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

Re: [John_Lit] "dokeo" and "pisteuo" (was: Beloved Disciple passages in ms Pepys

Expand Messages
  • Paul Schmehl
    ... From: Yuri Kuchinsky To: John Lit-L Sent: Friday, August 10, 2001 1:04 PM Subject: [John_Lit]
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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.