...as the Jews endeavour to take an advantage of this against the character of Mary, the Papists are very solicitous about the manner in which these words are said, lest they should be thought to contain a reproof, which they cannot bear she should be judged worthy of; or suggest any thing to her dishonour, whom they magnify as equal to her son: but certain it is, that the following words,And so we see a certain variety of readings here, hints of Jewish challenges to how Jesus addressed his mother and whether a Jewish man would speak to his mother in this way, Rome's objections that Jesus might sass his mother since they think she is a Co-Redemptrix (while also trying to deny it), etc. Gill takes a medium approach here, suggesting He reproved her for suggesting He perform a miracle and that she accepted His authority gracefully. Given that Baptists do not hold to Marian notions, this verse is not as charged for us as it would be for the Orthodox and even more so for Rome.
what have I to do with thee?
show resentment and reproof. Some render the words, "what is it to thee and me?" and give this as the sense; what concern is this of ours? what business have we with it? let them look to it, who are the principal in the feast, and have the management of it. The Jew (r) objects to this sense of the words, but gives a very weak reason for it:"but I say, (says he,) who should be concerned but the master of the feast? and he was the master of the feast:''whereas it is a clear case that he was one of the guests, one that was invited, (John 2:2), and that there was a governor or ruler of the feast, who might be more properly called the master of it than Jesus, (John 2:8). However, since Christ afterwards did concern himself in it, it looks as if this was not his meaning. Others render it to the sense we do, "what have I with thee?" as the Ethiopic version; or "what business hast thou with me?" as the Persic version; and is the same with, מה לי ולך, "what have I to do with thee?" used in 1 Kings 17:18, where the Septuagint use the same phrase as here; and such a way of speaking is common with Jewish writers (s): hereby signifying, that though, as man, and a son of hers, he had been subject to her, in which he had set an example of obedience to parents; yet, as God, he had a Father in heaven, whose business he came to do; and in that, and in his office, as Mediator, she had nothing to do with him; nor was he to be directed by her in that work; or to be told, or the least hint given when a miracle should be wrought, by him in confirmation of his mission and doctrine. Moreover, he adds,
mine hour is not yet come:
meaning not the hour of his sufferings and death, in which sense he sometimes uses this phrase; as if the hint was, that it was not proper for him to work miracles as yet, lest it should provoke his enemies to seek his life before his time; but rather the time of his public ministry and miracles, which were to go together, and the one to be a proof of the other; though it seems to have a particular regard to the following miracle, the time of doing that was not yet come; the proper juncture, when all fit circumstances meeting together, it would be both the more useful, and the more illustrious: or his meaning is, that his time of doing miracles in public was not yet; and therefore, though he was willing to do this miracle, yet he chose to do it in the most private manner; so that only a few, and not the principal persons at the feast should know it: wherefore the reproof was not so much on the account of the motion itself, as the unseasonableness of it; and so his mother took it.
4. Woman, what have I to do with thee? Why does Christ repel her so rashly? I reply, though she was not moved by ambition, nor by any carnal affection, still she did wrong in going beyond her proper bounds. Her anxiety about the inconvenience endured by others, and her desire to have it in some way mitigated, proceeded from humanity, and ought to be regarded as a virtue; but still, by putting herself forward, she might obscure the glory of Christ. Though it ought also to be observed, that what Christ spoke was not so much for her sake as for the sake of others. Her modesty and piety were too great, to need so severe a chastisement. Besides, she did not knowingly and willingly offend; but Christ only meets the danger, that no improper use may be made of what his mother had said, as if it were in obedience to her command that he afterwards performed the miracle.In the second and third paragraphs, we see a sample of Calvin, the thoughtful and contemplative scholar and the lover of scripture and its study. His remarks and approach are instructive for any student of scripture. In the fourth paragraph, we see Calvin as the greatest Reformer, taking the theological fight to the enemy, Rome. The language may seem harsh but we should recall that these were life and death matters to the peoples of that time. And Calvin's charges against the Marianism of Rome are not entirely excessive by any means.The Greek words (Ti> ejmoi< kai< soi<) literally mean, What to me and to thee? But the Greek phraseology is of the same import with the Latin Quid tibi mecum? (what hast thou to do with me?) The old translator led many people into a mistake, by supposing Christ to have asserted, that it was no concern of his, or of his motherÃÂs, if the wine fell short. But from the second clause we may easily conclude how far removed this is from ChristÃÂs meaning; for he takes upon himself this concern, and declares that it belongs to him to do so, when he adds, my hour is not yet come. Both ought to be joined together ÃÂ that Christ understands what it is necessary for him to do, and yet that he will not act in this matter at his motherÃÂs suggestion.
It is a remarkable passage certainly; for why does he absolutely refuse to his mother what he freely granted afterwards, on so many occasions, to all sorts of persons? Again, why is he not satisfied with a bare refusal? and why does he reduce her to the ordinary rank of women, and not even deign to call her mother? This saying of Christ openly and manifestly warns men to beware lest, by too superstitiously elevating the honor of the name of mother in the Virgin Mary, f43 they transfer to her what belongs exclusively to God. Christ, therefore, addresses his mother in this manner, in order to lay down a perpetual and general instruction to all ages, that his divine glory must not be obscured by excessive honor paid to his mother.
How necessary this warning became, in consequence of the gross and disgraceful superstitions which followed afterwards, is too well known. For Mary has been constituted the Queen of Heaven, the Hope, the Life, and the Salvation of the world; and, in short, their fury and madness proceeded so far that they stripped Christ of his spoils, and left him almost naked. And when we condemn those horrid blasphemies against the Son of God, the Papists call us malignant and envious; and ÃÂ what is worse ÃÂ they maliciously slander us as deadly foes to the honor of the holy Virgin. As if she had not all the honor that is due to her, unless she were made a Goddess; or as if it were treating her with respect, to adorn her with blasphemous titles, and to substitute her in the room of Christ. The Papists, therefore, offer a grievous insult to Mary when, in order to disfigure her by false praises, they take from God what belongs to Him.
My hour is not yet come. He means that he has not hitherto delayed through carelessness or indolence, but at the same time he states indirectly that he will attend to the matter, when the proper time for it shall arrive. As he reproves his mother for unseasonable haste, so, on the other hand, he gives reason to expect a miracle. The holy Virgin acknowledges both, for she abstains from addressing him any farther; and when she advises the servants to do whatever he commands, she shows that she expects something now. But the instruction conveyed here is still more extensive that whenever the Lord holds us in suspense, and delays his aid, he is not therefore asleep, but, on the contrary, regulates all His works in such a manner that he does nothing but at the proper time. Those who have applied this passage to prove that the time of events is appointed by Fate, are too ridiculous to require a single word to be said for refuting them. The hour of Christ sometimes denotes the hour which had been appointed to him by the Father; and by his time he will afterwards designate what he found to be convenient and suitable for executing the commands of his Father; but in this place he claims the right to take and choose the time for working and for displaying his Divine power. f44
All very interesting. I find it interesting that you found so many translations that give a more literal translation of the "ti emoi kai soi" passage in St. John.
The KJV certainly doesn't stand or fall by the Johannine Comma, or by the "kick against the pricks" line from Acts, which I also think is not Majority Byzantine text, as I recall. As you say, these are motes in the figurative eye of the KJV, compared with the beams in the eyes of the Alexandrian-based critical texts that are au courant.
"While the Orthodox are not Protestants, they do not practice popery and therefore textual authority is higher and the treatment of scripture is a far more serious responsibility."
Your terminology isn't politically correct, but your basic point is dead-on. Because we Orthodox believe that no man (and even no Council) has the authority to change the faith, the written word is *very* important in the conveying of the apostolic succession, which is, first and foremost, a succession of the passing on of *right doctrine* from bishop to bishop, and only secondarily a succession of sacramental laying on of hands of bishops.
When the Patriarchate of Constantinople decided to standardize the Greek liturgical texts of the NT at the turn of the 19th/20th c., there was, according to a Greek Biblical scholar, rioting in the streets of Athens, and people died. The exact wording of the Scriptures *did* matter to a lot of Orthodox Christians! Same thing with the Nikonian reforms of the liturgical/Biblical texts in Russia in the 17th c.
Most of this aspect of Orthodoxy is not readily apparent to the outside observer, since much of it has always taken place within the ranks of the clergy and within monasteries (the Muslims took over before the printing press really came around.) Also, our spiritual tradition is that Holy Tradition, of which Scripture is the most important and most central part, is first and foremost something spiritual -- not printed words. It is the living presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church.
When St. Zosimas met St. Mary of Egypt in the desert, she had been there essentially all of her adult life, and had never learned to read. Yet she quoted Scriptures verbatim to him as they spoke. The Holy Spirit had not left her without the Word, even though she didn't have a Bible, and couldn't have read it had she been given one...