Re: Re: [John_Lit] Canonical Placement and John
- Professor Ramsey:
Thanks so much for that lead. (I will look this up at the GTU library soon!).
May I ask you a question? Do you suppose it was neglected because people just
were too settled in their 'canonical ways' back then (probably now as well), or
because there just isn't that big of a difference? As I remember that period,
there were a lot of things where critical scholarship was doing similar things
across the board. For instance, there is a critical edition of Ecclesiastes at
about that time (forgot who at the moment) that took out all of the 'pious
editions' and placed them in an appendix. I just wonder if the idea was ahead
of its time, rather mute at best, or something else? For me, I don't think it
would be a real big difference, but I do think having John first would leave the
reader with a somewhat different feel for what lies at the center of the
'Christological' experience, to coin a new phrase.
Subject: Re: Re: [John_Lit] Canonical Placement and John
Date: 10/10/00 1:43 PM
Ferrar Fenton, in his The Holy Bible in Modern English (1903) did what you
propose,*almost* exactly: John, 1 John, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, Romans,
etc., etc., with 2 and 3 John in their proper places just before Jude and
Revelation. This had the benevolent side effect of joining Luke with Acts.
But no one paid much attention.
SUBSCRIBE: e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org
UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail email@example.com
PROBLEMS?: e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org