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

RE: [textualcriticism] Re: Question on Irenaeus NT fragment

Expand Messages
  • Bart Ehrman
    For the record, I do not date any of the Gnostic Gospels to the first century and have no connection at all with the Jesus Seminar (with whose conclusions I
    Message 1 of 18 , Feb 12, 2009
          For the record, I do not date any of the Gnostic Gospels to the first century and have no connection at all with the Jesus Seminar (with whose conclusions I roundly disagree up and down the line).
       
      -- Bart Ehrman
       
      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 Jay Rogers
      Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 11:28 AM
      To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Question on Irenaeus NT fragment

      I am not sure if this is a proper comment for this forum as it
      wanders into the field of apologetics, but I wonder what some of you
      experts think about the following idea?

      I think that P.Oxy.III.405 is an important piece of evidence to
      counter arguments offered by Crossan, Pagals, Ehrman (I am not sure
      though if he holds to this?) and other Jesus Seminar types who want
      to place some of the Gnostic Gospels in the first century based on
      documentary evidence of second and third century fragments (the
      Gospel of Peter, etc.) The argument is that a surviving second or
      third century fragment indicates a much earlier date of writing.

      As a conservative, I've used the same argument about the Rylands
      fragment to say that a proliferation of John by the early second
      century indicates at least a late first century date for the
      autograph.

      Therefore, a mid-first century date for the Synoptics gains some
      credence.

      But a surviving Irenaeus fragment with a date of 175 to 225 puts an
      extant fragment of his manuscript possibly in his own lifetime. That
      turns the entire argument on its head. While this can be used to
      predate the four Gospels since Irenaeus is quoting from them
      constantly, it also can be used to argue for a later date for some of
      the Gnostic Gospels and pseudepigrapha since it is not unnown for a
      fragement that is contemporaneous of its author to survive to the
      present day.

      --- In textualcriticism@ yahoogroups. com, "James Snapp, Jr."
      <voxverax@.. .> wrote:

      >
      >
      Greetings Jay Rogers.
      >
      > The name of the fragment you are
      recollecting is P. Oxyrhynchus
      III.
      > 405.
      >
      > It
      contains text from Irenaeus (not Tertullian). Specifically,
      from
      >
      Against Heresies, Book Three, chapter 9, 2-3.
      >
      > There is an
      online image of P. Oxy. 405 at
      >
      href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:POxy405.jpg">http://commons. wikimedia. org/wiki/ File:POxy405. jpg
      > (Features of interest: the nomina sacra and the use of ">" to
      > indicate a Scripture-quotation .)
      >
      > The thing to see
      here is the form of Irenaeus' quotation of
      Matthew's
      > record of what
      was spoken by a voice from heaven at Jesus'
      baptism.
      > According to
      the Latin text of "Against Heresies" the voice from
      > heaven says, "Hic
      est filius meus dilectus" – that is, "This is my
      > beloved son." (The
      passage being cited = Matthew 3:16-17.)
      >
      > In P. Oxy 405, though,
      we find – well, let me present the
      surrounding
      > content in "Against
      Heresies" III:9:3 first, adapted from the
      > presentation at
      >
      href="http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/irenaeus/advhaer3.txt">http://www.columbia .edu/cu/augustin e/arch/irenaeus/ advhaer3. txt
      >
      > The second part of chapter 9, in which Irenaeus uses several
      proof-
      > snippets, wraps up like this:
      >
      > "But Matthew says
      that the Magi, coming from the east,
      exclaimed "For
      > we have seen
      His star in the east, and are come to worship Him;"
      and
      > that,
      having been led by the star into the house of Jacob to
      > Emmanuel, they
      showed, by these gifts which they offered, who it
      was
      > that was
      worshipped; myrrh, because it was He who should die and be
      > buried for
      the mortal human met; gold, because He was a King, of
      > whose kingdom is
      no end; and frankincense, because He was God, who
      > also was made known
      in Judea, and was declared to those who sought
      > Him not."
      >
      > Then the third part begins:
      >
      > "And then, (about Jesus')
      baptism, Matthew says, "The heavens were
      > opened, and He saw the Spirit
      of God, as a dove, coming upon Him:
      and
      > lo a voice from heaven,
      saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I
      am
      > well pleased." For
      Christ did not at that time descend upon Jesus,
      > neither was Christ one
      and Jesus another: but the Word of God --
      who
      > is the Savior of all,
      and the ruler of heaven and earth, who is
      > Jesus, as I have already
      pointed out, who did also take upon Him
      > flesh, and was anointed by the
      Spirit from the Father -- was made
      > Jesus Christ, as Isaiah also says .
      . . ."
      >
      > In P. Oxy 405, when Irenaeus gets to the part about the
      voice from
      > heaven, instead of saying "This is my beloved Son," P. Oxy.
      405
      > reads – well, let me present the relevant part of the Greek text of
      > P. Oxy 405, with line-reconstruction s, attached by periods to an
      > English translation.
      >
      > MH ZHTOUSIN. [ET FHSIN
      EPI]………..sought [Him] not/
      > TOU BAPT[ISMATOS O MATQAI]………….the
      bapti/
      > OS. ANEW[CQHSAN OI OURANOI]……….hew: were ope/
      > KAI EIDEN
      T[O _PNA_ _QU_ KATA]………and He saw the/
      > BAINON WS P[ERISTERAN
      KAI]…………..scending in the form of a d/
      > ERCOMENON E[IS AUTON.
      KAI]…………..coming t/
      > IDOU FWN[H EX OURANOU]……………….behold, a voi/
      >
      LEGOUSA, SU E[I P _US_ MOU O AGA]……saying, "You ar/
      > MHTOS, [E]N W
      [EUDOKHSA. OU]…………ved, in whom/
      >
      > Okay. There are two significant
      variants in P. Oxy. 405's text of
      > Matthew: WS instead of WSEI, and SU
      EI instead of OUTOS ESTIN.
      Now,
      > today, I won't attempt to make a
      case for either of these variants,
      > or diverge into a presentation of
      their supportive witnesses.
      > (Because they are important, and deserve
      more than a by-the-way
      > treatment.) As I said, the thing to see, for the
      subject of the
      day,
      > is that the Latin text of "Against Heresies"
      presents a different
      > text of Mt. 3:16-17 than the text of Matthew
      3:16-17 that is
      > presented in the Greek text in P. Oxy 405. Therefore
      either the
      > Latin translation of "Against Heresies," or the Greek text
      in P.
      Oxy
      > 405, has been altered. Considering that Irenaeus somewhat
      > consistently used a "Western" text, and that the witnesses which
      > support "SU EI" are "Western," it looks like it is the Latin
      >
      translation which presents the altered text. The discovery of a
      12th-
      > century text containing this passage from Irenaeus in Greek
      (Stephen
      > Carlson could tell you more about that), and agreeing with
      P. Oxy
      405
      > at this point, further solidifies the point.
      >
      > (But that does not mean that the form of Matthew 3:16-17 quoted by
      > Irenaeus is original. OUTOS ESTIN is supported by a broad spectrum
      > of witnesses.)
      >
      > JR: "I understand that 1 Clement is
      included in the earliest
      > codices. But what about Ignatius, Polycarp,
      Irenaeus, Tertullian,
      > etc?"
      >
      > Regarding First Clement:
      it is not in the very earliest codices
      > extant, but inasmuch as those
      are Gospels-codices that is not
      > surprising. Regarding the works of
      Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus,
      and
      > Tertullian: they are not included
      in any codices of Scripture,
      > afaik. Some interesting information about
      other non-canonical
      > writings, though, can be obtained via a careful
      study of the
      > Conspectus of Papyri at
      >
      www.anchist. mq.edu.au/ doccentre/ Conspectus. pdf
      >
      > (P. Oxy 405 is included in this list of early Christian papyri of
      all
      > sorts – non-NT as well as NT).
      >
      >
      > JR: "I
      think I remember Dan Wallace saying something along the
      lines
      > that
      patristic quotes are undervalued in textual criticism."
      >
      > Yes;
      the production of critical editions of the patristic writers
      is
      >
      among the most urgent tasks in NTTC. The old collections by Migne
      > are
      still a useful place to start, but not a satisfactory place to
      >
      conclude, the analysis of the patristic writings.
      >
      > Yours in
      Christ,
      >
      > James Snapp, Jr.
      > Minister, Curtisville
      Christian Church
      > Tipton, Indiana (USA)
      >
      href="http://www.curtisvillechristian.org/TCGoals.html">http://www.curtisvi llechristian. org/TCGoals. html
      >

    • Bart Ehrman
      I don t recall being grilled recenty, or overlooking anyone s arguments -- but I will say that I find Trobisch s book completely unconvincing and his arguments
      Message 2 of 18 , Feb 12, 2009
        I don't recall being grilled recenty, or overlooking anyone's arguments
        -- but I will say that I find Trobisch's book completely unconvincing and
        his arguments (and slight evidence) not to be in the least compelling. So
        far as I can tell from the scholarly discourse (i.e. anecdotally), I don't
        know of any active scholars who do their research in this field who have
        been convinced.

        -- Bart Ehrman


        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 David Hindley
        Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 8:04 AM
        To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] Re: Question on Irenaeus NT fragment



        Jay,

        Check out David Trobisch, who proposes the entire NT as we know it was
        published in the middle of the 2nd century, and that all
        surviving mss ultimately derive from it (not necessarily a single set of
        codices, e, a, p, r, but perhaps released over time with
        several minor revisions).

        Trobisch argues there are almost no textual variants demonstrating
        conclusively that alternate editions of these books were in
        general circulation, although it must be assumed that they were circulating
        somewhere before being collected and edited into the
        four groups we find now.

        Since Irenaeus of the late 2nd century is the first author to extensively
        quote from almost every NT book, he may have used a
        "canonical" edition such as proposed by Trobisch. Trobisch is probably best
        described as "evangelical" in orientation, but his
        hypothesis does question some very basic assumptions made routinely by
        textual critics about such matters.

        There are serious implications related to earlier discussions about initial
        text and archetype, etc, which I tried to bring up when
        Bart Ehrman was being grilled earlier, but neither he nor anyone else bit at
        the time.

        Respectfully,

        Dave Hindley
        Newton Falls, Ohio USA

        -----Original Message-----
        From: sentto-12544309-
        <mailto:sentto-12544309-4455-1234422508-dhindley%3Dcompuserve.com%40returns.
        groups.yahoo.com>
        4455-1234422508-dhindley=compuserve.com@...
        [mailto:sentto-12544309-
        <mailto:sentto-12544309-4455-1234422508-dhindley%3Dcompuserve.com%40returns.
        groups.yahoo.com>
        4455-1234422508-dhindley=compuserve.com@...] On Behalf
        Of Jay Rogers
        Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 11:28 AM
        To: textualcriticism@ <mailto:textualcriticism%40yahoogroups.com>
        yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Question on Irenaeus NT fragment

        I am not sure if this is a proper comment for this forum as it wanders into
        the field of apologetics, but I wonder what some of you
        experts think about the following idea?

        I think that P.Oxy.III.405 is an important piece of evidence to counter
        arguments offered by Crossan, Pagals, Ehrman (I am not sure
        though if he holds to this?) and other Jesus Seminar types who want to place
        some of the Gnostic Gospels in the first century based
        on documentary evidence of second and third century fragments (the Gospel of
        Peter, etc.) The argument is that a surviving second or
        third century fragment indicates a much earlier date of writing.

        As a conservative, I've used the same argument about the Rylands fragment to
        say that a proliferation of John by the early second
        century indicates at least a late first century date for the autograph.

        Therefore, a mid-first century date for the Synoptics gains some credence.

        But a surviving Irenaeus fragment with a date of 175 to 225 puts an extant
        fragment of his manuscript possibly in his own lifetime.
        That turns the entire argument on its head. While this can be used to
        predate the four Gospels since Irenaeus is quoting from them
        constantly, it also can be used to argue for a later date for some of the
        Gnostic Gospels and pseudepigrapha since it is not unnown
        for a fragement that is contemporaneous of its author to survive to the
        present day.

        --- In textualcriticism@ <mailto:textualcriticism%40yahoogroups.com>
        yahoogroups.com, "James Snapp, Jr."
        <voxverax@...> wrote:
        >
        > Greetings Jay Rogers.
        >
        > The name of the fragment you are recollecting is P. Oxyrhynchus
        III.
        > 405.
        >
        > It contains text from Irenaeus (not Tertullian). Specifically,
        from
        > Against Heresies, Book Three, chapter 9, 2-3.
        >
        > There is an online image of P. Oxy. 405 at
        > http://commons. <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:POxy405.jpg>
        wikimedia.org/wiki/File:POxy405.jpg
        > (Features of interest: the nomina sacra and the use of ">" to
        > indicate a Scripture-quotation.)
        >
        > The thing to see here is the form of Irenaeus' quotation of
        Matthew's
        > record of what was spoken by a voice from heaven at Jesus'
        baptism.
        > According to the Latin text of "Against Heresies" the voice from
        > heaven says, "Hic est filius meus dilectus" - that is, "This is my
        > beloved son." (The passage being cited = Matthew 3:16-17.)
        >
        > In P. Oxy 405, though, we find - well, let me present the
        surrounding
        > content in "Against Heresies" III:9:3 first, adapted from the
        > presentation at
        > http://www.columbia
        <http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/irenaeus/advhaer3.txt>
        .edu/cu/augustine/arch/irenaeus/advhaer3.txt
        >
        > The second part of chapter 9, in which Irenaeus uses several proof-
        > snippets, wraps up like this:
        >
        > "But Matthew says that the Magi, coming from the east,
        exclaimed "For
        > we have seen His star in the east, and are come to worship Him;"
        and
        > that, having been led by the star into the house of Jacob to Emmanuel,
        > they showed, by these gifts which they offered, who it
        was
        > that was worshipped; myrrh, because it was He who should die and be
        > buried for the mortal human met; gold, because He was a King, of whose
        > kingdom is no end; and frankincense, because He was God, who also was
        > made known in Judea, and was declared to those who sought Him not."
        >
        > Then the third part begins:
        >
        > "And then, (about Jesus') baptism, Matthew says, "The heavens were
        > opened, and He saw the Spirit of God, as a dove, coming upon Him:
        and
        > lo a voice from heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I
        am
        > well pleased." For Christ did not at that time descend upon Jesus,
        > neither was Christ one and Jesus another: but the Word of God --
        who
        > is the Savior of all, and the ruler of heaven and earth, who is Jesus,
        > as I have already pointed out, who did also take upon Him flesh, and
        > was anointed by the Spirit from the Father -- was made Jesus Christ,
        > as Isaiah also says . . . ."
        >
        > In P. Oxy 405, when Irenaeus gets to the part about the voice from
        > heaven, instead of saying "This is my beloved Son," P. Oxy. 405 reads
        > - well, let me present the relevant part of the Greek text of P. Oxy
        > 405, with line-reconstructions, attached by periods to an English
        > translation.
        >
        > MH ZHTOUSIN. [ET FHSIN EPI]...........sought [Him] not/ TOU BAPT[ISMATOS
        > O MATQAI].............the bapti/ OS. ANEW[CQHSAN OI OURANOI]..........hew:
        were
        > ope/ KAI EIDEN T[O _PNA_ _QU_ KATA].........and He saw the/ BAINON WS
        > P[ERISTERAN KAI]..............scending in the form of a d/ ERCOMENON E[IS
        > AUTON. KAI]..............coming t/ IDOU FWN[H EX
        OURANOU]...................behold, a
        > voi/ LEGOUSA, SU E[I P _US_ MOU O AGA]......saying, "You ar/ MHTOS, [E]N W

        > [EUDOKHSA. OU]............ved, in whom/
        >
        > Okay. There are two significant variants in P. Oxy. 405's text of
        > Matthew: WS instead of WSEI, and SU EI instead of OUTOS ESTIN.
        Now,
        > today, I won't attempt to make a case for either of these variants, or
        > diverge into a presentation of their supportive witnesses.
        > (Because they are important, and deserve more than a by-the-way
        > treatment.) As I said, the thing to see, for the subject of the
        day,
        > is that the Latin text of "Against Heresies" presents a different text
        > of Mt. 3:16-17 than the text of Matthew 3:16-17 that is presented in
        > the Greek text in P. Oxy 405. Therefore either the Latin translation
        > of "Against Heresies," or the Greek text in P.
        Oxy
        > 405, has been altered. Considering that Irenaeus somewhat
        > consistently used a "Western" text, and that the witnesses which
        > support "SU EI" are "Western," it looks like it is the Latin
        > translation which presents the altered text. The discovery of a
        12th-
        > century text containing this passage from Irenaeus in Greek
        (Stephen
        > Carlson could tell you more about that), and agreeing with P. Oxy
        405
        > at this point, further solidifies the point.
        >
        > (But that does not mean that the form of Matthew 3:16-17 quoted by
        > Irenaeus is original. OUTOS ESTIN is supported by a broad spectrum of
        > witnesses.)
        >
        > JR: "I understand that 1 Clement is included in the earliest codices.
        > But what about Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Tertullian, etc?"
        >
        > Regarding First Clement: it is not in the very earliest codices
        > extant, but inasmuch as those are Gospels-codices that is not
        > surprising. Regarding the works of Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus,
        and
        > Tertullian: they are not included in any codices of Scripture, afaik.
        > Some interesting information about other non-canonical writings,
        > though, can be obtained via a careful study of the Conspectus of
        > Papyri at www.anchist.mq.edu.au/doccentre/Conspectus.pdf
        >
        > (P. Oxy 405 is included in this list of early Christian papyri of
        all
        > sorts - non-NT as well as NT).
        >
        >
        > JR: "I think I remember Dan Wallace saying something along the
        lines
        > that patristic quotes are undervalued in textual criticism."
        >
        > Yes; the production of critical editions of the patristic writers
        is
        > among the most urgent tasks in NTTC. The old collections by Migne are
        > still a useful place to start, but not a satisfactory place to
        > conclude, the analysis of the patristic writings.
        >
        > Yours in Christ,
        >
        > James Snapp, Jr.
        > Minister, Curtisville Christian Church Tipton, Indiana (USA)
        > http://www.curtisvi <http://www.curtisvillechristian.org/TCGoals.html>
        llechristian.org/TCGoals.html
        >

        ------------------------------------

        Yahoo! Groups Links
      • David Hindley
        Hello Prof. Ehrman, It was sent 11/14/08 and posted the next day. As you know, Trobisch was a presenter at the Dec 2008 Jesus Project seminar. Personally, I
        Message 3 of 18 , Feb 12, 2009
          Hello Prof. Ehrman,

          It was sent 11/14/08 and posted the next day.

          As you know, Trobisch was a presenter at the Dec 2008 Jesus Project seminar. Personally, I consider the JP a bit on the "fringe,"
          although several mainstream critics had initially supported it as a counterpoint to the ideological agenda of the Jesus Seminar.
          Some have now dropped support.

          Personally, I never considered Trobisch a "fringe" scholar. He has done quite a bit of research on manuscripts, including originals,
          both in the US and Europe. His extensive work is in German, which is inaccessible to me I'm afraid. Is he really that far out on a
          limb, or just bucking a trend?

          A lot of might folks think the same about you (as the hailstorm of criticism directed at you last November showed). I am hesitant to
          wave Trobisch off as unworthy of consideration any more than I would your positions on changes that occur during the transmission of
          scripture.

          Respectfully,

          Dave Hindley
          Newton Falls, Ohio USA





          _____

          From: sentto-12544309-4460-1234446958-dhindley=compuserve.com@...
          [mailto:sentto-12544309-4460-1234446958-dhindley=compuserve.com@...] On Behalf Of Bart Ehrman
          Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 8:54 AM
          To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] Re: Question on Irenaeus NT fragment


          I don't recall being grilled recenty, or overlooking anyone's arguments -- but I will say that I find Trobisch's book completely
          unconvincing and his arguments (and slight evidence) not to be in the least compelling. So far as I can tell from the scholarly
          discourse (i.e. anecdotally), I don't know of any active scholars who do their research in this field who have been convinced.

          -- Bart Ehrman


          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 David Hindley
          Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 8:04 AM
          To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] Re: Question on Irenaeus NT fragment



          Jay,

          Check out David Trobisch, who proposes the entire NT as we know it was published in the middle of the 2nd century, and that all
          surviving mss ultimately derive from it (not necessarily a single set of codices, e, a, p, r, but perhaps released over time with
          several minor revisions).

          Trobisch argues there are almost no textual variants demonstrating conclusively that alternate editions of these books were in
          general circulation, although it must be assumed that they were circulating somewhere before being collected and edited into the
          four groups we find now.

          Since Irenaeus of the late 2nd century is the first author to extensively quote from almost every NT book, he may have used a
          "canonical" edition such as proposed by Trobisch. Trobisch is probably best described as "evangelical" in orientation, but his
          hypothesis does question some very basic assumptions made routinely by textual critics about such matters.

          There are serious implications related to earlier discussions about initial text and archetype, etc, which I tried to bring up when
          Bart Ehrman was being grilled earlier, but neither he nor anyone else bit at the time.

          Respectfully,

          Dave Hindley
          Newton Falls, Ohio USA

          -----Original Message-----
          From: sentto-12544309- <mailto:sentto-12544309-4455-1234422508-dhindley%3Dcompuserve.com%40returns.groups.yahoo.com>
          4455-1234422508-dhindley=compuserve.com@...
          [mailto:sentto-12544309- <mailto:sentto-12544309-4455-1234422508-dhindley%3Dcompuserve.com%40returns.groups.yahoo.com>
          4455-1234422508-dhindley=compuserve.com@...] On Behalf Of Jay Rogers
          Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 11:28 AM
          To: textualcriticism@ <mailto:textualcriticism%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Question on Irenaeus NT fragment

          I am not sure if this is a proper comment for this forum as it wanders into the field of apologetics, but I wonder what some of you
          experts think about the following idea?

          I think that P.Oxy.III.405 is an important piece of evidence to counter arguments offered by Crossan, Pagals, Ehrman (I am not sure
          though if he holds to this?) and other Jesus Seminar types who want to place some of the Gnostic Gospels in the first century based
          on documentary evidence of second and third century fragments (the Gospel of Peter, etc.) The argument is that a surviving second or
          third century fragment indicates a much earlier date of writing.

          As a conservative, I've used the same argument about the Rylands fragment to say that a proliferation of John by the early second
          century indicates at least a late first century date for the autograph.

          Therefore, a mid-first century date for the Synoptics gains some credence.

          But a surviving Irenaeus fragment with a date of 175 to 225 puts an extant fragment of his manuscript possibly in his own lifetime.
          That turns the entire argument on its head. While this can be used to predate the four Gospels since Irenaeus is quoting from them
          constantly, it also can be used to argue for a later date for some of the Gnostic Gospels and pseudepigrapha since it is not unnown
          for a fragement that is contemporaneous of its author to survive to the present day.

          --- In textualcriticism@ <mailto:textualcriticism%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com, "James Snapp, Jr."
          <voxverax@...> wrote:
          >
          > Greetings Jay Rogers.
          >
          > The name of the fragment you are recollecting is P. Oxyrhynchus
          III.
          > 405.
          >
          > It contains text from Irenaeus (not Tertullian). Specifically,
          from
          > Against Heresies, Book Three, chapter 9, 2-3.
          >
          > There is an online image of P. Oxy. 405 at
          > http://commons. <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:POxy405.jpg> wikimedia.org/wiki/File:POxy405.jpg
          > (Features of interest: the nomina sacra and the use of ">" to
          > indicate a Scripture-quotation.)
          >
          > The thing to see here is the form of Irenaeus' quotation of
          Matthew's
          > record of what was spoken by a voice from heaven at Jesus'
          baptism.
          > According to the Latin text of "Against Heresies" the voice from
          > heaven says, "Hic est filius meus dilectus" - that is, "This is my
          > beloved son." (The passage being cited = Matthew 3:16-17.)
          >
          > In P. Oxy 405, though, we find - well, let me present the
          surrounding
          > content in "Against Heresies" III:9:3 first, adapted from the
          > presentation at
          > http://www.columbia <http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/irenaeus/advhaer3.txt> .edu/cu/augustine/arch/irenaeus/advhaer3.txt
          >
          > The second part of chapter 9, in which Irenaeus uses several proof-
          > snippets, wraps up like this:
          >
          > "But Matthew says that the Magi, coming from the east,
          exclaimed "For
          > we have seen His star in the east, and are come to worship Him;"
          and
          > that, having been led by the star into the house of Jacob to Emmanuel,
          > they showed, by these gifts which they offered, who it
          was
          > that was worshipped; myrrh, because it was He who should die and be
          > buried for the mortal human met; gold, because He was a King, of whose
          > kingdom is no end; and frankincense, because He was God, who also was
          > made known in Judea, and was declared to those who sought Him not."
          >
          > Then the third part begins:
          >
          > "And then, (about Jesus') baptism, Matthew says, "The heavens were
          > opened, and He saw the Spirit of God, as a dove, coming upon Him:
          and
          > lo a voice from heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I
          am
          > well pleased." For Christ did not at that time descend upon Jesus,
          > neither was Christ one and Jesus another: but the Word of God --
          who
          > is the Savior of all, and the ruler of heaven and earth, who is Jesus,
          > as I have already pointed out, who did also take upon Him flesh, and
          > was anointed by the Spirit from the Father -- was made Jesus Christ,
          > as Isaiah also says . . . ."
          >
          > In P. Oxy 405, when Irenaeus gets to the part about the voice from
          > heaven, instead of saying "This is my beloved Son," P. Oxy. 405 reads
          > - well, let me present the relevant part of the Greek text of P. Oxy
          > 405, with line-reconstructions, attached by periods to an English
          > translation.
          >
          > MH ZHTOUSIN. [ET FHSIN EPI]...........sought [Him] not/ TOU BAPT[ISMATOS
          > O MATQAI].............the bapti/ OS. ANEW[CQHSAN OI OURANOI]..........hew: were
          > ope/ KAI EIDEN T[O _PNA_ _QU_ KATA].........and He saw the/ BAINON WS
          > P[ERISTERAN KAI]..............scending in the form of a d/ ERCOMENON E[IS
          > AUTON. KAI]..............coming t/ IDOU FWN[H EX OURANOU]...................behold, a
          > voi/ LEGOUSA, SU E[I P _US_ MOU O AGA]......saying, "You ar/ MHTOS, [E]N W
          > [EUDOKHSA. OU]............ved, in whom/
          >
          > Okay. There are two significant variants in P. Oxy. 405's text of
          > Matthew: WS instead of WSEI, and SU EI instead of OUTOS ESTIN.
          Now,
          > today, I won't attempt to make a case for either of these variants, or
          > diverge into a presentation of their supportive witnesses.
          > (Because they are important, and deserve more than a by-the-way
          > treatment.) As I said, the thing to see, for the subject of the
          day,
          > is that the Latin text of "Against Heresies" presents a different text
          > of Mt. 3:16-17 than the text of Matthew 3:16-17 that is presented in
          > the Greek text in P. Oxy 405. Therefore either the Latin translation
          > of "Against Heresies," or the Greek text in P.
          Oxy
          > 405, has been altered. Considering that Irenaeus somewhat
          > consistently used a "Western" text, and that the witnesses which
          > support "SU EI" are "Western," it looks like it is the Latin
          > translation which presents the altered text. The discovery of a
          12th-
          > century text containing this passage from Irenaeus in Greek
          (Stephen
          > Carlson could tell you more about that), and agreeing with P. Oxy
          405
          > at this point, further solidifies the point.
          >
          > (But that does not mean that the form of Matthew 3:16-17 quoted by
          > Irenaeus is original. OUTOS ESTIN is supported by a broad spectrum of
          > witnesses.)
          >
          > JR: "I understand that 1 Clement is included in the earliest codices.
          > But what about Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Tertullian, etc?"
          >
          > Regarding First Clement: it is not in the very earliest codices
          > extant, but inasmuch as those are Gospels-codices that is not
          > surprising. Regarding the works of Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus,
          and
          > Tertullian: they are not included in any codices of Scripture, afaik.
          > Some interesting information about other non-canonical writings,
          > though, can be obtained via a careful study of the Conspectus of
          > Papyri at www.anchist.mq.edu.au/doccentre/Conspectus.pdf
          >
          > (P. Oxy 405 is included in this list of early Christian papyri of
          all
          > sorts - non-NT as well as NT).
          >
          >
          > JR: "I think I remember Dan Wallace saying something along the
          lines
          > that patristic quotes are undervalued in textual criticism."
          >
          > Yes; the production of critical editions of the patristic writers
          is
          > among the most urgent tasks in NTTC. The old collections by Migne are
          > still a useful place to start, but not a satisfactory place to
          > conclude, the analysis of the patristic writings.
          >
          > Yours in Christ,
          >
          > James Snapp, Jr.
          > Minister, Curtisville Christian Church Tipton, Indiana (USA)
          > http://www.curtisvi <http://www.curtisvillechristian.org/TCGoals.html> llechristian.org/TCGoals.html
          >

          ------------------------------------

          Yahoo! Groups Links
        • Bart Ehrman
          I wouldn t say that David is on the fringe; he is a highly knowledgable scholar. But I would say that his opinions about the canon are not mainstream at all,
          Message 4 of 18 , Feb 12, 2009
            I wouldn't say that David is on the fringe; he is a highly knowledgable
            scholar. But I would say that his opinions about the canon are not
            mainstream at all, and that to my knowledge, with respect to his thesis
            about there being some kind of published 27 book canon in the second
            century, he hasn't convinced any of the scholars who actively work on the
            text or canon. Maybe I'm wrong! If you know of some exceptions, I'd be
            (genuinely!) interested in knowing them.

            As to me, I'd be very surprised to learn that with regards to textual
            criticism (the subject of this list) anyone would consider me to be on the
            fringe. I'm smack in the middle of where almost all publishing scholars in
            this field are, so far as I know (I'm thinking of all the research scholars
            who are active, for example in the Textual Criticism Section of the SBL,
            which I chaired for six years and still serve on the advisory committee of).
            I can't think of major issues that any of the leading scholars in the field
            -- I'm thinking of people like David Parker, Eldon Epp, Michael Holmes,
            Gordon Fee, the many contributors to the volume that Mike Holmes and I
            edited on the Status Quaestionis, and so forth -- and I fundamentally
            disagree about (e.g., in the questions I've worked most on: methods of
            classifying witnesses, patristic evidence, criteria for establishing the
            oldest form of the text, the problems of speaking about an "original text,"
            and so on).

            Best,

            -- Bart Ehrman

            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 David Hindley
            Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 11:07 AM
            To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] Re: Question on Irenaeus NT fragment



            Hello Prof. Ehrman,

            It was sent 11/14/08 and posted the next day.

            As you know, Trobisch was a presenter at the Dec 2008 Jesus Project seminar.
            Personally, I consider the JP a bit on the "fringe,"
            although several mainstream critics had initially supported it as a
            counterpoint to the ideological agenda of the Jesus Seminar.
            Some have now dropped support.

            Personally, I never considered Trobisch a "fringe" scholar. He has done
            quite a bit of research on manuscripts, including originals,
            both in the US and Europe. His extensive work is in German, which is
            inaccessible to me I'm afraid. Is he really that far out on a
            limb, or just bucking a trend?

            A lot of might folks think the same about you (as the hailstorm of criticism
            directed at you last November showed). I am hesitant to
            wave Trobisch off as unworthy of consideration any more than I would your
            positions on changes that occur during the transmission of
            scripture.

            Respectfully,

            Dave Hindley
            Newton Falls, Ohio USA

            _____

            From: sentto-12544309-
            <mailto:sentto-12544309-4460-1234446958-dhindley%3Dcompuserve.com%40returns.
            groups.yahoo.com>
            4460-1234446958-dhindley=compuserve.com@...
            [mailto:sentto-12544309-
            <mailto:sentto-12544309-4460-1234446958-dhindley%3Dcompuserve.com%40returns.
            groups.yahoo.com>
            4460-1234446958-dhindley=compuserve.com@...] On Behalf
            Of Bart Ehrman
            Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 8:54 AM
            To: textualcriticism@ <mailto:textualcriticism%40yahoogroups.com>
            yahoogroups.com
            Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] Re: Question on Irenaeus NT fragment

            I don't recall being grilled recenty, or overlooking anyone's arguments --
            but I will say that I find Trobisch's book completely
            unconvincing and his arguments (and slight evidence) not to be in the least
            compelling. So far as I can tell from the scholarly
            discourse (i.e. anecdotally), I don't know of any active scholars who do
            their research in this field who have been convinced.

            -- Bart Ehrman


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


            _____

            From: textualcriticism@ <mailto:textualcriticism%40yahoogroups.com>
            yahoogroups.com [mailto:textualcriticism@
            <mailto:textualcriticism%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
            David Hindley
            Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 8:04 AM
            To: textualcriticism@ <mailto:textualcriticism%40yahoogroups.com>
            yahoogroups.com
            Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] Re: Question on Irenaeus NT fragment

            Jay,

            Check out David Trobisch, who proposes the entire NT as we know it was
            published in the middle of the 2nd century, and that all
            surviving mss ultimately derive from it (not necessarily a single set of
            codices, e, a, p, r, but perhaps released over time with
            several minor revisions).

            Trobisch argues there are almost no textual variants demonstrating
            conclusively that alternate editions of these books were in
            general circulation, although it must be assumed that they were circulating
            somewhere before being collected and edited into the
            four groups we find now.

            Since Irenaeus of the late 2nd century is the first author to extensively
            quote from almost every NT book, he may have used a
            "canonical" edition such as proposed by Trobisch. Trobisch is probably best
            described as "evangelical" in orientation, but his
            hypothesis does question some very basic assumptions made routinely by
            textual critics about such matters.

            There are serious implications related to earlier discussions about initial
            text and archetype, etc, which I tried to bring up when
            Bart Ehrman was being grilled earlier, but neither he nor anyone else bit at
            the time.

            Respectfully,

            Dave Hindley
            Newton Falls, Ohio USA

            -----Original Message-----
            From: sentto-12544309-
            <mailto:sentto-12544309-4455-1234422508-dhindley%3Dcompuserve.com%40returns.
            groups.yahoo.com>
            4455-1234422508-
            <mailto:4455-1234422508-dhindley%3Dcompuserve.com%40returns.groups.yahoo.com
            > dhindley=compuserve.com@...
            [mailto:sentto-12544309-
            <mailto:sentto-12544309-4455-1234422508-dhindley%3Dcompuserve.com%40returns.
            groups.yahoo.com>
            4455-1234422508-
            <mailto:4455-1234422508-dhindley%3Dcompuserve.com%40returns.groups.yahoo.com
            > dhindley=compuserve.com@...] On Behalf Of Jay Rogers
            Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 11:28 AM
            To: textualcriticism@ <mailto:textualcriticism%40yahoogroups.com>
            yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Question on Irenaeus NT fragment

            I am not sure if this is a proper comment for this forum as it wanders into
            the field of apologetics, but I wonder what some of you
            experts think about the following idea?

            I think that P.Oxy.III.405 is an important piece of evidence to counter
            arguments offered by Crossan, Pagals, Ehrman (I am not sure
            though if he holds to this?) and other Jesus Seminar types who want to place
            some of the Gnostic Gospels in the first century based
            on documentary evidence of second and third century fragments (the Gospel of
            Peter, etc.) The argument is that a surviving second or
            third century fragment indicates a much earlier date of writing.

            As a conservative, I've used the same argument about the Rylands fragment to
            say that a proliferation of John by the early second
            century indicates at least a late first century date for the autograph.

            Therefore, a mid-first century date for the Synoptics gains some credence.

            But a surviving Irenaeus fragment with a date of 175 to 225 puts an extant
            fragment of his manuscript possibly in his own lifetime.
            That turns the entire argument on its head. While this can be used to
            predate the four Gospels since Irenaeus is quoting from them
            constantly, it also can be used to argue for a later date for some of the
            Gnostic Gospels and pseudepigrapha since it is not unnown
            for a fragement that is contemporaneous of its author to survive to the
            present day.

            --- In textualcriticism@ <mailto:textualcriticism%40yahoogroups.com>
            yahoogroups.com, "James Snapp, Jr."
            <voxverax@...> wrote:
            >
            > Greetings Jay Rogers.
            >
            > The name of the fragment you are recollecting is P. Oxyrhynchus
            III.
            > 405.
            >
            > It contains text from Irenaeus (not Tertullian). Specifically,
            from
            > Against Heresies, Book Three, chapter 9, 2-3.
            >
            > There is an online image of P. Oxy. 405 at
            > http://commons. <http://commons.
            <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:POxy405.jpg>
            wikimedia.org/wiki/File:POxy405.jpg> wikimedia.org/wiki/File:POxy405.jpg
            > (Features of interest: the nomina sacra and the use of ">" to
            > indicate a Scripture-quotation.)
            >
            > The thing to see here is the form of Irenaeus' quotation of
            Matthew's
            > record of what was spoken by a voice from heaven at Jesus'
            baptism.
            > According to the Latin text of "Against Heresies" the voice from
            > heaven says, "Hic est filius meus dilectus" - that is, "This is my
            > beloved son." (The passage being cited = Matthew 3:16-17.)
            >
            > In P. Oxy 405, though, we find - well, let me present the
            surrounding
            > content in "Against Heresies" III:9:3 first, adapted from the
            > presentation at
            > http://www.columbia <http://www.columbia
            <http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/irenaeus/advhaer3.txt>
            .edu/cu/augustine/arch/irenaeus/advhaer3.txt>
            .edu/cu/augustine/arch/irenaeus/advhaer3.txt
            >
            > The second part of chapter 9, in which Irenaeus uses several proof-
            > snippets, wraps up like this:
            >
            > "But Matthew says that the Magi, coming from the east,
            exclaimed "For
            > we have seen His star in the east, and are come to worship Him;"
            and
            > that, having been led by the star into the house of Jacob to Emmanuel,
            > they showed, by these gifts which they offered, who it
            was
            > that was worshipped; myrrh, because it was He who should die and be
            > buried for the mortal human met; gold, because He was a King, of whose
            > kingdom is no end; and frankincense, because He was God, who also was
            > made known in Judea, and was declared to those who sought Him not."
            >
            > Then the third part begins:
            >
            > "And then, (about Jesus') baptism, Matthew says, "The heavens were
            > opened, and He saw the Spirit of God, as a dove, coming upon Him:
            and
            > lo a voice from heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I
            am
            > well pleased." For Christ did not at that time descend upon Jesus,
            > neither was Christ one and Jesus another: but the Word of God --
            who
            > is the Savior of all, and the ruler of heaven and earth, who is Jesus,
            > as I have already pointed out, who did also take upon Him flesh, and
            > was anointed by the Spirit from the Father -- was made Jesus Christ,
            > as Isaiah also says . . . ."
            >
            > In P. Oxy 405, when Irenaeus gets to the part about the voice from
            > heaven, instead of saying "This is my beloved Son," P. Oxy. 405 reads
            > - well, let me present the relevant part of the Greek text of P. Oxy
            > 405, with line-reconstructions, attached by periods to an English
            > translation.
            >
            > MH ZHTOUSIN. [ET FHSIN EPI]...........sought [Him] not/ TOU BAPT[ISMATOS
            > O MATQAI].............the bapti/ OS. ANEW[CQHSAN OI OURANOI]..........hew:
            were
            > ope/ KAI EIDEN T[O _PNA_ _QU_ KATA].........and He saw the/ BAINON WS
            > P[ERISTERAN KAI]..............scending in the form of a d/ ERCOMENON E[IS
            > AUTON. KAI]..............coming t/ IDOU FWN[H EX
            OURANOU]...................behold, a
            > voi/ LEGOUSA, SU E[I P _US_ MOU O AGA]......saying, "You ar/ MHTOS, [E]N W

            > [EUDOKHSA. OU]............ved, in whom/
            >
            > Okay. There are two significant variants in P. Oxy. 405's text of
            > Matthew: WS instead of WSEI, and SU EI instead of OUTOS ESTIN.
            Now,
            > today, I won't attempt to make a case for either of these variants, or
            > diverge into a presentation of their supportive witnesses.
            > (Because they are important, and deserve more than a by-the-way
            > treatment.) As I said, the thing to see, for the subject of the
            day,
            > is that the Latin text of "Against Heresies" presents a different text
            > of Mt. 3:16-17 than the text of Matthew 3:16-17 that is presented in
            > the Greek text in P. Oxy 405. Therefore either the Latin translation
            > of "Against Heresies," or the Greek text in P.
            Oxy
            > 405, has been altered. Considering that Irenaeus somewhat
            > consistently used a "Western" text, and that the witnesses which
            > support "SU EI" are "Western," it looks like it is the Latin
            > translation which presents the altered text. The discovery of a
            12th-
            > century text containing this passage from Irenaeus in Greek
            (Stephen
            > Carlson could tell you more about that), and agreeing with P. Oxy
            405
            > at this point, further solidifies the point.
            >
            > (But that does not mean that the form of Matthew 3:16-17 quoted by
            > Irenaeus is original. OUTOS ESTIN is supported by a broad spectrum of
            > witnesses.)
            >
            > JR: "I understand that 1 Clement is included in the earliest codices.
            > But what about Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Tertullian, etc?"
            >
            > Regarding First Clement: it is not in the very earliest codices
            > extant, but inasmuch as those are Gospels-codices that is not
            > surprising. Regarding the works of Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus,
            and
            > Tertullian: they are not included in any codices of Scripture, afaik.
            > Some interesting information about other non-canonical writings,
            > though, can be obtained via a careful study of the Conspectus of
            > Papyri at www.anchist.mq.edu.au/doccentre/Conspectus.pdf
            >
            > (P. Oxy 405 is included in this list of early Christian papyri of
            all
            > sorts - non-NT as well as NT).
            >
            >
            > JR: "I think I remember Dan Wallace saying something along the
            lines
            > that patristic quotes are undervalued in textual criticism."
            >
            > Yes; the production of critical editions of the patristic writers
            is
            > among the most urgent tasks in NTTC. The old collections by Migne are
            > still a useful place to start, but not a satisfactory place to
            > conclude, the analysis of the patristic writings.
            >
            > Yours in Christ,
            >
            > James Snapp, Jr.
            > Minister, Curtisville Christian Church Tipton, Indiana (USA)
            > http://www.curtisvi <http://www.curtisvi
            <http://www.curtisvillechristian.org/TCGoals.html>
            llechristian.org/TCGoals.html> llechristian.org/TCGoals.html
            >

            ------------------------------------

            Yahoo! Groups Links
          • Andrew
            Dr. Ehrman, Out of curiousity, if I may ask, does this mean you do not date the Gospel of Thomas to the first century? (I m not attempting to bring up the
            Message 5 of 18 , Feb 12, 2009
              Dr. Ehrman,

              Out of curiousity, if I may ask, does this mean you do not date the
              Gospel of Thomas to the first century? (I'm not attempting to bring up
              the topic of whether the Gospel of Thomas is "gnostic" here, just
              curious about your dating.

              Andrew Bernhard

              p.s. To anyone: How do I change my settings so my posts are listed as
              from "Andrew Bernhard" rather than just "Andrew." Usually I can figure
              these things out. This time, however, I seem utterly unable :-) Thanks

              --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Bart Ehrman" <behrman@...>
              wrote:
              >
              > For the record, I do not date any of the Gnostic Gospels to the
              first
              > century and have no connection at all with the Jesus Seminar (with whose
              > conclusions I roundly disagree up and down the line).
              >
              > -- Bart Ehrman
              >
              > Bart D. Ehrman
              > James A. Gray Professor
              > Department of Religious Studies
              > University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
            • Tommy Wasserman
              ... Absolutely. He has also chaired the Working with Biblical Manuscript Section (Textual Criticism) at SBL International Meetings for many years, the last
              Message 6 of 18 , Feb 12, 2009
                Bart wrote:

                >I wouldn't say that David is on the fringe; he is a highly knowledgable

                >scholar.

                Absolutely. He has also chaired the Working with Biblical Manuscript Section (Textual Criticism) at SBL International Meetings for many years, the last three years with me, and I respect him very much, as a scholar and good friend.

                >But I would say that his opinions about the canon are not

                >mainstream at all, and that to my knowledge, with respect to his thesis
                >about there being some kind of published 27 book canon in the second
                >century, he hasn't convinced any of the scholars who actively work on the
                >text or canon.

                You are probably right regarding the 27 book canon in the mid-second century, especially his suggestion that that canonical edition is the archetype of the surviving tradition. That part I find very controversial. One problem, for example, is that distinct sections and even distinct books within sections seem to have a distinct textual history. The recent results of the Coherence Based Genealogical Method confirms this. On the other hand, the fact that early collections have affected the textual tradition in various ways has wide support. This is an area that needs further exploration.

                >As to me, I'd be very surprised to learn that with regards to textual
                >criticism (the subject of this list) anyone would consider me to be on the
                >fringe.

                When it comes to the particular issue of the "orthodox corruption of the Scriptures," where you have made a major contribution, there is of course a spectrum ofopinions among respected scholars, as reflected in the major debate last year, the Greer-Heard Point-Counterpoint Forum 2008 ( http://www.greer-heard.com/aboutgreerheard.shtml), so at least in that sense one could perhaps say that you are on one side of the spectrum. Unfortunately I was prevented to attend that forum, but I have listened to the audio files, available from the "store" on that website. Also I have heard that a conference volume is being prepared and will be published by Fortress hopefully in this year before the SBL in New Orleans, so that is something to look forward too.

                >I can't think of major issues that any of the leading scholars in the field

                >-- I'm thinking of people like David Parker, Eldon Epp, Michael Holmes,
                >Gordon Fee, the many contributors to the volume that Mike Holmes and I
                >edited on the Status Quaestionis, and so forth -- and I fundamentally
                >disagree about ...

                Again, on the issue of orthodox corruption (which I would say is "major"), I am under the impression that at least Michael Holmes and Gordon Fee are in disagreement with you. I cannot say exactly where Parker and Epp stand on this issue. A related major issue is whether the text or text-type represented by P75-B et al, commonly known as the Alexandrian text type, is the result of a recension or not. Here I think there is also a spectrum of opinions in the field, and fundamental disagreement between some of the scholars you just mentioned, and others in the field. However, I am not suggesting that you are isolated on a fringe (as you say, you are "in the smack of things"). I am just suggesting that there seems to be at least some major issues that the leading scholars fundamentally disagree about. There are a lot of major issues to explore further, and this is exciting.

                Tommy Wasserman

                Lund University




                _______________________________________________________________

              • Bart Ehrman
                Nope, don t and never have! I think the composition as we have it is early second century (120 or so), although materials in it, of course, go way back --
                Message 7 of 18 , Feb 12, 2009
                      Nope, don't and never have!  I think the composition as we have it is early second century (120 or so), although materials in it, of course, go way back -- some of them all the way back.
                   
                  -- Bart Ehrman
                   
                  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 Andrew
                  Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 1:57 PM
                  To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: [textualcriticism] Re: Question on Irenaeus NT fragment

                  Dr. Ehrman,

                  Out of curiousity, if I may ask, does this mean you do not date the
                  Gospel of Thomas to the first century? (I'm not attempting to bring up
                  the topic of whether the Gospel of Thomas is "gnostic" here, just
                  curious about your dating.

                  Andrew Bernhard

                  p.s. To anyone: How do I change my settings so my posts are listed as
                  from "Andrew Bernhard" rather than just "Andrew." Usually I can figure
                  these things out. This time, however, I seem utterly unable :-) Thanks

                  --- In textualcriticism@ yahoogroups. com, "Bart Ehrman" <behrman@... >
                  wrote:

                  >
                  > For the record,
                  I do not date any of the Gnostic Gospels to the
                  first
                  > century and
                  have no connection at all with the Jesus Seminar (with whose
                  > conclusions
                  I roundly disagree up and down the line).
                  >
                  > -- Bart
                  Ehrman
                  >
                  > Bart D. Ehrman
                  > James A. Gray Professor
                  >
                  Department of Religious Studies
                  > University of North Carolina at Chapel
                  Hill

                • Bart Ehrman
                  Yes, thanks for this. I completely agree that there are very important areas of research that scholars disagree on, and that there is a range of opinions on
                  Message 8 of 18 , Feb 13, 2009
                        Yes, thanks for this.  I completely agree that there are very important areas of research that scholars disagree on, and that there is a range of opinions on major issues (and I obviously stand somewhere along the spectrum).  I believe, though, that some more conservative Christian readers of this list have thought is that I'm on the "fringe" for a more basic thing: for thinking that there are lots and lots of textual variants and that many of them have serious implications for how passages and possibly even entire books are to be interpreted.  On this specific point I believe my views are not at all radical but simply represent what most scholars who work in this field (as opposed to those outside the field who comment on it) think about it.
                     
                        But on a scholarly point:  *are* there scholars who still think that the P75-B line of text represents a "recension"?  If so, what does it mean to say that it's a recension?
                     
                        Thanks again for your clear comments!
                     
                    -- Bart Ehrman
                     
                    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 Tommy Wasserman
                    Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 4:26 PM
                    To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] Re: Question on Irenaeus NT fragment

                    Bart wrote:

                    >I wouldn't say that David is on the fringe; he is a highly knowledgable

                    >scholar.

                    Absolutely. He has also chaired the Working with Biblical Manuscript Section (Textual Criticism) at SBL International Meetings for many years, the last three years with me, and I respect him very much, as a scholar and good friend.

                    >But I would say that his opinions about the canon are not

                    >mainstream at all, and that to my knowledge, with respect to his
                    thesis
                    >about there being some kind of published 27 book canon in the
                    second
                    >century, he hasn't convinced any of the scholars who actively work
                    on the
                    >text or canon.

                    You are probably right regarding the 27 book canon in the mid-second century, especially his suggestion that that canonical edition is the archetype of the surviving tradition. That part I find very controversial. One problem, for example, is that distinct sections and even distinct books within sections seem to have a distinct textual history. The recent results of the Coherence Based Genealogical Method confirms this. On the other hand, the fact that early collections have affected the textual tradition in various ways has wide support. This is an area that needs further exploration.

                    >As to me,
                    I'd be very surprised to learn that with regards to textual
                    >criticism
                    (the subject of this list) anyone would consider me to be on the
                    >fringe.

                    When it comes to the particular issue of the "orthodox corruption of the Scriptures," where you have made a major contribution, there is of course a spectrum ofopinions among respected scholars, as reflected in the major debate last year, the Greer-Heard Point-Counterpoint Forum 2008 ( http://www.greer- heard.com/ aboutgreerheard. shtml), so at least in that sense one could perhaps say that you are on one side of the spectrum. Unfortunately I was prevented to attend that forum, but I have listened to the audio files, available from the "store" on that website. Also I have heard that a conference volume is being prepared and will be published by Fortress hopefully in this year before the SBL in New Orleans, so that is something to look forward too.

                    >I can't think of major issues that any of the leading scholars in the field

                    >-- I'm thinking of people like David Parker, Eldon Epp, Michael
                    Holmes,
                    >Gordon Fee, the many contributors to the volume that Mike Holmes
                    and I
                    >edited on the Status Quaestionis, and so forth -- and I
                    fundamentally
                    >disagree about ...

                    Again, on the issue of orthodox corruption (which I would say is "major"), I am under the impression that at least Michael Holmes and Gordon Fee are in disagreement with you. I cannot say exactly where Parker and Epp stand on this issue. A related major issue is whether the text or text-type represented by P75-B et al, commonly known as the Alexandrian text type, is the result of a recension or not. Here I think there is also a spectrum of opinions in the field, and fundamental disagreement between some of the scholars you just mentioned, and others in the field. However, I am not suggesting that you are isolated on a fringe (as you say, you are "in the smack of things"). I am just suggesting that there seems to be at least some major issues that the leading scholars fundamentally disagree about. There are a lot of major issues to explore further, and this is exciting.

                    Tommy Wasserman

                    Lund University




                    ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ ______

                  • Tommy Wasserman
                    Bart wrote: *are* there scholars who still think that the P75-B line of text represents a recension ? If so, what does it mean to say that it s a recension?
                    Message 9 of 18 , Feb 13, 2009
                      Bart wrote: *are* there scholars who still think that the P75-B line of text represents a "recension"? If so, what does it mean to say that it's a recension?
                       
                      Good questions!
                       
                      When Michael Holmes was assigned to write on the topic, "Codex Bezae as a Recension of the Gospel," he says in the resulting essay with the same name that the word "recension" struck him as more than a little problematic; "it is anything but a technical term with a distinct and well-defined meaning" (p. 142). 
                       
                      Nevertheless, it seems to me that at least Helmut Koester, William Petersen and David Parker believe that the text commonly known as "Alexandrian" represents a deliberate attempt to establish a controlled text at the end of the second century. See Koester, "The Text of the Synoptic Gospels in the Second Century" 37; Petersen, "The Genesis of the Gospels," 33-34 (esp. n. 4); idem, "What Text Can New Testament Textual Criticism Ultimately Reach," 150; and Parker, The Living Text of the Gospels, 63, 200 (sorry for incomplete bibliographic data, but I guess you can easily track these down).
                       
                      I am very interested in hearing further what you think about this. The prosals you have made in your publications imply at least a process of control on the text by the proto-orthodox party that emerged as the victors.
                       
                      Tommy Wasserman

                      <-----Ursprungligt Meddelande----->
                      From: Bart Ehrman [textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com]
                      Sent: 13/2/2009 2:54:58 PM
                      To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] Re: Question on Irenaeus NT fragment

                          Yes, thanks for this.  I completely agree that there are very important areas of research that scholars disagree on, and that there is a range of opinions on major issues (and I obviously stand somewhere along the spectrum).  I believe, though, that some more conservative Christian readers of this list have thought is that I'm on the "fringe" for a more basic thing: for thinking that there are lots and lots of textual variants and that many of them have serious implications for how passages and possibly even entire books are to be interpreted.  On this specific point I believe my views are not at all radical but simply represent what most scholars who work in this field (as opposed to those outside the field who comment on it) think about it.
                       
                          But on a scholarly point:  *are* there scholars who still think that the P75-B line of text represents a "recension"?  If so, what does it mean to say that it's a recension?
                       
                          Thanks again for your clear comments!
                       
                      -- Bart Ehrman
                       
                      Bart D. Ehrman
                      James A. Gray Professor
                      Department of Religious Studies
                      University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
                       


                      From: textualcriticism@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:textualcrit icism@yahoogroup s.com] On Behalf Of Tommy Wasserman
                      Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 4:26 PM
                      To: textualcriticism@ yahoogroups. com
                      Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] Re: Question on Irenaeus NT fragment

                      Bart wrote:

                      >I wouldn't say that David is on the fringe; he is a highly knowledgable

                      >scholar.

                      Absolutely. He has also chaired the Working with Biblical Manuscript Section (Textual Criticism) at SBL International Meetings for many years, the last three years with me, and I respect him very much, as a scholar and good friend.

                      >But I would say that his opinions about the canon are not

                      >mainstream at all, and that to my knowledge, with respect to his thesis
                      >about there being some kind of published 27 book canon in the second
                      >century, he hasn't convinced any of the scholars who actively work on the
                      >text or canon.

                      You are probably right regarding the 27 book canon in the mid-second century, especially his suggestion that that canonical edition is the archetype of the surviving tradition. That part I find very controversial. One problem, for example, is that distinct sections and even distinct books within sections seem to have a distinct textual history. The recent results of the Coherence Based Genealogical Method confirms this. On the other hand, the fact that early collections have affected the textual tradition in various ways has wide support. This is an area that needs further exploration.

                      >As to me, I'd be very surprised to learn that with regards to textual
                      >criticism (the subject of this list) anyone would consider me to be on the
                      >fringe.

                      When it comes to the particular issue of the "orthodox corruption of the Scriptures," where you have made a major contribution, there is of course a spectrum ofopinions among respected scholars, as reflected in the major debate last year, the Greer-Heard Point-Counterpoint Forum 2008 ( http://www.greer- heard.com/ aboutgreerheard. shtml), so at least in that sense one could perhaps say that you are on one side of the spectrum. Unfortunately I was prevented to attend that forum, but I have listened to the audio files, available from the "store" on that website. Also I have heard that a conference volume is being prepared and will be published by Fortress hopefully in this year before the SBL in New Orleans, so that is something to look forward too.

                      >I can't think of major issues that any of the leading scholars in the field

                      >-- I'm thinking of people like David Parker, Eldon Epp, Michael Holmes,
                      >Gordon Fee, the many contributors to the volume that Mike Holmes and I
                      >edited on the Status Quaestionis, and so forth -- and I fundamentally
                      >disagree about ...

                      Again, on the issue of orthodox corruption (which I would say is "major"), I am under the impression that at least Michael Holmes and Gordon Fee are in disagreement with you. I cannot say exactly where Parker and Epp stand on this issue. A related major issue is whether the text or text-type represented by P75-B et al, commonly known as the Alexandrian text type, is the result of a recension or not. Here I think there is also a spectrum of opinions in the field, and fundamental disagreement between some of the scholars you just mentioned, and others in the field. However, I am not suggesting that you are isolated on a fringe (as you say, you are "in the smack of things"). I am just suggesting that there seems to be at least some major issues that the leading scholars fundamentally disagree about. There are a lot of major issues to explore further, and this is exciting.

                      Tommy Wasserman

                      Lund University




                      ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ ______

                      _______________________________________________________________

                    • Bart Ehrman
                      Does anyone on the list have a current email address for Carroll Osburn? -- Bart Ehrman Bart D. Ehrman James A. Gray Professor Department of Religious Studies
                      Message 10 of 18 , Feb 13, 2009
                            Does anyone on the list have a current email address for Carroll Osburn?
                         
                        -- Bart Ehrman
                         
                        Bart D. Ehrman
                        James A. Gray Professor
                        Department of Religious Studies
                        University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
                      • Bart Ehrman
                        Very interesting. I don t know how one would go about establishing that P75-B is the product of a recension, however that is defined; I ve always thought of
                        Message 11 of 18 , Feb 15, 2009
                               Very interesting.  I don't know how one would go about establishing that P75-B is the product of a recension, however that is defined; I've always thought of it simply as a well-preserved line of text, kept relatively pristine by scribes, probably in Alexandria, intent on copying the tradition accurately, rather than the result of some kind of official recensional activity.  Mine is pretty much the view of Hort, with the additional evidence provided by a papyrus (Hort, by the way, anticipated that there must have been something like P75 from the second century -- turns out he was right).
                           
                              I don't believe in proto-orthodox "control" over the text.  I think that different proto-orthodox scribes at different times and in different circumstances modified their texts on occasion to make them more susceptible of proto-orthodox interpretation, and less usable by "heretics" making "heretical" claims.  But I've never imagined that there was some kind of official effort to make this happen -- if there had been, the changes would have been far more systematic (and easy to detect.  So that my book would have been written a century ago!).
                            
                           
                          -- Bart Ehrman
                           
                          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 Tommy Wasserman
                          Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 9:21 AM
                          To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: Re: RE: [textualcriticism] Re: Question on Irenaeus NT fragment

                          Bart wrote: *are* there scholars who still think that the P75-B line of text represents a "recension"? If so, what does it mean to say that it's a recension?
                           
                          Good questions!
                           
                          When Michael Holmes was assigned to write on the topic, "Codex Bezae as a Recension of the Gospel," he says in the resulting essay with the same name that the word "recension" struck him as more than a little problematic; "it is anything but a technical term with a distinct and well-defined meaning" (p. 142). 
                           
                          Nevertheless, it seems to me that at least Helmut Koester, William Petersen and David Parker believe that the text commonly known as "Alexandrian" represents a deliberate attempt to establish a controlled text at the end of the second century. See Koester, "The Text of the Synoptic Gospels in the Second Century" 37; Petersen, "The Genesis of the Gospels," 33-34 (esp. n. 4); idem, "What Text Can New Testament Textual Criticism Ultimately Reach," 150; and Parker, The Living Text of the Gospels, 63, 200 (sorry for incomplete bibliographic data, but I guess you can easily track these down).
                           
                          I am very interested in hearing further what you think about this. The prosals you have made in your publications imply at least a process of control on the text by the proto-orthodox party that emerged as the victors.
                           
                          Tommy Wasserman

                          <-----Ursprungligt Meddelande-- --->
                          From: Bart Ehrman [textualcriticism@ yahoogroups. com]
                          Sent: 13/2/2009 2:54:58 PM
                          To: textualcriticism@ yahoogroups. com
                          Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] Re: Question on Irenaeus NT fragment

                              Yes, thanks for this.  I completely agree that there are very important areas of research that scholars disagree on, and that there is a range of opinions on major issues (and I obviously stand somewhere along the spectrum).  I believe, though, that some more conservative Christian readers of this list have thought is that I'm on the "fringe" for a more basic thing: for thinking that there are lots and lots of textual variants and that many of them have serious implications for how passages and possibly even entire books are to be interpreted.  On this specific point I believe my views are not at all radical but simply represent what most scholars who work in this field (as opposed to those outside the field who comment on it) think about it.
                           
                              But on a scholarly point:  *are* there scholars who still think that the P75-B line of text represents a "recension"?  If so, what does it mean to say that it's a recension?
                           
                              Thanks again for your clear comments!
                           
                          -- Bart Ehrman
                           
                          Bart D. Ehrman
                          James A. Gray Professor
                          Department of Religious Studies
                          University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
                           


                          From: textualcriticism@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:textualcrit icism@yahoogroup s.com] On Behalf Of Tommy Wasserman
                          Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 4:26 PM
                          To: textualcriticism@ yahoogroups. com
                          Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] Re: Question on Irenaeus NT fragment

                          Bart wrote:

                          >I wouldn't say that David is on the fringe; he is a highly knowledgable

                          >scholar.

                          Absolutely. He has also chaired the Working with Biblical Manuscript Section (Textual Criticism) at SBL International Meetings for many years, the last three years with me, and I respect him very much, as a scholar and good friend.

                          >But I would say that his opinions about the canon are not

                          >mainstream at all, and that to my knowledge, with respect to his
                          thesis
                          >about there being some kind of published 27 book canon in the
                          second
                          >century, he hasn't convinced any of the scholars who actively work
                          on the
                          >text or canon.

                          You are probably right regarding the 27 book canon in the mid-second century, especially his suggestion that that canonical edition is the archetype of the surviving tradition. That part I find very controversial. One problem, for example, is that distinct sections and even distinct books within sections seem to have a distinct textual history. The recent results of the Coherence Based Genealogical Method confirms this. On the other hand, the fact that early collections have affected the textual tradition in various ways has wide support. This is an area that needs further exploration.

                          >As to me,
                          I'd be very surprised to learn that with regards to textual
                          >criticism
                          (the subject of this list) anyone would consider me to be on the
                          >fringe.

                          When it comes to the particular issue of the "orthodox corruption of the Scriptures," where you have made a major contribution, there is of course a spectrum ofopinions among respected scholars, as reflected in the major debate last year, the Greer-Heard Point-Counterpoint Forum 2008 ( http://www.greer- heard.com/ aboutgreerheard. shtml), so at least in that sense one could perhaps say that you are on one side of the spectrum. Unfortunately I was prevented to attend that forum, but I have listened to the audio files, available from the "store" on that website. Also I have heard that a conference volume is being prepared and will be published by Fortress hopefully in this year before the SBL in New Orleans, so that is something to look forward too.

                          >I can't think of major issues that any of the leading scholars in the field

                          >-- I'm thinking of people like David Parker, Eldon Epp, Michael
                          Holmes,
                          >Gordon Fee, the many contributors to the volume that Mike Holmes
                          and I
                          >edited on the Status Quaestionis, and so forth -- and I
                          fundamentally
                          >disagree about ...

                          Again, on the issue of orthodox corruption (which I would say is "major"), I am under the impression that at least Michael Holmes and Gordon Fee are in disagreement with you. I cannot say exactly where Parker and Epp stand on this issue. A related major issue is whether the text or text-type represented by P75-B et al, commonly known as the Alexandrian text type, is the result of a recension or not. Here I think there is also a spectrum of opinions in the field, and fundamental disagreement between some of the scholars you just mentioned, and others in the field. However, I am not suggesting that you are isolated on a fringe (as you say, you are "in the smack of things"). I am just suggesting that there seems to be at least some major issues that the leading scholars fundamentally disagree about. There are a lot of major issues to explore further, and this is exciting.

                          Tommy Wasserman

                          Lund University




                          ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ ______

                          ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ ______

                        • Jay Rogers
                          I d like to tahnk everyone for their comments, especially Dr. Ehrman who has cleared up that he in no way can be confused with the fringe Jesus Seminar. The
                          Message 12 of 18 , Feb 17, 2009
                            I'd like to tahnk everyone for their comments, especially Dr. Ehrman
                            who has cleared up that he in no way can be confused with
                            the "fringe" Jesus Seminar. The tone of discussion on this forum is
                            to be commended considering that it includes scholars on a wide
                            spectrum.

                            I am not a textual scholar, but have joined the group mainly to read
                            and learn. Until now I haven't felt the qualification to jump in. I
                            have only a B.A. in English and Psychology. However, I teach high
                            school English (American and British Lit.) and I am always thinking
                            about literary criticism of some type. I've come up with a few
                            questions. I'd like to throw them out and see what the scholars think.

                            1. Are the issues concerning textual criticism really fundamentally
                            different today than they were, for example, in the day of a third
                            century redactor, such as Lucian of Antioch? My understanding is that
                            they were dealing with the same issues, the variants of the early
                            texts being greater than those succeeding them. Why do textual
                            critics today worry doubt having the "Words of Jesus" or "Paul" any
                            more than Lucian did in the third century? Can't we have some
                            confidence that the early recensions were good ones?

                            2. My understanding is that based on documentary evidence it is
                            fairly clear that sometime in the second century there were published
                            codices containing the four Gospels (P45 and P75); Paul's letters,
                            (P46); and the Catholic Epistles, (P72). The first three of these are
                            usually dated from 175 to 225. Are we safe to hypothesize that the
                            second century Christians began to think of the New Testament as
                            a "Pentateuch" of sorts -- with five codices of bound books? These
                            being the Gospels and Acts; Paul's Epistles; the Pastoral Epistles;
                            The Catholic Epistles; and Revelation. While I would not agree that
                            there was a bound "New Testament" by second century as hypothesized
                            by David Trobisch, would it be considered "fringe" to hypothesize
                            that the early bishops began to bind several books together prior to
                            the time of Irenaeus -- and even Papias?

                            2a. It seems to me that on the basis of documentary evidence, the
                            textual critic can only establish the latest possible date for a
                            canon, and hardly ever preclude an earlier one. If one were to accept
                            the "codex phenomenon" as part of a second century canonization
                            process, what would preclude these codices from having been copies of
                            earlier editions that go back to the early second or even the late
                            first century?

                            3. I am glad someone mentioned P75. Papyrus 75 contains Luke 3:18-
                            4:2; 4:34-5:10; 5:37-18:18; 22:4-24:53; (And HERE Importantly!) John
                            1:1-11:45, 48-57; 12:3-13:1, 8-9; 14:8-30; 15:7-8. It is usually
                            dated to about 200. I frequently read that the autographs of the four
                            orthodox Gospel were anonymous. Yet P75 is an early example of a
                            codex that ends one Gospel with the words "Gospel according to Luke"
                            and picks up with "Gospel according to John." Even a non-Greek
                            speaking layman like myself can see the manuscript on the Internet
                            and decipher these few simple words. Yet I often hear that even the
                            earliest manuscripts did not have "superscriptions" and
                            a "subscriptions." On the basis of documentary evidence, how is it
                            determined that earlier manuscripts (and therefore the autographs)
                            were anonymous?

                            I realize that these are big issues here and I probably should first
                            read some of the scholarship on this, but since we have here some of
                            the "big names" I cannot resist going to the horses' mouths.


                            --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, "Bart Ehrman" <behrman@...>
                            wrote:
                            >
                            > Very interesting. I don't know how one would go about
                            establishing
                            > that P75-B is the product of a recension, however that is defined;
                            I've
                            > always thought of it simply as a well-preserved line of text, kept
                            > relatively pristine by scribes, probably in Alexandria, intent on
                            copying
                            > the tradition accurately, rather than the result of some kind of
                            official
                            > recensional activity. Mine is pretty much the view of Hort, with
                            the
                            > additional evidence provided by a papyrus (Hort, by the way,
                            anticipated
                            > that there must have been something like P75 from the second
                            century --
                            > turns out he was right).
                            >
                            > I don't believe in proto-orthodox "control" over the text. I
                            think that
                            > different proto-orthodox scribes at different times and in different
                            > circumstances modified their texts on occasion to make them more
                            susceptible
                            > of proto-orthodox interpretation, and less usable by "heretics"
                            making
                            > "heretical" claims. But I've never imagined that there was some
                            kind of
                            > official effort to make this happen -- if there had been, the
                            changes would
                            > have been far more systematic (and easy to detect. So that my book
                            would
                            > have been written a century ago!).
                            >
                            >
                            > -- Bart Ehrman
                            >
                            > 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 Tommy
                            Wasserman
                            > Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 9:21 AM
                            > To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                            > Subject: Re: RE: [textualcriticism] Re: Question on Irenaeus NT
                            fragment
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Bart wrote: *are* there scholars who still think that the P75-B
                            line of text
                            > represents a "recension"? If so, what does it mean to say that it's
                            a
                            > recension?
                            >
                            > Good questions!
                            >
                            > When Michael Holmes was assigned to write on the topic, "Codex
                            Bezae as a
                            > Recension of the Gospel," he says in the resulting essay with the
                            same name
                            > that the word "recension" struck him as more than a little
                            problematic; "it
                            > is anything but a technical term with a distinct and well-defined
                            meaning"
                            > (p. 142).
                            >
                            > Nevertheless, it seems to me that at least Helmut Koester, William
                            Petersen
                            > and David Parker believe that the text commonly known
                            as "Alexandrian"
                            > represents a deliberate attempt to establish a controlled text at
                            the end of
                            > the second century. See Koester, "The Text of the Synoptic Gospels
                            in the
                            > Second Century" 37; Petersen, "The Genesis of the Gospels," 33-34
                            (esp. n.
                            > 4); idem, "What Text Can New Testament Textual Criticism Ultimately
                            Reach,"
                            > 150; and Parker, The Living Text of the Gospels, 63, 200 (sorry for
                            > incomplete bibliographic data, but I guess you can easily track
                            these down).
                            >
                            > I am very interested in hearing further what you think about this.
                            The
                            > prosals you have made in your publications imply at least a process
                            of
                            > control on the text by the proto-orthodox party that emerged as the
                            victors.
                            >
                            >
                            > Tommy Wasserman
                            >
                            > <-----Ursprungligt Meddelande----->
                            > From: Bart Ehrman [textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com]
                            > Sent: 13/2/2009 2:54:58 PM
                            > To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                            > Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] Re: Question on Irenaeus NT fragment
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Yes, thanks for this. I completely agree that there are very
                            important
                            > areas of research that scholars disagree on, and that there is a
                            range of
                            > opinions on major issues (and I obviously stand somewhere along the
                            > spectrum). I believe, though, that some more conservative
                            Christian readers
                            > of this list have thought is that I'm on the "fringe" for a more
                            basic
                            > thing: for thinking that there are lots and lots of textual
                            variants and
                            > that many of them have serious implications for how passages and
                            possibly
                            > even entire books are to be interpreted. On this specific point I
                            believe
                            > my views are not at all radical but simply represent what most
                            scholars who
                            > work in this field (as opposed to those outside the field who
                            comment on it)
                            > think about it.
                            >
                            > But on a scholarly point: *are* there scholars who still think
                            that the
                            > P75-B line of text represents a "recension"? If so, what does it
                            mean to
                            > say that it's a recension?
                            >
                            > Thanks again for your clear comments!
                            >
                            > -- Bart Ehrman
                            >
                            > 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 Tommy
                            Wasserman
                            > Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 4:26 PM
                            > To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                            > Subject: RE: [textualcriticism] Re: Question on Irenaeus NT fragment
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Bart wrote:
                            >
                            >
                            > >I wouldn't say that David is on the fringe; he is a highly
                            knowledgable
                            > >scholar.
                            >
                            >
                            > Absolutely. He has also chaired the Working with Biblical
                            Manuscript Section
                            > (Textual Criticism) at SBL International Meetings for many years,
                            the last
                            > three years with me, and I respect him very much, as a scholar and
                            good
                            > friend.
                            >
                            >
                            > >But I would say that his opinions about the canon are not
                            > >mainstream at all, and that to my knowledge, with respect to his
                            thesis
                            > >about there being some kind of published 27 book canon in the
                            second
                            > >century, he hasn't convinced any of the scholars who actively work
                            on the
                            > >text or canon.
                            >
                            >
                            > You are probably right regarding the 27 book canon in the mid-second
                            > century, especially his suggestion that that canonical edition is
                            the
                            > archetype of the surviving tradition. That part I find very
                            controversial.
                            > One problem, for example, is that distinct sections and even
                            distinct books
                            > within sections seem to have a distinct textual history. The recent
                            results
                            > of the Coherence Based Genealogical Method confirms this. On the
                            other hand,
                            > the fact that early collections have affected the textual tradition
                            in
                            > various ways has wide support. This is an area that needs further
                            > exploration.
                            >
                            > >As to me, I'd be very surprised to learn that with regards to
                            textual
                            > >criticism (the subject of this list) anyone would consider me to
                            be on the
                            > >fringe.
                            >
                            > When it comes to the particular issue of the "orthodox corruption
                            of the
                            > Scriptures," where you have made a major contribution, there is of
                            course a
                            > spectrum ofopinions among respected scholars, as reflected in the
                            major
                            > debate last year, the Greer-Heard Point-Counterpoint Forum 2008 (
                            > http://www.greer-heard.com/aboutgreerheard.shtml), so at least in
                            that sense
                            > one could perhaps say that you are on one side of the spectrum.
                            > Unfortunately I was prevented to attend that forum, but I have
                            listened to
                            > the audio files, available from the "store" on that website. Also I
                            have
                            > heard that a conference volume is being prepared and will be
                            published by
                            > Fortress hopefully in this year before the SBL in New Orleans, so
                            that is
                            > something to look forward too.
                            >
                            >
                            > >I can't think of major issues that any of the leading scholars in
                            the field
                            > >-- I'm thinking of people like David Parker, Eldon Epp, Michael
                            Holmes,
                            > >Gordon Fee, the many contributors to the volume that Mike Holmes
                            and I
                            > >edited on the Status Quaestionis, and so forth -- and I
                            fundamentally
                            > >disagree about ...
                            >
                            > Again, on the issue of orthodox corruption (which I would say
                            is "major"), I
                            > am under the impression that at least Michael Holmes and Gordon Fee
                            are in
                            > disagreement with you. I cannot say exactly where Parker and Epp
                            stand on
                            > this issue. A related major issue is whether the text or text-type
                            > represented by P75-B et al, commonly known as the Alexandrian text
                            type, is
                            > the result of a recension or not. Here I think there is also a
                            spectrum of
                            > opinions in the field, and fundamental disagreement between some of
                            the
                            > scholars you just mentioned, and others in the field. However, I am
                            not
                            > suggesting that you are isolated on a fringe (as you say, you
                            are "in the
                            > smack of things"). I am just suggesting that there seems to be at
                            least some
                            > major issues that the leading scholars fundamentally disagree
                            about. There
                            > are a lot of major issues to explore further, and this is exciting.
                            >
                            >
                            > Tommy Wasserman
                            >
                            > Lund University
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > _______________________________________________________________
                            >
                            >
                            > _______________________________________________________________
                            >
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.