Monday, 23 April 2018

Reading Cerebus #17

Hi, Everybody!

Dave needs your monies:
CEREBUS IN HELL? / Aardvark-Vanaheim studio-office clean-up clipping panels

And bonecrusher86 is where to look for other items... 

"Hey kids! What time is it?"
"Gee, I dunno, is there a picture of Cerebus reading while eating a bowl of cereal below us, then it must be 'Reading Cerebus' time... yay."

Kevin reads Cerebus for you,
It’s such a nifty thing to do.
Let’s give a rousing cheer,
Cause "Reading Cerebus" is here,
Damn... could you BE less enthusiastic...
The hell man, the hell...
Welcome back to “Reading Cerebus”, a new (some-what) weekly column here at A Moment of Cerebus. The goal of this column is to bring a fresh perspective to the 300-issue saga of Cerebus as I read through the series for the first time and give my insights into the longest running independent comic book series of all time. Think of this as part book club, part lit-crit, and part pop culture musing. Oh, and they told me Dave Sim himself may be reading this, so I hope I don’t screw this up. Let’s continue.

"The Walls of Palnu" - Cerebus #14 (Part 1 of "The Palnu Trilogy")
"The Walls of Palnu" - Cerebus #14 (Part 1 of "The Palnu Trilogy")
I've been waiting all week to dive into this issue after the introduction of Lord Julius last week. Why? Because I love the Marx Brothers, and if what I saw last week was any indication, Dave has a good grasp on capturing the snappy wit of Groucho. Needless to say, this week did not disappoint.

Cerebus, Kitchen Staff Supervisor
This weeks episode centers around an assassination attempt on Lord Julius and Cerebus' attempts at getting to the bottom of who called for it. But first, we get some great Groucho banter:
Courtesy of the Department of redundancy department, and
Lord Julius: I'll come right to the point! As a reward for saving my son's life, I'd like you to be in charge of my security forces. Your official title will be "Kitchen Staff Supervisor".

Cerebus: Why not "Director of Security Forces"?

LJ: Impossible -- That's the title I gave to the Secretary of the Navy...

C: But, if he's the Secretary of the Navy, why did you give him...?

LJ: When you're running a bureaucracy, the best way to safeguard your job is to make sure you're the only one who knows how the whole thing works.

C: So what does the Secretary of the Navy do?

LJ: He meets twice a week with the cook to plan military strategy.

C: And what is Cerebus supposed to do?

LJ: As I said, You'll be in charge of my security forces! You'll make sure that no one assassinates me. If they do, you're fired.

Cinnamon Crisis on Infinite Earths

Bureaucracy can be hungry business. I'd say, "Ask the schmuck who couldn't wait for Julius' speech to end", but he isn't saying much right now. Why? Oh, right, poisoned. 

Thus begins our overarching plot: Who Want's Lord Julius Dead?

Julius immediately orders the cook to be executed:

Cerebus: But, the cook may be innocent!

Lord Julius: You've obviously never had to eat one of his stuffed tomatoes!

Giepie Import and Export
Discovering that the poison was exotic in nature, Cerebus is lead to a nearby shop specializing in imports and exports. Giepie does not take kindly to Cerebus' line of questioning, knocking a shelf on to the Earth Pig Born, and beating feet to get away.

The Plot Thickens

Continuing his investigation, Cerebus accidentally stumbles upon a meeting of revolutionary forces, taking to the ledges of the city in pursuit of one particularly troublesome individual. The chase however ends in the death of Cerebus' quarry outside the window of Lord Julius.

Final Thoughts
This issue was a lot of fun as the who-done-it gets brought to the forefront and we are given our first long form story in the book. As I said before, Dave hits all the right notes when it comes to Lord Julius' dialogue, and it feels like a lost Marx Brothers' film.

Join me back here next week as I take a look at part 2 of "The Palnu Trilogy" as Cerebus continues his quest to find Lord Julius' would-be assassin.

Currently Listening To: Postcards of the Hanging: Grateful Dead Perform the Songs of Bob Dylan

Kevin Kimmes is a lifelong comic book reader, sometime comic book artist, and recent Cerebus convert. He can be found slinging comics at the center of the Multiverse, aka House of Heroes in Oshkosh, WI.

Sunday, 22 April 2018

"T.L.:D.R." DAVE SIM (YAWN) ON: Zechariah 4:11 to 4:14

Hi, Everybody!

So Dave sent this in:
1 April 18

Hi Matt!

You must be running out of my Biblical commentaries along about now. So…
Grab a Bible, and follow along...

The Gospel Lighthouse Bookstore just opened in the Frederick Street Mall across the way from Studio Comix Press -- talk about God meeting you halfway! -- and I was able to score two of the three volumes of a three-volume set of THE INTERLINEAR BIBLE HEBREW-ENGLISH.  Reading the translation of each word right to left takes some getting used to, but it was an opportune moment for me to find the books -- talk about God meeting you halfway! -- in that my Sunday Torah reading that week included Zechariah, the penultimate book in the Law & the Prophets and the "sons of oil" passage in 4:11 to 4:14.  Yeah, what DOES that actually say, I had often wondered.  Since I was pretty sure it was the Synoptic Jesus and the Johannine Jesus.

The King James Version has it as

11  Then answered I and said unto him, What these two olive trees upon the right of the candlestick and upon the left thereof? 

12  And I answered again, and said unto him, what be these two olive branches, which (Hebrew: by the hand) through the two golden pipes empty the golden (Hebrew: the gold) out of themselves. 

13  And he answered me and said, Knowest thou not what these be?  And I said, No, my Lord.

14  Then said he, These are the two anointed ones (annotated in the margin as Hebrew: sons of oil) that stand by the Lord of the whole earth.

The Interlinear Hebrew-English has it as:

11  Then I answered and said to him, What two olive trees these on the right of the lamp-stand and on its left? 

12   And I answered a second time and said to him, What the two clusters of olives which beside the two pipes of gold which are emptying from themselves the golden? 

13   And he spoke to me saying, Not do you know what these?  And I said, No my lord.

14 Then he said, these the two sons of fresh oil who are standing by the lord of all the earth. 

The lamp-stand makes a more sensible translation than the candlestick. Which is what I had suspected.  It's a menorah, right?  An iconic symbol of Judaism. You only get that inference indirectly in the KJV because of the plural "pipes" which makes little sense if you're talking about a candlestick. A candlestick doesn't have pipes (plural), a menorah does.

It also seems to me to make more sense with the olive trees reference succeeded by the clusters of olives reference, succeeded by the golden pipes reference.  Given that the Jewish Meschiach is referred to as The Branch, I think the KJV misses the point that The Branch is still at issue in this trifold progression. Yes, there are metaphorically two olive trees, yes there are metaphorically two clusters of olives, yes, there are metaphorically two golden pipes and yes, it can be successfully inferred, I think, (although I could be wrong) that the "golden" is both the oil from the clusters of olives and the pipes through which the oil passes.

The Branch, however, seems to me a much Larger Question.  Anointing oil seems to me a much Larger Question.  

I think the point of it is the compelled inference that I've personally drawn from the Gospels:  that the Synoptic Jesus and the Johannine Jesus are both "both emptying from themselves the golden _____".  Which implies an unknown noun which I infer is the respective teachings of their respective spirits as expressed through their respective ministries.  Two concepts which beggar the imagination to try and describe accurately (their teachings will transform the world) which is why, I infer, the noun is missing.  The noun expresses something of unimaginable value so the best that can be done in coming up with an adjective is "golden" or "gold".  But, a key point -- my personal inference and I'm the only one who believes this so, caveat emptor  -- is that the Synoptic Jesus occupies a place to the left (sinestram) of Judaism and the Johannine Jesus occupies a place to the right of Judaism (dextram). 

While I admire, in a way, the KJV's translators…enthusiasm…in leap-frogging to a "they're BOTH The Branch!  They're BOTH anointed!" conclusion, it seems to me to miss what I see as the implicit long-term lesson of Christianity:  you have to understand WHY the Johannine Jesus is on the right of Judaism, theologically, and why the Synoptic Jesus is on the left of Judaism, theologically.

They were both, I think, sons of FRESH oil.  Which is why it's odd, in a way, to me that the KJV completely overlooks the adjective.  And not odd in another way: if you don't "get" that The Branch is intentionally missing from the tree/clusters/pipes metaphor, then you really don't get how "fresh" this is.

Also, "lord of all the earth" is, I think, phrased specifically to allow the YHWH to, forensically, avoid blaspheming against God because it can be read as "lord of all the earth" or "lord of all, the earth" (my inference being that the YHWH IS the earth so, with the comma, it just means that the YHWH has jurisdiction over his/her/its self/selves. And since there is no punctuation in Hebrew, you're free to infer commas wherever it benefits you to do so).  "Lord of the whole earth", well only God is "Lord of the whole earth".  Which must have been gratifying for the YHWH.  The KJV translators will blaspheme against God on the YHWH's behalf so the YHWH doesn't have to!

I'm also forwarding my letters to Dr. Troy about the book THE GENESIS QUESTION which can be read as Commentaries and which segues into my Ezekiel Commentaries and then comes to an abrupt end when my wrist gave out in February of 2015.

And then if you want to run some Muslim commentaries, there's THE NECKLACE AND THE BURQA essay where I try to explain where I think the burqa came from.

Next Time: The Genesis Question thing...

Saturday, 21 April 2018

As Harry Anderson (R.I.P.) said: "A fool and his money were lucky to get together in the first place..."

Hi, Everybody!

So, the eBay auctions:
CEREBUS IN HELL? / Aardvark-Vanaheim studio-office clean-up clipping panels
And bonecrusher86 is where to look for the other items from this week's Weekly Update

Back when Dave was auctioning off the original art for the IDW covers through Heritage Auctions, I set up an alert for Dave Sim stuff. Here's what it caught this time:

Dave Sim Cerebus #33 Cover Moon Roach Original Art (Aardvark-Vanaheim, 1981). Having abandoned his previous identities of "The Cockroach" and "Captain Cockroach", Artemis was now using the guise of "Moon Roach". Dave Sim used the character to satirize the comic industry and specifically Batman, Captain America, Moon Knight, Wolverine, the Marvel Super Heroes Secret Wars series, Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns, Jim Valentino's Normalman, the Punisher, Neil Gaiman's Sandman, and even Sgt. Preston of the Royal Mounted Police. The Roach often upstaged Cerebus when he appeared in a story. Astoria appears on this cover in one of her earliest appearances in this story arc collected as "High Society". Cerebus the Aardvark also appears on the cover (it's his book, after all). A gorgeous cover painted in gouache on Bristol board with an image area of 10" x 14". The board is lightly toned and has been slightly sunstruck on the edges from a previous framing. Overall, in Excellent condition. 

Dave Sim and Gerhard Cerebus, Sugar and Spike Illustration Original Art (1984). What a mash-up -- Cerebus babysitting Sugar and Spike! "Glx Sptzl Glaah!" was the title of a 1977 fanzine devoted to the art of Sheldon Mayer, the creator of Sugar and Spike, and that same phrase is remarked below the artists' signature on this zany piece by Cerebus creator Sim and his long-time background illustrator Gerhard. 12" x 9", Excellent condition.

Gosh...I wish I had some money...

Next Time: Anybody wanna buy a relatively healthy white baby?

Camp David sneak-peak, the truth is in there... (Dave's Weekly Update #231)

Hi, Everybody!


Heeeeeere's Dave:

Next time: What am I bid for this pile of crap we found under Dave's couch?

Thursday, 19 April 2018

Venus Rising

A few years ago I scanned all of Dave Sim's notebooks. He had filled 36 notebooks during the years he created the monthly Cerebus series, covering issues #20 to 300, plus the other side items -- like the Epic stories, posters and prints, convention speeches etc. A total of 3,281 notebook pages detailing his creative process. I never really got the time to study the notebooks when I had them. Just did a quick look, scanned them in and sent them back to Dave as soon as possible. So this regular column is a chance for me to look through those scans and highlight some of the more interesting pages.

The last time we saw Dave Sim's notebook #20 was in July of 2017 in POIT! SMASH. The notebook covers Cerebus #153 through 164, and it had 59 pages scanned, and 20 missing pages out of a total 80 pages.

On page there is a preview of the cover of issue 155 with Cerebus flying through the clouds.

Notebook #20, page 5
Dave also wrote a list of items for the issue, though Dave has some superb lettering skills, these notes are so quick that I can barely read some of them.

Looking at the page you can see a sketch of a woman.

Notebook #20, page 6
Turning the page, that is the one sketch that was inked, the other two remain pencil sketches.

Wednesday, 18 April 2018

Successful CIH? Covers

Benjamin Hobbs:

Last week I showcased rejected CIH? covers  In the comments, there was a discussion as to what makes a successful cover.  This week I'll share my thoughts on this subject.

When selecting a cover for parody, there are three things it should be:
-Not drawn from extreme angles.

All of the Cerebus and Dore images are drawn at about eye level, so while a parody of something drawn from a bird's eye view or a dog's eye view is possible, it's a much higher level of difficulty.  (This rules out Justice League '87 and possibly The Death of Phoenix, at least for me. Hi Travis!)

The actual parody cover needs to:
-Be funny
-Have Cerebus on the cover
-Incorporate Dore etchings
-Have some resemblance to the cover being parodied.
-Imply some amount of story.  (Which, hopefully has the effect of enticing the browsing customer to buy the comic.)

An example of an successful, and accepted, parody cover would be CEREBUS WOMAN:

CEREBUS WOMAN was accepted with just a few tweaks to the cover gag. Dave wrote a comic to go with the cover in very short order.   The success of this cover, to my thinking, is that it was made including all of the above criteria.

An example of a cover that has been accepted, but has not yet been used is SEX AARDVARKS:

SEX AARDVARKS meets most of the above criteria.  The biggest pitfall is that the cover I submitted (above) wasn't that funny. Dave wrote some hilarious cover copy that really livens it up.  This is a weaker cover than CEREBUS WOMAN because no story is implied.

Another example of an accepted cover that hasn't been used is  THE AMNESIAC SPIDER-VARK:
Dave re-wrote must of the dialogue on this one but, to me, the biggest failing of this cover is that it doesn't showcase what the book is selling, which is Cerebus and Dore images together. 

An example of an unsuccessful cover (one that has been flatly rejected) is FOR THE LOVE OF CEREBUS:
The cover being parodied isn't Iconic, it doesn't appeal to the casual browser at a LCS, it's not a specifically popular cover, and no story is implied.

Did I miss any key elements that would make for a successful CIH? cover?  Let me know in the comments!


Don't forget! You can place your orders for THE UN-BEDABLE VARK NOW!

Next week: Something related to Cerebus in Hell? no doubt.

Tuesday, 17 April 2018

Follow-up to "Lunch in La-La Land Weekly Update 227: 23 Mar 18":Request from Dave (could this Message Header be any longer?)

Hi, Everybody!

Let's drop some money:
And you should know the rest by now..bonecrusher86 on the eBays

Eddie Khanna dropped in with:
Hi Matt! Hope you're doing well, and the "Interim" position is treating you all right. It looks like things are going good so far, and you've brought some much needed humour to the site. 

After the Mar 23 2018 Weekly Update regarding the response from Oscar Wilde's grandson, Merlin Holland, Dave had me contact him and relay the following: 

Thank you for your wonderful letter of 23 February which I read for the CEREBUS fans on my weekly Update at A Moment of Cerebus which was posted earlier today (Mar 23, 2018). I hope that was all right.

Still don't have e-mail but I do fax Eddie Khanna in special cases like this one and he relays the fax as an e-mail. Is it okay if he solicits the AMOC readership for their thoughts on your grandfather and relays the most interesting posts and e-mails to you?

Hope you are well and thank you for your efforts on my behalf. I’d rather have Merlin
Holland in my corner than tout le monde bien pensant Francaise (please pardon the
execrable spelling)

Dave Sim

To which Merlin replied: 

Hello Eddie,
Many thanks for relaying this. Delighted to have Dave’s response to my letter and very courteous of him. It was quite unnecessary for him to to take the trouble as mine was by way of an apology, but I was happy that he felt it worth of sharing with the CEREBUS fans.
In his fax Dave asks if it is OK for you to solicit the AMOC readership for their thoughts on Oscar and to relay the most interesting posts and e-mails. Sure. I’d be interested to hear what they think.

Best wishes,

So AMOC readers, if you have any thoughts at all about Oscar Wilde and/or his works, feel free to either post them here in the comment section, or email them to me at, and I'll forward them to Merlin. 

So there you go my little amoc-amucks, sound off like you got a pair! HOO-RAH!!!

Next Time: "North Dakota Hobbes and the Raiders of the Lost Aardvark"

Reading Cerebus #16

Hi, Everybody! they say, is the root of all evil tooday...
And you should know the rest by now... bonecrusher86 on the eBays

"Hey kids! What time is it?"
"Time to eat laundry soap and snort condoms!"
Kevin reads Cerebus for you,
It’s such a nifty thing to do.
Let’s give a rousing cheer,
Cause "Reading Cerebus" is here,
"Eat laundry soap and snort condoms"?
What the HELL is wrong with you?
Kevin Kimmes:
Welcome back to “Reading Cerebus”, a new (some-what) weekly column here at A Moment of Cerebus. The goal of this column is to bring a fresh perspective to the 300-issue saga of Cerebus as I read through the series for the first time and give my insights into the longest running independent comic book series of all time. Think of this as part book club, part lit-crit, and part pop culture musing. Oh, and they told me Dave Sim himself may be reading this, so I hope I don’t screw this up. Let’s continue.

"Silverspoon" - Originally appearing in Comics Buyers Guide, Reprinted in Cerebus Weekly #26 and later pressings of the 1st phonebook
I didn't think I had digital copies of the Silverspoon strips, but I was wrong. Thank!
Can I make a confession? As a kid, Prince Valiant bored me to tears. I loved checking out the comic strips in the newspaper, but Prince Valiant was a constant avoidance.

Why, you ask? I guess I really don't have a definitive answer, but it always felt a little impenetrable due to the length of time it had been going for. No matter what week you read it, it always felt like you had missed so much that it was impossible to get caught up. Or, maybe that just has to do more with a time when everything wasn't so readily available. Regardless, I let out an audible groan when I saw what my next reading assignment looked like.

The Arrogant and Insufferable Silverspoon
There may never have been, or will be, a character more aptly named than that of Silverspoon. He is the embodiment of spoiled rotten and pandered to children the world over, a fact that Cerebus is unafraid to make clear when he believes that Silverspoon has perished at the hands of Onliu pirates. 

The boy wants a sea serpent? The boy gets a sea serpent.

The boy wants to fight Onliu pirates? The boy gets to sacrifice all at his disposal in his fight with Onliu pirates.

Then, the locals show up.

Sha-Boom Sha-Boom

Doo-wop speaking natives? Sure, what the hell!

Tied to posts and left to the elements, Cerebus and Silverspoon are the test cases for the locals who are betting on which will get them first: exposure or starvation. Four days go by and Cerebus is sure that the boy is near death. That's when dear old dad shows up with the cavalry.

Rufus T. Firefly
So, who is Silverspoon's father? Well, none other than comedic film star Groucho Marx...I mean, Lord Julius. The characterization here is perfect with Lord Julius delivering the kind of snappy dialogue that has become a hallmark of Groucho.

Cerebus: "What will happen to the br... uh... Silverspoon when he wakes up?"

Lord Julius: "I hadn't really thought about it. I suppose I'll send him to a boy's military school..."

Cerebus: "But Silverspoon has travelled the world. Won't a boy's school be a little bit... well... boring?"

Lord Julius: "You know, you're right. Maybe I'll send him to a girl's school instead."

When I realized I had digital copies of all the Silverspoon strips, I knew I was gonna run all eleven of them...

Final Thoughts

I have to admit that this weeks reading turned out to be better than I originally thought it was going to be. Dave again pushes forward with his parody/critique of famous artists and comics, and still finds the right notes to hit to keep the humor rolling.

Join me back here next week as I take a look at "The Palnu Trilogy" and learn more about Lord Julius.

Currently Listening To: Frank Zappa - "Joe's Corsage"

Kevin Kimmes is a lifelong comic book reader, sometime comic book artist, and recent Cerebus convert. He can be found slinging comics at the center of the Multiverse, aka House of Heroes in Oshkosh, WI.

Sunday, 15 April 2018

"T.L.:D.R." DAVE SIM (YAWN) ON JOHN 19!" Part 8, Part the Last

Hi, Everybody!

Anyway, From Dave Sim:
17 Feb 18
Hi Matt!  
Since you were asking about Biblical commentaries, I thought I'd send this to you.  It's part of my RIP KIRBY COMMENTARIES which hit a religious off-ramp requiring a lengthy digression (about a year or so now) into the "Song of Deborah" (Book of Judges) with the November 8, 1950 strip.  Which then dovetailed with John's Gospel, which then dovetailed with my commentaries on Gertrude Stein's THE WORLD IS ROUND and BLOOD ON THE DINING ROOM FLOOR, finally circling back to John 19. So this is, really, the 17-page punch-line.
I can't imagine anyone would be interested, but you did ask about Bible Commentaries. 
You could maybe run it a page a week on sequential Sundays.  "T.L.:D.R."

Grab a Bible and follow along!

 Part 1Part 2Part 3Part 4 Part 5, Part 6Part 7 and now Part 8 (The big finish!):

17 Feb 18 pg.3

I think it's necessary to see the "fell upward upon the breast of him" as a visual metaphor reiterating the essential character of the excision of A Dam's rib -- from which this epoch's first woman was "builded" -- itself a metaphor, I infer, for the creation of the seminal YHWH by God. That is, that the seminal YHWH was derived from God's Essence in a way that the excision of the rib echoes in extreme microcosm (itself, I infer, a metaphor for the distinction between gestation and creation; itself a metaphor for the distinction between creation and Creation).

John is, in a real sense, I infer in a central monotheistic sense, the Johannine Jesus' rib. 

Like the Johannine Jesus' physical rib, John "fell upward upon the breast of him."

That is, as A Dam's rib came from a place near to his heart but well below his "well-minded" intellect so, it seems to me, is the essence of the seminal YHWH relative to God.  That is, I infer that the human body represents an iconic metaphysical topography of the proper interrelationships of higher-natured beings: the lower-natured heart is below (or, rather, Below) the higher-natured head just as the lower-natured genitals are below (or, rather, Below) the higher-natured-than-genitals/lower-natured-than-the-head heart. The metaphysical hierarchy is the physical hierarchy and vice versa.  And this is nowhere more true than in the interrelationship between John and the Johannine Jesus.  Which culminates in:

"Had stood however beside to the cross of the Jesus the mother of him and the sister of the mother of him, Mary, the ____ of the Clopas and Mary the Magdalene. Jesus therefore having seen the mother and the disciple having stood alongside, whom he was loving is saying to the mother, Woman, see the son of you; next he is saying to the disciple See the mother of you. And from that the hour took the disciple her into the own."

[One of the few things we know for certain about the mother of the Johannine Jesus was that she wasn't named Mary, for the obvious reason that her sister's name is given as Mary.  You wouldn't have two daughters named Mary. The corruption/inference that there is only one Jesus would result in a perceived triune YHWHist Mary construct at the foot of the Johannine Jesus' cross -- and centuries of Church contortions to explain how Mary had a sister named Mary. I digress.]

It seems to me a distillation of the essence of seminal Creational as opposed to creational maternalism: an attempt on God's part for those "with ears to hear" to understand the purpose, the larger Reality behind the symbolism of gestative maternalism.  That is, that maternalism -- the gestative function -- has, in its purist form, a single Deistic masculine point of origin and metaphysical analogue.  The link between John and the Johannine Jesus -- of which their physical proximity to each other is a minor

17 Feb 18 pg.4

manifestation -- is actually a conjoining of their mutual faith in God, and that by this enactment means God intended/intends/will always intend to communicate His essential character to mankind, thereby drawing a distinction between the YHWHistic portrayal of Him by the Synoptic Jesus and His actual nature as enunciated by the Johannine Jesus and documented by John.     

As John himself puts it in John 1:18:  "God no one has seen at any time; only-begotten god the ___ being into the bosom of the father that explained". It is literally the Last Word on the nature of Reality in John's "In beginning…" preamble to his Gospel (which, I infer, represents a fine-tuning -- the first and only fine-tuning -- of Genesis 1 since its revelation)  before switching to the formal historical narrative of the Johannine Jesus' ministry, beginning with John the Baptist.   

One of the compelled inferences of the passage is "God the Father", which I think both John and the Johannine Jesus believed to be the relationship of the Johannine Jesus to God, although I believe they inferred it differently.  The Johannine Jesus, I think, inferred it in the "sons of God" sense as per Genesis 6:2: he was just the first to express his stature as one of the "sons of God" by referring to God as his father.  And, arguably, as the best of God's sons. John, I think, inferred that literally:  that the Johannine Jesus was God's "only-begotten god".  Which is why, I infer, when he uses that phrase, it's followed by the corrective "the ___ being into the bosom of the father that explained." 

To believe in "God as father", I infer, is to adopt a misapprehension analogous to confusing gestative maternalism with the larger idea behind gestative maternalism of which gestative maternalism is merely symbolic.  Which is why, I infer, "the ____ being into the bosom of the father, that explained" strikes the exactly appropriate note. 

God didn't, I infer, create the Johannine Jesus by means of a procreative carnal act with the Johannine Jesus' mother, which is what is implied by the term "father".  Rather, I infer, God created the Johannine Jesus at the same time and in the same way as He created the seminal YHWH and the Big Bang: the macrocosmic Event for which and of which the excision of the rib from A Dam "the being into the bosom of the father…" is a microcosmic prototype i.e. "…that explained." 

God would, I infer, allow John's "only-begotten god" misapprehension to stand so long as it was side-by-side with the actual circumstance "the ___ being into the bosom of the father that explained."  It's, I infer, a comparable temptation: to believe that there are other gods with God, just another variant of the YHWHist "he/she/it" corruption and conceit. The Johannine Jesus chooses to be absolutely faithful to

17 Feb 18 pg.5

God while conceiving of God one way; John chooses to be absolutely faithful to God while conceiving of God a different way; the YHWH, by contrast, chooses to be entirely disloyal to God while propagating a triune lie about Him. That, it seems to me, is the essential difference.        

Expanding on where I see this line of thought dovetailing with the current subject, it seems significant to me, that the Johannine Jesus addresses his mother not as "Mother" but as "Woman" as he does in the Wedding in Cana narrative. 

I think this was intentional: i.e. that there is a resonant fidelity implicit in the term "Mother" that had become critically lacking in female nature and that that critical lack was exemplified by the Johannine Jesus' own mother (more concerned with her personal desire for more wine -- I assume she was already tipsy -- at the wedding than with the proper sequential unfolding of the Johannine Jesus' ministry/enactment). The Johannine Jesus' attitude towards her, it seems to me, is,
appropriately, that mandated for a devout and loyal monotheist in contemplating a completely-beside-the-point  biological implication of his personal, physical genesis :  "What to me and to you, woman? Not yet is arriving the hour of me."

Still, "Honour thy father and mother…" is one of the Ten Words (Hebrew) Ten Commandments (Christian), placing the Johannine Jesus between the rock of his loyalty to God and the hard place of his fidelity to the Law of Moshe. He capitulates. In actual fact, God changes the water into wine.  And it's a very fine wine, attested to by the governor of the dining room.  Much finer than the wine that had already been served.     

It seems to me that the larger point remains the same. That is, the mother-to-child relationship is supposed to resonate with the God-to-woman relationship, as the John-to-Jesus relationship resonates with the Jesus-to-God relationship, but usually doesn't.  It's a female vice to see themselves as creators of babies rather than gestatory-custodians of babies. It's an easy vice to slip into but that's part of the potency of God's gift of free will. Temptation is never further than a stray thought away.  The "well-minded", accurate, monotheistic apprehension is that the baby is God's. God created the baby and created the process by which the baby was created. Just as God created all mothers before they became mothers.

The concept of "he/she/it" is, I infer, a primary rebellion model against God. It attempts, structurally, to corrupt and marginalize and externalize the Central Fact of God as the creator of all things.  The Johannine Jesus' address from the cross, as I read it, redresses and provides a corrective to the "he/she/it" misapprehension at the highest metaphysical levels: i.e. this is as close as Actual Reality gets to he/she/it and vice versa:

17 Feb 18 pg.6

"Woman, see the son of you." 

On one level, the surface meaning, I infer, he's discussing himself.  Behold your son, physically born of your womb, on the cross. 

On another level, what I infer is the higher-natured level of what he's saying, he's discussing John: This person is going to be a son to you with all of the fidelity implicit in that.  It's John's fidelity to the Johannine Jesus expressing itself as a microcosm of the relationship of the Johannine Jesus to God that makes John's compliance a certainty. And it's that certainty that is an essence of the Larger Enactment of what genuine maternalism is. 

John, presumably, had a birth-mother of his own.

That relationship, however, is not just secondary to but inconsequential and irrelevant to the enactment taking place. John's fidelity to God enacted in his fidelity to the Johannine Jesus means that caring for the Johannine Jesus' mother takes priority over his biological link to an unknown woman who never enters into or is alluded to within the Scriptural narrative.  Genuine maternalism -- maternalism which echoes and resonates with God's Act of Creation -- supersedes mere biological linkage and physical happenstance.  

"See the mother of you."

Again, there's the surface meaning:  the Johannine Jesus is appointing his mother to be John's mother. His connection to God and John's connection to him, I infer, not only allows him to do this, it compels him to do this.

But, above that, I infer, is the Larger Meaning. That the Johannine Jesus' absolute fidelity to God and John's absolute fidelity to the Johannine Jesus does resonate with God's Act of Creation, the larger idea behind maternalism. That is, the Johannine Jesus is telling John, at the threshold of his death in service to God, that he and John are linked by that larger idea.  The essence of the Johannine Jesus is the mother of the essence of John.

Okay, God willing, back to Deborah and Freddie and "The Missing Nightingale".         

Next Time: Dave sent me this: "You must be running out of my Biblical commentaries along about now. So…" There's more if we want it!