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

RE: [John_Lit] Question about John 4 and Gen24/29/Ex2

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 20 , Mar 2, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 20 , Mar 2, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 20 , Mar 4, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 20 , Mar 5, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 20 , Mar 5, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 20 , Mar 5, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 20 , Mar 6, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  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 8 of 20 , Mar 6, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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 9 of 20 , Mar 6, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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 10 of 20 , Mar 6, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        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 11 of 20 , Mar 6, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          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 12 of 20 , Mar 7, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            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 13 of 20 , Mar 7, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              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 14 of 20 , Mar 7, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                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 15 of 20 , Mar 7, 2003
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  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 16 of 20 , Mar 7, 2003
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    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 17 of 20 , Mar 23, 2003
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      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.