Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Julian · 04-28-2006, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Eusebian tells are easily disproved. There is no possible way such alterations could have made it inot the peshitta if they were the work of Eusebius.

Unless someone is prepared to propose a way they might have at this late stage?

Although the first Peshitta probably dates from before Eusebius, we have no extant MSS from that time. The MSS we have all post-date Eusebius so the Peshitta cannot help us in this context.

Julian

Julian · 04-28-2006, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Judge,

Please explain what you believe the relationship of the Peshitta is to Eusebius? What are your sources for dating the Peshitta before Eusebius?

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

As I explained in my post above,the Peshitta is generally accepted to pre-date Eusebius but since we have no MSS from that time the Peshitta is not part of this issue. The Peshitta is generally accepted as originating anytime from the 2nd century to the 4th, with most scholars putting it later rather than earlier within that range. It is also generally accepted that the old syriacs (The Sinaitic and the Curetonian) and certainly Tatian's Diatessaron predate the Peshitta.

Julian

PhilosopherJay · 04-28-2006, 08:24 AM

Hi S.C.,

Thanks for this important information.

I assume there is no other evidence of this passage in other early manuscripts before Eusebius. I assume no DNA tests have been done on P46.
Therefore the evidence is purely based on the handwriting.

It is known that a trained scribe could quite easily adopt an old style of writing in order to make a document look older and more authoritative. They may do this, just as, for example, modern children, in writing an invitation to a Shakespearian play in school, have no trouble copying a handwriting style with great flourishes from the Seventeenth century.

Since we strongly suspect that Constantine ordered authoritative copies of the New Testament to be produced, we would expect that his scribes would make them as authoritative as possible by copying the handwriting style they found in the older documents. They would also likely put any corrections they were ordered to make in the same old style. Thus it does not require a miracle for words of Eusebius from the 320's to end up in a document dated by handwriting to 200, merely scribes with normal mechanical abilities.

Also, note that the E.T. is conceptual and therefore the specific wording does vary in passages.

Warmly,

Philospher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

P46 is usually dated c. 200, which should be viewed as plus or minus fifty years. Some people want to argue the early side, but even the late part of the range predates Eusebius. (Compare this with Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which are either contemporary or just later than Eusebius.)

The "until this very day" Eusebianism is εις ετι νυν but in 1 Cor 15:6 the phrase is different εως αρτι. Under standard criticism, it is indeed thought to be an interpolation, but an interpolation by Paul of an earlier tradition. I haven't thought of a scribe glossing Paul before--does William O. Walker have anything to say about it?

Stephen

PhilosopherJay · 04-28-2006, 08:30 AM

Hi Julian,

That is my understanding. Thanks.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

As I explained in my post above,the Peshitta is generally accepted to pre-date Eusebius but since we have no MSS from that time the Peshitta is not part of this issue. The Peshitta is generally accepted as originating anytime from the 2nd century to the 4th, with most scholars putting it later rather than earlier within that range. It is also generally accepted that the old syriacs (The Sinaitic and the Curetonian) and certainly Tatian's Diatessaron predate the Peshitta.

Julian

Julian · 04-28-2006, 08:30 AM

Regarding the dating of P46 Carlson is correct in stating that the majority view is a date roughly centering on 200CE. There has, however, been some interesting discussion on that topic. First, in Biblica, Young Kyu Kim proposed a date that preceeded Emperor Domitian, which would put it somewhere in the middle of the first century! His article is here: http://members.aol.com/egweimi/p46.htm
This view has been largely disregarded or attacked, notably by Bruce Griffin here: http://www.biblical-data.org/P-46%20Oct%201997.pdf [PDF]

Some general information on P46 can be found here: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/Man...apyri.html#P46

Julian

Julian · 04-28-2006, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

I assume no DNA tests have been done on P46.

Did you mean Carbon 14 dating?

Julian

S.C.Carlson · 04-28-2006, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Since we strongly suspect that Constantine ordered authoritative copies of the New Testament to be produced, we would expect that his scribes would make them as authoritative as possible by copying the handwriting style they found in the older documents. They would also likely put any corrections they were ordered to make in the same old style. Thus it does not require a miracle for words of Eusebius from the 320's to end up in a document dated by handwriting to 200, merely scribes with normal mechanical abilities.

Though people have speculated that Vaticanus was one of those 50 Bibles, no one (until now) has suggested that P46 was one of them. The difficulty is that Constantine ordered parchment copies of the Bible, but P46 is a papyrus copy of just Paul's letters (and Hebrews).

Stephen

Toto · 04-28-2006, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

...
The "until this very day" Eusebianism is εις ετι νυν but in 1 Cor 15:6 the phrase is different εως αρτι. Under standard criticism, it is indeed thought to be an interpolation, but an interpolation by Paul of an earlier tradition. I haven't thought of a scribe glossing Paul before--does William O. Walker have anything to say about it?

Stephen

Walker does not discuss that passage but references Robert Price's article on Apocryphal Apparitions, without actually endorsing or rejecting it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Price

I JUDGE the very notion of a resurrection appearance to 500 at one time to be a late piece of apocrypha, reminiscent of the extravagances of the Acts of Pilate. If the claim of 500 witnesses were early tradition, can anyone explain its total absence from the gospel tradition?...

...

Some might challenge my ascription of the 500 brethren note to a later period in view of the challenge to the reader to confirm the testimony of the 500 for himself. But the whole point is that the interpolation is Paulinist pseudepigraphy; the actual author (the anonymous interpolator) did not intend for the actual reader to interview the 500 in his own day. His invitation is issued by the narrator (Paul) to the narratees, the fictive readers, the first-century Corinthians. His point is that had the actual readers been lucky enough to live in Paul's day, we might have checked for ourselves [note 45]

. . .

45 We find a striking parallel, which serves to demonstrate the point of an apocryphal appeal to eye-witnesses who are in reality no longer available to the doubter, in the late Syriac hagiography The History of John the Son of Zebedee, where that worthy is preaching to the Ephesians the miracles of his Lord: he "raised the daughter of Jairus, the chief of the synagogue, after she was dead, and, lo, she abideth, with her father in Decapolis, and if thou choosest to go, thou mayest learn (it) from her" (W. Wright, Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, Edited from Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum and Other Libraries, Vol. II, The English Translation [London: Williams and Norgate, 1871], 15). Perhaps she may have remained until the time of John's ministry, but she must have been long dead by the time The History of John the Son of Zebedee was composed. Even so, all the post-Pauline scribe meant by contributing the appearance to the five hundred was that, had you lived in Paul's day (as he knew quite well that his own readers did not), then you could have verified the matter. (Cf. John 20:26-31.

Clivedurdle · 04-28-2006, 10:02 AM

If people were interpolating stuff, might they have used other tricks like older methods of writing and older methods of presentation - including on stone?

PhilosopherJay · 04-28-2006, 10:02 AM

Hi Toto,

It does seem that Origen (circa 250) is aware of the passage in Paul's Corinthians (Against Celsius 2:63):

After these points, Celsus proceeds to bring against the Gospel narrative a charge which is not to be lightly passed over, saying that "if Jesus desired to show that his power was really divine, he ought to have appeared to those who had ill-treated him, and to him who had condemned him, and to all men universally." For it appears to us also to be true, according to the Gospel account, that He was not seen after His resurrection in the same manner as He used formerly to show Himself--publicly, and to all men. But it is recorded in the Acts, that "being seen during forty days," He expounded to His disciples "the things pertaining to the kingdom of God." And in the Gospels it is not stated that He was always with them; but that on one occasion He appeared in their midst, after eight days, when the doors were shut, and on another in some similar fashion. And Paul also, in the concluding portions of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, in reference to His not having publicly appeared as He did in the period before He suffered, writes as follows: "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: after that He was seen of above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain unto the present time, but some are fallen asleep. After that He was seen of James, then of all the apostles. And last of all He was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time." I am of opinion now that the statements in this passage contain some great and wonderful mysteries, which are beyond the grasp not merely of the great multitude of ordinary believers, but even of those who are far advanced (in Christian knowledge), and that in them the reason would be explained why He did not show Himself, after His resurrection from the dead, in the same manner as before that event.

This in conjunction with the apparent dating of P46 would seem to discount any evidence that the passage is a Eusebean forgery.

However, notice something odd here. After quoting the passage, the writer says, "I am of opinion now that the statements in this passage contain some great and wonderful mysteries, which are beyond the grasp not merely of the great multitude of ordinary believers, but even of those who are far advanced (in Christian knowledge)." Origen is not just citing the passage, he is almost underlining it and putting asteriks around it.

Now in expounding on the mystery of the passage he paraphrases it a bit later. Note this from the end line of passage 64 and the beginning of 65:

[64]He did not show Himself to all after His resurrection from the dead.

[65]And why do I say "to all?" For even with His own apostles and disciples He was not perpetually present, nor did He constantly show Himself to them, because they were not able without intermission to receive His divinity. For His deity was more resplendent after he had finished the economy (of salvation): and this Peter, surnamed Cephas, the first-fruits as it were of the apostles, was enabled to behold, and along with him the twelve (Matthias having been substituted in room of Judas); and after them He appeared to the five hundred brethren at once, and then to James, and subsequently to all the others besides the twelve apostles, perhaps to the seventy also, and lastly to Paul, as to one born out of due time, and who knew well how to say, "Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given;" and probably the expression "least of all" has the same meaning with "one born out of due time." For as no one could reasonably blame Jesus for not having admitted all His apostles to the high mountain, but only the three already mentioned, on the occasion of His transfiguration, when He was about to manifest the splendour which appeared in His garments, and the glory of Moses and Elias talking with Him, so none could reasonably object to the statements of the apostles, who introduce the appearance of Jesus after His resurrection as having been made not to all, but to those only whom He knew to have received eyes capable of seeing His resurrection.

Now compare this with Eusebius' history

12.3 Matthias, also, who was numbered with the apostles in the place of Judas, and the one who was honored by being made a candidate with him, are like-wise said to have been deemed worthy of the same calling with the seventy. They say that Thaddeus also was one of them, concerning whom I shall presently relate an account which has come down to us. And upon examination you will find that our Saviour had more than seventy disciples, according to the testimony of Paul, who says that after his resurrection from the dead he appeared first to Cephas, then to the twelve, and after them to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom some had fallen asleep;but the majority were still living at the time he wrote.

Both in the passage (65) in Celsius and History (1.12.3), we are getting not just the quote of Paul, but we are getting it linked with two other concepts: 1) Matthais being "one of the twelve" and 2) "the seventy"

Thus we have a direct link between Eusebius and Origen beyond the fact that they are the only two people before 325 to quote this passage of Paul. When citing this passage, both add ideas about Matthew and the seventy to it. We can conclude either 1) Eusebius is being influenced in his writing by Origen or 2) Eusebius is interpolating into Origen. The second is not as far-fetched as it sounds as I note in Evolution, in the Fourth century, Eusebius was accused in just such a situation with his mentor Pamphilius, i.e. publishing something he wrote under the name of Pamphilius.

Warmly,

Philospher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

That's what I thought might be the case.

How firm is the dating of P46? Is it possible that Eusebius liked the passage because it reflected his own thinking, but it was actually interpolated by someone else? It definitely seems to stick out like a sore thumb.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-28-2006, 08:30 AM	#15
Julian Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Washington, DC (formerly Denmark) Posts: 3,789	Regarding the dating of P46 Carlson is correct in stating that the majority view is a date roughly centering on 200CE. There has, however, been some interesting discussion on that topic. First, in Biblica, Young Kyu Kim proposed a date that preceeded Emperor Domitian, which would put it somewhere in the middle of the first century! His article is here: http://members.aol.com/egweimi/p46.htm This view has been largely disregarded or attacked, notably by Bruce Griffin here: http://www.biblical-data.org/P-46%20Oct%201997.pdf [PDF] Some general information on P46 can be found here: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/Man...apyri.html#P46 Julian

04-28-2006, 10:02 AM	#19
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	If people were interpolating stuff, might they have used other tricks like older methods of writing and older methods of presentation - including on stone?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.