, the term "boitler" which equals "master of a feast" is
> never equated in ME with "brydegoom". Even more importantly, a
> bridegroom was never his own butler at his own wedding.
"butler" is found in the place where the canonical text has "bridegroom".
The meaning of MG text is really quite plain and obvious here.
Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
Reality is that which, when you stop believing
in it, doesn't go away -=O=- Philip K. Dick
- --- 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,