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

Re: Beloved Disciple passages in ms Pepys

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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.