Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> > Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> > > Yes, the Pepysian Harmony does demonstrate many early features, as
> argued e.g. by both Petersen and Boismard.
> > At this point I'm not even disagreeing with your suggestion so much as
> > to get you to do some of the basic groundwork. Ok, Petersen and Boismard
> > argued that PH demonstrates many early features. What are those
> > How important are they?
> Great many early readings, Larry. Possibly pre-canonic.
As noted in my original question quoted above, What readings? How proven? How
important? Sweeping generalizations such as your "great many early
readings....possibly pre-canonic" don't answer the specific questions in a
direct fashion and only lead one to believe that you are obfuscating.
> > Where did they come from--that is, did they come from
> > the source of this manuscript, or from some other source?
> Some early source.
How did you prove it? Can you with certainty trace the text family of this
manuscript back to the first or second centuries? Or the readings it contains
for that matter? Can you account for a religious or monastic copying of this
manuscript which clearly differs so much from the canonical gospels in the
fifteenth century, a time not known for toleration of aberrant texts?
Important questions to answer.
> > How did you
> > determine this? Did Petersen and Boismard do their homework? Did they
> > overlook something? Or put too much weight on something?
> I think they've done a competent job.
How did you assess this? Have you verified their results? Have you checked
the manuscript and compared their reconstructions with it? Have they issued a
critical edition of the manuscript? And do you personally have the tools to
assess their findings? What forms the basis of your opinion?
> > And then one must
> > needs move beyond discussing the manuscript to discussing this saying:
> is it
> > likely to have been a preservation from a very early reading? Why? Why
> > How do you answer the negatives?
> The saying has an early feeling about it. Of course to demonsrate that it's
> early, more work needs to be done, such as comparing the passage with other
> early harmonies of which there are many.
What does "an early feeling" mean? That seems pretty subjective to me. Is
this particular reading matched anywhere else in early Christian literature?
As you point out, more work needs to be done.
> > > As to the textual family of this harmony, it is quite a unique text.
> > > dated paleographically to ca 1400. Only one copy of it exists. It is
> > > believed to have been translated from the French, but this is not
> > > No such French text is known to exist.
> > So a unique text, that doesn't show any real attachment to any known text
> > family of a harmony
> Incorrect, Larry. It shows an affinity with Justin's harmony.
First, you've misunderstood my statement. My question dealt with the TEXT
FAMILY of the manuscript, where does it come from, what was it
copied/translated from, and where did its exemplar come from, etc. Second, as
Jeffrey pointed out Justin's harmony is not to hand, it is a construct. So
appeals to "Justin's harmony" are really unsound argumentation.
> > shows up about 1400 and purportedly has more original
> > material than manuscripts that are very early?
> That's what Petersen and Boismard argue.
See above. No disrespect to the worthies mentioned, but part of this whole
enterprise of academia is questioning each other. Any of the discussions on
this list (and on any other) take place because people are testing their
theories and the other side is poking holes in it. To really put this forward
as a possibility you need to be able to poke holes in P and B's arguments, what
did they stress too much, what did they overlook, are their other scholars who
have worked on this ms and disagree? If so, who are they and do their
objections bear weight? And so on.......besides, Yuri, you've not always been
known to accurately cite your sources.
> > So even if no French exemplar exists can it be traced a step
> > further back to a Latin source?
> Most likely a Latin source stands behind it. But, as I say, PH shows clear
> affinities with Justin's harmony and some other primitive harmonies, such
> as Liege and Venetian. See Boismard, p. 66.
Again you misunderstand. I'm asking for a specific manuscript or set of Latin
manuscripts which contain these readings, I want their library shelf numbers,
and whether or not they are microfilmed so that one can compare the readings.
I don't want to deal in "most likelies", I want specifics. And what
specific"affinities" do you mean? What percentage of the readings do they have
in common? Are there important divergences? Origin? Provenance?
> > Which pre-Diastersaronic texts? Could the parallels with Justin actually
> > Justin as the source? Why not? Some other intermediate source?
> As Tatian was a student of Justin, Justin's harmony most likely provided
> the basis for Tatian's Diatessaron.
Again you miss the point. Not everyone agrees that Justin used a harmony
rather than florigelia and that the conflation of Justin's "sources" occurs in
Justin's own head rather than in a text he is using. So again I'm asking
specifically what pre-Diateseraronic texts and harmonies? Readings in common
with Justin? Which ones? And given that there are some in common how well do
the readings match? 50%? 75%? 98%?
In short, before suggesting that this may be an original "reading" of the
pericope, a lot of questions need to be answered and addressed. Argument and
research come before conclusions.