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

Re: Beloved Disciple passages in ms Pepys

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 16 , Aug 5, 2001
      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 2 of 16 , Aug 6, 2001
        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 3 of 16 , Aug 6, 2001
          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 4 of 16 , Aug 6, 2001
            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 5 of 16 , Aug 10, 2001
              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 6 of 16 , Aug 10, 2001
                ----- 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 7 of 16 , Aug 10, 2001
                  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 8 of 16 , Aug 12, 2001
                    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 9 of 16 , Aug 12, 2001
                      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 10 of 16 , Aug 12, 2001
                        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 11 of 16 , Aug 12, 2001
                          ----- 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 12 of 16 , Aug 12, 2001
                            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 13 of 16 , Aug 16, 2001
                              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 14 of 16 , Aug 16, 2001
                                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.