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

Re: [Fwd: [Synoptic-L] more about the Anointing pericope]

Expand Messages
  • l. j. swain
    ... There are a couple of questions I would ask before making such a definitive declaration as you do below. How do you account for the erasure of hym at
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 6, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
      >
      > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      >> But now I'm pleased to report that, in the course of researching different
      > versions of the Diatessaron, I have recently found even more textual
      > substantiation for the above ideas.
      >
      > First of all, in my previous analysis I had overlooked an additional
      > important item of evidence from PG, itself, that the story as presented by
      > PG is actually more logical and coherent. This is the question of Jesus,
      >
      > Lk 7.42 "When they could not pay, he forgave them both. Now which of them
      > will love him more?"
      >
      > Thus, in the canonical version this question is preserved as follows,
      >
      > "which of them will love him more?"
      >
      > But PG preserves this question in a different sense,
      >
      > "Whether loued he most?" (p. 32. line 30), i.e. "Which of them he loved
      > most?"
      >
      There are a couple of questions I would ask before making such a
      definitive declaration as you do below.

      How do you account for the erasure of "hym" at this point in the
      manuscript and the "he" written above the line? Do you think this the
      same hand as the rest of the manuscript or a later hand, and if later,
      how much later? Do you think this could be a use of "he" in the
      objective case, not unknown in southern dialects of Middle English? Is
      it possible that the letter "m" was left off because of confusion with
      the following word, "most", since this manuscript doesn't have a lot of
      word seperation and this particular line is a bit tight with little
      space between letters? Just my view of course, but it seems to me some
      good palaeography is in order just to determine what it is the PGH does
      say before we go off and declare this reading "early"....but that's a
      methodological question for another time and place.
      he way this question is formulated in PG is clearly co-ordinated

      > with PG's conclusion of the story, and the whole story is then rather
      > coherent in PG. So then in the canonical Lk, both the question and the
      > conclusion would have been changed in a co-ordinated way.
      >
      So you think that the material from Christian legend and the title
      "conuerted the Maudeleyne" fit with this reading and indicate it as
      early?

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