Freethought & Rationalism Archive

MrMacSon · 10-02-2013, 05:34 PM

.
in 2009 Robert M Price provided an interesting review of David Trobisch's The First Edition of the New Testament, Oxford University Press (2000).

In doing so Price also makes reference to a Trobisch 2007 paper called “Who Published the Christian Bible?” delivered at the January 2007 “Scripture and Skepticism” conference (Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion).

Some excerpts:

Quote:

Though this book has been out for a few years now, I am reviewing it here and now because more recent research by the same author, the ingenious David Trobisch, has carried the original thesis a significant step further, making explicit a crucial point left implicit in the original. ...

Much of Trobisch’s case rests on simple consideration of New Testament (and even Christian Greek Old Testament) manuscripts. He has delineated a paradigm that makes good, inductive sense of many hitherto-puzzling bits of evidence. ...

The sharp-eyed Trobisch accepts the thinking of John Knox (Marcion and the New Testament, 1942) and Hans von Campenhausen (The Formation of the Christian Bible, 1968) that the New Testament in the form we have it is largely a counterstrike against the Marcionite Sputnik: already a counter-testament to Marcion’s Apostolicon. ...

Trobisch makes Polycarp the editor and publisher of the Christian Bible. And he has more reasons still. We would need someone with a definite antipathy toward Marcion and a desire to co-opt his churches and his scriptures for Catholicism. Polycarp would fit the role nicely. We also need someone who would have a reason for juxtaposing John and the Synoptics. Again: Polycarp ...

Polycarp may even have, so to speak, signed his work. Trobisch notes how 2 Timothy 4 lists many names familiar from Acts and earlier Pauline Epistles, except for two. ...

All right, then may I suggest that Polycarp has inserted himself into John 15:5, too? “He who abides in me, and I in him, the same shall bring forth much fruit .. ”? And then, as Alvin Boyd Kuhn and, more recently, Stephen Hermann Huller have suggested, mustn’t the Theophilus to whom Luke and Acts are addressed be Bishop of Theophilus of Antioch, Polycarp’s ally?

I should say that David Trobisch’s The First Edition of the New Testament together with his “Who Published the New Testament?” provide an ideal example of a theoretical, “Kuhnian” paradigm, a theoretical framework which, when laid over the evidence like a transparency, reveals a whole new way of making sense of the hitherto-disparate data. I’m sold.

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.c...isch_first.htm

.

stephan huller · 10-02-2013, 06:55 PM

You see what kind of jackasses he's quoting now. That's it. I won't read another Price book.

Peter Kirby · 10-02-2013, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

You see what kind of jackasses he's quoting now. That's it. I won't read another Price book.

Oh? Please do tell. At least we could learn from what Trobisch gets terribly wrong.

spin · 10-02-2013, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

You see what kind of jackasses he's quoting now. That's it. I won't read another Price book.

Oh? Please do tell. At least we could learn from what Trobisch gets terribly wrong.

Price seems to have sunk so far that he has quoted someone called Stephan Herman Huller. What is the world coming to?? Jackasses indeed.

stephan huller · 10-02-2013, 09:42 PM

People don't seem to have a sense of humor around here.

MrMacSon · 10-02-2013, 10:27 PM

ok, Jackasses. I'm intrigued they propose Polycarp was the [primary] editor and [first] publisher of the NT

ie. proposing an early-mid 2nd C NT.

I'm also intrigued, by the references to Marcionite 'Sputnik' and Marcion’s Apostolicon as if two different things. Can someone elaborate?

Cheers.

stephan huller · 10-02-2013, 10:32 PM

Because of Polycarp's relationship with Irenaeus and Irenaeus being the first person to cite the fourfold canon.

stephan huller · 10-02-2013, 10:32 PM

Trobisch argues that the last line in John is not about John but the whole four gospels because they were established as one gospel set.

MrMacSon · 10-02-2013, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Trobisch argues that the last line in John is not about John but the whole four gospels because they were established as one gospel set.

John 21:25 ??

MrMacSon · 10-02-2013, 10:48 PM

what about the references to Marcionite 'Sputnik' and Marcion’s Apostolicon as if two different things?

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

10-02-2013, 06:55 PM	#2
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	You see what kind of jackasses he's quoting now. That's it. I won't read another Price book.

10-02-2013, 09:42 PM	#5
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	People don't seem to have a sense of humor around here.

10-02-2013, 10:27 PM	#6
MrMacSon Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: South Pacific Posts: 559	ok, Jackasses. I'm intrigued they propose Polycarp was the [primary] editor and [first] publisher of the NT ie. proposing an early-mid 2nd C NT. I'm also intrigued, by the references to Marcionite 'Sputnik' and Marcion’s Apostolicon as if two different things. Can someone elaborate? Cheers.

10-02-2013, 10:32 PM	#7
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Because of Polycarp's relationship with Irenaeus and Irenaeus being the first person to cite the fourfold canon.

10-02-2013, 10:48 PM	#10
MrMacSon Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: South Pacific Posts: 559	what about the references to Marcionite 'Sputnik' and Marcion’s Apostolicon as if two different things?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.