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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 16 , May 31 11:11 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      >
      >
      > 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 2 of 16 , Jun 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 16 , Jun 2, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 16 , Jun 4, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            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.