FW: [textualcriticism] Re: Accountability and the End of Mark
On the contrary – many of the scholars doing serious work on Apostolic Tradition are liturgists. They’re not focusing on Synoptic textual criticism at all. If you’re interested read Bradshaw et. al’s commentary (and for an alternative Stewart-Sykes work) and the debate between them in St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 48.2 (2004).
In other words....just selectively through out the part of his writings we don't like because it disagrees with the conclusion that Mark's ending is not original? Where the evidence that chapater 36 is not part of the original?
----- Original Message -----
From: Jacob Knee
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 8:03 PM
Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] Re: Accountability and the End of Mark
Isn't the attribution of the Apostolic Tradition to Hippolytus (and hence
its dating) possibly spurious (eg see Bradshaw et. al. commentary in the
Hermeneia series) Even if the attribution to Hippolytus is accepted chapter
36 (from which the quote below comes) may not be part of the original.
[mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of James Snapp, Jr.
Sent: 13 January 2007 22:42
Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Accountability and the End of Mark
PMH: "Is there no direct third-century evidence for Mark 16.9-20?"
The testimony of Hippolytus was dismissed by Hort; apparently Hort
thought that some composition attributed to Hippolytus actually came
from some other source. Let's take a look. In Treatise on Christ
and Antichrist, part 46, Hippolytus refers to how Christ "was
received into the heavens, and was set down on the right hand of God
the Father." That's a pretty long parallel with Mark 16:19, but it
could feasibly be based on a creedal formula. Let's have a look at
Apostolic Tradition 32:1 -- "Let every one of the believers be sure
to partake of communion before he eats anything else. For if he
partakes with faith, even if something deadly were given to him,
after this it cannot hurt him." This looks like the sort of thing
one could say only by filtering First Corinthians 11:27 through Mark
16:18. Kelhoffer seemed quite convinced (in "Miracle and Mission")
by this statement that Hippolytus knew the Long Ending. In "The Four
Gospels," Streeter wrote (p. 336), "Hippolytus himself used a text of
Mark which contained the last twelve verses and understands the
epithet (KOLOBODAKTULOS) of its author" but he doesn't justify this
with a quotation, and might have just been expressing a deduction
that Hippolytus used the same text that Irenaeus used.