Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 1999 :: November ::
Re: Apocrypha
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 10.1899  Friday, 5 November 1999.

[1]     From:   David Evett <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 04 Nov 1999 12:39:22 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.1891 Re: Apocrypha

[2]     From:   Mike Jensen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 04 Nov 1999 10:21:06 -0800
        Subj:   SHK 10.1891 Re: Apocrypha

[3]     From:   Robin Hamilton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 4 Nov 1999 20:53:04 -0000
        Subj:   Not Shakespeare and the Apochypha ....


[4]      From:  Marti Markus <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Fri, 05 Nov 1999 01:14:36 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 10.1891 Re: Apoc


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           David Evett <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 04 Nov 1999 12:39:22 -0500
Subject: 10.1891 Re: Apocrypha
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.1891 Re: Apocrypha

From Stephen L. Harris, Understanding the Bible (4th ed., Mayfield
Publishing 1997), 483-84, the following sources for texts of
non-canonical early Christian writings: Cameron, Ron, ed., The Other
Gospels (Westminster, 1982); Miller, Robert J., ed., The Complete
Gospels (Polebridge Press, 1992); Musurillo, Herbert A., *The Fathers of
the Primitive Church* (NAL, 1966); Schneelmacher, Wilhelm, ed., *New
Testament Apocrypha* (2 vols., Westminster, 1992); Staniforth, Maxwell,
*Early Christian Writings* (Penguin, 1987).  I'd look at Schneelmacher
for info. on MSS and early editions and translations.

David Evett

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike Jensen <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 04 Nov 1999 10:21:06 -0800
Subject: Re: Apocrypha
Comment:        SHK 10.1891 Re: Apocrypha

Sorry if I am being pedantic, a continuing fault, but I have a slight
correction to David Evett's  generalization:

>Because the apocryphal gospels and other early Christian
>texts raise doctrinal questions in ways the OT material
>does not, they were precisely not made part of the
>vernacular Bibles,

This is true for many texts, especially the Gnostic texts and
pseudepigrapha - probably the majority of extra-New Testamental texts,
but is not true for all.

The New Testament canon was not really set until the 4th century when a
bloke named Athenasius, bishop of Alexandria, wrote an Easter letter
listing the books that would soon be accepted as scripture.  Things
began to concertize after that.  Prior to the letter, different
Christian communities has slightly different sets of holy books, though
there was a lot of overlap.  Some of these made the final cut, others
did not.  My point is that until Athenasius' letter, several that did
not make the cut were held as highly as those that did.  If you really
want to know what people were thinking in Palestine back then, you need
to get beyond the New Testament and read it all.  The New Testament
tells just a tiny part of the story.

This idea is discounted amongst Fundamentalists and Evangelicals, but
most scholars are confident that several of the letters ascribed to Paul
are really pseudepigrapha, and even suspect that the Gospel of John is
really a Gnostic text.  I don't have a  point in mentioning that really,
but I do find that interesting.

All the best,
Mike Jensen

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Robin Hamilton <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 4 Nov 1999 20:53:04 -0000
Subject:        Not Shakespeare and the Apochypha ....

... not Shakespeare but perhaps tangentially relevant to this thread is
the play by the Scottish dramatist, James Bridie, +Tobias and the Angel+
(1930), based on the Book of Tobit, which, inter alia, demonstrates
several useful things which may be done with a fish.  Somewhat like the
considerations recently raised on the List that the most useful
employment of a copy of the Folio is to handbag a mugger.

Also by the same author, +Susannah and the Elders+ (1937).

Robin Hamilton

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Marti Markus <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Fri, 05 Nov 1999 01:14:36 +0100
Subject: 10.1891 Re: Apocrypha
Comment:        Re: SHK 10.1891 Re: Apocrypha

How does one spell "Gozpel"?

MM
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.