Is BeDuhn right? Are patristic scholars terrified that almost all patristic manuscripts are medieval and later?

[Leucius Charinus]

Jack Bull asks about the neglect of Marcionite studies:

• Why have they -- why are colleagues (secular and biblical) -- not engaging with us properly ... about Marcionite studies?

Jason BeDuhn gives the following answer:

24:45

"Intellectual inertia. And just to be very frank very poor quality of graduate programs in this field across the world. It's just laziness .... just let's do another of the same kind of work we've been doing. And behind it I think there's a kind of terror. The kind of .... let's not open the door to reconsidering everything... They're afraid that the whole construct is going to come apart.

I mean even people who work on patristic material are terrified by confronting the fact for example that almost all of our patristic manuscripts are medieval and later.

They don't want to open that door to the fact that we actually don't have you know datable reliable sources of the of a lot of these materials and we don't know what they look like before full well knowing just from biblical studies just from looking at biblical manuscripts full well knowing that scribes were always altering texts. Always altering texts. Every step of transmission is an alteration.

So this so to open the door to all of that is just a terror. A night terror for them and so they would rather hanker down in doing very traditional type of things and as you say it's not premised on having a religious commitment to it. It is premised on them being comfortable in a well-established field with well ingrained ruts in the road that they don't want to have to work to get out of and so it's frustrating to me. It's frustrating to me the low level of scholarship out there and the very repetitive uninterestingly repetitive kinds of studies that are done. Always you know stacked premise upon premise upon premise that all those previous premises are not examined are not questioned. Are not broken into and broken up. So that's my take on it.

https://youtu.be/xWfQEGQeaXU?t=1472

So the question is: Are patristic scholars terrified that almost all patristic manuscripts are medieval and later?

And if they are not then should they be?

[rgprice]

I'm not entirely sure all of them are smart enough to be terrified, but they should be. I do think that there are a lot of Christian scholars who are true believers and think that by digging into all of this, that the claims of Christianity will all be vindicated. Surely that has been true for the past 500 years. But then there are those that can't stop crying once they start peeling the onion...

[GakuseiDon]

So the question is: Are patristic scholars terrified that almost all patristic manuscripts are medieval and later?

Isn't the late dating of most extant texts well-known, though? I've seen it acknowledged in lots of secondary sources when discussing provenance of texts like Justin Martyr's. The more complete ones we have re Justin are from around 1400s from memory. Similarly other patristic writings. Yet YOU are happy to quote from them when you need to.

And if they are not then should they be?

"Oh my god, parchment and paper decays! Terrifying!"

C'mon LC, you can do better than this.

[Leucius Charinus]

So the question is: Are patristic scholars terrified that almost all patristic manuscripts are medieval and later?

Isn't the late dating of most extant texts well-known, though? I've seen it acknowledged in lots of secondary sources when discussing provenance of texts like Justin Martyr's. The more complete ones we have re Justin are from around 1400s from memory. Similarly other patristic writings. Yet YOU are happy to quote from them when you need to.

Yes the late medieval dating is well known. What is not as well known is the claim (BeDuhn) that the patristic scholars are "terrified" of this fact. This is the subject of the OP.

And if they are not then should they be?

"Oh my god, parchment and paper decays! Terrifying!"

C'mon LC, you can do better than this.

BeDuhn seems to point out that "behind the door" is the fact that there are few if any "datable reliable sources" and that "that scribes were always altering texts. Always altering texts. Every step of transmission is an alteration". I'd surmise that Beduhn is saying that patristic scholars are terrified of this fact. But why does he say this?

My take is that he and the other "Marcionite reconstruction scholars" are attempting to portray the traditional biblical scholars (who do not employ Marcion in their reconstruction of NT and Christian origins) as being the subject of "intellectual inertia".

The traditional field is portrayed as a "well-established field with well ingrained ruts in the road that they [the traditional scholars] don't want to have to work to get out of." The Marcionite scholars OTOH are not terrified that scribes were always altering texts. Always altering texts."

G'Don this is not about what I think. I am attempting to understand the tension between the thinking of traditional biblical scholarship and the "Marcionite reconstructed biblical scholarship. Do you have any ideas?

[GakuseiDon]

Yes the late medieval dating is well known. What is not as well known is the claim (BeDuhn) that the patristic scholars are "terrified" of this fact. This is the subject of the OP.

I'm not aware of patristic scholars being "terrified" of this fact from my reading of secondary scholarship. I'll admit that I may have missed it. I'd like to see quotes.

My initial impression is that the attitude is "we have what we have", and thus the limitation of working from there. No-one is nor should be terrified of that. It seems an outlandish accusation by BeDuhn, but to be fair maybe he has examples of patristic scholars being terrified.

BeDuhn seems to point out that "behind the door" is the fact that there are few if any "datable reliable sources" and that "that scribes were always altering texts. Always altering texts. Every step of transmission is an alteration". I'd surmise that Beduhn is saying that patristic scholars are terrified of this fact. But why does he say this?

My take is that he and the other "Marcionite reconstruction scholars" are attempting to portray the traditional biblical scholars (who do not employ Marcion in their reconstruction of NT and Christian origins) as being the subject of "intellectual inertia".

The traditional field is portrayed as a "well-established field with well ingrained ruts in the road that they [the traditional scholars] don't want to have to work to get out of." The Marcionite scholars OTOH are not terrified that scribes were always altering texts. Always altering texts."

That sounds like the typical accusation from the fringe against the mainstream. "My own side questions the mainstream, therefore we are brave and independent. That means the mainstream are NOT brave and independent. They are terrified of my side!"

Using the description "traditional" means what exactly in this context? Faith based? Mainstream? Modern scholarship? The multitude of arguments over dating and interpolations within modern scholarship shows a distinct lack of terror.

G'Don this is not about what I think. I am attempting to understand the tension between the thinking of traditional biblical scholarship and the "Marcionite reconstructed biblical scholarship. Do you have any ideas?

"Tension" is a better word than "terrified". Again, depends on what you mean by "traditional biblical scholarship". If you mean "faith based scholarship", then I don't care. If you mean modern scholarship, I think that showing an early Marcion creating the letters of Paul would be significant. Marcion's Gospel was about a Jewish man in appearance who walked around Galilee, interacted with people and Jewish leaders, and was crucified by the Romans under Pilate. Him originating that Gospel I don't think is signficant.

[maryhelena]

Jack Bull asks about the neglect of Marcionite studies:

• Why have they -- why are colleagues (secular and biblical) -- not engaging with us properly ... about Marcionite studies?

Jason BeDuhn gives the following answer:

24:45

"Intellectual inertia. And just to be very frank very poor quality of graduate programs in this field across the world. It's just laziness .... just let's do another of the same kind of work we've been doing. And behind it I think there's a kind of terror. The kind of .... let's not open the door to reconsidering everything... They're afraid that the whole construct is going to come apart.

I mean even people who work on patristic material are terrified by confronting the fact for example that almost all of our patristic manuscripts are medieval and later.

They don't want to open that door to the fact that we actually don't have you know datable reliable sources of the of a lot of these materials and we don't know what they look like before full well knowing just from biblical studies just from looking at biblical manuscripts full well knowing that scribes were always altering texts. Always altering texts. Every step of transmission is an alteration.

So this so to open the door to all of that is just a terror. A night terror for them and so they would rather hanker down in doing very traditional type of things and as you say it's not premised on having a religious commitment to it. It is premised on them being comfortable in a well-established field with well ingrained ruts in the road that they don't want to have to work to get out of and so it's frustrating to me. It's frustrating to me the low level of scholarship out there and the very repetitive uninterestingly repetitive kinds of studies that are done. Always you know stacked premise upon premise upon premise that all those previous premises are not examined are not questioned. Are not broken into and broken up. So that's my take on it.

https://youtu.be/xWfQEGQeaXU?t=1472

So the question is: Are patristic scholars terrified that almost all patristic manuscripts are medieval and later?

And if they are not then should they be?

All very interesting, Pete.

Should scholars be worried about Marcion and the gospel he had in his hand. I think so. Such a gospel opens up questions regarding the development of the gospel story, it's theology, mythology or philosophical aspects.
The basic story - Jesus crucified under Pilate and Tiberius - seems to be central to all the Jesus stories regardless of dating manuscripts. Copies after copies of this story, additions and deletions, have left that central story intact.

So, yes, scholars should be worried - if only for their paycheck. The gospel in the hands of Marcion does not challenge the Jesus, Pilate/Tiberius scenario. What it does do is challenge the assumed development of that story. Where does the gospel in the hands of Marcion fit into the Mark, Matthew and John scenario.? The Synoptic Problem verse Marcion......perhaps interesting days ahead....

Dating manuscripts early or late does not negate the gospel story and it's claim against Rome. (Pilate and Tiberius). That story runs - like a music ear worm in the mind....

===============

I love an old Irish saying (from Irish mythology].

I will argue that, as music-making is a way of making sense of noise, of giving noise order, so poetry is a way of ordering experience, of giving a meaningful order to lived time – and that that process of ordering could be summed up in a phrase from the Old Irish, a phrase that is first found in a tale of the Fianna-Finn, who, during a break from hunting, begin to debate what might constitute ‘the finest music in the world’. One man says it is ‘The cuckoo calling from the tree that is highest in the hedge’, while others jump in to suggest ‘the top of music is the ring of a spear on a shield’, ‘the belling stag of a stag across water’, ‘the song of a lark’ and ‘the laugh of a gleeful girl’. Finally, they turn to their chief, Fionn, and ask him what he would choose, to which he replies: ‘The music of what happens … that is the finest music in the world.’

Burnside, John (2019-10-02T23:58:59.000). The Music of Time: Poetry in the Twentieth Century . Profile. Kindle Edition.

my bolding

'....the music of what happens'....

What happened re the gospel story - is the story about a man crucified, a king of the Jews, under Pilate and Tiberius. It's a story, the symbol of which is hung around the necks of countless christians and remembered every year on 'Good' Friday.

That gospel story is the 'music' of what happened 2000 years ago - and it's the music that will keep playing until it's needle gets stuck or the streaming link gets dropped. Out of tune maybe - but can damage the eardrums nevertheless....