medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
On Dec 28, 2004, at 9:29 AM, Christopher Crockett wrote:
> medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and
> culture
>
> From: richard landes <[log in to unmask]>
>
>>>> even eusebius (who had reason to find the discrepancy since he hated
> Rev.) pointed out the vast difference btw John of Rev's greek from
> John the
> gospel writer.
>
>
> [quoting me] > > didn't know this. was E's lead followed in the M.A.?
>
>> in the east, yes. Rev is not in most greek NTs until the 12th cn.
>
> wonder why *then*?
that's a very good question that i have yet to explore. i'm just
picking 12th cn because others have made that point. i haven't seen
the mss. the whole history of Rev.'s place in the xn canon, east and
west, deserves much more attention than it's gotten.
>
>> it probably wasn't in the edition of the bible prepared by Eusebius
>> for
> Constantine. it is absent from greek liturgy, as far as i know.
>
>
> interesting.
>
> a young fellow could learn something every day, on this list, if he
> weren't
> extra careful.
such as, the early medieval copies of the bible that i've looked at at
the BNParis often do not have Rev as the last book of the bible. its
place inside the bible was fluid for quite some time.
>
> [me, again] >> i just assumed that the distinction between the two
> authors was
> a modren one.
>
>> no. the interesting thing is that bible criticism starts with someone
> who has a negative agenda -- e.g. Porphyry and the book of Daniel.
>
> i didn't realise that Porphyry did exegesis --if that's what it was.
>
> but it isn't, is it?
>
> it's "bible criticism", something rather different.
exactly
>
> awful site, but worth it for the opening .jpg :
>
> http://www.vision.org/jrnl/0308/danielden.html
interesting... and just the kind of sunday school stuff that comes from
people who want to protect the text as prophetic. of course porphyry's
attack on daniel was precisely to undermine the authenticity of daniel
as VKI complains. and i'll even grant that some modern scholarship
does the same. but to make all modern scholarship that looks at
questions of authorship and time of composition an attack on the
authenticity and a rejection of studying the content of the text
doesn't make sense to me.
r
>
> thanks, Richard.
>
> c
>
> **********************************************************************
> 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
>
**********************************************************************
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
|