With Reference to John 2:4 and it's Possible use of the Plural

[James82]

Now before I begin this thread I should state that the Blessed Virgin Mary is an integral part of my life as a Christian. When ever I pray the rosary it brings to me a sense of quiet joy that is completely unique within the framework of my faith. This is not at an all an ‘attack’, quite the opposite in fact, as the Blessed Virgin was the mother of the Word Incarnate which is Truth fully manifest before us and I believe anything ascribed to the Virgin in either sentimental piety or otherwise is doing her a disservice. I am
of course approaching this with the willingness to learn.

In another thread it has been raised that the reference to her kick-starting Christ’s Ministry(e.g.“O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” Luke 2:4) and Christ’s not so subtle reply was in fact in the plural in Aramaic and not singular. So it would look like "O woman, what does this have to do with you and me".

The problem is I can not find a single note referencing this in any of my study bibles. You should know that while I use the KJV for liturgical purposes, for reason’s of study I use only Catholic Bibles and ones with the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur at that. I use Ignatius Press’ New Testament Study Bible primarily for it’s (Church approved) spiritual and allegorical notes and the Catholic NAB for the ‘textual criticism’ component. This plurality is brought up in neither.

However, in the Douay-Rheims the plural is there. Such a glaring inconsistency in versions needs to be addressed. Potentiality could hang in the balance as regards Truth. Is anyone up to the task or willing to shed some light?

 

[seagal]

Maybe I’m just not seeing possible deeper layers, but to me it reads as “What does this have to do with us? We’re only guests at this wedding and not in charge of the refreshments” This doesn’t essentially change the meaning for a translation that says “What does this have to do with me?” I’ve heard Tim Staples use the D-R translation of this passage on CA Live, but he doesn’t put any particular emphasis on the plurality. Maybe he addresses it in his new book “Behold Your Mother”.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The Greek would be better translated as “What is it to you and me?” Which confirms seagal’s analysis.

 

[Vico]

…

In another thread it has been raised that the reference to her kick-starting Christ’s Ministry(e.g.“O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” Luke 2:4) and Christ’s not so subtle reply was in fact in the plural in Aramaic and not singular. So it would look like “O woman, what does this have to do with you and me”.

The problem is I can not find a single note referencing this in any of my study bibles. …

However, in the Douay-Rheims the plural is there. Such a glaring inconsistency in versions needs to be addressed. Potentiality could hang in the balance as regards Truth. Is anyone up to the task or willing to shed some light?

Greek Interlinear Bible: legei autE ho iEsous ti emoi kai soi gunai.
Is-saying to-her the Jesus any to-me and to-you woman!
**John 2:4 (DRC with Haydock Commentary)**4 Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is it to me and to thee? my hour is not yet come.
Ver. 4. Some of the Fathers have spoken without sufficient precaution on this action of the blessed Virgin; supposing she was actuated by some inclination to vanity, in begging her Son to perform a miracle on this occasion; that some of the glory of it might accrue to her, and that on this account our Saviour answers her with severity, saying, Woman, (not Mother) what is it to thee or me. Other Fathers, with more reason, attribute the interference of the blessed Virgin to her charity and compassion for the new married couple. Whatever turn be given to our Saviour’s answer, it must be acknowledged it has in it the appearance of something severe. But the Fathers have explained it with mildness, observing that our Saviour only meant to say, Mother, what affair is it of ours if they want wine? Ought we to concern ourselves about that? Others think that he wished, by these words, to let his Mother know that she must not forestall the time appointed by the heavenly Father, as if her demand were unseasonable and out of time. But most of the Fathers and best commentators understand, that he speaks here not as man and Son of Mary, but as God; and in that quality, he observes to his Mother, I have nothing in common with you. It is not for you to prescribe when miracles are to be performed, which are not to be expected in compliance with any human respect. I know when my power is to be manifested for the greater glory of God. (Calmet)
—See the like forms of speech, Mark i. 24; Luke iv. 34; &c.
— My hour is not yet come. It is not yet time. He waited till the wine was quite done, lest any should believe that he had only increased the quantity, or had only mixed water with the wine. He would have his first miracle to be incontestable, and that all the company should be witnesses of it. (St. Augustine, et alii patres passim.
— Christ’s first miracle in the New Testament, was a kind of transubstantiation in changing water into wine; the first miracle Moses performed when sent to the Jews, was transubstantiation. (Exodus iv.) The first Moses and Aaron performed, when sent to the Egyptians, was transubstantiation. (Exodus vii.)

haydock1859.tripod.com/id93.html

** John 2:4 New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)**
4 a][And] Jesus said to her, “Woman, how does your concern affect me? My hour has not yet come.”
Footnotes:

1. 
   *]2:4 This verse may seek to show that Jesus did not work miracles to help his family and friends, as in the apocryphal gospels. Woman: a normal, polite form of address, but unattested in reference to one’s mother. Cf. also Jn 19:26. How does your concern affect me?: literally, “What is this to me and to you?”—a Hebrew expression of either hostility (Jgs 11:12; 2 Chr 35:21; 1 Kgs 17:18) or denial of common interest (Hos 14:9; 2 Kgs 3:13). Cf. Mk 1:24; 5:7 used by demons to Jesus. My hour has not yet come: the translation as a question (“Has not my hour now come?”), while preferable grammatically and supported by Greek Fathers, seems unlikely from a comparison with Jn 7:6, 30. The “hour” is that of Jesus’ passion, death, resurrection, and ascension (Jn 13:1).

 

[tp3192000]

I believe anything ascribed to the Virgin in either sentimental piety or otherwise is doing her a disservice.

I am the first to say I am not the brightest light shining on the lamppost. This meaning of this statement totally eludes me as well as why you included it in a search for the exact translation of a particular word in this verse and chapter. Would you mind breaking this down so I can understand?

 

[DaveBj]

This expression is paralleled in Arabic by (in the Levantine dialect) "shuu baini wbainak (masc.) or bainik (fem.). In either case it is singular, and the singular pronoun in Jesus’ Aramaic original (of which we have no record) is reflected by the use of soi, the 2nd-person singular, in John’s Greek. This was translated in the older (Elizabethan) English translations by using the singular “thee.” In the modern translations we have lost the ability to distinguish between 2nd-person singular and 2nd-person plural; one must have access to the original languages to make that distinction.

 

[Della]

James82:

However, in the Douay-Rheims the plural is there. Such a glaring inconsistency in versions needs to be addressed. Potentiality could hang in the balance as regards Truth. Is anyone up to the task or willing to shed some light?

Others have given you some good resources/replies. I would only add that not having the original sense of the expression in either Aramiac or Greek does hinder our full appreciation of Jesus’ words when we try to interpret such passages for ourselves. This is why Christ established his Church–to interpret his words and to teach the truth.

So, what do we know about Mary as taught by the Church? Do you find in that teaching anything that would show her to be less than faithful? And where did she do anything wrong? If you can point out such examples you might have some reason to be concerned, but there aren’t any. There are misinterpretations of Mary’s actions and words from those who wish to downplay or ignore her part in God’s ongoing plan of salvation of mankind. But in reality we don’t honor her enough for all she did and still does as the faithful “handmaid of the Lord.”

 

[Mintaka]

I got this from one of the Bible talks in the Institute for Catholic Culture’s audio library…

Basically, Jesus’ comment to Mary directly parallels something said to Abraham in Genesis 23, when Abraham was trying to find a place to bury Sarah. It gets translated various ways, and it was in Hebrew instead of Greek; but this was what you were supposed to hear echoing in Jesus’ comment.

Genesis 23:13-18 –

"And he spoke to Ephron [son of Seor], in the presence of the people: “I beseech thee to hear me. I will give money for the field. Take it, and so I will bury my dead in it.”

And Ephron answered, “My lord, hear me. The ground which thou desirest is worth four hundred shekels of silver; this is the price. But what is this between me and thee? Bury thy dead.”

And when Abraham had heard this, he weighed out the money that Ephron had asked, in the hearing of the children of Heth, four hundred shekels of silver of common current money.

And the field that before was Ephron’s, wherein was the double cave looking towards Mambre, both it and the cave, and all the trees thereof in all its limits round about, was made sure to Abraham for a possession, in the sight of the children of Heth and of all that went in at the gate of his city."

So this is something that happened in an area owned by people who weren’t kin to Abraham, and he went to a lot of trouble to make sure that he and his family would always have access to Sarah’s burial site, and that his family could bury people there forever. So before the part I quoted, he publicly consults the entire tribe that is involved, and gets their approval. Then he publicly negotiates with the guy who owns the cave and the fields around it.

Ephron responds with generosity and an offer of covenantal kinship (although he also takes the money, which completes the bargain) which will protect the rights of Abraham’s family into the far future, as it makes them honorary kin as well as neighbors.

And that’s why he says, “But what is this between me and thee?” It’s like saying, “Well, of course I’ll do what you want, because you are my covenant brother!” (In this case, “As of now.” Although Abraham and Ephron probably knew each other already, for Abraham to have the cave so firmly in mind.)

We didn’t use to know some of this ancient covenant and kinship language, because Jewish tradition mostly forgot it. Archaeology has discovered lots of secular covenant agreements between Middle Eastern cities and kings, and so now we know more about covenant/kinship language of ancient times.

Of course, Jesus knew all about everything, so He was in no puzzlement about what kind of covenant language to use to His mother. He knew that it meant “I grant your request and it’s no big deal because it’s you and me,” and Jews who knew their Bible stories would have gotten it, too.

 

[seagal]

Originally Posted by James82 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
I believe anything ascribed to the Virgin in either sentimental piety or otherwise is doing her a disservice.

I am the first to say I am not the brightest light shining on the lamppost. This meaning of this statement totally eludes me as well as why you included it in a search for the exact translation of a particular word in this verse and chapter. Would you mind breaking this down so I can understand?

Same here, I don’t really know what you mean here.

 

[Mintaka]

The cave where Sarah was buried became “The Tomb of the Patriarchs,” a place you can still visit today, and which is honored by Jews, Christians, and Muslims. So it’s an important Bible story; and it’s the only piece of land in Israel that Abraham actually owned. (He was a wanderer with his flocks, remember.)

Jesus at Cana is taking care of his family on his mom Mary’s side (which is why he and Mary were invited to the wedding, and why Mary was poking her nose into the state of supplies). He is also having his own death foreshadowed. So the parallelism of family and tomb is hidden, but strong.

The interesting bit is that this makes Abraham foreshadow Mary! But she is Daughter Zion in a lot of ways, so it works.

The other interesting thing is that Protestant Bible commentaries were perfectly aware that this was polite and friendly language, even before the covenant/kinship language thing was uncovered. (That’s what they said about Genesis 23:15, anyway. But at Cana, some Protestant commentaries have taught the same words as the exact opposite of polite. Sheesh.) To be fair, a fair number of Greek- and Latin-speaking Fathers were also confused, although not the Syriac ones that I’ve ever heard. Probably because it was a normal Aramaic/Syriac and Hebrew idiom, but not something native to Greek.

OTOH, some Protestants are well aware of the parallel. For example, this guy.

So yeah, we all can learn something if we keep poking our noses into the Bible.

 

[jbejon]

In John 2.4, Jesus says (translated literally) to Mary, “What to me and to you?”. The word “you” is singular. It basically means, ‘We don’t have much in common at the moment; we’re coming from very different places’. Jesus says the same thing to a demon in Luke 8.28. The phrase is a Semitic idiom. You’ll find it in 2 Sam. 16.10 and 19.22, though it’s not always translated very literally (see the YLT for a very literal rendering).

Hope that helps,

James.

 

[Nelka]

New Jerusalem Bible

John 2:4 Jesus said, ‘Woman, what do you want from me? My hour has not come yet.’

 

[Nelka]

1 Kings 2:20 She said, ‘I have one small request to make you; do not refuse me.’ ‘Mother,’ the king replied, ‘make your request, for I shall not refuse you.’

 

[Mintaka]

Genesis 23:15 in Hebrew says:
bê-nî (between you)
ū-ḇê-nə-ḵā (and - between me)
mah- (what is)
hî (that)

Literally - “between you and between me, what is that?”

2 Samuel 16:10 and 2 Samuel 19:22 both have a different version of the question part of the Hebrew phrase, without the “between you and me” covenant-kinship reference, or any other reference to the king himself. This is considerably less friendly, and pretty straightforward in meaning.

mah- (what is [it])
lî (to)
wə-lā-ḵem (you plural)

Literally - “What’s it to y’all?”

 

[Mintaka]

Looking at the Greek, people’s confusion seems a little more normal, because the Hebrew and Aramaic phrase is just translated into Greek as “what is it to me and thee,” (“ti emoi kai soi”) in both John 2:4 and Luke 8:28, without the additional word help.

Luke 8:28 is a very interesting passage, as it seems to be the possessed man pleading covenant kinship sincerely, while the demons possessing him use the same language towards God, Whom they rejected despite Him being their Creator! That is a truly demonic level of chutzpah! But Jesus responds to the kinship language with help for the possessed man – and He even does what the demons ask, because covenant language carries powerful obligations with it. He acts towards them as part of His heavenly household, even though they have fled home and rejected Him.

I always wondered why Jesus would allow the demons any leeway at all, but now it makes sense. It also kinda explains why some people decided Jesus’ power came from devils, because responding to a plea of kinship from a demon is definitely weird!

Here’s the quote, starting at Luke 8:27:

And when [Jesus] was come forth to the land, there met him a certain man who had a devil now a very long time, and he wore no clothes, neither did he abide in a house, but in the sepulchres.

And when he saw Jesus, he fell down before him; and crying out with a loud voice, he said: “What is it between me and Thee? Jesus, Son of the most high God, I beseech Thee, do not torment me.”

Then He commanded the unclean spirit to go out of the man. For many times it had seized him, and he had been bound with chains and kept in fetters; and breaking the bonds, he had been driven by the devil into the deserts.

And Jesus asked him, saying: “What is thy name?”

But he said, “Legion,” because many devils were entered into him.

And they besought Him that He would not command them to go into the abyss. And there was there a herd of many swine feeding on the mountain; and they besought Him that He would allow them to enter into them. And He allowed them. The devils therefore went out of the man, and entered into the swine; and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the lake, and were drowned.

Which when they that fed them saw done, they fled away, and told it in the city and in the villages. And they went out to see what was done; and they came to Jesus, and found the man, out of whom the devils were departed, sitting at his feet, clothed, and in his right mind; and they were afraid. And they also that had seen, told them how he had been healed from the legion. And all the multitude of the country of the Gerasenes besought him to depart from them; for they were taken with great fear. And he, going up into the ship, returned back again.

Now the man, out of whom the devils were departed, besought him that he might be with him. But Jesus sent him away, saying, “Return to thy house, and tell how great things God hath done to thee.”

And he went through the whole city, publishing how great things Jesus had done to him. And it came to pass, that when Jesus was returned, the multitude received him, for they were all waiting for him.

This may not be the correct interpretation, though. I’ll see if anybody else reputable sees it this way. But yeah, don’t have any spiritual crises over this, because I could definitely be wrong about the usage here!

 

[Mystophilus]

Luke 2:4) and Christ’s not so subtle reply was in fact in the plural in Aramaic and not singular. So it would look like “O woman, what does this have to do with you and me”.

That is what it is in the Greek: distributive (not plural).

 

[Mintaka]

The Mark version of the story is similar, with some interesting details. The important bit here is that the demons call on both covenant language and the Name of God, which was exactly in line with abject pleading in the OT/NT world. Obviously God would be disinclined to go against someone pleading His Name, even if it’s a demon, but again it’s a blasphemous bit of chutzpah.

And they came over the strait of the sea into the country of the Gerasenes. And as He went out of the ship, immediately there met Him out of the monuments a man with an unclean spirit, who had his dwelling in the tombs, and no man now could bind him, not even with chains. For having been often bound with fetters and chains, he had burst the chains, and broken the fetters in pieces, and no one could tame him. And he was always day and night in the monuments and in the mountains, crying and cutting himself with stones.

And seeing Jesus afar off, he ran and adored Him, and crying with a loud voice, he said, “What is it to me and to Thee, Jesus the Son of the most high God? I adjure Thee by God that Thou torment me not.”

Then He said unto him, “Go out of the man, thou unclean spirit.” And He asked him, “What is thy name?”

And he saith to Him, “My name is Legion, for we are many.” And he besought Him much, that He would not drive him away out of the country. And there was there near the mountain a great herd of swine, feeding. And the spirits besought Him, saying, “Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them.”

And Jesus immediately gave them leave. And the unclean spirits going out, entered into the swine: and the herd with great violence was carried headlong into the sea, being about two thousand, and were drowned in the sea. And they that fed them fled, and told it in the city and in the fields.

And they went out to see what was done, and they came to Jesus, and they see him that was troubled with the devil, sitting clothed and well in his wits, and they were afraid. And they that had seen it told them in what manner he had been dealt with who had the devil; and concerning the swine. And they began to pray Him that He would depart from their coasts.

And when He went up into the ship, he that had been troubled with the devil, began to beseech Him that he might be with Him. And He admitted him not, but saith to him, “Go into thy house to thy friends, and tell them how great things the Lord hath done for thee, and hath had mercy on thee.”

And he went his way, and began to publish in Decapolis how great things Jesus had done for him: and all men wondered. And when Jesus had passed again in the ship over the strait, a great multitude assembled together unto Him…

 

[James82]

Greek Interlinear Bible: legei autE ho iEsous ti emoi kai soi gunai.
Is-saying to-her the Jesus any to-me and to-you woman!
**John 2:4 (DRC with Haydock Commentary)**4 Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is it to me and to thee? my hour is not yet come.
Ver. 4. Some of the Fathers have spoken without sufficient precaution on this action of the blessed Virgin; supposing she was actuated by some inclination to vanity, in begging her Son to perform a miracle on this occasion; that some of the glory of it might accrue to her, and that on this account our Saviour answers her with severity, saying, Woman, (not Mother) what is it to thee or me. Other Fathers, with more reason, attribute the interference of the blessed Virgin to her charity and compassion for the new married couple. Whatever turn be given to our Saviour’s answer, it must be acknowledged it has in it the appearance of something severe. But the Fathers have explained it with mildness, observing that our Saviour only meant to say, Mother, what affair is it of ours if they want wine? Ought we to concern ourselves about that? Others think that he wished, by these words, to let his Mother know that she must not forestall the time appointed by the heavenly Father, as if her demand were unseasonable and out of time. But most of the Fathers and best commentators understand, that he speaks here not as man and Son of Mary, but as God; and in that quality, he observes to his Mother, I have nothing in common with you. It is not for you to prescribe when miracles are to be performed, which are not to be expected in compliance with any human respect. I know when my power is to be manifested for the greater glory of God. (Calmet)
—See the like forms of speech, Mark i. 24; Luke iv. 34; &c.
— My hour is not yet come. It is not yet time. He waited till the wine was quite done, lest any should believe that he had only increased the quantity, or had only mixed water with the wine. He would have his first miracle to be incontestable, and that all the company should be witnesses of it. (St. Augustine, et alii patres passim.
— Christ’s first miracle in the New Testament, was a kind of transubstantiation in changing water into wine; the first miracle Moses performed when sent to the Jews, was transubstantiation. (Exodus iv.) The first Moses and Aaron performed, when sent to the Egyptians, was transubstantiation. (Exodus vii.)

haydock1859.tripod.com/id93.html

** John 2:4 New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)**
4 a][And] Jesus said to her, “Woman, how does your concern affect me? My hour has not yet come.”
Footnotes:

1. 
   *]2:4 This verse may seek to show that Jesus did not work miracles to help his family and friends, as in the apocryphal gospels. Woman: a normal, polite form of address, but unattested in reference to one’s mother. Cf. also Jn 19:26. How does your concern affect me?: literally, “What is this to me and to you?”—a Hebrew expression of either hostility (Jgs 11:12; 2 Chr 35:21; 1 Kgs 17:18) or denial of common interest (Hos 14:9; 2 Kgs 3:13). Cf. Mk 1:24; 5:7 used by demons to Jesus. My hour has not yet come: the translation as a question (“Has not my hour now come?”), while preferable grammatically and supported by Greek Fathers, seems unlikely from a comparison with Jn 7:6, 30. The “hour” is that of Jesus’ passion, death, resurrection, and ascension (Jn 13:1).

1. 
   I have the same NABRE as you and it looks like I scanned right over the note translating it literally! I’m quite embarassed:blush:.

 

[James82]

I am the first to say I am not the brightest light shining on the lamppost. This meaning of this statement totally eludes me as well as why you included it in a search for the exact translation of a particular word in this verse and chapter. Would you mind breaking this down so I can understand?

Sure

What I meant is that if a translator at some point in time, out of zealous passion for Our Lady meant to suggest that the BVM was integral(Merriam-Webster: Integral -a : essential to completeness)
to our salvation.
Note that I’m not saying she is not integral to our pilgrimage here on earth; she very much is. This is only a valid concern if the ‘hour’ that Christ refers to in the next sentence is the same ‘hour’ of His Death and Passion on the Cross. But even I admit that is not really a valid concern considering the fullness of the relationship with his mother. However it can lead the reader confused.

I was not concerned solely with the literal translation and syntax itself, but the meaning behind the statement of Christ. Does that make more sense?

 

[James82]

I got this from one of the Bible talks in the Institute for Catholic Culture’s audio library…

Basically, Jesus’ comment to Mary directly parallels something said to Abraham in Genesis 23, when Abraham was trying to find a place to bury Sarah. It gets translated various ways, and it was in Hebrew instead of Greek; but this was what you were supposed to hear echoing in Jesus’ comment.

Genesis 23:13-18 –

So this is something that happened in an area owned by people who weren’t kin to Abraham, and he went to a lot of trouble to make sure that he and his family would always have access to Sarah’s burial site, and that his family could bury people there forever. So before the part I quoted, he publicly consults the entire tribe that is involved, and gets their approval. Then he publicly negotiates with the guy who owns the cave and the fields around it.

Ephron responds with generosity and an offer of covenantal kinship (although he also takes the money, which completes the bargain) which will protect the rights of Abraham’s family into the far future, as it makes them honorary kin as well as neighbors.

And that’s why he says, “But what is this between me and thee?” It’s like saying, “Well, of course I’ll do what you want, because you are my covenant brother!” (In this case, “As of now.” Although Abraham and Ephron probably knew each other already, for Abraham to have the cave so firmly in mind.)

We didn’t use to know some of this ancient covenant and kinship language, because Jewish tradition mostly forgot it. Archaeology has discovered lots of secular covenant agreements between Middle Eastern cities and kings, and so now we know more about covenant/kinship language of ancient times.

Of course, Jesus knew all about everything, so He was in no puzzlement about what kind of covenant language to use to His mother. He knew that it meant “I grant your request and it’s no big deal because it’s you and me,” and Jews who knew their Bible stories would have gotten it, too.

But would not the proceeding statement of “My hour has not yet come” nullify this interpretation?