I love Internet Scholars

The thing about the internet is that it gives everyone a voice. That is great! This blog gives me a platform to discuss many issues (quite often among myself, might I add.) However, the anonymous nature of the internet grants everyone the platform to present themselves as highly educated scholars. This in itself isn't problematic to those who I know of who read this blog; but there are those who simply have no knowledge in the field of New Testament studies.

With this in mind, I believe it is a great time to have a look at some of the arguments and polemics which have headed my way over the past few weeks.

1. Scholarship now believes Jesus did not exist?
   
   Original quote:
   
   "The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question." Robert E. Van Voorst, 'Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence' p. 14
   
   Response:
   
   "In the decade since this quote was written, and even before that, serious scholars such as Price and Wells have presented strong cases for a purely mythical Jesus."
   
   
2. Marcion wrote Luke and the Pauline epistles in the Second Century; then soon after Irenaeus changed them all to include Old Testament citations.
   
   
3. This Muslim Apologetic that there is reliable early evidence that Jesus was not crucified by appealing to late texts which, essentially, deny the possibility of Jesus 'physically' being able to be crucified. Something in stark contrast to the "truth of Islam" he is using these sources to assert.
   
   
4. Khalid Yasin arguing the unreliability of the New Testament because the modern titles read "According to..." and that is in the third person. Oh, and because they don't have last names. You see, a bank won't cash a cheque without a full name; therefore the New Testament cannot be trusted. Oh, and Paul wrote "all the books from Acts on." Seriously, this is gold.
   
   
   "I don't understand why people don't just read history." - Khalid Yasin.
   

Just Some Questions

Sorry if this is an elementary question, but after the fall of  Jerusalem where did all the Palestinian Jews go?

Did they join the Diaspora communities? Do we have evidence of them joining the Jews of Egypt? If they did, how did they deal with language barriers? Would we have had Aramaic speaking Palestinian Jewish Ghettos among Diaspora communities?

If anyone has any pointers on where to head with this regard, please do share! I have been thinking about the makeup of Christianity in Egypt and Roberts' explanation that they were probably highly integrated with the Jews of Alexandria. He states that the Hellenised Jews of Alexandria would have been more open to Christianity - but would there have been a newly established Palestinian Jewish community there post-fall?

Thomas and Tatian

I just started reading Thomas and Tatian: The Relationship Between the Gospel of Thomas and the Diatessaron by Nicholas Perrin. At the moment, I am not sure if I agree with his case, however, it has to be said that I haven't found any of the excessively early arguments (e.g. Koester) persuasive in the slightest. My first thoughts are that he is pushing it a bit with the late date, however, there are many questions that have been raised by Gilles Quispel between the Diatessaron and Gospel of Thomas which need to be taken seriously. And as Perrin has rightly noted, scholars really haven't.


Anyway, why I am interested in the question has to do with my re-evaluation of Bauer. Thomas represents one of the earliest so-called Gnostic texts in Egypt - and depending on the original version, or in this case a Greek fragment, the model has to be adjusted. Do we go with the idea that the early Thomas contained an early proto-orthodox tradition  -some independent of the synoptics, which were later Gnosticied? Such would account for the simple fact that some of the common sayings demonstrate a clear theological gnosticising tendency. Do we acept the text as simply another mid-second century and beyond Gnostic text?

Books to Get my Hands on in the Near Future...

• James F. McGrath, The Only True God: Early Christian Monotheism in Its Jewish Context.
  
  
• James G. Crossley, Why Christianity Happened: A Sociohistorical Account of Christian Origins 26-50 CE.
  
  
• Nicholas Perrin, Thomas, The Other Gospel.
  
  
• Paul Barnett, Jesus & the Rise of Early Christianity: A History of New Testament Times

I think the only problem standing in the way is a thing called money. Especially for McGrath's book, at only 168 pages the tag is high!

Actually, I think I should address my lacking of theological understanding a bit:

• Alister E. McGrath, A Fine-tuned Universe: The Quest for God in Science and Theology
• A McGrath, Theology: The Basics
• Someone want to suggest something on the Calvinism-Arminian debate? {Thanks to diglot for bringing up the topic.)
  

Should the Pericope of the Adulteress be included in our bibles?

I am not sure how long it has been there, but over at the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog there is now a poll on whether the Pericope Adulterae in the Gospel of John should be included in our Bibles.

I am not a text critic so I am not qualified to discuss the finer details of it, but there is a dilemma. Namely, we are pretty sure it is not an original part of the Fourth Gospel yet, to quote the TCGNT, "the account has all the earmarks of historical veracity."


What do we do in this situation?

Do we take the hard line view that only the four gospel autographs are authoritative or historically reliable?
If so, how do we deal with the fact that the Gospel narratives were originally orally transmitted? Or that Jesus' ministry was far greater than the portraits we received in the gospels?

I really don't know the solution, but in any case every translation is obligated to raise the question for the readers. I must say, for that reason I do love the TC notes that go along with the NET Bible. They are far more useful than a generic "Some early manuscripts do not contain this."

An Early Christian Letter?

Here is what I hinted to yesterday - is this the earliest Christian letter or a representative of Manichaeism?

I am aware that identifying belief  in documentary papyri didn't make it onto anyone's top-ten list of anything but it can be rather interesting. But then we get to a case such as this where it simply becomes a tad confusing:

(Click to Enlarge)

Here we have a papyri letter with many allusions we would simply interpret as Christian. We have the Father God, we have a Paraclete Spirit, we have a Paschal festival...but is it Christian?

I would say the answer will surprise you but I don't think anyone is yet to produce a real solid answer.

New York Times in 1943

I was searching for an image of P.Harr 1.107 to jog some discussion with but instead I came across this: