Peter Kirby

I have taken the liberty of getting a couple commentaries on John, such as the Anchor Bible and Sacra Pagina. From now on, I hope to be posting these chapters of Bible study more frequently.

I will quote from a previous post on the purpose of this Bible study: "The purpose of this study, as I conceive it, is a better understanding of the message and method of the authors involved. Insights are welcome from both believers and skeptics. We should try to understand what the author says, and we should welcome contributions from people who have different perspectives than our own. A person can have the viewpoint that the work is inspired; however, the person should post with the realization that others will not share that assumption. In the other direction, a person can have the viewpiont that the work is entirely fictitious, but others will not be compelled to adopt this viewpoint without argument. I have no illusions that there is an objective point of view from which the interpretation of John can be tackled, so I suggest that we be explicit about the assumptions that are behind our readings."

You can read the second chapter of John here. You can click on 'Printer-Friendly Page' if you would like to read it on paper.

<a href="http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=JOHN%2B2&showfn=on&showxref=on&langu age=english&version=DARBY" target="_blank">John 2 (Darby)</a>

Here you can see several versions in a synopsis, including the Greek.

<a href="http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B43C002.htm" target="_blank">John 2 (HTML Bible)</a>

There are basically two stories in the second chapter of John: the story of changing water into wine and the story of driving the merchants out of the Temple area.

I will quote some comments and then pose some questions.

Bruce Vawter writes: "Undoubtedly, John has deliberately arranged the chronology to build up to a 'third day,' evoking the memory of the Lord's resurrection (glorification) on the third day after his death - here, the glory of the Lord (v. 11) is manifested on the third day after its promise [made to Nathanael in 1:51]." (The Jerome Biblical Commentary, v. 2, p. 427)

Raymond Brown writes: "The usual festivities consisted of a procession in which the bridegroom's friends brought the bride to the groom's house, and then a wedding supper; seemingly the festivities lasted seven days (Judg xiv 12; Tob xi 19). The Mishnah (Kethuboth 1) ordained that the wedding of a virgin should take place on Wednesday. This would agree with the guess that i 39 immediately preceded the Sabbath; the action of i 40-42 would have taken place on Saturday evening-Sunday; that of i 43-50 on Sunday evening-Monday; Monday evening-Tuesday would have been the second day of the journey; and Jesus would have arrived at Cana on Tuesday evening or Wednesday morning." (The Gospel According to John, v. 1, pp. 97-98)

R.V.G. Tasker writes: "A furkin according to the Concise Oxford Dictionary is half a kilderkin which consists of 16 or 18 gallons. The waterpots therefore contained some 20 to 30 gallons each." (John, p. 60)

Raymond Brown writes: "In the NT this town [Cana] is mentioned only by John (also xxi 2); Josephus mentions it in his Life 16 (#86). The site pointed out to pilgrims since the Middle Ages, Kefr Kenna, 3 1/2 miles northeast of Nazareth, is probably wrong (etymologically from the Greek we would expect the Semitic name to be Qana, not Kenna). Khirbet Qana, 9 miles north of Nazareth, is better etymologically and seems to fit Josephus' localization. Only John and Luke (iv 14-16) know of activity by Jesus in the Galilean hill country near Nazareth immediately after the baptism; Mark-Matthew begin the ministry at the Sea of Galilee." (The Gospel According to John, v. 1, p. 98)

Citing a French article by J. Dupont, Raymond Brown writes: "In consistently referring to these men during the ministry as 'disciples,' and in avoiding the title of 'apostle,' John shows a historical sense, for 'apostle' is a term that belongs to the post-resurrectional period." (The Gospel According to John, v. 1, p. 98)

Funk and Hoover write: "Jesus responds to his mother's hint that the supply of wine has been consumed, 'It's not my time.' Jesus' time (Greek, hora, kairos) is the moment when he will be glorified (12:23, 27-28), elevated (3:14), and hence when he will return to the Father (13:1; 17:1). When that time comes, Jesus will speak plainly (16:25) and the disciples will be scattered (16:32); then the true worshipers will worship the Father as he truly is, without regard to place (4:21, 23)." (The Five Gospels, p. 405)

Bruce Vawter writes: "This form of address [in 2:4] is not disrespectful; it was commonly employed in speaking to women (cf. 4:21). In its use it resembles our somewhat more formal 'madam.' On the other hand, it was completely unheard of for a son to address his mother in such a fashion (cf. J. Michl, Bib 36 [1955] 492-509)." (The Jerome Biblical Commentary, p. 427)

Raymond Brown writes of v. 4: "In the OT the Hebrew expression has two shades of meaning: (a) when one party is unjustly bothering another, the injured party may say, 'What to me and to you?' i.e., What have I done to you that you should do this to me? What subject of discord is there between us? (Judg xi 12; II Chron xxxv 21; I Kings xvii 18); (b) when someone is aked to get involved in a matter which he feels is no business of his, he may say to the petitioner, 'What to me and to you?' i.e., That is your business; how am I involved? (II Kings iii 13; Hos xiv 8). Thus, there is always some refusal of an inopportune involvement, and a divergence between the views of the two persons concerned; yet (a) implies hostility while (b) implies simply disengagement. Both shades of meaning appear in NT usage: (a) appears where the demons reply to Jesus (Mark i 24, v 7); seemingly (b) appears here." (The Gospel According to John, v. 1, p. 99)

Bruce Vawter writes: "Mary is represented not merely in her historical character but in the function that has been reserved to her in salvation history. If John has seen a new history of creation unfold in the preceding 'seven days,' he has also reserved a special place in this history for her who has been addressed as 'woman.' The woman of the first creation was called Life (LXX: Zoe = 'Eve'), because she was 'mother of all the living' (Gn 3:20). Mary is the mother of the new life, not only of the Word made flesh, but also of all those who live with his life (14:19f.). She is, in other words, a figure of the Church, the New Eve, as the Fathers called her. A similar Johannine representation is found in the woman of Ap 12, who is simultaneously the mother of Christ and of the New Israel, where again the imagery of Gn has served as the inspiration of the vision. In this acceptation, we can see the relevance with which she is again called 'woman' in 19:26f., where the beloved disciple, who stands for all Christians, is committed to her as to his mother. We can see the relevance with which he implied claim on Christ at Cana is apparently disavowed: Her intercessory efficacy is effective only in virtue of the glorification of Christ. However, because the hour that has not yet come is nevertheless anticipated, her petition is granted." (The Jerome Biblical Commentary, v. 2, p. 428)

Raymond Brown writes: "On a theological level it can be seen that Mary's request, whether by her intention or not, would lead to Jesus' performing a sign. Before he does perform this sign, Jesus must make clear his refusal of Mary's intervention; she cannot have any role in his ministry; his signs must reflect his Father's sovereignty, and not any human, or family agency. But if Mary is to have no role during the ministry, she is to receive a role when the hour of his glorification comes, the hour of passion, death, resurrection, and ascension. John thinks of Mary against the background of Gen iii: she is the mother of the Messiah; her role is in the struggle against the satanic serpent, and that struggle comes to its climax in Jesus' hour. Then she will appear at the foot of the cross to be entrusted with offspring whom she must protect in the continuing struggle between Satan and the followers of the Messiah. Mary is the New Eve, the symbol of the Church; the Church has no role during the ministry of Jesus but only after the hour of his resurrection and ascension." (The Gospel According to John, v. 1, p. 109)

Frank Schleritt writes: "The motif of the transformation of water into wine is not attested unequivocally in ancient texts. Rather, only a sudden presence of wine is presupposed. Cf. the two following examples: 'When one struck the rock with the thyrsos, immediately a cool spring arose, and on striking the narthex on the ground, the god's sweet wine flowed out' (Euripides, The Maenads, 704-7). '. . . The priests bring three vessels to the count and set them down empty (viz. in a building) . . . The next day . . . they find the vessels filled with wine' (Pausanias, Description of Greece, VI 26, 1-2). However, in the Old Testament there are narratives about the transformation of water into some other matter; cf. Ex. 7:19-22 (Moses turns water into blood); Ex. 15.23-25 and II Kings 2.19-22 (each time undrinkable water is transformed into drinkable water). Moreover, it should be noted that according to many Old Testament texts the time of salvation will be marked not least by an inexhaustible supply of wine (cf. e.g. Amos 9.13f.; Hos. 2.24; Zech. 8.12; see also Mark 14.25)." (Jesus after 2000 Years, p. 435)

Raymond Brown writes: "Only the Cana miracle has no parallel [in kind] in the Synoptic tradition. Thus, Bultmann and others suggest strong pagan influence in the formation of the story, especially the influence of the cult of Dionysius, the god of vintage. The Dionysius feast was celebrated on January 6th, while the Cana reading became part of the Epiphany liturgy celebrated on the same date. During the feast the fountains of the pagan temples on Andros spouted wine instead of water." (The Gospel According to John, v. 1, p. 101)

Raymond Brown continues: "While this evidence is interesting, it is scarcely conclusive for the origins of the Johannine narrative. We must remember that both the dates and motifs of Christian feasts were often deliberately selected to replace pagan feasts. Moreover, it may be legitimately asked if the evangelist, who has shown himself to be working within the general framework of the traditional miracle stories of Jesus in six of his seven narratives, would be likely to introduce a seventh narrative from an extraneous tradition? As for the uniqueness of the miracle, is changing water into wine so different from the multiplication of loaves? Both have echoes in the Elijah-Elisha tradition which supplies the OT background for Jesus' miracles, probably because only in this cycle of stories does the OT narrate numerous miracles done on behalf of individuals. The multiplication of the loaves is anticipated in II Kings iv 42-44, and perhaps the changing of water to wine to supply the wedding party may be compared with Elijah's miraculous furnishing of meal and oil in I Kings xvii 1-16 and Elisha's supplying of oil in II Kings iv 1-7. All of these are miracles which answer an unexpected physical need that in the particular circumstances cannot be satisfied by natural means. Another obstacle to the thesis that the Cana story was borrowed from Hellenistic miracle legends is the modest and discreet way in which the miraculous is introduced into the narrative - so untypical of the atmosphere of the Hellenistic wonders. John does not tell us how or when the water became wine but reveals the miracle almost as an aside." (The Gospel According to John, v. 1, pp. 101-102)

R.V.G. Tasker writes: "Jesus [or the writer -ed.] wished, through the symbolism of the water turned into wine, both to expose the inadequacy of Judaism as a religion of salvation, and to initiate His disciples into the necessity for His own redeeming death. The six waterpots of stone were set there, the evangelist states, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews. This would seem to be something more than an explanatory note for the benefit of non-Jewish readers. It may well provide the clue to the interpretation of the incident. The water contained in these vessels was used for the ceremonial washing indicative both of the nature and of the weakness of Pharisaism. It was this water . . . that Jesus turned into wine - wine which, because it gives life and strength and, as the Psalmist said, 'makes glad the heart of man', is a fitting symbol of the new spiritual power made available for mankind by the shedding of the blood of Jesus." (John, p. 55)

Bruce Vawter writes: "Stone was used because in Jewish belief it could not contract ritual uncleanness (cf. Str-B 2, 406f.). It is doubtful that John sees any special significance in the number six (the number of imperfection, cf. Ap 13:18)." (The Jerome Biblical Commentary, p. 427)

Francis J. Moloney writes: "There are six of them, one short of the number 'seven.' This is probably a hint that a former gift is to be perfected (cf. 1:16-17). . . . The water in the jars, used for Jewish purification rituals, will be transformed into a 'sign' (c. 11: semeion) in and through which the doxa will be revealed." (The Gospel of John, p. 68)

D. Moody Smith writes: "The steward's words mean more than he intends. If Jesus himself is the good wine, his appearance at the culmination of salvation history is symbolized by its emergence out of the waters of Jewish purification: the last, not the first, is best." (Harper's Bible Commentary, p. 1050)

Francis J. Moloney writes: "The words of the steward imply that the bridegroom is responsible for this remarkable fullness of good wine. The next time a bridegroom appears in the story (cf. 3:29) it will be in the words of John the Baptist, who speaks of Jesus as the bridegroom, and himself as the friend of the bridegroom. At one level of the narrative the steward instructs the bridegroom on common sense, but on another level the encounter raises a question about the source of the fullness provided by the bridegroom. 'The steward here seems to be wholly unaware of the supply of wine, of the shortage or of the drawing of water. He merely states that the wine is excellent (kalos) and that the bridegroom's actions are not those of ordinary men' (b. Olsson, Structure and Meaning 62). In v. 4 the mother of Jesus was told that the hour had not yet come. The steward seems to think that it has, as he tells the bridegroom, who has provided the wine, that he has kept the good wine until now (heos arti). But Jesus announced at the beginning of the account that the hour has not yet come (v. 4: oupo hekei). However rich the gift of wine may have been, the larger story of Jesus points beyond this particular story. This is an important moment, but not the final moment, in the revelation of Jesus." (The Gospel of John, p. 69)

Raymond Brown writes: "Scholarly interpretations to the contrary, John does not put primary emphasis on the replacing of the water for Jewish purifications, nor on the action of changing water to wine (which is not described in detail), nor even on the resultant wine. John does not put primary emphasis on Mary or her intercession, nor on why she pursued her request, nor on the reaction of the headwaiter or of the groom. The primary focus is, as in all Johannine stories, on Jesus as the one sent by the Father to bring salvation to the world. What shines through is his glory, and the only reaction that is emphasized is the belief of the disciples." (The Gospel According to John, v. 1, pp. 103-104)

Frank Schleritt writes of the 2:12 verse: "This verse appears to have no function in the present context, since a journey of Jesus to Jerusalem is reported in the next verse, with no mention of what happened in Capernaum. One possible explanation of this is that v. 12 represents the original link between the miracle stories 2.1-10 (scene Cana) and 4.46b-53 (original scene Capernaum), which were joined together at a pre-redactional level. In that case only 'after this' (cf. 3.22; 5.1, 14; 6.1; 7.1; 11.7, 11; 19.28, 38) and the phrase 'and they stayed there not many days', which evidently takes account of v. 13 (cf. also 10.40; 11.54) are to be marked out as redactional additions." (Jesus after 2000 Years, p. 434)

Bruce Vawter writes: "Jn takes little cognizance of Jesus' activity in Galilee. This summary statement, however, agrees with the Syn tradition in making the Capernaum phase of the ministry a brief one (Mk 1:14ff.; 2:1ff. par.). The shortest reading in the mss., possibly the original, lists those who went down to Capernaum as Jesus, his mother, and the brethren. Here 'the brethren' means Jesus' disciples, who remained with him in Capernaum only a few days. The addition of 'and his disciples' is explained through the identification of 'the brothers' with Jesus' relatives (see 7:1-10)." (The Jerome Biblical Commentary, v. 2, p. 428)

Raymond Brown writes: "The scene that John narrates has parallels in three separate Synoptic narratives. (1) The Synoptics describe a similar cleansing of the temple precincts during Jesus' only ministry in Jerusalem just before he died. In Matt xxi 10-17 and Luke xix 45-46 Jesus does this on the day on which he enters Jerusalem in triumph; in Mark xi 15-19 he does this on the day after he entered Jerusalem in triumph. (2) On the occasion of the cleansing Jesus' action is not challenged; but some time later the chief priests, scribes, and elders ask, 'By what authority do you do these things?' (Mark xi 27-28 and par.). Jesus refuses to answer unless they commit themselves about John the Baptist. (3) At the trial of Jesus before the Sanhedren false witnesses report that Jesus threatened to destroy the Temple and rebuild it in three days (Mark xiv 58; Matt xxvi 61). We hear other echoes of this threat attributed to Jesus by the passers-by at the foot of the cross (Mark xv 29; Matt xxvii 40). It reappears in the trial of Stephen in Acts vi 14 (the only Lucan reference)." (The Gospel According to John, v. 1, pp. 116-117)

With regards to "the Jewish passover" in v. 13, Bruce Vawter writes: "John knows of a Christian Passover (cf. Cor 5:7), of which the Jewish feast was but a type. The feasts of Judaism play a major role in John's Gospel as representing the institutions that prefigured Christ." (The Jerome Biblical Commentary, v. 2, p. 429)

Frank Schleritt writes: "The Fourth Evangelist has put the cleansing of the temple at the beginning of the public activity of Jesus in Jerusalem in order to provide an effective prelude to the harsh controversies between Jesus and the Jews by which his work is largely characterized (cf. on 5.18)." (Jesus after 2000 Years, p. 436)

Raymond Brown writes: "That we cannot harmonize John and the Synoptics by positing two cleansings of the temple precincts seems obvious. Not only do the two traditions describe basically the same actions, but also it is not likely that such a serious public affront to the Temple would be permitted twice." (The Gospel According to John, v. 1, p. 117)

R.V.G. Tasker writes: "By recording an account of a similar event on the occasion of the first visit of Jesus to Jerusalem after His Messianic ministry began, John is not correcting a supposed chronological blunder, nor deliberately altering their history in the interests of theological exposition, but, we may reasonably suppose, relating an additional 'cleansing' which the Synoptic writers had no occasion to relate, for it did not form part of the Petrine, Galilean tradition which they were embodying." (John, p. 61)

D. Moody Smith writes: "Harmonizers of the Gospels, ancient and modern, have proposed that Jesus cleansed the Temple in a similar way twice. This is possible but not likely. In all probability John has moved an event from the passion week to the beginning of the narrative. Such a move would fit his tendency to set out at the beginning matters or events that in the other Gospels take place later (e.g., the confession of Jesus as Messiah). Jesus comes to the Temple of Jerusalem, the very heart of the Israelite nation and religion, at the outset of his ministry and there confronts its authorities. Their forthcoming hostility is adumbrated and his own death and resurrection are revealed by the testimony of Scripture and Jesus' own pronouncement." (Harper's Bible Commentary, p. 1050)

Raymond Brown writes: "We suggest as a plausible hypothesis that on his first journey to Jerusalem and to the Temple at the beginning of his ministry Jesus uttered a prophetic warning about the destruction of the sanctuary. The Synoptics give evidence that later on this warning was recalled and used against Jesus, although they never tell us at what precise moment the warning had originally been given. On the other hand, it seems likely that Jesus' action of cleansing the temple precincts took place in the last days of his life." (The Gospel According to John, v. 1, p. 118)

R.V.G. Tasker writes: "John's narrative makes it clear that in fact Jesus was not seeking to reform the old system but to abolish it. He is not denouncing the fraudulence of the money-changers, but objecting to any business at all being transacted in the temple precincts. Take these things hence; make not my Father's house a house of merchandise (16). But merchandise there had to be, if Jews from the Dispersion who came up for the festivals were to have the opportunity of exchanging their money and buying the animals necessary for sacrifice." (John, p. 62)

Bruce Vawter writes: "The 'house of his father' that would be made ready in the resurrection is quite different from that of the earthly Temple (cf. 14:2). Jesus' words refer as much to the Church as they do to the resurrection." (The Jerome Biblical Commentary, v. 2, p. 429)

Frank Schleritt writes: "In all probability, v. 17 is an addition formulated on the basis of v. 22a (E. Hirssch). It interrupts the connection between v. 16 and v. 18 and speaks of an immediate recollection of the disciples, whereas it is explicitly mentioned in v. 22 that the disciples recalled Jesus' saying in v. 19 only after Easter. With the quotation of Ps. 69.10, the revisers are referring back to one of the psalms of the Suffering Servant which in early Christianity was often used to interpret the death of Jesus (cf. the adoption of Ps. 69 in Mark 15.36; Matt. 27.34, 48; Luke 23.36; John 19.29; Rom. 15.3). Earlier, in 1.29b they had put into the mouth of John the Baptist an interpretation of the death of Jesus which was alien to the context." (Jesus after 2000 Years, pp. 435-436)

Francis J. Moloney writes: "The LXX Greek text of Psalm 68 explains the sufferings and abuse of the person dedicated to Temple prayer in the aorist tense: 'Zeal for your house has consumed (katephagen) me.' The recollection of the disciples cites the psalm with the verb in the future tense: 'Zeal for your house will consume (kataphagetai) me.' At this stage of the story they can only guess that the actions performed by Jesus will eventually lead to a life and death struggle. In this they are correct, but they align Jesus with figures from the past whose commitment to the honor of God cost them their lives: Phineas, Elijah, or Mattathias (cf. Num 25:11; 1 Kgs 19:10, 14; Sir 48:1; 1 Macc 2:24-26). Jesus' present action will lead to a similar fate (cf. Hoskyns, Fourth Gospel 194). An important element of truth is present in the disciples' recognition of Jesus' future, and an echo of the Passion is heard." (The Gospel of John, pp. 77-78)

D. Moody Smith writes: "If Herod's reconstruction of the Temple (v. 20) began in 19 or 20 B.C., this event would have occurred in the year 27 or 28." (Harper's Bible Commentary, p. 1050)

Raymond Brown writes: "Josephus, Ant. XV.XI.1;#380, says that the Temple reconstruction was begun in the 18th year of Herod the Great (20/19 B.C. - this date is more reliable than the 15th year of Herod given in War I.XXI.1;#401). Reckoning from this we reach a date of A.D. 27/28, or more exactly, the Passover of 28. The hazards of establishing an exact chronology for the ministry of Jesus are well known, but this date agrees with that of Luke iii 1, which fixes the ministry of John the Baptist in the 15th year of Tiberius (October 27 to 28, according to the Syrian calendar with antedating). The number in John obviously refers to the Temple; however, because John says that the temple is Jesus' body and because of viii 57 ('You're not even fifty years old'), Loisy and others accept 46 as the age of Jesus, suggesting that he died at the Jubilee age of 50. The fact that the Greek letters in the name of Adam have the value of 46 was the basis of the interpretation of many Fathers, especially Augustine, who saw this number as a reference to Jesus' human nature; see Vogels. While we do not regard 'forty-six years' as a reference to Jesus' age, we by no means exclude the possibility that Jesus was considerably older than Luke's approximation of 'about thirty years of age' (iii 23) might indicate." (The Gospel According to John, v. 1, pp. 115-116)

Francis J. Moloney writes: "Both words [naos or heiron] can refer to the building of the Temple, but Jesus has distinguished between them. 'The Jews' see the words as identical; giving Jesus' words their surface meaning, they misunderstand them. Instead of seeing Jesus as the naos they 'apply them [Jesus' words] literally to the visible temple of stone which rises before their eyes' (Schnackenburg, Gospel 1:350)." (The Gospel of John, p. 78)

Frank Schleritt writes: "The motif of misunderstanding, typical of the Fourth Evangelist, appears here for the first time (cf. 3.4; 4.11, 15, 33; 6.34, 42; 7.35; 8.22, 52, 57; 11.12). It serves him primarily as a means of illustrating human unbelief and blindness to the revelation, or the way in which human beings are rooted in the earthly. No wonder, then, that the misunderstandings almost always occur in the mouths of unbelieving Jews. Only twice is Jesus misunderstood by the disciples (4.33; 11.12). But in contrast to the Jews, they are immediately given an explanation of what is really meant (4.34; 11.14). The motif of the incomprehension of the disciples (cf. e.g. 14.5) is to be distinguished from the motif of misunderstanding." (Jesus after 2000 Years, p. 437)

Francis J. Moloney writes: "The narrator explains that the Temple that will be destroyed and raised up after three days is not the hieron of stone, but the naos of his body (v. 21). Jesus Christ is the gift that replaces a former gift (cf. 1:17). The transformation of water from six jars used for the Jewish rites of purification into a good wine was a first 'sign' (cf. 2:11) of the fullness of the gifts of God that perfects the former gift of God to Israel. The narrator now informs the reader that more astonishing transformations are still to be seen. The steady use of the future tense in the verbs of vv. 17, 19-20 promises that Jesus' passion for the ways of his Father will lead to his being consumed, and that after a very short time he will raise up the Temple of his body (v. 21). The presence of God in the Temple will be perfected by the revelation of God that will take place in the destruction and the resurrection of the Temple of the body of Jesus. At a time when there is no longer a Temple in Jerusalem, believing readers of the Fourth Gospel will experience the presence of the crucified yet risen Jesus as their 'Temple.'" (The Gospel of John, p. 79)

Robert Kysar writes: "The earliest date for the gospel hinges upon the question of whether or not it presupposes the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. Most agree that it does, although there have been persistent attempts to argue otherwise. The reasons for positing a post-70 date include the view of the Temple implicit in 2:13-22. Most would argue that the passage attempts to present Christ as the replacement of the Temple that has been destroyed." (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 3, p. 918)

Raymond Brown writes: "In the NT, in addition to the Johannine interpretation of the Temple as Jesus' body, we find at least three different strains of Christian thought about the spiritual Temple: (a) the Christian Temple or hous of God is the Church - Eph ii 19-21; I Pet ii 5, iv 17. (b) the Temple is the individual Christian - I Cor iii 16, vi 19; see Ignatius Phila vii 2; II Clem ix 3. A passage like II Cor vi 16 hovers between (a) and (b). (c) the Temple is in heaven - this is the tradition of the apocalyptic works (II Bar iv 5), where the earthly Temple and Jerusalem are only copies of the heavenly. Rev xi 19 and Heb ix 11-12 have this interpretation." (The Gospel According to John, v. 1, p. 124)

Raymond Brown writes: "As an indication that John's interpretation of Jesus as the new Temple is not strange in the framework of Gospel theology, we may recall the saying attributed to Jesus in Matt xii 6: 'A greater than the Temple is here.'" (The Gospel According to John, v. 1, p. 125)

Bruce Vawter writes: "Though John has thus far mentioned only the one miracle at Cana, he presupposes the numerous miracles ['signs' in v. 23] of the Syn tradition (cf. 3:2; 4:45). Mt 21:14f. speaks of miracles that occurred at the time of the cleansing of the Temple." (The Jerome Biblical Commentary, p. 429)

D. Moody Smith writes of the 2:23-25 passage: "This general, summary statement about Jesus' signs prepares us for the way in which Nicodemus will approach Jesus (3:2), as well as Jesus' cool response. Jesus' own attitude is described tersely (vv. 24-25) and grounded in the omniscience that he frequently manifests in John (1:48; 4:39)." (Harper's Bible Commentary, pp. 1050-1051).

Now here are some questions.

1. Do you think that John's narrative of the wedding at Cana was influenced by or modeled on a pagan story or stories? Or perhaps a Jewish story?

2. Do you think that Mary may have stood as a symbol for the church in the story of the wedding at Cana, as suggested by Vawter and Brown?

3. What do you think that Mary expected when Mary approached Jesus in John 2:3?

4. What is the meaning of the statement about "my hour" in the response of Jesus to Mary, both with reference to the rest of the Gospel and with reference to the situation in the wedding at Cana?

5. In the story of the changing of water into wine, what might the water in the jars symbolize? What might the wine symbolize?

6. What do you think is the main point that John wishes to illustrate in the story of the changing of water into wine?

7. What is the purpose or origin of the twelfth verse, in which Jesus leaves Cana to Capernaum and then leaves Capernaum for Jerusalem after only a few days?

8. In John's second chapter, what is indicated about the relationship between Jesus and the sacrificial system?

9. Do you think that a reasonable and sound harmonization can be made between the accounts of the cleansing of the Temple in the Synoptics and in John?

10. Why did John place the cleansing of the Temple near the beginning of the public ministry of Jesus?

11. What did the Jews expect when they asked for a sign in John 2:18?

12. What do you think of the idea advanced by Kysar and Moloney that Christ has taken on the role of the Temple for Christians in the situation after its destruction in 70?

13. Why does the evangelist say that the apostles remembered the saying of Jesus and believed in "the scripture and the word Jesus had spoken" only after the resurrection?

14. Patrick Narkinsky has attempted an argument that John 2:20 was part of a historical exchange. What do you think of his argument?

<a href="http://www.theism.net/authors/pnarkinsky/john220.html" target="_blank">http://www.theism.net/authors/pnarkinsky/john220.html</a>

15. Do verses 24-25 indicate that the faith in response to the signs indicated in verse 23 is inadequate? If so, why would such faith be inadequate according to John?

Here are three ideas for writing a response:

A. Make your own observation on a part of the second chapter of John.

B. Comment on some of the quotes provided from scholars.

C. Answer some of the questions asked above.

You need not answer all the questions, or respond to all the quotes, of course. Simply pick what interests you and reply to that. The more the merrier, so feel free to join in whatever your background and level of study.

best,
Peter Kirby

Toto

Peter - this is a lot of material, so I though I would bump it up.

The main point that jumps out at me is 46. Wasn't that the meaning of life?

Patrick Narksky thinks that the reference to the 46 years since the rebuilding of the temple must be an accurate number (it is not clear why, except he is grasping at a straw to show that there was evidence of a historical Jesus.)

Raymond Brown thinks that 46 must have symbolic meaning because the numerical value of Adam is 46, so the reference is to the body of Christ. I suspect that this is closer to the way the early Christians thought of numbers.

I am intrigued by the wine motif, but I don't have time to get into it now. I am puzzled as to why the clensing of the temple shows up so early in John, and so is everyone else, evidently.

Peter Kirby

Toto writes: Peter - this is a lot of material, so I though I would bump it up.

Thanks for the bump. On reflection, I think that what I have presented is too much material, so much material that it intimidates. People aren't responding maybe because they think that they have to earn a doctorate or win a Pulitzer prize with brilliant new thoughts. All of these scholarly quotes make a hard act to follow up (of course, I never asked for anything astounding in a response, but the impression is easy to be had). I also know that some people refuse to read long posts, for whatever reason.

I will experiment with a different procedure in the next chapter: first, I will read John and my secondary references in order to get a feel for the issues and mine for quotes. But, second, I will not post the quotes and instead post only the questions that I come upon in my reading. Lastly, after a few days have passed, I will post the quotes and invite comments on them.

The main advantage of this, in addition to being less intimidating, is that people will not get the sense that the answers are already contained in the quotes and that they cannot contribute anything original.

In the meantime, we will work with what we have. Here is a suggestion, for those who either did not read the whole thing or who may have felt somewhat intimidated by the display of erudition: please ignore the scholarly quotes for now. Read the text, and then come up with your own responses to the questions. Do not worry about 'proving' your responses; I am interested in soliciting opinions, not just rigidly determined facts. Do not worry about whether someone else may have had the thought before; I don't see the purpose of this Bible study as breaking new ground. I am interested in hearing about your thoughts even if you have never so much as glanced at the Gospel of John before.

Toto writes: The main point that jumps out at me is 46. Wasn't that the meaning of life?

I don't think that the author was a fan of Douglas Adams.

The infamous number is 42. According to the FAQ, Adams picked this number basically at random; even within the text, the answer is not always given straight as 42.

<a href="http://www.faqs.org/faqs/douglas-adams-FAQ/" target="_blank">http://www.faqs.org/faqs/douglas-adams-FAQ/</a>

Maybe, after this Bible study, we can do a Douglas Adams study.

Toto writes: Patrick Narksky thinks that the reference to the 46 years since the rebuilding of the temple must be an accurate number (it is not clear why, except he is grasping at a straw to show that there was evidence of a historical Jesus.)

OK, I looked in the back of the book, and here is the answer to the Narkinsky question.

There are several clues that the dialogue between Jesus and the Jews here is not to be taken as literal history.

A - This passage is only in John. Now this alone doesn't mean it couldn't have been said by Jesus, but it certainly isn't a good way for analysis of a saying to start off, at least by the standards of liberal scholarship. As a whole, the dialogues in John are believed to be inauthentic. So this reference would be an exception to the rule if it were authentic.

B - Note: I am speaking of the reference on the lips of the Jews. The saying "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up" is found in the synoptic gospels - cf. Mk 14:58, Mk 15:29, Mt 26:61, Acts 6:14. However, it is only found on the lips of others attributed to Jesus - the author of Mark does not say that Jesus said this himself. The author of Mark seems to imply, in this way, that the charges brought against Jesus were false. But this means that the saying is the literary creation of the author of Mark. And thus the author of John is seen to be dependent on the Synoptics for this saying.

C - The context of this saying in the Gospel of John is the cleansing of the Temple. However, John places this near the beginning of the ministry of Jesus. Most scholars, however, would agree with the synoptics in placing the episode near the crucifixion of Jesus; if it actually happened, it would be a prime reason for Jesus to end up on a cross. But this means that the setting of the saying in John is fictional.

D - Note especially where John says, "After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said." This is a tell-tale sign that the saying is fabricated. Like the apocrypha in which Jesus is depicted having meetings in secret with certain disciples after the resurrection, one of the functions of this detail is to act as an explanation for why this saying had not been heard of before -- it was something that was only understood after the resurrection, or so it goes.

E - Finally, and most obviously, accepting this saying as authentic requires that one accept that Jesus understood that he would be raised from the dead after three days. Such an idea is rejected by all who don't have "confessional interests"; a forteriori, this saying is rejected by the standards of liberal scholarship.

Some may recognize that this was a cut and paste job from a response by me to Narkinsky on the JesusMysteries list. Narkinsky did not reply.

For those who are interested in the discussion of fact and fiction in the Jesus figure, JesusMysteries is a place where you can find people with similar interests. There is a currently balance towards non-historicity among the participating members.

<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JesusMysteries/" target="_blank">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JesusMysteries/</a>

Now, back to Narkinsky. Since I think there are reasons for regarding the exchange between the Jews and Jesus as non-historical, I think that Narkinsky poses a question more than he makes an argument: how did it come to be that the author of John, who is supposed to have written far removed from the events (90 or later they say), arrived at a figure for the time between the start of construction on the Temple and the alleged incident that fell within the ten-year window of Pilate's rule?

This puzzles me a little bit. If the number were symbolic in origin, then was it sheer lucky coincidence that it worked out fine? Or, do we suppose that the author of John went searching through a copy of Josephus or other records to find out the starting date of building on the temple? If so, why did the author go to so much trouble for an incidental reference that could have been left out of the story without much trouble? Or, did the author just know the dates for the construction of the Temple and the reign of Pilate off the top of his head? And why would that be, assuming that the author was writing outside of Palestine over half a century later?

If we can work out the answers to questions like these, we would not only know that the reminiscence hypothesis is in error, but we would also know what the correct hypothesis is. I am not sure myself of the origin of the 46-year figure and why it happens to cohere with known dates concerning the Temple and Pilate. I should probably reformulate the question without reference to Narkinsky.

14. What is the origin and/or meaning of the "46 years" reference in 2:20 uttered by the Jews?

Toto writes: Raymond Brown thinks that 46 must have symbolic meaning because the numerical value of Adam is 46, so the reference is to the body of Christ. I suspect that this is closer to the way the early Christians thought of numbers.

This would not be surprising, as numeric symbolism is something of a theme in the fourth gospel; for example, the changing of the water into wine is the first of seven signs in the Gospel of John.

Is it just happenstance that the symbolic number 46 chosen with reference to Adam would coincide with the duration of Pilate, even coming very close to "the fifteenth year of Tiberius" mentioned in Luke 3:1?

As to Raymond Brown, he writes: "The fact that the Greek letters in the name of Adam have the value of 46 was the basis of the interpretation of many Fathers, especially Augustine, who saw this number as a reference to Jesus' human nature; see Vogels." Brown himself does not commit to such a symbolic interpretation.

Toto writes: I am intrigued by the wine motif, but I don't have time to get into it now. I am puzzled as to why the clensing of the temple shows up so early in John, and so is everyone else, evidently.

Some suggest that the author of John wanted to bring in the conflict between the Jews and Jesus early on in the narrative. Does anyone else have any other suggestions on this point?

Toto, thank you very much for your reply. I only wish that there had been more replies like yours - or, for that matters, more replies in general. I am not looking for anything stunning, nor do I demand evidence to back every statement. I am looking for candid, casual comments. You do not have to come with any special background or degree of study in order to reply; it is enough to read the second chapter of John, which can be easily done in two or three minutes. You certainly do not have to respond to every single question. Just pick the ones that trigger pleasing neuron activity in your brain.

There is one thing that I do ask you to do, and that is simply to reply. I am certain that there are a lot of people out there going, "Wow, this is neat stuff, I think I'll just sit back and read Peter's quotes and the responses of others." No, that will not do. I enjoy working with this material, but I am a bit discouraged about the lack of response. Part of that is certainly my fault; as I said, I have an idea for a better procedure in the next chapter. But, please, take a little time to share your own thoughts. I and others would like to know what you have to say.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

Well, Peter, you've certainly daunted the crap out of me. But let's take the easy ones first.

14. Patrick Narkinsky has attempted an argument that John 2:20 was part of a historical exchange. What do you think of his argument?

<a href="http://www.theism.net/authors/pnarkinsky/john220.html" target="_blank">http://www.theism.net/authors/pnarkinsky/john220.html</a>

The argument strikes me as hilariously bad. Narkinsky gives three reasons that this passage:

• Then the Jews demanded of him, "What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?" Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" But the temple he had spoken of was his body. After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken. (John 2:18-22)

should be taken to be authentic:

There are strong circumstantial reasons to doubt that this reference was fabricated. First, it would have been prohibitively difficult to research in the first century. Second, John does not emphasize the fact that it was forty-six years from the construction of the temple. Finally, there is no good reason, even by the standards of liberal Bible scholarship, to assume that all Johannine material is late in origin.

Josephus clearly says that Herod finished the Temple, in Book XV, at least in my translation by Whiston. Whiston also gives an aside to John 2:20 in his endnotes to Book XVI,a and states that the temple was clearly finished under Herod. Whatever the 46 years refers to, it can't refer to Herod's building the Temple, at least the way I read it. The passage from Book 15 reads:

• 7. There was also an occult passage built for the king; it led from Antonia to the inner temple, at its eastern gate; over which he also erected for himself a tower, that he might have the opportunity of a subterraneous ascent to the temple, in order to guard against any sedition which might be made by the people against their kings. It is also reported, (25) that during the time that the temple was building, it did not rain in the daytime, but that the showers fell in the nights, so that the work was not hindered. And this our fathers have delivered to us; nor is it incredible, if any one have regard to the manifestations of God. And thus was performed the work of the rebuilding of the temple.

Have I made a gross reading error here, or was the Temple not finished under Herod and Josephus is in error, or what? Otherwise, Narkinsky's arguments from Josephus will have to fade into history.

Also, the NASB gives this passage as a reference to Ezra 5:16 -- in Ezra 6:15 the Temple is completed under Darius. But not in 46 years either.

Another interpretation is that Jesus is talking about his own body, and so are the Jews. So they ask -- Hey, it took you 46 years to get where you are, Bub. Now you're going to come in just 3 days? This is supported by -- hazy remembrance -- Jesus being "not yet fifty" in John.

Vorkosigan

[ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Vorkosigan

7. What is the purpose or origin of the twelfth verse, in which Jesus leaves Cana to Capernaum and then leaves Capernaum for Jerusalem after only a few days?

An oblique reference to Mark? In Capernaum there are a couple miracles, including Jesus resurrecting the alderman's daughter. Perhaps John is making a sly joke, for Jesus tells his followers not to mention it to anyone....

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

I'll take a stab at the significance of Cana.

9 When the headwaiter tasted the water (10) which had become wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter called the bridegroom,
10 and said to him, "Every man serves the good wine first, and when the people (11) have drunk freely, then he serves the poorer wine; but you have kept the good wine until now."

Jesus is the wine, the bridegroom is god. If the reference is to pagan wine miracles, it grows all the more acute. It then sets up the transition to the Temple -- having dealt with the pagans, we will now deal with the Jews.

I see I should have read your second post before embarking on my reply!

Vorkosigan

[ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan writes: Well, Peter, you've certainly daunted the crap out of me.

That was not my intent, but I see how it happened, and I will redress this in the next chapter. Until then, let me emphasize:

There are *no* requirements for background knowledge to post.

If you have a brain, two hands, eyes, and a computer, then you are encouraged to contribute; and I'm not even sure that the hands and eyes are necessary.

Vorkosigan writes: The argument strikes me as hilariously bad.

So, how do you suppose that the author of John happened on a figure that coheres with known dates concerning Pilate's prefecture and the start of construction on the Temple? I also discount the hypothesis of a historical exchange, but I am not confident as to what hypothesis should be proposed to replace it.

Vorkosigan writes: Have I made a gross reading error here, or was the Temple not finished under Herod and Josephus is in error, or what?

It may be a reading error. Most sources say that the Temple's construction was completely finished in 63 CE.

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/gospelhistory.html" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/gospelhistory.html</a>

<a href="http://www.westmont.edu/~fisk/Lecture%20Outlines/2TempleJudaism.htm" target="_blank">http://www.westmont.edu/~fisk/Lecture%20Outlines/2TempleJudaism.htm</a>

<a href="http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/jesuschronology.html" target="_blank">http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/jesuschronology.html</a>

Note that one link says that the "sanctuary" was done in 18 BCE.

Vorkosigan writes: But not in 46 years either.

As I recall, the Greek allows that the reference in John 2:20 refers to building that is still ongoing.

Vorkosigan writes: An oblique reference to Mark? In Capernaum there are a couple miracles, including Jesus resurrecting the alderman's daughter. Perhaps John is making a sly joke, for Jesus tells his followers not to mention it to anyone....

There are three times in Mark in which Jesus enters Capernaum: Mark 1:21, Mark 2:1, and Mark 9:33. Which one did you have in mind?

Vorkosigan writes: Jesus is the wine, the bridegroom is god.

Maybe. In the story, the bridegroom plays a purely passive role.

Vorkosigan writes: If the reference is to pagan wine miracles, it grows all the more acute. It then sets up the transition to the Temple -- having dealt with the pagans, we will now deal with the Jews.

Or perhaps both stories deal with the Jews? Remember that the water jars were used for purification rites.

How good is the evidence that the wedding at Cana is an adaptation of a pagan story? Which particular story do people have in mind anyway when they speak of the pagan model for the changing of water into wine? If Dionysus, then where is this tale about Dionysus recorded?

I look forward to your responses to any other questions and indeed to responses to any questions from any other people.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

So, how do you suppose that the author of John happened on a figure that coheres with known dates concerning Pilate's prefecture and the start of construction on the Temple? I also discount the hypothesis of a historical exchange, but I am not confident as to what hypothesis should be proposed to replace it.

It's not all that impossible. I think Narkinsky has overanalyzed the problem. The author of John is reasoning backwards after all. He has an age for Jesus, mid-40s, and then uses that age. The rest is constructed by us. We know when Herod started the Temple, the author of John does not. We use the starting date for Herod. This analysis is clearly an artifact of our superior knowledge.

But the author of John, all he knew was that the age of 46 fell in Pilate's reign. He's got a ten-year span to fall in, after all. He knows the Temple was begun under Herod, but that's all he needs to know. Herod reigned from -37 to +4. If John knows that Herod started it in the latter half of his reign, it would be difficult to pick a time and not have a 46 year span land in Pilate's tenure. I mean, all John has to know is:

Temple began in latter half of Herod's reign.
Jesus executed under Pilate

and he can land safely in Pilate's time without much effort. Further, we know that at least one author was familiar with at least some of pre-Revolt Jerusalem, as archaeology has shown.

I suspect the author is actually making a double reference to Jesus' age and the Temple, and it is just a coincidence, suspicious because we know too much.

However, assuming the date as a historical fact, have you noticed how closely it coincides with Luke? It's off only by a year, maybe less.

Vorkosigan

Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan writes:

It's not all that impossible. I think Narkinsky has overanalyzed the problem. The author of John is reasoning backwards after all. He has an age for Jesus, mid-40s, and then uses that age. The rest is constructed by us. We know when Herod started the Temple, the author of John does not. We use the starting date for Herod. This analysis is clearly an artifact of our superior knowledge.

But the author of John, all he knew was that the age of 46 fell in Pilate's reign. He's got a ten-year span to fall in, after all. He knows the Temple was begun under Herod, but that's all he needs to know. Herod reigned from -37 to +4. If John knows that Herod started it in the latter half of his reign, it would be difficult to pick a time and not have a 46 year span land in Pilate's tenure. I mean, all John has to know is:

Temple began in latter half of Herod's reign.
Jesus executed under Pilate

and he can land safely in Pilate's time without much effort. Further, we know that at least one author was familiar with at least some of pre-Revolt Jerusalem, as archaeology has shown.

I suspect the author is actually making a double reference to Jesus' age and the Temple, and it is just a coincidence, suspicious because we know too much.

I suppose that 'lucky guess' and 'happy coincidence' are plausible. I also pointed out to Narkinsky that there is a 10-year window here.

Vorkosigan writes:

However, assuming the date as a historical fact, have you noticed how closely it coincides with Luke? It's off only by a year, maybe less.

Yes, I mentioned this in response to Toto. Both dates (Lk 3:1 and Jn 2:20) are close to, if not exactly, the year 28 CE.

Here's a hypothesis. The author of John drops this date casual-like, without much emphasis. But the author of Luke makes a big deal out of the date, with a series of synchronisms that begin the third chapter (in our chapter rendering). If there is no historical tradition behind this date, then either Luke or John has copied from the other (or both on a common source?). The emphasis given by the author of Luke on this date, plus the evidence that Luke read widely (and read Josephus in particular), suggests that the author of Luke has calculated "the fifteenth year of Tiberius" from the "forty-six years" of John and the start of construction in the Temple in the Antiquities of the Jews. This seems to me to be a satisfactory hypothesis.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

...(and read Josephus in particular), suggests that the author of Luke has calculated "the fifteenth year of Tiberius" from the "forty-six years" of John and the start of construction in the Temple in the Antiquities of the Jews. This seems to me to be a satisfactory hypothesis.

Yes, I was having the same thought. Maybe Luke was one of John's redactors....

As for 2:2. I don't think it is luck. Narkinsky's analysis asks: what does the author need to know to hit a date of 28 AD? But that's the wrong question. The real question is: what does the author need to know to hit Pilate's reign? And that answer is: nothing that wasn't common knowledge.

Vorkosigan