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

Fw: [Synoptic-L] The codex and readings in parallel

Expand Messages
  • John C. Poirier
    [Here s a copy of the response I sent to Bruce s interesting email.] Thanks for this, Bruce. (Your message didn t go to the whole group, so I m just
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 6, 2006
      [Here's a copy of the response I sent to Bruce's interesting email.]

      Thanks for this, Bruce. (Your message didn't go to the whole group, so I'm
      just responding to your email address.)

      You write that "[t]he parallel but divergent passages seem to be more a
      hindrance than a help to the modern faithful, and the same difficulty seems
      to have been felt in the early Church also, hence the idea of getting rid of
      all but one of them (Marcion) or weaving all of them into a consistent
      single narrative (Tatian). I can't see setting up the medium so as to invite
      the kind of problem that at least some early folk are laboring to solve."

      I wonder how much this would have been the case: when modern fundamentalists
      read the gospels in parallel, they pretty much don't even notice the
      inconsistencies. Their brains trick them into thinking that the
      inconsistencies are really matters of added depth that serve to reward those
      who go to the trouble of reading in parallel. I think many early Christians
      (other than Origen and others like him) would have read the texts in just
      the same way. Those who responded to the charges of inconsistency probably
      would not have felt the need to do so had the gospels not been attacked from
      outside the church.

      John

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "E Bruce Brooks" <ebbrooks@...>
      To: "John C. Poirier" <poirier@...>
      Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 12:33 PM
      Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] The codex and readings in parallel


      > To: Synoptic-L
      > Cc: GPG
      > In Response To: John Poirier
      > On: Christian Codex
      > From: Bruce
      >
      > JOHN: [Skeat] passes up an obvious advantage of the codex in connection
      > with that canon: the codex would have allowed an easier time (than a
      > scroll)
      > with reading individual pericopes in parallel.
      >
      > BRUCE: That seems to assume that the putters-together of *each single*
      > codex
      > were looking to the convenience of those who would read *more than one*
      > codex. Who would have done this? Text critics, to be sure, and perhaps
      > even
      > the late Evangelists, but how large a market was that? The parallel but
      > divergent passages seem to be more a hindrance than a help to the modern
      > faithful, and the same difficulty seems to have been felt in the early
      > Church also, hence the idea of getting rid of all but one of them
      > (Marcion)
      > or weaving all of them into a consistent single narrative (Tatian). I
      > can't
      > see setting up the medium so as to invite the kind of problem that at
      > least
      > some early folk are laboring to solve.
      >
      > Does it not suffice to say that "the codex would have allowed an easier
      > time
      > with reading individual pericopes?" Unless we assume that, eg, gMk was
      > read
      > entire each time it was read at all, that consideration would have applied
      > to any preacher or any private reader. It does not require an
      > intercongregational scenario. It does not even require a
      > single-congregation
      > lectionary scenario, though if gMk, say, was held in esteem by its
      > earliest
      > audience, I can imagine having it read through, a pericope at a time, over
      > the course of a suitable interval of time.
      >
      > I can share my previous figures on how long a given pericope would take to
      > read, if desired.
      >
      > Bruce
      >
      > E Bruce Brooks
      > Warring States Project
      > University of Massachusetts at Amherst
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.