hey! I approach that scene (woman at the well) as a pastiche of all the other well betrothal scenes that you find in the Hebrew scriptures and in that context the language seems to me deliberately provocative, even risque, or bawdy.
A number of scholars have been down this road and have pointed out the way that fountains, wells and waters of various sorts were used as metaphors for sexual intimacy. According to that reading the woman Jesus meets is being sexually provocative or at least 'cheeky' in her approach to Jesus - to which he responds, light heartedly, in the same way. One obvious reference point is Proverbs 5:15-18 but there's another even more explicit reference in Song of songs 4 (12, and particularly 15). Given the deep familiarity of contemporary readers with these sorts of texts I don't think this is an unrealistic reading.
Also, to what does 'I will raise them up on the last day' refer', do you think, Simon? Is it a reference to life after death as some believe, or something else? Thanks 🙂
I think that given that it's written in the context of a particular eschatological expectation it's not unreasonable to expect that the writer(s) of John would be expecting dead people to come back to life on the 'last day' - the Greek word used for 'raise up' (anastēsō) refers only - so far as I understand - to the resurrection of the dead. Don't forget 'John' is keen to make the link between the person of Jesus and the God of the Hebrew Scriptures in his writing, this is where this tradition is so different to the Markan tradition which doesn't make this same claim, and which, of course, formed a partial basis for Matthew and Luke. This sort of diversity of thinking is to be expected in the early Christian movement, I think. In fact this is only the tip of the iceberg, there was some very diverse ideas being bandied about in the first couple of centuries. When you think of how a marginal movement became a religion of empire in 312 you can see there was considerable scope for 'movement'.
Sorry I am slow - living water - what double entendre please?
hey! I approach that scene (woman at the well) as a pastiche of all the other well betrothal scenes that you find in the Hebrew scriptures and in that context the language seems to me deliberately provocative, even risque, or bawdy.
A number of scholars have been down this road and have pointed out the way that fountains, wells and waters of various sorts were used as metaphors for sexual intimacy. According to that reading the woman Jesus meets is being sexually provocative or at least 'cheeky' in her approach to Jesus - to which he responds, light heartedly, in the same way. One obvious reference point is Proverbs 5:15-18 but there's another even more explicit reference in Song of songs 4 (12, and particularly 15). Given the deep familiarity of contemporary readers with these sorts of texts I don't think this is an unrealistic reading.
Super - thanks
Was gonna ask the same thing! 👍🏻
apologies, I think we cross posted - see my reply above.
Also, to what does 'I will raise them up on the last day' refer', do you think, Simon? Is it a reference to life after death as some believe, or something else? Thanks 🙂
I think that given that it's written in the context of a particular eschatological expectation it's not unreasonable to expect that the writer(s) of John would be expecting dead people to come back to life on the 'last day' - the Greek word used for 'raise up' (anastēsō) refers only - so far as I understand - to the resurrection of the dead. Don't forget 'John' is keen to make the link between the person of Jesus and the God of the Hebrew Scriptures in his writing, this is where this tradition is so different to the Markan tradition which doesn't make this same claim, and which, of course, formed a partial basis for Matthew and Luke. This sort of diversity of thinking is to be expected in the early Christian movement, I think. In fact this is only the tip of the iceberg, there was some very diverse ideas being bandied about in the first couple of centuries. When you think of how a marginal movement became a religion of empire in 312 you can see there was considerable scope for 'movement'.
That's v helpful, Simon - thank you 👍🏻