The King of Stories -- First Disciples, First Sign

By -
Introductory note from Jason Pratt: see here for the previous entry; and see here for the first entry of the series. (It explains what I'm doing, and how, and contains the Johannine prologue.)

The next several 'chapters' are relatively short, but also footnote heavy; so watch for indications where I've left notes in the comments that I thought would be unwieldy to mention within the narrative. Also, since some of the chapters are long enough that I'll want to break them into two parts, I'm taking the opportunity to consolidate some short chapters here.


First Disciples

The next day (says the Evangelist), John (the Baptist) again was standing with two of his disciples (one of whom remains unnamed); and seeing Jesus as He walked (passing nearby), he says: "Behold! The Lamb of God!"

Now the two disciples, hearing him say this, follow after Jesus.

Jesus, turning and having seen them as they follow, is saying to them: "What are you seeking?"

They answered Him, "Rabbi," which (says the Evangelist for his audience) means 'Didaskolos' (i.e. koine for Teacher), "where are you staying?"

He says to them, "Come and see."

They went and saw where He was staying, and remained with Him for the day. This (says the Evangelist) happened at about 10:00 in the morning. [See first comment below for a footnote here.]

One of the two who heard John (the Baptist) and followed Jesus (that day) was Andrew, brother of Simon. He first found his own brother, Simon, and said to him: "We have found the 'Messiah'!", which (says the Evangelist) means the 'Kristos' (i.e. koine for 'Anointed'.)

And he brought him to Jesus.

And looking at him, Jesus said, "You are Simon, the son of Jona; (but) you shall be called Kephas!" which (adds the Evangelist) means 'Petros'. (i.e. koine for Rock.)

[see second comment below for a footnote here]


.......

The next morning (continues the Evangelist), Jesus is intending to go up into the Galilee region (to Cana). He found Philip; and Jesus says to him: "Follow Me." Now Philip (adds the Evangelist) was from Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter. [see third comment below for a footnote here]

Philip finds Nathanael (who, as we are later told, comes from Cana--where Jesus happens to be going now), and says to him: "We have found the one written about by Moses the Lawgiver, and by the Prophets!--Jesus, son of Joseph, from Nazareth."

But Nathanael said: "Can anything good come out of Nazareth!?" [see fourth comment below for a footnote here]

Philip says to him, "Come and see!"

When Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward Him, He said: "Look here! Truly, an Israelite in whom there is no guile!"

Nathanael said to Him: "...where do you know me from?"

Answering, Jesus says to him, "Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you."

Nathanael answered, saying to Him: "Rabbi! You are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!"

Jesus answered, "You are believing this (simply) because I said to you that I saw you under the fig tree!? You shall see greater things than these!"

And He says to him:

"I promise, I promise, I tell you the truth: you shall see the heavens opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man!"

[see fifth comment below for a footnote here]


.......

First Sign

On the third day (says the Evangelist, meaning three days after leaving the Betharaba Ford), a wedding occurred in Cana of Galilee. [see sixth comment below for a footnote here]

The mother of Jesus was there; and Jesus was also invited to the wedding, and His disciples.

But the wine ran out; and so the mother of Jesus says to Him: "... ... They have no wine!"

Jesus says to her, "Woman, what am I going to do with you?! My time has not yet come."

His mother (however) says to the servants: "Whatever he says to you--do it!"

Now, there were six stone waterpots set nearby, in accord with the Jewish custom of purification (handwashing before the meal), each holding about twenty or thirty gallons apiece (literally 'two or three metretai').

Jesus tells them: "Fill the pots with water." And they fill them up to the brim.

Then Jesus tells them: "Now dip some out, and take it to the dining room chief." (i.e. the master of ceremonies for the wedding feast). And they took it to him.

Now, the chief tastes the water which had become wine, although he didn't know this had taken place--but the servants who had drawn the water knew (adds the Evangelist).

And the chief calls to the bridegroom, saying to him:

"Every man serves the good wine first, and then whenever the guests are drunk he brings out the inferior... but you have saved the finest wine for now!"

This first of the signs, Jesus does in Cana of Galilee (says the Evangelist); manifesting His glory.

And His disciples believed in Him.

[see seventh comment below for a footnote here]

John 1:35-51
John 2:1-11


[Next time: The Teacher of the People, and The Final Witness of the Forerunner]

Comments

Jason Pratt said…
.......[first footnote comment here]

In 1st c. Hebrew time reckoning, “for the day” could mean until any time after noon; there were several notions of ‘evening’, starting from the point where the sun begins descending after mid-day, until actual sunset--at which point the new day would be reckoned to have begun. (This, incidentally, leads to some interesting interpretations of Genesis 1!--which surely represents this idea, and would be considered the scriptural justification of it.)
1/21/2008 08:18:00 AM
Jason Pratt said…
.......[second footnote comment here]

The other storytellers imply that Andrew and Peter at least, if not the other disciple (probably intended to be the author, based on how GosJohn ends), did not join Jesus at this time, but only remained with Him for the day.

Keep in mind that at this point in the story, Andrew, Peter and whoever-that-unnamed-disciple-connected-with-them is, are still the disciples of John the Baptist, and so it isn't surprising they would go back to working with him for a while. Nothing the Evangelist says directly contradicts this, although neither does he offer direct support for supposing Andrew, Peter and/or John (Mark? the Apostle?) aren't with Jesus in the subsequent Johannine 'episodes'. Nevertheless, neither are they mentioned again until after a point in the story corresponding with when the Synoptics imply they joined up. Though the Scholar has some more particular information about when that finally happened than the Disciple or the Scholar do.
1/21/2008 08:19:00 AM
Jason Pratt said…
.......[third footnote comment here]

Bethsaida (i.e. ‘Huntingdon’, or next to a lake ‘Fisherton’), renamed as Julias by Herod to honor an Empress, is the name of a 1st century township on the eastern side of the Jordan River at the point where it enters Galilee Lake at the north. Western towns on the Galilee shores were generally Jewish and eastern towns were generally Gentile, although a healthy population of Jews lived in the eastern towns as well, of course. Bethsaida may have had elements on each side of the Jordan, as a 'fording' town. As it happens, there is another Bethsaida mentioned in the texts as well: the fish-port suburb, as we would call it, of Capernaum, where Peter is currently living and working when not traveling as a disciple of John the Baptist.

The recent story action, though--including the current scene--has taken place south of Galilee Lake, where the River Jordan continues running until it reaches the much larger Dead Sea, at which point it seeps into the sands or evaporates.
1/21/2008 08:21:00 AM
Jason Pratt said…
.......[fourth comment footnote here]

Nazareth should not be confused with modern Nazareth, though it would have been nearby the modern locale. Nazareth was founded as a watchstation between tribal borders during the Joshuan invasion of the region; originally it was known as Sarid or Tsareth (per Joshua 19 in the OT). By the 1st century, it was probably an unincorporated suburb of Sepphoris; its main claim to importance was as a gathering area for priests of local relationship to travel in a caravan to serve in the Temple four times a year (two courses plus the two Great Feasts). Around 135CE (per later Talmudic report), the town was refounded by descendents of this family of rabbis, due to this tradition. It’s possible, though not certain, that these were the Messianic Jews known as the Nazoreans, who seem to have regarded Jesus as the Messiah but not as divine. (Probably meaning they regarded Jesus as the preliminary Messiah, the Son of Joseph/Ephraim who was to die before the coming of the King Messiah, the Son of David--a concept that begins appearing among rabbis after the founding of Christianity, if not sooner.)
1/21/2008 08:22:00 AM
Jason Pratt said…
.......[fifth comment footnote here]

Thus, Nathanael--a fellow who is presented as being a bit of a comic figure, a little oversceptical and a little overcredulous, yet affectionately accepted by Jesus--becomes the first disciple to confess Jesus as Son of God; not Peter, who along with Andrew (per the Synoptics) did not join Jesus at this time, even after spending a day with Him. According to GosJohn, Philip and Nathanael (and perhaps that unnamed disciple connected to Peter and Andrew) are the first definitely known "followers" (or disciples) of Jesus.

Yet nothing ever really seems to come of this--no special use of it is made for apologetic purposes, or for establishing special authority among disciples later. Jesus says good things about Nathanael, but in a humorously affectionate way, not as though the eventual apostle will be the foundation of the Church or anything like that; and certainly the author doesn't present Nathanael as being more than a bit dull-witted if quite honest and forthright. (The point being that the Evangelist cannot be using this anecdote to try to 'compete' with 'Petrine' authority--he isn't setting himself or anyone else up as the cornerstone of the Church. If anything, he strongly hints that Jesus planned Peter's eventual authority from the very beginning, before Peter had even joined up as a disciple!)

Notably, at least one early 2nd century tradition reports that GosJohn is based on notes taken by John (the Apostle?) when, meeting together shortly after Jesus' departure, he interviewed the others in order to combine remembrances. GosJohn itself, as we actually have it, does not demonstrate such a structure--it reads more like an account intended to fill in details around presumed knowledge--but some of those details could easily have been derived from such a notesheet.
1/21/2008 08:25:00 AM
Jason Pratt said…
.......[sixth footnote comment here]

Cana was a town about 5-7 miles west of Galilee Lake, across the surrounding mountains; also 5-7 miles north of Nazareth. Betharaba ford, probably just north of the Dead Sea, on the road past Jericho from Jerusalem, is quite a hike from there; but not too strenuous for three or more strong young men who are used to traveling by foot in hilly terrain: about 45 miles straight overland, maybe 60ish miles on roads north up and then west from the Jordan. Going through Samaria to Cana would take longer, and would invite other problems; although Jesus does take the road through Samaria later.
1/21/2008 08:26:00 AM
Jason Pratt said…
.......[seventh footnote comment here]

GosJohn never mentions Jesus' mother by name; which could be in keeping with the claim that the 'beloved disciple' who later adopts Mary as his mother at Jesus' request, is the author or editor of this Gospel. He would (in that case) be following one ancient decorum standard, of not including one's own name in a biography which should be centered on someone else--a standard which could also include the names of close family members.

The apparently harsh rebuke given by Jesus to Mary here has caused some lamentable confusion; the literal phrase is 'what to Me and to you?', translated from a Hebrew idiom. It could mean 'What does this (their running out of wine) mean to us? My time has not yet come." I gather the idiom means something rather more personal, however, which is why English translations typically try something like "What am I to you?" or "What do I have to do with you?" or "What is it between you and Me?", with an exclamation force.

Given Jesus' obvious tender affections for His mother elsewhere in the story--especially in GosJohn--along with the fact that He does in fact do just what she is wishing (despite this not being in His original plans), I do not believe for a moment this is intended to be derogatory to Mary. I strongly suspect it was meant as a touch of wry humor or affectionate minor exasperation: more along the lines of the English idiom I've given above. Lord knows, my own mother can be a little pushy about when she wants her son to do something, whether to help someone else or to promote himself... But, accepting it in good humor is part of the service to the beloved.

And, there is something rather humorous about using washingpots as the vessels for making the best of the wine--theologically pertinent, too, fitting with all the many rich emphases on Jesus being the cleaning action of God, so to speak...
1/21/2008 08:29:00 AM
Rachel said…
Jason,

Thanks for stopping by my blog! I actually started investigating universalism as I was reflecting on the doctrine of the Trinity. :) Anyway, thanks for all your input! I don't have a whole lot of theological training and I'm especially ignorant when it comes to exegetical issues so any help I can get in that area is invaluable.

Looking forward to investigating your blog a little more after I get through this round of papers.
1/21/2008 05:18:00 PM
Jason Pratt said…
Thanks for stopping by our blog, too! {g}

If you started investigating universalism as you were reflecting on the doctrine of the Trinity, I'd say you were on the right track. (That was how I finally arrived there, after years of what might be called hopeful suspicion. {s}) We have some contributors here who are hopefully suspicious, too (including an EOx contributor); and others who go with the typical doctrine (plus at least one solid annihilationist that I know of). But I think I'm the only convinced universalist in the bunch so far. That being said, I don't usually talk about it in the main posts, for purposes of ecumenical polity. (I do occasionally comment on it though.) That includes the KoS entries, which are intended to be a resource for all readers.

The theological underpinnings (per se--that series is about metaphysics, not scriptural exegesis) can be found starting around here, though.

{{I don't have a whole lot of theological training and I'm especially ignorant when it comes to exegetical issues so any help I can get in that area is invaluable.}}

I don't do much exegetical work here on the Cadre Journal, but I'm thinking of starting a separate journal for that purpose later this year. It's a massively huge topic.

I'd have to say based on your journal entries, though, that you're doing very well (and with good humor--I loved the dialogue with Jessie {g}) on theological studies. You have a real talent for it. I'd almost suggest going into the field professionally; but nursing is actually more important and there's a crying need for it. So if you're comfortable with the nursing (or better yet if you're called to that), keep at it.

(But keep at the theology, too. {g})

JRP
1/22/2008 08:06:00 AM
Rachel said…
Thanks so much for the encouragement! I really appreciate it.
1/23/2008 10:33:00 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

By -
A couple of months ago, I wrote a post about the Gospel of Matthew’s account of the slaughter of the innocents. Therein, I argued that some of the skepticism about the account was unjustified. One argument I made was that the number of children killed in Bethlehem would likely have been no more than 20. Though obviously an act of great evil, the killing of 20 children would be much less likely to be noticed by historians of the time than the slaughter of thousands as later traditions speculated. In response to the post, Peter Kirby asked a few questions. He has patiently waited my response, continuously delayed by work, family, and the completion of my Acts article . Two of the questions had to do with how the amount of 20 was determined. Others with the omission of the account by Luke and the reliability of the tradition recounted by Macrobius. Peter also mentioned that there were other reasons to doubt the story's historicity beyond just the silence of other sources. I ...
Read more

The Bogus Gandhi Quote

By J. P Holding -
Image
I first made this post in 2012, and since then I've made a sort of mini-career out of tracking down bogus quotes like this one (including a video version below). It's a sort of fun microcosm of the way information is mishandled in the Information Age. ** I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. – Mahatma Gandhi A Christian can probably expect to get this quote thrown at them at least once in their lifetime, and waved in their face many more. I had it put to me recently, but my experience with this sort of thing immediately led me to wonder -- is it real? The evidence at this point seems to be no. The first signal of a problem was that anywhere I found it, no source was given. That's often a sign that something is being passed around uncritically. Whether online sources or books, no one seemed to have a source for this quote. A second warning was that the quote has been given more than one context. As ...
Read more

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

By -
A visitor to the CADRE site recently sent a question about Paul's statement in Acts 20:35 which records Paul as saying, "And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, 'It is better to give than to receive'." The reader wanted to know where Jesus said this. This was my answer: You are correct in noting that this saying of Jesus quoted by Paul is not found anywhere in the four Gospels. My own study Bible says "This is a rare instance of a saying of Jesus not found in the canonical Gospels." Does the fact that it isn't stated in the Gospels mean that it isn't reliably from the lips of Jesus? I don't think so. The Apolstle John said at the end of his Gospel (John 21:25): "Jesus did many other things as well.If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." Obviously, this is exaggeration for the sake of making a point, but it means that Jesus ...
Read more

Discussing Embryonic Stem Cell Research

By -
Stand to Reason has published a list of "talking points" that can be used as a quick reference sheet for answering questions about embryonic stem cell research and why people ought to oppose this procedure. The piece, entitled "Are you against stem cell research and cloning?" give good, concise answers to some of the questions that arise concerning why Christians would oppose this procedure when it supposedly holds such great promise. For example, consider the following from the "talking points": Where do we get human embryonic stem cells? We can only derive human embryonic stem cells by killing a human embryo. Removing its stem cells leaves it with no cells from which to build the organs of its body. What is the embryo? An embryo is a living, whole, human organism (a human being) in the embryonic stage. All the embryo needs to live is a proper environment and adequate nutrition, the very same thing all infants, toddlers, adolescents, and adults need. ...
Read more

Tillich, part 2: What does it mean to say "God is Being Itself?"

By -
 In this essay, which is a chapter from the new book I'm now working on, I'm moving toward defining what I think Tillich means exactly by being itself. It's a long journey but an important one. What does Tillich actually mean by “being itself?” Does he mean the same things as other theologians who use the phrase? It’s a mysterious sounding phrase and Tillich never actually comes out and says what he means by it. As I will show there is a reason for this, and I will show what I think that reason in is. In the mean time the task of this chapter is to deduce exactly what Tillich actually means by this phrase. There are three basic possibilities: Three alternatives as to meaning (1) The basic fact that things exist is all that the concept of “God” amounts to. (2) There is a special quality to being, an impersonal aspect” ground of being” or “being itself” and that quality constitutes ‘the divine.’ This possibility excludes God as “king of the universe.” (3) God is b...
Read more

Revamping and New Articles at the CADRE Site

By -
We have changed the Christian History page at the CADRE site from the old design to the new one. The focus of the revamped page has expanded, with many new articles: This page provides links to websites and articles relating to Christian history, including theological development, notable figures, contributions of Christianity to society and culture, and the archaeological evidence for the facts of the Bible. We have also added four new articles by Darin Wood, PhD: John Chrysostum: His Life, Legacy, and Influence Dr. Wood provides an informative sketch of Chrysostum's life, as well as an exploration into his writings and impact on church evangelism. The Righteousness of God in the Pauline Corpus Dr. Wood examines the crucial role that righteousness plays in understanding Paul's perspectives on justification, propitiation, expiation, and covenant. The Structure of the Apocalypse Dr. Wood provides an in-depth analysis of the structure (or structures) behind the Book o...
Read more

The Folded Napkin Legend

By J. P Holding -
I wrote about t his "urban legend" a few years ago, but it's typical of the silly urban legends we hear about now and then, such as the idea that the head of Proctor and Gamble went on Oprah to pledge his allegiance to Satanism. Christians are no less gullible for this sort of nonsense than anyone else, and frankly, some seem more gullible to believe anything that they consider "edifying". It's no wonder we're mesmerized by self-comfort tunes like "I Can Only Imagine" that contain about as much useful theology as a thimble. ** The Gospel of John (20:7) tells us that the napkin, which was placed over the face of Jesus, was not just thrown aside like the grave clothes. The Bible takes an entire verse to tell us that the napkin was neatly folded, and was placed at the head of that stony coffin.... In order to understand the significance of the folded napkin, you have to understand a little bit about Hebrew tradition of that day. The fol...
Read more

A Botched Abortion Shows the Lies of Pro-Choice Proponents

By -
One of the classes I teach at the university is a course on Ethics, and I am using a book by Ralph Dolgoff, Donna Harrington and Frank M. Lowenberg entitled " Ethical Decisions for Social Work Practice " as the text. Overall, I think that it is a good Ethics textbook largely because it provides a balanced viewpoint on the need for values in social work. For example, the book makes the argument (without committing to it) that those engaged in social work cannot avoid making value judgments in ethical decisions because trying to do what is right necessarily involves making an value choice. Also, I book notes that some (including me) think it is ethically wrong for a social worker to cover-up her own values when counseling another person because it creates a false (and ultimately unproductive) relationship with the person being counseled. Still, one of the exemplars in the book gave me pause – not because I thought it raised a deep ethical quandary, but because I wondered how ...
Read more

Do you say this of your own accord? (John 18:34, ESV)

By -
Image
One of the most well-known events in Scriptures is Jesus' exchange with Pontius Pilate at his trial as described in John 18. In verse 38 of that chapter, Pilate asks the question that may be the most ironic in the history of the world, "What is truth?" A less known but equally intriguing saying of Jesus from an apologetics viewpoint can be found in Jesus' response to an earlier question in the same trial. It is a question that is not often quoted, but on those rare occasions when it is quoted, Jesus' response is often overlooked as not particularly important or relevant to today's world. However, it is my experience (as well as the experience of many people who have truly spent time studying the Scriptures) that little, if any, of what Jesus said in the Bible lacks significance across time. To best understand the response, it's important to see the response in context. The situation is this: Jesus has been arrested following His betrayal by Judas I...
Read more

A Non-Biblical Historian Accepts the Key "Minimum Facts" Supporting Jesus' Resurrection

By -
In their book, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus , Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona argue for the historical reality of Jesus' bodily resurrection using the "minimum facts" approach. Rather than get bogged down in inerrancy and other debates, they focus on the key facts demonstrating Jesus' resurrection. For them, the key facts are: *Jesus' death by crucifixion. *Disciples' Beliefs that Jesus Appeared. *Conversion of Paul. *Conversion of James. *Empty Tomb. William L. Craig, another significant apologist for the historical bodily resurrection of Jesus likewise focuses, in his accessible The Son Rises , on the empty tomb and Jesus' resurrection appearance. Craig gives special emphasis to Jesus' honorable burial by Joseph of Arimathea and Jesus' appearances to James and Paul and their subsequent commitment to the Christian cause. Craig, Licona, and Habermas argue that these basic facts are generally supported by most of the relevant sc...
Read more