medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
>>>> 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
> ideas, wouldn't it?
why do you say this. i'm curious. i get it a lot.
Rev. never leaves the latin NT. that's probably one of the reasons
there's so much more millennialism in the west.
>> 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,
well, thesis advisors do tend to discourage millennial research, and
there are hundreds of theses on the fine details of biblical philology
and rhetoric, a scholarly energy that might have been, at least in
part, better directed.
as you may know, i think there's a lot of uncs augustinisme
historiographique in the profession. but i wdn't read too much into
this case. there's far more bizarre lacunae in our historiography than
>> the early medieval copies of the bible that i've looked at at the
> often do not have Rev as the last book of the bible. its place inside
> 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?
good questions. suggesting that in order to place it elsewhere took
effort (or indifference). one working hypothesis is that putting it in
the middle of other letters was a way of domesticating it, much like
putting paul's real letters btw his biography (acts) and pseudo-pauline
letters domesticated paul.
> anything else would be going out with a Whimper rather than a Bang,
> seems to
and, i think, to many back then as well.
> anyway, i never even considered that the (Carolingian, say)
> which i've seen were from anywhere else than a book at the end of
it's at the end of alcuin's bible.
> your 12th c. date
that's for greek bibles. i'd love to hear from byzantinists what the
details of this alleged 12th reintroduction into the canon consisted
of, or what the cultural climate in which it occurred.
> (early 12th c., i suppose) corresponds quite well with the
> florishing of Apocalyptic scenes in the tympana of "romanesque"
> portals in
> France, btw.
> Charlieu (1st and 2nd campaigns)
> St. Denis
> and many others.
> a damned popular theme, c. 1130-60.
and well before and well after. imnsho, one of the great drivers of
the medieval imagination. for eight scintillating pages on this, see
le goff's presentation of millennialism in his big volume on the middle
>> 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?
sure. and many more.
> i only included the link because of the Spiffy .jpg on it
> me, i'd *never* read a site like that.
that's a view onto a forming millennial imagination, now in turmoil.
it happened at the turn of the first millennium, we just have no texts
to tell us about it. it's happening now and we can read it on the www.
> 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.
we might have some impact on where it goes if we understand it.
otherwise, when it breaches public discourse, we are unprepared.
>> 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
> 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.
anyone have a definition for authenticity?
> when used in the context of Daniel it doesn't really mean the same
> thing as it
> does re the BoR, does it?
not identical. but there's no question that arguing john the
evangelist isn't the author had a huge impact on the text's legitimacy.
before that rev. remained in because it was by the evangelist, to the
point that in the second cn (wake of Montanism) there were 2nd cn
churchmen ready to jettison the fourth gospel (!) just to get rid of
revelation (alogi). so eusebius cd banish it and keep the gospel. a
wide variety of very serious xns dislike this text intensely.
> in any event, Porphyry's critique of Daniel seems remarkably "modern"
> in its approach.
absolutely. as tony grafton shows in the footnote, the whole scholarly
apparatus appears first in the form of footnotes. in this sense,
eusebius is one of the great source historians driven by polemic
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: