Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [XTalk] Dating of Hebrews

Expand Messages
  • FMMCCOY
    ... From: David C. Hindley To: Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 7:58 AM Subject: RE: [XTalk] Dates and
    Message 1 of 19 , Aug 29, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "David C. Hindley" <dhindley@...>
      To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 7:58 AM
      Subject: RE: [XTalk] Dates and Authors of New Testament Books


      > Brian DeFord said,
      >
      > >>I did want to make one comment about Hebrews. Given the subject
      > matter of the book (Christ's superiority to Moses and the law) and
      > given the author's statement that the law is ready to "vanish away",
      > it would seem strange not to mention the destruction of the temple in
      > AD 70 if that event had already taken place when the book was written
      > (unless the author didn't know about it, which would seem very
      > unlikely).<<
      >
      > Then again, if it happened "long ago" (from the perspective of the
      > author) it may have been assumed rather than stated. There are other
      > reasons to think Hebrews is relatively late. I felt David Trobisch had
      > made some interesting observations about Hebrew's place in manuscript
      > collections (_Paul's Letter Collection_, Fortress, 1994). These
      > suggested, and I tend to agree with him, that Hebrews was attached as
      > an appendix to an already circulating collection. My own speculation
      > as to why it was created is that it tends to offer a somewhat
      > systematic presentation of Christology of the type found woven through
      > the other letters.
      >

      Dave Hindley:

      You don't specify what kinds of manuscripts were in the manuscript
      collections in which Hebrews came last. If they were collections of Paul's
      letters, the simplest explanation for Hebrews being a Johnny come lately is
      that it took a long time for Hebrews to become accepted as a work by Paul.
      As late as the time of Eusebius, the Roman Church (correctly,. it turns out)
      was still denying that Hebrews was written by Paul. In this case, that
      Hebrews is last in these collections of Pauline letters has no bearing on
      its date of composition but, rather, only has a bearing on the date of its
      mistaken acceptability as a genuine work of Paul.

      Further, there is evidence that Hebrews was written while the temple was
      still in existence. In Epistle to the Hebrews, William Barclay states,
      "Further, the writer to the Hebrews consistently speaks of the Temple
      worship as still going on, 'Here tithes are received by mortal men' (7:8).
      'They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly sanctuary' (8:5). In 9:6-9,
      the whole ritual of the sacrificial system and of the Day of Atonement is
      spoken of as if it was still going on."*

      Finally, the fashion in which the author of Hebrews inteprets the rending of
      the temple veil at the death of Jesus is all but a proof that Hebrews is
      pre-70 CE.

      The argument is rather involved and begins with Josephus' account of an
      apparent miraculous opening of a temple gate--See Wars (Book VI, Vhap. V,
      Sect. 3). He vaguely dates this incident to "before the Jews' rebellion and
      before those commotions which proceeded the war".

      In this incident, "the eastern gate of the inner temple, which was of brass,
      and vastly heavy, and had been with difficulty shut by twenty men, and
      rested upon a basis armed with iron, and had bolts fastened very deep into
      the firm floor, which was then made of one entire stone, was seen to be
      opened of its own accord about the sixth hour of the night."

      According to Josephus, people interpreted this miraculous opening of the
      barrier to the Holy Place to symbolically mean that a way was now open into
      the deep interior of the temple and/or into heaven. He relates, "this also
      appeared to the vulgar to be a very happy prodigy, as if God did thereby
      open them the gate of happiness. But the men of learning understood it,
      that the security of their holy house was dissolved of its own accord, and
      that the gate was opened for the advantage of their enemies. So these
      publicly declared that the signal foreshadowed the desolation that was
      coming upon them."

      So, most people took it to be a symbolic act by God which signifies that He
      has opened, for them, the gate of happiness (i.e., the gate into heaven).
      However, the educated elite took it to be a symbolic act by God signifying
      that the way is now open for those who wish to destroy the temple. Josephus
      lets us know that, he thinks, the destruction of the temple by the Romans in
      70 CE was the fulfillment of this omen.

      The relates to early Christian tradition that, at the death of Jesus, the
      temple veil was rent:: for, as the miraculous opening of the massive brass
      gate opened the way into the inner temple, so the miraculous rending of the
      temple veil opened the way into the Holy of Holies. Hence, in a pre-70
      milieu, depending upon the individual, the rending of the temple veil would
      have been interpreted in one of two basic ways. In the first basic way, it
      is an unhappy omen, signifying that the way is now open for those who wish
      to destroy the temple. In the second basic way, it is a happy omen,
      signifying that a way is now open for people to enter into heaven. However,
      in a post-70 milieu, there would have been only one basic interpretation:
      this being that it was, indeed, an omen of the coming destruction of the
      temple by the Romans.

      In this regard, it is of cardinal significance that, according to the author
      of Hebrews, the rending of the temple veil signifies that the way is now
      open for people to enter into heaven. So, in 9:24, he states, "For not into
      a Holy of Holies made of hands entered the Christ (for it is but a) figure
      of the true), but into heaven itself now to appear before the face of God
      for us.", and, in 10:19-20, states, "Having therefore,
      brethren, boldness for entrance into the (true) Holy of Holies (i.e.,
      heaven) by the blood of Jesus, by which dedicated for us a way freshly
      slaughtered and living through the veil, that is, his flesh."

      As the milieu for the belief that the rending of the temple veil signifies
      that a way is now open for people to enter into heaven almost certainly must
      have ended in 70 CE, that the author of Hebrews espouses this belief is all
      but a proof that his epistle dates to sometime before 70 CE: perhaps even a
      whole generation earlier. Indeed, as I have pointed out in an earlier post,
      the evidence points to it having been written by Silvanus while he was at
      Corinth with Timothy and "those from Italy", i.e., Aquila and Priscilla, in
      c. 51 CE!

      Frank McCoy
      1809 N. English Apt. 17
      Maplewood, MN USA 55109

      * I regret failing to give the page citation for this quote. I copied it
      down several years ago and now I can't readily locate Barclay's book. It's
      probably in a box, but I have a good number of these boxes, so a search
      might take several hours.
    • Bob Schacht
      ... David and Frank, Aren t both of your explanations conjectural? The earliest extant manuscript of any of Paul s letters is already an anthology in codex
      Message 2 of 19 , Aug 29, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        At 09:46 PM 8/29/01 -0500, FMMCCOY wrote:

        >----- Original Message -----
        >From: "David C. Hindley" <dhindley@...>
        >To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
        >Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 7:58 AM
        >Subject: RE: [XTalk] Dates and Authors of New Testament Books
        >
        >
        > > ... I felt David Trobisch had
        > > made some interesting observations about Hebrew's place in manuscript
        > > collections (_Paul's Letter Collection_, Fortress, 1994). These
        > > suggested, and I tend to agree with him, that Hebrews was attached as
        > > an appendix to an already circulating collection....
        > >
        >
        >Dave Hindley:
        >
        >You don't specify what kinds of manuscripts were in the manuscript
        >collections in which Hebrews came last. If they were collections of
        >Paul's letters, the simplest explanation for Hebrews being a Johnny come
        >lately is that it took a long time for Hebrews to become accepted as a
        >work by Paul...

        David and Frank,
        Aren't both of your explanations conjectural? The earliest extant
        manuscript of any of Paul's letters is already an anthology in codex form
        (P46), with Hebrews in the middle, between Romans and 1 Corinthians, as I
        pointed out in my post 11:03 AM on 8/26/2001. What evidence does Trobisch
        have for his claim?

        Bob


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • David C. Hindley
        ... collections in which Hebrews came last. If they were collections of Paul s letters, the simplest explanation for Hebrews being a Johnny come lately is
        Message 3 of 19 , Aug 31, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          FM McCoy said:

          >>You don't specify what kinds of manuscripts were in the manuscript
          collections in which Hebrews came last. If they were collections of
          Paul's letters, the simplest explanation for Hebrews being a Johnny
          come lately is that it took a long time for Hebrews to become accepted
          as a work by Paul. As late as the time of Eusebius, the Roman Church
          (correctly,. it turns out) was still denying that Hebrews was written
          by Paul. In this case, that Hebrews is last in these collections of
          Pauline letters has no bearing on its date of composition but, rather,
          only has a bearing on the date of its mistaken acceptability as a
          genuine work of Paul.<<

          I had summarized the conclusion of Trobisch in _Paul's Letter
          Collection_ (1994), worked out in pp. 7-24. he in turn based this
          analysis on his German language work _Die Entstehung der
          Paulusbriefsammlung: Studien zu den Anfangen christlicher Publizistik_
          (1989). I understand that this study is possibly the most extensive
          look at manuscripts of the Pauline corpus to date.

          All that aside, yours is not necessarily the simplest explanation.
          Your proposal that Hebrews was "written by Silvanus while he was at
          Corinth with Timothy and "those from Italy", i.e., Aquila and
          Priscilla, in c. 51 CE" is a complex reconstruction in its own right!
          At least Trobisch bases his opinion on the manuscript evidence. This
          is, basically, that all mss traditions (with p46 by extension as it is
          missing the last 14 pages) agree on 13 epistles, and only vary on
          either the inclusion or exclusion or placement of Hebrews. He explains
          this by proposing a "canonical" (i.e., "officially published") edition
          of 13 letters, with Hebrews added later. (pg. 25)

          >>Further, there is evidence that Hebrews was written while the temple
          was still in existence. In Epistle to the Hebrews, William Barclay
          states, "Further, the writer to the Hebrews consistently speaks of the
          Temple worship as still going on, 'Here tithes are received by mortal
          men' (7:8). 'They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly sanctuary'
          (8:5). In 9:6-9, the whole ritual of the sacrificial system and of
          the Day of Atonement is spoken of as if it was still going on."*<<

          So, if it actually was a late composition meant to imitate a Pauline
          style letter as I suggested (the ending unquestionably does so), what
          stops the author from making statements as if actually written in
          Paul's time (i.e., assumption of temple worship)? Our sense of outrage
          that an early Christian author could pass off such a thing? That is a
          problem for *us,* not for them. That has not stopped critics from
          supposing that the pastorals are spurious.

          Then again, the Mishna goes on as if the temple was still doing
          business as normal even though compiled after its destruction. I'm
          sure *they* knew it was torn down, but they hoped to one day to see it
          restored. Similarly, I don't think it unreasonable to imagine the
          author of Hebrews also knowing it was torn down. Yet he had a
          replacement for it in mind, in the form of Jesus acting as a High
          priest, and used that contrast to make his point, using Paul's mouth.

          >>Finally, the fashion in which the author of Hebrews interprets the
          rending of the temple veil at the death of Jesus is all but a proof
          that Hebrews is pre-70 CE.<<

          Sorry, I really cannot follow this logic. The veil which was captured
          by Titus in 70 CE was displayed in the Temple of Peace in Rome by
          Titus starting in 75 CE, and according to Robert Eisler (_Messiah
          Jesus and John the Baptist_, pg. 146) it had been established by
          Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck (in _Kommentar zum Neuen
          Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch_, vol i, "Das Evangelium nach
          Matth�us", p. 1044 and 946) that it was there displayed in a torn
          state.

          It could not possibly have been the same veil supposedly torn at
          Jesus' death, as Heinrich Laible demonstrated by collecting Tannaitic
          testimonies in vol iii of the above work. The veil was renewed each
          year, and immediately replaced if damaged or rendered impure (there
          was a back-up veil behind it just in case the damaged veil had to be
          removed). I also see this suggested in Mishna Shekalim 8.5. That
          suggests that the rent veil story was the *result* of the display of
          the torn captured veil on display starting 75 CE. (Eisler, pg. 147)

          Respectfully,

          Dave Hindley
          Cleveland, Ohio, USA
        • David C. Hindley
          ... manuscript of any of Paul s letters is already an anthology in codex form (P46), with Hebrews in the middle, between Romans and 1 Corinthians, as I pointed
          Message 4 of 19 , Aug 31, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            Bob Schacht comments:

            >>Aren't both of your explanations conjectural? The earliest extant
            manuscript of any of Paul's letters is already an anthology in codex
            form (P46), with Hebrews in the middle, between Romans and 1
            Corinthians, as I pointed out in my post 11:03 AM on 8/26/2001. What
            evidence does Trobisch
            have for his claim?<<

            I'm trying to figure out the best way to summarize Trobisch's
            comparisons. Hopefully the following table will come through legibly
            and also do justice to Trobisch's presentation. These are supposed to
            represent virtually all variations found in the manuscripts he
            studied! (_Paul's Letter Collection_, pp. 20-21, and more generally
            pp. 7-25)

            Book P46* 03** 01 06 012 Byz Min5 Min794
            per 02 010
            chap 03**
            no's 04
            200 4th? 4-5th 5-6th 9th

            Rom 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
            1Co 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
            2Co 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
            Gal 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
            Eph 5 6 5 5 5 5 5 5
            Phi 7 7 6 7 6 6 7 6
            Col 8 8 7 6 7 7 6 7
            1Th 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 8
            2Th ? 10 9 9 9 9 9 9
            1Ti ? ? 11 10 10 10 11 11
            2Ti ? ? 12 11 11 11 12 12
            Tit ? ? 13 12 12 12 13 13
            Phm ? ? 14 13 13 13 14 14
            Heb 2! 5! 10 14*** Omit! 14 10 10&15!

            * p46 is missing the 1st 14 pages (the beginning of Romans through
            5:16) and the last 14 pages (ending at 1 Thes 5:28). The number of
            pages, though, that would be needed to include the remaining books
            through Phm is about 23! That means the scribe either did not include
            all the books of the canonical collection or made a calculation error
            and had to add a volume with 5 leaves folded in half to make up the
            lacking 9-10 pages. The order of books is strictly by length, with the
            exception that Hebrews, which should be between 1 & 2 Cor in size, was
            placed before 1 Cor to avoid separating the Corinthian letters.

            ** 03 Vaticanus is missing 1 Tim-Philemon. Its physical order of
            books, too, differs from that which should have occurred if the
            sequential chapters the books are broken into would require. This
            means that it was copied from an archetype with a different order, and
            this is shown in the column labeled "03 per chap no's."

            *** 06 Claromontanus actually has the "Catalogus Claromontanus"
            written into three pages between Philemon and Hebrews. The catalogue
            and Hebrews are written in different hands than the other books,
            meaning they were added later.

            Aside from the juxtapositioning of Philippians and Colossians in
            Claromontanus and Miniscule 5, the only other variation in these lists
            has to do with the location, or the omission, of Hebrews, and then the
            variation is very wide. The other books otherwise all fall in the same
            order, which Trobisch thinks could not have occurred if the Pauline
            corpus was ordered by a number of independent publishers and editors.
            Trobisch's conclusion: The existing canonical books of the Pauline
            Corpus are the product of a single rescension of 13 books (Rom-Phm),
            with Hebrews being added later and tucked in as best as the copyists
            could manage.

            This does not mean that the order of the 13 books (not including
            Hebrews), beside the relatively minor juxtapositioning of Phi & Col,
            does not exhibit signs of being originally separate collections that
            were joined together to create Trobisch's "canonical edition." He
            thinks they do, and that these collections were in codex format and
            thus followed the principal of ordering by length, longer to shorter,
            which facilitates scribal calculations about size of the codex to be
            pre-made. These fell into three groups: 1) Rom-1Co-2Co-Gal, to which
            Ephesians was added as an appendix; 2) Phil-Col-1Th-2Th; 3)
            1Ti-2Ti-Tit-Phm. (page 53)

            Respectfully,

            Dave Hindley
            Cleveland, Ohio, USA
          • Bob Schacht
            ... Aaaaarrgh! How can you-- or he--- claim that Hebrews was added later when it is present in the ***EARLIEST*** known manuscript of Paul s letters (P46), and
            Message 5 of 19 , Aug 31, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              At 10:53 PM 8/31/01 -0400, David C. Hindley wrote:
              >...I had summarized the conclusion of Trobisch in _Paul's Letter
              >Collection_ (1994), worked out in pp. 7-24. ... I understand that this
              >study is possibly the most extensive look at manuscripts of the Pauline
              >corpus to date.
              >
              >....At least Trobisch bases his opinion on the manuscript evidence. This
              >is, basically, that all mss traditions (with p46 by extension as it is
              >missing the last 14 pages) agree on 13 epistles, and only vary on
              >either the inclusion or exclusion or placement of Hebrews. He explains
              >this by proposing a "canonical" (i.e., "officially published") edition
              >of 13 letters, with Hebrews added later. (pg. 25)....

              Aaaaarrgh! How can you-- or he--- claim that Hebrews was added later when
              it is present in the ***EARLIEST*** known manuscript of Paul's letters
              (P46), and is placed there in the MIDDLE, not at the end!!! And how does
              this mean that Trobisch therefore "considers the manuscript evidence"??? It
              looks to me like he-- and you -- are IGNORING the manuscript evidence! P46
              is not only the earliest collection of Paul's letters, it is earlier than
              ANY manuscript of Paul's letters, whether singly or in a collection.

              You evidently did receive my previous posts on this subject (see below).
              Please excuse the shouting in caps, but since you have ignored this
              evidence twice before, it seems like I must shout.

              Then At 12:37 AM 9/1/01 -0400, David C. Hindley wrote, attempting to answer
              my previous post:
              >Bob Schacht comments:
              >
              > >>Aren't both of your explanations conjectural? The earliest extant
              >manuscript of any of Paul's letters is already an anthology in codex
              >form (P46), with Hebrews in the middle, between Romans and 1
              >Corinthians, as I pointed out in my post 11:03 AM on 8/26/2001. What
              >evidence does Trobisch
              >have for his claim?<<
              >
              >I'm trying to figure out the best way to summarize Trobisch's
              >comparisons. Hopefully the following table will come through legibly
              >and also do justice to Trobisch's presentation. These are supposed to
              >represent virtually all variations found in the manuscripts he
              >studied! (_Paul's Letter Collection_, pp. 20-21, and more generally
              >pp. 7-25)
              >
              >Book P46* 03** 01 06 012 Byz Min5
              >Min794
              > per 02 010
              > chap 03**
              > no's 04
              > 200 4th? 4-5th 5-6th 9th
              >
              >Rom 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
              >1Co 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
              >2Co 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
              >Gal 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
              >Eph 5 6 5 5 5 5 5 5
              >Phi 7 7 6 7 6 6 7 6
              >Col 8 8 7 6 7 7 6 7
              >1Th 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 8
              >2Th ? 10 9 9 9 9 9 9
              >1Ti ? ? 11 10 10 10 11 11
              >2Ti ? ? 12 11 11 11 12 12
              >Tit ? ? 13 12 12 12 13 13
              >Phm ? ? 14 13 13 13 14 14
              >Heb 2! 5! 10 14*** Omit! 14 10 10&15!
              >
              >* p46 is missing the 1st 14 pages (the beginning of Romans through
              >5:16) and the last 14 pages (ending at 1 Thes 5:28). The number of
              >pages, though, that would be needed to include the remaining books
              >through Phm is about 23! That means the scribe either did not include
              >all the books of the canonical collection or made a calculation error
              >and had to add a volume with 5 leaves folded in half to make up the
              >lacking 9-10 pages.

              I believe Trobisch argues for a calculation error, which is amply attested
              by a well-spaced script in the early pages of P46, followed by an
              increasingly cramped script, adding more lines per page and more letters
              per line in the second half of the volume as the scribe realized that he
              was running out of space. The missing pages at the end leaves the mystery
              unanswered as to whether the scribe actually did run out of space, or
              somehow managed to cram everything in. The detailed description of the
              manuscript makes for amusing reading into the scribe's predicament. But
              note that HE DID NOT ATTEMPT TO SOLVE THE PREDICAMENT BY OMITTING HEBREWS!
              THE ENTIRE TEXT OF HEBREWS IS THERE as you note:

              > The order of books is strictly by length, with the
              >exception that Hebrews, which should be between 1 & 2 Cor in size, was
              >placed before 1 Cor to avoid separating the Corinthian letters.
              >
              >** 03 Vaticanus is missing 1 Tim-Philemon. Its physical order of
              >books, too, differs from that which should have occurred if the
              >sequential chapters the books are broken into would require. This
              >means that it was copied from an archetype with a different order, and
              >this is shown in the column labeled "03 per chap no's."
              >
              >*** 06 Claromontanus actually has the "Catalogus Claromontanus"
              >written into three pages between Philemon and Hebrews. The catalogue
              >and Hebrews are written in different hands than the other books,
              >meaning they were added later.

              He is evidently hanging his theory on this manuscript which, if I read your
              table above correctly, is a 5-6th century copy, meaning it dates about 300
              years later than P46. Furthermore, two other earlier manuscripts of the
              letters also contain Hebrews, if I read your table correctly. Therefore
              what the manuscript evidence does suggest, if I read your table correctly,
              is that Hebrews was regularly INCLUDED at first, for several centuries, but
              then became embroiled in some controversy, perhaps at one of the ecumenical
              councils, resulting in its relegation to the end of the collection, or even
              to its being omitted, at this later date.


              >Aside from the juxtapositioning of Philippians and Colossians in
              >Claromontanus and Miniscule 5, the only other variation in these lists
              >has to do with the location, or the omission, of Hebrews, and then the
              >variation is very wide. The other books otherwise all fall in the same
              >order, which Trobisch thinks could not have occurred if the Pauline
              >corpus was ordered by a number of independent publishers and editors.
              >Trobisch's conclusion: The existing canonical books of the Pauline
              >Corpus are the product of a single rescension of 13 books (Rom-Phm),
              >with Hebrews being added later and tucked in as best as the copyists
              >could manage.

              This conclusion clearly does NOT follow from the evidence, and requires
              ignoring the earliest manuscripts.


              >This does not mean that the order of the 13 books (not including
              >Hebrews), beside the relatively minor juxtapositioning of Phi & Col,
              >does not exhibit signs of being originally separate collections that
              >were joined together to create Trobisch's "canonical edition." He
              >thinks they do, and that these collections were in codex format and
              >thus followed the principal of ordering by length, longer to shorter,
              >which facilitates scribal calculations about size of the codex to be
              >pre-made. These fell into three groups: 1) Rom-1Co-2Co-Gal, to which
              >Ephesians was added as an appendix; 2) Phil-Col-1Th-2Th; 3)
              >1Ti-2Ti-Tit-Phm. (page 53)

              Again, this conclusion does not seem to be supported by the evidence, as
              the two earliest manuscripts both include Hebrews with the first group of
              letters, before Ephesians, making it appear that Trobisch is ignoring the
              evidence.

              Bob


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Jan Sammer
              From: David C. Hindley ... But this contrast only works as long as the Temple exists. Once it s gone, Jesus has no rival for the
              Message 6 of 19 , Sep 1, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                From: "David C. Hindley" <dhindley@...>

                >...I don't think it unreasonable to imagine the
                > author of Hebrews also knowing it was torn down. Yet he had a
                > replacement for it in mind, in the form of Jesus acting as a High
                > priest, and used that contrast to make his point, using Paul's mouth.

                But this contrast only works as long as the Temple exists. Once it's gone,
                Jesus has no rival for the office of high priest. If the Temple were no
                longer in existence, there would be no need for the author to spend many
                verses arguing that the authority of the Levitical priesthood has been
                superseded, that Jesus is the true high priest after the order of
                Melchizedek, i.e., a high priest whose authority comes directly from God.
                Melchizedek was high priest before there were any Levites and the high
                priesthood of Jesus is a restoration of this more ancient priestly
                tradition. According to the doctrine developed in Hebrews, the Levites were
                a stopgap measure introduced by Moses and became obsolete when the law of
                Moses was superseded by the new dispensation inaugurated by Jesus. In my
                view the force of the argument was that a new model of priesthood had been
                established in the heavens, one that was incompatible with the one
                currently practiced in the Temple. Here I differ with those who read Hebrews
                as an explanation of why the Temple is no longer needed. It is the rites
                instituted by Moses and practiced by the Levites that have been made
                redundant by the Jesus' sacrifice, not the Temple as such.

                > The veil which was captured
                > by Titus in 70 CE was displayed in the Temple of Peace in Rome by
                > Titus starting in 75 CE, and according to Robert Eisler (_Messiah
                > Jesus and John the Baptist_, pg. 146) it had been established by
                > Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck (in _Kommentar zum Neuen
                > Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch_, vol i, "Das Evangelium nach
                > Matthäus", p. 1044 and 946) that it was there displayed in a torn
                > state.

                It would be interesting to have the primary sources for this extraordinary
                claim.

                >
                > It could not possibly have been the same veil supposedly torn at
                > Jesus' death, as Heinrich Laible demonstrated by collecting Tannaitic
                > testimonies in vol iii of the above work. The veil was renewed each
                > year, and immediately replaced if damaged or rendered impure (there
                > was a back-up veil behind it just in case the damaged veil had to be
                > removed). I also see this suggested in Mishna Shekalim 8.5. That
                > suggests that the rent veil story was the *result* of the display of
                > the torn captured veil on display starting 75 CE. (Eisler, pg. 147)
                >
                An interesting possibility. Could you let us have the references cited by
                Eisler?
                Here is the text of Mishna Shekalim 8.5:
                http://www.torahcc.org/mishna/4-6-00/wednesday.htm

                The suggestion you refer to is part of the Kehati or commentary:

                SHEKALIM: CHAPTER 8 : MISHNA 5

                R. Shimon b. Gamliel says in the name of R. Shimon the son of the Segan, The
                curtain was one handbreadth thick, woven on seventy-two strands, and on each
                strand were twenty-four threads; its length was forty amot and its width
                twenty amot, and of eighty-two ten-thousands it was made; and they would
                make two every year, and three hundred kohanim would immerse it.
                Kehati

                Incidental to the previous mishnah, this mishnah describes the curtain.
                ....

                And they would make two each year - They would make two new curtains each
                year. Rambam writes: "They would make two new curtains every year, to
                separate the holy from the Holy of Holies (Hil. Klei Hamikdash 7:16; see
                Mishnah Yoma 5:1). And three hundred kohanim would immerse it - Because of
                its weight, they required three hundred kohanim to immerse it; Bartenura
                explains that they had to immerse each new curtain, because new utensils,
                even if completed in a state of ritual purity, require immersion (Mishnah
                Haggigah 3:2). The Talmud states that the number "three hundred" is a
                hyperbole, and the mishnah simply wishes to tell us that a large number of
                kohanim were required.

                >
                > Jan Sammer
                sammer@...
                Prague, Czech Republic
                >
              • David C. Hindley
                ... when it is present in the ***EARLIEST*** known manuscript of Paul s letters (P46), and is placed there in the MIDDLE, not at the end!!!
                Message 7 of 19 , Sep 1, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  Bob Schacht vents:

                  >>Aaaaarrgh! How can you-- or he--- claim that Hebrews was added later
                  when it is present in the ***EARLIEST*** known manuscript of Paul's
                  letters (P46), and is placed there in the MIDDLE, not at the end!!!<<

                  200 CE, early as it is, is pretty darn *late*, well after any of these
                  books were written. p46 was badly planned (no matter how small he
                  ended up writing, he wasn't going to fit 23 pages worth of text into
                  14 pages!), so why not badly organized? Amateur scribe, personal
                  organization.

                  To suppose that Hebrews was 1) (accidentally) accepted early but 2)
                  later (rightly) rejected, only to 3) later (erroneously) win the
                  battle of acceptance, is more akin to the plot of a tragic novel than
                  an explanation based on the evidence. Step 2 also assumes a certain
                  amount of critical ability that was not really exercised in the early
                  church until the latter quarter of the 2nd century CE (by Origen, and
                  then only selectively, and Africanus, who few listened to anywise when
                  it came to higher criticism, certainly not Origen).

                  That still does not explain why, in virtually every single manuscript,
                  all 13 of the other books of the corpus are in the same relative order
                  (with exception of 06 and miniscule 5, which reverses the order of 2
                  books, placing Colossians next to its closely related sister
                  Ephesians), EXCEPT Hebrews, and Hebrews shows up all over the place.
                  And that means nothing to you? Do you have a similar scenario worked
                  out for the wandering pericope of the Adulterous Woman?

                  So, no, Trobisch does not prove that Hebrews is late (that was my
                  interpretation), only that it was attached to a "canonical edition"
                  (using Trobisch's term) after the introduction of that edition. That
                  edition was apparently in circulation before p46 was written, so prior
                  to ca. 175-225 CE (assuming a 25 year margin of error about the
                  estimated date of 200 CE). That the edition which p46 copied from did
                  not contain Hebrews after Romans (and for gosh sakes, that is not in
                  the "middle" of the corpus) is shown by the fact that here Hebrews was
                  placed in a position shared by no other later manuscript at all, ever.

                  If Hebrews was circulating earlier than the canonical edition of
                  Paul's letters, why was it never associated with one of the three
                  groupings that the canonical edition drew upon? Maybe it wasn't
                  considered Paul's? Then why did it not get associated with the mss
                  grouping known as the (Prax)apostolos (Acts + General Epistles)?
                  Because the author of Hebrews wasn't an Apostle? Hasn't modern
                  criticism largely agreed that this was an argument that intended to
                  justify the selection of the books of the NT, and not explain them?

                  This all means that Hebrews was probably written *after* the writing
                  of all the other books of the Pauline corpus (including any spurious
                  books), AND the Praxapostolos (almost all of the epistles contained in
                  it are considered late fabrications). It is LATE (at least mid 2nd
                  century), and that means not written by an associate of Paul, and thus
                  spurious.

                  I am a skeptic by nature, so I literally poured over this book and
                  worked out the data (I even caught an error in a table from Trobisch's
                  later book on a canonical edition of the entire NT), and by and large
                  I think he is onto something (i.e., editions of subsets of NT books).
                  When it happens that I am confronted with facts that are in
                  disagreement with my previously held opinions (as was the case here,
                  as was also the case with Kloppenborg's _Formation of Q_), I tend to
                  try to figure out (and ultimately adopt) historical scenarios that
                  accommodate these findings rather than explain them away.

                  Sorry if we disagree.

                  Respectfully,

                  Dave Hindley
                  Cleveland, Ohio, USA
                • David C. Hindley
                  ... extraordinary claim [that it was displayed in a torn state in the Temple of Peace in Rome].
                  Message 8 of 19 , Sep 1, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Jan Sammer said:

                    >>It would be interesting to have the primary sources for this
                    extraordinary claim [that it was displayed in a torn state in the
                    Temple of Peace in Rome].<<

                    Unfortunately, Eisler only cites Strack-Billerbeck (at least in the
                    English translation I used). I understand that the original German
                    edition (_BASILEUS IHSOUS_) is more extensive. However, I did find
                    what I think Eisler was thinking of, in the revised edition of
                    Schurer's _History of the Jewish People_, vol. 1 page 510 n133. There,
                    a mention of a Jewish visitor to the Temple of Peace in the time of
                    Justinian who saw the objects from the Jerusalem temple on display, is
                    said to be found in Procopius' _de bello Vandalico_ ii.9.5, and this
                    mirrors part of what Eisler says Strack-Billerbeck reported.

                    Supposedly, whatever traditions were recounted (either in Procopius or
                    elsewhere), they include one that suggested (or stated?) that Titus
                    himself cut through the veil with his sword in his haste to inspect
                    the holy of holies before it was consumed by fire. I did an internet
                    search that directed me to Philologos Religious Online Books
                    (Philologos.org), and searching that site I came up with _The Life and
                    Times of Jesus the Messiah_, Alfred Edersheim, 1883, Book V THE CROSS
                    AND THE CROWN, Chapter 15 'CRUCIFIED, DEAD, AND BURIED.' note 134:

                    >>A story is told in Jewish tradition (Gitt, 56 b, about the middle;
                    Ber. R. 10; Vayyik. R. 22, and in other places) to the effect that,
                    among other vilenesses, 'Titus the wicked' had penetrated into the
                    Sanctuary, and cut through the Veil of the Most Holy Place with his
                    sword, when blood dropped down. I mention the legend to express my
                    emphatic protest against the manner in which Dr. Joel (Blicke in d.
                    Religionsgesch. i. pp. 7, 8, treating of the passage in the Midr. on
                    Lam. ii. 17) has made use of it. He represents it, as if the Veil had
                    been rent (Zerreissen des Vorhanges bei d. Tempelzerst�rung) - not cut
                    through by Titus, and on the basis of this misrepresentation has the
                    boldness to set a legend about Titus side by side with the Evangelic
                    account of the rending of the Temple-Veil! I write thus strongly
                    because I am sorry to say that this is by no means the only instance
                    in which Jewish writers adapt their quotations to controversial
                    purposes. Joel refers to Dr. Sachs, Beitr. i. p. 29, but that learned
                    writer draws no such inference from the passage in question<<

                    Maybe someone with access to Strack-Billerbeck's _Kommentatur_ can
                    help us out here, and inform us what primary sources were referred to
                    on pages 1044 and 946ff of vol i.?

                    Respectfully,

                    Dave Hindley
                    Cleveland, Ohio, USA
                  • Stephen C. Carlson
                    ... That s my interpretation too of Trobisch. ... You re basically correct here, too. ... I m not sure this follows. The upper limit to the date of Hebrew
                    Message 9 of 19 , Sep 1, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      At 10:59 AM 9/1/01 -0400, David C. Hindley wrote:
                      >So, no, Trobisch does not prove that Hebrews is late (that was my
                      >interpretation), only that it was attached to a "canonical edition"
                      >(using Trobisch's term) after the introduction of that edition.

                      That's my interpretation too of Trobisch.

                      >If Hebrews was circulating earlier than the canonical edition of
                      >Paul's letters, why was it never associated with one of the three
                      >groupings that the canonical edition drew upon? Maybe it wasn't
                      >considered Paul's? Then why did it not get associated with the mss
                      >grouping known as the (Prax)apostolos (Acts + General Epistles)?
                      >Because the author of Hebrews wasn't an Apostle? Hasn't modern
                      >criticism largely agreed that this was an argument that intended to
                      >justify the selection of the books of the NT, and not explain them?

                      You're basically correct here, too.

                      >This all means that Hebrews was probably written *after* the writing
                      >of all the other books of the Pauline corpus (including any spurious
                      >books), AND the Praxapostolos (almost all of the epistles contained in
                      >it are considered late fabrications). It is LATE (at least mid 2nd
                      >century), and that means not written by an associate of Paul, and thus
                      >spurious.

                      I'm not sure this follows. The upper limit to the date of
                      Hebrew (terminus ad quem) is in the late 90s because of 1
                      Clement, esp. 36:1-5 (so Brown 1997: 696). I believe that
                      other have argued that the near contemporaneous Shepherd
                      of Hermas is also dependent on Hebrews. Generally, this
                      put Hebrews written anywhere from c. 60 - c. 90, which
                      could be before one or more the other epistles in the NT,
                      depending on which part of the interval you place Hebrews.
                      In fact, most introductions tend to date Hebrews earlier
                      than the Pastorals in the Pauline corpus and 2 Peter in
                      the Praxapostolos, both of which are thought to be late,
                      even post 90.

                      Stephen Carlson
                      --
                      Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                      Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
                      "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                    • David C. Hindley
                      ... (terminus ad quem) is in the late 90s because of 1 Clement, esp. 36:1-5 (so Brown 1997: 696). I believe that other have argued that the near
                      Message 10 of 19 , Sep 1, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Stephen Carlson said:

                        >>I'm not sure this follows. The upper limit to the date of Hebrew
                        (terminus ad quem) is in the late 90s because of 1 Clement, esp.
                        36:1-5 (so Brown 1997: 696). I believe that other have argued that
                        the near contemporaneous Shepherd of Hermas is also dependent on
                        Hebrews. Generally, this put Hebrews written anywhere from c. 60 - c.
                        90, which could be before one or more the other epistles in the NT,
                        depending on which part of the interval you place Hebrews. In fact,
                        most introductions tend to date Hebrews earlier than the Pastorals in
                        the Pauline corpus and 2 Peter in the Praxapostolos, both of which are
                        thought to be late, even post 90.<<

                        My statement was entirely based on mss evidence within the Pauline
                        corpus, while you are allowing other evidence. Of course, I am
                        assuming that because Hebrews is not associated with the three
                        collections which ultimately formed the basic 13 letter corpus, or
                        with the Praxapostolos, it is more likely that it was composed after
                        than before these collections. I concede that there is no absolute
                        surety in that assumption.

                        Regarding 1 Clement, I am on the fence about it as a reliable primary
                        source. It seems to quote ACTS 20:35; 1 COR 02:09; HEB 01:03-04; JAS
                        01:08, 02:23; LUKE 06:36-38, MATT 06:12-15, 07:02; 2 PET 03:03-04; ROM
                        01:32, 12:05; and TIT 03:01, plus, it also seems to allude to COL
                        01:18; 1 COR 03:13, 12:12, 13:04, 15:20; HEB 13:17; JAS 02:21, 05:20;
                        LUKE 17:02; MARK 09:42; MATT 18:06, 26:24; 1 PET 02:17, 03:20,
                        04:08; 2 PET 02:05, 02:06-09; PHI 04:15; 1 THE 05:12-13; and 1 TIM
                        05:21. That indicates a much more intimate familiarity with NT
                        documents (it never seems to quote unknown gospels like Barnabas - 3
                        times!, Ignatius Smyrneans - I will ignore the additional one in the
                        longer Greek version of Ephesians, and Justin's apologies) than I
                        would feel comfortable with if it is truly a genuine (or at least
                        unadulterated) product of 90-100 CE, as it represents itself.

                        As to the Shepherd, I was always under the impression that it was
                        almost completely free of any direct NT quotations. The phrases in the
                        Shepherd that resemble phrases in Hebrews are either echoes of phrases
                        from Jewish scriptures (3 of the 6 listed in the index to the Loeb
                        text in _Apostolic Fathers_, vol. II) or short phrases that may be
                        commonplace sayings shared by the writers of both documents (Vis
                        II.iii.2 "having broken away from the living God", Vis III.vii.2
                        "apostatise from the living God", both supposedly referring to Heb
                        3:12, and Sim IX.xix.2 "fruits of righteousness" which is supposed to
                        resemble the phrase in Heb 12:11 but is actually an exact match with
                        Phil 1:11). In all cases the wording would have to be pretty loose to
                        have actually been references to passages in Hebrews. Also, the only
                        firm dating for this work is its listing in the Muratorian canon,
                        which dates it to about 148 CE, but there is question as to the
                        canon's own date and what the author of the canon meant by "quite
                        recently, in our own time," when ascribing its composition to the
                        brother of Pius, bishop of Rome.

                        Respectfully,

                        Dave Hindley
                        Cleveland, Ohio, USA
                      • Stephen C. Carlson
                        ... I suppose that, in general, the later a letter is added to a letter the less likely it is to be genuine, and the more likely a letter is not genuine, the
                        Message 11 of 19 , Sep 1, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          At 03:44 PM 9/1/01 -0400, David C. Hindley wrote:
                          >My statement was entirely based on mss evidence within the Pauline
                          >corpus, while you are allowing other evidence. Of course, I am
                          >assuming that because Hebrews is not associated with the three
                          >collections which ultimately formed the basic 13 letter corpus, or
                          >with the Praxapostolos, it is more likely that it was composed after
                          >than before these collections. I concede that there is no absolute
                          >surety in that assumption.

                          I suppose that, in general, the later a letter is added to
                          a letter the less likely it is to be genuine, and the more
                          likely a letter is not genuine, the more likely it is later
                          than genuine letters. That being said, I would not be
                          content from reasoning about Hebrews' date merely from its
                          entry into the Pauline letter collection. I'd want more.

                          >Regarding 1 Clement, I am on the fence about it as a reliable primary
                          >source. It seems to quote ACTS 20:35; 1 COR 02:09; HEB 01:03-04; JAS
                          >01:08, 02:23; LUKE 06:36-38, MATT 06:12-15, 07:02; 2 PET 03:03-04; ROM
                          >01:32, 12:05; and TIT 03:01, plus, it also seems to allude to COL
                          >01:18; 1 COR 03:13, 12:12, 13:04, 15:20; HEB 13:17; JAS 02:21, 05:20;
                          >LUKE 17:02; MARK 09:42; MATT 18:06, 26:24; 1 PET 02:17, 03:20,
                          >04:08; 2 PET 02:05, 02:06-09; PHI 04:15; 1 THE 05:12-13; and 1 TIM
                          >05:21. That indicates a much more intimate familiarity with NT
                          >documents (it never seems to quote unknown gospels like Barnabas - 3
                          >times!, Ignatius Smyrneans - I will ignore the additional one in the
                          >longer Greek version of Ephesians, and Justin's apologies) than I
                          >would feel comfortable with if it is truly a genuine (or at least
                          >unadulterated) product of 90-100 CE, as it represents itself.

                          I'm fairly content with the standard position on 1 Clement as c. 95.
                          If it is spurious, I'd like to see a good Sitz im Leben for it.

                          >As to the Shepherd, I was always under the impression that it was
                          >almost completely free of any direct NT quotations. The phrases in the
                          >Shepherd that resemble phrases in Hebrews are either echoes of phrases
                          >from Jewish scriptures (3 of the 6 listed in the index to the Loeb
                          >text in _Apostolic Fathers_, vol. II) or short phrases that may be
                          >commonplace sayings shared by the writers of both documents (Vis
                          >II.iii.2 "having broken away from the living God", Vis III.vii.2
                          >"apostatise from the living God", both supposedly referring to Heb
                          >3:12, and Sim IX.xix.2 "fruits of righteousness" which is supposed to
                          >resemble the phrase in Heb 12:11 but is actually an exact match with
                          >Phil 1:11). In all cases the wording would have to be pretty loose to
                          >have actually been references to passages in Hebrews.

                          The Shepherd's contacts are not so much literary but an attempt
                          to get out of the theological bind Hebrews placed Christians in.

                          >Also, the only
                          >firm dating for this work is its listing in the Muratorian canon,
                          >which dates it to about 148 CE, but there is question as to the
                          >canon's own date and what the author of the canon meant by "quite
                          >recently, in our own time," when ascribing its composition to the
                          >brother of Pius, bishop of Rome.

                          The dating of the Shepherd is complex because different parts of
                          it appears to be composed at different time. However, I'm one
                          of those who agree with Hahneman that the Muratorian canon is
                          an early 4th century work and is not reliable on the date of the
                          Shepherd.

                          Stephen Carlson
                          --
                          Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                          Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
                          "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                        • Stephen C. Carlson
                          ... ^ collection ... Please insert this word. Stephen Carlson -- Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@mindspring.com Synoptic Problem Home
                          Message 12 of 19 , Sep 1, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            At 09:07 PM 9/1/01 -0400, Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
                            >I suppose that, in general, the later a letter is added to
                            >a letter the less likely it is to be genuine, and the more
                            ^ collection

                            >likely a letter is not genuine, the more likely it is later
                            >than genuine letters. That being said, I would not be
                            >content from reasoning about Hebrews' date merely from its
                            >entry into the Pauline letter collection. I'd want more.

                            Please insert this word.

                            Stephen Carlson
                            --
                            Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                            Synoptic Problem Home Page http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
                            "Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words." Shujing 2.35
                          • Bob Schacht
                            ... This is irrelevant, because at issue is Trobisch s analysis of the manuscripts. We *don t have* any manuscripts before P46. All such manuscripts, and what
                            Message 13 of 19 , Sep 1, 2001
                            • 0 Attachment
                              At 10:59 AM 9/1/01 -0400, you wrote:
                              >Bob Schacht vents:
                              >
                              > >>Aaaaarrgh! How can you-- or he--- claim that Hebrews was added later
                              >when it is present in the ***EARLIEST*** known manuscript of Paul's
                              >letters (P46), and is placed there in the MIDDLE, not at the end!!!<<
                              >
                              >200 CE, early as it is, is pretty darn *late*, well after any of these
                              >books were written.

                              This is irrelevant, because at issue is Trobisch's analysis of the
                              manuscripts. We *don't have* any manuscripts before P46. All such
                              manuscripts, and what they may have include, and in what order, are
                              hypothetical.

                              >p46 was badly planned (no matter how small he
                              >ended up writing, he wasn't going to fit 23 pages worth of text into
                              >14 pages!), so why not badly organized? Amateur scribe, personal
                              >organization.

                              What has this got to do with Trobisch's argument that Hebrews was added to
                              the Pauline Corpus at a later date? Perhaps I'm just being dense.

                              >To suppose that Hebrews was 1) (accidentally) accepted early but 2)
                              >later (rightly) rejected, only to 3) later (erroneously) win the
                              >battle of acceptance, is more akin to the plot of a tragic novel than
                              >an explanation based on the evidence.

                              Whatever plot, it is the evidence. The two earliest manuscripts do include
                              Hebrews, and they do not put it in an appendix. No distinction is made
                              between Hebrews and the other letters.

                              > Step 2 also assumes a certain
                              >amount of critical ability that was not really exercised in the early
                              >church until the latter quarter of the 2nd century CE (by Origen, and
                              >then only selectively, and Africanus, who few listened to anywise when
                              >it came to higher criticism, certainly not Origen).

                              You are confusing the evidence and the interpretation of the evidence. The
                              evidence in your table from Trobisch *shows* your steps 1, 2 & 3. That *is*
                              the evidence. What you are mixing into this is the explanation for the
                              evidence, and setting up straw explanatory men that you then proclaim as
                              unrealistic. The manuscripts that show Hebrews placed at the end, or
                              omitted, appear to date to centuries well after Origen and Africanus.
                              Besides, it is not necessary to posit any degree of sophistication in
                              literary criticism. I'm sure that you recall that arguments over the merits
                              of various Biblical books at the time of the Step 2 manuscripts were often
                              quite vitriolic. But I am not proposing any explanation for Step 2; I am
                              only observing that according to the evidence that you presented, Step 2
                              seems to have taken place-- at least in this small sample of texts from Egypt.


                              >That still does not explain why, in virtually every single manuscript,
                              >all 13 of the other books of the corpus are in the same relative order
                              >(with exception of 06 and miniscule 5, which reverses the order of 2
                              >books, placing Colossians next to its closely related sister
                              >Ephesians), EXCEPT Hebrews, and Hebrews shows up all over the place.
                              >And that means nothing to you?

                              I never said that it means nothing; clearly, if you look at the place of
                              Hebrews in the manuscripts over a span of 500 years, it is obvious that
                              people didn't know quite what to do with it. BUT THEY INCLUDED IT, except
                              for those Step 2 manuscripts in the middle of the sequence you summarized.
                              What baffles me is that you see, and wrote with your own hand, that the two
                              earliest manuscripts included Hebrews. Does that mean nothing to you?

                              >Do you have a similar scenario worked out for the wandering pericope of
                              >the Adulterous Woman?

                              No.

                              >So, no, Trobisch does not prove that Hebrews is late (that was my
                              >interpretation),

                              Ah! Thanks for the clarification.

                              >only that it was attached to a "canonical edition"
                              >(using Trobisch's term) after the introduction of that edition. That
                              >edition was apparently in circulation before p46 was written,

                              So this means that it is a hypothetical edition for which there is no
                              manuscript evidence, right?
                              What evidence does he have for this hypothetical edition?

                              >so prior to ca. 175-225 CE (assuming a 25 year margin of error about the
                              >estimated date of 200 CE). That the edition which p46 copied from did
                              >not contain Hebrews after Romans

                              How on earth does he "know" that? What is the evidence?

                              >(and for gosh sakes, that is not in the "middle" of the corpus)

                              All I meant was that it was not tucked into an appendix at the end of the
                              manuscript, and therefore not "set apart" from the other letters of Paul.

                              >is shown by the fact that here Hebrews was placed in a position shared by
                              >no other later manuscript at all, ever.

                              So what? It was INCLUDED! All this means is that at this early(!) date, the
                              canonical order of the letters had not yet become fixed. Big deal.


                              >If Hebrews was circulating earlier than the canonical edition of
                              >Paul's letters, why was it never associated with one of the three
                              >groupings that the canonical edition drew upon?

                              This is preposterous. Trobisch's canonical edition is evidently based on
                              hypothetical documents that no one has seen for 1800 years, and so the
                              groupings are also hypothetical. And yet, if you look at the two earliest
                              manuscripts, Hebrews IS included in the first group in both manuscripts,
                              being placed before Ephesians (even if in different sequences.) What am I
                              not getting here? You seem to be relying on some hypothetical set of
                              manuscripts that Trobisch has reconstructed on the basis of data that I
                              don't recall seeing you present. Am I being dense?

                              >Maybe it wasn't considered Paul's?

                              Why do you/Tobisch suppose this? Only on the basis of its differing place
                              in the order of letters? Why would that mean it wasn't Paul's? I'm not, by
                              the way, arguing that Hebrews was written by Paul; only that the earliest
                              manuscripts clearly include it with Paul's letters. If it was authored by
                              Silvanus or some other colleague of Paul's, it might seem natural to
                              include it.

                              >Then why did it not get associated with the mss
                              >grouping known as the (Prax)apostolos (Acts + General Epistles)?

                              This is getting ridiculous. You're saying "why don't you see..?" and I'm
                              responding "why don't you see...?" Something strange is going on here.
                              What relevance does the (Prax)apostolos (Acts + General Epistles) have?
                              When is it first attested? I'll bet it is not attested until a later date
                              than P46, and hence I would argue that grouping is not relevant.

                              >Because the author of Hebrews wasn't an Apostle? Hasn't modern
                              >criticism largely agreed that this was an argument that intended to
                              >justify the selection of the books of the NT, and not explain them?

                              I don't understand these sentences.


                              >This all means that Hebrews was probably written *after* the writing
                              >of all the other books of the Pauline corpus (including any spurious
                              >books), AND the Praxapostolos (almost all of the epistles contained in
                              >it are considered late fabrications). It is LATE (at least mid 2nd
                              >century), and that means not written by an associate of Paul, and thus
                              >spurious.

                              All this sounds like a hypothetical argument based on non-existant
                              manuscripts, or on manuscripts later than the earliest collections of
                              Paul's letters, unless you have in mind evidence that you haven't mentioned
                              yet.


                              >I am a skeptic by nature, so I literally poured over this book and
                              >worked out the data (I even caught an error in a table from Trobisch's
                              >later book on a canonical edition of the entire NT), and by and large
                              >I think he is onto something (i.e., editions of subsets of NT books).

                              This sounds like a *logical* argument. But what is the evidence to support it?

                              >When it happens that I am confronted with facts that are in
                              >disagreement with my previously held opinions (as was the case here,
                              >as was also the case with Kloppenborg's _Formation of Q_), I tend to
                              >try to figure out (and ultimately adopt) historical scenarios that
                              >accommodate these findings rather than explain them away.

                              I agree. And the stubborn facts of this case seem to be that the two
                              earliest manuscripts of collections of Paul's letters both include Hebrews,
                              and in both Hebrews is placed before Ephesians. Do these facts mean nothing
                              to you?

                              With respect to the manuscript evidence, I don't know of *any* manuscript
                              of *any* of Paul's letters that is earlier than Hebrews. Therefore it seems
                              to me that any analysis that argues for a later date for Hebrews must rest
                              on evidence *other than* the existing manuscripts. Perhaps you are assuming
                              this evidence rather than laying it out. If this is the case, I would
                              appreciate learning about what this other evidence is. But this exchange
                              was prefaced by your statement (several messages ago) that Trobisch based
                              his argument on *an examination of the manuscripts.*

                              >Sorry if we disagree.

                              I would like to have a better understanding of why we disagree, because it
                              looks to me like you are ignoring the evidence in favor of a hypothetical
                              (if wonderfully logical) theory of manuscripts. I would appreciate it if
                              you would point out any actual evidence that I am overlooking. We obviously
                              are "seeing" different things and are both astonished that the other does
                              not see what we see. If you or someone else can see the Rosetta Stone that
                              can make our arguments sensible to each other, I would be most grateful. Am
                              I just being dense?

                              Respectfully,
                              Bob
                            • David C. Hindley
                              Bob, ... well after any of these books were written ] is irrelevant, because at issue is Trobisch s analysis of the manuscripts. We *don t have* any
                              Message 14 of 19 , Sep 2, 2001
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Bob,

                                >>This [i.e., that "200 CE, early as it is, is pretty darn *late*,
                                well after any of these books were written"] is irrelevant, because at
                                issue is Trobisch's analysis of the manuscripts. We *don't have* any
                                manuscripts before P46. All such manuscripts, and what they may have
                                include, and in what order, are hypothetical.<<

                                Keep in mind that *you* are the one that keeps mentioning p46 as the
                                earliest witness as if this has great significance. Does it or doesn't
                                it?

                                >>What has this got to do with Trobisch's argument that Hebrews was
                                added to the Pauline Corpus at a later date? Perhaps I'm just being
                                dense.<<

                                Perhaps. <g> It has to do with YOUR idea that p46, being the earliest
                                mss and including Hebrews second in order, had some sort of special
                                significance. I was suggesting that p46 was not a *published* mss but
                                a private one. As a private one, its order could have represented the
                                whim of the owner/copyist, not the mss tradition of publishers. One of
                                Trobisch's points was that NT mss overwhelmingly show evidence of
                                being the products of publishing houses (scriptoriums, if you like,
                                but not to be confused with those in monasteries or the efforts of
                                house churches - the latter of which Trobisch finds little evidence
                                for).

                                >>What baffles me is that you see, and wrote with your own hand, that
                                the two earliest manuscripts included Hebrews. Does that mean nothing
                                to you?<<

                                I'm willing to take another look at manuscript tradition:

                                P46* 03** 01 06 012 Byz Min5 Min794
                                per 02 010
                                chap 03**
                                no's 04
                                200 4th? 4-5th 5-6th 9th

                                Rom 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
                                1Co 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
                                2Co 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
                                Gal 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

                                Eph 5 6 5 5 5 5 5 5

                                Phi 7 7 6 7 6 6 7 6
                                Col 8 8 7 6 7 7 6 7
                                1Th 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 8
                                2Th ? 10 9 9 9 9 9 9

                                1Ti ? ? 11 10 10 10 11 11
                                2Ti ? ? 12 11 11 11 12 12
                                Tit ? ? 13 12 12 12 13 13
                                Phm ? ? 14 13 13 13 14 14

                                Heb 2! 5! 10 14*** Omit! 14 10 10&15!

                                Looking at this chart again, there *is* evidence that Hebrews was
                                variously placed at the end of one or another of the three major
                                groupings of letters, but always as an appendix (except in p46). In 03
                                (by chapter order) it is tucked between the first major grouping and
                                the consistently appended book of Ephesians. In the major uncials
                                (incl. 03 in its actual order) and Miniscule 5 it comes after the 2nd
                                major grouping. In the Byzantine textual order and in 06 Claromontanus
                                it comes after the third (and last) grouping. Manuscripts 010 & 012
                                omit it completely. However, even in the case of 03 (by chapter
                                order), it is still after a major grouping, and along with Ephesians,
                                added as an appendix to that grouping.

                                To change the subject away from Hebrews, maybe the question should be,
                                "Are these groupings, found in all mss except p46, evidence for
                                previously existing independent collections appended together (as
                                Trobisch suggests) or some sort of critical grouping (group 1 =
                                undisputed, 2 = intermediate, 3 = disputed)? These groupings do exist,
                                and seem to have significance (even in deciding where to place
                                Hebrews) so if they were not evidence of independent groupings later
                                appended into the present collection, then what are they evidence for?

                                Before we all go rushing to conclusions, though, here is Trobisch's
                                table with the length of each book in characters based (I think) on
                                NA24.

                                ROM 34,410 18.4%
                                1CO 32,767 17.5%
                                2CO 22,280 11.9%
                                GAL 11,091 5.9%

                                EPH 12,012 6.4%

                                PHI 8,009 4.3%
                                COL 7,897 4.2%
                                1TH 7,423 4.0%
                                2TH 4,055 2.2%

                                1TI 8,869 4.7%
                                2TI 6,538 3.5%
                                TIT 3,733 2.0%
                                PHM 1,575 0.8%

                                HEB 26,382 14.1%

                                TOTAL 187,041 100%

                                The 3 major groupings are always in order of length (except Ephesians
                                and Hebrews). Ephesians is always, without fail, appended to the first
                                grouping. Hebrews is appended to all three groupings, or omitted, in
                                an inconsistent manner.

                                What are we to make of this order?

                                Respectfully,

                                Dave Hindley
                                Cleveland, Ohio, USA
                              • Bob Schacht
                                David, Thank you for your patience, and for this response which greatly enhances my understanding of your previously articulated position! More below. ... Sure
                                Message 15 of 19 , Sep 2, 2001
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  David,
                                  Thank you for your patience, and for this response which greatly enhances
                                  my understanding of your previously articulated position! More below.

                                  At 11:38 AM 9/2/01 -0400, you wrote:
                                  >Bob,
                                  >
                                  > >>This [i.e., that "200 CE, early as it is, is pretty darn *late*,
                                  >well after any of these books were written"] is irrelevant, because at
                                  >issue is Trobisch's analysis of the manuscripts. We *don't have* any
                                  >manuscripts before P46. All such manuscripts, and what they may have
                                  >include, and in what order, are hypothetical.<<
                                  >
                                  >Keep in mind that *you* are the one that keeps mentioning p46 as the
                                  >earliest witness as if this has great significance. Does it or doesn't
                                  >it?

                                  Sure it does. I am surprised that you consistently seem to regard this
                                  earliest witness as *irrelevant,* a position that is hard for me to
                                  understand, although the reasons seem to become clearer below.

                                  > >>What has this got to do with Trobisch's argument that Hebrews was
                                  >added to the Pauline Corpus at a later date? Perhaps I'm just being
                                  >dense.<<
                                  >
                                  >Perhaps. <g> It has to do with YOUR idea that p46, being the earliest
                                  >mss and including Hebrews second in order, had some sort of special
                                  >significance. I was suggesting that p46 was not a *published* mss but
                                  >a private one. As a private one, its order could have represented the
                                  >whim of the owner/copyist, not the mss tradition of publishers. One of
                                  >Trobisch's points was that NT mss overwhelmingly show evidence of
                                  >being the products of publishing houses (scriptoriums, if you like...

                                  It is not surprising to me that the earliest document *might have been* a
                                  "private" manuscript, and that later documents were "published" copies.
                                  Duh. I think Trobisch (and you) seem to exaggerate the importance of this
                                  point all out of proportion. But see below.


                                  > >>What baffles me is that you see, and wrote with your own hand, that
                                  >the two earliest manuscripts included Hebrews. Does that mean nothing
                                  >to you?<<
                                  >
                                  >I'm willing to take another look at manuscript tradition:
                                  >
                                  > P46* 03** 01 06 012 Byz Min5 Min794
                                  > per 02 010
                                  > chap 03**
                                  > no's 04
                                  > 200 4th? 4-5th 5-6th 9th
                                  >
                                  >Rom 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
                                  >1Co 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
                                  >2Co 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
                                  >Gal 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
                                  >
                                  >Eph 5 6 5 5 5 5 5 5
                                  >
                                  >Phi 7 7 6 7 6 6 7 6
                                  >Col 8 8 7 6 7 7 6 7
                                  >1Th 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 8
                                  >2Th ? 10 9 9 9 9 9 9
                                  >
                                  >1Ti ? ? 11 10 10 10 11 11
                                  >2Ti ? ? 12 11 11 11 12 12
                                  >Tit ? ? 13 12 12 12 13 13
                                  >Phm ? ? 14 13 13 13 14 14
                                  >
                                  >Heb 2! 5! 10 14*** Omit! 14 10 10&15!
                                  >
                                  >Looking at this chart again, there *is* evidence that Hebrews was
                                  >variously placed at the end of one or another of the three major
                                  >groupings of letters, but always as an appendix (except in p46).

                                  OK, I think I follow you here. But rather than quibbling about the next
                                  paragraph [snipped], let's get to the real breakthrough:

                                  >...To change the subject away from Hebrews, maybe the question should be,
                                  >"Are these groupings, found in all mss except p46, evidence for
                                  >previously existing independent collections appended together (as
                                  >Trobisch suggests) or some sort of critical grouping (group 1 =
                                  >undisputed, 2 = intermediate, 3 = disputed)?

                                  AH! Now all your previous messages make sense. Rephrase it not as a
                                  question but as a hypothesis, and everything you have been arguing falls
                                  into place. But I think that there are several significant problems with
                                  this hypothesis:
                                  1. It reconstructs a hypothetical ancestral letter collection (pre-200
                                  C.E.) for which there are no manuscripts.
                                  2. It appears to regard texts ranging in date from 200 C.E. to the 9th
                                  Century as all having equal value as witnesses to the pre-200 collection of
                                  letters. This is an astonishing presumption, as it equates pre-Constantine
                                  texts (P46 and maybe 03) with texts dating to the period of the first 4
                                  Ecumenical Councils (from Nicea in 325 to Chalcedon in 451) and even later.
                                  In other words, most of the 8 collections of letters date after Nicea, and
                                  so that the selection and arrangement of letters is likely to have been
                                  influenced by those councils. Therefore, it is strange to regard them as
                                  witnesses to the pre-200 C.E. collection.

                                  In other words, I would argue that the answer to your question is "No".

                                  >These groupings do exist,
                                  >and seem to have significance (even in deciding where to place
                                  >Hebrews) so if they were not evidence of independent groupings later
                                  >appended into the present collection, then what are they evidence for?

                                  First, they might be evidence for Conciliar judgments about the
                                  significance of the various letters.
                                  Second, let's go back to the issue of the authorship of Hebrews. McCoy
                                  makes a case for Silvanus. Suppose that the author was Silvanus or another
                                  colleague of Paul, someone of Paul's generation known to be associated with
                                  Paul, but not Paul himself. BTW, McCoy is not the first to have thought of
                                  Silvanus as author: The ABD article on Hebrews mentions Silas(Silvanus) as
                                  one of the proposed authors.

                                  Collections of letters would then have a slight problem: Should Hebrews be
                                  grouped with the known letters of Paul, or the subsequent generations of
                                  Pauline letters? Hebrews does not begin like a letter, but it ends like a
                                  letter and so on grounds of being a letter and being authored by a close
                                  associate of Paul, there would be uncertainty about where to put it. But
                                  see more below.

                                  >Before we all go rushing to conclusions, though, here is Trobisch's
                                  >table with the length of each book in characters based (I think) on
                                  >NA24.
                                  >
                                  >ROM 34,410 18.4%
                                  >1CO 32,767 17.5%
                                  >2CO 22,280 11.9%
                                  >GAL 11,091 5.9%
                                  >
                                  >EPH 12,012 6.4%
                                  >
                                  >PHI 8,009 4.3%
                                  >COL 7,897 4.2%
                                  >1TH 7,423 4.0%
                                  >2TH 4,055 2.2%
                                  >
                                  >1TI 8,869 4.7%
                                  >2TI 6,538 3.5%
                                  >TIT 3,733 2.0%
                                  >PHM 1,575 0.8%
                                  >
                                  >HEB 26,382 14.1%
                                  >
                                  >TOTAL 187,041 100%
                                  >
                                  >The 3 major groupings are always in order of length (except Ephesians
                                  >and Hebrews).

                                  But with P46 the order *is* based (roughly) on length. A strict ordering on
                                  length would place it between I and 2 Corinthians. To avoid interrupting
                                  the Corinthian letters, a length-based ordering would place Hebrews either
                                  before the Corinthian letters (as P46 did), or after them. Thus, P46
                                  appears to treat Hebrews like any other of the Pauline letters, placing it
                                  on the basis of length.

                                  >Ephesians is always, without fail, appended to the first
                                  >grouping. Hebrews is appended to all three groupings, or omitted, in
                                  >an inconsistent manner.
                                  >
                                  >What are we to make of this order?

                                  That Hebrews was known not to have been written by Paul, but to have been
                                  written by a close associate of Paul, and that since it at least ends like
                                  a letter, it belonged "somewhere" in the collection of Paul's letters. On
                                  the basis of length, it belongs with the first group (so P46 and 03), but
                                  on the basis of not being by Paul, it might have been bumped to the second
                                  or third group. If it was thought early, (e.g. with reasoning like
                                  McCoy's), it would be logical to append it after the Thessalonian
                                  correspondence. If it was thought too far removed from Paul's thinking,
                                  that might have been grounds to append it to the third group. At any rate,
                                  it would be interesting to know what debates about Hebrews were made in the
                                  Ecumenical Councils.

                                  But I think we have digressed from the original point. :-)
                                  In any case, thanks for clarifying the basis of Trobisch's argument. At
                                  least, now I know where you were "coming from".

                                  Bob


                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • Karel Hanhart
                                  ... Primary sources are (German) Str- B vol 1 p.946ff Git 56a. In German the following note has been added: These stories of Titus have often be repeated in
                                  Message 16 of 19 , Sep 4, 2001
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    "David C. Hindley" wrote:

                                    > Jan Sammer said:
                                    >
                                    > >>It would be interesting to have the primary sources for this
                                    > extraordinary claim [that it was displayed in a torn state in the
                                    > Temple of Peace in Rome].<<
                                    > Maybe someone with access to Strack-Billerbeck's _Kommentatur_ can
                                    > help us out here, and inform us what primary sources were referred to
                                    > on pages 1044 and 946ff of vol i.?
                                    >

                                    Primary sources are (German) Str- B vol 1 p.946ff Git 56a. In German the following
                                    note has been added: "These stories of Titus have often be repeated in Midrash
                                    litearture. f.i. GnR 10 (7d); LvR (119c); 22 (120d); NuR 18 (185b); Midr Qoh 5,8
                                    (26b); Tanch chqt 222a; TanchB chqt par. 1 (50a).

                                    What is precisely the problem, David?

                                    your,

                                    Karel
                                  • David C. Hindley
                                    ... the following note has been added: These stories of Titus have often be repeated in Midrash litearture. f.i. GnR 10 (7d); LvR (119c); 22 (120d); NuR 18
                                    Message 17 of 19 , Sep 4, 2001
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Karel Hanhart responded:

                                      >>Primary sources are (German) Str- B vol 1 p.946ff Git 56a. In German
                                      the following note has been added: "These stories of Titus have often
                                      be repeated in Midrash litearture. f.i. GnR 10 (7d); LvR (119c); 22
                                      (120d); NuR 18 (185b); Midr Qoh 5,8 (26b); Tanch chqt 222a; TanchB
                                      chqt par. 1 (50a).

                                      What is precisely the problem, David?<<

                                      No problem at all. We had been discussing how the Christian tradition
                                      about the rending of the veil before the holy of holies in Jerusalem
                                      upon Jesus' death might impact the dating of Hebrews' composition.

                                      It started with F M McCoy on 8/29, who (I think) interpreted Hebrews
                                      10:19-21 to refer to the accounts of the rending of the temple veil
                                      upon Jesus' death found in the synoptic gospels. He felt that it was a
                                      symbolic foreshadowing of the temple's ultimate destruction in 70 CE,
                                      similar to the portent of the heavy temple gate swinging open of its
                                      own accord, as related by Josephus in BJ VI.v.3. Hebrews, like
                                      Josephus' alleged portent, could have been written before the temple's
                                      destruction, and even says this veil talk is "all but a proof that
                                      Hebrews is pre-70 CE."

                                      Heb 10 "19 Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the
                                      sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, 20 by the new and living way which he
                                      opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, 21 and
                                      since we have a great priest over the house of God" (RSV)

                                      I pointed out that I had read Robert Eisler (_Messiah Jesus and John
                                      the Baptist_, pg. 146-147) to say that the rending of the veil story
                                      was probably a legend based upon the eyewitnesses testimony of folks
                                      who had visited the Temple of Peace in Rome after 75 CE and saw the
                                      veils on display, one of which was rent/torn. He mentioned in a
                                      footnote that there was evidence for Jews visiting the Temple of Peace
                                      and also a tradition that Titus himself cut through the veil when
                                      taking the temple, but did not cite primary sources, only S-B
                                      _Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch_ vol 1 pages
                                      1044 & 946. I was able to track down a citation in the Mishna
                                      referring to the annual renewal of the veil (Shekalim 8.5).

                                      Jan Sammer asked if I could try to find more precise citations for the
                                      evidence suggested by Eisler, so I located a reference to Jewish
                                      visitors at the Temple of Peace in Justinian's time, found in
                                      Procopius' _de bello Vandalico_ ii.9.5 (my source here was Schurer's
                                      revised _History of the Jewish People_, vol. 1 page 510 n133). An
                                      internet search produced a citation by Alfred Edersheim, 1883, Book V
                                      THE CROSS AND THE CROWN, Chapter 15 'CRUCIFIED, DEAD, AND BURIED.'
                                      note 134: "A story is told in Jewish tradition (Gitt, 56 b, about the
                                      middle; Ber. R. 10; Vayyik. R. 22, and in other places) to the effect
                                      that, among other vilenesses, 'Titus the wicked' had penetrated into
                                      the Sanctuary, and cut through the Veil of the Most Holy Place with
                                      his sword, when blood dropped down."

                                      I was interested in whether S-B had any other references to add.

                                      Thank you for your response!

                                      Respectfully,

                                      Dave Hindley
                                      Cleveland, Ohio, USA
                                    • Jan Sammer
                                      From: David C. Hindley ... I meant to reply earlier re: Procopius, which I only have in a Czech translation. The following is my
                                      Message 18 of 19 , Sep 4, 2001
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        From: "David C. Hindley" <dhindley@...>
                                        >
                                        > Jan Sammer asked if I could try to find more precise citations for the
                                        > evidence suggested by Eisler, so I located a reference to Jewish
                                        > visitors at the Temple of Peace in Justinian's time, found in
                                        > Procopius' _de bello Vandalico_ ii.9.5 (my source here was Schurer's
                                        > revised _History of the Jewish People_, vol. 1 page 510 n133). ...


                                        I meant to reply earlier re: Procopius, which I only have in a Czech
                                        translation. The following is my translation of the Czech version into
                                        English (I have not found an English version available on the web, nor do I
                                        have one in my library--but this second-hand translation ought to be
                                        adequate for present purposes). This passage of Procopius has led to the
                                        speculation that amongst the "other things" mentioned by him as having been
                                        brought to Byzantium by Belisarius was the temple menorah, carved in the
                                        Arch of Titus in the Roman Forum, as having been captured by Titus, brought
                                        to Rome, and carried in his triumphal procession. I have not previously
                                        heard of the temple veil being allegedly among these objects. The fact is
                                        that the only objects actually listed by Procopius are certain vases--thus
                                        no menorah and no temple veil, at least not explicitly.

                                        ------------------------

                                        When Belisarius came to Byzantium with Gelimer and the other Vandals, he
                                        received all the honors that it was customary in ancient times to grant
                                        generals for the greatest victories. Nobody had received these for six
                                        hundred years, with the exception of Titus and Trajan and other emperors who
                                        had personally commanded their armies and won victories over the barbarian
                                        nations. In the course of his triumph he marched through the entire city,
                                        having in front of him booty and prisoners of war. He did not ride in a
                                        carriage, as had been the custom among the ancestors, but went on foot from
                                        his own house to the hippodrome, from where he walked up to the Imperial
                                        throne. Among the booty it was possible to see what the captive king had
                                        been using-golden armchairs, small carriages used by the Vandal queens,
                                        everything artisticaly fashioned and decorated with a large quantity of
                                        precious stones; furthermore, there was a large number of golden vessels and
                                        other things that Gelimer had for his own use at the table. There were also
                                        many thousands of talents of sillver and all of the furniture of this ruler,
                                        very precious and luxurious; Geiseric had it brought from the Roman palace
                                        when he had captured Rome in the fashion I have described earlier. There
                                        were also very precious vases, which came from the Jews, and which Titus
                                        Vespasianus had brought to Rome along with other things, when he captured
                                        Jerusalem.
                                        When a certain Jew, who was in Byzantium, saw them, he said to a man near to
                                        him, who had access to the Emperor: "I think that these things ought not be
                                        put into the Imperial palace. They have already become fatal to two great
                                        empires and caused Geiseric to destroy the great empire in the West and
                                        caused Belisarius to expel the Vandals from Libya, because these things
                                        could not remain anywhere else than the place for which King Solomon had
                                        them fashioned in his days." As soon as this was told to the Emperor, he
                                        became afraid and immediately sent everything to Jerusalem and had it stored
                                        in the Christian temples.

                                        ------------------

                                        Thus we are left with midrashic sources on Titus cutting the veil, but no
                                        thus far source stating that the veil was on display in Rome ca. 75 A.D.

                                        Jan Sammer
                                        sammer@...
                                        Prague, Czech Republic
                                      • David C. Hindley
                                        ... but no thus far source stating that the veil was on display in Rome ca. 75 A.D.
                                        Message 19 of 19 , Sep 4, 2001
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Jan Sammer said:

                                          >>Thus we are left with midrashic sources on Titus cutting the veil,
                                          but no thus far source stating that the veil was on display in Rome
                                          ca. 75 A.D.<<

                                          Then we were not dealing with a Jewish visitor to the Temple of Peace
                                          after all. The reference to the disposition of the veils was in BW
                                          VII.V.5-7. Actually, what this says was that the veils were stored in
                                          the royal palace, not the Temple of Peace.

                                          I think what Eisler was doing was assuming what needed to be proved by
                                          imagining that there was a high likelihood that visitors to the royal
                                          palace, or the triumph, had seen the veils. He also assumed that the
                                          Jewish legends about Titus cutting through one of them to get at the
                                          holy of holies are based on the reports of Jews who saw the veils at
                                          one of these two places, and that they must have seen then cut or torn
                                          in some way.

                                          Actually that scenario is not so far-fetched, although Eisler really
                                          should not have assumed it as a given fact. Emotional statements are
                                          not to be unexpected, I suppose. The 19th century Christian author I
                                          had cited earlier was incensed that a Jewish scholar had used the
                                          legend to question the authenticity of the account found in the
                                          synoptic gospels. He was implying exactly the opposite, that the
                                          Christian accounts are historical and the legends were not, but rather
                                          some sort of Jewish polemic.

                                          Respectfully,

                                          Dave Hindley
                                          Cleveland, Ohio, USA
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.