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

butler/bridegroom (Re: architriklinos once more

Expand Messages
  • Yuri Kuchinsky
    ... (MG 10:6a) Now, there were six jars that the good man and all the men washed from... This is the only time the good man is mentioned in this text.
    Message 1 of 39 , Jul 4, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      On Wed, 3 Jul 2002, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:
      > Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

      > > 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".

      (MG 10:6a) "Now, there were six jars that the good man and all the men
      washed from..."

      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 bridegroom
      > > 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.

      You misunderstood. In MG, there's no "bridegroom". Rather, the word
      "butler" is found in the place where the canonical text has "bridegroom".
      The meaning of MG text is really quite plain and obvious here.

      Yours,

      Yuri.

      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
    • heronblu
      ... Michael, I am more of a student than a scholar of the fourth gospel. Nevertheless, even (maybe, especially) students have opinions, too. It would indeed
      Message 39 of 39 , Jul 9, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In johannine_literature@y..., michael Hardin <michael1517@y...>
        wrote:
        >
        > 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 . . . .

        Michael, I am more of a student than a scholar of the fourth
        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,
        Lou
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.