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

The Problem of the Fourth Gospel

Expand Messages
  • Peter Kirby
    Although this book was written in 1918, it has aged gracefully. Jackson s slim volume is full of carefully argued opinions that are relevant to our own
    Message 1 of 8 , Oct 6 10:11 PM
      Although this book was written in 1918, it has aged gracefully. Jackson's
      slim volume is full of carefully argued opinions that are relevant to our
      own studies today. It is of course also useful to those who wish to know
      about the history of Johannine criticism.

      The book in full is available here:

      http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/jackson/

      Any comments on this book are welcome.

      best,
      Peter Kirby

      Early Christian Writings - 30 to 200
      http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
    • Horace Jeffery Hodges
      In John 2:7, the servants fill the jars to the brim with water. Was this normal proceedure for large stone jars used for ceremonial purification? Jeffery
      Message 2 of 8 , Dec 31, 2002
        In John 2:7, the servants fill the jars to the brim
        with water. Was this normal proceedure for large stone
        jars used for ceremonial purification?

        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! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
        http://mailplus.yahoo.com
      • pi.veldhuizen@wxs.nl
        Jeffery asked: In John 2:7, the servants fill the jars to the brim with water. Was this normal procedure for large stone jars used for ceremonial
        Message 3 of 8 , Jan 1, 2003
          Jeffery asked:

          "In John 2:7, the servants fill the jars to the brim
          with water. Was this normal procedure for large stone
          jars used for ceremonial purification?"

          Although I do not know to what extent such jars used to be filled, I would
          like to remark that an abundant supply of 'traditional' water is surely
          "normal procedure" in John 1-7.
          This supply is both in some sense praparatory to, and stands in opposition
          to the new gift that Jesus is offering.

          In John 2 it is plenty of purification water in the jars - which seems to me
          to symbolize fulfilment of the law "to the brim". It will not bring
          salvation if it remains external, at the door - but brought inside and
          touched by the word of Jesus it becomes a purifying power of another kind.
          Wine is more like fire than like water..

          In John 3 there is plenty of water where John is baptizing - whereas no
          water at all is mentioned when the mysterious baptismal practice of Jesus is
          mentioned. The Baptist states the opposition: I am baptizing with water, he
          will baptize with fire and spirit. The Baptist, the utter representant of
          the Old Covenant, needs a full supply of water to prepare people for the
          qualitative change that he himself cannot perform. In his last speech in
          John, about the bridegroom, he himself is the one that, as it were, carries
          the water into the wedding room where Jesus takes over to baptize with fire.

          In John 4 Jacob's Well presents a water supply sufficient for father Jacob,
          all his sons and all his flock (verse 12). According to Jewish tradition,
          Jacob's Well used to be filled to the brim every time when Jacob came to
          draw water. Again, though not in the same way, this place of traditional
          abundance is the starting point where Jesus takes over and offers his own
          new gift instead.

          In John 5, Jesus comes to the pool of Bethesda and, not denying the actual
          saving power of this abundant supply of water, touches the lame with his
          word, offering his saving gift instead.

          In John 7, finally, Jesus appears at the Feast of Tabernacles, which
          involved abundant outpouring of water by the priests in the temple court, at
          the place where according to prophecy a river would spring forth at the day
          of salvation and water all the land - and without bringing water Jesus
          proclaims that faith in himself will make that river to flow out of your
          inner self. And look - Jesus does not proclaim so at the beginning of the
          feast, but at the end (7:37), when the feast is "filled to the brim".

          Is this to say that you cannot accuse the Johannine Jesus of not taking
          tradition seriously? Or is it to say that Jesus'gift enters precisely there,
          where the holy tradition is fulfilled to the brim - as its utter fulfillment
          which fully acknowledges its weight before taking its place?

          Thank you, Jeffery, for this occasion to arrange some loose threads in my
          mind!
          Kind greetings and best wishes, let us fill this new year to the brim, and
          may the word of Christ change all the water we'll carry into it, into wine!

          Piet van Veldhuizen
          Rotterdam, Netherlands
          pi.veldhuizen@...
        • fmmccoy
          ... From: Horace Jeffery Hodges To: Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2002 6:17 PM Subject:
          Message 4 of 8 , Jan 1, 2003
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "Horace Jeffery Hodges" <jefferyhodges@...>
            To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2002 6:17 PM
            Subject: [John_Lit] Filling to the Brim?


            > In John 2:7, the servants fill the jars to the brim
            > with water. Was this normal proceedure for large stone
            > jars used for ceremonial purification?
            >

            Dear Jeffery Hodges:

            I don't know the answer to your question.

            For me, though, the important point is that John stresses the filling of the
            stone jars to their brims. This is, ISTM, intentional. Why, then, does he
            stress that each jar (hudria) had been filled to its brim?

            The answer, I suggest, lies in secs. 136-152 of Philo's essay, The Posterity
            and Exile of Cain (Post).

            In Post (136-152), Philo likens the mind to a hudria and Wisdom,
            particularly as spoken to a pupil (mathetes), to water, stating, "Rebecca,
            it says, went down to the spring to fill her hudrian and came up again. For
            whence is it likely that a mind thirsting for sound sense should be filled
            save from the Wisdom of God, that never-failing spring, its descent to which
            is an ascent in accordance with some innate characteristic of a true learner
            (mathetou)? For the teaching of Virtue (i.e., Wisdom) awaits those who come
            down from empty self-conceir".

            Further, hudrias (minds) vary in their capacity for receiving the water
            (i.e., Wisdom) and the hudria of each pupil (mathetes) should be filled to
            its capacity. So, in Post (136-152), Philo states, "And so in His desire
            that we should enjoy benefit from the gifts which He bestows, God
            proportions the things which He gives to the strength of those who receive
            them. Rebecca is therefore to be commended for following the ordinances of
            the Father and letting down from a higher position the vessel which contains
            Wisdom, called the hudrian, on to her arm, and for holding out to the pupil
            (mathete) the teaching which he is able to receive. Asked for a little to
            drink she gives much, until she has filled the whole soul of the learner
            with draughts of speculation."

            So, I suggest, in the narrative of the wedding at Cana, each hudria
            symbolizes the mind of a mathete (disciple). The servants symbolize the
            teachers who speak Wisdom to their disciples. The water poured into each
            hudria, then, symbolizes the Wisdom, as speech, told by a teacher to a
            disciple. Because minds vary in their capacity for receiving Wisdom as
            speech, the hudrias at the wedding scene vary in their capacity for storing
            water. Because the mind of each disciple should be filled to its capacity
            with Wisdom as speech, each of the hudria at the wedding scene is filled to
            its brim with water.

            This explains why the water poured into the hudrias becomes wine--for when
            the spiritual water of Wisdom as speech enters into a soul, it acts as a
            spiritual wine, spiritually intoxicating the soul. As Philo states in Prob
            (13), "Wisdom is most divine and free-handed, she never closes her school of
            thought but always opens her doors to those who thirst for the sweet water
            of discourse, and pouring on them an unstinted stream of undiluted doctrine,
            persuades them to be drunken with the drunkeness which is soberness itself."

            The spiritual water of Wisdom as discourse that becomes a spiritual
            intoxicating wine in a soul can be poured out by the Logos as an offering of
            his very self. As Philo relates in Som II (245 & 249), "It is this Logos
            which one of Moses' company compared to a river, when he said in the Psalms
            'the river of God is full of water' (Ps. lxv. (lxiv.) 10); where surely it
            were senseless to suppose that the words can properly refer to any of the
            rivers of earth. No, he is representing the Divine Logos as full of the
            stream of Wisdom, with no part of it empty or devoid of itself....And when
            the happy soul holds out the sacred goblet of its own reason (i.e., mind),
            who is it that pours into it the holy cupfuls of true gladness but the
            Logos, the Cup-bearer of God and master of the feast, who is also none other
            than the draught which he pours--his own self free from all dilution, the
            delight, the sweetening, the exhilarion, the merriment, the ambrosian drug
            (to take for our own use the poet's terms) whose medicine gives joy and
            gladness?"

            This possibly relates to the wedding at Cana narrative, in which, it is
            declared, the bridegroom has saved the best wine for the last. In this
            case, the bridegroom symbolizes the Logos and the best wine he has saved for
            last is the Wisdom, as discourse, that is a part of his very self--the
            thought being that Jesus, as the incarnate Logos, has brought us the wine of
            Wisdom as discourse that is better than the previous inferior "wine" of .the
            Law (compare Mark 2:18-22, where Jesus implies that he is the Bridegroom and
            speaks about the old and new wine).

            Seen in this light, the wedding at Cana narrative contains allegorical
            elements and might even be an allegory. This raises questions about its
            historical reality. Is the narrative of the wedding purely an allegory
            without a historical basis? Or, is it a narrative of an actual historical
            event which has been so worded as to give it an inner allegorical meaning?

            Frank McCoy
            1809 N. English Apt. 17
            Maplewood, MN USA 55109
          • adisciple2 <smosher0@lycos.com>
            Piet, I would affirm many of the connections you make concerning the water that prepares for, and then is replaced by, Jesus new gift. I might just add that
            Message 5 of 8 , Jan 2, 2003
              Piet, I would affirm many of the connections you make concerning
              the water that prepares for, and then is replaced by, Jesus' "new
              gift."

              I might just add that the "new gift" could be consistently focused
              on the Spirit.

              Jn. 1:33 contrasts John's baptism with water and Jesus' baptism
              with the Spirit (no mention of fire in Jn.). Jesus' water is also
              present in the last passage you mention, where 7:37-39 points to the
              living water Jesus will offer after he is glorified.

              Living water is already the new gift Jesus offers in Jn. 4, yet when
              the woman asks for it Jesus does not (yet) give it. I think the
              living water here should also (as in 7:39) be seen as the Spirit,
              pointing in this context to the future day when true worshipers will
              worship in Spirit and truth.

              The new wine of Jn. 2 (regardless of links with fire and wine) could
              also be seen as the Spirit. If the "after two days" in 2:1 and Jesus'
              hour not yet coming point ahead to the future death and resurrection
              (after two days), then the turning water into wine could point to the
              living water/wine Jesus will give when his hour of glorification
              comes. After Jesus manifests his "glory" (in a proleptic way) through
              this sign/miracle, his disciples believe.

              Steve Mosher

              --- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com, <pi.veldhuizen@w...>
              wrote:
              > Jeffery asked:
              >
              > "In John 2:7, the servants fill the jars to the brim
              > with water. Was this normal procedure for large stone
              > jars used for ceremonial purification?"
              >
              > Although I do not know to what extent such jars used to be filled, I
              would
              > like to remark that an abundant supply of 'traditional' water is
              surely
              > "normal procedure" in John 1-7.
              > This supply is both in some sense praparatory to, and stands in
              opposition
              > to the new gift that Jesus is offering.
              >
              > In John 2 it is plenty of purification water in the jars - which
              seems to me
              > to symbolize fulfilment of the law "to the brim". It will not bring
              > salvation if it remains external, at the door - but brought inside
              and
              > touched by the word of Jesus it becomes a purifying power of another
              kind.
              > Wine is more like fire than like water..
              >
              > In John 3 there is plenty of water where John is baptizing - whereas
              no
              > water at all is mentioned when the mysterious baptismal practice of
              Jesus is
              > mentioned. The Baptist states the opposition: I am baptizing with
              water, he
              > will baptize with fire and spirit. The Baptist, the utter
              representant of
              > the Old Covenant, needs a full supply of water to prepare people for
              the
              > qualitative change that he himself cannot perform. In his last
              speech in
              > John, about the bridegroom, he himself is the one that, as it were,
              carries
              > the water into the wedding room where Jesus takes over to baptize
              with fire.
              >
              > In John 4 Jacob's Well presents a water supply sufficient for father
              Jacob,
              > all his sons and all his flock (verse 12). According to Jewish
              tradition,
              > Jacob's Well used to be filled to the brim every time when Jacob
              came to
              > draw water. Again, though not in the same way, this place of
              traditional
              > abundance is the starting point where Jesus takes over and offers
              his own
              > new gift instead.
              >
              > In John 5, Jesus comes to the pool of Bethesda and, not denying the
              actual
              > saving power of this abundant supply of water, touches the lame with
              his
              > word, offering his saving gift instead.
              >
              > In John 7, finally, Jesus appears at the Feast of Tabernacles, which
              > involved abundant outpouring of water by the priests in the temple
              court, at
              > the place where according to prophecy a river would spring forth at
              the day
              > of salvation and water all the land - and without bringing water
              Jesus
              > proclaims that faith in himself will make that river to flow out of
              your
              > inner self. And look - Jesus does not proclaim so at the beginning
              of the
              > feast, but at the end (7:37), when the feast is "filled to the
              brim".
              >
              > Is this to say that you cannot accuse the Johannine Jesus of not
              taking
              > tradition seriously? Or is it to say that Jesus'gift enters
              precisely there,
              > where the holy tradition is fulfilled to the brim - as its utter
              fulfillment
              > which fully acknowledges its weight before taking its place?
              >
              > Thank you, Jeffery, for this occasion to arrange some loose threads
              in my
              > mind!
              > Kind greetings and best wishes, let us fill this new year to the
              brim, and
              > may the word of Christ change all the water we'll carry into it,
              into wine!
              >
              > Piet van Veldhuizen
              > Rotterdam, Netherlands
              > pi.veldhuizen@w...
            • pi.veldhuizen@wxs.nl
              Hello Frank McCoy, None of us both answered Jeffery s question (is there a possibility at all to establish in a historical sense what kind of vessels is meant,
              Message 6 of 8 , Jan 2, 2003
                Hello Frank McCoy,

                None of us both answered Jeffery's question (is there a possibility at all
                to establish in a historical sense what kind of vessels is meant, and what
                kind of rules would have applied to their use?) - but let me reflect shortly
                on your reaction.

                Of course, you would not be Frank McCoy if you had not sent in extensive
                Philo citations. As always, the parallels in use of words, concepts and
                images are interesting.
                But it is curious to see that your treatment of both authors does not urge
                you, once you have arrived at Philo, to return to John. As I read your
                contribution, you do not seem to acknowledge John's Gospel as an independent
                piece of literature. One remark in John is explained exhaustively by the
                thoughts, not of John, but of Philo.

                It is not to underestimate the possible, in any case complex, relationship
                between John and Philo - but a remark of John should be explained, at least
                initially, in the context of John's own thought as expressed in his own
                writings.

                I completely disagree with your proposition, for example, to explain the six
                vessels in John 2 as an image of disciples, just because in Philo's
                meditations on Genesis 24 disciples are vessels for scriptural instruction.
                That both John and Philo speak about "hydria" is just because both write in
                greek. In fact, John's line of thought will be far closer to Philo's at this
                point in John 4, where John himself is recurring to Genesis 24 motifs - but
                there it is their common source, not their interdependence, that accounts
                for their kinship of thought.

                In John 2, the six vessels seem to be something like the forms of law
                fulfillment, the six working days that have to be fulfilled, but that out of
                themselves will never produce a shabbath. But just here a considerable
                difference between Philo and John is, that John shows no need to pin images
                down to exact meanings in a rebus-like manner.

                A last difference: Philo is a commentary writer, John writes a story
                himself. That makes a big difference both in the way they use language and
                images, and in the exgegetical treatment they deserve.

                Kind regards,
                Piet van Veldhuizen
                pi.veldhuizen@...
              • fmmccoy
                ... From: To: Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 3:43 PM Subject: RE: [John_Lit] Filling to the
                Message 7 of 8 , Jan 6, 2003
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: <pi.veldhuizen@...>
                  To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 3:43 PM
                  Subject: RE: [John_Lit] Filling to the Brim?


                  > Hello Frank McCoy,
                  >
                  > None of us both answered Jeffery's question (is there a possibility at all
                  > to establish in a historical sense what kind of vessels is meant, and what
                  > kind of rules would have applied to their use?) - but let me reflect
                  shortly
                  > on your reaction.
                  >

                  Dear Piet van Veldhuizen:

                  I think we can establish in a historical sense what kind of vessels is meant
                  by the stone vessels. In Excavating Jesus (pp. 165-66), John Dominic
                  Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed state, "Vessels made from that soft white
                  limestone known geologically as chalk are one of the most characteristic
                  finds at Jewish sites. They are called stone vessels, or sometimes Herodian
                  stoneware, because of their appearance throughout the Jewish homeland
                  beginning with Herod's rule. That, by the way, is an interesting fact.
                  Once again, is a special concern for Jewish purity a covert anti-Herodian
                  and anti-Roman statement? Be that as it may, these assemblages consist of
                  forms for liquids such as bowls, cups, mugs, lids, basins, and large jars."

                  They also state (p. 166), "They are found, notably, in large numbers at
                  every site in Galilee with a substantial first-century C.E. layer."

                  Finally, they state (p. 167), "Stone, however, was deemed impervios to
                  ritual defilement, so that vessels made from it were always 'clean.'"

                  From what they say, the large stone vessels at Cana have a religious
                  significance in that, they indicate, the owners of the residence were
                  concerned about ritual purity. They possibly might also have a political
                  significance in that, they possibly indicate, the owners of the residence
                  were anti-Herodian and/or anti-Roman.


                  > Of course, you would not be Frank McCoy if you had not sent in extensive
                  > Philo citations. As always, the parallels in use of words, concepts and
                  > images are interesting.
                  > But it is curious to see that your treatment of both authors does not urge
                  > you, once you have arrived at Philo, to return to John. As I read your
                  > contribution, you do not seem to acknowledge John's Gospel as an
                  independent
                  > piece of literature. One remark in John is explained exhaustively by the
                  > thoughts, not of John, but of Philo.
                  .
                  I left off returning to John because I thought my post was getting pretty
                  long. It was not my intent to imply that, I think, John's Gospel is not an
                  independent piece of literature.

                  At the present time, I think of Johannine thought and Philonic thought as
                  two expressions of what might be described as a generic type of Alexandrian
                  Jewish conceptual universe--with Philo's version of it heavily influenced by
                  Hellenistic philosophy and with John's version of it heavily influenced by a
                  Messianic/Apocalyptic type of Judaism typified in the Dead Sea scrolls and
                  the preaching of John the Baptist. If so, then they are related, but
                  independent, systems of thought.

                  >> It is not to underestimate the possible, in any case complex,
                  relationship
                  > between John and Philo - but a remark of John should be explained, at
                  least
                  > initially, in the context of John's own thought as expressed in his own
                  > writings.

                  True, but when dealing with posts you are trying to keep as short as
                  possible, this is sometimes impractical.

                  > I completely disagree with your proposition, for example, to explain the
                  six
                  > vessels in John 2 as an image of disciples, just because in Philo's
                  > meditations on Genesis 24 disciples are vessels for scriptural
                  instruction.
                  > That both John and Philo speak about "hydria" is just because both write
                  in
                  > greek. In fact, John's line of thought will be far closer to Philo's at
                  this
                  > point in John 4, where John himself is recurring to Genesis 24 motifs -
                  but
                  > there it is their common source, not their interdependence, that accounts
                  > for their kinship of thought.

                  Philo's meditation on Genesis 24 and the Johannine Cana wedding narrative
                  share more than just the vessels. They also share the pouring of water into
                  these vessels and the filling of these vessels to their full capacity.

                  Too, in Genesis 24, it is Rebecca who pours the water, while in the
                  Johannine Cana wedding narrative, the mother of Jesus orders the pouring of
                  the water. Possibly, then, in the Johannine Cana wedding narrative, the
                  mother of Jesus is likened to Rebecca as depicted in Genesis 24. I think,
                  in particular of 24:16, "And the virgin was very beautiful in appearance,
                  she was a virgin, a man had not known her".

                  > In John 2, the six vessels seem to be something like the forms of law
                  > fulfillment, the six working days that have to be fulfilled, but that out
                  of
                  > themselves will never produce a shabbath. But just here a considerable
                  > difference between Philo and John is, that John shows no need to pin
                  images
                  > down to exact meanings in a rebus-like manner.
                  >

                  That these vessels were concerned with ritual purity lends support to this
                  line of interpretation. Can this line of interpretaion, though, explain why
                  the six vessels are of varying capacity and why each is filled to the brim
                  with water?.

                  > A last difference: Philo is a commentary writer, John writes a story
                  > himself. That makes a big difference both in the way they use language and
                  > images, and in the exgegetical treatment they deserve.

                  Agreed!

                  Regards,

                  Frank McCoy
                  1809 N. English Apt. 17
                  Maplewood, MN USA 55109
                • Paul Anderson
                  Thanks, Frank, excellent points here. Your observations make some interesting connections with John the Baptizer s ministry and the role of Jesus--standing on
                  Message 8 of 8 , Jan 7, 2003
                    Thanks, Frank, excellent points here. Your observations make some interesting connections with John the Baptizer's ministry and the role of Jesus--standing on an anti-Herodian platform, but going further with the way of the Spirit.

                    Paul Anderson

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: fmmccoy [mailto:FMMCCOY@...]
                    Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 6:16 PM
                    To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Filling to the Brim?



                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: <pi.veldhuizen@...>
                    To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                    Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 3:43 PM
                    Subject: RE: [John_Lit] Filling to the Brim?


                    > Hello Frank McCoy,
                    >
                    > None of us both answered Jeffery's question (is there a possibility at all
                    > to establish in a historical sense what kind of vessels is meant, and what
                    > kind of rules would have applied to their use?) - but let me reflect
                    shortly
                    > on your reaction.
                    >

                    Dear Piet van Veldhuizen:

                    I think we can establish in a historical sense what kind of vessels is meant
                    by the stone vessels. In Excavating Jesus (pp. 165-66), John Dominic
                    Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed state, "Vessels made from that soft white
                    limestone known geologically as chalk are one of the most characteristic
                    finds at Jewish sites. They are called stone vessels, or sometimes Herodian
                    stoneware, because of their appearance throughout the Jewish homeland
                    beginning with Herod's rule. That, by the way, is an interesting fact.
                    Once again, is a special concern for Jewish purity a covert anti-Herodian
                    and anti-Roman statement? Be that as it may, these assemblages consist of
                    forms for liquids such as bowls, cups, mugs, lids, basins, and large jars."

                    They also state (p. 166), "They are found, notably, in large numbers at
                    every site in Galilee with a substantial first-century C.E. layer."

                    Finally, they state (p. 167), "Stone, however, was deemed impervios to
                    ritual defilement, so that vessels made from it were always 'clean.'"

                    From what they say, the large stone vessels at Cana have a religious
                    significance in that, they indicate, the owners of the residence were
                    concerned about ritual purity. They possibly might also have a political
                    significance in that, they possibly indicate, the owners of the residence
                    were anti-Herodian and/or anti-Roman.


                    > Of course, you would not be Frank McCoy if you had not sent in extensive
                    > Philo citations. As always, the parallels in use of words, concepts and
                    > images are interesting.
                    > But it is curious to see that your treatment of both authors does not urge
                    > you, once you have arrived at Philo, to return to John. As I read your
                    > contribution, you do not seem to acknowledge John's Gospel as an
                    independent
                    > piece of literature. One remark in John is explained exhaustively by the
                    > thoughts, not of John, but of Philo.
                    .
                    I left off returning to John because I thought my post was getting pretty
                    long. It was not my intent to imply that, I think, John's Gospel is not an
                    independent piece of literature.

                    At the present time, I think of Johannine thought and Philonic thought as
                    two expressions of what might be described as a generic type of Alexandrian
                    Jewish conceptual universe--with Philo's version of it heavily influenced by
                    Hellenistic philosophy and with John's version of it heavily influenced by a
                    Messianic/Apocalyptic type of Judaism typified in the Dead Sea scrolls and
                    the preaching of John the Baptist. If so, then they are related, but
                    independent, systems of thought.

                    >> It is not to underestimate the possible, in any case complex,
                    relationship
                    > between John and Philo - but a remark of John should be explained, at
                    least
                    > initially, in the context of John's own thought as expressed in his own
                    > writings.

                    True, but when dealing with posts you are trying to keep as short as
                    possible, this is sometimes impractical.

                    > I completely disagree with your proposition, for example, to explain the
                    six
                    > vessels in John 2 as an image of disciples, just because in Philo's
                    > meditations on Genesis 24 disciples are vessels for scriptural
                    instruction.
                    > That both John and Philo speak about "hydria" is just because both write
                    in
                    > greek. In fact, John's line of thought will be far closer to Philo's at
                    this
                    > point in John 4, where John himself is recurring to Genesis 24 motifs -
                    but
                    > there it is their common source, not their interdependence, that accounts
                    > for their kinship of thought.

                    Philo's meditation on Genesis 24 and the Johannine Cana wedding narrative
                    share more than just the vessels. They also share the pouring of water into
                    these vessels and the filling of these vessels to their full capacity.

                    Too, in Genesis 24, it is Rebecca who pours the water, while in the
                    Johannine Cana wedding narrative, the mother of Jesus orders the pouring of
                    the water. Possibly, then, in the Johannine Cana wedding narrative, the
                    mother of Jesus is likened to Rebecca as depicted in Genesis 24. I think,
                    in particular of 24:16, "And the virgin was very beautiful in appearance,
                    she was a virgin, a man had not known her".

                    > In John 2, the six vessels seem to be something like the forms of law
                    > fulfillment, the six working days that have to be fulfilled, but that out
                    of
                    > themselves will never produce a shabbath. But just here a considerable
                    > difference between Philo and John is, that John shows no need to pin
                    images
                    > down to exact meanings in a rebus-like manner.
                    >

                    That these vessels were concerned with ritual purity lends support to this
                    line of interpretation. Can this line of interpretaion, though, explain why
                    the six vessels are of varying capacity and why each is filled to the brim
                    with water?.

                    > A last difference: Philo is a commentary writer, John writes a story
                    > himself. That makes a big difference both in the way they use language and
                    > images, and in the exgegetical treatment they deserve.

                    Agreed!

                    Regards,

                    Frank McCoy
                    1809 N. English Apt. 17
                    Maplewood, MN USA 55109










                    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/
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.