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

Question about John 4 and Gen24/29/Ex2

Expand Messages
  • pi.veldhuizen@wxs.nl
    Recently I have been doing some research in the connections between the Samaritan Woman story and Old Testament encounters at wells. I think I have read most
    Message 1 of 20 , Mar 1, 2003
      Recently I have been doing some research in the connections between the
      Samaritan Woman story and Old Testament encounters at wells.
      I think I have read most of what has been written on this subject in
      commentaries and separate studies in the 20th century. It is interesting to
      observe that a link between the "betrothal" narratives of Gen 24/29 and Ex 2
      was commented on by Origen in the 3rd century, but then seems to remain
      hidden from the eyes of biblical scholars until the 1960s. Finally in the
      1980s many commentators start to quote Robert Alter and apply his "betrothal
      type-scene" idea to John 4, although I suppose Alter himself would signal
      some fundamental difficulties here.

      Now my question is about the period between Origen and 1960. Does anyone
      know about sermons or writings from that extensive period in which there is
      mention of a link between the OT encounters at the well and John 4 ?

      From today's perspective, it is so difficult to believe that nobody would
      have noticed the parallels between the OT "well stories" and John 4. Even
      those scholars who in the mid-20th century expressly looked for OT and
      post-OT Jewish backgrounds to John 4 (Bultmann, Odeberg, Schlatter, Strack &
      Billerbeck) do not mention them. Bultmann is quoted by many commentators as
      he compares the Samaritan episode to a Buddhist "well story" about prince
      Ananda, and none of them before 1960 notices that comparable stories are
      much closer at hand.

      Now scholarly eyes often being focussed by scholarly tradition, may well be
      blind to such parallels. But as a preacher I cannot believe that through all
      these centuries there would not have been preachers seeing the link, just
      because story-telling as a practice will sooner or later force those
      narrative parallels upon your mind. Of course, relatively few sermons have
      been recorded, and I will not be able to scan even those recorded. So with
      my question I am counting on coincidence: did anyone of you happen to meet
      with what I am looking for?

      Kind regards,
      Piet van Veldhuizen
      pi.veldhuizen@...



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • John Lupia
      Saluut Piet van Veldhuizen: The keyword (woord kritiek, of woord hachelijk) is FREAR in the LXX and hexaplaric texts which St. John also used in his
      Message 2 of 20 , Mar 1, 2003
        Saluut Piet van Veldhuizen:

        The keyword (woord kritiek, of woord hachelijk) is
        FREAR in the LXX and hexaplaric texts which St. John
        also used in his composition in order to allude to the
        texts of Gen. 14:10; 16:14; 21:14, 19; 12:25,
        30-33;22:19; 24:11,20, 62; 25:11; 26:15, 18-23, 25,
        32-33; 28:10; 29:2-3, 8, 10; 46:1, 5; Ex 2:15; 8:3;
        Num 21:16-18, 22; 1 Sam 19:22 (1 King 19:22); 2 Sam.
        3:26 (2 King 3:26); Ps 45 (55):23; 68 (69):15; Prov.
        5:15; 23:27; Cant (Song/Song) 4:15; Am. 5:5; Isa.
        15:8; Jer 14:3; 48 (41):7, 9; 1 Ma 7:19; 2 Ma. 1:19.
        Note that the Samaritan Ps 68 (69):16, rather than v.
        15; and that other hexaplaric texts give Ex 8:3 (7:28)
        as above. Now the best fitting allusions are those
        consistent with the text on drawing out and drinking
        water and the concept of the marriage bond as the
        Johannine text so illustrates.

        The question you pose re: intervening commentaries ab
        Origen ad Alter can be partially addressed by
        methodology using lexicons like Lampe, Patristic
        Lexicon looking under the keyword FREAR, which should
        provide some exemplae of the use in patristic writing.
        I have taken a look and it is sparse. Perhaps there
        are two reasons: (1) the use of FREAR is sometimes
        used beyond the �literal sense� in the metaphorical
        sense of Sacred Scripture being a well, in which, as
        St. Thomas Aquinas points out in Summa Theologiae
        (part I, quest. 1, art. 10), this is also known as the
        �typical sense�. (see Msgr. John E. Steinmueller,
        Companion to Scripture Studies (vol. 1, pp. 256-257).
        In this case the synonym is PHGH. (2) Origen�s
        exegesis was in itself sufficient and that subsequent
        authors in the medieval period and later cited him.

        Origen comments on divorce in reference to 1 Cor 7:39;
        Rom 7:3. This is taken up by Augustine, de conjugiis
        adulterinis.

        Vrede ter Christus

        met vr. gr.
        John



        =====
        John N. Lupia, III
        31 Norwich Drive
        Toms River, New Jersey 08757 USA
        Phone: (732) 341-8689
        Email: jlupia2@...
        Editor, Roman Catholic News
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Roman-Catholic-News

        __________________________________________________
        Do you Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
        http://taxes.yahoo.com/
      • Jeffrey B. Gibson
        ... I should have thought it would have been PHGH. ... I m not sure that using Lexicons is the best way to see who does and does not comment upon the passage
        Message 3 of 20 , Mar 1, 2003
          John Lupia wrote:

          > Saluut Piet van Veldhuizen:
          >
          > The keyword (woord kritiek, of woord hachelijk) is
          > FREAR

          I should have thought it would have been PHGH.

          >
          > The question you pose re: intervening commentaries ab
          > Origen ad Alter can be partially addressed by
          > methodology using lexicons like Lampe, Patristic
          > Lexicon looking under the keyword FREAR, which should
          > provide some exemplae of the use in patristic writing.

          I'm not sure that using Lexicons is the best way to see who does and does not
          comment upon the passage in question. Lexicons, after all, are not designed
          to give you **every** instance of the use of a word, but only sufficient
          number of instances to demonstrate that a word had a particular semantic
          range.

          Far better is the TLG, access to which John seems to be deprived.

          Here is a full listing, according to the TLG D Disk, of who and how many
          times --from the first century CE up through the 14th century used -- a given
          author used the word FREAR. Note that I used only the lexical entry of the
          word for my search term and that I have included authors who are not biblical
          commentators or Christian theologians.

          Yours,

          Jeffrey Gibson

          ***********
          Century AD 1
          Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil.: 13
          Novum Testamentum: 4
          Flavius Arrianus Hist. et Phi: 1
          Josephus Hist.: 11
          Pseudo-Apollodorus Myth.: 1
          Heron Mech.: 8
          Harpocration Gramm.: 1
          Vitae Aesopi: 1Matches in this century: 40

          Century: A.D. 2
          Athenaeus Soph.: 13
          Galenus Med.: 4
          Lucianus Soph.: 3
          Herodianus et Pseudo-Herodi: 15
          Aelius Aristides Rhet.: 5
          Pausanias Perieg.: 8
          Sextus Empiricus Phil.: 2
          Aelianus Soph.: 1
          Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Imp: 1
          Polyaenus Rhet.: 2
          Flavius Philostratus Soph.: 2
          Alexander Aphrodisiensis Phil: 8
          Origenes Theol.: 34

          Century A.D. 3
          Digonetes Laertius Biogr.: 3
          Eutecnius Soph.: 1
          Iamblichus Phil.: 2
          Hippolytus Scr. Eccl.: 1

          Century: A.D. 4
          Themistius Phil. et Rhet.: 1
          Gregorius Nyssenus Theol.: 14
          Eusebius Scr. Eccl. et Theol.: 22
          Epiphanius Scr. Eccl.: 5
          Gregorius Nazianzenus Theol.: 3
          Athanasius Theol.: 6
          Basilius Caesariensis Theol.: 7
          Socrates Scholasticus Hist.: 1
          Joannes Chrysostomus Scr. Ecc: 48
          Didymus Caecus Scr. Eccl.: 12
          Palladius Scr. Eccl.: 8
          Libanius Rhet. et Soph.: 3
          Theodoretus Scr. Eccl. 25

          Century: A.D. 6
          Ae+tius Amidenus Med.: 1
          Romanus Melodus Hymnographus: 15
          Joannes Philoponus Phil.: 5
          Asclepius Phil.: 1
          Olympiodorus Phil.: 2
          Stephanus Byzantius Gramm.: 8
          Procopius Hist.: 7

          Century: A.D. 7
          Paulus Aegineta Med.: 1
          Joannes Damascenus Theol. et : 1

          Century: A.D. 9
          Georgius Monachus Chronogr.: 2

          Century: A.D. 10
          Constantinus VII Porphyrogeni: 14
          Georgius Monachus Continuatus: 1
          Suda: 8

          Century: A.D. 11
          Anna Comnena Hist.: 1

          Century: A.D. 12 Eustathius Philol. et Scr. Ec: 7

          Century: A.D. 13
          Sophonias Phil.: 1
          Nicephorus Gregoras Polyhist.: 1

          Date: Varia Septuaginta: 31
          Concilia Oecumenica, ACO: 1
          Scholia in Aelium Aristidem: 6
          Scholia in Aeschylum: 2
          Scholia in Aristophanem: 9
          Scholia in Dionysium Perieget: 1
          Scholia in Euripidem: 1
          Anthologia Graeca: 2

          ***********

          --

          Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

          1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
          Chicago, IL 60626

          jgibson000@...
        • pi.veldhuizen@wxs.nl
          Hello Jeffrey and John: As to methods of searching: I already searched the Patrologia Graeca et Latina (Migne) digitally by means of many clue combinations
          Message 4 of 20 , Mar 2, 2003
            Hello Jeffrey and John:

            As to methods of searching: I already searched the Patrologia Graeca et
            Latina (Migne) digitally by means of many clue combinations like:
            "Samaritan* AND Rebecca*", "Well AND Moses AND Jesus".

            This only led me to Origen (whose references I already knew) and to Ambrose,
            who in one text opposes the Samaritan woman to Rebecca at the well.

            As far as I know, there is no such digital source for the Reformation
            period, for example.

            Kind regards,
            Piet van Veldhuizen
            pi.veldhuizen@...

            Rotterdam, Netherlands
          • kymhsm <khs@picknowl.com.au>
            Dear Piet, I have not drawn any comparisons with OT well scenes but you may be interested in what I have found, especially as you compare this well scene with
            Message 5 of 20 , Mar 2, 2003
              Dear Piet,

              I have not drawn any comparisons with OT well scenes but you
              may be interested in what I have found, especially as you
              compare this well scene with what you have called `betrothal
              narratives'. In my book `The Amazing Structure of the Gospel of
              John' I argue that the whole gospel is built on the structure of
              Genesis 1&2. According to this structure Jesus' discussion with
              the Samaritan woman about ground water and living water
              parallels the second day of creation where the waters below the
              firmament are separated from those above.

              The whole narrative is presented in three chiastic structures, the
              first being what I have referred to above. The second is of more
              interest to you and I have included an abbreviated form of it
              below. The Genesis structure climaxes with the making of Eve,
              this means that behind the gospel marriage, and Christ's getting
              his Bride, are important. While the chiastic structure below is
              fairly typical with word, phrase and thematic connections, the b-b'
              is one of the most profound and beautiful connections in the
              gospel. In response to Jesus' command to fetch him, the
              woman says, in b, "I have no husband". In b', which, in the linear
              flow of the text, is related to Jesus' Messiahship, across the
              chiastic structure John has Jesus respond to the woman, "I who
              speak to you am he." That is, despite her past and present
              marriage arrangements, Jesus claims to be her true husband.

              I hope this is helpful for you.

              True Worship (TW) — 4:16-27

              a 16 Jesus said to her, "Go, call your husband, and COME here."
              b 17a The woman answered him [and said - Gk], "I have no
              husband."
              c 17b-18 Jesus... "...you...had five husbands...whom you now
              have is not..."
              d 19 THE WOMAN SAID TO HIM, "Sir, I *PERCEIVE* THAT you
              are a prophet.
              e 20 Our fathers WORSHIPPED on this mountain...you say that
              in Jerusalem..."
              f 21 Jesus..."...HOUR IS COMING when neither...will you
              WORSHIP THE FATHER.
              g 22a YOU WORSHIP WHAT YOU DO not KNOW; `
              g' 22b WE WORSHIP WHAT WE KNOW, for salvation is from
              the Jews.
              f' 23 ...HOUR IS COMING...WORSHIPERS...WORSHIP THE
              FATHER in spirit and truth...
              e' 24 God is spirit...those who WORSHIP him must WORSHIP
              in spirit and truth."
              d' 25a THE WOMAN SAID TO HIM, "I *KNOW*
              THAT...Messiah...coming (...Christ);
              c' 25b when he comes, he will show us all things."
              b' 26 Jesus said to her, "I who speak to you am he."
              a' 27 ...disciples CAME. They marveled that he was talking with a
              woman

              Sincerely,

              Kym Smith
              Adelaide
              South Australia
              khs@...
            • Staley, Jeffrey
              Recently I have been doing some research in the connections between the Samaritan Woman story and Old Testament encounters at wells. I think I have read most
              Message 6 of 20 , Mar 4, 2003
                Recently I have been doing some research in the connections between the
                Samaritan Woman story and Old Testament encounters at wells. I think I have
                read most of what has been written on this subject in commentaries and
                separate studies in the 20th century. It is interesting to observe that a
                link between the "betrothal" narratives of Gen 24/29 and Ex 2 was commented
                on by Origen in the 3rd century, but then seems to remain hidden from the
                eyes of biblical scholars until the 1960s.


                While I have not read Origen on this text (I think Origen is online, is he
                not? Can you provide a link?) I suspect Origen's take on the scene is quite
                a bit different from Alter's understanding of type-scene. Can you
                elaborate on Origen's p.o.v.?

                I suppose Alter himself would signal some fundamental difficulties here.

                I first heard Alter give his "betrothal type-scene" idea in Berkeley prior
                to the publication of his "Art of," and I approached him afterwards about
                the John 4 story. He did not have difficulty with John 4 as a betrothal
                typescene. In fact, Alter served on my dissertation committee, and in it
                ("Print's First Kiss," SBLDS, 1988), I proposed John 4 as a parody of the
                the betrothal typescene. Perhaps Alter was just being gracious in the
                dissertation defense, however, he did not raise any objections to that idea
                in the diss draft or defense.

                Now my question is about the period between Origen and 1960. Does anyone
                know about sermons or writings from that extensive period in which there is
                mention of a link between the OT encounters at the well and John 4?

                Nope, but check out Adeline Fehribach's book--perhps you already have. She
                has some medieval references therein, I believe.

                Jeff Staley
              • pi.veldhuizen@wxs.nl
                Dear Jeff Staley ... Origen is, as far as I know, online in several limited access digital collections. I found him in the solid 19th century Migne volumes.
                Message 7 of 20 , Mar 5, 2003
                  Dear Jeff Staley

                  You wrote:
                  > While I have not read Origen on this text (I think Origen is online, is he
                  > not? Can you provide a link?) I suspect Origen's take on the
                  > scene is quite
                  > a bit different from Alter's understanding of type-scene. Can you
                  > elaborate on Origen's p.o.v.?

                  Origen is, as far as I know, online in several limited access digital
                  collections. I found him in the solid 19th century Migne volumes. The link I
                  followed was, if I remember well, Andrea Link mentioning Origen in a
                  footnote.
                  Now the astonishing thing is that Origen in his "Homilia in Genesim X De
                  Rebecca, cum exisset ad aquam hauriendam, et occurisset ei puer Abrahae"
                  (ancient latin translation by Rufin) draws attention to the correspondence
                  of these scenes: first Genesis 24, Genesis 29, and Exodus 2, and in a second
                  movement he refers to the Samaritan Woman. Coming to the well, in his
                  judgment, is a symbol for coming to the Scriptures, drawing water is
                  meditating Scripture, which eventually will lead to the marriage of one's
                  soul to God.
                  Origen's theory differs from Alter's in that he has no theory about literary
                  conventions - he sees the corresponding stories as proof of a universal
                  correspondence of forms and symbols within the Bible. But he is the only one
                  before 1960, as far as I could find, who draws attention to a narrative
                  model shared by these four texts.

                  Next, you wrote:
                  > I first heard Alter give his "betrothal type-scene" idea in
                  > Berkeley prior
                  > to the publication of his "Art of," and I approached him afterwards about
                  > the John 4 story. He did not have difficulty with John 4 as a betrothal
                  > typescene. In fact, Alter served on my dissertation committee, and in it
                  > ("Print's First Kiss," SBLDS, 1988), I proposed John 4 as a parody of the
                  > the betrothal typescene. Perhaps Alter was just being gracious in the
                  > dissertation defense, however, he did not raise any objections to
                  > that idea in the diss draft or defense.

                  Of course I read the John 4 chapter of your dissertation. I think Alter
                  could agree (and I myself would agree) precisely because you called John 4 a
                  parody on, and not a specimen of, the betrothal type-scene. Between the
                  patriarchal stories and John there is a breach in time and tradition which
                  makes simple continuation of the narrative model impossible. John is not
                  practising a then living literary form, but playing on a form known from
                  Scripture. This is a "secondary" practice as compared to the literary
                  practice Alter describes as the origin of type-scenes.

                  > check out Adeline Fehribach's book--perhps you already
                  > have. She has some medieval references therein, I believe.

                  I didn't come across this name. Thank you.

                  Kind greetings,
                  Piet van Veldhuizen
                  pi.veldhuizen@...

                  Rotterdam, Netherlands
                • McGrath, James
                  Another interesting book dealing with John 4 is Calum M. Carmichael, The Story of Creation: Its Origin and Its Interpretation in Philo and in the Fourth Gospel
                  Message 8 of 20 , Mar 5, 2003
                    Another interesting book dealing with John 4 is Calum M. Carmichael, The
                    Story of Creation: Its Origin and Its Interpretation in Philo and in the
                    Fourth Gospel (Cornell University Press, 1996). I can't remember the
                    exact page references, but I do remember that he suggests that the
                    references to the 'well' and 'pot' could be regarded as sexual innuendo.
                    He takes the conversation to begin on a purely human level, namely as an
                    attempt at flirting, and I've often wondered what to make of this.
                    Anyone have any thoughts, while we're (almost) on the topic? :)
                    Certainly it seems to me that to suggest the Genesis and other betrothal
                    traditions are irrelevant is to ignore John's deliberate allusions to
                    them, such as the reference to being at Jacob's well at midday, which is
                    when the meeting of Jacob and Rachel takes place (Genesis 29:7).

                    This last point also seems to me to perhaps suggest other
                    interpretations than the traditional 'the woman was a notorious sinner
                    trying to avoid meeting people at the well'. Is there any evidence that
                    might indicate whether, among the Samaritans as among Jews, wives did
                    not have the right to initiate divorce? If so, then the woman at the
                    well becomes more of a tragic figure (widowed or divorced many times)
                    rather than a sinful one in that cultural context.

                    Looking forward to your thoughts,

                    James


                    *****************************
                    Dr. James F. McGrath
                    Assistant Professor of Religion
                    Butler University, Indianapolis
                    http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/
                    *****************************
                  • kymhsm
                    Dear James,
                    Message 9 of 20 , Mar 5, 2003
                      Dear James,

                      <<<Another interesting book dealing with John 4 is Calum M.
                      Carmichael, The Story of Creation: Its Origin and Its
                      Interpretation in Philo and in the Fourth Gospel (Cornell
                      University Press, 1996). I can't remember the exact page
                      references, but I do remember that he suggests that the
                      references to the 'well' and 'pot' could be regarded as sexual
                      innuendo. He takes the conversation to begin on a purely human
                      level, namely as an attempt at flirting, and I've often wondered
                      what to make of this. Anyone have any thoughts, while we're
                      (almost) on the topic? :)>>>

                      It is a little difficult to know just how some terms (e.g. sexual
                      innuendo) are to be interpreted and so my reaction to some of
                      them may be unnecessarily strong. To say that Jesus (we can
                      be less sure of the Samaritan woman) was "engaging in a bit of
                      covert verbal coquetry" (Elizabeth's quote from Eslinger) or that
                      he was `flirting' seems to me to be going a little far. I suspect the
                      drive to bring Jesus' behaviour down to the level of our own may
                      be more an attempt to justify ourselves rather than to properly
                      understand the humanity of the holy Son of God.

                      There is no doubt that marriage or husband/wife imagery is
                      important for illustrating the intimacy of the relationship God
                      desires us to have with himself. There may not be a more
                      intimate picture than Jeremiah 13:11. But while I think it is fine to
                      see John 4 as a "betrothal type-scene" or to refer to its `nuptial
                      imagery', to speak of Jesus flirting or engaging in coquetry is not
                      appropriate.

                      That the `the 'well' and 'pot' could be regarded as sexual
                      innuendo' is a reflection on the reader more than it is on the
                      writer. If you allow that it is sexual innuendo you need also to
                      explain why a. the woman had the pot and b. Jesus did not have
                      the equipment with which to draw. I raise this only to discount the
                      idea of sexual innuendo as per the Carmichael quote, not
                      because I wish to pursue possible explanations.

                      Sincerely,

                      Kym Smith
                      Adelaide
                      South Australia
                      khs@...
                    • pi.veldhuizen@wxs.nl
                      Dear Fellow Researchers, It is like attending a wedding: you came to see the couple, but behold, during the reception people keep dropping in, some of whom you
                      Message 10 of 20 , Mar 6, 2003
                        Dear Fellow Researchers,

                        It is like attending a wedding: you came to see the couple, but behold,
                        during the reception people keep dropping in, some of whom you never met but
                        only heard speak about, others you didn't see for a long time. You would
                        almost forget the couple..

                        I am delighted to read the contributions on nuptial imagery in John 4,
                        although they do not answer the question that stood at the beginning of the
                        thread. It is important that the Zimmermanns dropped in and asked attention
                        for some lines of thought in German exegesis, and as I studied a
                        considerable amount of French literature on this subject, I would hope for
                        the French branch of the family coming to the wedding as well.

                        I noted Kym Smith's difficulty to accept some of the "sexual innuendo"
                        thoughts quoted from Eslinger. Now in my opinion Eslinger is one of those
                        exegetes who out of sheer enthousiasm ("Entdeckerfreude", you see we cannot
                        do without German), exploring the ambiguities in dialogue that come with the
                        nuptial imagery, just couldn't stop. I think erotic allusions are present,
                        but the 'status' of erotic allusions then is hard to compare with their
                        status now. "Sexual" overtones would never be opposed to theological
                        implications of Jesus'words, but rather correspond to them and strengthen
                        them. There never was a queen Victoria in ancient Palestine, there still was
                        a kind of integrity of human existence unspoilt by puritanism.

                        But now let me redefine my initial problem. In the 1960-s the first articles
                        appeared that linked John 4 to one or all of the "well stories" in Genesis
                        and Exodus. In the 1970-s this movement becomes stronger - most authors
                        pleading a connection of John 4 with one of the stories, either Gen 24 or
                        Gen 29, or seeing a connection through Jewish post-biblical literature.
                        Then, in the early 1980-s, Alter introduces his betrothal type-scene
                        concept, and within a few years several scholars apply his concept to John
                        4. Already in 1984 Derrett states (exaggeratingly of course) that this has
                        become totally commonplace exegesis.
                        Now how is it possible that all this started only from the 1960s? It must
                        have to do with reading the Bible as literature. But I really cannot imagine
                        that in all these centuries Origen was the only reader who noticed a
                        correspondence in literary pattern. These are really dark and long middle
                        ages!

                        I do no want to discourage you all from discussing nuptial imagery in John
                        4, but please don't forget to look for witnesses to the "well stories" link
                        before the 1960-s - early christian, medieval, renaissance and later. In the
                        meantime, go ahead!

                        Greetings,
                        Piet van Veldhuizen
                        pi.veldhuizen@...
                        Rotterdam, Netherlands
                        My (Dutch language) website: http:\\home01.planet.nl\~veldh395
                      • McGrath, James
                        Kym, I too am hesitant to get into details about what is hinted at by someone saying the well is deep and you don t have a vessel ! :) I think, to be fair,
                        Message 11 of 20 , Mar 6, 2003
                          Kym,

                          I too am hesitant to get into details about what is hinted at by someone
                          saying 'the well is deep and you don't have a vessel'! :) I think, to be
                          fair, Carmichael is suggesting that the woman is flirting, and that is
                          the human level she is speaking on, and Jesus is attempting to bring the
                          conversation to a higher level. But the truth of the matter is that (a)
                          there is no reason to suggest that there is sexual innuendo in the
                          references to things like 'well' and 'pot' - the betrothal-at-a-well
                          scenario is firmly established without such elements, and they are not a
                          typical part of such narratives (although maybe I need to reread
                          Genesis!); and (b) having both the woman and Jesus speak metaphorically
                          would be atypical of the Johannine misunderstanding motif - cp.
                          Nicodemus, who takes Jesus' words on a literal level, not as the wrong
                          sort of metaphor. So, in other words, I think I'm with you on this one!
                          :)

                          But I still wonder what the meaning of the betrothal-setting is. Perhaps
                          the idea is that Jesus is regathering Israel, and is remarrying God's
                          former bride, the northern kingdom, along the lines of the imagery used
                          in Hosea and elsewhere.

                          James



                          *****************************
                          Dr. James F. McGrath
                          Assistant Professor of Religion
                          Butler University, Indianapolis
                          http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/
                          *****************************



                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: kymhsm [mailto:khs@...]
                          Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 9:41 PM
                          To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Question about John 4 and Gen24/29/Ex2



                          Dear James,

                          It is a little difficult to know just how some terms (e.g. sexual
                          innuendo) are to be interpreted and so my reaction to some of
                          them may be unnecessarily strong. To say that Jesus (we can
                          be less sure of the Samaritan woman) was "engaging in a bit of
                          covert verbal coquetry" (Elizabeth's quote from Eslinger) or that
                          he was `flirting' seems to me to be going a little far. I suspect the
                          drive to bring Jesus' behaviour down to the level of our own may
                          be more an attempt to justify ourselves rather than to properly
                          understand the humanity of the holy Son of God.

                          There is no doubt that marriage or husband/wife imagery is
                          important for illustrating the intimacy of the relationship God
                          desires us to have with himself. There may not be a more
                          intimate picture than Jeremiah 13:11. But while I think it is fine to
                          see John 4 as a "betrothal type-scene" or to refer to its `nuptial
                          imagery', to speak of Jesus flirting or engaging in coquetry is not
                          appropriate.

                          That the `the 'well' and 'pot' could be regarded as sexual
                          innuendo' is a reflection on the reader more than it is on the
                          writer. If you allow that it is sexual innuendo you need also to
                          explain why a. the woman had the pot and b. Jesus did not have
                          the equipment with which to draw. I raise this only to discount the
                          idea of sexual innuendo as per the Carmichael quote, not
                          because I wish to pursue possible explanations.

                          Sincerely,

                          Kym Smith
                          Adelaide
                          South Australia
                          khs@...
                        • Staley, Jeffrey
                          Origen s theory differs from Alter s in that he has no theory about literary conventions - he sees the corresponding stories as proof of a universal
                          Message 12 of 20 , Mar 6, 2003
                            Origen's theory differs from Alter's in that he has no theory about
                            literary conventions - he sees the corresponding stories as proof of a
                            universal correspondence of forms and symbols within the Bible. But he is
                            the only one before 1960, as far as I could find, who draws attention to a
                            narrative model shared by these four texts.

                            Thanks for this summary analysis!


                            Of course I read the John 4 chapter of your dissertation. I think Alter
                            could agree (and I myself would agree) precisely because you called John 4 a
                            parody on, and not a specimen of, the betrothal type-scene.

                            Well, in my estimation, if it is a "parody on" it is also a betrothal scene.
                            Think Mel Brook's "Blazing Saddles." The film IS a western, AND a parody of
                            Westerns.

                            Between the patriarchal stories and John there is a breach in time and
                            tradition which makes simple continuation of the narrative model impossible.


                            Really? We have annunciation type-scenes in MT and LK do we not? We have
                            "last testament of the dying hero" type-scenes in John and Luke, do we not?
                            Both of these go back to Genesis also.

                            We should perhaps all read Obrey Hendricks recent novel about the "Woman at
                            the Well" published last month by Harper and Row. Obrey was on the Travis
                            Smiley Show last month (NPR). Obrey has a PhD in NT (Princeton Theo.
                            Sem.??), and I heard part of one of his chapters at a reading he did a few
                            years ago. I believe one of his premises is that the woman's "five
                            husbands" are men either enslaved or "disappeared" by Roman military powers
                            in Samaria.
                            http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060000872/qid%3D1046980011/sr%3D11-1
                            /ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/102-6282379-3828158

                            Jeff Staley
                          • Staley, Jeffrey
                            Is there any evidence that might indicate whether, among the Samaritans as among Jews, wives did not have the right to initiate divorce? If so, then the woman
                            Message 13 of 20 , Mar 6, 2003
                              Is there any evidence that might indicate whether, among the Samaritans as
                              among Jews, wives did not have the right to initiate divorce? If so, then
                              the woman at the well becomes more of a tragic figure (widowed or divorced
                              many times) rather than a sinful one in that cultural context.

                              Jeff Staley writes--I think I have read somewhere on John 4 that yes, what
                              little we know about Samaritan law, they did not allow women to divorce.
                              And anyway, even if she was divorced, what male in a honor-shame based
                              village would marry her after one divorce? I read this story NOW
                              (differently from my reading in "Print's First Kiss"), as a case of Levirite
                              marriage not unlike Tobit or Tamar. The woman has had 5 husbands, all have
                              died. "It must be her fault. She must be a witch/demon possessed." The
                              sixth man (brother) she is living with, is taking care of her--but no dummy.
                              He is afraid to marry her for fear of dying also. So yeah, a tragic woman
                              (probably assumed to be demon-possessed), but also a woman with a voice.
                              This reading does not diminish the betrothal type-scene dimension, but the
                              woman ceases to be a "loose woman."

                              On the issue of wells as fertility/sexual symbols. I believe Alter makes
                              this same point in his analysis of the type-scene--that is, wells were
                              understood as symbols of fertility/sexuality in the type-scene. To see
                              Jesus as a sexual being "playing" with the reader's expectations of
                              betrothal scenes does not impinge upon Jesus' "holiness/purity" so far as I
                              can see.

                              Jeff Staley
                            • John Lupia
                              Bon jour Piet et � tous les membres de la liste: Voici une bibliographie sur Jean 4 Cet index a BASE D INFORMATION BIBLIOGRAPHIQUE EN PATRISTIQUE (BIBP) il
                              Message 14 of 20 , Mar 6, 2003
                                Bon jour Piet et � tous les membres de la liste:


                                Voici une bibliographie sur Jean 4


                                Cet index a BASE D'INFORMATION BIBLIOGRAPHIQUE EN
                                PATRISTIQUE (BIBP) il inclut les textes patristiques
                                de Jean 4:



                                1.Bible N. T.: "Jean" 4 6697 1A192 1927 BHP


                                2./// *15369 1A39 1975 BP


                                3./// cf: Bibel N. T.: "Johannes" 4 all *31647 1A39
                                1982 BHP


                                4.Bible N. T.: "Jean" 4,1-15 cf: Biblia N. T.:
                                "Ioannes" 4,1-15 lat 17905 1A178 1933 BLP


                                5.Bible N. T.: "Jean" 4,1-26 cf: Bible N. T.: John
                                4,1-26 ang *37221 1A191 1996 BP


                                6.Bible N. T.: "Jean" 4,1-30 cf: Bibbia N. T.:
                                "Giovanni" 4,1-30 ita *1342 1A53 1967 BHP


                                7.Bible N. T.: "Jean" 4,3-14 cf: Bibel N. T.:
                                "Johannes" 4,3-14 all *22464 1A197 1938 BPRY


                                8.Bible N. T.: "Jean" 4,5-30 *9315 1A50 1969 BP


                                9.Bible N. T.: "Jean" 4,5-42 cf: Bibel N. T.:
                                "Johannes" 4,5-42 all *34537 1A87 1990 BPR


                                10.Bible N. T.: "Jean" 4,6-26 cf: Bibel N. T.:
                                "Johannes" 4,6-26 all *32946 1A39 1984 BP


                                11.Bible N. T.: "Jean" 4,6-42 1578 1A71 1962 BLP


                                12.Bible N. T.: "Jean" 4,7-15 *2963 1A45 1924 BP


                                13.Bible N. T.: "Jean" 4,7ss *7552 1P51 1949 BPRZ


                                14.Bible N. T.: "Jean" 4,17-24 *35923 1A87 1979 BPRZ


                                15./// *35924 1P87 1979 BPRZ


                                16.Bible N. T.: "Jean" 4,18 cf: Biblia N. T.: "Juan"
                                4,18 esp *3702 1A41 1953 BLP


                                17.Bible N. T.: "Jean" 4,21 30423 1A50 1983 BPR


                                18.Bible N. T.: "Jean" 4,31-34 cf: Bibel N. T.:
                                "Johannes" 4,31-34 all 3740 1A51 1925 BP


                                19.(3*) Bible N. T.: "Jean" 4,41 * "pleion" [Gr] cf:
                                3* Bible N. T.: John 4,41 * "pleion"
                                [Gr] ang *32248 1A135 1976 BPR


                                20.----- "pleion" [Gr] - "pleious" [Gr] cf: 3* Bible
                                N. T.: John 4,41 * "pleion" [Gr] -
                                "pleious" [Gr] ang *32248 1A135 1976 BPR


                                21.----- "pleious" [Gr] cf: 3* Bible N. T.: John 4,41
                                * "pleious" [Gr] ang *32248 1A135 1976 BPR


                                22.----- $4 ple�ous $ cf: 3* Bible N. T.: John 4,41 *
                                $4 ple�ous $ ang *32248 1A135 1976 BPR


                                23.----- $4 ple~ion $ cf: 3* Bible N. T.: John 4,41 *
                                $4 ple~ion $ ang *32248 1A135 1976 BPR


                                24.----- $4 ple~ion $ - $4 ple�ous $ cf: 3* Bible N.
                                T.: John 4,41 * $4 ple~ion $ - $4
                                ple�ous $ ang *32248 1A135 1976 BPR


                                25.Bible N. T.: "Jean" 4,43-54 *32468 1A101 1985 AB


                                26.Bible N. T.: "Jean" 4,46-53 cf: Bibbia N. T.:
                                "Giovanni" 4,46-53 ita 1342 1A53 1967 BHP


                                27.Bible N. T.: "Jean" 4,46ss *7553 1P51 1949 BPRZ


                                28./// *7554 1P51 1949 BPRZ


                                29.Bible N. T.: "Jean" 4,48 *34474 1A125 1985 BP

                                votre s'enquiert sera toujours bienvenu,
                                a bientot,
                                Jean



                                =====
                                John N. Lupia, III
                                31 Norwich Drive
                                Toms River, New Jersey 08757 USA
                                Phone: (732) 341-8689
                                Email: jlupia2@...
                                Editor, Roman Catholic News
                                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Roman-Catholic-News

                                __________________________________________________
                                Do you Yahoo!?
                                Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
                                http://taxes.yahoo.com/
                              • Roberta Allen
                                In message , McGrath, James writes ... I think that regathering Israel is
                                Message 15 of 20 , Mar 7, 2003
                                  In message <6CF5E3AFD0738D43B1BB220AA5260B4C01543263@...>,
                                  "McGrath, James" <jfmcgrat@...> writes
                                  >
                                  >But I still wonder what the meaning of the betrothal-setting is. Perhaps
                                  >the idea is that Jesus is regathering Israel, and is remarrying God's
                                  >former bride, the northern kingdom, along the lines of the imagery used
                                  >in Hosea and elsewhere.

                                  I think that regathering Israel is certainly one theme present in the
                                  story but is by no means the most dominant.

                                  There is an allusion to Jacob's betrothal but the many other allusions
                                  in the story suggest that the point of including the betrothal story is
                                  not to focus on betrothal per se but the purpose, namely God's purpose,
                                  behind it which is only now really coming to fruition.

                                  The dialogue about Jacob's well sees many key words revolving around the
                                  hub of 'living waters'. It may have a sexual connotation but in the
                                  context of scriptural allusions such as Jer 2.13 and Deut 33.28 it is
                                  much more a complimentary term denoting fruitfulness.

                                  So in the first mention of Jacob's well, the specially chosen word was
                                  intended to recall that in bringing about this opportune meeting between
                                  Jacob and Rachel God intended it to result in fruitfulness. This is
                                  supported by the implied reference back to Jacob's dream at 1.51. For in
                                  his dream Jacob was promised 'descendants like the dust of the earth'
                                  Gen 28.13, the same promise given to Abraham.

                                  The whole story is superbly crafted and has so many levels to appreciate
                                  it is no wonder that scholars get bogged down following just one or two
                                  of the myriad of threads present. Of all the stories in the gospel I
                                  find this the most dramatic - the scene when the disciples return would
                                  have been riveting at first reading. The readers are informed that the
                                  woman hurried off to the village to tell everyone to come and see the
                                  Messiah but it is made quite obvious that the disciples do not know
                                  this. All they see is Jesus talking with a woman and her leaving
                                  hurriedly without her jar.

                                  They 'kept on wondering' about this and the expression invites
                                  readers to do the same. What intrigue has taken place in their absence?
                                  Had this woman enticed Jesus with her womanly ways? Had he responded?
                                  There are almost certainly some deliberate innuendoes in the story as
                                  pointed out by many scholars. (One not mentioned yet is Alan Watson,
                                  Jesus and the Jews: the Pharisaic Tradition in John (Athens 1995) who
                                  argues that one of the sources used by John was a Jewish composition
                                  which was intended to present Jesus in a negative light. The Samaritan
                                  story being central. Possible perhaps - but highly unlikely IMO) I
                                  personally believe that this is a perfect example of ambiguity of Jesus'
                                  signs in this gospel. Some people will only see the heavily suggestive
                                  allusions while others will strive to get behind them.

                                  Possibly attempting to change the subject the disciples offer him food
                                  and his reply sets them thinking again. His reply recalls both the
                                  temptation of Genesis 3 and the temptation of the synoptic Gospels. But
                                  Jesus' reply expands the implied allusion to Deut 8.3 to include
                                  bringing his work to completion. This then permits the 'harvest' analogy
                                  with its 'day of the lord' permutations.

                                  It is with the command to 'lift up your eyes' that the full force of the
                                  drama is presented. For what the disciples see is all the men from the
                                  Samaritan village approaching. Recalling the hurried exit of the woman
                                  the disciples may have feared the worst. The situation may have recalled
                                  the 'seduction of Dinah' in Gen 34 but then 'lift up your eyes' might
                                  recall Gen 32.1 and Gen 33.1 and the hope, perhaps implicit in the
                                  promise of John 1.51, of divine intervention.

                                  The intention appears to be to recall this vision but draw out the
                                  significance of its relation to Jacob's struggle with god in Gen 32 -
                                  which is bound up with the reconciliation with his brother.

                                  The whole story is cleverly tied in with the concept of Jesus' 'hour',
                                  it looks back to the creation story and contains forward allusions to
                                  the passion . In fact the whole Samaritan story can be read as analogous
                                  to the events of the passion. The story opened at the 'sixth hour' the
                                  same hour that judgement was passed on Jesus (19.14). Jesus was thirsty
                                  (4.7 cf 19.28) sated by thoughts of completion (4,34 cf 19.28,30). The
                                  continuation of the Samaritan story might therefore be seen to be
                                  reflected in the remainder of the passion story, the two days that Jesus
                                  remained with the Samaritans being in some sense analogous to the days
                                  betwixt death and 'the third day'. So the Samaritan woman is Mary /Eve/
                                  Spirit in yet another guise.

                                  So ultimately the betrothal/marriage didn't continue as could be
                                  expected because Jesus was separated from the spirit just as Eve was
                                  separated from Adam - the promise of the future is that once again they
                                  will become one flesh - Christ and the believers, the Church.
                                • pi.veldhuizen@wxs.nl
                                  Dear Jeff, Thank you for this excellent occasion to clarify my thoughts about type-scenes. ... And about my contention that the time/culture gap between
                                  Message 16 of 20 , Mar 7, 2003
                                    Dear Jeff,

                                    Thank you for this excellent occasion to clarify my thoughts about
                                    type-scenes.

                                    You wrote about John 4 as parody:
                                    > Well, in my estimation, if it is a "parody on" it is also a
                                    > betrothal scene.
                                    > Think Mel Brook's "Blazing Saddles." The film IS a western, AND
                                    > a parody of
                                    > Westerns.

                                    And about my contention that the time/culture gap between Genesis and John
                                    makes things different, you wrote:
                                    > Really? We have annunciation type-scenes in MT and LK do we not? We have
                                    > "last testament of the dying hero" type-scenes in John and Luke,
                                    > do we not?
                                    > Both of these go back to Genesis also.

                                    What I am trying to make clear (to myself, above all) is, that there is a
                                    difference between the 'primary' functioning of type-scenes within a current
                                    of living literature, and the 'secondary' possibility, involving a certain
                                    distance to this current, to write a parody making use of the type-scene.
                                    The deliberately stylized 'Old-Testament'language of Luke 1 shows that Luke
                                    is, from a large distance, evoking the annunciation type-scene by then known
                                    as a feature of Holy Scripture. He is using known patterns in a reflexive
                                    way.
                                    That is what John does, too. He is not one of the 'Old Testament'
                                    storytellers telling yet another patriarchal betrothal story. The link he
                                    establishes between those stories and his own is not a primary one, it is of
                                    a reflexive character. The type-scene is an allusive guise under which he
                                    brings his message (that is parody) whereas in the Genesis stories there is
                                    more 'natural' unity of form and meaning. Perhaps I should also say: there
                                    is more explicit theology behind John 4 - there is a sophisticated reason to
                                    make use of the type-scene, whereas there is more implicit theology in the
                                    Genesis stories.
                                    In short: Genesis 29 is not a parody on Genesis 24 in the way John 4 is a
                                    parody on both of them.

                                    This is a search for words, Jeff, to express what I feel intuitively as an
                                    important difference on the leven of literary theory. I trust that this
                                    discussion will help me clarify my intuition.
                                    Greetings,
                                    Piet van Veldhuizen
                                    pi.veldhuizen@...
                                    Rotterdam, Netherlands
                                  • wildwesth@aol.com
                                    Paul s sexual metaphor of a woman consorting with a man who is not her husband, or who becomes her new husband as an example of our relationship to Jesus may
                                    Message 17 of 20 , Mar 7, 2003
                                      Paul's sexual metaphor of a woman consorting with a man who is not her
                                      husband, or who becomes her new husband as an example of our relationship to
                                      Jesus may have some relevance here. (Paul (Romans 7:1-6)). Paul uses this
                                      metaphor to tell us that our old relationship ends with the death of Jesus'
                                      body, but is consummated within with the risen spirit of Jesus. So, perhaps
                                      the potential betrothel relationship in John is indeed consumated, but on a
                                      spiritual level. Is it possible the author(s) of John used this metaphorical
                                      link to the old testament to speak of the spiritual union and fruit? The
                                      woman has already had several husbands. She's had a broad range sexual and
                                      worldly relations. Her state is in some ways tragic. She is vulnurable. The
                                      marriages that are no longer were attempts at something lasting which, for
                                      one reason or another, failed. Yet, in some ways she is ready. Jesus offers a
                                      better marriage, to a better husband in spirit. In this way salvation may
                                      have been intended to be the ultimate marriage, the ideal relationship that
                                      worldly relationships inevitably fail to meet. Or, at least, perhaps that is
                                      the author(s) intended subtext.The theme that even our closest worldly
                                      relationships cannot supplant our relationship to God is repeated in John.
                                      Or, could they be suggesting that marriage itself is but a metaphor for our
                                      intended betrothal to God?

                                      As you say, this episode is a tempest of intent in a teapot.



                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • wildwesth@aol.com
                                      One more thought: The woman who had many husbands who didn t work out, may also be the state, as was pointed out by someone earlier, of Israel, who had so many
                                      Message 18 of 20 , Mar 7, 2003
                                        One more thought: The woman who had many husbands who didn't work out, may
                                        also be the state, as was pointed out by someone earlier, of Israel, who had
                                        so many bad sheppards.


                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • Thomas W Butler
                                        Roberta, The connections that you draw between the story of the Samaritan woman in John 4 and the Jacob stories in Genesis are consistent with the general
                                        Message 19 of 20 , Mar 7, 2003
                                          Roberta,
                                          The connections that you draw between the story of the Samaritan
                                          woman in John 4 and the Jacob stories in Genesis are consistent with
                                          the general thesis that the Fourth Gospel was written using the
                                          language and symbols of the Pentateuch. I understand you to be
                                          suggesting that the themes of the stories of Jacob are being replayed
                                          in the Fourht Gospel. Is it fair to extend your thesis in this way to
                                          apply to the entire gospel?
                                          Would you concur that the semeia of the gospel include Mosaic
                                          oracles from the Pentateuch?
                                          (More questions within the context of your comments below.)

                                          On Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:37:47 +0000 Roberta Allen
                                          <roberta.allen@...> writes:
                                          >
                                          > So in the first mention of Jacob's well, the specially chosen word
                                          > was intended to recall that in bringing about this opportune
                                          > meeting between Jacob and Rachel God intended it to result in
                                          > fruitfulness. This is supported by the implied reference back to
                                          > Jacob's dream at 1.51. For in his dream Jacob was promised
                                          > 'descendants like the dust of the earth' Gen 28.13, the same
                                          > promise given to Abraham.

                                          Would you care to elaborate regarding the use of imagery from
                                          Jacob's dream (esp. Gen. 28: 12, 22) in the Fourth Gospel? Do
                                          you see, for example, a material connection between these Mosaic
                                          passages and Jn. 1: 51; 20: 12? How about Jn. 11: 11, 38-39?
                                          >
                                          > The whole story is superbly crafted and has so many levels to
                                          > appreciate it is no wonder that scholars get bogged down
                                          > following just one or two of the myriad of threads present. Of
                                          > all the stories in the gospel I find this the most dramatic - the
                                          > scene when the disciples return would have been riveting at
                                          > first reading. The readers are informed that the woman
                                          > hurried off to the village to tell everyone to come and see the
                                          > Messiah but it is made quite obvious that the disciples do not
                                          > know this. All they see is Jesus talking with a woman and her
                                          > leaving hurriedly without her jar.
                                          >
                                          Do you see a material connection between Gen. 29: 9-11 and
                                          Jn. 4: 7, 13?

                                          > They 'kept on wondering' about this and the expression invites
                                          > readers to do the same. What intrigue has taken place in their
                                          > absence? Had this woman enticed Jesus with her womanly
                                          > ways? Had he responded? There are almost certainly some
                                          > deliberate innuendoes in the story as pointed out by many
                                          > scholars. (One not mentioned yet is Alan Watson, Jesus and
                                          > the Jews: the Pharisaic Tradition in John (Athens 1995) who
                                          > argues that one of the sources used by John was a Jewish
                                          > composition which was intended to present Jesus in a negative
                                          > light. The Samaritan story being central. Possible perhaps -
                                          > but highly unlikely IMO).

                                          Would you argue against Watson that the Jewish symbolism used
                                          in the Fourth Gospel is intended to present Jesus in a positive
                                          light (ie: as Jacob revisited?)

                                          > I personally believe that this is a perfect example of ambiguity
                                          > of Jesus' signs in this gospel. Some people will only see the
                                          > heavily suggestive allusions while others will strive to get behind
                                          > them.

                                          I'm confused. Are you not suggesting that one of the cyphers for
                                          the Johannine signs may be found in the Mosaic accounts of
                                          Jacob? If so, then does that not remove some of the ambiguity?
                                          It would seem that such a sign is only ambiguous to those who
                                          do not see a (material?) connection between the Jesus story in
                                          the gospel and the Jacob story in the Mosaic Law.
                                          >
                                          > Possibly attempting to change the subject the disciples offer him
                                          > food and his reply sets them thinking again. His reply recalls both
                                          > the temptation of Genesis 3 and the temptation of the synoptic
                                          > Gospels.

                                          Again I find myself wanting to hear your further reflections on the
                                          connection (if you see one) between Gen. 3 and the gospel. Do
                                          you, for example, see a material connection between Gen. 3: 15
                                          and Jn. 19: 26-27? Would you concur that if the BD is a woman,
                                          as I have suggested is inferred by Jn. 19: 25-27, that this would
                                          be consistent with the use of the imagery in Gen. 29: 9?

                                          > But Jesus' reply expands the implied allusion to Deut 8.3 to
                                          > include bringing his work to completion. This then permits the
                                          > 'harvest' analogy with its 'day of the lord' permutations.

                                          Excellent point.

                                          > It is with the command to 'lift up your eyes' that the full force
                                          > of the drama is presented. For what the disciples see is all the
                                          > men from the Samaritan village approaching. Recalling the
                                          > hurried exit of the woman the disciples may have feared the
                                          > worst. The situation may have recalled the 'seduction of Dinah'
                                          > in Gen 34 but then 'lift up your eyes' might recall Gen 32.1
                                          > and Gen 33.1 and the hope, perhaps implicit in the promise
                                          > of John 1.51, of divine intervention.

                                          Please, elaborate further. Connect the dots, if you will. I like
                                          where I think you are going with this, but it may be that I am
                                          seeing my own thesis being expressed in your work. I don't
                                          want to read too much into what you are saying, but I'm
                                          excited by the possibility that you and I are seeing the same
                                          thing.
                                          >
                                          > The intention appears to be to recall this vision but draw out the
                                          > significance of its relation to Jacob's struggle with god in Gen 32
                                          > - which is bound up with the reconciliation with his brother.

                                          I'm stretching here, but do you see a connection between this
                                          reference in Gen. 32 and the Lazarus story in Jn. 11?
                                          >
                                          > The whole story is cleverly tied in with the concept of Jesus'
                                          > 'hour;' it looks back to the creation story and contains forward
                                          > allusions to the passion. In fact the whole Samaritan story can
                                          > be read as analogous to the events of the passion.
                                          > The story opened at the 'sixth hour' the same hour that judge-
                                          > ment was passed on Jesus (19.14). Jesus was thirsty (4.7 cf
                                          > 19.28) sated by thoughts of completion (4,34 cf 19.28,30).
                                          > The continuation of the Samaritan story might therefore be seen
                                          > to be reflected in the remainder of the passion story, the two days
                                          > that Jesus remained with the Samaritans being in some sense
                                          > analogous to the days betwixt death and 'the third day.' So the
                                          > Samaritan woman is Mary /Eve/ Spirit in yet another guise.

                                          I am looking forward to hearing much, much more of your ideas.

                                          > So ultimately the betrothal/marriage didn't continue as could be
                                          > expected because Jesus was separated from the spirit just as Eve
                                          > was separated from Adam - the promise of the future is that once
                                          > again they will become one flesh - Christ and the believers, the
                                          > Church.

                                          You're losing me here. This is a more orthodox conclusion than
                                          the rest of what I understand you to be saying.

                                          Yours in Christ's service,
                                          Tom Butler

                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • kymhsm
                                          ADVERTISEMENT Dear Spencer, Apologies to you also for the delay in commenting about your post. I think your connection of Paul s thinking is most appropriate.
                                          Message 20 of 20 , Mar 23, 2003
                                            ADVERTISEMENT
                                            Dear Spencer,

                                            Apologies to you also for the delay in commenting about your
                                            post. I think your connection of Paul's thinking is most
                                            appropriate. I have nothing to add to your comments about John
                                            but I did not wish to leave your post without comment. I think your
                                            questions / observations are exactly what the author(s) were
                                            about.

                                            <<<So, perhaps the potential betrothal relationship in John is
                                            indeed consummated, but on a spiritual level. Is it possible the
                                            author(s) of John used this metaphorical link to the old
                                            testament to speak of the spiritual union and fruit? ……The
                                            marriages that are no longer were attempts at something lasting
                                            which, for one reason or another, failed….. Jesus offers a better
                                            marriage, to a better husband in spirit. In this way salvation may
                                            have been intended to be the ultimate marriage, the ideal
                                            relationship that worldly relationships inevitably fail to meet. Or,
                                            at least, perhaps that is the author(s) intended sub-text. The
                                            theme that even our closest worldly relationships cannot
                                            supplant our relationship to God is repeated in John. Or, could
                                            they be suggesting that marriage itself is but a metaphor for our
                                            intended betrothal to God?>>>

                                            Sincerely,

                                            Kym Smith
                                            Adelaide
                                            South Australia
                                            khs@...
                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.