From: George Athas (gathas@mail.usyd.edu.au)
Date: Wed Jan 28 1998 - 17:10:06 EST
Carl W. Conrad wrote:
> Mary's problem is that she wants a tangible (and I choose that
> word deliberately) presence of Jesus--either a corpse that's clearly
> missing from the tomb, or else a warm, live, person with whom she can
> continue to interact as she did before the crucifixion. She cannot have
> that kind of relationship any more and that, I believe, is what she's being
> told in "MH MOU hAPTOU, OUPW GAR ANABEBHKA PROS TON PATERA." It's not that
> she'll be able to do so AFTER he has ascended either, of course, but the
> point, I think, is that this is a transitional state and the appearance in
> visible form here is different from the way he is to be experienced
> hereafter.
The important point here is the use of the word GAR - "for". Jesus insists on
not being clung to BECAUSE he has not ascended to his Father yet. The literal
implication is that once Jesus has ascended, he can be clung to. Yet this is
quite odd. If Jesus had just said MH MOU hAPTOU, then he could be saying it for
any number of reasons. However, the fact that he adds OUPW GAR ANABEBHKA PROS
TON PATERA is very significant. Is Jesus implying that once he has ascended he
can be clung to, for that is the logical implication of what he is saying? This
does not seem very plausible or coherent. Unless Jesus was being sarcastically
humourous, it is a mystifying statement to make.
We must also remember that Thomas wanted just as tangible a Jesus as Mary did.
Why was he permitted physical contact and Mary not? This does not seem very
fair or consistent on Jesus' part.
> So he says to her, "Don't hold on to me," or, as others have
> said, "Don't cling to me." hAPTOU is middle voice and it's completed with a
> partitive genitive: that MOU is significant here: it means: "you want a
> part of me to hold onto, but you can't have that, and if you are to believe
> that I have risen, you've got to surrender that tangible part of me that
> would assure you that I am still here in the flesh."
Yes, the use of MOU rather than ME is interesting. However, it may simply
reflect the Hebrew-Aramaic preposition _LIY_ since, in this case, it would
render either "Don't cling to me" or "Don't cling to what is mine". It is
logical to assume that either Jesus or the writer of John was thinking in
Hebrew-Aramaic, so that this is what was in their mind. Either MOU or ME
translate Hebrew-Aramaic _LIY_ equally well.
Nevertheless, the interpolation you give here seems to go beyond what the text
is saying. There is no indication in the text or context that Jesus was telling
Mary to surrender the tangible physical relationship. Just as plausible an
interpolation from what the text actually says is that Jesus did not want Mary
to rip his robe since it belonged to him (note the use of genitive MOU)!!! Or,
if we think in Hebrew-Aramaic as Jesus or John did, simply "Don't cling to me!"
I think it is far harder to extract a command to surrender the tangible
physical relationship from the text than to merely hear the tone of Jesus'
voice as humurous. I think it is reading too much into the text.
> So in Mary's case,
> it's important to understand that Jesus' resurrection means that, while
> Jesus is indeed ALIVE, he is not a flesh-and-blood personage with whom one
> can have a PHYSICAL interrelationship: to recognize and relate to a
> "glory-body" has to be different from recognizing and relating to a
> flesh-and-blood body.
We must not forget, however, that Jesus was given fish to eat in his
"glory-body" and that he had breakfast with 7 disciples on the shore of Lake
Galil in his "glory-body". Also, in Matt 28:9, the women at the tomb worship
Jesus by holding onto Jesus' "glory-feet". There is no indication there that
Jesus did not accept their holding onto him, or that he was commanding them to
surrender a tangible physical relationship with him. Rather, this seems to be
their response to Jesus' command "Rejoice!" Most importantly, though, is the
statement of Jesus in Luke 24:39 -
"Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Handle me and
see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have."
Everything Jesus says and does in his other appearances goes completely against
what he says to Mary Magdalene. Either Jesus is being very inconsistent, Jesus
was mistaken with Mary, Jesus ascended to his father after appearing to Mary
and before appearing to anyone else, or Jesus was being humourous. Take your
pick.
> Yet despite this, the Jesus whom Mary thinks is a
> gardener is REAL, really alive, and really interacting with her--but not in
> the same way--and she is not to imagine that she can relate to him as she
> did before.
What is the indication in the text that Jesus is interracting with Mary in a
different way? Despite having a "glory-body", it seems that Jesus goes out of
his way to have normal interraction with those he meets.
Also, how is Mary to relate to Jesus now? And if she is to relate to him
differently, why do most of the others relate to Jesus in a 'normal' way (such
as eating and talking with him)?
IMHO, it is far easier to see Jesus as being humourous when Mary clings to him
(or what is his) than anything else. All it takes is a slightly different tone
of voice when reading the text, rather than adding extra baggage to the words
or even extra words to Jesus' lips. The humourous interpretation, I believe,
does more justice to the text than any other interpretation. That is my
personal opinion, but I believe it is more than reasonable and justified.
Best regards to all!
George Athas
< gathas@mail.usyd.edu.au > Ph: 0414 839 964 (ICQ #5866591)
(PhD Candidate, University of Sydney)
(Tutor of Hebrew, Moore Theological College)
(Visit the Tel Dan Inscription Website at)
(http://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~gathas/teldan.htm)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:01 EDT