 |
 |
medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 15:43:22 -0400, Frank Morgret wrote: >medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture >George R. Hoelzeman wrote: >> Why does John even mention the cloths? >If one accepts the traditional interpretation of "mathetev hon ephilei >ho jesous" = "the disciple whom Jesus loved" as being John himself >then John would be writing from his own experience. The apparent >neatness of the arrangement of the cloths may have struck John. >After all, if we're dealing here with your typical Burke and Hare types, >they would tend not to be so fussy. Except it seems the original language does not imply "neatly folded." From what I'm gathering from several sources, the "neatly folded" translation is a result of the words used in Latin (specifically, the Vulgate) which eventually made its way into the English. It wouldn't be the first time, however, that a theology was built on a mistranslation or misinterpretation of a word - consider Moses' horns or Melito of Sardis' misinterpretation of Pesach. > >> In a related vein, how reliable is the description of the burial cloths in the Gospel of John? >> >Any seminary library worthy of the name will contain approximately 12 >metres of books dealing inconclusively with this question. >Until the late 18th century, the description was considered reliable >because it was considered an eye-witness account. More >recent accounts, e.g. "The DaVinci Code", come to different >conclusions. You pays yer money and you takes yer cherse. >Frank Well, obviously, although equally obvious not all re-evaluations of the original perspective on the Gospels is a farce like Da Vinci Code. Regardless of the Gospel (and I would include the various gnostic and other writings here) the focus of the writers was more oriented to theology/instruction/justification of tradition than historical accuracy. As the Synoptics seem to suggest, the recollections about Jesus could be adapted to suit the writer's intent. Which brings me sort of back to the question of the Johannine tradition: what was the point of refering to the wrappings at all? The idea of suggestion divine involvement (which would include the attempt to negate theft) seems most plausible, although without being able to ask the writer, its going to be hard to be sure. George (am wenigsten) ********************************************************************** To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME to: [log in to unmask] To send a message to the list, address it to: [log in to unmask] To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion to: [log in to unmask] In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to: [log in to unmask] For further information, visit our web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html