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

FW: [textualcriticism] Re: Accountability and the End of Mark

Expand Messages
  • Jacob Knee
    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
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 16, 2007
    • 0 Attachment

       

      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).

       

      Best wishes,

      Jacob

       

      From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jovial
      Sent: 16 January 2007 12:28
      To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Accountability and the End of Mark

       

      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?

       

      Joe

       

       

      ----- 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.

      Best wishes,
      Jacob Knee

      -----Original Message-----
      From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
      [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of James Snapp, Jr.
      Sent: 13 January 2007 22:42
      To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Accountability and the End of Mark

      Peter,

      PMH: "Is there no direct third-century evidence for Mark 16.9-20?"

      [snip]

      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.

      [snip]

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.