To send content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure email@example.com
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Fr. John Rogers S.J., on entering as a young man of twenty the English College, Rome, stated that whilst in the service of Lady Stourton he had chanced to meet “a very aged priest named Father Richard Bray, who had lived for ten years at Douay”, by whose means he had become a Catholic (Foley. IV, 419). This would have occurred at some date not far distant from 1604, the date of John Rogers’ statement. Beyond the fact that a certain Richard Bray, of Herefordshire, entered the English College, Douay, on 28 April, 1583, and received the first tonsure in the following September (Knox. 1st & 2nd Douai Diaries, 195, 198) – he may or may not have been the same man – one knows no more of Fr.Richard Bray.
The accounts that have appeared in various volumes of the Catholic Record Society by way of introduction to the registers of Catholic missions are obviously of some considerable value to the historian and indeed to all those – their number appears to be growing – who are interested to learn what they can of the records of their Catholic fore-fathers. It seems worth while therefore, when fresh information is available, to supplement such accounts, as far as may be possible. That this is f easible in the case of Major Richard Trappes-Lomax’s careful Introduction to the registers of Lea gram and Chipping (C.R.S. xxxvi: Lancashire Registers, VI) is mainly owing to the survival of two folio volumes of accounts kept by the steward of the Stonyhurst Shireburns in connection with their Lancashire estates. These volumes, evidently unknown to the editor, range from 1717 to 1749 and from 1754 to 1766; the second of these volumes brings us after a few pages to the transference of the Shireburn estates to the family of Weld of Lulworth. Besides other matters of interest the accounts include the payments, usually quarterly, of the missioners both at Stonyhurst and at Leagram Halls and it is here especially that can be f ound more precise dates of the comings and goings of successive missioners.
First published between 1932 and 1940, this is a three-volume study of the historical development of literature. It explores the oral and written literatures of regions from Iceland and the British Isles, to Russia, the Balkans, Africa, India and the Pacific, placing them in their historical context and examining similarities between them. The authors discuss both ancient and recent texts, illustrating the connections within each group and considering the question of whether all literary growth is influenced by common factors. Praised on publication as '… a work that is not, probably could not be, superseded' (International Journal of Comparative Sociology), the book remains a benchmark for those studying comparative literature or the history of literary criticism. Volume 3, which includes a summary of the literary categories used in the book, surveys the oral literature of the Tatar and Polynesian peoples, along with that of a selection of African ethnic groups.
A pulsed excimer laser was used to ablate aluminum metal into an oxygen-containing atmosphere. The resulting fine powder was collected on a 0.1 μm filter and analyzed to determine structure and composition. Using a combination of TEM, EELS, and thermal analysis techniques, the product was found to be amorphous aluminum oxide, Al2O3. The morphology of the powders was investigated using SEM, TEM, and surface area measurements. The resulting powder was crystallized and examined by x-ray diffraction.
It is generally agreed that the story of the Passion formed a single unit long before there was any attempt to write a consecutive story of the life and teaching of Jesus in the form of a ‘Gospel’. On the other hand the Marcan story presents numerous difficulties and apparent inconsistencies which have often been noted and will concern us in this chapter. Moreover, in the Marcan account we find an alternation between ‘the disciples’ and ‘the Twelve’ up to the point at which they all forsook Jesus and fled, which suggests that there may be in Mark a conflation of at least two sources, the Twelve-source which we have already investigated in the earlier part of Mark, and another which follows the ordinary Marcan usage of referring to ‘the disciples’. From this point onwards we have not this clue to guide us; none the less it seems possible even without this to isolate the two strands of the narrative with a high degree of probability. In this chapter, except in the latter part of (D), the latter part of the trial before Pilate, I print the suggested reconstruction before the discussion of the evidence. Owing to the difficulty of disentangling the originals at this point, the discussion is put first.
The next section (Mark vii. 31—7) at first sight looks like another isolated incident. It stands between the Syrophoenician woman and the doublet version of the miracle of feeding with a very clumsy Marcan introduction. The difficulty of returning from the borders of Tyre and Sidon to the Sea of Galilee via Decapolis (on the eastern shore of the lake) can hardly be explained with Rawlinson ad loc. as due to Mark's desire to locate the second miracle of feeding on Gentile territory; apart from the seven loaves and the seven baskets of remnants, which might or might not suggest the seventy nations of the world, there is nothing to indicate that this miracle is regarded as happening on Gentile ground. The obvious explanation is that the miracle of healing the deaf man was located at Decapolis; the abrupt introduction of viii. 1 and its assumption of a multitude mark it as a miracle story which has no organic connection with its present context. It would seem that Mark's journey is a mere editorial link to bring Jesus from the scene of the healing of the preceding section to the healing of the deaf man for the simple reason that this miracle was in the tradition located in Decapolis.
The story has obvious affinities with two others, the blind man of Bethsaida (viii. 22—6) and Bartimaeus (x. 46—52).
This group of stories (Mark ii. I—iii. 6) has been investigated by Albertz, whose conclusions seem quite convincing. It is, however, worth noting that the group of stories may well have begun not with ii. I, but with i. 40. For the stories as a group would seem intended to meet the question, familiar to anyone who has ever tried to teach the Gospel story to children or simple people: ‘Why if Jesus was the Messiah, did his own people want to kill him?’ And from this point of view the story of the leper would make an admirable beginning, since it proves that Jesus did not begin by breaking the law; on the contrary he observed it. The method is that normal with ancient writers, who prefer to make their point by incidents, rather than by the discussion of tendencies.
But the group of stories throws a peculiar light on the transmission of the tradition. The question in the ancient world would only be raised on the soil of Palestine, or in a predominantly Jewish community. Gentile anti-semitism would ask for no explanation of Jewish hostility to Jesus; it was the sort of thing that might be expected of Jews. Thus Luke finds no difficulty in opening his Gospel with the scene of the rejection at Nazareth, though in his version Jesus appears to reject the Jews before they reject him (Luke iv. 16ff.).
Wilfred L. Knox (1886–1950) was a theologian and fellow of Pembroke College, Cambridge. Volume I of his Sources of the Synoptic Gospels was published posthumously in 1953. The gospels were written to preach Christ and not to satisfy the curiosities of the modern scholar; but they do contain important historical material of the first importance. That is Dr Knox's contention: and these volumes seek to take Gospel criticism a stage beyond Form-criticism. The result of many years' work, this volume focuses on the Gospel of St Mark, whilst the 1957 Volume II is concerned with St Luke and St Matthew. Following Knox's death. The manuscripts for both of these volumes were edited by the Rev. Henry Chadwick and published in their present form.
The section that follows (Mark xi. 27—xii. 37) looks at first sight like a compilation of conflict-stories incorporated by Mark, and we cannot rule out the possibility that it came to Mark as a whole. But there are grave objections to the view that they form an original unit. We have in the first place three stories of hostile questions addressed to Jesus.
(a) ‘The chief priests and the scribes and the elders’ ask him by what authority he does these things (xi. 27 ff.). (Presumably the rather vague title implies a deputation from the Sanhedrin; the vagueness tells somewhat in favour of the primitive character of the story, since the average Galilean is not likely to have had any very clear idea as to how Jerusalem was governed.)
(b) We then have the deputation of the Pharisees and Herodians with the question as to tribute-money (xii. 13 ff.).
(c) This is followed by the question of the Sadducees as to matrimonial relations in the future world (xii. 18ff.).
The second question is a very subtle trap, since it forces Jesus either to declare himself a rebel or to discredit himself with the nationalist element among the Galileans who are in Jerusalem for the Passover; the third question is presumably intended to discredit Jesus by making him look foolish in front of the crowd.
The other elements in this section, however, do not fit into the scheme at all.
In 1921 Eduard Meyer pointed out that in Mark we have clear indications of the use of sources; the Gospel is not merely a compilation of anecdotes, but an attempt to bring into order a set of earlier records of the life and teaching of Jesus, which would be inevitably needed for the preaching of the Gospel. But by 1921 the star of form-criticism had already risen above the horizon, and in the fascinating exercise of fitting the stories of the Gospels into the various ‘forms’ of popular story-telling, and discovering situations in the supposed life of the early Church which might have led to the invention of a particular anecdote or saying, Meyer's warning was allowed to pass unheeded. Rawlinson dismisses his view on the ground of'the persistence throughout the Gospel of the very peculiar and characteristic Marcan mannerisms of style. The evangelist may have been using sources, but, if so, it is extremely unlikely that modern conjecture can succeed in determining what they were.'
The first objection raised by Rawlinson is quite beside the point. In most ancient historians we get a general uniformity of style, owing to the fact that the author has rewritten his sources more or less completely.
The loss of Mark's ending leaves us with little guidance as to the sources from which the existing narratives of the Resurrection appearances are drawn. None the less it is worth noting that in I Cor. XV. 5 the story begins with an appearance to Cephas followed by an appearance to ‘the Twelve’ (only here in Paul). In Luke xxiv. 34 the two disciples returning from Emmaus find ‘the eleven’ assembled and are greeted with the news that the Lord has risen and appeared to Simon.
The Emmaus story has every appearance of having been largely edited by Luke. xxiv. 19—21 is a specimen of the apostolic kerygma of the crucifixion and resurrection, the latter being naturally left in suspense to suit the real or supposed situation of the moment; the claim that this is the fulfilment of prophecy in 26 f. is again part of the kerygma, though on grounds of dramatic propriety it is put into the mouth of the risen Lord and thus comes after the story of the ministry and death. But ‘ there seems to be no good reason why the story should not be founded on fact’ (Creed, p. 290). If so, it is possible that this story of an appearance in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem has been put by Luke before the story of an appearance to Simon and to the eleven, drawn from the same source as the Pauline summary, which may well have been the conclusion of the Twelve-source.