Not the Prologue of John

This article considers the history of the transmission of the opening verses of the Fourth Gospel and the ways in which the text was divided or not divided into segments by commentators (e.g. Ptolemy, Heracleon, Irenaeus, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Augustine, Cyril, Philoxenus), liturgical systems and the...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:  
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Williams, Peter J. 1970- (Autor)
Tipo de documento: Electrónico Artículo
Lenguaje:Inglés
Verificar disponibilidad: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Gargar...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Publicado: Sage 2011
En: Journal for the study of the New Testament
Año: 2011, Volumen: 33, Número: 4, Páginas: 375-386
Otras palabras clave:B John 1.1-18
B Prologue
B unit divisions
B Manuscripts
Acceso en línea: Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Parallel Edition:No electrónico
Descripción
Sumario:This article considers the history of the transmission of the opening verses of the Fourth Gospel and the ways in which the text was divided or not divided into segments by commentators (e.g. Ptolemy, Heracleon, Irenaeus, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Augustine, Cyril, Philoxenus), liturgical systems and the scribes of early manuscripts (e.g. Arabic, Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopic, Georgian, Greek, Latin, Syriac). There is then investigation of the division of the text in the period of print from 1495 (the first printing of Jn 1.1-14) to the present. It is found that systems that regarded Jn 1.1-5, 1-14, or 1-17 as a unit preceded those that regarded 1.1-18 as a unit and that these earlier analyses each have distinct exegetical advantages over the common modern position of viewing 1.1-18 as a unit. The reasons for the currently preferred division and its exegetical consequences are explored with the conclusion that Jn 1.1-18 should not be regarded as the prologue of the Fourth Gospel.
ISSN:1745-5294
Obras secundarias:Enthalten in: Journal for the study of the New Testament
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.1177/0142064X10396144