medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
From: richard landes <[log in to unmask]>
>>> 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.
it seems that such a late date would do some mischief to your own Millennial
ideas, wouldn't it?
>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.
the fact that it hasn't is interesting enough, in itself.
indicative of some sort of Milleniaphobia on the part of modren scholars,
perhaps?
>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.
goodness, where else would it *go*, if not at the *end*?
or, other way round, what else would you use to wrap the NT up?
anything else would be going out with a Whimper rather than a Bang, seems to
me.
anyway, i never even considered that the (Carolingian, say) illuminations
which i've seen were from anywhere else than a book at the end of something.
your 12th c. date (early 12th c., i suppose) corresponds quite well with the
florishing of Apocalyptic scenes in the tympana of "romanesque" portals in
France, btw.
Moissac
Souillac
Neuilly-en-Donjon
Charlieu (1st and 2nd campaigns)
St. Denis
Chartres
Etampes
LeMans
Bourges
St-Loup-de-Naud
and many others.
a damned popular theme, c. 1130-60.
>> 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.
goodness, you didn't actually *read* that page, did you?
i only included the link because of the Spiffy .jpg on it
http://www.vision.org/jrnl/0308/media/danielden.jpg
me, i'd *never* read a site like that.
you've got to be more careful what you put in your head, r. --you never know
where any of that stuff has been.
or, where it might be going.
>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.
seems to me that this question of "authenticity" needs a bit of fleshing out
and refinement of usage.
when used in the context of Daniel it doesn't really mean the same thing as it
does re the BoR, does it?
in any event, Porphyry's critique of Daniel seems remarkably "modern" in its
approach.
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
|