The Muratorian Tradition and the Gospel Text
C H A P T E R O N E 1. Quoted in Sean Kealy, John’s Gospel and the History of Biblical Interpretation (Lewiston, N.Y.: Mellen Biblical Press, 2002), superscript to the Preface, and by Martin Hengel, The Johannine Question (London: SCM Press, 1989), 2. 2 . Ernst Haenchen, A Commentary on the Gospel of John, trans. Robert W. Funk, 2 vols. (Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1984), 1:20‒30. 3. Kealy’s observation: “One could summarize and say that up to 1800 the apostolic authorship of John was never seriously examined or denied” (John’s Gospel, 366) is seconded by James H. Charlesworth, who notes “the myth among scholars that until the last few decades Johannine specialists defended, almost en masse, the conclusion that the author of [the Gospel] was John the Son of Zebedee, and that he was the Beloved Disciple,” remarking that “for over two hundred years experts…have argued that the author of the Gospel cannot be John the Apostle” (The Beloved Disciple: Whose Witness Validates the Gospel of John? [Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1995], 129). For a review of eighteenth-century continental criticism see R. A. Culpepper, The Johannine School: An Evaluation of the Johannine-School Hypothesis Based on an Investigation of the Nature of Ancient Schools (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1975), 1–3. 4. Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: At the University Press, 1965), 304, note 1. 5. Adolf von Harnack, R. H. Charles, B. H. Streeter, E. Käserman, and Martin Hengel. 6. Charlesworth...
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.
Do you have any questions? Contact us.Or login to access all content.