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
      -----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
      ............................................................................
      ...
    • 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 2 of 28 , May 10, 1998
        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 3 of 28 , May 10, 1998
          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 4 of 28 , May 10, 1998
            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 5 of 28 , May 11, 1998
              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 6 of 28 , May 12, 1998
                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 7 of 28 , May 12, 1998
                  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 8 of 28 , May 12, 1998
                    > 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 9 of 28 , May 12, 1998
                      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 10 of 28 , May 12, 1998
                        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 11 of 28 , May 12, 1998
                          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 12 of 28 , May 12, 1998
                            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 13 of 28 , May 12, 1998
                              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 14 of 28 , May 13, 1998
                                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 15 of 28 , May 14, 1998
                                  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 16 of 28 , May 15, 1998
                                    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 17 of 28 , May 15, 1998
                                      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 18 of 28 , May 16, 1998
                                        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 19 of 28 , May 17, 1998
                                          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 20 of 28 , May 19, 1998
                                            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 21 of 28 , Sep 29, 1998
                                              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 22 of 28 , Sep 29, 1998
                                                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 23 of 28 , Sep 29, 1998
                                                  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.