Heresy Hunting or Hunting for History?

# on 15 Oct 2008
Apologetics & Current Issues in Theology & Dan Wallace - Contra Mundane & Evangelicalism

Comments (0)

Related Posts

• For those of you who like superheros
• Blog Rules
• Codex Sinaiticus Completely On-Line Now
• The Historical Metzger
• Tom Schreiner on the Millennium . . . and So Much More

No Responses to “Heresy Hunting or Hunting for History?”

1. bethyada on 16 Oct 2008 at 4:41 am #

   One of my favourite (paraphrased) quotes, I may have mentioned it previously.

   We all have our biases. The question is which bias is the correct bias in which to be biased by?

2. Vladimir on 16 Oct 2008 at 8:59 am #

   I read your co-authored book Reinventing Jesus and was quite pleased with it.

   Who is Tony Burke? Another liberal Harnack or Reimarus or Schweitzer or Bultmann?

   What is so difficult to understand about Gnostic texts? They are in Coptic? Their soteriology is none Christian? They are heterodox in their espousals? Ehrman’s nomenclature of calling them forgotten Christians is not even in the same ballpark.

   An unbeliever views historical facts as uninterpreted facts, i.e. “brute facts” (van Til). He, the investigator, imposes his eisegetical interpretation onto/into them. Just look at the bizarre musing of Gerd Luedemann!

   Come on Dan, they’re lost – methodologically, psychologically, and eternally.

   Vladimir

3. britphil on 16 Oct 2008 at 10:31 am #

   I think the likes of Tony Burke, although fully entiltled to their opinions, need to take a bit of a reality check. The likes of Darrell Bock and Tom Wright have been a breath of much needed fresh air brezzing through theological circles.

   I agree that it is weird that some those of a more liberal disposition can tend to become very illiberal and uncharitable when critiquing the work of those with whom they disagree, often accusing others of biases whilst continuing to dwell under the alarming misapprehension that they possess no personal biases of their own.

   Unbelieveable!!

4. Jason Dulle on 17 Oct 2008 at 12:30 am #

   Mr. Wallace,

   I read in Greg Boyd’s book, The Jesus Legend, that the title superscriptions for the Gospels in p4, p64-67, and possibly p66 are from a later hand. Is this true?

   I ask because it has some relevance to the question of Gospel authorship. One of the arguments I have used in favor of the reliability of the traditional authorial attributions is that all extant manuscripts contain a superscription, and they are unanimous in who they ascribe the Gospels to (which is what I read from another Christian apologist). We would not expect this if the Gospels began as anonymous works (in the sense that the church was ignorant of the authors’ identity, not in the sense that they did not originally bear a superscription–which is most surely the case).

   But if there are early 3rd century Alexandrian manuscripts that originally lacked the superscription, then this case is weakened slightly. Of course, there is 2nd century evidence in the Fathers (Origen, Justin Martyr) for the traditional authors, so I recognize that the case for the traditional authors does not rest on these early manuscripts, but I want to make sure I am not overstating my case when it comes to the extant manuscripts. While it may be technically true that all extant manuscripts currently contain a superscription bearing the names of the traditional authors, in the case of p4, p64-67, and p66, that was not originally the case (assuming that is true). Thanks!

5. Susan on 17 Oct 2008 at 8:19 am #

   Huh, I wonder why you didn’t make his list.

6. Vladimir on 17 Oct 2008 at 9:28 am #

   Jason,

   Although you addressed your questions to Dr. Wallace, please permit me to interject a few remarks. I have some expertise in this area.

   All apostolic fathers (i.e., Clement of Rome , Papias, Ignatius, Polycarp) as well as the apologists Justin [the] Martyr and Irenaeus of Lyons without reservation identify the four Gospels by the authors name – Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

   The ecclesiastical history of Heggesippius and Eusebius identify these writings by the author’s names as well – Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

   It is true that all four Gospels are anonymous, BUT hints within the text itself identify who the author is. This fact is also further supported by internal evidence of style and vocabulary as well as content. Remember too that the Johannine epistles are anonymous as well as Hbrews.

   Historical factors (e.g., persecution) may have made anonymity a helpful device to evade further and needless trouble from the profane and godless rabble. But all these writings are addressed to Christians.

   Secular or pagan Higher Criticism studies have on occasion been wanton to deny these identifications (always held by the Church – with only one 3rd century exception that I can think of). Even early heretical authors or profane enemies of the historic Christian faith did not dispute their authorship (if they were even interested at all).

   So, while, the superscriptions of identity are in fact later, they are in line and in accord with both the historical and literary identity always and everywhere held by the historic orthodox Christian Church.

   Today, only the Epistle to the Hebrews entertains a question as to who the author may have been. Most think it was Paul, but some have offered Silas or Apollo as possible options.

   Finally, remember, that anonymity is not pseudonymy. The first is agreeable with truth, whereas the latter is not and was early on condemned by the Church.

   Vladimir

7. TimothyPaulJones on 17 Oct 2008 at 10:08 am #

   What the Tony Burke’s Society of Biblical Literature presentation doesn’t clearly recognize is that, yes, there is “exposure” going on–but what is being exposed is not some artificial distinction between orthodoxy and heresy that is noticeable only in retrospect. What is being exposed is the lack of historically-defensible continuity between the Christian Apocrypha and the historical Jesus. So shackled is this critic’s presentation to Walter Bauer’s failed hypothesis–a hypothesis that patristic scholar Walther Volker demonstrated to be faulty within a few years of its original publication in the 20th century–that notions of orthodoxy and heresy, apocrypha and eyewitness testimony, have no meaning, apart from retroactive fictions that identify who won and who lost the theological struggles of the church’s early centuries. The problem with the Christian Apocrypha was and is that the origins of the claims found therein do not represent testimony from eyewitnesses of the life and ministry of Jesus.

   I found this comment on Tony Burke’s blog to represent the pinnacle of hubris in liberal theological scholarship: “Liberals tend to view the texts with neutrality, without needless value judgements or disparaging comments.”

8. TimothyPaulJones on 17 Oct 2008 at 10:21 am #

   I’m also not certain how closely Burke read the books that he critiques—he cites me as disparaging the resurrection account found in Gospel of Peter in a section of Misquoting Truth where I, in fact, contend that Gospel of Peter could represent an authentic strand of testimony to the resurrection of Jesus, albeit one that cannot be clearly traced to eyewitnesses of the risen Lord.

9. Jason Dulle on 17 Oct 2008 at 1:17 pm #

   Vladamir,

   Thanks for responding. I am aware of the early patristic attestation regarding the Gospel authorship (though you mentioned some I was not aware of). I think it presents a very strong case for thinking the traditional authorial attributions are historically accurate. I just wanted to know if those particular 3rd century papyri originally lacked the superscription as Boyd claimed. If they did, then it tempers one of the evidences I use to argue for the traditional authorship, namely that every extant manuscript has a superscription, and those superscriptions are unanimous in their assent. While that would still be true in a technical sense (since p6, p64-67, and p66 have a superscription), honesty would require that we admit these papyri—some of the earliest we have of the Gospels—were originally created without a superscript.

   Obviously that in itself does not overturn the case for the traditional authorship. That case is clinched by the early and consistent testimony of the patristics. Besides, it could be that these papyri originally lacked superscriptions, not because the scribes who copied them did not know who wrote them, but because the scribal tradition of attaching a superscription was not yet universal.

   Can you verify that the named papyri originally lacked their superscriptions? Do you know the approximate date scholars think they were added to these texts?

   You also mentioned a third century witness who differed from the rest of tradition on the identity of the Gospel authors. Who are you referring to, and in what way did he differ? Are you referring to the debate over which John wrote the Gospel of John?

   Finally, do you have a collection of quotes from patristics’ regarding the issue of Gospel authorship? I have the quotes of Papias through Eusebius, from Origen, and Justin Martyr, but that’s about it. I would love to see the quotes from all of the others you mentioned.

   Jason

10. historic salve on 17 Oct 2008 at 6:29 pm #

    I’m surprised The Da Vinci Code was mentioned by anyone in an SBL forum.

11. Vladimir on 18 Oct 2008 at 8:49 am #

    Jason,

    It is important to always check your sources. The biblical papyri are fragmentary in content – all of them. The smallest and earliest is P52 (Jn 18:31-33, 37-38), but its importance lies in the palaeographical fact that it overthrew any and all second century dating of the composition of John’s Gospel.

    The largest extant biblical papyri that we at present have are P66 and P75 (Both have a **variant** inscriptio/superscription EUAGGELION KATA IWANNHN.

    P66 begins with John 1:1 – 6:11. The inscriptio of the larger, more complete parchment codices (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) simply have KATA IWANNHN.

    P75 has Luke beginning at 3:18-22, but John begins at 1:1-11:45.

    For full, competent, academic information about the papyri aa well as the uncial and minuscule parment manuscripts see here:

    http://www.uni-muenster.de/NTTextforschung/

    And for text-critical discussions from an evangelical perspective see here:

    http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2008_10_01_archive.html

    BTW, Dionysius of Alexandria was the author that I was thinking of, but he questioned the identification of the authorship of St. John’s Revelation – not his Gospel.

    Valdimir

12. Vladimir on 18 Oct 2008 at 9:26 am #

    Jason,

    The author in was thinking of who questioned the johannine authorship – not of the Gospel, but of Revelation, was Dionysius of Alexandria.

    **All biblical papyri manuscripts are fragmentary.**

    P66 and P75 have the inscriptio EUAGGELION KATA IWANNHN, whereas the parchment codicies Sinaiticus and Vaticanus have the more simple KATA IWANNHN.

    It is generally recognized among informed text critics (at least since Metzger) that the incipit as well as the excipit are later additional notes of the scribe copying the text.

    It is likely, that the use of inscriptio/subscriptio began with the rise of the codex form of bookmaking in distinction with that of the scroll late in the 1st cent (but this is still an issue of some speculation and debate.

    You might want to check out these two links:

    http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/

    http://www.uni-muenster.de/NTTextforschung/

    Vladimir

13. Vladimir on 18 Oct 2008 at 12:59 pm #

    Jason,

    This is my third attempt to respond to your query.

    All Greek biblical papyri manuscripts are fragmentary. P1 (III cent) contains Mt 1:1-9,12,14-20. There is no inscriptio.

    P64 (ca.200) begins with 3:9,15, etc (no inscriptio)

    P66 (ca.200) begins with Jn 1:1-6:11, etc (inscriptio/incipit reads EUAGGELION KATA IWANNHN) which is longer than the inscriptio/incipit of codicies Sinaiticus and Vaticanus which simply have KATA IWANNHN.

    P75 (III cent) begins at 3:18-22, etc. At John it begins at 1:1-11, 45, 48-57, etc. The inscriptio/incipit reads just like P66.

    Since B. Metzger’s study on palaeography and NT manuscripts it is generally recognized that these incipits and excipits are later scribal additions. Whether they entered with the Christian preference for the codex (last quarter of the first cent) instead of the scroll is still an open question.

    Dionysius of Alexander was the individual I had in mind, but he questioned the authorship of Revelation (another John other than the apostle). He did not dispute the authorship of the gospel or the epistles.

    Vladimir

14. Burke vs. Bowman: Christian Apocrypha & Apologetics « Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth on 18 Oct 2008 at 1:53 pm #

    [...] Heresy Hunting or Hunting for History? (Wallace) [...]

15. Jason Dulle on 20 Oct 2008 at 1:41 pm #

    Vladamir,

    Given that p64-67 does not contain the beginning of either Matthew or Luke, I wonder why Boyd would say it originally lacked superscriptions. There would be no way to know.
    I did not ask about p1, but since you brought it up, I have an additional question. Are you saying p1 still lacks a title? If so, is it because of the fragmentary nature of the manuscript, or is it because the original scribe clearly did not include one?

    Jason

16. Vladimir on 20 Oct 2008 at 4:17 pm #

    Jason,

    See this link with images and see for yourself.

    http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/bibel.html

    P1 has the letter alpha in the usual place of a superscription. The Greek letter Alpha represents the number one indicating the first page/leaf of this codex (book form).

    **Ignore the comments of the Islamic-awareness cite.**

    Let me know what you think.

    Vladimir

17. Vladimir on 20 Oct 2008 at 4:30 pm #

    Jason,

    There are now many sites on the internet that have images of the NT papyri and codices.

    Check these out for a first hand view:

    http://www.biblefacts.org/history/oldtext.html

    http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/bibel.html

    http://www.csntm.org/

    To answer your question (and as you will see) P1 has the Greek letter Alpha in the place were the superscrioption would normally be found. Alpha equals the number one in the Greek language indicating, presumably, that it is the first page of a codex (book form).

    Vladimir

18. Jason Dulle on 20 Oct 2008 at 6:13 pm #

    Thanks!

19. Dan Wallace on 20 Oct 2008 at 8:23 pm #

    Sorry, folks, for not responding sooner. I’m wrapping on a two-month expedition to the UK to photograph manuscripts. Leaving for the States tomorrow. I have my copies of P66 and P75 at home; P4, P64, and P67 do not have incipits, but both P66 and P75 do. I suspect that there may be some confusion about these incipits: most scholars would agree that they were added to early manuscripts but were not part of the original gospels. Once more than one gospel became known in a region, some way to distinguish the two needed to be devised. The word ‘gospel’ was still developing in usage, from speaking not just of the content of the good news, but also of a written document that had such content. I’m not sure exactly when that happened, but until it did, the best way for scribes to indicate whose gospel it was was simply to use “according to X.” This indeed is what we see in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Meanwhile, P66 and P75, one second-century and one-early third century MS, both have for John “the gospel according to John.” At first blush, I would say that the titles or incipits here were written by the scribes who wrote these manuscripts. There is no indication in the Nestle apparatus that it is otherwise, either. But since my copies are 5000 miles away and I’m sitting in a hotel right now in London, I can’t access the images. (I’d love to be able to post images of both of these papyri soon! But permission are sometimes hard to come by…)

    I suspect that the message was garbled somewhere along the way. Without pointing fingers, I think that when someone realized that the original MSS of the gospels lacked author’s identification, noting that such were added later, another reader might assume that that meant that the titles were added to a later manuscript by a still later hand. I don’t think that’s the case, but rather simply that the scribe who wrote P66 put in the title, as did the scribe who wrote P75.

20. Apocryphicity » Blog Archive » More Responses to “Heresy Hunting” on 22 Oct 2008 at 9:20 am #

    [...] I mention in the article), has also posted a response to the “Heresy Hunting” on the Parchment and Pen blog. His concern is, again, that I am just as biased in my defense of CA scholarship as the [...]

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

3000 characters or less or your post will disappear!

Also, be sure to read the blog rules.