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

Re: tc-list Quote by Bruce Metzger

Expand Messages
  • Dierk Vandenberg
    ... Von: Jack Kilmon An: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Datum: Freitag, 15. Mai 1998 15:49
    Message 1 of 28 , May 15, 1997
    • 0 Attachment
      -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
      Von: Jack Kilmon <jkilmon@...>
      An: tc-list@... <tc-list@...>
      Datum: Freitag, 15. Mai 1998 15:49
      Betreff: Re: tc-list Quote by Bruce Metzger


      Jack wrote:


      >[... snip-snap ...]
      >If there was ever even a remote possibility that 7Q5 could have been part
      >of an "Ur-Markus" it will never get a thorough "going over" because of all
      >the nonsense.
      > [... ]
      >Jack

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      here comes 7Q5 for those who like to puzzle it out :

      (1) [ -- ].[ -- ]
      (2) [ -- ]. tô a.[ -- ]
      (3) [ -- ]ê kai tô[(?) -- ]
      (4) [ -- n]nês[ -- ]
      (5) [ -- ]têes[ -- ]

      that's all!

      Mk 6:52-53 possibly only in line (4) and (5) if a shorter text is assumed
      !!!

      Other possibilities are:
      Ex 36:10-11
      2Ki 5:13-14
      Zech 7:4-5 (!)

      Regards,
      Dierk

      ............................................................................
      ...
      "Where were you when the page was blank?"
      Truman Capote
      ............................................................................
      ...
    • Carlton Winbery
      Steven Carr wrote; ... I checked the site and found the following quote attributed to Metzger with no biblio given. Instead of saying uncredible we should
      Message 2 of 28 , May 10, 1998
      • 0 Attachment
        Steven Carr wrote;

        >In message <Pine.A41.3.95L.980510114419.64842B-
        >100000@...>, Bart Ehrman <behrman@...> writes
        >> May I ask where you got this quotation? I'm not familiar with Metzger
        >>having done any recent work in this area, and your bibliographical data
        >>are not specific enough for me to check it out for myself. (The quotation
        >>seems uncharacteristic to me)
        >>
        >>-- Bart Ehrman
        >> University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
        >
        >I got it from this rather silly, perhaps dubious Web page
        >
        >http://www.jude3.org/bookshelf/truth/tekton/Tekton_02_02_06.html
        >
        >The source is given as the Reverend Gregory Neal.
        >
        I checked the site and found the following quote attributed to Metzger with
        no biblio given.

        "Instead of saying "uncredible" we should say "incredible." In the case of
        7Q5, we dare not throw out this papyrus fragment simply because it doesn't
        fit with our long-held theories. It is an anomaly of the highest and most
        perplexing order, and one which demands our attention if we are honest in
        our field. Our pride as scholars has often lead us into saying what the
        facts help determine our theories. This is the case here. If the facts
        indicate that Mark was written PRIOR to 68 AD, then all the theories
        regarding later dates for its authorship MUST bend to the facts."

        It seems to me, if in fact Metzger said this, it is simply saying we must
        not reject evidence just because it does not fit another theory that we
        hold. I find no indication that Metzger in any way agreed with the
        identification or the dating of other mss.



        Carlton L. Winbery
        Fogleman Professor of Religion
        Louisiana College
        Pineville, LA 71359
        winberyc@...
        winbery@...
      • Steven Carr
        In message , Bart Ehrman writes ... I got it from this rather silly,
        Message 3 of 28 , May 10, 1998
        • 0 Attachment
          In message <Pine.A41.3.95L.980510114419.64842B-
          100000@...>, Bart Ehrman <behrman@...> writes
          > May I ask where you got this quotation? I'm not familiar with Metzger
          >having done any recent work in this area, and your bibliographical data
          >are not specific enough for me to check it out for myself. (The quotation
          >seems uncharacteristic to me)
          >
          >-- Bart Ehrman
          > University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

          I got it from this rather silly, perhaps dubious Web page

          http://www.jude3.org/bookshelf/truth/tekton/Tekton_02_02_06.html

          The source is given as the Reverend Gregory Neal.

          It seems strange to me too.
          Are people are spreading false rumours about Bruce Meztger?

          BTW, I have just finished your book 'The New Testament - A Historical
          Introduction to the Earliest Christian Writings' and I thought it was
          extremely good.

          >On Sun, 10 May 1998, Steven Carr wrote:
          >
          >> Does Bruce Metzger give a date of 75-100 AD for p64 and p67?
          >> I 'quote' him as follows :-
          >>
          >> Last year, amid much criticism from my colleagues, I stepped out upon a
          >> limb to offer an early second century date for Ps 64 and 67. At that
          >> time it was my opinion that, unless further evidence were to be
          >> presented, a date earlier than 100 CE would not be warranted. As is true
          >> in all fields of academic endeavor, further evidence has been
          >> forthcoming. While I shall continue to stand by the early date of 100 CE
          >> for these two papyri, I no longer consider such to be the early date.
          >> The writing style of Herculaneum is, to my eye, so near to identical
          >> to that of Ps 64 and 67 that I am now willing to accept that they should
          >> be dated 70 - 100 CE, with a median date of 85 CE. While such a date
          >> will cause significant difficulty (nay, consternation) for many of my
          >> colleagues, I urge them to recognize that even if a date slightly
          >> earlier than 85 were to be chosen, it would still not destroy the
          >> traditional range of dates for Matthew's Gospel.'
          >>
          >> (Metzger, "P64+67 and the Governmental letters of Herculaneum: A
          >> Critique of the 1996 Thiede Analysis." 1997 Monograph before SBL, pp
          >> 38-39.)
          >>
          >> Is this accurate?
        • Bart Ehrman
          Well, I could collect Metzger Traditions from a range of sources and publish them in a small book. In fact, I ve thought about it! :-) Thanks for the kind
          Message 4 of 28 , May 10, 1998
          • 0 Attachment
            Well, I could collect Metzger Traditions from a range of sources and
            publish them in a small book. In fact, I've thought about it! :-)

            Thanks for the kind words about my book. It was actually a lot of fun
            to write. (No footnotes!)

            -- Bart Ehrman


            On Sun, 10 May 1998, Steven Carr wrote:

            > In message <Pine.A41.3.95L.980510114419.64842B-
            > 100000@...>, Bart Ehrman <behrman@...> writes
            > > May I ask where you got this quotation? I'm not familiar with Metzger
            > >having done any recent work in this area, and your bibliographical data
            > >are not specific enough for me to check it out for myself. (The quotation
            > >seems uncharacteristic to me)
            > >
            > >-- Bart Ehrman
            > > University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
            >
            > I got it from this rather silly, perhaps dubious Web page
            >
            > http://www.jude3.org/bookshelf/truth/tekton/Tekton_02_02_06.html
            >
            > The source is given as the Reverend Gregory Neal.
            >
            > It seems strange to me too.
            > Are people are spreading false rumours about Bruce Meztger?
            >
            > BTW, I have just finished your book 'The New Testament - A Historical
            > Introduction to the Earliest Christian Writings' and I thought it was
            > extremely good.
            >
            > >On Sun, 10 May 1998, Steven Carr wrote:
            > >
            > >> Does Bruce Metzger give a date of 75-100 AD for p64 and p67?
            > >> I 'quote' him as follows :-
            > >>
            > >> Last year, amid much criticism from my colleagues, I stepped out upon a
            > >> limb to offer an early second century date for Ps 64 and 67. At that
            > >> time it was my opinion that, unless further evidence were to be
            > >> presented, a date earlier than 100 CE would not be warranted. As is true
            > >> in all fields of academic endeavor, further evidence has been
            > >> forthcoming. While I shall continue to stand by the early date of 100 CE
            > >> for these two papyri, I no longer consider such to be the early date.
            > >> The writing style of Herculaneum is, to my eye, so near to identical
            > >> to that of Ps 64 and 67 that I am now willing to accept that they should
            > >> be dated 70 - 100 CE, with a median date of 85 CE. While such a date
            > >> will cause significant difficulty (nay, consternation) for many of my
            > >> colleagues, I urge them to recognize that even if a date slightly
            > >> earlier than 85 were to be chosen, it would still not destroy the
            > >> traditional range of dates for Matthew's Gospel.'
            > >>
            > >> (Metzger, "P64+67 and the Governmental letters of Herculaneum: A
            > >> Critique of the 1996 Thiede Analysis." 1997 Monograph before SBL, pp
            > >> 38-39.)
            > >>
            > >> Is this accurate?
            >
            >
          • Roderic L. Mullen
            Re the quotation attributed to Metzger re P64 & P 67, I agree it doesn t sound like Metzger to me, but has anyone thought of asking him? How about it Bart,
            Message 5 of 28 , May 10, 1998
            • 0 Attachment
              Re the quotation attributed to Metzger re P64 & P 67, I agree it doesn't
              sound like Metzger to me, but has anyone thought of asking him? How about
              it Bart, you probably know him best. --Rod Mullen

              At 02:23 PM 5/10/98 +0400, you wrote:
              >Steven Carr wrote;
              >
              >>In message <Pine.A41.3.95L.980510114419.64842B-
              >>100000@...>, Bart Ehrman <behrman@...> writes
              >>> May I ask where you got this quotation? I'm not familiar with Metzger
              >>>having done any recent work in this area, and your bibliographical data
              >>>are not specific enough for me to check it out for myself. (The quotation
              >>>seems uncharacteristic to me)
              >>>
              >>>-- Bart Ehrman
              >>> University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
              >>
              >>I got it from this rather silly, perhaps dubious Web page
              >>
              >>http://www.jude3.org/bookshelf/truth/tekton/Tekton_02_02_06.html
              >>
              >>The source is given as the Reverend Gregory Neal.
              >>
              >I checked the site and found the following quote attributed to Metzger with
              >no biblio given.
              >
              >"Instead of saying "uncredible" we should say "incredible." In the case of
              >7Q5, we dare not throw out this papyrus fragment simply because it doesn't
              >fit with our long-held theories. It is an anomaly of the highest and most
              >perplexing order, and one which demands our attention if we are honest in
              >our field. Our pride as scholars has often lead us into saying what the
              >facts help determine our theories. This is the case here. If the facts
              >indicate that Mark was written PRIOR to 68 AD, then all the theories
              >regarding later dates for its authorship MUST bend to the facts."
              >
              >It seems to me, if in fact Metzger said this, it is simply saying we must
              >not reject evidence just because it does not fit another theory that we
              >hold. I find no indication that Metzger in any way agreed with the
              >identification or the dating of other mss.
              >
              >
              >
              >Carlton L. Winbery
              >Fogleman Professor of Religion
              >Louisiana College
              >Pineville, LA 71359
              >winberyc@...
              >winbery@...
              >
              >
              >
            • RE Elliott
              Tc ers I just got off the phone with Bruce Metzger and he informed me that he wrote NO such paper! In regards to the dating of P 64 and 67 he referred to the
              Message 6 of 28 , May 10, 1998
              • 0 Attachment
                Tc'ers
                I just got off the phone with Bruce Metzger and he informed me that he wrote
                NO such paper! In regards to the dating of P 64 and 67 he referred to the
                dating put forth by Nestle-Aland of about 200 CE.
                This should put an end to this supposed quotation.
                Rich Elliott

                p.s. perhaps the next step in finding the truth to this quotation (if any) is
                to contact SBL and ask for a copy of this paper. Perhaps it does exist, and
                somewhere along the line Metzger's name was incorrectly used. I look forward
                to checking the list and see what transpires.
              • Yuri Kuchinsky
                Dear friends, Here s an essay I wrote about Adoptionism, based on Bart Ehrman s book. A slightly different version was posted already to Crosstalk-l where
                Message 7 of 28 , May 10, 1998
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear friends,

                  Here's an essay I wrote about Adoptionism, based on Bart Ehrman's book. A
                  slightly different version was posted already to Crosstalk-l where people
                  seemed to like it.

                  All opinions and criticisms are welcome.

                  Best wishes,

                  Yuri.

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

                  ADOPTIONISM: THE EARLIEST CHRISTIAN FAITH? -- or when
                  did Jesus become the Son of God?

                  by Yuri Kuchinsky


                  What was the earliest Christian faith? What did the earliest
                  Christians really believe in? Did they really see Jesus as God, as
                  the Son of God, or perhaps even as a mere mortal man?

                  Of course our present orthodox creed, formulated in 325 AD at
                  Nicea, insists that Jesus was both man and God at the same time,
                  and in equal measure. But was this really the original belief? This
                  doesn't seem so.

                  It is very likely, on the other hand, that while the earliest Christians
                  may have seen Jesus as a great teacher and healer, extraordinarily
                  righteous and wise, and possessed of certain very special gifts and
                  powers, they still saw him primarily as a flesh and blood human being. And
                  they seemed to consider him as such until a certain crucial moment in his
                  life when God adopted him as His Son. Such a view was seen as heretical by
                  the Church Fathers of the second century and later, and it is known as
                  "Adoptionism".

                  Who were the early Adoptionists? Quite a wide variety of Adoptionist
                  Christians are attested in the early Christian times from various sources.
                  Among them were both the Jewish-Christian groups such as the Ebionites,
                  and the Gentile Christians, such as the followers of the "heretical
                  teacher" Theodotus who was active in Rome at the end of the second
                  century. So the Adoptionists' beliefs were clearly far from uniform.


                  TWO TYPES OF ADOPTIONISM

                  In general, two types of Adoptionism are found in our earliest sources:
                  the Resurrection-Adoptionism, and the Baptism-Adoptionism.
                  Resurrection-Adoptionist Christians believed that Jesus became the Son of
                  God only at the moment of his Resurrection, whereas, on the other hand,
                  the Baptism-Adoptionists saw the moment of the Baptism of Jesus as a big
                  turning point. Both these types of Adoptionism are well attested in the
                  NT, and this should indicate that the roots of Adoptionism may indeed go
                  back to the most primitive layers of the Christian tradition.

                  I will consider here the material for the very early Adoptionism as
                  adduced by Bart Ehrman in his book THE ORTHODOX CORRUPTION OF SCRIPTURE.

                  [Ehrman, Bart D., THE ORTHODOX CORRUPTION OF SCRIPTURE: the effect of
                  early Christological controversies on the text of the NT; New York;
                  Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.]

                  In this book as a whole, Ehrman sets as his goal to determine
                  which passages of the NT are likely to be "the orthodox corruptions
                  of the Scripture", i.e. added by the later orthodox editors in order to
                  counter various beliefs that they charged were "later heresies".
                  And he finds quite a few of these. I agree with Ehrman for the
                  most part. Many such corruptions are to be found in the NT, or so
                  it seems.

                  Of course, one may naturally assume that these "later heresies"
                  that the later orthodox (or "proto-orthodox", as Ehrman styles them)
                  editors tried to eradicate may have in fact been actually the
                  _genuine earliest traditions_ that they were trying hard to
                  suppress. This, indeed, seems quite likely to me. So, in other
                  words, the later "proto-orthodox" editors may have been trying to
                  impose on the Christian believers views that were, in themselves,
                  later corruptions of the original faith.

                  Ehrman focuses on the large number of key NT passages the
                  readings of which are in doubt, and the mss evidence for which is
                  often quite contradictory. His procedure is to try to determine the
                  earliest readings of these important passages. He finds and
                  discusses many such questionable passages that, according to
                  him, the later orthodox editors and commentators tried, on their
                  own authority, and often without much real validity, to impose as
                  the authoritative Scriptural texts.

                  Of course, today's conservative commentators will tend to reject outright
                  any idea that the early orthodox editors of the NT would do such a thing
                  as try to tamper with the Scriptures. But such a view is rather naive. We
                  have quite a lot of evidence demonstrating that the earliest doctrinal
                  struggles in various early churches were very common and also very bitter.
                  And we also know that all sides in these disputes accused each other of
                  altering the texts of the Scriptures. In particular, the doctrinal
                  struggles at the time of Marcion (in Rome ca. 140 AD) are a very important
                  case in point, because this was precisely the time when the basic canon of
                  the NT was being finalized. This was the time when the four canonical
                  gospels were first assembled together, so a lot of editing was surely
                  being done at that time.

                  It is useful to remember that no special reverence was accorded to
                  the texts of the gospels previous to that time, since none of them
                  were "canonical" previous to the time of Marcion, whose idea it
                  was in the first place to compile the first Christian canon.


                  ADOPTIONISM IN THE NT

                  Ehrman deals in some detail with the early Adoptionists in Chapter
                  2 of his book, and he outlines carefully the two types of Adoptionist
                  beliefs as mentioned above. As he makes clear, the roots of
                  Adoptionism may indeed go back even to the foundational layers
                  of the Christian tradition,

                  ... adoptionistic Christologies can be traced to sources that
                  predate the books of the New Testament. (p. 48)

                  According to Ehrman, the earliest such tradition can be found in
                  Paul's letter to the Romans. And this tradition is clearly
                  Resurrection-Adoptionist, i.e. it maintains that Jesus was adopted
                  by God, His Father, at the moment of his Resurrection from the
                  dead:

                  [Christ Jesus ...] who came from the seed of David according
                  to the flesh, who was appointed Son of God _in power_
                  according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the
                  dead. (Rom 1:3-4)

                  According to Ehrman (p. 48), the words "in power", (underlined
                  above) are a late addition; this is just one of the many examples of
                  the later "orthodox corruptions" of the original Pauline text, a
                  corruption that was meant to lessen this text's Adoptionist
                  implications. Of course this addition merely lessens the Adoptionist
                  meaning of this passage, and doesn't quite eliminate it completely.

                  If we take this quite Adoptionistic statement of Rom 1:3-4 as
                  originally written by Paul, and there's no reason we should doubt
                  it, this would place this sort of a belief very early indeed.

                  Further support for the view that Jesus became the Son of God
                  only at the moment of Resurrection can be found also in Acts
                  13:32-33. Ehrman considers that the speech of Paul in Chapter 13
                  contains some valuable preliterary sources embedded in the Book
                  of Acts:

                  ... a form-critical analysis of Paul's speech in Acts 13 reveals
                  traditional material that has been incorporated in a
                  surprisingly unedited form. Here Paul makes the following
                  pronouncement:

                  What God promised to the [Jewish] fathers he has
                  fulfilled to us their children, by raising Jesus from the
                  dead -- as it is written in the second Psalm, "You are my
                  Son, today I have begotten you". (Acts 13:32-33)

                  And Ehrman adds,

                  The force of the final clause should not be minimized: it is on
                  the day of his resurrection that Jesus receives his sonship. (p.
                  49)

                  Ehrman also analyses a number of other similar passages, such as Acts
                  2:36, 10:42, and 17:31, where the Sonship is most likely associated with
                  the Resurrection.


                  WHICH FORM OF ADOPTIONISM WAS THE EARLIEST?

                  Of the two types of very early Adoptionism, the tradition that God adopted
                  Jesus as his son at the moment of his Resurrection seems like the more
                  ancient one. This tradition may have been the earliest form of Christian
                  belief. Indeed, it may be the original tradition that formed in the first
                  days and weeks post-Easter under the influence of Peter (or perhaps under
                  the influence of Mary Magdalene, according to some).

                  I should add that there is also substantial evidence elsewhere to
                  indicate that the earliest Christian tradition was that Jesus was
                  assumed into the Heavens right at the moment of his death on the
                  Cross (e.g. from the analysis of the various disputed endings of the
                  gospel of Mark). From this it would follow that the various traditions
                  of "the 3 days in the Tomb" can also be considered as later
                  additions to the faith.

                  (This matter is quite complex since these Tomb burial traditions, with
                  their various chronologies of the amount of time spent in the Tomb, are
                  quite confused, and betray rather abundant signs of later editorial work.
                  Alfred Loisy has dealt with all these matters in some detail. The problem
                  is that various canonical accounts would indicate variously either 3, or
                  2, or even less than 2 days in the Tomb.)

                  The view that the earliest post-Easter movement may have been
                  Resurrection-Adoptionist was formulated as far back as in 1901 by the
                  German scholar William Wrede in his book THE MESSIANIC SECRET. According
                  to Wrede, Mk's famous doctrine of the Messianic Secret was really
                  primarily an attempt by Mk to hide and to disguise this fact. I.e. Mk was
                  attempting to explain away why the belief that Jesus was the Messiah, so
                  widespread later when Mk was composed, was not well known from early on.
                  On this theory, Mk is really suggesting that, when Jesus was still alive,
                  nobody could really understand that he was the Messiah; the disciples
                  understood finally only _after_ Jesus was already crucified. So,
                  accordingly, Mk's was a bold attempt to pre-date the Messianic status of
                  Jesus back into his earthly ministry, an attempt that on the whole
                  succeeded quite brilliantly.


                  WRITINGS OF LUKE

                  Since the last example of Adoptionist theology as analysed by
                  Ehrman was in the Book of Acts, composed by the author of Luke,
                  can the author of Luke therefore really be said to have been an
                  Adoptionist? Not so, according to Ehrman, since our canonical text
                  of Lk also contains other passages that are explicitly
                  anti-Adoptionist. So what we have here on the whole is the generally
                  orthodox Lukan text where some remnants of ancient Adoptionist
                  doctrine are buried. And Ehrman is helping us to discern these
                  semi-submerged bits and pieces of the older traditions.

                  Thus, the canonical texts of the "writings of Luke", as a whole, will
                  certainly not give us an obvious Adoptionist reading, because, as
                  Ehrman suggests, the thrust of these Adoptionist passages in
                  strongly countered by

                  ... their incorporation into the wider context of Luke-Acts,
                  where Jesus is the Son of God already at his birth (Lk 1:35).
                  (p. 49)

                  Nevertheless, perhaps we can go here even further than Ehrman goes in his
                  book.

                  The question may be asked if the text of Lk as we have it was really the
                  original text of Lk. It is entirely possible, and, as seems to me, even
                  probable that there originally was an earlier and shorter (basically
                  Adoptionist) gospel of Lk that was later substantially re-edited and
                  expanded. (And the same theory also applies to the text of Acts.) These
                  views were proposed many years ago by Alfred Loisy. According to this
                  theory, in the course of this secondary reworking and expansion, there
                  would have been added to Lk e.g. the Infancy Narrative, the first 2
                  Chapters, with their explicit anti-Adoptionist theology.

                  So I think it is possible to make a case that the earliest version of Lk
                  was Adoptionist after all. Further examples of Adoptionist theology
                  contained in Lk, as adduced below, can add strength to this hypothesis.


                  EARLY DEBATES

                  It is clear that the debates between the Adoptionist and the
                  proto-orthodox commentators were going strong for many generations in
                  the early centuries of Christianity. Both sides in these debates
                  were offering scriptural passages that seemed to support their
                  views. Since we possess such a large number of variant readings
                  for certain key passages, it is clear that for great long time these
                  scriptural passages were not fixed permanently, but remained
                  rather fluid on the whole. Editors and scribes of all persuasions did
                  tinker with the text -- that much is clear:

                  ...the wording of these passages was by no means etched in
                  stone. To the contrary, scribes who transmitted the texts
                  occasionally changed them to make them "say" what they
                  were already known to "mean". (p. 97)

                  Ehrman demonstrates in his book that the orthodox editors were
                  far from averse to altering some key scriptural passages in order to
                  enhance the theological positions they favoured. And since the
                  orthodox side eventually prevailed in these controversies, it is not
                  so surprising that many texts with such evident "emendations", or
                  "corruptions" of the scriptures are well preserved.

                  Scholars generally agree that the stories of Miraculous Birth
                  became accepted as standard Christian belief rather late along the
                  trajectory of the historical evolution of the dogma. An important
                  question to ask here is, Were these stories, found in Mt, and in Lk,
                  really a part of the earliest versions of Mt and of Lk? The general
                  belief among scholars at this time is that this is the case. But,
                  according to Alfred Loisy, and some others, these stories may
                  have actually been added to Mt and to Lk at a rather late stage in
                  the redactional history of these gospels.

                  The assumption of the "basic textual unity of the gospels" is very
                  common in the NT field at this time, and this both among the
                  liberal and among the conservative commentators. And so, such an
                  assumption would clearly tend to stand in the way of seeing that,
                  for instance, the Infancy Narratives of Lk, including Lk's version of
                  the miraculous birth, seem, for a number of reasons, quite out of
                  place when compared with the rest of Lk. Mk and Jn lack the
                  Nativity Stories altogether, of course.

                  This is where Bart Ehrman perhaps didn't go far enough in his analysis. In
                  this case, the matter goes far beyond merely changing the meaning of a few
                  words here and there. Here we are talking about "proto-orthodox editors"
                  adding whole chapters to the gospels. And the evidence for this is quite
                  strong.


                  BAPTISM-ADOPTIONISM

                  As mentioned above, the second type of early Adoptionist theology
                  was associated with the belief that Jesus became the Son of God
                  at the moment of his baptism. According to Ehrman, in comparison
                  with the Resurrection-Adoptionist belief discussed above, the
                  existence of such a Baptism-Adoptionist belief seems to be
                  attested far wider in our NT sources. This may be the case
                  perhaps because the belief that Jesus was adopted as a Son of
                  God at baptism supplanted the earlier Resurrection-Adoptionist
                  belief at a very early stage.

                  According to Ehrman, Lk preserves our earliest textual witness for
                  the belief that Jesus was adopted by God at his Baptism. When
                  Jesus was baptised, the voice from heaven was heard:

                  You are my Son, today I have begotten you. (Lk 3:22)

                  Some mss also preserve an alternative reading of this passage
                  (which is a harmonisation with Mk 1:11),

                  You are my beloved Son, in you I am well pleased.

                  Ehrman argues strongly in his book that "today I have begotten
                  you" was original to Lk, a view that some commentators tended to
                  dispute. He shows that the orthodox editors of the second century,
                  or even later perhaps, consciously altered the meaning of this
                  sentence to introduce "in you I am well pleased". And so, this
                  harmonizing variant reading would have been introduced because
                  the orthodox editors would have been uncomfortable with the
                  Adoptionistic character of the original verse.

                  Also, Ehrman cites many other such passages where the idea of
                  adoption at baptism is evident as an early tradition (p. 67ff; e.g. Lk
                  9:35, 23:35, Acts 10:38, Jn 1:34, 1 John 5:18).

                  And he also cites other texts where, according to him, the idea that
                  Jesus was the Son of God already _before_ his baptism was
                  introduced by the same people and for the same purpose. Such
                  orthodox corruptions would have been Mk 1:1, Lk 2:43, Lk 3:21, Mt
                  1:18, and Eph 4:9.


                  PAUL'S VIEWS

                  It is clear that the baptism and the resurrection were seen by the
                  early Christians as the key events in the earthly career of Jesus.
                  This is certainly how Paul sees the earthly career of Jesus. In his
                  writings, we don't get to see much about what else happened to
                  Jesus the man in his life, how he grew up, and how he became the
                  man he became. Neither do we get from Paul much about what
                  Jesus said, about his sayings and teachings. We certainly don't
                  get from Paul too many details about what other things he
                  accomplished in his earthly career besides getting to be crucified.

                  In spite of the fact that baptism was so important in the Pauline
                  theology, we don't even learn from Paul if Jesus had been
                  baptized by John the Baptist. And certainly we don't get to learn if
                  Jesus, himself, baptised, and/or taught baptism to his disciples,
                  certainly a very curious omission. (This area has been explored in
                  detail by Morton Smith in his CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA that deals with
                  the Secret Mark fragment he discovered.)

                  General secrecy that early Christians seemed to associate with the baptism
                  may be one explanation for some of Paul's curious omissions in this area.
                  Also, the role of John the Baptist was probably simply not yet introduced
                  as an item of faith by the time of Paul.

                  If we would judge only according to the witness of Paul, this
                  Baptism/Resurrection perspective seems like a very narrow filter through
                  which the earliest Christians saw their Saviour.


                  --------

                  To come back to our general question of How the earliest Christians saw
                  the Historical Jesus, the belief that Jesus was God already in his
                  lifetime was still questioned even as late as in the fourth century.
                  Indeed, Julian, writing ca. 361-3 CE, still claimed that:

                  Neither Paul, nor Matthew, nor Luke, nor Mark had the
                  audacity to say that Jesus is God. (_The Apostate_, ix. 326)

                  According to Julian, it was Jn who first introduced this idea into the
                  canon. So, it seems, the resistance to this idea that Jesus was God was
                  very strong and very widespread in the early centuries of Christianity.
                  Those who usually tend to see Christian history through the rather
                  ahistorical lens of the Nicean creed may do well to consider all the
                  evidence that Bart Ehrman presents in his book for the earliest Christian
                  beliefs being quite otherwise from what we usually assume them to be.

                  Best wishes,

                  Yuri.

                  Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto

                  http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

                  The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
                  equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
                • Steven Carr
                  In message , RE Elliott writes ... The owner of http://www.jude3.org/ insists that the source has been verified
                  Message 8 of 28 , May 11, 1998
                  • 0 Attachment
                    In message <d45f4de8.35565a40@...>, RE Elliott <REElliott@...>
                    writes
                    >Tc'ers
                    >I just got off the phone with Bruce Metzger and he informed me that he wrote
                    >NO such paper! In regards to the dating of P 64 and 67 he referred to the
                    >dating put forth by Nestle-Aland of about 200 CE.
                    >This should put an end to this supposed quotation.
                    >Rich Elliott

                    The owner of http://www.jude3.org/ insists that the source has been
                    verified and checked and will not withdraw his article which claims that
                    Professor Metzger regards the scholarly dating of 200 AD for p64 and p67
                    as wrong.

                    >
                    >p.s. perhaps the next step in finding the truth to this quotation (if any) is
                    >to contact SBL and ask for a copy of this paper. Perhaps it does exist, and
                    >somewhere along the line Metzger's name was incorrectly used. I look forward
                    >to checking the list and see what transpires.

                    --
                  • PMoore4733
                    Check out TEKTON s page at http://www.jude3.org/bookshelf/truth/tekton/Tekton_TOC.html They are withholding the article to check the references on Gregory
                    Message 9 of 28 , May 12, 1998
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Check out TEKTON's page at
                      http://www.jude3.org/bookshelf/truth/tekton/Tekton_TOC.html
                      They are withholding the article to check the references on Gregory Neal's
                      article "On 7Q5 and the Magdalen Papyri." This article gave several Metzger
                      sources in reference to the Magdalen Papyrus. As I recall, some were yet to
                      be published monographs, I assume which were given at SBL events.


                      Paul
                    • Carlton Winbery
                      Steven Carr wrote, ... I just (7:16, 12/May/98) tried to access this page again and was told that it was still being with held in order to check the accuracy
                      Message 10 of 28 , May 12, 1998
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Steven Carr wrote,

                        >The article has now been restored to the Web page listed above.
                        >Presumably, the author and the owner of the Web site are sure it is
                        >genuine. It seems incredible to me that Professor Metzger would say such
                        >things.

                        I just (7:16, 12/May/98) tried to access this page again and was told that
                        it was still being with held in order to check the accuracy of the quotes.
                        I still wait to convinced that Metzger actually made the comments
                        attributed to him.


                        Carlton L. Winbery
                        Fogleman Professor of Religion
                        Louisiana College
                        Pineville, LA 71359
                        winberyc@...
                        winbery@...
                      • DC PARKER
                        Message 11 of 28 , May 12, 1998
                        • 0 Attachment
                          > They are withholding the article to check the references on Gregory Neal's
                          > article "On 7Q5 and the Magdalen Papyri." This article gave several Metzger
                          > sources in reference to the Magdalen Papyrus. As I recall, some were yet to
                          > be published monographs, I assume which were given at SBL events.
                          >
                          >
                          That explains why my curiosity was baulked this morning when I tried
                          to examine this strange production for myself.

                          I hope that they correct 'Magulen' (sic) at the same time.

                          DC PARKER
                          DEPT OF THEOLOGY
                          UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM
                          TEL. 0121-414 3613
                          FAX 0121-414 6866
                          E-MAIL PARKERDC@...
                        • Steven Carr
                          In message , PMoore4733 writes ... The article has now been restored to the Web page listed above. Presumably,
                          Message 12 of 28 , May 12, 1998
                          • 0 Attachment
                            In message <9178f954.355860c0@...>, PMoore4733 <PMoore4733@...>
                            writes
                            >Check out TEKTON's page at
                            >http://www.jude3.org/bookshelf/truth/tekton/Tekton_TOC.html
                            >They are withholding the article to check the references on Gregory Neal's
                            >article "On 7Q5 and the Magdalen Papyri." This article gave several Metzger
                            >sources in reference to the Magdalen Papyrus. As I recall, some were yet to
                            >be published monographs, I assume which were given at SBL events.

                            The article has now been restored to the Web page listed above.
                            Presumably, the author and the owner of the Web site are sure it is
                            genuine. It seems incredible to me that Professor Metzger would say such
                            things.
                          • PMoore4733
                            Regarding the dating of the Magdalen Papyri and Dr. Metzger: The following is out of the Reverend Gregory Neal s Paper on TEKTON:
                            Message 13 of 28 , May 12, 1998
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Regarding the dating of the Magdalen Papyri and Dr. Metzger: The following is
                              out of the Reverend Gregory Neal's Paper on TEKTON:
                              http://www.jude3.org/bookshelf/truth/tekton/Tekton_02_02_06.html
                              (A page from the Christian Apologetics Bookshelf).

                              "The writing style of Herculaneum is, to my eye, so near to identical
                              to that of Ps 64 and 67 that I am now willing to accept that they should
                              be dated 70 - 100 CE, with a median date of 85 CE"

                              This passage comes out of the paragraph that has been in question on this site
                              regarding Dr. Metzger. Neal cites the follow source:

                              ("Metzger, "P64+67 and the Governmental letters of Herculaneum: A Critique
                              of the 1996 Thiede Analysis." 1997 Monograph before SBL. pp. 38-39. )"

                              The above appears on page 6 of Neal's document.
                            • Yuri Kuchinsky
                              Dear list members, I would like to correct an inaccuracy in my previous post. It was very helpfully pointed out to me in private email. On Mon, 11 May 1998,
                              Message 14 of 28 , May 12, 1998
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Dear list members,

                                I would like to correct an inaccuracy in my previous post. It was very
                                helpfully pointed out to me in private email.

                                On Mon, 11 May 1998, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

                                ...

                                > According to Ehrman, the earliest such tradition can be found in Paul's
                                > letter to the Romans. And this tradition is clearly
                                > Resurrection-Adoptionist, i.e. it maintains that Jesus was adopted by
                                > God, His Father, at the moment of his Resurrection from the dead:
                                >
                                > [Christ Jesus ...] who came from the seed of David according
                                > to the flesh, who was appointed Son of God _in power_
                                > according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the
                                > dead. (Rom 1:3-4)
                                >
                                > According to Ehrman (p. 48), the words "in power", (underlined
                                > above) are a late addition;

                                So far, what I said in my essay was accurate. But next, there's a problem.

                                > this is just one of the many examples of
                                > the later "orthodox corruptions" of the original Pauline text, a
                                > corruption that was meant to lessen this text's Adoptionist
                                > implications.

                                Here's the problem.

                                According to what Ehrman actually writes in his book, while the expression
                                "in power = en dinamei" _is_ intrusive in what appears clearly like a
                                pre-Pauline credal formula (here he cites the works by Schlier, and Werner
                                Kramer), according to Ehrman, the words in question were added by Paul
                                himself. So he does not consider this as an "orthodox corruption" of the
                                original text. I'm sorry for the confusion.

                                Here's what Ehrman says in the footnote about the phrase being intrusive:

                                "That it [the phrase _en dinamei_] is intrusive in the creed itself is
                                shown by the fact that there is nothing in the first clause with which it
                                is parallel, unlike every other component of the second clause." (p. 100)

                                The rest of what I wrote about this passage is still accurate:

                                > Of course this addition merely lessens the Adoptionist
                                > meaning of this passage, and doesn't quite eliminate it completely.
                                >
                                > If we take this quite Adoptionistic statement of Rom 1:3-4 as
                                > originally written by Paul, and there's no reason we should doubt
                                > it, this would place this sort of a belief very early indeed.

                                I would like to add that the question of who added the phrase to the
                                pre-existent credal formula is on the whole rather marginal to the main
                                thesis of my essay. I think a case can be made that this phrase _was_ a
                                later orthodox corruption after all. But of course the words _en dinamei_
                                are generally considered as part of Pauline vocabulary, and Ehrman notes
                                this.

                                Best wishes,

                                Yuri.
                              • Yuri Kuchinsky
                                ... Friends, In case someone is interested to see what kind of scholarship is really featured on this website, I would like to draw your attention to another
                                Message 15 of 28 , May 12, 1998
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  On Tue, 12 May 1998, PMoore4733 wrote:

                                  > Regarding the dating of the Magdalen Papyri and Dr. Metzger: The
                                  > following is out of the Reverend Gregory Neal's Paper on TEKTON:
                                  > http://www.jude3.org/bookshelf/truth/tekton/Tekton_02_02_06.html (A page
                                  > from the Christian Apologetics Bookshelf).

                                  Friends,

                                  In case someone is interested to see what kind of scholarship is really
                                  featured on this website, I would like to draw your attention to another
                                  highly problematic article there. This is an article by J.P. Holding, who
                                  I think is the owner of this website. This article, and some obvious
                                  doctoring of an important quote in it, has been the subject of some
                                  discussion on Crosstalk-l recently. Here's part of a longer article I
                                  posted to Crosstalk.

                                  Re: an article in the JOURNAL OF HIGHER CRITICISM at:

                                  http://daniel.drew.edu/~ddoughty/rp1cor15.html

                                  And a reply by Holding at:

                                  http://www.jude3.org/bookshelf/truth/tekton/Tekton_01_05_02.html

                                  ---------- Forwarded message ----------
                                  Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 16:22:50 -0400
                                  From: y.kuchinsky@...
                                  To: crosstalk@...
                                  Subject: Re: Fallback Jesus

                                  ...

                                  And I found one actual case of blatant doctoring of a quote from Price.
                                  Quite shameful.

                                  Here're Price's actual words:

                                  http://daniel.drew.edu/~ddoughty/rp1cor15.html

                                  For this tradition there is no thought of any conversion of James from
                                  unbeliever to believer. The resurrection appearance vouchsafed him is
                                  simply of a piece with the others: an appearance granted to a
                                  disciple. Indeed nowhere in the tradition of early Christianity do we
                                  find the appearance

                                  [WORDS OMITTED BY HOLDING: to James likened unto that of Paul: the
                                  apprehension]

                                  of an enemy of Christ to turn him into a friend. This
                                  notion, which serves the agenda of modern apologists[47]47 seeking to
                                  disarm the suspicions of those who point out that Jesus appeared only
                                  to believers, is quite common among critical scholars as well.[48]48
                                  Nonetheless, it is an exegetical phantom. Nowhere is this connection
                                  made in the texts.

                                  Note that Paul is mentioned in the full quote.

                                  And here's the quotation as given by Holding:

                                  For this tradition there is no thought of any conversion of James
                                  from unbeliever to believer. The resurrection appearance vouchsafed
                                  him is simply of a piece with the others: an appearance granted to
                                  a disciple. Indeed nowhere in the tradition of early Christianity
                                  do we find the appearance

                                  [THE SMOKING GUN: Holding omitted a whole phrase here!]

                                  of an enemy of Christ to turn him into a
                                  friend. This notion, which serves the agenda of modern apologists
                                  seeking to disarm the suspicions of those who point out that Jesus
                                  appeared only to believers, is quite commong (sic) among critical
                                  scholars as well. Nevertheless, it is an exegetical phantom.
                                  Nowhere is this connection made in the texts.

                                  And Holding continues:

                                  "First, notice once again that Price is going against consensus, both
                                  conservative and "critical" alike, without major evidence to overturn
                                  the standard!

                                  Second, re no tradition of turning an enemy of Christ into a friend,
                                  appearing only to friends - have we forgotten the Apostle Paul here?"

                                  [end quotes]

                                  So here we can see Holding first doctoring an important quote (probably on
                                  purpose) and THEN trying to make rhetorical capital on this basis.

                                  Unethical. This is the only way to describe this.

                                  Yuri.

                                  ----------------------end quote-------------------

                                  So it seems we shall soon see another article on Holding's website "closed
                                  for renovations"?

                                  Best wishes,

                                  Yuri.
                                • Steven Carr
                                  Carlton Winbery writes ... I had forgotten that the article was still on my Internet Service Provider s cache, which only gets
                                  Message 16 of 28 , May 12, 1998
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Carlton Winbery <winberyc@...> writes

                                    >Steven Carr wrote,
                                    >>The article has now been restored to the Web page listed above.
                                    >>Presumably, the author and the owner of the Web site are sure it is
                                    >>genuine.

                                    >I just (7:16, 12/May/98) tried to access this page again and was told that
                                    >it was still being with held in order to check the accuracy of the quotes.
                                    >I still wait to convinced that Metzger actually made the comments
                                    >attributed to him.

                                    I had forgotten that the article was still on my Internet Service
                                    Provider's cache, which only gets updated every couple of hours or so. I
                                    was picking up an old version of the page.
                                  • James R. Adair
                                    I wrote to the SBL executive office to see if they were familiar with the article cited as: Metzger, P64+67 and the Governmental letters of Herculaneum: A
                                    Message 17 of 28 , May 13, 1998
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      I wrote to the SBL executive office to see if they were familiar with the
                                      article cited as: Metzger, "P64+67 and the Governmental letters of
                                      Herculaneum: A Critique of the 1996 Thiede Analysis," 1997 Monograph
                                      before SBL, pp 38-39. They were not aware of the article or of the book
                                      which supposedly contains it, either in print or in production (and
                                      Scholars Press, which publishes most SBL books, is not aware of any such
                                      book either). If the quote is genuine, certainly the author of the Web
                                      page should supply an accurate book title.

                                      Jimmy Adair
                                      Manager of Information Technology Services, Scholars Press
                                      and
                                      Managing Editor of TELA, the Scholars Press World Wide Web Site
                                      -------------> http://shemesh.scholar.emory.edu <--------------
                                    • Yuri Kuchinsky
                                      Dear friends, I was wrong. It seems like Mr. Holding is innocent of the charges. I was too rash in my judgement, and I apologize for what I said. Mr. Holding
                                      Message 18 of 28 , May 14, 1998
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Dear friends,

                                        I was wrong. It seems like Mr. Holding is innocent of the charges. I was
                                        too rash in my judgement, and I apologize for what I said.

                                        Mr. Holding was contacted, and he has very good defence against these
                                        charges. Another, and earlier, version of Price's article exists on the
                                        web:

                                        http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/apocrypha.html

                                        This was the version that Holding was using when composing his critique.
                                        Later, Price changed the text of his article ever so slightly, obviously
                                        to accomodate the criticism by Holding. Neither Price nor Holding did
                                        anything unethical.

                                        Again, my apologies,

                                        Yuri.

                                        On Tue, 12 May 1998, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

                                        > Re: an article in the JOURNAL OF HIGHER CRITICISM at:
                                        >
                                        > http://daniel.drew.edu/~ddoughty/rp1cor15.html
                                        >
                                        > And a reply by Holding at:
                                        >
                                        > http://www.jude3.org/bookshelf/truth/tekton/Tekton_01_05_02.html
                                      • Michael Holmes
                                        Colleagues, Regarding the quotations attributed to Bruce Metzger in an article by a Rev. Greg Neal on 7Q5 and the Magdalen papyri, which have been the subject
                                        Message 19 of 28 , May 15, 1998
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Colleagues,

                                          Regarding the quotations attributed to Bruce Metzger in an article by a Rev.
                                          Greg Neal on 7Q5 and the Magdalen papyri, which have been the subject of
                                          much speculation lately on this list: the webmaster of the site where the
                                          article was posted informs me that he confronted (via telephone) Neal, who
                                          admits to fabricating the quotations--"totally and completely," as the
                                          webmaster put it.

                                          Mike Holmes
                                        • Jack Kilmon
                                          ... This is the kind of thing that really chaps my butt (is there Greek for that?) If there was ever even a remote possibility that 7Q5 could have been part
                                          Message 20 of 28 , May 15, 1998
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Michael Holmes wrote:

                                            > Colleagues,
                                            >
                                            > Regarding the quotations attributed to Bruce Metzger in an article by a Rev.
                                            > Greg Neal on 7Q5 and the Magdalen papyri, which have been the subject of
                                            > much speculation lately on this list: the webmaster of the site where the
                                            > article was posted informs me that he confronted (via telephone) Neal, who
                                            > admits to fabricating the quotations--"totally and completely," as the
                                            > webmaster put it.

                                            This is the kind of thing that really "chaps my butt" (is there Greek for
                                            that?)
                                            If there was ever even a remote possibility that 7Q5 could have been part
                                            of an "Ur-Markus" it will never get a thorough "going over" because of all
                                            the nonsense. I would have been willing to listen to arguments about 7Q5
                                            but it's pairing with the Magdalen Papyri as an "eyewitness" Matthew will
                                            insure that any arguments, no matter how valid or otherwise, will not be
                                            heard.

                                            Jack
                                          • Bruce Morrill
                                            ... This reminds me of gratitude I don t express enough to Jimmy Adair and others who are trying to give us the advantages of the Web and electronic
                                            Message 21 of 28 , May 16, 1998
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              On Fri, 15 May 1998, Michael Holmes wrote:
                                              > Regarding the quotations attributed to Bruce Metzger in an article by a Rev.
                                              > Greg Neal on 7Q5 and the Magdalen papyri, which have been the subject of
                                              > much speculation lately on this list: the webmaster of the site where the
                                              > article was posted informs me that he confronted (via telephone) Neal, who
                                              > admits to fabricating the quotations--"totally and completely," as the
                                              > webmaster put it.

                                              This reminds me of gratitude I don't express enough to Jimmy Adair and
                                              others who are trying to give us the advantages of the Web and electronic
                                              publishing, while retaining the time-proven safeguards of peer review, etc
                                              that Larry Hurtado has stressed to us.

                                              Bruce Morrill bruce@...
                                            • RE Elliott
                                              In a message dated 98-05-15 08:51:33 EDT, Mike Holmes wrote:
                                              Message 22 of 28 , May 17, 1998
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                In a message dated 98-05-15 08:51:33 EDT, Mike Holmes wrote:

                                                << Colleagues,

                                                Regarding the quotations attributed to Bruce Metzger in an article by a Rev.
                                                Greg Neal on 7Q5 and the Magdalen papyri, which have been the subject of
                                                much speculation lately on this list: the webmaster of the site where the
                                                article was posted informs me that he confronted (via telephone) Neal, who
                                                admits to fabricating the quotations--"totally and completely," as the
                                                webmaster put it. >>

                                                The above quote, in addition to the inquiry that Jimmy adair made to SBL and
                                                the personal telephone conversation that I had with Dr. Metzger himself should
                                                put this string of speculative postings to an end.
                                                I thank God that we don't believe everything we hear. We do diligence to do
                                                the research necessary to find the truth. Now, let's get on with some textual
                                                study!
                                                Rich Elliott
                                              • Yuri Kuchinsky
                                                Dear friends, This is a very stimulating work that deals with many much neglected subjects and source materials in the history of early Christianity: AUTHOR:
                                                Message 23 of 28 , May 19, 1998
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Dear friends,

                                                  This is a very stimulating work that deals with many much
                                                  neglected subjects and source materials in the history of early
                                                  Christianity:

                                                  AUTHOR: Franzmann, Majella, 1952-
                                                  TITLE: Jesus in the Nag Hammadi writings
                                                  PUBLISHED: Edinburgh : T & T Clark, 1996.
                                                  DESCRIPTION: xxv, 293 p.
                                                  NOTES: Includes bibliographical references (p. 215-246) and
                                                  indexes.
                                                  ISBN: 0567085260

                                                  In her Chapter 1, Franzmann complains that, in spite of some rather
                                                  unconvincing disclaimers, still far too few NT scholars are taking
                                                  non-canonical materials seriously when dealing with early
                                                  Christian literature, traditions, and beliefs. This is what has been
                                                  described by some as "the tyranny of the canon" that is still very
                                                  much with us.

                                                  Franzmann writes that Helmut Koester has repeatedly called for a
                                                  broadening of perspective to include more non-canonical
                                                  materials,

                                                  [Back in 1980] ... Koester calls attention once again to the
                                                  problem of "deep-seated prejudices" reflected in the attitude
                                                  of New Testament scholars towards the apocryphal writings
                                                  [APOCRYPHAL AND CANONICAL GOSPELS, HTR 73
                                                  (1980): 105-30, p. 130], yet scholars continue to ignore the
                                                  exhortation. There is little or no reference to non-canonical
                                                  material, for example, in recent work in Meier, Green and
                                                  Turner, and Charlesworth (1988). In the latter case, only Gos.
                                                  Thom. in the Nag Hammadi texts is seen as essential for the
                                                  historical Jesus quest (83-90) [In the footnote she says that
                                                  Meier's second volume of his THE MARGINAL JEW "contains
                                                  more detailed argumentation against using Gos. Thom.", but
                                                  still, she finds his approach unsatisfying.]. Fredriksen's study
                                                  makes no mention at all of any non-canonical text, even in
                                                  the final chapter, "Jesus of Nazareth in Christian Tradition"
                                                  (205-15). (p. 4)

                                                  While Charlesworth and Evans in their article dedicated to this
                                                  matter (Charlesworth and Evans, JESUS IN AGRAPHA AND
                                                  APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS, in Chilton and Evans, eds, STUDYING
                                                  THE HISTORICAL JESUS, Brill, 1994)

                                                  ...state that the agrapha and apocryphal gospels should be
                                                  given "due consideration", Evans' later work [JESUS AND
                                                  HIS CONTEMPORARIES, Brill, 1995, p. 17] is much more
                                                  critical, suggesting that the only credible material for Jesus
                                                  research "ultimately derives from the canonical Gospels
                                                  themselves" (p. 5)

                                                  Also, in the latter work, Craig A. Evans had authored some rather pointed
                                                  polemics directed at what he describes as "influential coterie of
                                                  American scholars", especially the "Jesus Seminar and its
                                                  sympathisers" (26-40), i.e. at the scholars who are actually paying
                                                  attention to these much-neglected sources.

                                                  Franzmann notes that there are far too few scholars in N. America
                                                  indeed, with few exceptions like James Robinson and Crossan,
                                                  who are giving appropriate consideration to non-canonical
                                                  materials.

                                                  In particular, she also says this about recent surveys dealing with
                                                  the gospel genre,

                                                  With few exceptions within recent work devoted to gospel
                                                  genre, scholars either fail to mention the apocrypha at all
                                                  (e.g. Cantwell; Dahl; Dihle; and Thatcher), or make a footnote
                                                  or two to Gos. Thom. (e.g. Stuhlmacher 1991b, 7), or they
                                                  mention the apocrypha briefly only to dismiss them (e.g. Keck
                                                  117; Kee 1977, 271; Stanton 1989, 125-35; and Sanders 64-5).
                                                  ... One gains the impression from such studies that the
                                                  apocryphal material need not be taken seriously when
                                                  dealing with "gospel".

                                                  A similar approach can be found in recent works whose titles
                                                  appear to promise a breadth of scholarship. [Here she cites
                                                  recent works by David Aune and Robert M. Grant, and finds them
                                                  rather unsatisfying.] (p. 7)

                                                  Further on, she quotes John G. Gager who suggested some 20
                                                  years ago that, surprisingly enough, for too many scholars
                                                  investigating the Historical Jesus, and pretending to historical
                                                  objectivity,

                                                  ...religious authority [of the NT writings] as sacred scripture
                                                  has been extended to cover their historical authority as well"
                                                  [Gager, THE GOSPELS AND JESUS: SOME DOUBTS
                                                  ABOUT METHOD, Journal of Religion 54: p. 244-72] (p. 14)

                                                  And such a methodological approach is hardly justified.

                                                  Franzmann especially takes to task Robert M. Grant,

                                                  A good example of the distortion which a misguided
                                                  confessional stance can bring to the research enterprise is
                                                  found in Grant's study of the Christ of the second century
                                                  [Grant, JESUS AFTER THE GOSPELS: THE CHRIST OF
                                                  THE SECOND CENTURY, 1990]. For Grant, christology is
                                                  essentially to be derived from the canonical Gospels. ... One
                                                  can only wonder in disbelief at the methodological
                                                  perspective from which Grant can write:

                                                  In spite of the exciting and valuable Gnostic documents
                                                  recovered from Nag Hammadi in Egypt, the basic
                                                  starting point for the study of the Gnostics has to lie in
                                                  the earliest criticisms by Christians who wrote against
                                                  heresies (41). (p. 21)

                                                  The above survey of the situation in the field comes from Chapter 1 of
                                                  Franzmann's book. The rest of her work is devoted to a detailed
                                                  consideration of what insights about Jesus we can gain from Nag Hammadi
                                                  writings. Some time later I will add more about what she says in the rest
                                                  her book.

                                                  It seems quite probable to me that the NH writings, besides containing a
                                                  lot of later material dating perhaps to the 2nd and 3rd centuries, also
                                                  preserve quite a bit of material that is rather early. Especially in the
                                                  case of the Gospel of Thomas, most of the sayings definitely seem
                                                  pre-canonical.

                                                  By the way, I have found quite a bit of material in Franzmann's overview
                                                  of NH texts that tends to support the view that the earliest post-Easter
                                                  Christian faith was Adoptionist.

                                                  Best regards,

                                                  Yuri.

                                                  Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto

                                                  http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm

                                                  The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
                                                  equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian
                                                • Steven Carr
                                                  Does the evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls support the idea that the Masoretic Text of Jeremiah had been copied with meticulous care, and that the Masoretic
                                                  Message 24 of 28 , Sep 29, 1998
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Does the evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls support the idea that the
                                                    Masoretic Text of Jeremiah had been copied with meticulous care, and
                                                    that the Masoretic Text was already established as authoritative?
                                                  • Curt Niccum
                                                    The answer is yes and no. 4QJer-a and -c present a text close to the MT. On the other hand, 4QJer-b and -d offer a Hebrew text akin to that underlying the LXX.
                                                    Message 25 of 28 , Sep 29, 1998
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      The answer is yes and no. 4QJer-a and -c present a text close to the MT.
                                                      On the other hand, 4QJer-b and -d offer a Hebrew text akin to that
                                                      underlying the LXX. I am not sure what you mean by "authoritative." The
                                                      idea of a single text being "authoritative" would be somewhat
                                                      anachronistic in the period of the scrolls.

                                                      Curt Niccum

                                                      -----Original Message-----
                                                      From: Steven Carr [SMTP:steven@...]
                                                      Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 1998 3:28 PM
                                                      To: tc-list@...
                                                      Subject: tc-list Jeremiah at Qumran

                                                      Does the evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls support the idea that
                                                      the
                                                      Masoretic Text of Jeremiah had been copied with meticulous care,
                                                      and
                                                      that the Masoretic Text was already established as
                                                      authoritative?
                                                    • Cook@AKAD.SUN.AC.ZA
                                                      From: Curt Niccum To: tc-list@shemesh.scholar.emory.edu Subject: RE:
                                                      Message 26 of 28 , Sep 29, 1998
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        From: Curt Niccum <curt.niccum@...>
                                                        To: "'tc-list@...'"
                                                        <tc-list@...>
                                                        Subject: RE: tc-list Jeremiah at Qumran
                                                        Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 16:12:34 -0500
                                                        Reply-to: tc-list@...

                                                        The answer is yes and no. 4QJer-a and -c present a text close to the MT.
                                                        On the other hand, 4QJer-b and -d offer a Hebrew text akin to that
                                                        underlying the LXX. I am not sure what you mean by "authoritative." The
                                                        idea of a single text being "authoritative" would be somewhat
                                                        anachronistic in the period of the scrolls.

                                                        Curt Niccum

                                                        -----Original Message-----
                                                        From: Steven Carr [SMTP:steven@...]
                                                        Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 1998 3:28 PM
                                                        To: tc-list@...
                                                        Subject: tc-list Jeremiah at Qumran

                                                        Does the evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls support the idea that
                                                        the
                                                        Masoretic Text of Jeremiah had been copied with meticulous care,
                                                        and
                                                        that the Masoretic Text was already established as
                                                        authoritative?


                                                        You should read the publications by Herman-Josef Stipp on this topic.
                                                        Das masoretische und alexandrinische Sondergut des Jeremiabuches.
                                                        Textgeschichtlicher Rang, Eigenarten, Triebkräfte, OBO 136,
                                                        Freiburg/Göttingen, 1994 and Jeremia im Parteienstreit, Anton Hain,
                                                        Frankfurt am Main, 1992.

                                                        Prof. Johann Cook
                                                        Department of Ancient Near Eastern Studies
                                                        University of Stellenbosch
                                                        7600 Stellenbosch
                                                        SOUTH AFRICA
                                                        tel 22-21-8083207
                                                        fax: 22-21-8083480
                                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.