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

Background on the Johannine Literature

Expand Messages
  • Peter Kirby
    Hello, I am an amateur with a website on early Christian writings. I have attempted to provide background information on these writings in a way that is fair
    Message 1 of 16 , Jul 25, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello,

      I am an amateur with a website on early Christian writings. I have
      attempted to provide background information on these writings in a way that
      is fair and balanced, within the tradition of 'liberal' scholarship. Here
      are the current introductions on John and the letters:

      http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/writings/john.html

      http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/writings/1john.html

      http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/writings/2john.html

      http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/writings/3john.html

      I would be interested in suggestions on corrections or additions to this
      information. Thanks for your help.

      best,
      Peter Kirby
      http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/writings/
    • Felix Just, S.J.
      ... Dear Peter, Thanks for compiling these very accessible overviews, which I took the liberty of adding to the Links section of the Johannine Literature Web
      Message 2 of 16 , Jul 27, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Peter Kirby [mailto:kirby@...] wrote:

        > I am an amateur with a website on early Christian writings. I have
        > attempted to provide background information on these writings
        > in a way that is fair and balanced, within the tradition of 'liberal'
        > scholarship. Here are the current introductions on John and the letters:
        >
        > http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/writings/john.html
        > http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/writings/1john.html
        > http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/writings/2john.html
        > http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/writings/3john.html


        Dear Peter,

        Thanks for compiling these very accessible overviews, which I took the
        liberty of adding to the "Links" section of the Johannine Literature Web
        (http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~fjust/John/Links.html).

        People on this list would also be interested in many of the other pages
        you've compiled, especially the ones you've begun on "The Gospel of Signs"
        and on "The Acts of John" (although it looks like you still plan to add more
        info to these):
        http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/writings/signs.html
        http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/writings/actsjohn.html

        On your list of recommended books, you have Charlesworth's OT
        Pseudepigrapha, but you might also want to include:

        New Testament Apocrypha. Revised edition. 2 vols. Wilhelm Schneemelcher, ed.
        Eng. transl. by R. McL. Wilson. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press,
        1991-92.

        and/or
        The Apocryphal New Testament. J. K. Elliott, ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press;
        New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.


        Thanks again!
        Felix
        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        Felix Just, S.J. - Dept. of Theological Studies
        Loyola Marymount University - 7900 Loyola Blvd.
        Los Angeles, CA 90045-8400 - Ph (310) 338-5933
        Homepage: http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~fjust
        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      • Horace Jeffery Hodges
        Yuri, I checked the use of dokeo vs. pisteuo in John s Gospel with respect to the use of pisteuo here: 20:8 Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb
        Message 3 of 16 , Aug 5, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Yuri, I checked the use of "dokeo" vs. "pisteuo" in
          John's Gospel with respect to the use of "pisteuo"
          here:

          20:8 Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb
          first, also went in, and he saw and believed
          (pisteuo); 9 for as yet they did not know the
          scripture, that he must rise from the dead.

          Noting the apparent discontinuity, you cite Pepys's
          text as reflecting the more original construction of
          the passage:

          20:5 And then /St. John\ also went in and saw [all
          that], and he believed /that the body had been taken
          away\. 6 For they did not know the scripture that
          said, /So it needs be that Jesus\ must rise from
          /death to life, and enter into his glory\. 7 And so
          they went back home.

          In response to this, I suggested 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).

          You replied that you were "not sure about this"
          suggestion -- and since I also was not sure, I have
          checked. (Perhaps you have also already checked since
          this is a salient point with respect to your theory --
          so I may be covering ground that you've already gone
          over by now, but bear with me anyway.)

          From my count, "pisteuo" is used 98 times in John's
          Gospel and seems (to me) always to mean believe in a
          sense stronger than mere opinion -- and usually in a
          theological sense of believe. Also -- unless I missed
          it (but you will want to check) -- the term "pisteuo"
          does not seem to be used in a grammatically positive
          construction expressing an incorrect belief.

          The word "dokeo" is used 8 times. Five of these times,
          it occurs in a grammatically positive construction
          expressing an incorrect opinion, i.e., to think
          something but be wrong about what one thinks. (If you
          want to look for yourself, see: John 5:39, 45; 11:13,
          31, 56; 13:29; 16:2; and 20:15.)

          Indeed, "dokeo" is used this way in John 20:15 --
          merely seven verses down from John 20:9, our disputed
          verse.

          Therefore, I think that the evidence is rather strong
          that if the fourth evangelist had intended to write
          that the beloved disciple had had an incorrect
          opinion, then the evangelist would have written
          "dokeo" rather than "pisteuo".

          Now, you might want to argue that perhaps he did write
          "dokeo" but that a later redactor changed this to
          "pisteuo". Certainly, you could argue this, but it
          would be a complication in your argument. Also against
          it, I think that since the evangelist consistently
          portrays the beloved disciple in a positive light,
          then the evangelist would be more likely to emphasize
          the beloved disciple's belief (thus "pisteuo") rather
          than this disciple's mistaken opinion ("dokeo").

          Jeffery Hodges

          =====
          Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
          Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
          447-791 Kyunggido Osan-City
          Yangsandong 411
          South Korea

          __________________________________________________
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
          http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
        • John N. Lupia
          In response to Jeffery Hodges: I wholeheartedly concur with your very fine philological analysis on the text of John 20,5-9 in the use of dokeo vs.
          Message 4 of 16 , Aug 6, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            In response to Jeffery Hodges:

            I wholeheartedly concur with your very fine philological analysis
            on the text of John 20,5-9 in the use of "dokeo" vs. "pisteuo".

            John 20,5 "He bent down in order to look in and saw the OQONIA
            lying there, but he did not enter. 6 The Simon Peter came,
            following after him, and went into the tomb. He saw the OQONIA
            lying there, and the SOUDARION that was on his head, not lying
            with the OQONIA but folded up in a separate place. 8 Then the
            other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he
            saw and believed (EPISTEUSEN). 9 For they did not understand
            the scripture, that he must rise from the dead."

            I would like to add that account states "he believed" signifying
            that the disciple "whom Jesus loved" (John 20,2) understood
            and believed before the others serving as an anachronic
            prolepsis.

            A prolepsis has three connotations: (1). In grammar, when the
            subject of a dependent clause is anticipated and made the
            object of a verb of the principle clause. (2). a rhetorical figure in
            which an issue is stated briefly prior to being expounded on in
            detail. (3). a form of anachrony similar to the rhetorical figure
            when an event is given out of chronological order prematurely.
            The difference between the rhetorical use and anachronolocal
            use is that the rhetorical figure is a repeating prolepsis so that
            the narrator repeats the premature detail.

            I would also like to propose another suggestion to those who
            might find an interest in the following subject matter. List
            members who might not wish to read the following are
            cautioned in advance that it regards the Shroud of Turin. I realize
            the controversial nature of this subject and caution those in
            advance who might not wish to be vexed by it.

            In a paper I submitted last year to the "Shroud Conference 2000"
            in Orvieto, Italy, August 2000, and to Msgr. Giuseppe Ghiberti
            (president of the Catholic Biblical Association of Italy and the
            curator of the Shroud of Turin) "The Shroud: the Seamless
            Garment of Christ" I gave an exegesis on the words OQONIA and
            SOUDARION as the linen remains of the takrîkin "robe cloths" or
            ancient Jewish "tallit". The OQONIA was the SINDON with the
            tzitzit cut off at burial, hence it was called by the former term to
            distinguish this. While the SOUDARION was the linen sash
            used at burial as a jawband to keep the mouth closed.

            In my paper I cite:

            According to the Talmud Babli tractate, Moed Katan 27b, the law
            instituted by Rabbi Gamaliel prescribed first century Jews to bury
            their dead in takrîkin "robe cloths" a plain linen four-cornered
            garment that once belonged to the them. The Hebrew term that
            Rabbi Gamaliel used to indicate a four-cornered garment was
            using the plural form referring to both the four-cornered robe and
            its matching sash. This four-cornered garment, much later on,
            was modified in its design and function and variously called by
            the names we know them today: a tallit or kitel. Like the tallit or
            kitel this antique four-cornered robe has a matching linen sash
            that in Jewish burial practice was tied about the head to keep the
            jaw closed.


            So, an alternate explanation is that the disciple "whom Jesus
            loved" (John 20,2) understood and believed because he saw the
            image of the dead Christ in blood and myrrh on his linen
            garment that evoked in his mind the striking and compelling
            parallel imagery of Isaiah 63,2-3 "Why is your apparel red, and
            your garments like those who tread the winepress? I have
            trodden the winepress alone."; Isaiah 1:6 "From the sole of the
            foot to the top of the head, there was no soundness; only
            wounds and bruises and swelling sores." ; Isaiah 50:6,7 "I gave
            my back to those that beat me, my cheeks to those that plucked
            my beard. My face I did not shield from buffeting and spitting. . . I
            have set my face like flint" ; Isaiah 53:4f "He has borne our
            infirmities and our sufferings he endured . . .He was pierced for
            our offenses, crushed for our sins. On him was the
            chastisement that makes us whole, by his stripes we were
            healed."

            It is possible that the disciple "whom Jesus loved" knowing the
            Book of Isaiah could have recalled these passages looking at
            the linen cloths if they were indeed identical and identifiable with
            the Shroud of Turin. Although the authenticity of the Shroud of
            Turin is a much heated debate in the secular world as well as
            within the academic community it should not pose a barrier to
            exegetical studies. It is granted that those who disregard the
            Shroud of Turin as an authentic archaeological relic of Christ's
            burial will not find any value or interest in such a study and will
            reject it entirely. The basis for my use of the Shroud in an
            exegetical study is that it is still under investigation as an
            authentic relic making it is a legitimate phenomenon for
            discussion in a research paper. I have only shown that it is
            consistent with what we should expect to find if it were authentic.
            Without wishing to initiate or engage in a lengthy discussion or
            polemical debate on this or any other list for that matter, I offer
            this here to those who do find some credibility to its authenticity.
            For those who do not, please disregard it completely. After all it
            is only a suggestion. For those of you who are interested I am
            still in discussions with Msgr. Ghiberti about my thesis.


            Cordially,
            John

            John N. Lupia
            501 North Avenue B-1
            Elizabeth, NJ 07208-1731
          • Yuri Kuchinsky
            Jeffery, Information you ve provided about the difference between dokeo and pisteuo is interesting. But it s not clear to me that this is really so
            Message 5 of 16 , Aug 6, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              Jeffery,

              Information you've provided about the difference between "dokeo" and
              "pisteuo" is interesting. But it's not clear to me that this is really so
              relevant to our passage.

              On Sun, 5 Aug 2001, Horace Jeffery Hodges wrote:

              ...

              > Therefore, I think that the evidence is rather strong
              > that if the fourth evangelist had intended to write
              > that the beloved disciple had had an incorrect
              > opinion, then the evangelist would have written
              > "dokeo" rather than "pisteuo".

              But the versions of Jn 20:8 as preserved by Zacharias and by Pepys do not
              really imply that BD/John had an incorrect opinion. He believed what Mary
              said, which was correct, and therefore his opinion was correct.

              > Now, you might want to argue that perhaps he did write
              > "dokeo"

              But I don't think there's any need to do this.

              > but that a later redactor changed this to
              > "pisteuo". Certainly, you could argue this, but it
              > would be a complication in your argument. Also against
              > it, I think that since the evangelist consistently
              > portrays the beloved disciple in a positive light,
              > then the evangelist would be more likely to emphasize
              > the beloved disciple's belief (thus "pisteuo") rather
              > than this disciple's mistaken opinion ("dokeo").

              As I say, his opinion was not mistaken.

              Best wishes,

              Yuri.

              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
            • Horace Jeffery Hodges
              Yuri, ... Then, let s look at the passage in Pepys again: 20:5 And then /St. John also went in and saw [all that], and he believed /that the body had been
              Message 6 of 16 , Aug 6, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                Yuri,

                You wrote:

                > Information you've provided about the difference
                > between "dokeo" and "pisteuo" is interesting. But
                > it's not clear to me that this is really so relevant
                > to our passage.

                ...

                > [T]he versions of Jn 20:8 as preserved by Zacharias
                > and by Pepys do not really imply that BD/John had an
                > incorrect opinion. He believed what Mary said, which
                > was correct, and therefore his opinion was correct.

                Then, let's look at the passage in Pepys again:

                20:5 And then /St. John\ also went in and saw [all
                that], and he believed /that the body had been taken
                away\. 6 For they did not know the scripture that
                said, /So it needs be that Jesus\ must rise from
                /death to life, and enter into his glory\. 7 And so
                they went back home.

                The relevant verse states: "and he believed /that the
                body had been taken away\" -- meaning that he believed
                that Mary Magdalene was correct in thinking that
                "they" (the Roman(?) Jewish(?) authorities) had taken
                the body away. Yet, the verse following shows that
                this opinion is incorrect because it states the
                correction: "For they did not know the scripture that
                said, / So it needs be that Jesus\ must rise from
                /death to life".

                I realize that you must disagree with this
                interpretation since you hold that the earliest strata
                of primitive Christianity held to a purely spiritual
                resurrection -- and you hold that this is reflected in
                John's Gospel.

                I disagree. I don't think that this was the earliest
                Christian view, and I don't think such a view fits
                with John -- Jesus's encounter with Thomas and his
                invitation for Thomas to touch the wound in his side
                strongly supports a belief in a physical resurrection
                even in the 'spiritual' gospel John. (Does Pepys have
                this encounter?)

                Perhaps we just have to differ on this.

                Thank you for referring me to your post on "Saint".
                Actually, I had managed to find it yesterday, and I
                have read it, and here is my response (which I tried
                to post yesterday but couldn't due to server
                problems):

                Yuri,

                I looked at the archives and found your post on
                "Saint". I am sure that I didn't read it, and I am
                guessing that it somehow didn't reach my server -- I'm
                fairly sure that I didn't delete it without reading it
                (though I cannot entirely exclude the possibility).

                Anyway, let me respond (belatedly) to your post:

                -------------------------------------------------------

                From:��Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@t...>
                Date:� Mon�Jul�23,�2001� 3:11 pm
                Subject:� Re: [John_Lit] Beloved Disciple passages in
                ms Pepys

                On Sun, 22 Jul 2001, Horace Jeffery Hodges wrote:

                > Yuri Kuchinsky posted:
                >
                > > St. John the evangelist leaned [close] to Jesus,
                > > and laid his head in his\ bosom. 36 And St. Peter
                > > /made a sign\ ...
                >
                > > The use of "John the evangelist" is quite
                > > interesting in this passage.
                >
                > What seems more interesting to me is the use of
                > "Saint" to designate John and Peter. This
                designation
                > for Peter (let alone John) does not otherwise occur
                > in the gospels so far as I am aware (excluding this
                > Pepys edition of John).
                >
                > "Saint" is a term applied somewhat later in the
                > history of early Christianity and thus seems
                evidence
                > against taking the Pepys manuscript as a reliable
                > source for the original Gospel of John.

                Dear Jeffery,

                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.

                Yours,

                Yuri.

                -------------------------------------------------------

                Then, Yuri, the expression "John the Evangelist" may
                be just as much a gloss as the title "Saint" --
                especially since "Saint" is part of the expression
                "Saint John the Evangelist".

                By the way, you seem to think that I am focusing upon
                unimportant details, but as I always tell my students
                (and anybody who will listen), "Details are
                important".

                Best Regards,

                Jeffery Hodges


                =====
                Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
                Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
                447-791 Kyunggido Osan-City
                Yangsandong 411
                South Korea

                __________________________________________________
                Do You Yahoo!?
                Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
                http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
              • Yuri Kuchinsky
                ... Yes, Jeffery, this is indeed my view. ... But perhaps this is not a correction, but merely an explanation that, in light of what the disciples knew at the
                Message 7 of 16 , Aug 10, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, Horace Jeffery Hodges wrote:

                  > Yuri,
                  >
                  > You wrote:
                  >
                  > > Information you've provided about the difference
                  > > between "dokeo" and "pisteuo" is interesting. But
                  > > it's not clear to me that this is really so relevant
                  > > to our passage.
                  >
                  > ...
                  >
                  > > [T]he versions of Jn 20:8 as preserved by Zacharias
                  > > and by Pepys do not really imply that BD/John had an
                  > > incorrect opinion. He believed what Mary said, which
                  > > was correct, and therefore his opinion was correct.
                  >
                  > Then, let's look at the passage in Pepys again:
                  >
                  > 20:5 And then /St. John\ also went in and saw [all
                  > that], and he believed /that the body had been taken
                  > away\. 6 For they did not know the scripture that
                  > said, /So it needs be that Jesus\ must rise from
                  > /death to life, and enter into his glory\. 7 And so
                  > they went back home.
                  >
                  > The relevant verse states: "and he believed /that the
                  > body had been taken away\" -- meaning that he believed
                  > that Mary Magdalene was correct in thinking that
                  > "they" (the Roman(?) Jewish(?) authorities) had taken
                  > the body away.

                  Yes, Jeffery, this is indeed my view.

                  > Yet, the verse following shows that
                  > this opinion is incorrect because it states the
                  > correction: "For they did not know the scripture that
                  > said, / So it needs be that Jesus\ must rise from
                  > /death to life".

                  But perhaps this is not a correction, but merely an explanation that, in
                  light of what the disciples knew at the time, they could not come to a
                  different conclusion?

                  > I realize that you must disagree with this
                  > interpretation since you hold that the earliest strata
                  > of primitive Christianity held to a purely spiritual
                  > resurrection -- and you hold that this is reflected in
                  > John's Gospel.

                  Well, actually, I don't think this is relevant at all in the present
                  context. While indeed I hold that the earliest stratum of primitive
                  Christianity accepted a purely spiritual resurrection, at the same time, I
                  don't think that this incident with the Empty Tomb could have belonged to
                  the earliest gospel stratum. This is because, in general, I believe that
                  all Tomb Burial stories belong to a secondary stratum of gospel
                  composition.

                  > I disagree. I don't think that this was the earliest
                  > Christian view,

                  As I say, this does not really seem to relate to the present argument.

                  > and I don't think such a view fits
                  > with John -- Jesus's encounter with Thomas and his
                  > invitation for Thomas to touch the wound in his side
                  > strongly supports a belief in a physical resurrection
                  > even in the 'spiritual' gospel John. (Does Pepys have
                  > this encounter?)

                  Yes, Pepys does have this encounter, and its version of it is not really
                  so fundamentally different from the canonical.

                  > Perhaps we just have to differ on this.

                  This is fine with me, and my only concern is that these issues are
                  clarified sufficiently, so that we know what is it that we disagree about.

                  Yes, there's an important difference between "dokeo" and "pisteuo", but to
                  suppose that Jn should have had "dokeo" there, if the expanded version
                  supplied by both Pepys and Zacharias is to be accepted as valid, seems to
                  me like trying to force the issue. After all, please keep in mind that
                  this is what the Zacharias' version is,

                  "vidit vacuum sepulcrum et credidit quod mulier dixerat, scilicet de
                  monumento sublatum"

                  "saw the empty sepulchre, and believed what the woman [Mary] said, that
                  [Jesus' body] was taken away from the tomb"

                  But "credidit" is equivalent to "pisteuo". So obviously, Zacharias didn't
                  think that "credidit" is inappropriate in this passage.

                  ...

                  > I looked at the archives and found your post on
                  > "Saint". I am sure that I didn't read it, and I am
                  > guessing that it somehow didn't reach my server -- I'm
                  > fairly sure that I didn't delete it without reading it
                  > (though I cannot entirely exclude the possibility).

                  Recently, there have been some problems at Yahoogroups website, so this
                  may explain it.

                  [Yuri wrote previously:]

                  > 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.

                  [Jeffery replies:]

                  > Then, Yuri, the expression "John the Evangelist" may
                  > be just as much a gloss as the title "Saint" --
                  > especially since "Saint" is part of the expression
                  > "Saint John the Evangelist".

                  Sure, I can accept this. After all, I never tried to base much on the
                  expression "John the Evangelist" in Pepys.

                  > By the way, you seem to think that I am focusing upon
                  > unimportant details, but as I always tell my students
                  > (and anybody who will listen), "Details are
                  > important".

                  And I agree with you here. Indeed, all details are important. But at the
                  same time, it's also important to prioritise which details are more
                  important than others.

                  Best wishes,

                  Yuri.

                  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
                • Paul Schmehl
                  ... From: Yuri Kuchinsky To: John Lit-L Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 1:04 PM Subject: [John_Lit]
                  Message 8 of 16 , Aug 10, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: "Yuri Kuchinsky" <yuku@...>
                    To: "John Lit-L" <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                    Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 1:04 PM
                    Subject: [John_Lit] "dokeo" and "pisteuo" (was: Beloved Disciple passages in
                    ms Pepys
                    >
                    > Well, actually, I don't think this is relevant at all in the present
                    > context. While indeed I hold that the earliest stratum of primitive
                    > Christianity accepted a purely spiritual resurrection, at the same time, I
                    > don't think that this incident with the Empty Tomb could have belonged to
                    > the earliest gospel stratum. This is because, in general, I believe that
                    > all Tomb Burial stories belong to a secondary stratum of gospel
                    > composition.
                    >
                    This is an unusual viewpoint I've not heard or read before. Is it based on
                    any primary evidence?

                    Paul Schmehl pauls@...
                    p.l.schmehl@...
                    http://www.utdallas.edu/~pauls/
                  • Horace Jeffery Hodges
                    Yuri, I ll try to state briefly why I think that the difference between dokeo and pisteuo is important. The term pisteuo is used in John to mean belief
                    Message 9 of 16 , Aug 10, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Yuri,

                      I'll try to state briefly why I think that the
                      difference between "dokeo" and "pisteuo" is important.
                      The term "pisteuo" is used in John to mean belief in a
                      strongly theologically pregnant sense. The term
                      "dokeo" is used to mean mere opinion and is often used
                      to identify an opinion that is incorrect. Thus, the
                      use of "dokeo" in the tomb scene would imply a
                      theological point.

                      The Pepys document adds an explanation about the
                      body's having been taken away:

                      20:5 And then /St. John\ also went in and saw [all
                      that], and he believed /that the body had been taken
                      away\. 6 For they did not know the scripture that
                      said, /So it needs be that Jesus\ must rise from
                      /death to life, and enter into his glory\. 7 And so
                      they went back home.

                      Since (as I now understand you to mean) even the Pepys
                      document presupposes the bodily resurrection, then it
                      presents the disciple's 'belief' as incorrect and then
                      corrects it.

                      Now if the Pepys document reflects the original Greek,
                      then one would expect the original Greek to have been
                      "dokeo". The Greek documents that we have read have
                      "pisteuo", so if your theory about the Pepys
                      document's primitiveness is correct, then we should
                      expect that the original Greek was changed from
                      "dokeo" to "pisteuo". This doesn't mean that your
                      argument cannot work, but it does add a complication.

                      You suggested that the explanation about the body's
                      having been taken was not a correction:

                      > But perhaps this is not a correction, but merely an
                      > explanation that, in light of what the disciples
                      > knew at the time, they could not come to a
                      > different conclusion?

                      It would nevertheless mean that their conclusion was
                      wrong and that Mary Magdalene was wrong -- if you
                      grant that the Pepys document presupposed a bodily
                      resurrection.

                      You also state:

                      > Yes, there's an important difference between "dokeo"
                      > and "pisteuo", but to suppose that Jn should have
                      > had "dokeo" there, if the expanded version supplied
                      > by both Pepys and Zacharias is to be accepted as
                      > valid, seems to me like trying to force the issue.
                      > After all, please keep in mind that this is what the
                      > Zacharias' version is,
                      >
                      > "vidit vacuum sepulcrum et credidit quod mulier
                      > dixerat, scilicet de monumento sublatum"
                      >
                      > "saw the empty sepulchre, and believed what the
                      > woman [Mary] said, that [Jesus' body] was taken away
                      > from the tomb"
                      >
                      > But "credidit" is equivalent to "pisteuo". So
                      > obviously, Zacharias didn't think that "credidit" is
                      > inappropriate in this passage.

                      I'm not clear on your argument here. You seem to be
                      accepting that "pisteuo" was the original term. If so,
                      then it would most likely have meant an important
                      theological belief on the part of the beloved
                      disciple. To have 'believed' that the body had been
                      taken away would not fit the Johannine use of
                      "pisteuo". Thus, that 'explanation' does not seem
                      original to John's Gospel. On this point, at least, it
                      would seem that the Pepys (and Zacharias) document
                      reflects a later editing -- and misunderstanding -- of
                      John.

                      I am sorry if this post is neither brief nor
                      especially clear -- I am at home and being constantly
                      distracted from my task at hand by by 2-year-old son.

                      Best Regards,

                      Jeffery Hodges

                      =====
                      Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
                      Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
                      447-791 Kyunggido Osan-City
                      Yangsandong 411
                      South Korea

                      __________________________________________________
                      Do You Yahoo!?
                      Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
                      http://im.yahoo.com/
                    • Horace Jeffery Hodges
                      Oops ... I just noticed a typo in my post of yesterday. I wrote: The term pisteuo is used in John to mean belief in a strongly theologically pregnant sense.
                      Message 10 of 16 , Aug 12, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Oops ... I just noticed a typo in my post of
                        yesterday. I wrote:

                        The term "pisteuo" is used in John to mean belief in a
                        strongly theologically pregnant sense. The term
                        "dokeo" is used to mean mere opinion and is often used
                        to identify an opinion that is incorrect. Thus, the
                        use of "dokeo" in the tomb scene would imply a
                        theological point.

                        That last line should read "pisteuo":

                        Thus, the use of "pisteuo" in the tomb scene would
                        imply a theological point.

                        Sorry for the confusion.

                        Jeffery Hodges

                        =====
                        Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
                        Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
                        447-791 Kyunggido Osan-City
                        Yangsandong 411
                        South Korea

                        __________________________________________________
                        Do You Yahoo!?
                        Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
                        http://im.yahoo.com/
                      • Yuri Kuchinsky
                        ... Jeffery, But the fact that Zacharias uses credidit goes contrary to your opinion. ... I don t see it this way. ... It seems that Zacharias thought that
                        Message 11 of 16 , Aug 12, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On Fri, 10 Aug 2001, Horace Jeffery Hodges wrote:

                          > Now if the Pepys document reflects the original Greek,
                          > then one would expect the original Greek to have been
                          > "dokeo". The Greek documents that we have read have
                          > "pisteuo", so if your theory about the Pepys
                          > document's primitiveness is correct, then we should
                          > expect that the original Greek was changed from
                          > "dokeo" to "pisteuo". This doesn't mean that your
                          > argument cannot work, but it does add a complication.

                          Jeffery,

                          But the fact that Zacharias uses "credidit" goes contrary to your opinion.

                          > You suggested that the explanation about the body's
                          > having been taken was not a correction:
                          >
                          > > But perhaps this is not a correction, but merely an
                          > > explanation that, in light of what the disciples
                          > > knew at the time, they could not come to a
                          > > different conclusion?
                          >
                          > It would nevertheless mean that their conclusion was
                          > wrong and that Mary Magdalene was wrong

                          I don't see it this way.

                          > -- if you
                          > grant that the Pepys document presupposed a bodily
                          > resurrection.

                          > You also state:
                          >
                          > > Yes, there's an important difference between "dokeo"
                          > > and "pisteuo", but to suppose that Jn should have
                          > > had "dokeo" there, if the expanded version supplied
                          > > by both Pepys and Zacharias is to be accepted as
                          > > valid, seems to me like trying to force the issue.
                          > > After all, please keep in mind that this is what the
                          > > Zacharias' version is,
                          > >
                          > > "vidit vacuum sepulcrum et credidit quod mulier
                          > > dixerat, scilicet de monumento sublatum"
                          > >
                          > > "saw the empty sepulchre, and believed what the
                          > > woman [Mary] said, that [Jesus' body] was taken away
                          > > from the tomb"
                          > >
                          > > But "credidit" is equivalent to "pisteuo". So
                          > > obviously, Zacharias didn't think that "credidit" is
                          > > inappropriate in this passage.
                          >
                          > I'm not clear on your argument here.

                          It seems that Zacharias thought that the word credidit/pisteuo was
                          appropriate in the context in which it's used in the passage he quoted. I
                          agree with Zacharias.

                          > You seem to be accepting that "pisteuo" was the original term.

                          Yes.

                          > If so, then it would most likely have meant an important theological
                          > belief on the part of the beloved disciple.

                          But this is only a guess on your part.

                          > To have 'believed' that the body had been
                          > taken away would not fit the Johannine use of
                          > "pisteuo". Thus, that 'explanation' does not seem
                          > original to John's Gospel. On this point, at least, it
                          > would seem that the Pepys (and Zacharias) document
                          > reflects a later editing -- and misunderstanding -- of
                          > John.

                          If you think that the Pepys and Zacharias documents both reflect later
                          editing, when do you think this was done? And also, in your view, was it
                          done independently by both writers?

                          Best,

                          Yuri.

                          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
                        • Yuri Kuchinsky
                          ... Paul, I take it that your question is in regard to the possible lateness of Tomb Burial stories. Lk 23:43 is often cited in this regard. There are also
                          Message 12 of 16 , Aug 12, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On Fri, 10 Aug 2001, Paul Schmehl wrote:

                            > ----- Original Message -----
                            > From: "Yuri Kuchinsky" <yuku@...>
                            > To: "John Lit-L" <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                            > Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 1:04 PM
                            > Subject: [John_Lit] "dokeo" and "pisteuo" (was: Beloved Disciple passages in
                            > ms Pepys
                            > >
                            > > Well, actually, I don't think this is relevant at all in the present
                            > > context. While indeed I hold that the earliest stratum of primitive
                            > > Christianity accepted a purely spiritual resurrection, at the same time, I
                            > > don't think that this incident with the Empty Tomb could have belonged to
                            > > the earliest gospel stratum. This is because, in general, I believe that
                            > > all Tomb Burial stories belong to a secondary stratum of gospel
                            > > composition.
                            >
                            > This is an unusual viewpoint I've not heard or read before. Is it
                            > based on any primary evidence?

                            Paul,

                            I take it that your question is in regard to the possible lateness of Tomb
                            Burial stories. Lk 23:43 is often cited in this regard. There are also
                            passages in various extra-canonical writings indicating that Jesus did not
                            have a Tomb Burial.

                            Best,

                            Yuri.

                            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
                          • Paul Schmehl
                            ... From: Yuri Kuchinsky To: Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2001 5:43 PM Subject: Re: [John_Lit] dokeo
                            Message 13 of 16 , Aug 12, 2001
                            • 0 Attachment
                              ----- Original Message -----
                              From: "Yuri Kuchinsky" <yuku@...>
                              To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
                              Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2001 5:43 PM
                              Subject: Re: [John_Lit] "dokeo" and "pisteuo"


                              >
                              > On Fri, 10 Aug 2001, Paul Schmehl wrote:
                              >
                              > >
                              > > This is an unusual viewpoint I've not heard or read before. Is it
                              > > based on any primary evidence?
                              >
                              > Paul,
                              >
                              > I take it that your question is in regard to the possible lateness of Tomb
                              > Burial stories. Lk 23:43 is often cited in this regard. There are also
                              > passages in various extra-canonical writings indicating that Jesus did not
                              > have a Tomb Burial.
                              >
                              Ah! I would contend that that opinion is based on a misinterpretation of
                              Luke 23:43. I'm not familiar with the extra-canonical writings that
                              indicate this.

                              Paul Schmehl pauls@...
                              p.l.schmehl@...
                              http://www.utdallas.edu/~pauls/
                            • Horace Jeffery Hodges
                              Yuri, Just some quick points and questions -- and a lot of snipping [my previous remarks will have double angles ( ), and yours will have single angles ( )].
                              Message 14 of 16 , Aug 12, 2001
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Yuri,

                                Just some quick points and questions -- and a lot of
                                snipping [my previous remarks will have double angles
                                (> >), and yours will have single angles (>)]. I
                                wrote:

                                > > It would nevertheless mean that their conclusion
                                > > was wrong and that Mary Magdalene was wrong

                                To which, you responded:

                                > I don't see it this way.

                                Why not? You agree that even the Pepys text
                                presupposed the bodily resurrection. If Mary Magdalene
                                thought that the body had been taken away, and if the
                                beloved disciple also concluded this, then in the
                                context of the Johannine presupposition of a bodily
                                resurrection, this conclusion was wrong.

                                > But the fact that Zacharias uses "credidit" goes
                                > contrary to your opinion.

                                You'll have to explain why. Perhaps this is your
                                explanation:

                                > It seems that Zacharias thought that the word
                                > credidit/pisteuo was appropriate in the context in
                                > which it's used in the passage he quoted. I agree
                                > with Zacharias.

                                Assuming that Zacharias thought about this point and
                                that you're correct about what he thought, why do you
                                agree with him?

                                > > You seem to be accepting that "pisteuo" was the
                                > > original term.
                                >
                                > Yes.
                                >
                                > > If so, then it would most likely have meant an
                                > > important theological belief on the part of the
                                > > beloved disciple.
                                >
                                > But this is only a guess on your part.

                                I wouldn't call it a "guess"; I'd call it a
                                tentatively stated conclusion based upon the Johannine
                                linguistic evidence as I see it. Since you have agreed
                                that there is an important difference between the use
                                of "pisteuo" and "dokeo" in John, you need to explain
                                why this important distinction does not hold here.

                                > If you think that the Pepys and Zacharias documents
                                > both reflect later editing, when do you think this
                                > was done? And also, in your view, was it done
                                > independently by both writers?

                                I don't know the answer to either question, but my
                                ignorance on these two points is not relevant to the
                                questions that I have raised about the use of
                                "pisteuo" if the Pepys manuscript reflects the
                                original version of John's Gospel.

                                Best Regards,

                                Jeffery Hodges

                                =====
                                Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
                                Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
                                447-791 Kyunggido Osan-City
                                Yangsandong 411
                                South Korea

                                __________________________________________________
                                Do You Yahoo!?
                                Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
                                http://im.yahoo.com/
                              • Yuri Kuchinsky
                                ... Because his conclusion was right in light of what he knew and saw. As to Mary Magdalene, it s not relevant in this case if she was right or wrong. ...
                                Message 15 of 16 , Aug 16, 2001
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  On Sun, 12 Aug 2001, Horace Jeffery Hodges wrote:

                                  > > > It would nevertheless mean that their conclusion
                                  > > > was wrong and that Mary Magdalene was wrong
                                  >
                                  > To which, you responded:
                                  >
                                  > > I don't see it this way.
                                  >
                                  > Why not?

                                  Because his conclusion was right in light of what he knew and saw. As to
                                  Mary Magdalene, it's not relevant in this case if she was right or wrong.

                                  > > But the fact that Zacharias uses "credidit" goes
                                  > > contrary to your opinion.
                                  >
                                  > You'll have to explain why. Perhaps this is your
                                  > explanation:
                                  >
                                  > > It seems that Zacharias thought that the word
                                  > > credidit/pisteuo was appropriate in the context in
                                  > > which it's used in the passage he quoted. I agree
                                  > > with Zacharias.
                                  >
                                  > Assuming that Zacharias thought about this point and
                                  > that you're correct about what he thought, why do you
                                  > agree with him?

                                  Because he probably knew Latin better than I.

                                  > > If you think that the Pepys and Zacharias documents
                                  > > both reflect later editing, when do you think this
                                  > > was done? And also, in your view, was it done
                                  > > independently by both writers?
                                  >
                                  > I don't know the answer to either question

                                  So then how do you know it was later editing if you don't know how and
                                  when it was done?

                                  Basically, Jeffery, you seem to be arguing that one word rather than
                                  another is more appropriate in the context of a certain verse. But surely
                                  this is a matter of opinion. I think we can agree to disagree about this,
                                  and I'm willing to let you have the last word on this subject.

                                  Best,

                                  Yuri.

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

                                  The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
                                  equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
                                • Horace Jeffery Hodges
                                  Yuri, ... In the strictest sense of the term, I don t know because I haven t studied the issue. I was, primarily, raising questions that you would need to
                                  Message 16 of 16 , Aug 16, 2001
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Yuri,

                                    You asked:

                                    > So then how do you know it was later editing if you
                                    > don't know how and when it was done?

                                    In the strictest sense of the term, I don't know
                                    because I haven't studied the issue. I was, primarily,
                                    raising questions that you would need to investigate
                                    and answer in order to tighten your arguments. This is
                                    how I see the purpose of scholarly listserves such as
                                    this one, and it's why I have tried to participate in
                                    discussions whenever I felt that I had something to
                                    say or a question to raise.

                                    > Basically, Jeffery, you seem to be arguing that one
                                    > word rather than another is more appropriate in the
                                    > context of a certain verse.

                                    That's correct.

                                    > But surely this is a matter of opinion.

                                    Some opinions are better grounded than others. I have
                                    given my grounds, and those grounds would need to be
                                    evaluated.

                                    > I think we can agree to disagree about this, and I'm
                                    > willing to let you have the last word on this
                                    > subject.

                                    I rarely have that honor.

                                    Best Regards,

                                    Jeffery Hodges

                                    =====
                                    Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
                                    Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
                                    447-791 Kyunggido Osan-City
                                    Yangsandong 411
                                    South Korea

                                    __________________________________________________
                                    Do You Yahoo!?
                                    Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
                                    http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.