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

RE: [XTalk] Dating of Hebrews

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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´┐Żrung) - 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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.