John 2:1-11, The wedding at Cana, who is the bridegroom?
John 2:1-11, The wedding at Cana, who is the bridegroom?
Is it possible that Jesus is the bridegroom? And that his mother in this scene is actually his mother-in-law (to be)? And that his hour has not yet come because he has yet to consummate the marriage and make it official? The entire scene seems highly disjointed to me, and open to redaction and interpolation that has jumbled it up. Why would Jesus mother suddenly take charge and boss around Jesus and the servants, etc... if both she and Jesus were merely invitees? If the mother in this scene is Mary the poor wife of a carpenter, why would someone else's servants kowtow to her commands? Are they her servants? Is she wealthy? Lots of questions here...
Re: John 2:1-11, The wedding at Cana, who is the bridegroom?
“He who has the bride is the bridegroom; the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom‟s voice; therefore this joy of mine is
now full” (John 3:29)
“Can the wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them” (Mark 2:19)
now full” (John 3:29)
“Can the wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them” (Mark 2:19)
Re: John 2:1-11, The wedding at Cana, who is the bridegroom?
If I remember correctly, the suggestion that it was actually Jesus' own wedding he was attending with his bossy mom had been made may years ago. "Bossy" is my inference from "What business is there between us, woman?" The word "woman" is often used to mean "wife" in Koine Greek. Here it is usually thought to mean his mother, but I have not looked at Perseus.org morphological analysis tool to confirm is can also mean "mother."
You could try looking at the volumes of John Meier's series A Marginal Jew. One of them, probably within the first two, he should discuss it.
DCH (off to work I go ... Hi ho, hi ho!)
You could try looking at the volumes of John Meier's series A Marginal Jew. One of them, probably within the first two, he should discuss it.
DCH (off to work I go ... Hi ho, hi ho!)
Re: John 2:1-11, The wedding at Cana, who is the bridegroom?
I'm admittedly stretching this rather wildly, but there appear to be potential gnostic implications here, as well as potential support for Secret Mark.
Re: John 2:1-11, The wedding at Cana, who is the bridegroom?
I was wondering if you could expand upon this. Maybe I can understand Jesus as "son" and Mother being "Holy spirit" but I am not sure what you are getting at, or how it might relate to "Secret Mark", which is about an initiation of some kind into the kingdom of God. Is this something to do with Mary, Martha & Lazarus?lsayre wrote:I'm admittedly stretching this rather wildly, but there appear to be potential gnostic implications here, as well as potential support for Secret Mark.
DCH
LSJ has, for "woman" in Jn 2.4
None of this seems to have anything to do with a mother, or Secret Mark, unless you are zeroing in on some phraseology I have not picked up on (and I can be quite ignorant even on a good day).γυ^νή , Dor. γυνά , Boeot. βανά (v. sub voce), ἡ, gen. γυναικός, acc. γυναῖκα, voc. γύναι （
A.“γυνή” Alc.Com.32): dual γυναι^κε S.Ant.61: pl. γυναῖκες, γυναικῶν, etc. (as if from γύναιξ wh. is only found in Gramm., cf. Hdn.Gr.2.643): gen. “γυναικείων” Phoc.3 (s. v.l.): Aeol. dat. pl. “γυναίκεσσι” Sapph.Supp.7.6: Com. acc. “γυνήν” Pherecr.91: pl. nom. “γυναί” Philippid.2, Men.484, acc. “γυνάς” Com.Adesp.1336, cf. EM243.24,AB86:—woman, opp.man,Il.15.683, etc.: with a second Subst., γ. ταμίη housekeeper, 6.390; “δέσποινα” Od.7.347; γρηΰς (q. v.), ἀλετρίς (q. v.), “δμῳαὶ γυναῖκες” Il.9.477,al.; “Περσίδες γ.” Hdt.3.3: voc., as a term of respect or affection, mistress, lady, E.Med.290, Theoc.15.12, etc.; φαντὶ γυναῖκες the lasses say, Id.20.30; πρὸς γυναικός like a woman, A.Ag.592: prov., “γ. μονωθεῖσ᾽ οὐδέν” Id.Supp. 749; ὅρκους γυναικὸς εἰς ὕδωρ γράφω (cf. “γράφω” 11) S.Fr.811; “γυναιξὶ κόσμον ἡ σιγὴ φέρει” Id.Aj.293.
II. wife, spouse, Il.6.160, Od.8.523, Hdt.1.34, etc.; “γ. καὶ παρθένοι” X.An.3.2.25; opp. ἑταίρα, Is.3.13; γ. γνησία, PEleph.1.3 (iv B. C.); also, concubine, Il.24.497.
III. mortal woman, opp.goddess, 14.315, Od.10.228, etc.
IV. female, mate of animals, Arist.Pol.1262a22 (dub. sens.), Xenarch.14, etc.— Not to be taken as Adj. in “γυναῖκα θήσατο μαζόν” Il.24.58. (Cf. Ved. gnā- (freq. disyll.), Skt. janis.）
DCH
Re: John 2:1-11, The wedding at Cana, who is the bridegroom?
The gnostic association comes from their focus upon the bridal chamber, which I take as some sort of initiation event in which there are presumably a bridegroom (who's hour has come) and the bride, and Secret Mark similarly seems to have bridal chamber like initiation connotations. I stated that these associations are admittedly a stretch. Perhaps the entire scene of John 2:1-11 must be viewed as nothing more than an allegorically contrived story intended to have multiple levels of perception (with the perceivers being at the various gnostic levels of hylic, psychic, and pneumatic) in order to stretch it as much as I have. And of these gnostic perception levels, only the pneumatic would be presumed to see the bridal chamber of Christ correlation. To others this would appear foolish (using a Pauline Gnostic conception here).
In general, were the Gospel writers recording history or fabricating allegorical story scenes by which to convey multi-level encrypted messages? Parables may have been a similar tool in the Gospel writers arsenal, as could be midrash. Take away midrash, allegory, and parables, and the Gospels would likely vanish into thin air.
In general, were the Gospel writers recording history or fabricating allegorical story scenes by which to convey multi-level encrypted messages? Parables may have been a similar tool in the Gospel writers arsenal, as could be midrash. Take away midrash, allegory, and parables, and the Gospels would likely vanish into thin air.
Re: John 2:1-11, The wedding at Cana, who is the bridegroom?
My take on it: The Gospel of John everywhere rejects Matthews presentation item by item, and does so deliberately and explicitly.
If you look at the elements in John's story, you can see they are derived from the sayings in Matthew 9:15-17 (Luke 5:34-38 ... it will reject verse 5:39), and makes use of Luke 18:19-21 (or parallels). The entire Davidic lineage and human family for Jesus presented in Matthew is rejected in verse 2:4 "Woman who are you to me?."
A little note at this point, in verse 2:5 "his mother," who is never named, then command her "ministers" (διακόνοις, same word for serving/server, mission, ministry/minister) to do what Jesus says. Mary, the mother of Jesus represents the Christians John's author opposes, so in effect he is saying those Matthew type Christian ministers are also commanded to follow Jesus.
Then he changes the water to wine. There is a metaphor in there for baptism ritual and the conversion one goes through. Anyway after the old wine, which like Luke 5:37-38/Matthew 9:17 is understood as the Old Testament, and the new wine the New Testament. In John's story the Old Wine has run out, which parallels the saying Luke 16:16 "the Law and the Prophets (Torah and Nevi'im) were until John and since then the kingdom of God is preached (evangelized)." There are more parallels, the chief steward of the servers/ministers, ἀρχιτρίκλινος, is meant to parallel the chief priest ἀρχιερεύς role which later oppose Christ. They represent the leaders of the opposition party in the Christian movement to John. And like the chief steward they do not know where the new wine came from (v 2:9 καὶ οὐκ ᾔδει πόθεν ἐστίν). That is they did not know where the New Testament or this Christ came from (a theme throughout John). So the chief steward asks why have you kept the "good" (καλὸν) wine, and served the inferior first, having kept the good until now? John has allowed the Jewish (Jewish-Christian opponent) to observe the superiority of his Christ, and to down grade the OT.
Note: I suspect the parenthesized words "(but the ministers/servants who drew the water knew)" were added when John was revised into the form we have because the editor did not understand the intent of the passage. He also added comments about Jews and purification, which are completely irrelevant elements to the original author's story.
Note also the setting, we have a wedding and thus wedding guests and since Jesus is invited (vv 2.1-2 as also "the mother of Jesus" being present), hence nobody is fasting (Luke 5:33-34). Another note, I suspect καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ was also added later, as they are not depicted in the story - marginal note intrusion perhaps.
If you look at the elements in John's story, you can see they are derived from the sayings in Matthew 9:15-17 (Luke 5:34-38 ... it will reject verse 5:39), and makes use of Luke 18:19-21 (or parallels). The entire Davidic lineage and human family for Jesus presented in Matthew is rejected in verse 2:4 "Woman who are you to me?."
A little note at this point, in verse 2:5 "his mother," who is never named, then command her "ministers" (διακόνοις, same word for serving/server, mission, ministry/minister) to do what Jesus says. Mary, the mother of Jesus represents the Christians John's author opposes, so in effect he is saying those Matthew type Christian ministers are also commanded to follow Jesus.
Then he changes the water to wine. There is a metaphor in there for baptism ritual and the conversion one goes through. Anyway after the old wine, which like Luke 5:37-38/Matthew 9:17 is understood as the Old Testament, and the new wine the New Testament. In John's story the Old Wine has run out, which parallels the saying Luke 16:16 "the Law and the Prophets (Torah and Nevi'im) were until John and since then the kingdom of God is preached (evangelized)." There are more parallels, the chief steward of the servers/ministers, ἀρχιτρίκλινος, is meant to parallel the chief priest ἀρχιερεύς role which later oppose Christ. They represent the leaders of the opposition party in the Christian movement to John. And like the chief steward they do not know where the new wine came from (v 2:9 καὶ οὐκ ᾔδει πόθεν ἐστίν). That is they did not know where the New Testament or this Christ came from (a theme throughout John). So the chief steward asks why have you kept the "good" (καλὸν) wine, and served the inferior first, having kept the good until now? John has allowed the Jewish (Jewish-Christian opponent) to observe the superiority of his Christ, and to down grade the OT.
Note: I suspect the parenthesized words "(but the ministers/servants who drew the water knew)" were added when John was revised into the form we have because the editor did not understand the intent of the passage. He also added comments about Jews and purification, which are completely irrelevant elements to the original author's story.
Note also the setting, we have a wedding and thus wedding guests and since Jesus is invited (vv 2.1-2 as also "the mother of Jesus" being present), hence nobody is fasting (Luke 5:33-34). Another note, I suspect καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ was also added later, as they are not depicted in the story - marginal note intrusion perhaps.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
Re: John 2:1-11, The wedding at Cana, who is the bridegroom?
Another potential gnostic spin that is an admitted stretch: "On the third day" symbolizes that it is the risen Christ (who's hour has not come, because he has yet to ascend into heaven) that we are witnessing in this scene. The woman here being Sophia, who in telling her servant/ministers to "Do whatever he tells you" is passing the ball (transferring her authority). The servant/ministers would potentially be aions or archons (spirit beings) at some lesser level, thus the significance of emphasizing their ability to "know" what is transpiring (similar in this regard to Mark's Gospel wherein only the demons directly perceive the real identity of Jesus). In this context the words "but the ministers/servants who drew the water knew" would not be a later interpolation, but would be original to the text.
As an aside with potential relevance here, I recall once hearing of a book wherein the authors premise is that in the gospel of Mark it is actually the risen Christ we are witnessing throughout, with the Gospel presenting scenes as flashbacks so to speak, but I can't recall the title or the author. All of the miracles being performed by the risen Christ. Perhaps John is similar in this regard?
As an aside with potential relevance here, I recall once hearing of a book wherein the authors premise is that in the gospel of Mark it is actually the risen Christ we are witnessing throughout, with the Gospel presenting scenes as flashbacks so to speak, but I can't recall the title or the author. All of the miracles being performed by the risen Christ. Perhaps John is similar in this regard?
Re: John 2:1-11, The wedding at Cana, who is the bridegroom?
I do see it as a 2nd century book written in response to Matthew, which itself was in response to the Marcionite (and Luke a response to all three), so sometime in the later part of Antoninus' reign or early in Lucius Verus. But while the author has a trajectory toward Valentinianism, I think that sect was in its infancy at this time. Verses 16:1-4 indicate the proto-orthodoxy has successfully been evangelizing its counter mission and is starting to put out of the church buildings (ἀποσυναγώγους) heretical teachers like John's author. The secret teachers were more likely a response to the suppression. We see that this Jesus is called by some, those who agree with John as "the Good One" (ὅτι ἀγαθός ἐστιν) in verse 7:12, but no longer can supporters of this Jesus speak openly we are told in verse 7:13 due to the Jews (i.e., Jewish or proto-orthodox Christians) who later we are told will put them out of the church in verse 9:22 if they confess John's Jesus.
So this book is about the birth of secret teachings, the beginning of Gnosticism. Whether the developed Gnostic reading was there yet is less certain. You can see in Elaine Pagels Gnostic Paul several post-Marcionite passages with Catholic interpolations that have Gnostic interpretations (much to the frustration of the Patristic opponents). These probably took a few decades to come to systems. It is one of the (many) reasons I am convinced Justin and Irenaeus writings belong in the 3rd century.
Anyway, there is consistency in this gospel for saying the clergy is split (e.g., verse 12:42), and thus the understanding would not be for all those lower clergy who perform the baptism ritual. It's a stretch to say by doing as "his mother" commanded that they ALL came to such knowledge (εἴδω, meaning to perceive, as with the senses, not Gnosis ... which more strongly points to a marginal note origin) of the source of the baptism. The entire theme throughout this gospel is only a few understand. That is why I think the words about those ministers knowing where Jesus comes from (where the wine originated) is probably not original. It also serves no purpose.
And yes, Jesus is τὸν νυμφίον here
So this book is about the birth of secret teachings, the beginning of Gnosticism. Whether the developed Gnostic reading was there yet is less certain. You can see in Elaine Pagels Gnostic Paul several post-Marcionite passages with Catholic interpolations that have Gnostic interpretations (much to the frustration of the Patristic opponents). These probably took a few decades to come to systems. It is one of the (many) reasons I am convinced Justin and Irenaeus writings belong in the 3rd century.
Anyway, there is consistency in this gospel for saying the clergy is split (e.g., verse 12:42), and thus the understanding would not be for all those lower clergy who perform the baptism ritual. It's a stretch to say by doing as "his mother" commanded that they ALL came to such knowledge (εἴδω, meaning to perceive, as with the senses, not Gnosis ... which more strongly points to a marginal note origin) of the source of the baptism. The entire theme throughout this gospel is only a few understand. That is why I think the words about those ministers knowing where Jesus comes from (where the wine originated) is probably not original. It also serves no purpose.
And yes, Jesus is τὸν νυμφίον here
Last edited by Stuart on Sun Mar 05, 2017 2:34 am, edited 2 times in total.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
Re: John 2:1-11, The wedding at Cana, who is the bridegroom?
Thank you for your insight here Stuart!