1874Re: [John_Lit] Beloved Disciple passages in ms Pepys
- Aug 2 11:09 PMYuri Kuchinsky <yuku@...> wrote:
> I guess I should not have stated so categoricallyI suppose that one could assume this as the case in
> that in Pepys the porter is male, because the text
> does allow the possibility that the porter is
> female. But since, unlike in the canonical version,
> the gender is not specified, it may be assumed that
> the porter was meant to be male.
most texts, but I think that one would have to be
careful about building an argument on it.
> This principle of textual criticism is known asWhether this principle is "usually taken" as you
> "lectio difficilior potior", meaning roughly "The
> more difficult reading is preferable". But
> this is usually taken to apply to cases of textual
> corruption because of careless copying, because
> scribes tend to replace odd words with ordinary
> ones. In this case, though, this can hardly be
state, I do not know (lacking statistics), but you may
However, I do know that the principle is used for the
case that I proposed. Readings that are theologically
difficult (or difficult for other reasons) are
sometimes subject to later editing to bring them more
into line with expectations.
> Are you suggesting that the scribes of all five mssEasier readings do not arise only by accident. Some
> in question have done the same thing independently
> purely by accident?
Also, would these texts all have been independent of
one another? Just curious.
> Again, like in the previous case, your suggestionWhether "normally" or not, it is thus applied.
> does not seem very relevant. This is not how "lectio
> difficilior potior" principle is normally applied in
> textual criticism.
> > Also, I suspect -- but others on this listserveThen, we have to hope that others will weigh in on
> > would need to give their more expert opinions --
> > that if the evangelist had meant "believed that
> the body had been taken away", then he would have
> > used a verb other than "pisteuo" (possibly
> > "dokeo", as in John 5:45; 11:13, 31).
> Just like you, I'm not sure about this.
this and let us know for certain.
> > Also -- as I mentioned previously -- the fact thatYuri, are you sure that you posted this reply? I
> > the Pepys manuscript refers to Peter and the
> > beloved disciple as "Saint" Peter and "Saint" John
> > suggests that it has undergone ecclesiastical (or
> > at least "pious") editing.
> This has already been addressed previously.
looked carefully in your posts for a response but
found none. Either I missed it (somehow), or the post
didn't appear (at least, not on my server).
Anyway, what was your answer?
> Also, I take it that you're persuaded by the thirdSorry, I don't recall your argument on this point. I
> case that I cited, the Toscan DT parallel. Perhaps
> because lectio difficilior rule would support
> the primitivity of Pepys in this case?
responded to what appeared to me to be possible
difficulties with some of your arguments. Absence of a
response to other points doesn't necessarily mean that
I either agree or disagree with those points. More
likely, it means that I was pressed for time (which I
Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
447-791 Kyunggido Osan-City
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>