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@...
      • 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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 19 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 20 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 21 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 22 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 23 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 24 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 25 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.