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

Re: Question on Irenaeus NT fragment

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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.