Greediguts;4137432
[COLOR=black said:
The mother tells the servants to do whatever Jesus tells them. The mother (Judaism) would be telling the servants (the people) that she trusts Jesus; the heritage of [/COLOR]Israel is safe with him. The steward would represent authority (religious elite). When they bring the steward the water, he does not realize where it came from, but the author makes a point of stating the servants knew. Authorities don't know the truth, but the people do. Now the other time bridegroom is mentioned in the Gospel of John is when John the Baptist refers to Jesus (John 3:29). If we look at what the steward says to the bridegroom, we can see the author is really making a statement about the Synoptic Gospels. The Synoptic Gospels would be the inferior wine that the majority of people have consumed, leaving them drunk; unable to comprehend the works of Christ. The real meaning of Jesus (the bridegroom) and his works would now come out in John's Gospel (the good wine).
Very interesting. One issue -- Jesus' mother quotes Pharoah when telling the servants to do what Jesus tells them. Do you think the author would identify Jesus' mother as Judaism with Pharaoh? It is certainly possible, but it would seem to undercut the interpretation a bit. Granted, this is Joseph's pharoah and not the one from Moses' day, but still.................
Hmmm, I like your interpretation, though. It makes much better sense of why this miracle is where it is -- one thing that has always bothered me.
This story supports the idea of the author being an Alexandrian Jew. He would have been exposed to the myths of Dionysus (water to wine) and Osiris (Lazarus from the dead).
Got no qualms there.
The author of John did not agree with the Synoptics esp. Mark and he also would not be welcomed by the current Jewish elite. The passages of Jesus talking about being hated by the world become a little clearer.
Yes, agreed.
The Gospel of John seems like the teachings of a very sectarian faith. A group that still felt very Jewish in customs and traditions, but believed in the Messiah. The Gospel of John mentions Jewish festivals and rituals throughout the verses. Obviously, Jesus represents the Passover Lamb, but that again is a Jewish ritual. The author replaces the Eucharist with foot-washing with goes back to Genesis 18:4, 19:2, 24:32, 43:24.
Yes, in a way, but Jesus is not just Messiah here, but a being that is not human. He pre-exists humans and all things come into existence through him. Now, granted, the introduction could be a later addition, but even within the text Jesus is portrayed as divine. He tries to explain it with a reference to Psalms -- we are all gods -- but he never really speaks as though everyone is a god, but only him. This is probably one of the reasons why the Gnostics loved the book and it is certainly possible that references to his flesh and blood are later additions to argue against gnostic and docetist traditions. How could we be sure?
I also can't think of any reason of why the author would omit the establishment of the Eucharist. It becomes the new covenant that replaces the old.
We could always argue that he doesn't omit it -- he clearly refers to it, though, as you say, this could be a latter addition. He could have omitted it for the simple reason that he never took the narrative to the Passover meal where it is instituted in the synoptics, but has Jesus being sacrificed on the Preparation day. Don't know. As a constructed work, though, that explanation doesn't hold much water since it could have been introduced at some other point or at the last supper in this gospel when Jesus delivers several teachings.
What do you think about the different ways of approaching the cleansing of the Temple? In the synoptics this seems to be a reference to the destruction of the Temple as part of the end-times prediction, but it serves a very different purpose in John. Another argument with Mark?
The only chapter that I believe supports John referring to the Eucharist is Chapter 6. I also believe that this is an added or heavily edited chapter by a later editor, much in the same way the beginning verses of John and the last chapter were tacked on.
Calebprime quoted Raymond E. Brown's work. I have just started to become familiar with his books. Brown feels there are three layers of text in John: an initial version based on the personal experience of Jesus; a structured literary creation by an evangelist author, which drew upon additional sources; and the edited version we have today. So it is not entirely unreasonable to think this chapter is edited.
Interesting, I was wondering about redaction earlier. Do you know what Brown's argument consists in?
The biggest reason I believe the verses are additions is because they just don't fit. The majority of what Jesus talks about is being born-again from the spirit. The verses themselves contradict each other.
"So Jesus said to them, "Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. " (John 6:53-56)
Then soon after these verses, Jesus states this:
"It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. "(John 6:63)
Huh? 
What am I missing?
Yes, that bothered me as well. It really does not seem to fit there at all.
If we took out the main verses that refer to eating flesh and drinking blood (John 6:44-62) we would have this:
"Then the Jews began to complain about him because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven." They were saying, "Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, "I have come down from heaven'?" Jesus answered them, "Do not complain among yourselves.(41-43)"Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.(62-63)
Makes a lot more sense.
See, that's why we need people who spend a lot of time on these texts. I read this stuff superficially and think I come upon a useful interpretation..............
I think you may be onto something there.
Now of course, I realize the "Beloved Disciple" verses could be the additions to the Gospel. They don't appear until the later chapters.....hmmm......
I don't think that affects your reworking of this much, if at all. It would make sense as an addition within a secluded community -- part of the redaction. It still serves the purpose of countering Peter's importance in the synoptics.
