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

Re: [John_Lit] A brief point on Pepys

Expand Messages
  • Horace Jeffery Hodges
    (I had been hoping to disengage myself from this discussion of the PGH, but since my name has been brought up, I want to ensure that I have not been
    Message 1 of 2 , Aug 21, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      (I had been hoping to disengage myself from this
      discussion of the PGH, but since my name has been
      brought up, I want to ensure that I have not been
      misunderstood ...)

      Emmanuel Fritsch wrote:

      > 1- About Jn 20:8, Horace Jeffery Hodges wrote to
      > Yuri:

      > > 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
      > > 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.

      > In a multi-stage perspective, you may imagine that
      > a pre-canonical gospel used the word "dokeo", in a
      > sentence close to Pepys, and then a final redaction
      > modified it to present the BD as the first believer
      > of the resurection, using the verb "pisteuo".

      By "you may imagine", do you mean "man k´┐Żnnte sich

      Anyway, yes, I think that that's the sort of argument
      that Yuri would have to make, and it would rather
      complicate matters. In particular, it would have to
      mean (as you note) that the so-called "beloved
      disciple" was originally not an ideal disciple because
      he held a false opinion about the empty tomb, namely,
      that "they" (the Roman? Jewish? authorities) had taken
      the body away.

      Such being the case, Yuri would need to explain the
      PGH as having drawn upon two different Johannnine
      presentations of this disciple, an earlier Johannine
      presentation as just another disciple and a later
      Johannine presentation as the BD -- not impossible, I
      realize, but a complication.

      > 3- About BD, Jeffery Hodges wrote:

      > > Also -- as I mentioned previously -- the fact that
      > > the Pepys manuscript refers to Peter and the
      > > beloved disciple as "Saint" Peter and "Saint" John
      > > suggests that it has undergone ecclesiastical (or
      > > at least "pious") editing.

      > Since all names in PGH have been modified into their
      > canonical designation, it is obvious that the BD
      > designated as John the evangelist should be
      > as a middle age interpolation. If you reject this
      > suspicion, you should explain your arguments. For
      > that time being, Yuri did not.

      By "you", I presume that you mean "Yuri" (or "man"?)
      since I agree that the PGH has "Saint Peter", "Saint
      John", etc. as later interpolations.

      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
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.