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

Re: [textualcriticism] Wrap-up re. G-Judas

Expand Messages
  • Jovial
    (((((((((((((((((((( Bart said, But even if it were: what Papias says about Matthew can t apply to our Matthew. ))))))))))))))))))))) I don t see how it
    Message 1 of 16 , May 31 4:28 AM
      ((((((((((((((((((((
       Bart said, " But even if it were: what Papias
      says about Matthew can't apply to our Matthew."
      )))))))))))))))))))))
       
      I don't see how it could apply to any other Matthew. 

      Papias (150-170 AD) ....  

      "....and the traditions of the presbyter John. For information on these points, we can merely refer our readers to the books themselves; but now, to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel.....Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered...he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. ...Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could. "

      So he talks about John, Mark, then Matthew.  So obviously, from context, we see he's referring to a version of Matthew intricately associated with Mark and John - which would be 3 of the 4 gospels we have today in the NT!  From context, he's clearly talking about the same Matthew we know and love today.

      (((((((((((
      That in Mark we have *everything* that Peter remembered about Jesus?!?
      ))))))))))))
       
      Basically its everything Mark thought was significant out of what he heard from Peter.  The fact that Papias didn't explain himself with the most literally perfect explanation does not invalidate the jest of what he said.  Papias' words must be examined in context, rather than assigning them the same infallable context one would assign to the Bible if they consider the Bible the very words of God Himself.  But rather, the potentially imperfect attempt by a man to explain his thoughts as colored by the traditions of the believers around him.
       
      But I will agree with Bart on one thing; many people will ignore what Papias said and believe what they want to believe about his words.
       
      Joe Viel
       
       
       
       
       
       
        He
      must have had a pretty bad memory, if he was with Jesus for months (or
      years!); Mark gives us about two hours worth of information...

      Bart D. Ehrman
      James A. Gray Professor
      Department  of Religious Studies
      University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill



      -----Original Message-----
      From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
      [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of James Snapp, Jr.
      Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 1:25 PM
      To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [textualcriticism] Wrap-up re. G-Judas

      Dr. Ehrman did not address all of the points raised back in post
      #1935.  Just to wrap things up, I wonder what the thoughts of others
      here are concerning the following four questions.

      (1)  Which is more significant:  the Gospel of Judas or the Bodmer
      papyri?

      (2)  Which has the greater potential to inform us about the
      historical Jesus:  the Gospel of Judas, or the excavation at
      Sepphoris?

      (3)  Is it valid to refer to Gnostics as "Christians" and to
      Gnosticism as a form of Christianity?  And, if so, what criteria
      would be required to NOT be considered a Christian if one called
      oneself Christian in the first-second centuries?  (Or to put it
      another way:  is it realistic/honest to deny that monotheism is a
      basic, integral component of Christianity?)

      (4)  Is R.H. Gundry's date for Papias (101-108) correct, and if it
      is correct, should Papias' report about the Elder's statement about
      the Gospel of Mark be considered first-century testimony about the
      Gospel of Mark? 

      Yours in Christ,

      James Snapp, Jr.
      Curtisville Christian Church
      Indiana (USA)
      www/curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html











      Yahoo! Groups Links












      SPONSORED LINKS Bible theology Theology Christianity



      YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

       Visit your group "textualcriticism" on the web.
       
       To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
       textualcriticism-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
       
       Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
    • Bart Ehrman
      Thanks for this. But the John he is referring to is not the author of the Fourth Gospel (he differentiates between the two). What I meant (or another way of
      Message 2 of 16 , May 31 6:04 AM

           Thanks for this.  But the John he is referring to is not the author of the Fourth Gospel (he differentiates between the two). 

         

           What I meant (or another way of expressing what I meant) was that since the only things he says about Matthew are not true with respect to the Matthew we have – which is not just the logia of Jesus and was not composed in Hebrew – then there’s no reason to think that the things he says about Mark are true with respect to the Mark we have.  (And if *that’s* all he thought was significant about Jesus: Wow!!)

         

           Best,

         

        -- Bart

         

        Bart D. Ehrman

        James A. Gray Professor

        Department  of Religious Studies

        University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

         

         


        From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Jovial
        Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 7:28 AM
        To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Wrap-up re. G-Judas

         

        ((((((((((((((((((((

         Bart said, " But even if it were: what Papias
        says about Matthew can't apply to our Matthew."

        )))))))))))))))))))))

         

        I don't see how it could apply to any other Matthew. 

        Papias (150-170 AD) ....  

        "....and the traditions of the presbyter John. For information on these points, we can merely refer our readers to the books themselves; but now, to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel.....Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered...he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. ...Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could. "

        So he talks about John, Mark, then Matthew.  So obviously, from context, we see he's referring to a version of Matthew intricately associated with Mark and John - which would be 3 of the 4 gospels we have today in the NT!  From context, he's clearly talking about the same Matthew we know and love today.

        (((((((((((

        That in Mark we have *everything* that Peter remembered about Jesus?!?

        ))))))))))))

         

        Basically its everything Mark thought was significant out of what he heard from Peter.  The fact that Papias didn't explain himself with the most literally perfect explanation does not invalidate the jest of what he said.  Papias' words must be examined in context, rather than assigning them the same infallable context one would assign to the Bible if they consider the Bible the very words of God Himself.  But rather, the potentially imperfect attempt by a man to explain his thoughts as colored by the traditions of the believers around him.

         

        But I will agree with Bart on one thing; many people will ignore what Papias said and believe what they want to believe about his words.

         

        Joe Viel

         

         

         

         

         

         

          He
        must have had a pretty bad memory, if he was with Jesus for months (or
        years!); Mark gives us about two hours worth of information...

        Bart D. Ehrman
        James A. Gray Professor
        Department  of Religious Studies
        University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill



        -----Original Message-----
        From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
        [mailto: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of James Snapp, Jr.
        Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 1:25 PM
        To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [textualcriticism] Wrap-up re. G-Judas

        Dr. Ehrman did not address all of the points raised back in post
        #1935.  Just to wrap things up, I wonder what the thoughts of others
        here are concerning the following four questions.

        (1)  Which is more significant:  the Gospel of Judas or the Bodmer
        papyri?

        (2)  Which has the greater potential to inform us about the
        historical Jesus:  the Gospel of Judas, or the excavation at
        Sepphoris?

        (3)  Is it valid to refer to Gnostics as "Christians" and to
        Gnosticism as a form of Christianity?  And, if so, what criteria
        would be required to NOT be considered a Christian if one called
        oneself Christian in the first-second centuries?  (Or to put it
        another way:  is it realistic/honest to deny that monotheism is a
        basic, integral component of Christianity?)

        (4)  Is R.H. Gundry's date for Papias (101-108) correct, and if it
        is correct, should Papias' report about the Elder's statement about
        the Gospel of Mark be considered first-century testimony about the
        Gospel of Mark? 

        Yours in Christ,

        James Snapp, Jr.
        Curtisville Christian Church
        Indiana ( USA )
        www/curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html











        Yahoo! Groups Links












        SPONSORED LINKS Bible theology Theology Christianity



        YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

         Visit your group "textualcriticism" on the web.
         
         To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
         textualcriticism-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
         
         Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

         

      • Stephen C. Carlson
        In J. K. Elliott s Bibliography of Greek New Testament Manuscripts (SNTSMS 109; 2d ed., 2000), he cites reference for MS 2537 (p. 231) as VV 23 (1963) p. 190.
        Message 3 of 16 , May 31 6:45 AM
          In J. K. Elliott's Bibliography of Greek New Testament Manuscripts
          (SNTSMS 109; 2d ed., 2000), he cites reference for MS 2537 (p. 231)
          as VV 23 (1963) p. 190. Unfortunately, after scanning his lengthy
          list of abbreviations, I've been able to spot how to resolve VV as
          an abbreviation. It does not appear to be a typo for VC (Vigiliae
          Christianae) or VT (Vetus Testamentum) because of the volume numbers
          would match the year differently.

          Can anyone here help?

          Stephen Carlson
          --
          Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
          Weblog: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/
          Author of: The Gospel Hoax, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481
        • Jack Kilmon
          Much of this is tied to the tradfitionalist belief that Yohanan bar Zebedy wrote GJohn (which he did not) and that the tax collector, disciple and cousin of
          Message 4 of 16 , May 31 10:33 AM
            Much of this is tied to the tradfitionalist belief that Yohanan bar Zebedy wrote GJohn (which he did not) and that the tax collector, disciple and cousin of Yeshua, Matthew, wrote Canonical Matthew, which he did not.  The anonymous author of Matthew (probably a Greek speaking Syrian Jew) does not appear to have been competent in Aramaic while the original "Gospel of Matthew" used by the immediate heirs of Yeshua was the Aramaic "Gospel of the Hebrews" as later called.  The "historic" disciple Matthew may have composed an anthology of "Jesus saids.." perhaps even during the lifetime of Jesus.  It is my opinion that this "lifetime" corpus of sayings reveal certain identifiable linguistic characteristics when back translated to Aramaic.
             
            Jack
             
            Jack Kilmon
            San Marcos, Texas
            ----- Original Message -----
            Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 8:04 AM
            Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] Wrap-up re. G-Judas

               Thanks for this.  But the John he is referring to is not the author of the Fourth Gospel (he differentiates between the two). 

             

               What I meant (or another way of expressing what I meant) was that since the only things he says about Matthew are not true with respect to the Matthew we have – which is not just the logia of Jesus and was not composed in Hebrew – then there’s no reason to think that the things he says about Mark are true with respect to the Mark we have.  (And if *that’s* all he thought was significant about Jesus: Wow!!)

             

               Best,

             

            -- Bart

             

            Bart D. Ehrman

            James A. Gray Professor

            Department  of Religious Studies

            University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

             

             


            From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Jovial
            Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 7:28 AM
            To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] Wrap-up re. G-Judas

             

            ((((((((((((((((((((

             Bart said, " But even if it were: what Papias
            says about Matthew can't apply to our Matthew."

            )))))))))))))))))))))

             

            I don't see how it could apply to any other Matthew. 

            Papias (150-170 AD) ....  

            "....and the traditions of the presbyter John. For information on these points, we can merely refer our readers to the books themselves; but now, to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel.....Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered...he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. ...Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could. "

            So he talks about John, Mark, then Matthew.  So obviously, from context, we see he's referring to a version of Matthew intricately associated with Mark and John - which would be 3 of the 4 gospels we have today in the NT!  From context, he's clearly talking about the same Matthew we know and love today.

            (((((((((((

            That in Mark we have *everything* that Peter remembered about Jesus?!?

            ))))))))))))

             

            Basically its everything Mark thought was significant out of what he heard from Peter.  The fact that Papias didn't explain himself with the most literally perfect explanation does not invalidate the jest of what he said.  Papias' words must be examined in context, rather than assigning them the same infallable context one would assign to the Bible if they consider the Bible the very words of God Himself.  But rather, the potentially imperfect attempt by a man to explain his thoughts as colored by the traditions of the believers around him.

             

            But I will agree with Bart on one thing; many people will ignore what Papias said and believe what they want to believe about his words.

             

            Joe Viel

             

             

             

             

             

             

              He
            must have had a pretty bad memory, if he was with Jesus for months (or
            years!); Mark gives us about two hours worth of information...

            Bart D. Ehrman
            James A. Gray Professor
            Department  of Religious Studies
            University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill



            -----Original Message-----
            From:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
            [mailto: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of James Snapp, Jr.
            Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 1:25 PM
            To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [textualcriticism] Wrap-up re. G-Judas

            Dr. Ehrman did not address all of the points raised back in post
            #1935.  Just to wrap things up, I wonder what the thoughts of others
            here are concerning the following four questions.

            (1)  Which is more significant:  the Gospel of Judas or the Bodmer
            papyri?

            (2)  Which has the greater potential to inform us about the
            historical Jesus:  the Gospel of Judas, or the excavation at
            Sepphoris?

            (3)  Is it valid to refer to Gnostics as "Christians" and to
            Gnosticism as a form of Christianity?  And, if so, what criteria
            would be required to NOT be considered a Christian if one called
            oneself Christian in the first-second centuries?  (Or to put it
            another way:  is it realistic/honest to deny that monotheism is a
            basic, integral component of Christianity?)

            (4)  Is R.H. Gundry's date for Papias (101-108) correct, and if it
            is correct, should Papias' report about the Elder's statement about
            the Gospel of Mark be considered first-century testimony about the
            Gospel of Mark? 

            Yours in Christ,

            James Snapp, Jr.
            Curtisville Christian Church
            Indiana ( USA )
            www/curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html











            Yahoo! Groups Links












            SPONSORED LINKS Bible theology Theology Christianity



            YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

             Visit your group "textualcriticism" on the web.
             
             To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
             textualcriticism-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
             
             Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

             

          • jlhkrans
            Stephen, That will be Vizantiiskii vremennik / ÷ÉÚÁÎÔÉÊÓËÉÊ ×ÒÅÍÅÎÎÉË ( Byzantine Chronicles ). Greetings, Jan Krans Vrije Universiteit,
            Message 5 of 16 , May 31 10:37 AM

              Stephen,

              That will be Vizantiiskii vremennik / Византийский временник (“Byzantine Chronicles”).

              Greetings,

              Jan Krans

              Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam

               


              Van: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] Namens Stephen C. Carlson
              Verzonden: woensdag 31 mei 2006 15:45
              Aan: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
              Onderwerp: [textualcriticism] Abbreviation Help in Elliott's Bibliography

               


              In J. K. Elliott's Bibliography of Greek New Testament Manuscripts
              (SNTSMS 109; 2d ed., 2000), he cites reference for MS 2537 (p. 231)
              as VV 23 (1963) p. 190.  Unfortunately, after scanning his lengthy
              list of abbreviations, I've been able to spot how to resolve VV as
              an abbreviation.  It does not appear to be a typo for VC (Vigiliae
              Christianae) or VT (Vetus Testamentum) because of the volume numbers
              would match the year differently.

              Can anyone here help?

              Stephen Carlson
              --
              Stephen C. Carlson                             mailto:scarlson@...
              Weblog:                                   http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/
              Author of: The Gospel Hoax, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481





            • goranson@duke.edu
              ... Maybe: Vizantiiskii Vremennik {Moscow) Stephen Goranson http://www.duke.edu/~goranson
              Message 6 of 16 , May 31 10:49 AM
                Quoting "Stephen C. Carlson" <scarlson@...>:

                >
                > In J. K. Elliott's Bibliography of Greek New Testament Manuscripts
                > (SNTSMS 109; 2d ed., 2000), he cites reference for MS 2537 (p. 231)
                > as VV 23 (1963) p. 190. Unfortunately, after scanning his lengthy
                > list of abbreviations, I've been able to spot how to resolve VV as
                > an abbreviation. It does not appear to be a typo for VC (Vigiliae
                > Christianae) or VT (Vetus Testamentum) because of the volume numbers
                > would match the year differently.
                >
                > Can anyone here help?
                >
                > Stephen Carlson

                Maybe:
                Vizantiiskii Vremennik {Moscow)

                Stephen Goranson
                http://www.duke.edu/~goranson
              • James Snapp, Jr.
                Dear Dr. Ehrman: Thank you for answering. A few more questions during the wait for others to chime in: Did you really mean to answer absolutely to the
                Message 7 of 16 , May 31 10:54 AM
                  Dear Dr. Ehrman:

                  Thank you for answering. A few more questions during the wait for
                  others to chime in:

                  Did you really mean to answer "absolutely" to the question, "Is it
                  realistic/honest to deny that monotheism is a basic, integral
                  component of Christianity?" (Also, you still didn't really answer
                  the sub-question, "What criteria would be required to NOT be
                  considered a Christian if one called oneself Christian in the first-
                  second centuries?".)

                  The question about the date of Papias is fairly relevant to NTTC, so
                  I will focus especially on it. You said that R.H. Gundry's date for
                  Papias (101-108) "probably isn't plausible." Why do you think it
                  probably isn't plausible?

                  BDE: "What Papias says about Matthew can't apply to our Matthew.
                  Does what he say about Mark apply to our Mark?"

                  Papias was completely capable of having read a Matthean Saying-
                  Source kind of document, without encountering the Gospel of Matthew
                  as we know it. (This gets more difficult to maintain the later the
                  date assigned to Papias is.) Considering the difference between
                  what Papias says about the demise of Judas Iscariot, and what the
                  Gospel of Matthew says about it, it seems fair, to me, to conclude
                  that Papias had not read the Gospel of Matthew when he wrote about
                  the demise of Judas Iscariot.

                  The idea that Papias did not encounter the Gospel of Mark is a
                  different fish. The statement that Mark "wrote as much as he
                  remembered" is almost immediately clarified by the statement that
                  Peter had delivered the teachings anecdotally, not systematically;
                  no one could read the whole statement and expect the Gospel of Mark
                  to be an exhaustive account. So this objection is a rather tenuous
                  foundation on which to build any sort of case for the idea that the
                  Elder was referring to some very large Proto-Mark rather than the
                  Gospel of Mark.

                  (New question: in Papias' report of the Elder's statement, as
                  recorded by Eusebius, "Mark, who had indeed been Peter's
                  interpreter, accurately wrote as much as he remembered," is the "he"
                  Peter, or Mark?)

                  Yours in Christ,

                  James Snapp, Jr.
                  Curtisville Christian Church
                  Indiana (USA)
                  www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html
                • Harold P. Scanlin
                  ... Treu cites VV 23 in his description of the ms: a Russian journal Viz. Vrem. (Vizantiiskii vremennik = Byzantina chronika). Harold P. Scanlin
                  Message 8 of 16 , May 31 11:12 AM
                    Stephen C. Carlson wrote:
                    >
                    > In J. K. Elliott's Bibliography of Greek New Testament Manuscripts
                    > (SNTSMS 109; 2d ed., 2000), he cites reference for MS 2537 (p. 231)
                    > as VV 23 (1963) p. 190.
                    Treu cites VV 23 in his description of the ms: a Russian journal Viz.
                    Vrem. (Vizantiiskii vremennik = Byzantina chronika).

                    Harold P. Scanlin
                  • Larry Swain
                    ... I think this is usually overstated. Look at how he differentiates between them: by calling them both presbyter ; on this reading we re expected to
                    Message 9 of 16 , May 31 12:09 PM
                      >
                      > Thanks for this. But the John he is referring to is not the author of
                      > the Fourth Gospel (he differentiates between the two).

                      I think this is usually overstated. Look at how he
                      "differentiates" between them: by calling them both "presbyter"; on
                      this reading we're expected to believe that Papias uses the term
                      presbyter in two different senses and of two different classes of
                      people (apostles on the one hand and an "elder" on the other), in
                      two successive sentences with nothing more than a tense change to
                      single to the reader that the word is used so differently. That
                      tense change may indicate a change in John's circumstances or in
                      Papias' rather than in persons referred to. Further, I'd point out
                      that repeating "presbuteros" is a typical way in Greek of
                      clarifying whom he is speaking of: rather than a different John, it
                      is the "previously mentioned" elder John. (The same could be said
                      for mathetes since both groups are so called).

                      Now I'm not arguing for a one John interpretation here; I'm merely
                      pointing out that the text is more ambiguous than it is usually
                      given credit for: stating categorically that it is one or the other
                      without due consideration of the grammar and twice repeated use of
                      forms of presbyter seems overstated to me. Yes, I've read
                      Bauckman, Hengel, and Boismard and others on the issue.

                      It is more accurate to say that it is Eusebius who differentiates
                      between the two. Papias' text is ambiguous. As far as I can
                      recall, there is no previous reader of Papias who reads the text in
                      the same way that Eusebius does, who all read Papias as referring
                      in both instances to the apostle, author of the Fourth Gospel.


                      > What I meant (or another way of expressing what I meant) was that since
                      > the only things he says about Matthew are not true with respect to the
                      > Matthew we have - which is not just the logia of Jesus and was not composed
                      > in Hebrew - then there's no reason to think that the things he says about
                      > Mark are true with respect to the Mark we have.

                      Again, I think there is some room for ambiguity here. Papias also
                      refers to Mark's gospel, though indirectly, as "logia" (the
                      statement about Mark writing down Peter's preaching, and Peter not
                      arranging the SAYINGS, logiwn, of the Lord systematically being
                      the source of Mark's own unsystematic and "unordered" gospel.) So
                      if he can refer to Mark's gospel in this way, why can he not also
                      refer to Matthew's gospel in the same "shorthand," particularly
                      since all we have is a short citation which may or may not be all
                      that Papias had to say about Matthew. Similarly with the statement
                      about Ebraidi dialektw: given Papias' concern with "order" (see
                      suntaxo), that he calls Mark the "hermeneut" of Peter, his
                      interpreter, it suggests that he means that each "interpreted" as
                      best he could when referring to Matthew rather than "translated";
                      and if so, that throws a whole different light on Matthew's
                      dialekto. Again, there seems room for ambiguity rather than hard
                      and fast claims. Just to be clear, I'm addressing the question
                      solely of "what did Papias say" without addressing the followup
                      question of how accurate was Papias in his reports, if we
                      understand him correctly.


                      (And if *that's* all he
                      > thought was significant about Jesus: Wow!!)

                      Well, what Papias does say is that he wrote down what he remembered
                      of Peter's preaching--not quite the same thing.


                      >
                      > I don't see how it could apply to any other Matthew.
                      >
                      > Papias (150-170 AD) ....

                      I don't see how one can place Papias so late. Hadrian's reign at
                      the latest I'd think, and if Eusebius is right, earlier. Even so,
                      if he is citing actual disciples of Jesus (regardless of whether
                      they were apostles or not) and the daughters of Philip the deacon
                      (not the apostle) who apparently knew Paul, then even if he is
                      writing as late as the middle second century, his sources go well
                      back into the first century.


                      Larry Swain


                      --
                      _______________________________________________
                      Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:
                      Download Opera 8 at http://www.opera.com

                      Powered by Outblaze
                    • John McChesney-Young
                      Perplexing, isn t it? Even with corrections, the numbers don t work for _Vivarium_, _Vetera Christianorum_, or _Vox Romanica_ either, and although they came
                      Message 10 of 16 , May 31 6:52 PM
                        Perplexing, isn't it? Even with corrections, the numbers don't work
                        for _Vivarium_, _Vetera Christianorum_, or _Vox Romanica_ either, and
                        although they came closer with _Vita Latina_ (Avignon), it's off by
                        enough that even disregarding the topical incongruity it seems out of
                        the running. Perhaps writing directly to the author would be the best
                        approach:

                        http://www.leeds.ac.uk/trs/staff/keith_elliott.htm

                        John

                        ***

                        "Stephen C. Carlson" <scarlson@...> asked:

                        >In J. K. Elliott's Bibliography of Greek New Testament Manuscripts
                        >(SNTSMS 109; 2d ed., 2000), he cites reference for MS 2537 (p. 231)
                        >as VV 23 (1963) p. 190. Unfortunately, after scanning his lengthy
                        >list of abbreviations, I've been able to spot how to resolve VV as
                        >an abbreviation. It does not appear to be a typo for VC (Vigiliae
                        >Christianae) or VT (Vetus Testamentum) because of the volume numbers
                        >would match the year differently.

                        --


                        *** John McChesney-Young ** panis~at~pacbell.net ** Berkeley,
                        California, U.S.A. ***
                      • Larry Swain
                        ... Not really. Do recall that it is Eusebius who tells us explicitly that Papias did not hear John son of Zebedee, but rather John the Elder, a different
                        Message 11 of 16 , May 31 11:11 PM
                          >
                          >
                          > Much of this is tied to the tradfitionalist belief that Yohanan bar
                          > Zebedy wrote GJohn (which he did not)

                          Not really. Do recall that it is Eusebius who tells us explicitly that Papias did not hear John son of Zebedee, but rather John the Elder, a different person entirely. But Eusebius is also quite clear throughout his discussion of the origins of the gospels that John of Zebedee did in fact write that fourth gospel, the letter (I JOhn certainly), and even the Apocalypse. I. e. what Papias said does have impact on the Johannine question, but can be discussed quite apart from it as well: and how one answers one side (did Papias hear from disciples of John of Zeb? Did John of Zeb write the gospel?) of the problem in no way resolves or addresses the other side of the problem. Traditionally perhaps this has not been so, but it seems to me to be a logical necessity.




                          --
                          _______________________________________________
                          Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:
                          Download Opera 8 at http://www.opera.com

                          Powered by Outblaze
                        • Bart Ehrman
                          Thanks James, and thanks to Larry Swain for his response as well. I think the issues are pretty clear; and I have a sneaking suspicion that I m not going to
                          Message 12 of 16 , Jun 1, 2006
                            Thanks James, and thanks to Larry Swain for his response as well. I
                            think the issues are pretty clear; and I have a sneaking suspicion that I'm
                            not going to convince either of you! But probably this discussion isn't all
                            that relevant to t-c (or Judas); so if people want to pursue the matter and
                            see what positions are available, I'd suggest they simply read the
                            literature.

                            Best,

                            -- Bart Ehrman

                            Bart D. Ehrman
                            James A. Gray Professor
                            Department of Religious Studies
                            University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill



                            -----Original Message-----
                            From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                            [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of James Snapp, Jr.
                            Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 1:55 PM
                            To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: [textualcriticism] G-Judas and the Significance of Papias

                            Dear Dr. Ehrman:

                            Thank you for answering. A few more questions during the wait for
                            others to chime in:

                            Did you really mean to answer "absolutely" to the question, "Is it
                            realistic/honest to deny that monotheism is a basic, integral
                            component of Christianity?" (Also, you still didn't really answer
                            the sub-question, "What criteria would be required to NOT be
                            considered a Christian if one called oneself Christian in the first-
                            second centuries?".)

                            The question about the date of Papias is fairly relevant to NTTC, so
                            I will focus especially on it. You said that R.H. Gundry's date for
                            Papias (101-108) "probably isn't plausible." Why do you think it
                            probably isn't plausible?

                            BDE: "What Papias says about Matthew can't apply to our Matthew.
                            Does what he say about Mark apply to our Mark?"

                            Papias was completely capable of having read a Matthean Saying-
                            Source kind of document, without encountering the Gospel of Matthew
                            as we know it. (This gets more difficult to maintain the later the
                            date assigned to Papias is.) Considering the difference between
                            what Papias says about the demise of Judas Iscariot, and what the
                            Gospel of Matthew says about it, it seems fair, to me, to conclude
                            that Papias had not read the Gospel of Matthew when he wrote about
                            the demise of Judas Iscariot.

                            The idea that Papias did not encounter the Gospel of Mark is a
                            different fish. The statement that Mark "wrote as much as he
                            remembered" is almost immediately clarified by the statement that
                            Peter had delivered the teachings anecdotally, not systematically;
                            no one could read the whole statement and expect the Gospel of Mark
                            to be an exhaustive account. So this objection is a rather tenuous
                            foundation on which to build any sort of case for the idea that the
                            Elder was referring to some very large Proto-Mark rather than the
                            Gospel of Mark.

                            (New question: in Papias' report of the Elder's statement, as
                            recorded by Eusebius, "Mark, who had indeed been Peter's
                            interpreter, accurately wrote as much as he remembered," is the "he"
                            Peter, or Mark?)

                            Yours in Christ,

                            James Snapp, Jr.
                            Curtisville Christian Church
                            Indiana (USA)
                            www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html












                            Yahoo! Groups Links
                          • g_gardner1234
                            I posted this earlier to the group but it did not come up. If this turns out to be a double post, I apologize. ... Bart, After our last discussion on this
                            Message 13 of 16 , Jun 2, 2006
                              I posted this earlier to the group but it did not come up. If this
                              turns out to be a double post, I apologize.

                              James Sapp stated:

                              > > Dear Dr. Ehrman:
                              > > Thank you for answering. A few more questions during the wait
                              for others to chime in:

                              > > Did you really mean to answer "absolutely" to the question, "Is
                              > >it realistic/honest to deny that monotheism is a basic, integral
                              > > component of Christianity?" (Also, you still didn't really
                              > > answer the sub-question, "What criteria would be required to NOT be
                              > > considered a Christian if one called oneself Christian in the
                              > > first-second centuries?".)

                              Bart,

                              After our last discussion on this forum, I purposely acquired some of
                              your work on loan. My logic being, that if I was going to discuss it
                              any further, I should, at the very least make that attempt to read a
                              cross section of your writing. In your book "The Orthodox Corruption
                              of Scripture" and your version written with the layman in mind
                              "Misquoting Jesus", I do agree that your observations on the occurence
                              of textual variants are in fact correct. It is your conclusions that I
                              disagree with, but that is another topic possibly for later
                              discussion. I am currently reading "Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene."
                              In your book, I once again get the feeling that you are trying to
                              validate the gnostic writings as somehow being Christian. This seems
                              to be a concept that is also put forth by Elaine Pagels, Marvin Meyer,
                              and others in their books and interviews. Once again my question is,
                              if one can review the gnostic gospels as Christian writings, then why
                              wouldn't the Talmud, Toldoth Yeshu, Quran, Jewish mystical writings
                              such as the Zohar, and even various documents with a satanic overtone
                              such as the book of shadows, that talks about Jesus (in a negative
                              light of course) also fall under this category? Let's do a quick
                              comparison using the Gospel of Judas, since that is the topic of this
                              thread. In the Gospel of Judas, Jesus is mentioned approximately 21
                              times. In the Quran, Jesus is mentioned in approximately 51 passages,
                              and there is a complete chapter (Sura Maryam) dedicated to Mary, which
                              even discusses the virgin birth. Both documents demonstrate the belief
                              that Jesus is a messenger sent by God, so what is the difference then?
                              I think that you would be hard pressed to find a Muslim that would
                              agree that the Quran is a Christian document, so then what is the
                              criteria? It would be equally hard to find a Christian, who's belief
                              is based on orthodoxy to agree that the GOJ is a Christian document as
                              well. (IMO)

                              Bart, it is my understanding that you once were a student of Christian
                              orthodoxy, but because of doubt created by your study of the variants
                              in Greek mss, you decided to alter your original course. Far be it for
                              me to judge another man's belief, but I guess my concern, is that it
                              almost appears to me at times that you now have sort of an axe to
                              grind with orthodox Christianity, which could possibly have the effect
                              of coloring one's objectivity or neutrality in respect to
                              interpretation. Sometimes your work appears to me as almost a subtle
                              attempt to dismantle orthodoxy, or at least blur the lines by creating
                              grey areas using the gnostic writings to assist in the "shading"
                              techniques. I wonder how this same technique would be received by the
                              adherents of Judaism, or by those of the Muslim faith if it was
                              applied by you to the writings of those faiths?


                              --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Bart Ehrman" <behrman@...>
                              wrote:
                              >
                              > Thanks James, and thanks to Larry Swain for his response as well. I
                              > think the issues are pretty clear; and I have a sneaking suspicion
                              that I'm
                              > not going to convince either of you! But probably this discussion
                              isn't all
                              > that relevant to t-c (or Judas); so if people want to pursue the
                              matter and
                              > see what positions are available, I'd suggest they simply read the
                              > literature.
                              >
                              > Best,
                              >
                              > -- Bart Ehrman
                              >
                              > Bart D. Ehrman
                              > James A. Gray Professor
                              > Department of Religious Studies
                              > University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > -----Original Message-----
                              > From: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                              > [mailto:textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of James Snapp, Jr.
                              > Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 1:55 PM
                              > To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                              > Subject: [textualcriticism] G-Judas and the Significance of Papias
                              >
                              > Dear Dr. Ehrman:
                              >
                              > Thank you for answering. A few more questions during the wait for
                              > others to chime in:
                              >
                              > Did you really mean to answer "absolutely" to the question, "Is it
                              > realistic/honest to deny that monotheism is a basic, integral
                              > component of Christianity?" (Also, you still didn't really answer
                              > the sub-question, "What criteria would be required to NOT be
                              > considered a Christian if one called oneself Christian in the first-
                              > second centuries?".)
                              >
                              > The question about the date of Papias is fairly relevant to NTTC, so
                              > I will focus especially on it. You said that R.H. Gundry's date for
                              > Papias (101-108) "probably isn't plausible." Why do you think it
                              > probably isn't plausible?
                              >
                              > BDE: "What Papias says about Matthew can't apply to our Matthew.
                              > Does what he say about Mark apply to our Mark?"
                              >
                              > Papias was completely capable of having read a Matthean Saying-
                              > Source kind of document, without encountering the Gospel of Matthew
                              > as we know it. (This gets more difficult to maintain the later the
                              > date assigned to Papias is.) Considering the difference between
                              > what Papias says about the demise of Judas Iscariot, and what the
                              > Gospel of Matthew says about it, it seems fair, to me, to conclude
                              > that Papias had not read the Gospel of Matthew when he wrote about
                              > the demise of Judas Iscariot.
                              >
                              > The idea that Papias did not encounter the Gospel of Mark is a
                              > different fish. The statement that Mark "wrote as much as he
                              > remembered" is almost immediately clarified by the statement that
                              > Peter had delivered the teachings anecdotally, not systematically;
                              > no one could read the whole statement and expect the Gospel of Mark
                              > to be an exhaustive account. So this objection is a rather tenuous
                              > foundation on which to build any sort of case for the idea that the
                              > Elder was referring to some very large Proto-Mark rather than the
                              > Gospel of Mark.
                              >
                              > (New question: in Papias' report of the Elder's statement, as
                              > recorded by Eusebius, "Mark, who had indeed been Peter's
                              > interpreter, accurately wrote as much as he remembered," is the "he"
                              > Peter, or Mark?)
                              >
                              > Yours in Christ,
                              >
                              > James Snapp, Jr.
                              > Curtisville Christian Church
                              > Indiana (USA)
                              > www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Yahoo! Groups Links
                              >
                            • Stephen C. Carlson
                              Thanks to all who responded on my query. It is the case that VV = Vizantiiskii vremennik. Stephen -- Stephen C. Carlson
                              Message 14 of 16 , Jun 4, 2006
                                Thanks to all who responded on my query.

                                It is the case that VV = Vizantiiskii vremennik.

                                Stephen
                                --
                                Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
                                Weblog: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/
                                Author of: The Gospel Hoax, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.