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

[Synoptic-L] early version of Transfiguration?

Expand Messages
  • Yuri Kuchinsky
    Friends, I m sure for many centuries many scholars puzzled their heads about Mt 17:1-4. Indeed, why would Peter say something as odd as what he is credited
    Message 1 of 10 , Mar 10 10:25 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Friends,

      I'm sure for many centuries many scholars puzzled their heads about Mt
      17:1-4. Indeed, why would Peter say something as odd as what he is credited
      with in this passage?

      1
      After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John
      the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by
      themselves.
      2
      There he was transfigured before them. His face shone
      like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the
      light.
      3
      Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah,
      talking with Jesus.
      4
      Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be
      here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters--one for
      you, one for Moses and one for Elijah."

      Here's the Mk 9:2-8 version,

      2
      After six days Jesus took Peter, James and John with him
      and led them up a high mountain, where they were all
      alone. There he was transfigured before them.
      3
      His clothes became dazzling white, whiter than anyone in
      the world could bleach them.
      4
      And there appeared before them Elijah and Moses, who
      were talking with Jesus.
      5
      Peter said to Jesus, "Rabbi, it is good for us to be
      here. Let us put up three shelters--one for you, one for
      Moses and one for Elijah."
      6
      (He did not know what to say, they were so frightened.)

      Recently I've been perusing the Middle English Pepysian harmony, which is
      reputed to preserve some very early gospel readings, and this is what I
      discovered there in the parallel passage. This passage seems to combine
      some elements of both Mk and Mt. But it has some very important differences
      from both as well.

      PR1119.A2; Volume # 157
      The Pepysian gospel harmony / edited by Margery Goates.
      New York : Kraus Reprint, 1971, p. 57

      EjGhte dayes afterwardes Jhesus took seint Peter & seint James and seint
      John and wente hym vn to an heiGe mountayne pryuelich [privately] forto
      preyen. And therwhiles that Jesus prayed his face bicom schyneande so the
      sonne, and his clothing bicom white als the snow & right briGht. And tho
      [then?] comen Moyses and Elias and tolden hou he shoulde be pyned [suffer]
      in Jerusalem. And tho [then?] seide seint Petre to Jesu: 'Sir, it is goode
      that we duellen [remain?] here. Gif it be Goure wille, do we so, sir, thre
      dayes felle: on to Gou, anothere to Moyses, and the thridde day to Hely.'
      And thus he seide for drede, for he nuste [did not know] neurere what he
      myGth sugge.

      Most interesting part is as follows, I think,

      "And then said St. Peter to Jesus: 'Sir, it is good that we remain here. If
      it be your will, please let's stay for three days: one for you, another for
      Moses, and the third day for Elijah.' And he said this because he was
      afraid, for he did not know what to say."

      Also we are informed in this passage about what Moses and Elijah were
      reputed to have said to Jesus. Also the time period is 8 days as opposed to
      6.

      While in the canonical versions the words of Peter appear to be very odd
      (how was he going to build shelters and from what?), in the Pepysian
      version Peter's words appear to be somewhat less odd. Indeed, he liked the
      place, and wanted to stay there for three days. Seems more natural than the
      canonical version. Perhaps it is the
      earlier version of Transfiguration? What do people think?

      Middle English is not my strong point, so please correct me if I got
      something wrong in this department.

      Best regards,

      Yuri.

      Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

      Biblical history list http://www.egroups.com/group/loisy - unmoderated

      The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
      equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
    • Jeffrey B. Gibson
      ... Reputed by whom? And on what basis? Can you name one reputable scholar who asserts this?. ... appears to be ? To whom? And even if they do appear to be
      Message 2 of 10 , Mar 11 9:13 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

        > Friends,
        >
        > Recently I've been perusing the Middle English Pepysian harmony, which is
        > reputed to preserve some very early gospel readings,

        Reputed by whom? And on what basis? Can you name one reputable scholar who
        asserts this?.

        > While in the canonical versions the words of Peter appear to be very odd
        > (how was he going to build shelters and from what?), in the Pepysian
        > version Peter's words appear to be somewhat less odd.

        "appears to be"? To whom? And even if they do appear to be odd, that may mean
        nothing more than that the one who views them as such is simply not
        sufficiently culturally equipped to read or understand the text as it stands.
        To most Americans the British expression "I got really pissed in the pub last
        night" appears odd, because they assume that what is being asserted is that
        someone got angry while drinking and conclude that this is an odd way of
        stating this since it should be "pissed off". But in England. "to be pissed' is
        'to be drunk".

        > Indeed, he liked the
        > place, and wanted to stay there for three days. Seems more natural than the
        > canonical version. Perhaps it is the
        > earlier version of Transfiguration? What do people think?

        I think this is not the preservation of an early Gospel reading, but the
        attempt of a harmonizer to make sense out of a difficult reading. As text
        critics note, the more difficult reading is most likely the more original, and
        it's always more plausible to assume that someone would change a difficult
        reading to a less difficult one than that someone changes a coherent one to a
        more difficult one. In any case, since the middle english is most likely
        depended upon the Vulgate, no decision can be made until the Vulgate text is
        consulted, and a text critical judgement is made about what the particular
        Vulgate text used by the harmonizer has done with what ever Greek text stands
        as the exemplar for the translation upon which the harmony text is based.

        Yours,

        Jeffrey Gibson
        --
        Jeffrey B. Gibson
        7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
        Chicago, Illinois 60626
        e-mail jgibson000@...
      • Jeffrey B. Gibson
        One other remark on Yuri s note that ... and that its version of the Transfiguration is likely to be more original that that in the canonicals: How
        Message 3 of 10 , Mar 11 10:13 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          One other remark on Yuri's note that

          > the Middle English Pepysian harmony ... preserve[s] some very early gospel
          > readings

          and that its version of the Transfiguration is likely to be more original that
          that in the canonicals:

          How methodologically sound is it to assert that a Harmony text, especially one
          that has an apparently smoother reading of a canonical difficulty, is actually
          more original than its canonical counterpart? Given that it is the very nature
          of Harmonies to render smooth the difficulties of their individual exemplars
          AND to mitigate the contradictions that arise when these exemplars are compared
          with one another, the answer is "not at all".

          Yours,

          Jeffrey
          --
          Jeffrey B. Gibson
          7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
          Chicago, Illinois 60626
          e-mail jgibson000@...
        • Larry J. Swain
          ... Why is it odd? SKHNH is a very loaded LXX word, it is the Greek word used of the Tent or Tabernacle of the Hebrew Bible, connoting particularly with the
          Message 4 of 10 , Mar 11 12:27 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

            > Friends,
            >
            > I'm sure for many centuries many scholars puzzled their heads about Mt
            > 17:1-4. Indeed, why would Peter say something as odd as what he is credited
            > with in this passage?
            >
            > 1
            > After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John
            > the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by
            > themselves.
            > 2
            > There he was transfigured before them. His face shone
            > like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the
            > light.
            > 3
            > Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah,
            > talking with Jesus.
            > 4
            > Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be
            > here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters--one for
            > you, one for Moses and one for Elijah."
            >
            > Here's the Mk 9:2-8 version,
            >
            > 2
            > After six days Jesus took Peter, James and John with him
            > and led them up a high mountain, where they were all
            > alone. There he was transfigured before them.
            > 3
            > His clothes became dazzling white, whiter than anyone in
            > the world could bleach them.
            > 4
            > And there appeared before them Elijah and Moses, who
            > were talking with Jesus.
            > 5
            > Peter said to Jesus, "Rabbi, it is good for us to be
            > here. Let us put up three shelters--one for you, one for
            > Moses and one for Elijah."
            > 6
            > (He did not know what to say, they were so frightened.)

            Why is it odd? SKHNH is a very loaded LXX word, it is the Greek word used of
            the Tent or Tabernacle of the Hebrew Bible, connoting particularly with the
            prescence of Moses and Elijah and the Shekinah with which both men are
            described in the HB. Given that context, I don't see how this is an "odd"
            thing to say.

            > Recently I've been perusing the Middle English Pepysian harmony, which is
            > reputed to preserve some very early gospel readings, and this is what I
            > discovered there in the parallel passage. This passage seems to combine
            > some elements of both Mk and Mt. But it has some very important differences
            > from both as well.
            >

            Reputed by whom? In addition to the objections which Jeffrey Gibson has raised
            regarding textual criticism, there needs to be a solid line of argument linking
            an ME harmony as a more original source of Jesus sayings than the gospels.
            Questions such as are there ANY Greek or Latin texts of the passage which have
            the reading of 3 days rather than 3 tents? The VL perhaps? If not, then what
            about other non-canonical gospels? And if so, how did these non-canonicals get
            preserved and make it to a medieval English library to influence the harmony?
            Is the harmonizer working directly with the canonical texts? Or is the harmony
            itself a translation or copy of another harmony? If the latter, what can be
            reconstructed about the history of the harmony tradition? If not a copy or
            translation, why the different reading? Perhaps an Anglo-Saxon gospel reading
            is the source? These are just a few questions which come to mind.

            > PR1119.A2; Volume # 157
            > The Pepysian gospel harmony / edited by Margery Goates.
            > New York : Kraus Reprint, 1971, p. 57
            >
            > EjGhte dayes afterwardes Jhesus took seint Peter & seint James and seint
            > John and wente hym vn to an heiGe mountayne pryuelich [privately] forto
            > preyen. And therwhiles that Jesus prayed his face bicom schyneande so the
            > sonne, and his clothing bicom white als the snow & right briGht. And tho
            > [then?] comen Moyses and Elias and tolden hou he shoulde be pyned [suffer]
            > in Jerusalem. And tho [then?] seide seint Petre to Jesu: 'Sir, it is goode
            > that we duellen [remain?] here. Gif it be Goure wille, do we so, sir, thre
            > dayes felle: on to Gou, anothere to Moyses, and the thridde day to Hely.'
            > And thus he seide for drede, for he nuste [did not know] neurere what he
            > myGth sugge.
            >
            > Most interesting part is as follows, I think,
            >
            > "And then said St. Peter to Jesus: 'Sir, it is good that we remain here. If
            > it be your will, please let's stay for three days: one for you, another for
            > Moses, and the third day for Elijah.' And he said this because he was
            > afraid, for he did not know what to say."
            >
            > Also we are informed in this passage about what Moses and Elijah were
            > reputed to have said to Jesus. Also the time period is 8 days as opposed to
            > 6.
            >

            Some of the same questions I asked apply here as well. What accounts for the
            difference reading? Where is the source?The passage you cite doesn't tell us
            about Moses and Elijah said to Jesus specifically, although I happen to know a
            number of texts which purport to report this secret knowledge in the medieval
            period along with what the seven thunders said that John was not allowed to
            write in Revelation and other such things, but the text does take from the
            Vulgate the phrase from Luke 9 that Jesus is to suffer in Jerusalem, which is
            in the immediate of Matthew 17 anyway. So I'm not ready to jump up and say that
            because this text includes such things that it must therefore be more original,
            if I am reading the direction you're going correctly.My other question is one
            of translation: what are you doing with the "felle" after the 3 days? Seems
            you left this word out, and off the top of my head there are only 3
            possibilities, none of which I'm comfortable with here. But that's not that
            important of a point.

            > While in the canonical versions the words of Peter appear to be very odd
            > (how was he going to build shelters and from what?), in the Pepysian
            > version Peter's words appear to be somewhat less odd. Indeed, he liked the
            > place, and wanted to stay there for three days. Seems more natural than the
            > canonical version. Perhaps it is the
            > earlier version of Transfiguration? What do people think?

            Why is it odd? He's on a mountain, there's stone, there's brush, it isn't that
            far to go down and get skins or a bit of cloth and make small tents.....not
            beyond the realm of possibility at all.

            >

            To answer a couple of Jeffrey's statements: The Vulgate has tabernaculas in
            all 3 gospel accounts, and at least in the Stuttgart there are no variants
            listed. The VL is a possible source, but regrettably I don't have access to
            the edition.

            In short, I don't think there is any possiblity nor any reason for supposing
            that this is the original version of the story, or even an early one.

            Larry Swain
          • Yuri Kuchinsky
            Greetings all, In reply to the critics I would like to say that they should refer to some of my previous posts re gospel harmonies and their place in the
            Message 5 of 10 , Mar 12 8:56 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              Greetings all,

              In reply to the critics I would like to say that they should refer to some
              of my previous posts re gospel harmonies and their place in the history of
              gospel traditions. I have dealt with some of these issues already, and
              provided bibliography.

              First of all, an important principle has been established re
              Diatessaronic-type gospel harmonies by a number of scholars, such as
              Petersen, Quispel, and Boismard, viz., these harmonies often preserve
              ancient readings. (See biblio at the end.) Many examples have been cited in
              these studies, some of which I already reported to the list. While it is
              not entirely clear why this is so, yet this is so.

              Harmonies seem to be as early as separate gospels. They may be based on
              sources that precede some or all of the canonical gospels. At least some of
              these sources seem to be semitic. Latin harmonies appear to derive from
              semitic traditions directly, bypassing the Greek. These are the finding of
              various scholars, and I'm just reporting them for you now.

              Sure you can say a reading X is a later harmonization or "smoothing over",
              but if this reading is attested in six different harmonies in 6 different
              languages from six different places, then this reading is certainly not a
              late smoothing over. It may be a very early smoothing over, but this needs
              to be demonstrated rather than asserted.

              And, specifically, the Pepysian Harmony (PH) is considered as one of the
              most valuable ones, preserving the earliest traditions. This is argued also
              by a number of scholars, especially by Boismard.

              I'm not saying that my suggestion in this case is already proven to be
              valid, but I think it should to be given the benefit of the doubt.

              The comparison with Vulgate is a useful one, and here's VT text of Mt.

              http://members.xoom.com/_se/Matthew.txt

              17:1 et post dies sex adsumpsit Iesus Petrum et Iacobum et
              Iohannem fratrem eius et ducit illos in montem excelsum seorsum
              17:2 et transfiguratus est ante eos et resplenduit facies eius
              sicut sol vestimenta autem eius facta sunt alba sicut nix
              17:3 et ecce apparuit illis Moses et Helias cum eo loquentes
              17:4 respondens autem Petrus dixit ad Iesum Domine bonum est nos
              hic esse si vis faciamus hic tria tabernacula tibi unum et Mosi
              unum et Heliae unum

              Seems the same as Greek. So it doesn't help us much.

              Is "three days" instead of "three booths" just a natural smoothing over? If
              it's so natural, why it is found nowhere else?

              Is there any other place in the PH where a "smoothing over" of such a type
              is attempted? Well, this needs to be demonstrated. My assumption, based on
              what I've been able to find out about PH so far, is that it often preserves
              early readings, and this just may be one of them.

              Now, I've read in many commentaries that Peter's words are awkward and odd.
              I don't know why is there any need to dispute this? But in any case, either
              it's a "smoothing over", or the words are not awkward. Which one?

              What about the directionality? What progression seems more natural: from PH
              version to the canonical, or vice versa? Is the canonical lectio
              difficilior? Only if one assumes that the canonical editor had no special
              motive to bring down Peter's stock. But we know there's a clear
              anti-Petrine tendency in canonical gospels, especially, it seems, in later
              layers. There seems to be an effort to diminish Peter as authority. In fact
              in Lk 9:32 Peter even goes to sleep during Transfiguration! So in this
              context the canonical reading can be seen as an understandable later
              development.

              Larry is correct in pointing out that some elements of the Pepysian reading
              are attested in Lk, such as 8 days instead of 6, and reporting the contents
              of the conversation between Jesus and the two worthies. But of course what
              they said is different in PH,

              "he shoulde be pyned [suffer] in Jerusalem"

              "et dicebant excessum eius quem conpleturus erat in Hierusalem"

              "and spoke of his exodus that he was going to accomplish in Jerusalem"

              It is quite unlikely that PH should have smoothed such a detail over. It
              seems like PH has the earlier reading in this case also.

              As to the exact meaning of PH passage, all additional suggestions are
              welcome.

              Here's the Vulgate version of Lk, and it doesn't seem to diverge from the
              Greek in any significant way,

              http://members.xoom.com/_se/Luke.txt

              9:28 factum est autem post haec verba fere dies octo et
              adsumpsit Petrum et Iohannem et Iacobum et ascendit in montem
              ut oraret
              9:29 et factum est dum oraret species vultus eius altera et
              vestitus eius albus refulgens
              9:30 et ecce duo viri loquebantur cum illo erant autem Moses et
              Helias
              9:31 visi in maiestate et dicebant excessum eius quem
              conpleturus erat in Hierusalem
              9:32 Petrus vero et qui cum illo gravati erant somno et
              evigilantes viderunt maiestatem eius et duos viros qui stabant
              cum illo
              9:33 et factum est cum discederent ab illo ait Petrus ad Iesum
              praeceptor bonum est nos hic esse et faciamus tria tabernacula
              unum tibi et unum Mosi et unum Heliae nesciens quid diceret
              9:34 haec autem illo loquente facta est nubes et obumbravit eos
              et timuerunt intrantibus illis in nubem

              Best regards,

              Yuri.

              Yuri Kuchinsky |Toronto| http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

              CALL NUMBER: BR 60 .V5 v. 25
              AUTHOR: Petersen, William Lawrence, 1950-
              TITLE: Tatian's Diatessaron : its creation, dissemination,
              significance, and history in scholarship / by
              PUBLISHED: Leiden ; New York : E.J. Brill, 1994.

              CALL NUMBER: BS 2550 .T2B65
              AUTHOR: Boismard, M. E.
              TITLE: Le Diatessaron : de Tatien a Justin / par M.-E.
              Boismard ; avec la collaboration de A.
              Lamouille.
              PUBLISHED: Paris : J. Gabalda, 1992.

              CALL NUMBER: BS 2550 .T2Q57
              AUTHOR: Quispel, Gilles.
              TITLE: Tatian and the gospel of Thomas : studies in the
              history of the western Diatessaron / by G.
              PUBLISHED: Leiden : E.J. Brill, 1975.

              CALL NUMBER: BS 2555.2 .K64A52
              AUTHOR: Koester, Helmut, 1926-
              TITLE: Ancient Christian Gospels : their history and
              development / Helmut Koester. --
              PUBLISHED: Philadelphia : Trinity Press International ; London
              :
              SCM Press, 1990.

              There's a good article by Petersen included in Koester's volume that is a
              good brief introduction to the study of Diatessaron-type texts.
            • Larry J. Swain
              ... I confess that I haven t followed all the discussions as closely as perhaps I should. But, while you ve made some suggestions in this regard, it needs to
              Message 6 of 10 , Mar 12 10:19 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

                > In reply to the critics I would like to say that they should refer to some
                > of my previous posts re gospel harmonies and their place in the history of
                > gospel traditions. I have dealt with some of these issues already, and
                > provided bibliography.
                >

                I confess that I haven't followed all the discussions as closely as perhaps I
                should. But, while you've made some suggestions in this regard, it needs to be
                shown that this particular harmony stands within a textual tradition in which
                it can safely be shown that it does preserve early readings and is not
                influenced by other things. That is to say two things, really. 1) Be
                specific, does this particular text demonstrate these early features, which
                leads to b) because it is a harmony and harmonies sometimes have been shown to
                preserve some early readings it does not automatically follow that this harmony
                does, and further, that this particular reading does. Because a thing is
                possible does not make it probable or provable. So I'm asking you to be
                specific. What is the textual family of this harmony? What are its
                exemplars? And their exemplars? Is this manuscript truly based on
                "Diatesseronish" tradition? How do we know? And then you have to answer
                similar questions about this particular reading unless you've proven your case
                for the ms. so well that looking at the specifics of this reading would be just
                superfluous proof of your point.

                > First of all, an important principle has been established re
                > Diatessaronic-type gospel harmonies by a number of scholars, such as
                > Petersen, Quispel, and Boismard, viz., these harmonies often preserve
                > ancient readings. (See biblio at the end.) Many examples have been cited in
                > these studies, some of which I already reported to the list. While it is
                > not entirely clear why this is so, yet this is so.
                >

                I've read some of the bib at the end and I don't recall major arguments about
                12th century mss. They dealt with Tatian's Diatesseron and its mss. tradition,
                but I don't recall PH being mentioned, so if it is, please remind me and cite
                the passages in which PH is placed in such a textual family. Further, an
                "early" reading does not necessarily mean the earliest reading, nor does it
                necessarily follow that the ultimate source of the reading is the best-did it
                come from a text? Which one? Did it come from oral tradition? Or did some
                writer get it wrong and it passed to the scribe who hyper corrected? Or
                mistranslated? There are several possibilities.

                > Sure you can say a reading X is a later harmonization or "smoothing over",
                > but if this reading is attested in six different harmonies in 6 different
                > languages from six different places, then this reading is certainly not a
                > late smoothing over. It may be a very early smoothing over, but this needs
                > to be demonstrated rather than asserted.
                >

                Is it? And are these six different harmonies in 6 languages in 6 locales
                drawing on the same text family of harmonies or different ones? If the same,
                this observation becomes rather mute and moot.

                > And, specifically, the Pepysian Harmony (PH) is considered as one of the
                > most valuable ones, preserving the earliest traditions. This is argued also
                > by a number of scholars, especially by Boismard.
                >

                Why? Simply because a particular scholar says thus and so does not make it
                thus and so (I'm sure most of us on this list wished that it were otherwise,
                makes the job so much easier!). So why does the PH preserve the earliest
                traditions? What is it translated from? Etc.......

                >

                You still have the problem of deciding just where the earliest reading comes
                from--for example days vs. tabernacles. Seems a major change, does it make
                better sense in the context of the passage? Did some scribe use a word that
                sounded like the word tabernacle but was taken as "day"? Eye skip?

                > Is "three days" instead of "three booths" just a natural smoothing over? If
                > it's so natural, why it is found nowhere else?
                >

                I believe that Jeffrey was invoking text critical principles: the more
                difficult reading is preferred and the fact that harmonies tend to smooth over
                differences in the texts they harmonize. So if the scribe or harmonizer found
                3 tents odd (since there is really only one tent, right?) he provides a simpler
                reading, 3 people, 3 days. Why is that not possible? As for why it doesn't
                occur elsewhere: 1) are you sure? No other harmony has that reading, only PH?
                2) you forget how books are made, even in copying the same text each ms. is a
                unique piece of work and can and does include material that no other ms. has.

                > Now, I've read in many commentaries that Peter's words are awkward and odd.
                > I don't know why is there any need to dispute this? But in any case, either
                > it's a "smoothing over", or the words are not awkward. Which one?

                By whom? And what does this mean? Again, because X said it doesn't mean that
                Y should believe it, or that it is fact. It sounds perfectly natural to my ear
                the way it is, the 2 greatest prophets who are described in the Hebrew Bible as
                having the Shekinah shine out from them physically talk to Jesus who is
                similarly radiating "weight of Glory" and Peter starts talking about SKHNH
                evoking either the Tabernacle with which the NT writers liked to draw on, or
                the Feast of Tabernacles, or perhaps even both. To me, Peter's words don't
                sound odd at all. Obviously they do to others. The question is how did they
                sound to the people who heard them or read them in the first and second
                centuries, did they sound all that odd and were they misunderstood?

                > What about the directionality? What progression seems more natural: from PH
                > version to the canonical, or vice versa? Is the canonical lectio
                > difficilior? Only if one assumes that the canonical editor had no special
                > motive to bring down Peter's stock.

                I don't see where this follows.

                > Larry is correct in pointing out that some elements of the Pepysian reading
                > are attested in Lk, such as 8 days instead of 6, and reporting the contents
                > of the conversation between Jesus and the two worthies. But of course what
                > they said is different in PH,
                >
                > "he shoulde be pyned [suffer] in Jerusalem"
                >
                > "et dicebant excessum eius quem conpleturus erat in Hierusalem"
                >
                > "and spoke of his exodus that he was going to accomplish in Jerusalem"
                >
                > It is quite unlikely that PH should have smoothed such a detail over. It
                > seems like PH has the earlier reading in this case also.
                >

                I'm going to quibble a bit about your use of the language here. Let's start
                with the Latin. excessus is a fairly common word used to describe someone's
                death, a fourth declension noun here in the accusative. I don't see any reason
                to take it any other way. conpleturus for completurus from compleo means to
                fulfill, complete, finish. So the phrase reads "and they spoke (of) his death
                which he was about to fulfill in Jerusalem." Turning for a moment to "pyned";
                it comes from Latin poena (penalty, punishment) into Old English as pin,
                suffering, torment, and into ME as pin, pyne, paine, etc with the same
                meanings. Here it is a verb form, the form of be in this case being the
                passive voice marker, the should here obviously attempting to get across the
                flavor of Future Active Periphrastic conpleturus erat rather than an English
                subjunctive, at least that's my take. "he should be tormented in Jerusalem".
                When it gets right down to it, I'm not sure that these two readings, different
                in words, are really different in intent or meaning.

                Best,
                Larry Swain
              • Yuri Kuchinsky
                Greetings, This is in reply to some of the questions asked by Larry Swain. Yes, the Pepysian Harmony does demonstrate many early features, as argued e.g. by
                Message 7 of 10 , Mar 13 11:17 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Greetings,

                  This is in reply to some of the questions asked by Larry Swain.

                  Yes, the Pepysian Harmony does demonstrate many early features, as argued
                  e.g. by both Petersen and Boismard.

                  As to the textual family of this harmony, it is quite a unique text. It's
                  dated paleographically to ca 1400. Only one copy of it exists. It is
                  believed to have been translated from the French, but this is not certain.
                  No such French text is known to exist.

                  Boismard has identified a number of parallels between PH and certain
                  pre-Diatesaronic harmonistic texts such as that mysterious harmony used by
                  Justin.

                  Very little scholarship on PH has been done. Until recently this text has
                  been mostly neglected by textual scholars. In fact the ms had been
                  erroneously catalogued and its unusual contents were first discovered by a
                  researcher in Cambridge only in 1902.

                  Best regards,

                  Yuri.

                  Yuri Kuchinsky |Toronto| http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm
                • L. J. Swain
                  ... At this point I m not even disagreeing with your suggestion so much as trying to get you to do some of the basic groundwork. Ok, Petersen and Boismard
                  Message 8 of 10 , Mar 13 3:10 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

                    > This is in reply to some of the questions asked by Larry Swain.
                    >
                    > Yes, the Pepysian Harmony does demonstrate many early features, as argued
                    > e.g. by both Petersen and Boismard.
                    >

                    At this point I'm not even disagreeing with your suggestion so much as trying
                    to get you to do some of the basic groundwork. Ok, Petersen and Boismard have
                    argued that PH demonstrates many early features. What are those features?
                    How important are they? Where did they come from--that is, did they come from
                    the source of this manuscript, or from some other source? How did you
                    determine this? Did Petersen and Boismard do their homework? Did they
                    overlook something? Or put too much weight on something? And then one must
                    needs move beyond discussing the manuscript to discussing this saying: is it
                    likely to have been a preservation from a very early reading? Why? Why not?
                    How do you answer the negatives?

                    >
                    > As to the textual family of this harmony, it is quite a unique text. It's
                    > dated paleographically to ca 1400. Only one copy of it exists. It is
                    > believed to have been translated from the French, but this is not certain.
                    > No such French text is known to exist.
                    >

                    So a unique text, that doesn't show any real attachment to any known text
                    family of a harmony shows up about 1400 and purportedly has more original
                    material than manuscripts that are very early? Possible, its been known to
                    happen, but just on the surface it does stretch credulity without supporting
                    argumentation. So even if no French exemplar exists can it be traced a step
                    further back to a Latin source?

                    >
                    > Boismard has identified a number of parallels between PH and certain
                    > pre-Diatesaronic harmonistic texts such as that mysterious harmony used by
                    > Justin.
                    >

                    Which pre-Diastersaronic texts? Could the parallels with Justin actually have
                    Justin as the source? Why not? Some other intermediate source?

                    >
                    > Very little scholarship on PH has been done. Until recently this text has
                    > been mostly neglected by textual scholars. In fact the ms had been
                    > erroneously catalogued and its unusual contents were first discovered by a
                    > researcher in Cambridge only in 1902.
                    >

                    Not the first time this has happened to a manuscript. Ok, so the field is
                    wide open on this one, or close to it anyway. Sounds like a lot of ground
                    work yet needs to be done before drawing conclusions that the manuscript
                    contains original material or better readings than other manuscripts.

                    Larry Swain
                    Old English Newsletter
                    Medieval Institute, Western Michigan University
                    1201 Oliver St.
                    Kalamazoo, MI 49006
                    (616) 387-8832
                    x99swain@...
                  • Yuri Kuchinsky
                    ... argued ... trying ... have ... features? ... Great many early readings, Larry. Possibly pre-canonic. ... Some early source. ... I think they ve done a
                    Message 9 of 10 , Mar 15 10:00 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      ----------
                      > From: L. J. Swain <x99swain@...>
                      > To: yuku@...
                      > Cc: Synoptic-L@...; Loisy List <loisy@egroups.com>
                      > Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] early version of Transfiguration?
                      > Date: Monday, March 13, 2000 6:10 PM
                      >
                      > Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
                      >
                      > > This is in reply to some of the questions asked by Larry Swain.
                      > >
                      > > Yes, the Pepysian Harmony does demonstrate many early features, as
                      argued
                      > > e.g. by both Petersen and Boismard.
                      > >
                      >
                      > At this point I'm not even disagreeing with your suggestion so much as
                      trying
                      > to get you to do some of the basic groundwork. Ok, Petersen and Boismard
                      have
                      > argued that PH demonstrates many early features. What are those
                      features?
                      > How important are they?

                      Great many early readings, Larry. Possibly pre-canonic.

                      > Where did they come from--that is, did they come from
                      > the source of this manuscript, or from some other source?

                      Some early source.

                      > How did you
                      > determine this? Did Petersen and Boismard do their homework? Did they
                      > overlook something? Or put too much weight on something?

                      I think they've done a competent job.

                      > And then one must
                      > needs move beyond discussing the manuscript to discussing this saying:
                      is it
                      > likely to have been a preservation from a very early reading? Why? Why
                      not?
                      > How do you answer the negatives?

                      The saying has an early feeling about it. Of course to demonsrate that it's
                      early, more work needs to be done, such as comparing the passage with other
                      early harmonies of which there are many.

                      > > As to the textual family of this harmony, it is quite a unique text.
                      It's
                      > > dated paleographically to ca 1400. Only one copy of it exists. It is
                      > > believed to have been translated from the French, but this is not
                      certain.
                      > > No such French text is known to exist.
                      >
                      > So a unique text, that doesn't show any real attachment to any known text
                      > family of a harmony

                      Incorrect, Larry. It shows an affinity with Justin's harmony.

                      > shows up about 1400 and purportedly has more original
                      > material than manuscripts that are very early?

                      That's what Petersen and Boismard argue.

                      > Possible, its been known to
                      > happen, but just on the surface it does stretch credulity without
                      supporting
                      > argumentation.

                      They provide abundant argumentation.

                      > So even if no French exemplar exists can it be traced a step
                      > further back to a Latin source?

                      Most likely a Latin source stands behind it. But, as I say, PH shows clear
                      affinities with Justin's harmony and some other primitive harmonies, such
                      as Liege and Venetian. See Boismard, p. 66.

                      > > Boismard has identified a number of parallels between PH and certain
                      > > pre-Diatesaronic harmonistic texts such as that mysterious harmony used
                      by
                      > > Justin.
                      >
                      > Which pre-Diastersaronic texts? Could the parallels with Justin actually
                      have
                      > Justin as the source? Why not? Some other intermediate source?

                      As Tatian was a student of Justin, Justin's harmony most likely provided
                      the basis for Tatian's Diatessaron.

                      > > Very little scholarship on PH has been done. Until recently this text
                      has
                      > > been mostly neglected by textual scholars. In fact the ms had been
                      > > erroneously catalogued and its unusual contents were first discovered
                      by a
                      > > researcher in Cambridge only in 1902.
                      >
                      > Not the first time this has happened to a manuscript. Ok, so the field
                      is
                      > wide open on this one, or close to it anyway. Sounds like a lot of
                      ground
                      > work yet needs to be done before drawing conclusions that the manuscript
                      > contains original material or better readings than other manuscripts.

                      A lot of work has already been done, but a lot more also needs to be done.

                      Regards,

                      Yuri Kuchinsky | Toronto | http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

                      Biblical history list http://www.egroups.com/group/loisy - unmoderated

                      The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
                      equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
                    • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                      ... Um, pardon my ignorance, but do we actually **have** Justin s Harmony? And if we don t, how can the claim be made that the Harmony you speak of has an
                      Message 10 of 10 , Mar 15 11:51 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

                        > > So a unique text, that doesn't show any real attachment to any known text
                        > > family of a harmony
                        >
                        > Incorrect, Larry. It shows an affinity with Justin's harmony.
                        >

                        Um, pardon my ignorance, but do we actually **have** Justin's Harmony? And if
                        we don't, how can the claim be made that the Harmony you speak of has an
                        affinity with it?

                        > > shows up about 1400 and purportedly has more original
                        > > material than manuscripts that are very early?
                        >
                        > That's what Petersen and Boismard argue.
                        >

                        I'd like to check this. May we have a citation from their works where they
                        argue this, please?

                        JG
                        --
                        Jeffrey B. Gibson
                        7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
                        Chicago, Illinois 60626
                        e-mail jgibson000@...
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.