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

Re: [John_Lit] Mt 17:7 & Jn 6:11

Expand Messages
  • Yuri Kuchinsky
    ... Thank you, Jeffrey. But I m afraid that these explanations, while rational, are still rather weak. ... But this is speculation only. So what if this
    Message 1 of 10 , Aug 1, 2002
      On Tue, 30 Jul 2002, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:
      > Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
      >
      > > But to come back to John 6:11, does anybody have a rational explanation
      > > why the disciples should be omitted from this verse? In other words, in
      > > what way should Aland's/UBS text here be seen as preferable to KJV text?
      >
      > Leaving aside the questions of whether it is accurate to speak of the
      > "KJV" text as if this was a Greek MS (or even a critical text like the
      > NA27/28 or the UBS 4), not to mention that you have not stated your
      > grounds for judging an explanation "rational", the answer to your
      > question is "yes". See Barrett (to whom you appealed before on matters
      > Johannine), Brown, Schnakenburg, & Dodd ( to name just a few of the
      > commentators)

      Thank you, Jeffrey. But I'm afraid that these explanations, while
      rational, are still rather weak.

      > who have explained (a) John's depiction of Jesus acting independently
      > and without the assistance of the disciples as something which was
      > specifically meant to recall the last supper

      But this is speculation only. So what if this omission of the disciples
      wasn't something which was specifically meant to recall the last supper?

      > and (b) the appearance of TOIS MAQHTAIS (AUTOU), hOI DE MAQHTAI TOIS
      > ANAKEIMENOIS [OXLOIS} hOMOIWS in Sinaiticus(C), D K M U delta Phi
      > Lamda Psi etc as due to assimilation of the text of Jn 6:11 to the
      > Synoptic accounts of the story.

      So what these scholars are proposing is that,

      1. the earliest narrative, as preserved by all 3 Synoptics, had the
      disciples.

      2. this narrative was later abridged by the author of Jn.

      3. then, in the overwhelming majority of MSS, coming from the widest
      possible geographical area, this text of Jn 6:11 was "corrupted" by
      assimilation to the Synoptic accounts of the story.

      But I think the Occam Razor should easily simplify the above hypothesis as
      follows,

      1. the earliest narrative, as preserved by all 3 Synoptics _and the
      majority of GJohn MSS, including some of the earliest ones_, had the
      disciples in this verse.

      2. then, this text of Jn 6:11 was corrupted in Egypt by a later
      ecclesiastical editor, who was trying to distance Jesus from his
      disciples. But this corruption didn't find support elsewhere in the
      Christian world.

      So what I'm saying is that there seems to be no rational reason to prefer
      the Alexandrian version of this verse to its Western and Byzantine
      versions.

      In this case, as in so many others, the confluence of the Western and
      Byzantine texts seems to be preserving for us the earliest gospel
      readings, that were later corrupted in Egypt only, perhaps because of some
      of the special theological tendencies then current in Alexandria.

      Yours,

      Yuri.

      Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku

      Reality is that which, when you stop believing
      in it, doesn't go away -=O=- Philip K. Dick
    • Jeffrey B. Gibson
      ... Is it? Given the definition of speculation, it would be so only if those who offered this explanation (which, by the way, is one Loisy supports. Was he
      Message 2 of 10 , Aug 1, 2002
        Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

        > Thank you, Jeffrey. But I'm afraid that these explanations, while
        > rational, are still rather weak.
        >
        > > who have explained (a) John's depiction of Jesus acting independently
        > > and without the assistance of the disciples as something which was
        > > specifically meant to recall the last supper
        >
        > But this is speculation only.

        Is it? Given the definition of speculation, it would be so only if those who
        offered this explanation (which, by the way, is one Loisy supports. Was he
        speculating?) never provided evidence for it. But they do. And this is not only
        the fact of the similarity in wording between the description of what John has
        Jesus do and what Jesus is is said to do in Mk 14 and 1 Cor. It is also the
        fact that, as Barret and many others have noted, the depition of Jesus as one
        who customarily acts independently of the disciples and on his own initiative is
        a prominent Johannine theme, found in each of the redactional levels of GJohn.

        > 3. then, in the overwhelming majority of MSS, coming from the widest
        > possible geographical area, this text of Jn 6:11 was "corrupted" by
        > assimilation to the Synoptic accounts of the story.

        Have you actually looked at the MSS evidence for this verse?

        > But I think the Occam Razor should easily simplify the above hypothesis as
        > follows,
        >
        > 1. the earliest narrative, as preserved by all 3 Synoptics _and the
        > majority of GJohn MSS, including some of the earliest ones_, had the
        > disciples in this verse.

        Again, have you actually looked at the MSS evidence? How many exactly -- please
        give a number --of our manuscripts of GJohn which are independent of one another
        have the disciples in this verse? Please name the "some of the earliest" of the
        MSS of GJohn which have this verse.

        > 2. then, this text of Jn 6:11 was corrupted in Egypt by a later
        > ecclesiastical editor, who was trying to distance Jesus from his
        > disciples. But this corruption didn't find support elsewhere in the
        > Christian world.
        >

        That the text was "corrupted" seems to be clear. That the motive for doing so
        was an attempt to distance Jesus from the disciples is, to use your terminology,
        speculation only.

        > So what I'm saying is that there seems to be no rational reason to prefer
        > the Alexandrian version of this verse to its Western and Byzantine
        > versions.

        As opposed to an irrational reason?

        JG
        --
        Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
        1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
        Floor 1
        Chicago, Illinois 60626
        e-mail jgibson000@...
        jgibson000@...
      • Yuri Kuchinsky
        ... I m saying this interpretation is somewhat speculative because we have no way of knowing for sure what was going on in the mind of the author of this
        Message 3 of 10 , Aug 3, 2002
          On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:
          > Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
          >
          > > Thank you, Jeffrey. But I'm afraid that these explanations, while
          > > rational, are still rather weak.
          > >
          > > > who have explained (a) John's depiction of Jesus acting independently
          > > > and without the assistance of the disciples as something which was
          > > > specifically meant to recall the last supper
          > >
          > > But this is speculation only.
          >
          > Is it? Given the definition of speculation, it would be so only if
          > those who offered this explanation (which, by the way, is one Loisy
          > supports. Was he speculating?) never provided evidence for it. But
          > they do. And this is not only the fact of the similarity in wording
          > between the description of what John has Jesus do and what Jesus is is
          > said to do in Mk 14 and 1 Cor. It is also the fact that, as Barret and
          > many others have noted, the depition of Jesus as one who customarily
          > acts independently of the disciples and on his own initiative is a
          > prominent Johannine theme, found in each of the redactional levels of
          > GJohn.

          I'm saying this interpretation is somewhat speculative because we have no
          way of knowing for sure what was going on in the mind of the author of
          this Johannine passage.

          But I can easily go along with the idea that "the depiction of Jesus as
          one who customarily acts independently of the disciples" is indeed a
          prominent Johannine theme. The only question is to what extent this theme
          was present in the earliest redactional level of GJohn, if it was present
          there at all.

          > > 3. then, in the overwhelming majority of MSS, coming from the widest
          > > possible geographical area, this text of Jn 6:11 was "corrupted" by
          > > assimilation to the Synoptic accounts of the story.
          >
          > Have you actually looked at the MSS evidence for this verse?

          I've consulted the appropriate reference volumes.

          > > But I think the Occam Razor should easily simplify the above hypothesis as
          > > follows,
          > >
          > > 1. the earliest narrative, as preserved by all 3 Synoptics _and the
          > > majority of GJohn MSS, including some of the earliest ones_, had the
          > > disciples in this verse.
          >
          > Again, have you actually looked at the MSS evidence? How many exactly
          > -- please give a number --of our manuscripts of GJohn which are
          > independent of one another have the disciples in this verse?

          I don't understand this question. Which MSS of GJohn are "independent of
          one another"?

          > Please name the "some of the earliest" of the MSS of GJohn which have
          > this verse.

          The Western MSS of John are as early as any other MSS. They exist in a
          variety of languages, and are found in great many parts of the Christian
          world. But the same cannot be said about the Alexandrian MSS.

          > > 2. then, this text of Jn 6:11 was corrupted in Egypt by a later
          > > ecclesiastical editor, who was trying to distance Jesus from his
          > > disciples. But this corruption didn't find support elsewhere in the
          > > Christian world.
          >
          > That the text was "corrupted" seems to be clear. That the motive for
          > doing so was an attempt to distance Jesus from the disciples is, to
          > use your terminology, speculation only.

          So what other motive can you suggest?

          > > So what I'm saying is that there seems to be no rational reason to prefer
          > > the Alexandrian version of this verse to its Western and Byzantine
          > > versions.
          >
          > As opposed to an irrational reason?

          I meant to say that there seems to be no good reason to prefer the
          Alexandrian version of this verse to its Western and Byzantine versions.

          Yours,

          Yuri.

          Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku

          It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in nonsense than
          to put out on the troubled seas of thought -=O=- John K. Galbraith
        • Jeffrey B. Gibson
          ... This is more or less what you said when I asked you about the basis of your claim that MHTRON meant very large amphora. JG -- Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil.
          Message 4 of 10 , Aug 3, 2002
            Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

            > > Have you actually looked at the MSS evidence for this verse?
            >
            > I've consulted the appropriate reference volumes.

            This is more or less what you said when I asked you about the basis of your claim
            that MHTRON meant very large amphora.

            JG

            --
            Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
            1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
            Floor 1
            Chicago, Illinois 60626
            e-mail jgibson000@...
            jgibson000@...
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.