This Sunday we're going to hear the gospel account of the wedding at Cana, where Jesus turns to Mary and says, "Woman, how does your concern affect me? My hour has not yet come.”
Sounds disrespectful, doesn't it?
Or at least you could take it that way.
But Jesus wasn't being disrespectful at all.
Here's the story . . .
Pronoun Trouble
First, the translation "How does your concern affect me?” (John 2:4 in the NAB:RE) is not a literal rendering of what Jesus says in Greek.
Word-for-word, what he says is "What to me and to you?"
In context, Mary has just come up to him and informed Jesus that the people running the wedding have no wine, so you might literally translate his response as "What [is that] to me and to you?" In other words: "What does that have to do with us?"
He's not dissing her. He's putting the two of them--both of them--in a special category together and questioning the relevance of the fact that people outside this category don't have wine. He's saying that it's not the responsibility of the two of them to make sure they have wine.
But that's lost if you take the Greek pronoun that means "to you" (soi) and obliterate it in translation.
"Woman"
Part of what makes it sound like Jesus might be dissing his mother is the fact that he refers to her as "woman."
We don't talk to women like that today--not if we respect them, and certainly not our own mothers.
But the connotations--of respect, disrespect, or other things--that a word has in a given language are quite subtle, and we can't impose the connotations that a word has in our own language on another.
Consider: Suppose, in English, we replaced "woman" with a term that means basically the same thing but with better connotations.
For example, the word "lady" or "ma'am."
Suddenly what Jesus says sounds a lot more respectful.
In British circles, "lady" has distinctly noble overtones (it's the female counterpart to the noble honorific "lord").
And even in demotic America, a son can say, "Yes, ma'am" to his mother and mean it entirely respectfully.
So what can we learn about the connotations of "woman" as a form of address in Jesus' time?
Evoking the Vocative
Before we look at specific verses, I should point out an aspect of Greek grammar (Greek being the language in which we have the New Testament).
In Greek, nouns and pronouns change their form depending on the role that they are playing in a sentence. We call these different forms "cases."
As it happens, there is a special form--or case--that is used for nouns when they are being used as terms of direct address.
In other words, when someone is using a noun to refer directly to someone (talking to them), it will take a special form or case.
The name of this form is "the vocative case."
You hear this at Mass when we say "Kyrie eleison" ("O Lord, have mercy").
The ordinary Greek word for "lord" is kyrios (or kurios), but when you are talking directly to the Lord, it gets changed from Kyrios to Kyrie.
English sometimes does the same thing by putting the word "O" in front of something. If you say, "O Lord," you know that you are talking directly to the Lord.
The fact that Greek has a vocative case makes it easy to just do a Bible software search to turn up all the instances in which a word is being used as a form of direct address in the New Testament.
So what do we find when we do that?
"O Man"
As a control on the term "woman," it makes sense to look and see if "man" gets used as a form of direct address.
And it does.
One common Greek word we translate "man" is anthropos, which gets put into the vocative case as anthrope ("an-thro-peh").
Jesus uses this as a term of address:
And when he saw their faith he said, “Man [anthrope], your sins are forgiven you” [Luke 5:20].
But he said to him, “Man [anthrope], who made me a judge or an arbitrator over you?” [Luke 12:14].
So do others, such as Peter and Paul:
And a little later some one else saw him and said, “You also are one of them.” But Peter said, “Man [anthrope], I am not” [Luke 22:58].
But Peter said, “Man [anthrope], I do not know what you are saying.” And immediately, while he was still speaking, the cock crowed [Luke 22:60].
Therefore you have no excuse, O man [anthrope], whoever you are, when you judge another; for in passing judgment upon him you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things [Rom. 2:1].
Do you suppose, O man [anthrope], that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God? [Rom. 2:3].
And there are other instances (Rom. 9:20, 1 Tim. 6:11, Jas. 2:20).
So we have "man" (anthrope) being used as a form of address without it being disrespectful.
And there's another term that means almost the same thing . . .
"O Male"
The Greek word anthropos is commonly translated "man," but it isn't fully gender-specific. It can include both genders, like "human," except translating it that way would sound totally awkward.
There is, however, a Greek term that means a male human specifically: anér ("ah-NAIR").
The difference is a bit like the difference between the English word "man" (which can be used for both males and females) and "male" (which can be used only for males).
Anér also gets put in the vocative case and used as a form of direct address. On one occasion, St. Paul writes:
Wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband? Husband [anér], how do you know whether you will save your wife?
Here the meaning of "man" is obscured because Greek does not distinguish between the terms "man" and "husband" (or "woman" and "wife"), but it's the same term being used as a form of direct address, and it's not disrespectful.
Interestingly, the word anér gets used as a form of direct address far more often in the plural--when a speaker is addressing a group of men. In this case the word takes the form andres, and it occurs over and over in the New Testament.
For example:
And [the angels] said, “Men [andres] of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven” [Acts 1:11].
“Men [andres] of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs which God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know" [Acts 2:22].
Here is a complete list of all the times andres gets used this way: Acts 1:11, 16, 2:14, 22, 29, 37, 3:12, 5:35, 7:2, 26, 13:15, 16, 26, 38, 14:15, 15:7, 13, 17:22, 19:25, 35, 21:28, 22:1, 23:1, 6, 27:10, 21, 25, 28:17, Col. 3:19, 1 Peter 3:7.
So much for the term "man" (either anthrope, anér, or andres). What about the term "woman"?
"O Woman"
The Greek term for "woman" is guné ("goo-NAY"; same word we get "gynecologist" from). In the vocative case, it takes the form gunai.
Jesus does refer to Mary by this word--twice.
We've already seen the first instance, where he does so at the wedding at Cana (John 2:4).
The other instance where he does so is when Mary sees him being crucified:
When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman [gunai], behold, your son!” [John 19:26].
He is hardly being disrespectful to her here.
Other Women
But Mary is far from the only woman for whom this word (gunai) is used as a form of address. We also find the following:
- Jesus uses it to address the Syro-Phoenician woman (Matt. 15:28).
- Jesus uses it to address the woman with a hemorrhage (Luke 13:12).
- Peter uses it to address the high priest's servant girl (Luke 22:57).
- Jesus uses it to address the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4:21).
- Two angels use it to address Mary Magdalene (John 20:13).
- Jesus uses it to address Mary Magdalene (John 20:15).
- Paul uses it to address an individual wife among his readers (1 Cor 7:16).
- Paul uses it to address the wives in his audience (Col 3:18, using the plural: gunaikes).
- Peter uses it to address the wives in his audience (1 Peter 3:1, using the plural: gunaikes).
That's quite a number of uses, to which we can add the two Marian uses, but none of them are disrespectful!
"Sir," "Ma'am," and the Ten Commandments
What we find, then, is that neither the term "man" nor the term "woman" had negative overtones when used as a form of direct address in the New Testament books.
Instead, they were used respectfully.
In fact, they were used much the way we would use the terms "sir" and "ma'am."
There is also another reason why we can be sure that Jesus wasn't dissing his mother when he referred to her as "woman": He kept God's law perfectly, and that included keeping the Ten Commandments, one of which is:
Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land which the Lord your God gives you [Ex. 20:12].
What Now?
If you like the information I've presented here, you should join my Secret Information Club.
If you're not familiar with it, the Secret Information Club is a free service that I operate by email.
I send out information on a variety of fascinating topics connected with the Catholic faith.
In fact, the very first thing you’ll get if you sign up is information about what Pope Benedict says about the book of Revelation.
He has a lot of interesting things to say!
If you’d like to find out what they are, just sign up at www.SecretInfoClub.com or use this handy sign-up form:
Just email me at jimmy@secretinfoclub.com if you have any difficulty.
In the meantime, what do you think?
Comments
Post a Comment
Thanks Jimmy.
A few Protestants want to suggest that Jesus, the perfect human, was disrespecting His mother and treated her with less regard than they imagine Catholics and Orthodox do. Because they think Catholics and Orthodox exaggerate Mary’s role, they search for counter examples in scripture.
For me, the killer arguments I will try to remember are:
- Jesus uses the same (Greek) word to speak to his mother at Cana and on the cross.
- the perfect example to humanity would not disrespect his mother or treat her with less respect than I regard my mother.
Jimmy,
Thank you for two greats: Christ really says “What to me and to thee”...not the myriad English versions.
Woman is derogatory with us…not then.
Where you are incorrect is here: ” He’s not dissing her. He’s putting the two of them—both of them—in a special category together and questioning the relevance of the fact that people outside this category don’t have wine. He’s saying that it’s not the responsibility of the two of them to make sure they have wine.”
That’s simply allowing for a selfish Christ. Mary hears a clear yes not hesitancy in Christ because she immediately tells the servants to obey Christ’s instructions. Go back to 2 Kings 3 where three kings ask Eliseus for liquid also (water) and he first says to them “what to me and to thee” in the Vulgate exactly Christ’s words at Cana. He proceeds to tell them to set up catch basins in the dry wadi and water comes miraculously across the land from Edom and fills the catch basins but the distant enemy, the Moabites, because of the angle of the sun, see the new water as red and think it is blood and that the three kings have fought amongst themselves so the Moabites attack and are beaten. Christ may well have discussed this passage with Mary because it leads soon in 2 Kings to a hidden prophecy of the Passion discovered by Augustine.
Mary, who had “great anxiety” ( her words) when Christ stayed behind and wandered from the caravan (Luke 2:48)...Mary had cause for great anxiety at Cana because earlier that week Christ had picked the first disciples and that
brought into Mary’s heart the ominous prediction of Simeon that both her and Christ would suffer. Unlike us, Mary did not
know how soon their both passions of suffering would begin after Christ went public so His finally picking disciples caused motherly anxiety once again as in the caravan incident.
Then Christ walks in with his brand new disciples to the wedding feast of Cana and Mary now is getting more anxiety because remember, for all she knows, Christ may be arrested quickly after going public. She sees the wine shortage and yet knows that if Christ performs a miracle for her, He may be arrested as he comes in conflict with Jewish keaders.
She walks toward Christ with anxiety in her face and in her voice but conscience tells her to ask for the miracle nonetheless. Christ sees the anxiety in her face and hears it in her voice and reassures her by going back to the idiom Eliseus used when he was asked for a miracle to produce liquid….“what to me and to thee…..my hour ( to suffer the passion) is not yet come (I won’t be arrested this quickly)”. That’s why Mary heard a yes clearly and immediately tells the servants to follow Christ’s instructions. All famous interpreters got this passage wrong but a Catholic little known scholar, Miguel Miguens?, if I’m spelling it right, in the 20th century saw that they were mistakenly taking “hour” for Christ going
public…no….Christ is referring to the hour of His passion and Mary’s worry about when that is. None of the famous interpreters could explain why Mary heard a clear yes because they had “hour” incorrect.
Most English translations like the NAB obscure this whole passage by using translation liberties ( sense for sense rather than word for word) that support the old interpretations. Christ did not say what you hear in the English unless you read the Douay Rheims which follows the Vulgate which is the official Catholic Bible in all disputed passages.
Mary was nervous about Christ soon dying after Cana as she asked for the miracle. Christ was assuring her that both their passions would not occur right after the miracle…“what to me and to thee”...“my hour (to die) has not yet come.”
He brought her mind back through that idiom to Eliseus and the water that became blood ...hinting at what He was about to do…not just a miracle but a “sign” because He would use the old law purification water to become wine which would become His blood later when consecrated. He wanted greatly to do this miracle all along because it would symbolize the Eucharist replacing the old Jewish waters of purification.
“And Christian hateth Mary that God kissed in Galilee”
–“Lepanto,” G.K. Gesterton
The writer states:
“Part of what makes it sound like Jesus might be dissing his mother is the fact that he refers to her as “woman.” We don’t talk to women like that today—not if we respect them, and certainly not our own mothers.”
Does anyone wonder why it IS that we don’t speak to a woman in this way anymore?? Why has it become disrespectful to address a woman as “woman”? Why has it become politically incorrect? I would not be hurt, annoyed, angered or feel disrespected should anyone address me or refer to me as “woman” during conversation. I would be glad the person with whom I were speaking were to address me as such since it is a much higher form of respect that “madame” could EVER be. From where does “madame” originate?
In a book that I am still completing (but should finish soon), I discuss how chapter One of John’s Gospel, in addition to serving as a prologue to the Gospel, can also be seen as a reflection of creation in Genesis One. It follows, then, that Chapter Two of John (the Cana story), reveals a wedding, complementing Genesis Two, when Man and Woman come together. as I wrote there:
“The Greek word “gúnai” (woman) used by John was actually commonly used in biblical times by men to address women, but it would not have been used to address one’s mother, ever. The address used would always be “mêter” (mother), no matter the age of the mother or the son (Dickey 5-6).
... Why does Jesus address his mother so? ... Most likely, any conversation occurring at Cana was in Aramaic. John, when writing the Gospel, wrote it in Greek - the academic language of the time. Jesus would have probably addressed his mother in the normal, polite, manner of his time, in Aramaic.
We realize now that the question is not “Why did Jesus address his mother so?” The better question to ponder would be why John chose “gúnai” over “mêter” when quoting Jesus. [Look at] God’s statement to the serpent after the fall (Gen 3:15): “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” John’s use of gúnai is there to remind us of this passage. Jesus is the “seed” of the “woman,” Mary. “
source: Dickey, Eleanor. “The Ancient Greek Address System and Some Proposed Sociolinguistic Universals.” Language in Society 26.1 (Mar., 1997): 1-13. Web. 06 Apr 2011.
Jimmy,
Is there a connection between the word “woman” as used in Genesis 2:23 (the man said: “This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; This one shall be called ‘woman,’ for out of ‘her man’ this one has been taken.”) and Jesus’ form of address to His mother at Cana?
Thanks
Paul Rubiola
I would mention also the difficult Hebrew idiom that was translated into Greek (see Ignatius Catholic Study Bible on John 2)which drives modern translators batty, but which the inspired St. Jerome got right and you cited above. The New Vulgate also gets it right—-as you said” “What is this to you and to me?”
As for “woman” don’t forget that Jesus is identifying Mary as “the Woman” of Scripture—the woman of Genesis 3:15, and of Revelation 12, the chosen Woman who cooperated with Him in the redemption of the human race.
I’ve always thought that our discomfort with the term “Woman” reflects badly on us, not on Jesus. Terms for women have a sad tendency to morph into insults: even “lady” has been corrupted. I mean, when was the last time you heard it used as in, “Lady, I shall defend thy honor!”? It’s more likely to be used in exasperation: “Look, lady, I don’t care if you were late for work, you ran two red lights.”
Jesus was not disrespecting Mary by calling her “woman” any more than is common today to say to a woman —“Girl, I love your new hairstyle.” The argument that using the term “woman” is disrepectful is specious.
I had always assumed that Jesus referred to his mother as “woman” as a way of signifying that she is the “woman” referred to in Revelation 12:1, “And a great portent appeared in heaven, a WOMAN clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars” (RSV-CE), and also the “woman” referred to in Genesis 3:15, “I will put enmity between you and the WOMAN, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel” (RSV-CE).
Thanks Jimmy! I like to ponder this exchange between Jesus and Mary and am glad it is now the second Luminous mystery. I wonder less about the use of the term “woman” and more about the real exchange that was going on. Mary and Jesus had about 30 years of life together. It must have been wonderful and filled with anticipation. Here is the moment at Cana when the public ministry begins. Both know it leads to the cross (maybe). Jesus does not start this journey on his own. He lets His mother take a leading role and in a manner she initiates the final phase and escorts her Son to the very end. She does not follow Him everywhere during the 3-year public ministry, but is there at the end. What a great mother she is to have played a part in saving us all through a great sacrifice - her Son.
Okay. I now understand if you substitute “sir,” instead of “man.” Seems much more approachable.
However, as an example, if you use the word “mom” in place of “woman” (and not “ma’am, which still sounds formal and very rude), the rest of the sentence STILL sounds disrespectful, i.e., “Mom, what is that to me and to thee? My hour is not yet come.” I used the Douay-Rhiems, except substituting “mom.”
So you have done an excellent job of explaining “woman,” but still not gone to the rest of the sentence. It is still disrespectful to the modern ear.
Could you elaborate further? You’ve really helped me tremendously with “woman.” I just need more!
I do not remember which book I read this from, it might of been from St. Louis de Montfort. In order for Mary to become the most humble of all of God’s creature, she prayed she would live a life being unnoticed and be hidden from this world. So, Jesus respected His Mother’s wants by not using her name. How’s that for an explanation. I was held in awe when I read this.
Woman (women) stands between the hetero world and the androgynous (uni-form, uni-sex) world envisioned by the masters of the one-world, beehive vision. That which was left imperfect must be perfected.
Laura,
Try my long post above.
I would like to add this note to the discussion. In fact, when Jesus addresses Mary here as Woman and again at the cross, he is recognizing her role as the New Eve. Adam called his wife “woman” before the sin. Afterwards, he changed her name to “Eve”; her role was diminished to being merely the mother of humanity on the level of fallen creation. Mary, instead, as the new Eve maintains the original dignity of the first woman and inherits the role as partner of the New Adam. Thus she, like the original first woman, is without sin and is not destined to suffer the corruption of the tomb. The Catholic doctrines of the Immaculate Conception, perpetual virginity, and assumption of Mary are all indicated by Jesus himself. Mary is also the “woman” that God is referring to when he tells Satan that his head will be crushed.
Bill, thank you for your comment. I re-read your entire post on a day when I had time to really digest it and it suddenly clicked for me. Yours is the best explanation I have ever heard and I’ve printed it out. I am going to look for information on the Spanish scholar, Miguel Miguens. Thanks for your patience with my elementary question.
Laura,
I don’t recall if Miguens made the emotional connection of Mary’s fear as much as I do if at all and the 2 Kings connection is me only because I read the entire Bible and remembered a lot. But Miguen’s main point was that Augustine and many others had the meaning of “hour” incorrect….it was not the hour of going public. That key idea put me on the hunt further because the passage always struck me as selfish and rude of Christ on the surface so I felt something is way wrong here if we accept the surface in English. Go to Blue letter dot com and put the passage in their bible search engine and you’ll laugh at how bad some translations are if you click to the various versions. The King James which I like on occasion is truly awful as to Christ’s words to Mary.
Man, that was certainly convincing.
Thank you for this article. I liked it very much.
May i add some thing more?
There are three pertinent points i wish to eloborate before i come to the main issue of Jesus using the word ‘Woman’.
1) As a parent tutoring my kid for the school’s Elocution Competition - i was warned by my daughter not to wave out signs of encouragement to her when she was on stage. She felt embarassed by it. It unnerved her. She ud to say, “Dad, don’t evr do it!”. But her rebuke to me was never out of disrespect, but was of an impleading nature - that i be a little patient with her.
2) i am from India, and forty years ago the entire village would dread the receipt of the telegram. It was because the written word is never complete. Analyzing communication, Prof.Meherabian assigned only 7% importance to words, 38% to paralanguage (i.e. the way cadence, stress and breath is used when communicating) and 55% to Body Language. No wonder when a telegram arrived, with only 7% understnding, the village many a times would misconstrue the meaning.
Paralanguage is important. Imagine a sharp, “you are an idiot” to a mountain of a man could be fatal, but the same if said with a friendly tenderness could evoke a meek and resigned agreement from the same man.
3) in India, many of us think in our native tongues when we speak in English. So the idiom gets all mixed up. English is not our mother tongue, but it is the lingua franca because the British ruled over us. In Palestine, Jesus spoke in Aramaic, the Judeans spoke in Hebrew, but the Gospels were written in Greek. It was the lingue franca of the place at the time - thanks to Alexander the Great who had conquered Palestine. So imagine the amount of meaning twisted and lost in translation.
So beware of the dangers of concluding the meaning of the written word. No wonder our laws and statutes are written very verbosely and amount to tomes, to ensure that there is no misunderstanding.
Now to come to the point:
Mother Mary knew of Jesus’ glory right from the visit of Gabriel. She had pondered it in her heart. Mary (just like any parent) must have been anxious for Jesus to start His ministry. When she sees they have no wine, she senses this to be the perfect opportunity to goad her son on to start he ministry. She knows what he is capable of. He in turn must’ve retorted (like my daughter did) and protested, “Woman, how does your concern affect me? My hour has not yet come.”
Yet, does Jesus disobey his mother? No! He performs his first miracle that starts his ministry.
The problem with our lectors who read the Word, read it literally, without paralanguage either because they do not know the relevance of the passage OR because they are shy in animating their reading.
The only thing is we must pray to the Holy Spirit when we read the Word. The more we read the Word, the more insights will we be blest with.
Praise God!
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
The time period for commenting on this article has expired.