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

RE: [XTalk] Dating of Hebrews

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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.