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

RE: [XTalk] Dating of Hebrews

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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.