|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: The Gospel of John, a verse at a time.
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Yes, but why tell mum? Or are we to read it as an aside? Mary is told at the Annunciation, of course, that - hmm, just checked. Where is she forewarned of tragedy? - but she wouldn't have known its nature in advance, surely?
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
BWSmith
Shipmate
# 2981
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
Yes, but why tell mum? Or are we to read it as an aside? Mary is told at the Annunciation, of course, that - hmm, just checked. Where is she forewarned of tragedy? - but she wouldn't have known its nature in advance, surely?
Naturally, asking Jesus to "give them wine" when "his time has come" has to be a reference to the Lord's Supper.
As such, this line probably shouldn't be taken as a journalistic record of direct quotes, but a literary wink from the authors of the gospel of John to an audience who may or may not know that Jesus' time comes with his own mother at the foot of His cross.
If you prefer to think of Jesus dropping clues to his vocation, there's certainly no historical reason to doubt that he knew from the start what the end was going to look like.
However, I don't think that adds anything positive to our picture of Jesus in this story, and I prefer to think of it as a literary foreshadowing device by gospel authors unconcerned with the desires of future readers wishing they were watching the "Jesus-cam" of actual events.
Posts: 722 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
All makes good sense to me, BWS.
2.6 Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for cermonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons.
"Ceremonial washing" doesn't quite cut it for me - and I'm nor even Catholic! "Ritual purification" sounds more impressive - and it's this - the quality of the jars - which I find more significant than the actual gallonage.
Whoever drinks from these is going to be purified, in some way? And not merely washed, surely. Am I being anachronistic in suggesting that this is going to be some sort of sacrament - that is, not just symbolic, but effective? Or am I reading far too much into it?
As for the quantity, I think the detail here just adds to the authenticity of he story. The point is surely not that the making of forty gallons of wine is forty times more of a miracle than making one? (Though I think we do all tend to think that way sometimes - think of the feeding of the five thousand!) While the fact is that if I could make one millilitre of wine from pure wter I'd soon be the richest man in the world!
Does anybody know just how the jars were used in the purification rite? It might not be significant, but while we're here...
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
2:7 Jesus said to the servants, "Fill the jars with water; so they filled them to the brim.
I wonder what the servants were thinking? "What's he going to do next? Find a few bottles from somewhere and water the stuff down?" But he scotches that idea immediately, ordering the vessels to be filled to the brim.
What next? Can't you feel the servants' nervousness? One thing I'm fairly sure of is that it didn't turn bright red as they poured the water into the jars (as we saw in Rageh Omar's depiction on TV). That would have "blown it" and there wouldn't be any need to let the Steward know what was going on.
[ 10. December 2006, 18:35: Message edited by: pimple ]
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
2.6 Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for cermonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons.
2:7 Jesus said to the servants, "Fill the jars with water; so they filled them to the brim.
Does anybody know just how the jars were used in the purification rite? It might not be significant, but while we're here...
Not sure if this is a real match, but Mark 7:1-5 has some information on it.
I'm not sure if there was any holiness associated with the water used for cleaning per se; as far as I am aware, for example, there was no need for special prayers to be said over the water before people washed themselves. Nevertheless, there could be some significance in the fact that Jesus asked the servants to fill those particular jars and not the (now empty) containers that contained the wine. Perhaps a link back to 1:16f, with the fullness of grace being contrasted with the law?
[ 11. December 2006, 17:37: Message edited by: Nigel M ]
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Thanks Nigel - and I'd missed the obvious point about the empty bottles. All three synoptic evangelists quote Jesus' saying about not putting new wine into old wineskins. Can I go on?
2:8 Then he told them, "Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet. They did so....
Quaking, I should imagine. In this short account of only ten verses John certainly knows how to crank up the tension. There's triple dramatic irony here. The servants think they are taking the maitre d a cup or glass of water (in fact the Good News version of the story says Jesus told them to draw off some of the water but it's not in the Greek - I've checked (with a crib). But they have no way of knowing that it has been changed into wine. We know that, and not just because John tells us but also (for most of us I guess) because we've hard the story orally many times before we ever read it in the Bible.
And the Master of Ceremonies? He would have assumed that he was being offered more of the same. Perhaps he wonders why the servant are looking nervous. But the other thing we know (with hindsight) is that he is not about to quaff another mouthful of bog standard vintage '31.
And that's why the first taste has to go to the man in charge. People like what they are used to. A sudden change in the menu without warning is going to make them suspicious - and
how are the bride and groom going to explain it?
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
infinite_monkey
Shipmate
# 11333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
Yes, but why tell mum? Or are we to read it as an aside? Mary is told at the Annunciation, of course, that - hmm, just checked. Where is she forewarned of tragedy? - but she wouldn't have known its nature in advance, surely?
Jumping in the sandbox with the quote you might have been referencing. Since the water-into-wine marks the beginning of Jesus' public ministry, I always gloss the "my hour has not yet come" as "I'm not sure I'm ready to start this thing yet." You know--no turning back once this one hits the news. I imagine, regardless of how much of the divine Jesus had in him, this would have been a bit of a nail-biter on the human side of things.
Sorry to be a couple verses behind!
--------------------
His light was lifted just above the Law,
And now we have to live with what we did with what we saw.
--Dar Williams, And a God Descended
Obligatory Blog Flog: www.otherteacher.wordpress.com
Posts: 1423 | From: left coast united states | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
T Nunc Dimittis - of course! (The sad bit at the end that's left out). No apologies needed for being behind - I'm trying to follow the OP's suggestion to leave at least 12 hours between verses, but I have a childish urge to get on with it ("Are we nearly there yet?")
2:9 ...and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine...
That incredibly casual throw-away line is only possible because John's readers know the story already. I'd love to see someone who hadn't come across it before reading the passage out loud, and watch their reaction at this point!
...He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew.
A bit heavy-handed on John's part, perhaps. The point being that the master of the feast's subsequent words and actions are based on what he tasted and not on any foreknowledge whatsoever. This spikes the guns of anyone who might be tempted to suggest that the master of the feast was merely a superb diplomat...
...Then he called the bridegroom aside and said...
In a moment we'll rehearse what he said. But is it signifiant that he takes the bridegroom on one side? It is for me. It's often the way that Jesus works in his healing miracles - though Mark has him occasionally doing the big public charismatic thing.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
infinite_monkey
Shipmate
# 11333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
But is it signifiant that he takes the bridegroom on one side? It is for me. It's often the way that Jesus works in his healing miracles - though Mark has him occasionally doing the big public charismatic thing.
I read that verse as the master of the banquet doing the "aside to one side", since he, not Jesus, speaks in the next verse.
Still, I agree with the point that Jesus does many of his miracles on this personal level. Since this was Jesus' first documented public miracle (he must have been messing with something beforehand, or Mom wouldn't have known he COULD fix the wine thing...), I imagine it was smaller-scale.
Shall we move on?
10and said, "Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now."
Or am I reading this wrong and that's Jesus talking? If so, he sounds a bit self-congratulatory to me...
--------------------
His light was lifted just above the Law,
And now we have to live with what we did with what we saw.
--Dar Williams, And a God Descended
Obligatory Blog Flog: www.otherteacher.wordpress.com
Posts: 1423 | From: left coast united states | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
10and said, "Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now."
Or am I reading this wrong and that's Jesus talking? If so, he sounds a bit self-congratulatory to me...
Pant...pant....pushing legs on faster in attempt to keep up with pace of this thread...puff....puff....splutter....
No, I think (gasp) that you are correct (hack cough) that it is the steward (wheeze) speaking here (doubles over, hands on knees), given the Greek word order (falls to knees, blowing).
(Faint voice) Water. I need water...
GOD: Sorry mate – I only do wine.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Um, yes. By the barrel!
Thus God's gift to the bride and groom and all the revellers, perfomed through the Master of the Feast.
And John saw it in much larger terms, as God's first (incarnate) miraculous gift:
2:11 This, the first of his miraculous signs, Jesus performed in Cana of Galilee. He thus revealed his glory, and his disciples put their faith in him.
But not all of them, and not completely. There are frequent references throughout the gospel to disciples and others seeing the light for the first time. I prefer the more familiar (to me) expression "and (he/they/the disciples) believed. (him); simply because it's easier to find stuff in my steam-age concordance.
The importance of belief to John may be guaged by the fact that he uses the word "belief" and its various grammatical forms over 100 times.
By contrast, Mark uses the word scarcely a dozen times, and Luke even less. Why?
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
The importance of belief to John may be guaged by the fact that he uses the word "belief" and its various grammatical forms over 100 times.
By contrast, Mark uses the word scarcely a dozen times, and Luke even less. Why?
There's a strong sense that John uses the metaphor of a court room in his gospel; evidence (signs) are produced and witnesses are called upon, the reader is the jury (whoops - that's a bit of an anachronism; judge, perhaps?) who is called by the advocate to believe the evidence.
Might that account for the terminology?
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
In part, certainly. But I think it's more than a dramatic convention. It's difficult to develop my next suggestion (not mine really - lifted from R.E.Brown) without pre-empting discussion on later chapters.
Brown points out that the Johanine church was riven with conflict between those who adopted John's high christology, various "heresies" (including gnosticism) and those who wanted to retain traditional Jewish values. He makes the unusual point that heresies (then as now?) don't always come from trendy modernists. Sometimes the traditionalists can't "keep up" and the developing church anathematises the stick-in-the-muds. As you may (or may not) guess, I love that approach!
So John is not just concerned with belief "pure and simple" (as if!) but with belief in the emerging, predominantly gentile, high christology which the miracles "prove".
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
Sometimes the traditionalists can't "keep up" and the developing church anathematises the stick-in-the-muds. ... So John is not just concerned with belief "pure and simple" (as if!) but with belief in the emerging, predominantly gentile, high christology which the miracles "prove".
So that's why we are galloping through John 2! Keeping one step ahead of the Spanish Inquisition! And I thought it was to save my evangelical blushes regarding the mention of <mouthing the word:> alcohol (steps smartly aside to avoid lightening bolt...)
Of course, contextually, Jesus performed this miracle with Ribena.
"Glory" is another of those Johnnine words, isn't it? I've often thought about that 'gnostic' link, because there were (are?) those who argued that John was pretty esoteric himself - using words like 'glory' which spoke of otherwordliness, compared to Mark, say, who enjoyed Aramaic and down-to-earthiness (frolicking about naked, for example).
Is there a tension here, do you think? Is John really doing a job on gnosticism here?
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Who's galloping? How long does anyone need to think about a single verse and a fairly non-controversial comment, before joining in the discussion?
Is there a tension here? You mean in the gospel, or on this thread? Anyone want to take it one from here? I'll go away for a bit, so as not to rush you...
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
Who's galloping? How long does anyone need to think about a single verse and a fairly non-controversial comment, before joining in the discussion?
Is there a tension here? You mean in the gospel, or on this thread? Anyone want to take it one from here? I'll go away for a bit, so as not to rush you...
No, although doctors say that I am young (and who am I to disagree with the experts?), there does come a time in a (young) man's life when he gets used to mulling over individual words, letting the savour oooooooooooze its way past individual taste buds, dripping down the gullet in a controlled, enjoy-every-second-of-this manner, allowing the gastric juices oodles of time to collect, organise and swamp the conglomerate mass, absorbing every ounce of natural, organic, goodness; dispersing it throughout the body in a growing, soothing, enveloping whole........
Pardon the gap. I just felt the need for breakfast. I’m back now.
I was only commenting on the sudden leap from the much slower approach to chapter one. I had reached the conclusion that the world would not end soon, because it would take at least 14,000 more years to complete the New Testament. I’m not fussed over the speed – take it away! Though I might want to pick up on comments relating to a couple of verses back, if people don’t mind. I’m a slow developer.
So – is the theory about John and the Gnostics (sounds like a ‘50s band) in tension? The sort of tension that requires a slow, gently rhythmic manipulating of the neck muscles, probing and lifting, squeezing them to their limits before controlling them in a bending, warping, mind-banging style; releasing them – oh, so slowly – back into renewed energetic shape, so that they are free to engage in the mode for which they were designed?
[ 17. December 2006, 08:18: Message edited by: Nigel M ]
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Oh, come on! The slow, easy passage through chapter 1? You were taking several verses at a time on occasion! The gentle pace was when people actually took time to discuss the text, not when everyone sensed that some new truth needed to be savoured for a week. And the "rules" are that anyone can say stop at ny time.
Nobody did. And nobody talked. Can you blame me fopr feeling paranoid? Lots of people on the ship know that I have a penchant for bizarre speculation. But I have not indulged it here. The threads on "miracles" and "belief" are elsewhere.
Since you can neither prove nor disprove the miracle at Cana; since you can neither debunk nor explain it, my approach has been with a genuine sense of wonder. And if that sense of wonder is tinged with speculation, I have kept it within reasonable bounds, I think, and not put up any Aunt Sally's for you to shoot down.
I don't think that is what this particular thread is for.
I'd be grateful if someone would say wht they think it is for, or should be for. If you want top treat it as a devotional exercise, I have no problem with that. Just be honest (That's not to suggest anyone has been dishonest - just uncomfortably quiet.
So now I've made it clear that I' not here with a sack of cats to set aong the pigeons, maybe my (imaginary?) jackals will slink off and scavenge elsewhere?
PS. Didn't quite get the cracks about the alcohol - I thought it was only primitive methodists who had a problem with that.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
[HOSTING]
Pimple and Nigel, if y'all have questions about the purpose and tempo of this thread, it's best to take them to the Styx, where we can discuss the dynamic in depth.
If you are personally getting up each other's noses, take it to Hell. Either way, this conversation is becoming less directed at John and more directed at each other.
[/HOSTING]
[ 17. December 2006, 18:14: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
OK. No offence meant to Nigel - or anybody.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Thanks Kelly - apologies to pimple; I really wasn't intending to upset anyone, just a warped sense of humour!
Still interested in the gnostic angle taken on John's gospel, but happy to move on into next passage if that's where we're going....
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
No apology needed, Nigel. I think everyone's going to be pretty busy over the nxt few days so I'll take it very slowly.
2:12 Afer this he went down to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples. 13 When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
From the reluctant miracle-worker at the wedding to the fire-and-brimstone prophet in the temple. What a change! There's going to be a lot of discussion from here on (I hope). But there's plenty of time.
[ 18. December 2006, 22:28: Message edited by: pimple ]
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
I wonder if it took Mary's prompt at Cana to get things started? Was Jesus really waiting for 'his time' to begin in Jerusalem? It's interesting that John places this very provocative act up-front, compared to the other gospels.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Interesting point. And I've never really noticed this little interlude before - Everyone "knows" that Mary only appears at Cana and then at the crucifixion. But that's not quite true. After the wedding they all go en famille to Capernaum for a few days.
What happens there?
It's considered "bad form" to try to harmonise John with the synoptics but I wonder if the latter give us some imdication of what went on there? A small tangent worth exploring?
Why mention the trip to Capernaum at all? It may just be that John wants to take us straight to the heart of the matter, so to speak; his source mentions a trip to C. (and, surely, what happened there?) but it's not important to John's narrative, so he moves swifttly on to the temple scene. But I'm curious!
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
There should be some reason for a good author to mention something like this; it might be simply to indicate a break in the narrative, but then Capernaum was a centre of operations for Jesus - Matthew 4:13 suggests there was a family home there. Some of the disciples came from there. In chapter 6, John seems to treat the city as a bit of a bolt-hole where Jesus could escape from the crowds. A chance to draw breath and brief his disciples, maybe?
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
OK, I'll put up the next two verses, which seem to be of a piece. (There's a whole thread somewhere on what happens afterwards, if people want to avoid too much repetition).
2:13 When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money.
The Jewish Passover? Was there a non-Jewish Passover? Perhaps this indicates just how Gentile-oriented the Johanine community already was. The first hint of a "them and us" situation, though there was still a predominantly Jewish section of believers.
[ETA "a" to "void" !!]
[ 29. December 2006, 17:24: Message edited by: pimple ]
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
We nearly lost this thread again. Not sure if we are ready to move on yet? I'll wait a bit and see...
This episode (clearing the temple) comes as a climax to the confrontation plot in the first three gospels, yet John chooses to park it up front in his plan. Quite a contrast to the Cana sign we've just looked at. Is there a link?
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Pushing on...
2:14 - In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Keep it going, Nigel. I'm waiting to get a copy of R.E. Brown's commentary on John before I open my big mouth again.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
2:15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.
A text for the church militant? Is violence permitted by this passage - and if so, in what circumstances?
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
It rather depends on whether Jesus was exercising his prerogative as God, or setting an example as a human being, doesn't it? Or maybe he just "lost it" on this occasion (that wouldn't be John's take, of course!)
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
It rather depends on whether Jesus was exercising his prerogative as God, or setting an example as a human being, doesn't it? Or maybe he just "lost it" on this occasion (that wouldn't be John's take, of course!)
I think it's important to note that the text does not say that Jesus hit any person or animal with the whip. What it says is quote:
So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.
I interpret this to mean he used the whip to drive the animals from the temple; you can drive animals with a whip without actually hitting them. When the owners of the animals saw them going out, they naturally followed their merchandise.
Moo
[ 19. March 2007, 12:11: Message edited by: Moo ]
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
Thank you, Moo. I really get dismayed at the seemingly universal acceptance that Jesus went postal and was physically violent and harmful to others. I think He simply "took action." ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.
Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
Can I post the next? (Never did quite understand all of Pyx_e's rules!)
v.16 To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!"
--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.
Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I think it's important to note that the text does not say that Jesus hit any person or animal with the whip. What it says is quote:
So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.
I interpret this to mean he used the whip to drive the animals from the temple; you can drive animals with a whip without actually hitting them. When the owners of the animals saw them going out, they naturally followed their merchandise.
Moo,
I was going along with this until I looked up the passage following Grits' latest post - and saw that the grammatical structure seems to imply that Jesus drove them all (i.e. the people mentioned in the previous verse) out. The animals appear as an afterthought. The NASB translates the relevant section as:
quote:
“And He found in the temple those who were selling oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables. And He made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen...”
I suppose it depends on how one reads the “all” (pantas) and that sneaky little conjunction (te) in verse 15.
If the NASB and similar versions are correct, then although Jesus may not have physically touched anyone during the whipping, perhaps it was not foremost in the average trader’s mind that day to test Jesus’ pacifist tendencies!
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grits:
v.16 To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!"
I’m interested to know why John’s version of this differs from the other gospels’. The relevant passages are: Matt. 21:13; Mark 11:17 and Luke 19:46, all of which have Jesus saying, “...you have made it [my house] a den of robbers” (ignoring Matthew’s typical change of tense here).
Why a market, rather than a robber’s den? The latter links in nicely with Jeremiah 7:11 in both the Hebrew Masoretic and Greek Septuagint, whereas the former doesn’t have a clear link – at least not that I can think of.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
If the NASB and similar versions are correct, then although Jesus may not have physically touched anyone during the whipping, perhaps it was not foremost in the average trader’s mind that day to test Jesus’ pacifist tendencies!
At least in John He doesn't knock over tables and chairs, unlike in Matthew:
quote:
Matthew 21:12 Then Jesus went into the temple of God and drove out all those who bought and sold in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves.
Somebody could have gotten hurt! ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
I was going along with this until I looked up the passage following Grits' latest post - and saw that the grammatical structure seems to imply that Jesus drove them all (i.e. the people mentioned in the previous verse) out. The animals appear as an afterthought. The NASB translates the relevant section as:
quote:
“And He found in the temple those who were selling oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables. And He made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen...”
I suppose it depends on how one reads the “all” (pantas) and that sneaky little conjunction (te) in verse 15.
If the NASB and similar versions are correct, then although Jesus may not have physically touched anyone during the whipping, perhaps it was not foremost in the average trader’s mind that day to test Jesus’ pacifist tendencies!
I am not at home and don't have my Greek text with me. The translation quoted here says quote:
So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.
The phrase 'both sheep and cattle' suggests to me that 'all' refers to all the animals, not the people.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
Oh, sorry, I guess that He did overturn tables in John. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
My understanding is that this is a different incident from the one recorded on or after Palm Sunday in Matthew, Mark and Luke. I'm sure I'm in the minority on this.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Regardless of precisely how "physical" Jesus' action was, it ws undoubtedly an expression of outrage and anger. Whether this justifies "righteous anger" in us must depend on the circmstances. I can't help thinking of those later on in the gospel who were outraged by a woman's infidelity. Did they think that the action in the temple marked Jesus out as a "sound" judge to take the woman to? Someone who wouldn't be "soft on crime"....?
[ 19. March 2007, 20:03: Message edited by: pimple ]
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I am not at home and don't have my Greek text with me. The translation quoted here says quote:
So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.
The phrase 'both sheep and cattle' suggests to me that 'all' refers to all the animals, not the people.
Moo
That was the NIV take on it, Moo; the translations come down on two sides on this. The NASB and NIV are examples of both. Assorted Greek and English versions of vv.14 and 15 can be found here.
The UBS critical apparatus doesn't indicate that there are any textual variants on the text itself at the relevant point, so it seems to be down to how one translates that conjunction: is it "both" (so limiting the driving out to just the animals), or "including/with" (so permitting the "all" to refer to the humans)?
One consideration is that this could be an example of the τε - και link: "not only...but also", which would favour the 'animals only' school of thought, though why John would want to compare/contrast sheep with cattle is a bit beyond me.
Could it be that some of the English translators have been constrained by the knowledge that this verse would cause difficulties for those holding pacifist views?
Nigel
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
My take is that Jesus did not need to physically threaten the traders to make them leave. When their animals were driven out, they were bound to follow.
I am not sure Jesus was a pacifist, but I strongly believe he was not given to gratuitous violence as a form of self-expression.
quote:
Originally posted by pimple
I can't help thinking of those later on in the gospel who were outraged by a woman's infidelity. Did they think that the action in the temple marked Jesus out as a "sound" judge to take the woman to?
I think it was another attempt to entrap Jesus. If he said she should be stoned, he would come across as harsh and vindictive. If he said she should go free, he was trashing the Law. Jesus side-stepped this one very well, as he did so many others.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Thanks, Moo. Time to move on?
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
Thanks, Moo. Time to move on?
Whoops! It's probably down to me, isn't it, seeing as I posted first after the last move-on. So, John 2:17 [NIV]:-
quote:
His disciples remembered that it is written: "Zeal for your house will consume me."
The quote comes from Psalm 69:9 (in the NIV - some translations incorporate the Psalm heading as verse 1; for these the relvant verse = 10. In the Greek Septuagint the Psalm to look for is Psalm 68:10). The full Psalm covers over 35 verses and can be linked to here.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
It's an odd allusion for John, isn't it? The tenor of the psalm is almost like Gethsemane - an interlude John conspicuously leave out.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
It's an odd allusion for John, isn't it? The tenor of the psalm is almost like Gethsemane - an interlude John conspicuously leave out.
The impression, I think, is that Psalm 69 describes Jesus' inner thought processes, and the anguish behind His radical actions.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
infinite_monkey
Shipmate
# 11333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
It's an odd allusion for John, isn't it? The tenor of the psalm is almost like Gethsemane - an interlude John conspicuously leave out.
The impression, I think, is that Psalm 69 describes Jesus' inner thought processes, and the anguish behind His radical actions.
What, then, to make of the fact that this is one "aggressive" display by Jesus, early in his career according to John, coupled with the fact that the second half of Psalm 69 has a fair bit of smiting going on? (Did Jesus start out more on the Zealot side of things and "gentle down" over time once the Zealotry was clearly not working? Oy.)
One of the most significant schisms I see between Old and New Testaments is the rethinking of violence directed against others: I stake my faith on a Jesus who wouldn't be praying or living the second half of that Psalm. Does this pose a reconcilation challenge for others, or just me?
--------------------
His light was lifted just above the Law,
And now we have to live with what we did with what we saw.
--Dar Williams, And a God Descended
Obligatory Blog Flog: www.otherteacher.wordpress.com
Posts: 1423 | From: left coast united states | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Yes, there's a significant difference between the agony of Jesus in the garden at the thought of what is going to happen to him, and John's depiction of the agony of making difficult decisons. I think John's church needed more bolstering, more encouragement. The biggest concern must surely have been not the internecine struggles of the church but increasing unease at the apparent failure of Jesus to return in glory. When did the church first find its way round that problem?
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Without entering into the debate of how Gesthimane is to be interpreted, I'd like to point out that this psalm (psalm 68 in LXX, verse 22) was also used in John 19.29.
Now, as far as the second part of the psalm, I don't see how it is any different than the Revelation of Jesus to John (for example 16.6), or Paul's second epistle to the people of Thessaloniki (1.6) . The just cry against the injustice they had to endure, and the unjust get condemned forever.
Last, but not least, it is true that the early Church's hopes were proven to be mistaken. In texts like the second epistle of "Paul" to the people of Thessaloniki, or the second epistle of "Peter", we see an attempt to re-interpret that hope. A day for the Lord is 1000 years for us (2 Peter, 3.8), the last day will not come soon (2 Thes. 2.2)
Unfortunately, we entered a state of denial, instead of re-examining what the Lord really said. After all, some eye-witnesses were still alive! A sad development that helped towards the formation of a religion out of -and in parallel with- the Way.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
What, then, to make of the fact that this is one "aggressive" display by Jesus, early in his career according to John, coupled with the fact that the second half of Psalm 69 has a fair bit of smiting going on?
Yes, the open desire for revenge in Psalm 69, and throughout the Old Testament, is out of keeping with Jesus' teaching.
quote:
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
One of the most significant schisms I see between Old and New Testaments is the rethinking of violence directed against others: I stake my faith on a Jesus who wouldn't be praying or living the second half of that Psalm. Does this pose a reconcilation challenge for others, or just me?
As I see it, the Old Testament penchant for violence is spiritualized in the New Testament. Physical destruction at the hand of God or Israel is converted to the self-destruction of hell. Revenge is rejected, but is replaced by the idea that everyone receives what they give.
In the parables Jesus preaches the destruction of the wicked. But it is clear that the violence of those stories is figurative, and that in reality we are to seek peace.
I see a harmony between this kind of thinking in the Old and the New Testaments. The New Testament, though, is more sophisticated or mature, whereas the Old Testament simply goes with the impulse to ruin and destroy whatever falls under the category of "enemy."
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
infinite_monkey
Shipmate
# 11333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
As I see it, the Old Testament penchant for violence is spiritualized in the New Testament. Physical destruction at the hand of God or Israel is converted to the self-destruction of hell. Revenge is rejected, but is replaced by the idea that everyone receives what they give.
Thanks for that, Freddy--it makes good sense.
--------------------
His light was lifted just above the Law,
And now we have to live with what we did with what we saw.
--Dar Williams, And a God Descended
Obligatory Blog Flog: www.otherteacher.wordpress.com
Posts: 1423 | From: left coast united states | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
