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

RE: [XTalk] Dating of Hebrews

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 of 19 , Sep 1 4:42 AM
      • 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 3 of 19 , Sep 1 7:59 AM
        • 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 4 of 19 , Sep 1 10:21 AM
          • 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 5 of 19 , Sep 1 11:08 AM
            • 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 6 of 19 , Sep 1 12:44 PM
              • 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 7 of 19 , Sep 1 6:07 PM
                • 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 8 of 19 , Sep 1 8:04 PM
                  • 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 9 of 19 , Sep 1 11:29 PM
                    • 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 10 of 19 , Sep 2 8:38 AM
                      • 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 11 of 19 , Sep 2 9:50 PM
                        • 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 12 of 19 , Sep 4 4:33 AM
                          • 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 13 of 19 , Sep 4 6:00 AM
                            • 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 14 of 19 , Sep 4 8:04 AM
                              • 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 15 of 19 , Sep 4 9:27 AM
                                • 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.