From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Thu Jan 29 1998 - 06:39:21 EST
At 4:10 PM -0600 1/28/98, George Athas wrote:
>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.
No, of course it doesn't mean that Jesus can be "clung to" after Jesus
ascends, if by "cling to" one means "hold on tight so that what is held
onto can't get away"--but after the ascent Jesus will be accessible in a
way that is different, and Mary is being told, I believe, that she should
not endeavor to hold onto a physical presence that is not really quite a
physical presence and the holding on to which can only cause her more of
the grief that she is now suffering.
>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.
I'm making no assumption that this text translates a Hebrew-Aramaic text.
The usage of genitive with hAPTOMAI in the sense of "put one's touch upon
something" (middle) is regular classical usage (many verbs of perception do
take a genitive, in fact), whereas hAPTW with an accusative tends to be
used in the sense of causing one thing to touch another, as commonly in the
lighting of a lamp hAPTW means "ignite."
>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.
I'm not going to try to defend this "interpolation," as you call it, in
this forum, as my interpretation really depends upon both theological and
hermeneutical assumptions which I know are not widely shared and which
themselves are outside the focus of B-Greek discussion. I would just note
(a) that ANABAINW is a distinctive Johannine word for "ascend" and it
appears several times throughout the gospel, while in the other gospels it
is not used at all for "ascend" in the sense of "rise from earth to
heaven"; I also think that John's distinctive use of ANABAINW is linked to
his even more distinctive usage of hUPSOUN, esp. in the passive hUPSWQHNAI;
(b) speaking of "interpolation," one of the most striking aspects of this
Mary Magdalene narrative in John 20 is the way in which the coming of Peter
and the Beloved Disciple to the tomb is triggered by Mary's report to them
that the tomb is empty, yet immediately after their departure we're told
Mary is still standing there outside the tomb in puzzlement and despair.
Perhaps a jolt of humor will help her out. But one must wonder, if the
narrative sequence in John 20 is deliberate, as I do believe, WHY John and
the Beloved Disciple can leave the site without paying any heed to the
presence of Mary in her dolorous condition just outside the tomb,
particularly considering that she's the one who told them that the tomb was
empty. The dramatic sequence of these first two episodes in John 20 is
really quite extraordinary and forces upon the reader, I believe, the
necessity to reflect on the narrator's purpose.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad@yancey.main.nc.us
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:01 EDT