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

Filling to the Brim?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 8 , Dec 31, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 8 , Jan 1, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 8 , Jan 1, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          ----- 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 4 of 8 , Jan 2, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 8 , Jan 2, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 8 , Jan 6, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                ----- 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 7 of 8 , Jan 7, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  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.