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
      ............................................................................
      ...
    • 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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 19 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 20 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 21 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 22 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.