At the wedding in Cana Jesus says in response to Mary's petition, "Woman, what have you to do with me?"

What exactly is the significance of this line? I understand all the rest of the passage, but this line seems not to make much sense. There has to be a reason.

Thanks for your help.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), June 06, 2002

Answers

to the top

-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), June 06, 2002.

Jake:
The correct words are --''What is this to me?'' Or, ''What would you have me do, woman?''

In the words of Jesus, Mary is told, ''The problems here aren't my affair. ''My hour is not yet come.''

The mother of Jesus though, far from taking that as His refusal, said to the attendents, ''Do what He tells you.'' Because she already anticipated from Him the answer to her petition. Nothing could be clearer, and it follows that Jesus in fact told them to fill the six large jars with water. Mary didn't, JESUS did. He then worked the first miracle in His public life in answer to the request of His Holy Mother. (John 1, :7 through :11) This is a scriptural reply to all those who would challenge Catholics, because they pray to Mary for her holy intercession.

This is only the RECORDED proof of her prayer always reaching Jesus personally. There may have been hundreds; and we aren't informed. But there certainly is a precedent here.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), June 06, 2002.

Thanks Eugene! I knew that this passage was the proof of Mary's intercessary power, but that one line tripped me up. I guess the translation in my Bible is a bit off. That makes much more sense in context. (Maybe it is different in another one of my Bibles. I have three versions - I will check tonight:).

Actually I was reading a book called Mary, Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate (or something like that - I don't have the book in front of me). It is a great little 75 page book that explanes Marys role in the Catholic Church. It was there that it also states "...what have you to do with me..". It might just be a translational problem. Like I said, what you have explained to me makes a lot more sense.

Anyway, Have a great evening.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (Jake.huether@lamrc.com), June 06, 2002.

^

-- ^ (^@^.^), June 07, 2002.

Jake,

I'm curious. What version of the Bible are you reading? I looked at some different versions on the internet and the King James version was the only one that came close to your translation.

-- Glenn (glenn@excite.com), June 07, 2002.

Please people stay away from that King James bible which was meant for the Anti-Pope British society. It was reinterpreted by men for men and denies Peter's role in the formation of the Church.

Blessings.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 07, 2002.

Actually I was wrong. All three of my Bibles say it, "Women, what has this to do with you or me?" It was in the little 75 page booklet that it was misquoted. It must be a typo, because the book is solid Catholic. Have any of you read it: "Mary, mediatrix, co-recemptrix, advocate"?

Thanks for the information.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), June 07, 2002.

should be ..Co-reDemptrix..

-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), June 07, 2002.

Why is it so difficult for Catholics to understand that the Protestant Bibles are not good biblical sources to have? They are incomplete and are dangerous writings. They do not have all of the Books of the in them which are the other 7 books of the apocrypha.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 07, 2002.

Sorry, Fred, but the seven books the Protestant Bibles do not have are not "apocrypha", they are called Deuterocanonical. The Catholic Church has always accepted these books as inspired by the Holy Spirit.

The apocrypha are books that do not belong in the Bible since they were not inspired. Examples of apocrypha: the Gospel of Peter, of Thomas, the Gospel of James, Gospel of the Hebrews, Gospel of the Twelve, etc. etc.

Enrique

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), June 08, 2002.

Fred: please look at the bottom of this forum and under the title of Older messages (by category) look at a thread named Bible and Sacred Tradition and there you'll find a lot of information about the Bilbe in general and about the Apocrypha.

Enrique

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), June 08, 2002.

Jmj

Thank you for that important correction, Enrique. The seven deuterocanonical books are wrongly referred to as "apocrypha" by Protestants and some Jews.

Here is the verse in the King James (partial) Version of the Bible:
John 2:4 -- "Jesus saith unto her, 'Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.'"

I have transliterated the Greek text of the verse (using lower-case "e" and "o" for epsilon and omicron, and upper-case for eta and omega):
"Legei autE o IEsous, 'Ti emoi kai soi, Gunai? outO Ekei E Ora mou.'"

A literal translation of this, word for word (skipping only the untranslated third word, "o") is:
"Said to her Jesus, 'What to me and to you, Woman? Not yet come is hour my.'"

Clearly, there is an verb-less, idiomatic expression in Jesus's first sentence, but it does not take much to see that the KJV rendering ("what have I to do with thee") is terribly wrong.
More accurate and literal would have been, "What is this to me and to you?" Or, more freely, "How does this matter [i.e., the lack of wine] concern me and you?"

God bless you.
John
PS: I believe that I have glanced at the booklet you mention. I do not agree with all that the author desires. Somewhat like unapproved, alleged private revelations, the subject you seem to be trying to raise is very controversial (even potentially explosive), so it has hardly been touched upon during my 29 months of visiting the forum each day. If you get around to reading all the old threads here, you will eventually find a discussion of it. And, of course, there is no rule against you raising it again -- but I want to caution you that it almost certainly will be misunderstood by our "separated brethren."

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 08, 2002.

Sorry, I did not make clear that my "PS" was addressed to Jake H.
JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 08, 2002.

Enrique

OOPS, You are absolutely right. I made a serious boo boo. I knew they were Deuterocanonical and used the wrong term. Goes to show you what protestant terms can do to Catholics. It is the very reason that I do not pay any attention to Protestant writings and Heretical rubbish.

Thanks for the correction.

Blessings

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@Heartland .com), June 08, 2002.

Don't mention it, Fred. That's why we are here: to learn more from each other.

God bless you.

Enrique

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), June 09, 2002.

Is a Gideons International NT ok?

-- KG (csisherwood@hotmail.com), June 10, 2002.

Gideons NT.. is not a good source of Catholic study at all. Please use Catholic Bibles only. The Church is very specific on that issue. The NAB is the most commonly used one for us in th US and the Jerusalem Bible is also a good second. Most of the Protestant Bibles will not suffice as the footnotes and other things may not be in line with Catholic Theology.

Blessings.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 10, 2002.

I agree with Fred. Although a Gideon Bible is better than no bible at all, it should not be the one and only bible owned by a Catholic.

I checked the "Gideon International" Internet site and learned a couple things:
The full Gideon Bible contains the old King James Version from the 1600s. This version is missing seven Old Testament books, has numerous translation errors, is difficult for speakers of modern English to understand, and lacks footnotes that help explain key passages related to Catholic doctrine.
A Gideon New Testament (without the Old Testament) may be either the old King James Version (KJV) or the much more recent New King James Version (NKJV), which is likely to be more accurate and easier to understand.

I suggest that you obtain a copy of the Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition, which is available at http://www.ignatius.com/acb_ip/showdetl.cfm?&DID=7&Product_ID=622&CATI D=3

-- (+@+.+), June 10, 2002.