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

"dokeo" and "pisteuo" (was: Beloved Disciple passages in ms Pepys

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