Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1878Re: [John_Lit] Beloved Disciple passages in ms Pepys

Expand Messages
  • Yuri Kuchinsky
    Aug 6, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Horace Jeffery Hodges wrote:
      > Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@...> wrote:

      > > This principle of textual criticism is known as
      > > "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
      > > relevant.
      > Whether this principle is "usually taken" as you
      > state, I do not know (lacking statistics), but you may
      > be correct.


      This is what the standard reference books say.

      > 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.

      But for this case (the gender of the porter), we haven't yet considered
      which reading is the more difficult theologically, and from which

      > > Are you suggesting that the scribes of all five mss
      > > in question have done the same thing independently
      > > purely by accident?
      > Easier readings do not arise only by accident. Some
      > are intentional.

      Again, which reading do you consider the more difficult theologically in
      this case, and from which perspective?

      > Also, would these texts all have been independent of
      > one another? Just curious.

      Good question, and again something to consider...

      > > Again, like in the previous case, your suggestion
      > > does not seem very relevant. This is not how "lectio
      > > difficilior potior" principle is normally applied in
      > > textual criticism.
      > Whether "normally" or not, it is thus applied.

      And who applies it thus?

      > > > Also, I suspect -- but others on this listserve
      > > > 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.
      > Then, we have to hope that others will weigh in on
      > this and let us know for certain.

      See my next post.

      > > > Also -- as I mentioned previously -- the fact that
      > > > 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.
      > Yuri, are you sure that you posted this reply? I
      > 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?

      I wrote on Jul 23, 2001 in message,


      "It's clear that among its special material ms Pepys also contains some
      late glosses. It's a medieval ms, after all, with a long history of
      transmission of its own. And yet, in my estimate these glosses are no more
      than 1% of the text. Obviously it's your choice if you wish to focus on
      this 1%, or on the remaining 99% of the text."

      > > Also, I take it that you're persuaded by the third
      > > case that I cited, the Toscan DT parallel. Perhaps
      > > because lectio difficilior rule would support
      > > the primitivity of Pepys in this case?
      > Sorry, I don't recall your argument on this point. I
      > 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
      > am).

      Still, it's clear that the lectio difficilior rule would support the
      primitivity of Pepys in the case of the Toscan DT parallel.



      Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku

      Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority,
      it is time to reform -=O=- Mark Twain
    • Show all 26 messages in this topic