The Earliest Readers of the Gospel according to Mark

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew D. C. Larsen
Keyword(s):  
Textual Tradition ◽  
Clement Of Alexandria

How did the earliest readers of the text we now call the Gospel according to Mark treat it? Chapter 5 analyzes the evidence of the earliest readers and argues that they regarded it not as a book published by an author but as unfinished notes (hypomnēmata). The Gospel according to Mark was regarded as textualized but not as a published book. The chapter looks at the preface to the Gospel according of Luke, as well as comments by Papias, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Eusebius. These writers use the Greek terms hypomnēmata or apomnēmoneumata to describe the textual tradition we now call the Gospel according to Mark. Moreover, they describe its production and textuality in terms similar to those explored in chapters 2 and 3.

Clement of Alexandria

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. B. Tollinton
Keyword(s):  
Clement Of Alexandria

The textual tradition of John of Salisbury's Metalogicon

1988 ◽  
Vol 16 (1986) ◽  
pp. 229-282
Author(s):  
Katharine Stephanie Benedicta Keats-Rohan
Keyword(s):  
Textual Tradition

Gospels before the Book

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew D. C. Larsen
Keyword(s):  
Fluid Collection ◽  
Printing Press ◽  
Methodological Framework ◽  
Reading Practices ◽  
Early Christian ◽  
Textual Tradition ◽  
Textual Culture ◽  
Early Christian Studies ◽  
The Way

What does it mean to read the gospels “before the book”? For centuries, the way people have talked about the gospels has been shaped by ideas that have more to do with the printing press and modern notions of the author than they do with ancient writing and reading practices. Gospels Before the Book challenges several subtle yet problematic assumptions about authors, books, and publication at work in early Christian studies. The author explores a host of underappreciated elements of ancient textual culture, such as unfinished texts, accidental publication, postpublication revision, and multiple authorized versions of the same work. Turning to the gospels, he argues the earliest readers and users of the text we now call the Gospel according to Mark treated it not as a book published by an author but as an unfinished, open, and fluid collection of notes (hypomnēmata). The Gospel according to Matthew, then, would not be regarded as a separate book published by a different author but, rather, as a continuation of the same unfinished gospel tradition. Similarly, it is not the case that, of the five different endings in the textual tradition, one is “right” and the others are “wrong.” Rather, each ending represents its own effort to fill in what some perceived to be lacking in the Gospel according to Mark. The text of the Gospel according to Mark is better understood when approached as unfinished notes than as a book published by an author. Larsen also offers a new methodological framework for future scholarship on early Christian gospels.

Conclusion

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Otto
Keyword(s):  
Early Christian ◽  
Hebrew Scriptures ◽  
Clement Of Alexandria ◽  
Christian Literature

As an allegorical interpreter who perceived some of the spiritual teachings embedded in the Hebrew scriptures, Philo did not match the image of the stereotypical Jew constructed by Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Eusebius. Neither, however, did he fulfill their criteria to be considered a legitimate Christian. This chapter argues that Philo functions in early Christian writings as neither a Christian nor a Jew but is situated in between these two increasingly differentiated identities. Acting as a third term in the equation, Philo the “Pythagorean,” the “predecessor,” and the “Hebrew,” mediates between the categories of Christian and Jew while ensuring that the two identities remain rhetorically and conceptually distinct. An epilogue briefly traces the varying depictions of Philo in later Christian literature, including accounts of his baptism by the apostle John and his transformation into Philo Judaeus, Philo the Jew.

Who Is the Text? The Gendered and Racialized New Testament

2019 ◽  
pp. 135-155
Author(s):  
Yii-Jan Lin
Keyword(s):  
New Testament ◽  
Textual Criticism ◽  
The Other ◽  
Creative Power ◽  
Clement Of Alexandria ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
The New Testament

This chapter contends that the study of gender, sexuality, and the New Testament is not limited to the content of texts or their historical contexts. On the contrary, how we formulate a textual entity and how we approach that entity contribute to the dynamics that constitute identity, and are thus important to the discussion. In the case of the New Testament, Western Christianity has understood the active Word, or Logos, of God as “masculine” in its creative power. The text of the New Testament, on the other hand, requires historical and philological study, and is decidedly “feminine” in its vulnerability to disease and adulteration, especially in the field of textual criticism. Disrupting metaphors and conceptions of text and speech, masculine and feminine, can be found in ancient Judaism’s formulation of the Written and Oral Torah, as well as in Clement of Alexandria, the Odes of Solomon, and in Plato.

Style et idéologie. De la version longue à la version brève de la Vie de Jean l’Aumônier, due à Léonce de Néapolis

2020 ◽  
Vol 113 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-34
Author(s):  
Pablo Cavallero
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Change ◽  
Social Hierarchy ◽  
Short Version ◽  
Original Text ◽  
Textual Tradition ◽  
The Social ◽  
Literary Character

Abstract The changes in the short version of Leontios of Neapolis’ Life of John the Almsgiver are analyzed in order to evaluate their cause and to expose their literary character. It is shown that the saint’s oaths are suppressed due to a misunderstanding of a passage in the Prologue, and by respect of the Evangelical commandment. The short version also eliminates pagan concepts of fortune, emphasises the social hierarchy, the accordance between words and thoughts, the action of God as a cause of miracles, and avoids to name God as a reason. The short version raises the stylistical level of the text using the methods of the Metaphrast which is common in the 10th century. The textual tradition also allows to date it into this century. The long version is surely the original text, and the changes made to it show a cultural change between the 7th and 10th centuries.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document