spin

So at what point in the following relative chronology do you think Meier might ascertain when the embarrassment over the baptism was first felt?

[T2]

1. [theoretic historical Jesus]

:

2. [oral tradition]

:

3. [writing of Mark]

:

4. [writing of Matthew]

:

5. [writing of Luke]

[/T2]

Grog

In fact, I think this demonstrates conclusively that the wedding at Cana was actually Jesus' wedding. Notice, especially, that there are several writings documenting the life of Jesus in which it is never mentioned that wedding at Cana was the wedding of Jesus.

andrewcriddle

Meier thinks that Matthew and Luke were embarrassed by the stories (and omitted them). They are also unusual in terms of Mark's typical miracle story in which Jesus performs instantaneous cures by the spoken word alone.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

The following is what I see as the logic of Meier's position. Meier would not necessarily agree.

a/ Matthew is clearly embarrassed.
b/ Mark may be embarrassed (in the sense that he sees the epiode as liable to misunderstanding.) The account of the descent of the Spirit may be intended to prevent misunderstanding of the significance of the baptism.
c/ If (as seems likely) the descent of the Spirit is pre-Marcan, then embarrassment at the episode may also be pre-Marcan.
d/ There could in principle be an earlier stage in which the baptism was not seen as problematic at all.

Andrew Criddle

spin

It seems, Andrew, that you are saying that he would make up an ad hoc set of excuses--none of which is based on anything more than conjecture--to shift the embarrassment as early as possible. Doesn't that sound like a conclusion driven approach!?

DCHindley

I don't know that it is established fact that in Galilee in that period that the Groom provided the wine for his wedding ceremony. The person who is expected to pay for what at a wedding party probably varied between cultures and classes within each culture. You will notice that Jesus was "invited" (ἐκλήθη), which I will assume would have been unlikely in the case of a groom.

The function of the "master of the celebration" (ἀρχιτρίκλινος) is not known. The word itself is so rare in ancient Greek that Perseus shows all three instances as occurring here in the Gospel of John.

A "triclinos" (τρίκλινος) simply means a three couched room, and from the context it is used in other Greek authors, refers a dining hall or party room lined with couches along three of the walls.

The function of this man has been described by commentators as everything from an honored patron to the owner of the room. While he directs the observation that it was unusual for someone throwing a shindig to provide the higher quality wine after running out of the cheaper stuff to the bridegroom, it was Mary who told the servants to do what Jesus recommended, and they obeyed. Mary may then have been nothing more then the caterer. If she was related to either the bride or groom at all, keep in mind that Mary had several other biological, half or step sons and daughters.

What writings are you referring to? Ancient or modern? Since Christians never even imagined that Jesus Christ, a human-divine being, could have been married in the flesh, I am not be surprised that the possibility was not discussed by Church fathers. Apparently no one the Christians considered important enough to respond to made the charge, although I believe it was hinted at in some 2nd century gnostic texts the church fathers made reference to.

I cannot find my copy of Baigent & Leigh's 1982 book (Holy Blood Holy Grail (or via: amazon.co.uk)) which might provide some sort of historical background. If I recall correctly, I had read authors before then (Hugh Schonfield?) who at least suggested that Mary and Jesus were more than platonic friends.

Unfortunately the whole Gospel of Mary hype machine (for and against) has precluded any possibility of a meaningful Google search.

DCH

Grog

I'm sorry, meant that to be tongue in cheek,

rlogan

The vast majority of Christians are neither literalists nor skeptics on existence. So what human tendency on absolutes is she pretending exists here?

This is the cherished manipulative tactic of framing one's self to be the moderate, reasonable person amongst extremists.

Obviously not a false dichotomy. Jim is a dentist. Sue likes grapes. False dichotomy!

Tom Verenna

I was initially going to publish this on Bible and Interpretation, but since I have already published a more thorough response to Bart Ehrman there which covers all of these same issues, I just decided to blog it:

http://tomverenna.wordpress.com/2013...gure-of-jesus/

James The Least

Oh gawd, not this BS again.