Re: [textualcriticism] Re: Lange on PA
- I'm please to hear that you are doubtful that his construct is correct. I was, of course, referring to James Snapp's earlier posts when he seemed to maintain that he knew not only that the tradition regarding the authorship of the Gospel of Mark was correct, but he knew why it broke off where it did, etc. I suppose that would be a "secret Mark" if only he knew about it.george
gfsomsel… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.- Jan Hus
_________From: TeunisV <tvanlopik@...>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 7:54 AM
Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Lange on PAHerewith a link to the 2nd edition of Lange's German commentary on John's Gospel. Especially the pages 23 196.
For clearness' sake:
I praised Lange for the substantial summary of the PA's suppression theory in relation to the mss evidence.
But, I am doubtfull whether his construct is correct. E.g. in phase 4.
I am still convinced that liturgy is the cause of floating of the PA text in that phase. See also Keith's thesis, p. 127 ff.
Furthermore there are strong indications that in the 3rd/4th century liturgical use of the PA caused the introduction in John's gospel in the Latin church (and translations and D).
Some centuries later the same development occured in the Greek churches and mss.
And: yes, this is a construct too.
Teunis van Lopik
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "TeunisV" <tvanlopik@...> wrote:
> Some weeks ago I acquired J.P. Lange's NT volume of his German Bibelwerk.
> In his commentary on the Gospel of John Lange summarized extremely clear his hypothesis on the PA's suppression theory.
> I wish to refer to Shaff's translation:
> p. 270-271:
> It may be supposed that the disuse of the pas-
> sage passed through different stages.
> 1. The narrative stood in its place, but was left standing and
> passed over in the public readings, or in discus-
> sions of the question of marriage. The ascetic
> Tertullian could form a very suitable predecessor
> to Cyprian in such a step, and Origen an equally
> suitable predecessor to others.
> 2. Next, perhaps, the pericope began to undergo improve-
> ment by other readings (e. g., Cod. D, epi amartia
> instead of en moicheia), and especially abbrevia-
> 3. Some transcribers then went further,
> and transferred the pericope to the end of the
> Gospel as an appendix.
> 4. This led to the last
> stage of entire omission. But now the codices
> which had kept the pericope reacted. The pas-
> sage came to be inserted again in various places,
> either where we have it now, or after chap. vii.
> 36, or after chap. viii. 12, or, with the view of
> combining this temptation with those of the last
> passover, after Luke. xxi. In this process some
> accepted it with a mark of addition or even of
> rejection. From this twofold procedure the
> critical confusion in regard to this section re-
> Teunis van Lopik
> Leidschendam, The Netherlands