Subject: Re: tc-list Quote by Bruce Metzger

From: PMoore4733 <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 15:00:57 EDT

Regarding the dating of the Magdalen Papyri and Dr. Metzger:  The following is
out of the Reverend  Gregory Neal's Paper on TEKTON: 
http://www.jude3.org/bookshelf/truth/tekton/Tekton_02_02_06.html
(A page from the Christian Apologetics Bookshelf).

"The writing style of Herculaneum is, to my eye, so near to identical
to that of Ps 64 and 67 that I am now willing to accept that they should
be dated 70 - 100 CE, with a median date of 85 CE"

This passage comes out of the paragraph that has been in question on this site
regarding Dr. Metzger.  Neal cites the follow source: 

 ("Metzger, "P64+67 and the Governmental letters of Herculaneum:  A Critique
of the 1996 Thiede Analysis." 1997 Monograph before SBL.  pp. 38-39. )"

 The above appears on page 6 of Neal's document.

---

From: Yuri Kuchinsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 20:01:56 -0400 (EDT)

On Tue, 12 May 1998, PMoore4733 wrote:

> Regarding the dating of the Magdalen Papyri and Dr. Metzger:  The
> following is out of the Reverend Gregory Neal's Paper on TEKTON: 
> http://www.jude3.org/bookshelf/truth/tekton/Tekton_02_02_06.html (A page
> from the Christian Apologetics Bookshelf). 

Friends,

In case someone is interested to see what kind of scholarship is really
featured on this website, I would like to draw your attention to another
highly problematic article there. This is an article by J.P. Holding, who
I think is the owner of this website. This article, and some obvious
doctoring of an important quote in it, has been the subject of some
discussion on Crosstalk-l recently. Here's part of a longer article I
posted to Crosstalk. 

Re: an article in the JOURNAL OF HIGHER CRITICISM at:

http://daniel.drew.edu/~ddoughty/rp1cor15.html

And a reply by Holding at:

http://www.jude3.org/bookshelf/truth/tekton/Tekton_01_05_02.html

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 16:22:50 -0400
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Fallback Jesus

	...

And I found one actual case of blatant doctoring of a quote from Price.
Quite shameful.

Here're Price's actual words:

http://daniel.drew.edu/~ddoughty/rp1cor15.html

   For this tradition there is no thought of any conversion of James from
   unbeliever to believer. The resurrection appearance vouchsafed him is 
   simply of a piece with the others: an appearance granted to a         
   disciple. Indeed nowhere in the tradition of early Christianity do we 
   find the appearance

[WORDS OMITTED BY HOLDING: to James likened unto that of Paul: the           
   apprehension]

		  of an enemy of Christ to turn him into a friend. This    
   notion, which serves the agenda of modern apologists[47]47 seeking to 
   disarm the suspicions of those who point out that Jesus appeared only 
   to believers, is quite common among critical scholars as well.[48]48  
   Nonetheless, it is an exegetical phantom. Nowhere is this connection  
   made in the texts.

Note that Paul is mentioned in the full quote.

And here's the quotation as given by Holding:

  For this tradition there is no thought of any conversion of James  
  from unbeliever to believer. The resurrection appearance vouchsafed
  him is simply of a piece with the others: an appearance granted to 
  a disciple. Indeed nowhere in the tradition of early Christianity  
  do we find the appearance

[THE SMOKING GUN: Holding omitted a whole phrase here!]

  of an enemy of Christ to turn him into a 
  friend. This notion, which serves the agenda of modern apologists  
  seeking to disarm the suspicions of those who point out that Jesus 
  appeared only to believers, is quite commong (sic) among critical  
  scholars as well. Nevertheless, it is an exegetical phantom.       
  Nowhere is this connection made in the texts.                      

And Holding continues:
                                                                     
"First, notice once again that Price is going against consensus, both 
conservative and "critical" alike, without major evidence to overturn
the standard!                                                        
                                                                     
Second, re no tradition of turning an enemy of Christ into a friend, 
appearing only to friends - have we forgotten the Apostle Paul here?"

[end quotes]

So here we can see Holding first doctoring an important quote (probably on
purpose) and THEN trying to make rhetorical capital on this basis.

Unethical. This is the only way to describe this.

Yuri.

	----------------------end quote-------------------

So it seems we shall soon see another article on Holding's website "closed
for renovations"?

Best wishes,

Yuri.

---

From: Yuri Kuchinsky <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 11:33:25 -0400 (EDT)

Dear friends,

I was wrong. It seems like Mr. Holding is innocent of the charges. I was
too rash in my judgement, and I apologize for what I said.

Mr. Holding was contacted, and he has very good defence against these
charges. Another, and earlier, version of Price's article exists on the
web: 

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/apocrypha.html

This was the version that Holding was using when composing his critique. 
Later, Price changed the text of his article ever so slightly, obviously
to accomodate the criticism by Holding. Neither Price nor Holding did
anything unethical.

Again, my apologies,

Yuri.