What This Year’s Early Easter Date Tell Us about Early Christianity

The bright moon this morning provoked a conversation in which my daughter asked a telling question that reveals a lot about early Christianity.

The date of Easter is the first Sunday after the first full moon after the Vernal Equinox. This year, the Vernal Equinox was March 20 (it is often on March 21). The full moon was March 23. The Sunday following is March 27. So we have an early Easter this year.

There is a logic to the date of Easter. Jesus was crucified on Passover, which is the fourteenth of Nissan, which is the month of spring (hence the Vernal Equinox). Nissan, like other months of the Jewish calendar, is a lunar month starting on the new moon. The fourteenth is thus the date of the full moon. The Resurrection was the Sunday following the crucifixion. 

On the calendar that we use, the Roman calendar, the date of Eastern changes from year to year. My daughters question was: “Didn’t they record the date of the Resurrection?”

The answer is that that they did, but they recorded it in the Jewish calendar, not the Roman calendar. The earliest Christians were all Jews or converts from Judaism. It was only later that the Christians started accepting converts from Gentiles, such as Greeks and Romans. So the early Christians recorded the date of the Resurrection according to the date on the Jewish lunar calendar, not the Roman solar calendar.

Starting in the second century, there was a controversy in Christianity between those that wanted to celebrate Easter on the 14th of Nissan (following the gospel of John) and those who wanted to celebrate it on Sunday and so the Sunday following (following the gospel of Matthew). The Easter controversy was not ostensibly settled until the fourth century.

There are only two Christian Holy Days that follow a Jewish calendar, that thus go back to the earliest period of Christian history. Both commemorate the Resurrection. Those Holy Days are Easter, and the Lord’s Day (Sunday). All the other Christian Holy Days follow the Roman calendar (including Christmas) and are thus later.

So, what we learn about early Christianity is that the Resurrection was the only event commemorated; it was memorialized in two Holy Days, Easter and the Lord’s Day. The dates of these events were recorded in the Jewish calendar, which was the one that the earliest Christians used.

Upcoming Forum

Tomorrow's forum at BYU will feature Professor Christian Smith of Notre Dame speaking at the BYU Marriott Center at 11 am. Those who have paid much attention to this blog will know that I have a high opinion of his work and have cited it many times. Over on the book list, seven of his works have two star ratings (out of three) and one has the rare three star rating. It will thus come as no surprise that I highly recommend attending the forum.

Randall Jones (1939-2016)

A couple of weeks ago I was looking in the library for a particular sort of book to replace one that I had years ago but had lost. I finally located one on the library shelf and when I checked it out was surprised and pleased to find that Randy Jones was one of the co-authors. He had served as my bishop for a few months, although I did not know him that well since I worked mainly with one of his counselors.

I was sad to discover today that he passed away last week. My condolences to his family. We will miss him.

Same Data, Different Questions

In his recent book, Rodney Stark makes the following observation:

Contrary to stereotypes of Muslims as ardent worshippers, their numbers have been reduced almost as greatly as those for Christians when the data are limited to weekly attenders.

(Rodney Stark, The Triumph of Faith [Wilmington, Delaware: ISI Books, 2015], 15.)

This comes from the way that Stark is framing his question. What he is looking at is, if you took all the people who attend religious services during the week, what percentage of them belong to which religion. If that is the question you are asking then a typical worshiper is more likely to be Christian (39%) than Muslim (31%).

But there is another way at looking at the question. Instead of asking, "What percentage of the world's weekly worshipers belong to various religions?" we could ask, "What percentage of various religions are weekly worshiper?" That is a different question and Stark provides (on pp. 14-15 of his book) the information to answer it. Here in descending order are the percentages of adherents to different religions worldwide who worship weekly:

• Hinduism     66%
• Muslims     64%
• Christians     52%
• Others     50%
• Buddhists     28%
• Jews     24%
• Secular     2%

This does not invalidate Stark's argument. It is just using the same information to ask a different question. What it shows is that there is a basis for the stereotype, since on any given week almost 2 out of 3 Muslims will attend mosque, whereas just over 1 out of 2 Christians will attend church. That is a statistically significant difference.

Incidentally, I have no idea whether Latter-day Saints would be classified as Christians or Others in this study. I would be curious to know what the specific Latter-day Saint number were, but given the geographic variation that probably exists they would be no particular help to any particular congregation. And, given the magnitude of people we are talking about in the study, whatever the Latter-day Saint numbers are, they would make a negligible difference on Stark's overall numbers.

What really impresses me are the Hindu numbers. So what are Hindus doing right? (Since we do not know what Latter-day Saint numbers are, we do not know what we may or may not be doing right compared to Hindus, but clearly Hindus are doing something right, and so are Muslims.)

A Plug for BYU?

Brigham Young University gets a plug from an unlikely source on its diversity, of all things. (I do not endorse the crudeness in the title; the article itself I did not find crude.)

A New Book on the Old Kingdom

I received in the mail today the first volume of the new series, Harvard Egyptological Studies: Towards a New History for the Egyptian Old Kingdom: Perspectives on the Pyramid Age, ed. Peter Der Manuelian and Thomas Schneider (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2015). As expected from Brill publications, the book is beautifully produced.

I do have an essay in the volume ("Did the Old Kingdom Collapse? A New View of the First Intermediate Period" pp. 60-75) but I wanted to highlight two other contributions in the volume.

Miroslav Bárta ("Ancient Egyptian History as an Example of Punctuated Equilibrium: An Outline" pp. 1-17) counters the idea that the Old Kingdom was a static place. He depicts it as having times of stability punctuated by major periods of change. In other words, history actually occurred.

My late friend, Harold Hays ("The Entextualization of the Pyramid Texts and the Religious History of the Old Kingdom" pp. 200-226), takes on the theory of the democratization of the afterlife. Mark Smith, Harco Willems, and others, including myself, have pointed to major problems in the theory and it is great to have Harold's contribution to add to the growing list of refutations of it.

There are several other good essays in the collection that I might recommend another time. I am only disappointed that, for whatever reasons, Ann Roth's and Manfred Bietak's contributions to the conference did not appear in the volume.

Paying Hidden Costs

A thirty second sound bite on the radio news this morning announced that the Utah National Parks Council of the Boy Scouts of America is laying some people off as donations are down and they cannot afford to employ the people anymore. I have not been able to find confirmation for this tidbit elsewhere, but the rest of this post is based on the assumption that the information is correct.

This is sad for those laid off. I am sure that at least some (and perhaps all) of those who will be laid off sincerely worked for the good of the boys.

On the other hand, this was entirely predictable. No one wants to support an organization that abandons its principles and betrays its constituents.

Unfortunately, my observations about this sort of situation is that those who caused it are never the ones to suffer the ill effects. They will be lauded and praised for how they led the organization through difficult times and given a golden parachute instead of being sacked for their abandonment of principle or betrayal.

Apologetics for Not Doing Apologetics

Yesterday at Utah Valley University there was a panel discussion on Mormon apologetics. The panelists were Brian Hauglid, Ralph Hancock, Brian Birch, Julie Smith, and Ben Park. Each had ten minutes to make their case and then there was an hour-long discussion. Here are some brief summaries of the arguments (losing most of the detail to perhaps the point of caricature--sorry, I do not mean to be inaccurate, just brief).

Brian Hauglid summarized Stephen Cowan's classification of Evangelical apologists but did not deal with how this classification system might apply to Mormon apologetics or which Latter-day Saint scholars might fit in which classification if it did apply. He argued that apologetics should not be a full-contact sport. He said that apologetics ought to be done in such a fashion that no one got their feelings hurt.

Ralph Hancock argued that apologetics meant defending one's beliefs using arguments. Thus everyone does apologetics for their own opinions. He argued that irony and satire have a legitimate place in apologetics and that it was generally best to be straightforward in presenting one's arguments.

Brian Birch applauded the Maxwell Institute's abandonment of defending the Church. He reiterated a claim that he has made elsewhere that apologetics of any sort could only have a chair at the academic table if it bowed to scholarship. He claimed that no satire or irony ought to be used in academic arguments and put forward the academy as a model of being humble and charitable. He voiced his opinion that apologetics was not really ready for the rough and tumble of scholarship.

Julie Smith thought that apologetics was most appropriate for missionaries and seminary teachers. She thought apologetics was dangerous because it fossilized the status quo and made women collateral damage. She wanted more numbered lists. She voiced her opinion that the next frontier in Mormon apologetics would be the Bible.

Ben Park thought that there should be a wall between apologetics and Mormon Studies. Maintaining a wall between the two would, he claimed, make better apologetics and better scholarship. For him Leonard Arrington and Eugene England were his heroes because they used the latest scholarly fads in their work. Mormon Studies was, however, better because it sheds the insider focus in the study of Mormonism.

The panel was big on generalities and short on specifics. This was most clearly apparent when an actual apologist asked them about how they might respond to a hypothetical sister in Parowan who might be troubled by things she had read. None of the panel betrayed the least indication of ever having done such a thing. It was like witnessing a bunch of arm-chair quarterbacks who had never set foot on a football field discussing what a professional team ought to do. To extend the metaphor and grossly oversimplify the arguments: Hauglid seem to be arguing that the best way for a team to win was to play touch football. Hancock was arguing that the team should actually play football since they were engaged in a match whether they wanted to or not. Birch seemed to argue that one team should only be allowed on the field if it was not allowed to score any points. Smith seemed to think that the best strategy was for the coach to provide the players with a numbered list of all possible plays without any guidance on which ones were likely to work in a particular situation. Park seem to think that there should be a wall between the football team and the stadium to keep the team out of the stadium. Which of these would you rather have coaching your team?

On Supposed Tips for LDS Graduate Students

A recent blog post over on the ironically named "Faith Promoting Rumor" blog purports to give advice to prospective graduate students in "in Religious Studies (broadly conceived), the Ancient Near East, Hebrew Bible, New Testament, Early Christian Lit., Late Antique, Patristics, etc." This has caused some concern in certain quarters, though perhaps not for the reasons someone might think. I have a few comments to make in general and some on the specific recommendations made.

In the first place, the recommendations are made by someone who writes anonymously, apparently with no qualifications whatsoever. How would she know what a graduate school is looking for? Has she even been to graduate school? Anonymous recommendations on the internet should have no credibility. If someone is not willing to sign their real name to something, why should anyone trust it?

There are some clear indications that the author of the blog post does not know what she is talking about. Thus it is the product of some ignorant ideological biases.

I write this post as someone who successfully was admitted to graduate school, successfully completed graduate school and has successfully gotten a job in academia, who advises prospective graduate students, who has sat on graduate degree committees and on committees that award graduate school funding, and who has actually talks with people who are involved in graduate school admissions.

Committees are not monolithic entities. They are composed of individuals who come to the committee with their own ideas, qualifications, and biases. All it may take is one wrong person to change the entire committee. For example, I once sat on a committee where one individual insisted that money be given to a candidate who did not even meet the minimal qualifications for it. Sometimes success or failure is simply a matter of who is sitting on the committee.

1. The first piece of advice is to avoid Studia Antiqua. Studia Antiqua is a student journal. The papers are usually suggested by professors who thought that the paper was promising. The papers are peer reviewed and authors work with a faculty mentor and a faculty editor to get the paper ready for publication. Our anonymous author thinks that this is a bad thing, saying: "I would avoid it." After all, who needs intensive help on your writing or experience with the academic publication process? I looked through the past issues of Studia Antiqua and see that many of the students who published in its pages in the past not only made it into graduate school but now have academic jobs. Obviously, this is the kind of thing that our anonymous author wants to avoid.


2. The second and third pieces of advice deals with being a professor's research assistant or co-authoring a paper with a professor. "Avoid this," our anonymous author advises. I have not had many research assistants but half of them made it into top graduate programs. If that is a consequence that you want to avoid, please do so.


3. See point two.


4. The fourth piece of advice has to do with starting a personal blog. Don't do this. If you need any reasons not to do it, look no further than our anonymous blog author. I have seen many graduate students sink their careers with blogs.


5. The fifth point advises students against working with FAIR or Interpreter. Our anonymous author advises: "DO NOT DO THIS." Actually, FAIR prefers to work with people who already have finished their schooling, like Michael Otterson, Richard Bushman, Terryl Givens, and so on. Surely that must be disreputable company. The last graduate student I knew of to publish with Interpreter just got a tenure-track job. If you do not want that to happen to you, then by all means avoid Interpreter and FAIR. There are publications that will seriously damage your job prospects. I have known individuals whose involvement with Sunstone and Dialogue have cost them jobs that otherwise they would have gotten.


6. The last piece of advice has to do with accepting jobs on academic projects. Our anonymous adviser says, "DO NOT DO THIS unless you really, really need the job." Well, yes, someday you probably will need the job. I am reminded of a certain non-Mormon academic who really, really needed the job. She took a job doing research on one of these Mormon projects. Later she got a job at a certain Ivy League school and now runs one of the top graduate programs in the country. Going to "work with [Mormon apologists] on their latest project on something that only deals with LDS matters" certainly hurt her job prospects.

So our anonymous author advises:

Listen, friends, we know that you want to help your faith community, we know that these various opportunities and venues are incredibly enticing (and let’s be honest, flattering), but if you are applying or will be applying to grad school, you simply must watch out for number one. You are number one. Not the big name apologist, not the security of your faith community (it will be just fine!), not anyone else but you.

There is a word for this attitude, and it is selfish. What does it profit someone if they gain their degree and lose their soul? If personal integrity and your covenants mean nothing to you, you can follow the advice of someone who not only will not even sign her own name to her opinions, but will not even take her own advice. This individual is well-meaning but not necessarily well-informed. Somehow people who don't follow her advice have managed to get into graduate school, to earn degrees, and get jobs, sometimes precisely because they did not follow her advice.

More on Parental Effects on Youth Religiosity

About a year ago, Richard Petts used the National Survey of Youth and Religion to study the effects of family structure on youth religiosity. Along the way, he found some interesting things about things that parents do that help their youth retain their religion. He published this in the journal Sociology of Religion but my page numbers will refer to the online publication.

In his first hypothesis test (pp. 13-14), he found that the most significant positive impact on the religiosity of youth was parental religiosity (1.10). The second most significant positive impact was if their parent was a Mormon (0.64). The third most positive impact was if their parent was a conservative Protestant (0.61). The most negative impacts were if the parents were cohabiting, that is living together without being married (-0.39), if the parent was single without ever being married (-0.35), or if the parents owned their own home (-0.34).

In his third hypothesis test (pp. 13-14), Petts found that besides parental religiosity, the most important things were "family religious practices" (0.84) which meant: "Youth are considered to engage in religious practices with their family if they had prayed together with their family in the past year and talked with their family about religious things at least once a week" (pp. 8-9). In a Latter-day Saint context that would include family prayer and family home evening.

Petts also tested for religious salience, that is, how important religion is for the youth (pp. 16-17). The most important positive factors were: Parental religiosity (0.61), if the parent is a conservative Protestant ( 0.48), and if the parent is a Mormon (0.46). The three most detrimental things were having a single parent who had never married (-0.24), living in a step family (-0.20), and having a child who is a different race from their parent (-0.17).

When Petts tested for things that make youth feel close to God, the most important thing was family religious practices (0.36) while the most detrimental thing was divorce (-0.28).

Here are some of Petts's conclusions:

Although there were a few exceptions, family structure generally did not have a direct influence on youth religious outcomes. (p. 19)

Parental religiosity was a strong predictor of youth religiosity; youth were less likely to be religious when raised by parents with low levels of religiosity and vice versa. (p. 19)

Overall, religious transmission in nontraditional families appears to be less effective for religious participation and religious salience among youth, and these differences are most pronounced at higher levels of parental religiosity. That is, youth raised in nontraditional families with highly religious parents have lower levels of religious participation and religious salience than those raised by highly religious married parents. (p. 22)

Consistency in religious affiliation among family members and engaging in religious behavior as a family are important in predicting youth religiosity. (p. 23)

So, the take away for parents who want to keep their children in the faith:

1. Set a positive example by participating yourself.


2. Marry your spouse.


3. Stay married.


4. Hold family prayer.


5. Hold family home evening.

I'm sure I must have heard this somewhere before.

Why You Might Not Want to "Upgrade" to Windows 10

When we bought our last family computer, I did some research and decided on a system that used Windows 8.1 because I would get the following features:

• Each child could have their own account.


• The accounts could be local, without each child having to register with some big corporation that would be collecting data on their every move.


• Parents could control when children got on the computer.


• Individual children could have specific time limits when they could use the computer and the computer would be keeping track of the time so there would be no arguing that what seemed like five minutes was really an hour.


• There were options for limiting websites and downloads.


• Parents can get weekly reports on how much time children have been on the computer and what they have been doing.


• Parents can override certain functions on a case by case basis.

These features and others are lumped together into something called "Family Safety." I have recommended them to many parents, and do so again.

Recently I upgraded to Windows 10 for one of my computers and it fixed one of the recurring glitches I had been having. That was well done. Windows 10 also has a much better start menu than Windows 8.1. There are other improvements, but I have not really noticed them yet.

This experience led me to upgrade to Windows 10 on the family computer. That was a huge mistake. Every reason for which I got a Windows 8.1 computer instantly vanished. Windows 10 converted all the family safety accounts into regular accounts with no possibility of converting them back to family safety accounts. No controls or limitations of any sort could be put on the accounts.

Windows 10 still offers something it calls "family safety" but in a form which makes me feel anything but safe.

In Windows 10 to create any sort of account (temporary, local, family) you have to register with Microsoft so that they can collect the following information on you and your kids and anyone else who uses your computer (and I quote from Microsoft's own (lack of) privacy statements):

• "your first and last name, email address, postal address, phone number, and other similar contact data."


• "passwords, password hints, and similar security information"


• "demographic data . . . such as your age, gender, country and preferred language"


• "your interests and favorites, such as the teams you follow, . . . the stocks you track, . . . or the favorite cities your add to a weather app. In addition to those you explicitly provide, your interests and favorites may also be inferred ro derived from other data we collect"


• "payment data . . . if you make purchases, such as your payment instrument number (such as a credit card number), and the security code associated with your payment instrument."


• "usage data . . . such as the features you used, the items you purchase, the web pages you visit, the search terms you enter . . . you device, including IP address, device identifiers, regional and language settings, and data about the network, operating system, browser or other software you use."


• "your contacts and relationships."


• "your locations, which can be precise or imprecise . . . Global Position System (GPS) data, as well as data identifying nearby cell towers and Wi-Fi hotspots, . . . your IP address . . . city or postal code"


• "content of your files and communications . . . your documents, photos, music or video . . . subject line and body of an email, text or other content of an instant message, audio and video recording of a video message, and audio recording and transcript of a voice message you receive or a text message you dictate"

Additionally, Microsoft says that they "also obtain data from third parties (including other companies)" about you.

This, of course, is precisely why a parent might want to create a local account and not register their children with Microsoft data collection.

Supposedly, by registering your children with Microsoft on every device you use the same controls will apply across the board to all devices running Microsoft. I can see some advantages to this but also some disadvantages. I can see reasons why a parent might want to have different devices have different settings. Perhaps you want your child doing their homework between the time they get home and when the family eats dinner and so want the computer available at that time, and you will let them play the X-box only after dinner on the assumption that their homework is done. In that case you would want different settings for different devices.

So there are some legitimate concerns why parents might not want to upgrade to Windows 10.

What if, like I did, you made the mistake of upgrading?

You can downgrade back to Windows 8.1 if it has been less than a month since you upgraded.

Simply click on the Start menu

Go to "Settings" (which is in the bottom left-hand corner and has the gear icon next to it). Then go to "Update & Security" which is in the lower right of the menu options. Then go to "Recovery" which is the fourth option down on the left-hand side. Then select the option "Go back to Windows 8.1". It took less time than upgrading to Windows 10. I did have to reenter wireless router passwords but all my family's accounts and old family safety settings were still there.

When you downgrade, Microsoft will ask for feedback about why you want to downgrade. I listed some of my concerns about the lack of real Family Safety in Windows 10.

Is it hypocritical for a parent to track her children's computer activities and complain when Microsoft does it? Possibly. But there are some key differences. (1) Parents have a responsibility to train their children in how to use tools (including computers) responsibly; Microsoft does not. (2) Parents are only tracking their own children, not everyone's children. (3) Parents need not use all the tracking tools; they can be customized to the child and the situation but one never knows if Microsoft is using the tracking tools or how.

It is nice that Microsoft is at least pretending to provide tools of some sort to parents, but who will protect your kids from Microsoft?

Read This, Not That!

Richard Bushman's discussion of the Book of Mormon in Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism was really good. Surprisingly, his discussion of the Book of Mormon in Rough Stone Rolling was as weak as the one in Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism was strong.

Now, however, there is something better. The best discussion of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon is now Michael MacKay and Gerrit Dirkmaat's From Darkness unto Light published this year. If you are reading Rough Stone Rolling, skip the section on the Book of Mormon and read this instead. (Skip what Bushman says about the Book of Abraham too.)

If you think you know how the Book of Mormon was translated, you should read MacKay and Dirkmaat because you find out all kinds of things that you did not know.

One Less Worry

I was comforted by this thought from Elder Russell M. Nelson reflecting on the calling of apostles:

You look at a university or a big business where there’s a vacancy. A search committee works hard to find suitable successors. They do well but it’s always a worry. Here, it is not a worry. You know the work of the Lord will be done by His servants.

Thank heavens that the calling of apostles is done by the Lord instead of a university committee.

Religious Studies at BYU

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, former president of BYU, outlines the place of Religious Studies at BYU in a recently published interview:

I think we will want to keep asking hard questions: how much is practical, how much is needed, how many lines of communication do we need, and what books are good enough to carry our imprimatur. When we know which products those are, then we should do a world-class job with them. I would like this [the Religious Studies Center] to become known as the scholarly voice of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on matters that would normally be considered as "religious studies." When people think, "Where do I look to see the real heartbeat of intellectual life and academic contribution for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," I want them to think BYU, and at BYU when the issue is religious scholarship, I want them to think of the Religious Studies Center.

(Elder Jeffrey R. Holland and Thomas Wayment, "The RSC Turns Forty: A Convesation with Elder Jeffrey R. Holland," Religious Educator 16/2 [2015]: 3.)

Later in the interview Elder Holland also gave kudos to BYU Studies for its work in that field.

The Provenance of Greek New Testament Manuscripts

There are a number of lists of New Testament manuscripts available, most of them based on the one at the back of the Nestle-Aland edition of the Greek New Testament. A good list will tell you about where the manuscript is found now, what texts it contains, and when the manuscript is thought to be written. What the lists do not tell you is where the manuscript was found. So this list is to provide that information, to the extent it is known.

I am arranging the list chronologically as well as geographically. Many of the dates in the standard lists are wrong. I am adjusting the dates following the new ones given by Orsini and Clarysse (two papyrologists) rather than the standard ones given by theologians. Papyrologists can at best date business hands to the nearest half-century; literary hands can at best be dated to the nearest century. (So I think that even some of the Orsini and Clarysse dates are too precise.)

I have also included a number of other details about some of these manuscripts that are not well known. The contents only mention the book or books that show up in the manuscript and in most cases the entire book is not attested. I have added the Trismegistos number and links for those interested in more information.

Take the question marks seriously.

Oxyrhynchus (Bahnasa)

100-200

p104 (= TM 61782, Matthew)

150-200

p90 (= TM 61625, John)

150-225

P.Oxy. 50 3528 (= TM 59983, Shepherd of Hermas)

170-250

P.Oxy. 69 4706 (= TM 69384, Shepherd of Hermas)

175-225

p30 (= TM 61860, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians)

200-250

P.Oxy. 69 4705 (= TM 69383, Shepherd of Hermas)

200-300

p1 (= TM 61787, Mathew)
p5 (= TM 61630, John)
p18 (= TM 61636, Revelation)
p20 (= TM 61618, James)
p27 (= TM 61854, Romans)
p29 (= TM 61701, Acts)
p69 (= TM 61700, Luke)
p70 (= TM 61789, Matthew)
p100 (= TM 61619, James)
p101 (= TM 61786, Matthew)
p103 (= TM 61785, Matthew)
p106 (= TM 61631, John)
p107 (= TM 61632, John)
p108 (= TM 61633, John)
p109 (= TM 61634, John)
p111 (= TM 65894, Luke)
p113 (= TM 65896, Romans)
p114 (= TM 65897, Hebrews)
p119 (= TM 112358, John)
p121 (= TM 112360, John)
P.Oxy. 15 1828 (= TM 59987, Shepherd of Hermas)
P.Oxy. 50 3527 (= TM 59986, Shepherd of Hermas)
P.Oxy. 69 4707 (= TM 69385, Shepherd of Hermas)

200-400

P. Oxy 3 404 (= TM 59989, Shepherd of Hermas)

250-300

p22 (= TM 61629, John)
p23 (= TM 61620, James)
p77 (= TM 61784, Matthew)

250-350

p13 (= TM 61861, Hebrews)
p28 (= TM 61635, John)
p78 (= TM 61695, Jude)
p115 (= TM 65898, Revelation)
P. Oxy. 15 1783 (= TM 59991, Shepherd of Hermas)

275-300

p39 (= TM 61638, John)

275-325

p9 (= TM 61639, 1 John)
p125 (= TM 117814, 1 Peter)

300-350

p10 (= TM 61868, Romans)
p123 (= TM 113259, 1 Corinthians)

300-400

p15+16 (= TM 61859, 1 Corinthians, Philippians) p17 (= TM 61862, Hebrews)
p71 (= TM 61794, Matthew)
p102 (= TM 61790, Matthew)
p110 (= TM 65893, Matthew)
p120 (= TM 112359, John)
P.Oxy. 9 1172 (= TM 59993, Shepherd of Hermas)
P.Oxy. 13 1599 (= TM 59992, Shepherd of Hermas)
P.Oxy. 50 3526 (= TM 59993, Shepherd of Hermas)

300-500

p19 (= TM 61798, Matthew)
p21 (= TM 61796, Matthew)

325-375

p48 (= TM 61702, Acts)

350-400

p24 (= TM 61641, Revelation)

350-450

p51 (= TM 61869, Galatians)
p122 (= TM 112361, John)

400-500

p127 (= TM 119313, Acts)

400-600

p54 (= TM 61622, James)
p105 (= TM 61803, Matthew, amulet)

450-500

p35 (= TM 61802, Matthew)
p112 (= TM 65895, Acts)

500-600

p36 (= TM 61662, John)
p124 (= TM 113260, 2 Corinthians)

600-700

p26 (= TM 61898, Romans)

Oxyrhynchus(?)/Arsinoites(?)

125-175

p52 (= TM 61624, John)

Hermopolis (el-Ashmunein)

150-200

P.Iand. 1 4 (= TM 59982, Shepherd of Hermas)

350-400

P.Berl. 13272 (= TM 59990, Shepherd of Hermas)

Koptos (Qift)

175-200

p4+64+67 (= TM 61783, Matthew, Luke)

Aphroditopolis (Atfih) (?)/Panopolis (Akhmim) (?)/Arsinoites(?)

200-225

p46 (= TM 61855, Romans, Hebrews, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians)

200-250

p45 (= TM 61826, Matthew, John, Luke, Mark, Acts)

Aphroditopolis (Atfih) (?)

200-250

p47 (= TM 61628, Revelation)

Panopolis (Akhmim)

200-250

p66 (?) (= TM 61627, John)

300-350

p72 (= TM 61420, Protevangelium of Jacob, 3 Corinthians, Odes of Solomon, Jude, Melito of Sardis Peri Pascha, 1 Peter, 2 Peter)

350-450

P. Bodmer 38 (= TM 59994, Shepherd of Hermas, Dortheus Visio)

Hipponon (Qararo)

200-300

p40 (= TM 61846, Romans)

Egypt (further specification unknown)

200-225

p95 (= TM 61651, John)

200-250

p87 (= TM 61857, Philemon)
p98 (= TM 61626, Revelation)

200-300

p32 (= TM 61853, Titus)
p75 (= TM 61743, Luke, John)
p91 (= TM 61699, Acts)

250-350

p49 (= TM 61858, Ephesians)
p65 (= TM 61856, 1 Thessalonians)

300-350

p8 (= TM 61704, Acts)
p116 (= TM 66065, Hebrews)

300-400

p50 (= TM 61709, Acts)
p62 (= TM 61839, Matthew, Greek and Coptic [Akhmimic], Daniel)
p81 (= TM 61911, 1 Peter)
p82 (= TM 61706, Luke)
p86 (= TM 61793, Matthew)
p89 (= TM 61863, Hebrews)
p117 (= TM 68759, 2 Corinthians)
p126 (= TM 68735, Acts)

300-500

P.Hamburg 24/P.Iand. inv. 45 (= TM 59995, Shepherd of Hermas)
P.Prague I 1 (= TM 59996, Shepherd of Hermas)

350-400<

p88 (= TM 61757, Mark)

375-425

p85 (= TM 61644, Revelation)
p118 (= TM 68810, Romans)

400-450

p6 (= TM 61656, John in Greek and Coptic [Akhmimic]; James in Coptic; 1 Clement in Coptic)

400-500

p93 (= TM 61650, John)
p99 (= TM 61873, Romans, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians)

400-550

p94 (= TM 61885, Romans)

450-550

p63 (= TM 61661, John)
P. Amherst 2 190 (= TM 59999, Shepherd of Hermas)

475-500

p25 (= TM 61823, Matthew)

500-600

p76 (= TM 61669, Matthew)
p96 (= TM 61810, Matthew, Greek and Coptic [Sahidic])
P.Berl. BKT 6 (= TM 60001, Shepherd of Hermas)

600-700

p31 (= TM 61901, Romans)
p73 (= TM 61814, Matthew)
p74 (= TM 61742, Acts, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Jude)
p80 (= TM 61645, John)

600-800

p42 (= TM 62320, Luke in Greek and Coptic)

Arsinoites

200-300

P.Mich 2.2 130 (= TM 59984, Shepherd of Hermas)

200-400

P.Berl. 5513/BKT 6.2.1 (= TM 59988, Shepherd of Hermas)

250-300

p12 (= TM 62312, Hebrews 1:1 and Genesis 1:1-5 palimpsest amulet over a letter)
p37 (?) (= TM 61788, Matthew)
p38 (?) (= TM 61703, Acts)

350-400

p53 (= TM 61827, Matthew, Acts)

350-450

p57 (= TM 61707, Acts)

400-500

P.Berl. 5104 (= TM 59997, Shepherd of Hermas)

400-600

p56 (= TM 61721, Acts)

500-600

p33+58 (= TM 61731, Acts)

500-700

p3 (= TM 61732, Luke)
p55 (= TM 61671, John)

600-700

p34 (= TM 61903, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians)
p79 (= TM 61907, Hebrews)

Sinai

200-500 (?)

p7 (= TM 61747, Luke)

500-600

p11 (= TM 61908, 1 Corinthians)
p14 (= TM 61886, 1 Corinthians)

600-700

p68 (?) (= TM 61902, 1 Corinthians)

Theadelphia (Batn el-Hatit)

250-300

P.Mich. 2.2 129 (= TM 59985, Shepherd of Hermas)

Narmouthis (Medinet Madi)

250-350

p92 (= TM 61852, Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians)

Djeme (Medinet Habu)

500-600

p2 (= TM 61744, John in Greek and Luke in Coptic)

500-700

p44 (= TM 61825, Matthew, John)

Khirbet Mird, Israel

500-600

p83 (= TM 61808, Matthew)
p84 (= TM 61775, Mark, John)

Wadi Sarga

500-700

p43 (= TM 61673, Revelation)

Aphrodito (Kom Ishqau) (?)

500-700

p97 (= TM 61698, Luke)

Nessana (Auja Hafir) Israel

600-700

p59 (= TM 61676, John)
p60 (= TM 61677, John)

650-750

p61 (= TM 61906, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, Titus, Philemon)

Krokodilopolis (Medinet el-Fayyum)

700-800

p41 (= TM 61739, Acts, in Greek and Coptic)

A few things stand out. First, we do not know the provenance of a large percentage of these manuscripts.

Another is that a number of the Greek manuscripts are actually bilingual Greek-Coptic manuscripts and they start appearing in the fourth century. The language switch helps explain why there are comparatively fewer copies of the Greek New Testament from Egypt after about 500.

A large percentage of our Greek New Testament manuscripts come from Oxyrhynchus. Most of those come from the third century. All the Oxyrhynchus manuscripts were found in the garbage dump. They were discarded manuscripts.

Half the manuscripts (5 of 10) from Arsinoites contain the book of Acts. Three quarters of the Sinai manuscripts contain 1 Corinthians.

Our second century manuscripts are all gospels (Matthew, John, and Luke) and the Shepherd of Hermas. The Revelation of John and James are also early popular works.

The early attestations at Coptos come as something of a surprise since Coptos is not really on  the radar of scholars in early Christianity. Arsinoites is another place that does not show up as a site of importance to those studying early Christianity but it has produced the second greatest number of papyri from a known site. Hermopolis is also not noted for its early Christian community and perhaps should be.

A number of the papyri come from the land of Israel rather than Egypt, though they figure in somewhat later.

The presence of Barnabas, 1 Clement, and the Shepherd of Hermas probably surprise some people but Barnabas and Shepherd of Hermas are included in the canon of scripture of Codex Sinaiticus, 1 Clement is included in Codex Alexandrinus. Note that the attestations are almost all early. After these books were excluded from the canon, they fell out of favor and generally stopped being copied.

Shepherd of Hermas is much more popular than the Gospel of Thomas and yet it figures much less prominently in the scholarship about early Christianity.

The lists in Nestle-Aland are very good at telling you which verses are actually attested but they are not good at telling you if works outside the Protestant New Testament are part of the manuscript or if there are languages other than Greek.

Provenance has not figured into discussions of New Testament manuscripts and perhaps it should.

Edwin C. (Ted) Brock

I just received new that Edwin C. (Ted) Brock passed away yesterday. This comes as something of a shock since I just saw Ted last month in Florence. I have known Ted for a number of years. He was very knowledgeable and very kind. My condolences to his wife, Lyla. I will miss him.

A Brief History of Religious Studies

This brief history of Religious Studies comes from George Marsden, who previously had written a history of how the American university system had gone from Protestant establishment to establish non-belief:

The rise of religion departments in many universities during the mid-twentieth century originally had as part of its rationale the promotions of . . . broadly Christian or Judeo-Christian ideals. Religion could be viewed as a special field of scientific study, but also as a source of inspiration going beyond science. Usually the religion taught was broadly ecumenical and interfaith, allowing little room for more traditional versions of Protestantism, Catholicism, or Orthodox Judaism.

During the 1960s and the 1970s the field of religion continued to grow, but in order to establish its academic credibility, it was increasingly marked by an emphasis on the scientific study of religion and decreasingly seen as a haven in the universities, or even in mainstream church-related colleges, for religious perspectives. The leaders in the field of religious studies now more often presented it as analogous to the social sciences rather than to the uplifting humanities, such as literature. The transformation in religious studies since the early 1960s had some parallels in the field of literature. Literature was no longer regarded first of all as uplifting, as it had been in the 1950s, but rather became a field whose academic status was legitimated by technical methodologies, often evidenced by esoteric terminology. Segments of religious studies followed similar paths, transforming themselves into cultural study and the comparative studies of the history of religions.

The new religious studies raised the academic credibility of the field and brought fresh insights on many religious phenomena. From the point of view of our own inquiry, however, they must be seen as part of the wider trend of insistence that the only place for religion in the mainstream academy is as an object of study.

(George M. Marsden, The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 21-22.)

In Religious Studies, as in most of academia, you are supposed to check your religion at the door.

Does Anyone Actually Believe This?

Recently a government website launched making comparisons between the cost of going to various universities. Looking at their data, something does not pass the smell test. Here are a number of universities and the government claims about how much it costs to go to each school for a year (arranged highest to lowest):

Catholic University of America $34,086

Emory University $28,463

Duke University $28,058

University of Notre Dame $27,845

University of Chicago $25,335

Columbia University $22,672

Yale University $16,743

Stanford University $15,713

University of Utah $14,114

Harvard University $14,049

University of California-Berkeley $13,769

Brigham Young University $13,070

University of Wyoming $11,292

Utah Valley University $9,642

I do not believe these numbers. Who seriously thinks that it is cheaper to go to Harvard or UC Berkeley than the University of Utah? Emory, Harvard, and Yale have roughly comparable tuition (in the $45,000 range). Something very strange is going on here.

Arthur Brooks at BYU

The intelligent and thoughtful Arthur Brooks visited BYU on Tuesday and talked to the Wheatley Institute. Mostly he talked to the students. I took notes and was going to post something on it, but you can read a good summary here.

The Effect of Jewish Studies on Judaism

A friend of mine sent me a link to this older article where the inimitable Jacob Neusner, who taught Jewish Studies for years at a secular university, discusses how Jewish Studies has tended to undercut Judaism.

One very important point he makes in the essay is this:

When believing and practicing Jews decide who will teach what to whom, they take for granted that some things are more important than others. They affirm the cogency of the subject and know how things fit together. The Judaic system governs the things that are learned. To teachers and students, the classical texts convey truth. What follows? The Talmud is more important than a cookbook. The Jewish sponsors of Jewish learning derive the scale of values from the received canon and tradition.

Universities, by contrast, have no stake in according to Scripture or Midrash and Talmud a superior position in the curriculum. Learning in every topic and discipline defines its own priorities, and reason is not governed by revelation. So the curriculum is a mishmash of this and that — discrete details of a main point that does not register. Anything that is Jewish is as worthy of study as anything else that is Jewish. At my own college, the history of the bagel and the status of women in Jewish law have served equally well as topics of graduation essays.

Substitute "Mormon" for "Jewish" and "General Conference" for the "Talmud" and you probably have an apt description of Mormon Studies.

Neusner's point, of course, is one of the frustrating things about studying ancient Egyptian religion. Any inscription or text is taken as equally important with any other inscription or text. No system governs what is learned or studied and we do not know how things fit together. What is valuable and what is not? How are we to know? I have made the argument that the things that the Egyptians endlessly repeated to the point that modern scholars see them as "banal" are probably the most important things. Without an ancient Egyptian informant, that is an educated guess. One has to wonder if all the outpouring of writings of Egyptian religion is as valid as the outpouring of writings in Mormon Studies.

We're Number Two (or is it Number One?)

According to this article, BYU is the number two least expensive ranked private university in America. But according to this article, BYU has the least expensive ranked law school in America.

From the Mormon Odditoriurm

It is of no benefit in this world for men to preach such false doctrine. And now, every little while, I hear of some one of the Elders, who wishes to be considered smart, trying to teach something he knows nothing about. There is enough revealed to fill the whole earth as long as you live. Preach the truth as you understand it. Do not speculate on things you know nothing about, for it will benefit no one. (Wilford Woodruff, 6 April 1890)

A Mesopotamian Joke

Many jokes about ancient Mesopotamia flounder because either the person telling the joke or the audience does not know enough about Mesopotamia to pull it off (usually the former). Sometimes, however, it works: I thought this was funny.

The "Real" Reasons Youth Drop Out of Church?

I recently stumbled across this article by Ed Stetzer about why youth drop out of church. It came out about the same time as my own series of blog posts on the subject, but is from a Pentecostal perspective and uses a different set of research data. According to this source, for Pentecostals:

About 70 percent of young adults ages 18 to 22 stopped attending church regularly for at least one year.

Ouch.

And it should be noted that we found almost two-thirds of those who left in our Protestant study were back in church by the end of the study.

So they kept 30% of their youth and 70% went missing but almost two-thirds of those (which would be 46% of the original) come back. This would be something under 76%. The NSYR classifies Pentecostals with Conservative Protestants. According to the NSYR, Conservative Protestants retain about 64% of their youth through college. Perhaps Pentecostals have slightly better retention than Conservative Protestants; perhaps the NSYR caught more of their people before they returned.

The article also reported:

We also asked young adults why they dropped out of church. Of those who dropped out, about 97 percent stated it was because of life changes or situations.

This is partly in line with what the NSYR reported although it is broken down a bit differently.

Stetzer also reported a break-down of the reasons that youth gave for leaving:

• They simply wanted a break from church (27 percent).
• They had moved to college (25 percent).
• Their work made it impossible or difficult to attend (23 percent).

About 58 percent of young adults indicated they dropped out because of their church or pastor. When we probed further, they said:

• Church members seemed judgmental or hypocritical (26 percent).
• They didn't feel connected to the people at their church (20 percent).
• Church members were unfriendly and unwelcoming (15 percent).

Fifty-two percent indicated some sort of religious, ethical or political beliefs as the reason they dropped out. In other words, about 52 percent changed their Christian views. Maybe they didn't believe what the church taught, or they didn't believe what they perceived others in the church to believe.

Firsthand faith leads to life change and life-long commitment. More specifically, 18 percent disagreed with the church's stance on political or social issues, 17 percent said they were only going to church to please others anyway, and 16 percent said they no longer wanted to identify with church or organized religion.

One of the things to notice is that reasons overlapped. Respondents gave multiple reasons for dropping out. The Pentecostal study has different aims and categories of analysis than the NSYR. I would categorize the responses as falling into one of the following categories:

• A major change in their life broke their routine (48%)
• They were offended (58%)

Only a small percentage (18%) left for what might be categorized as intellectual issues, but the survey categorized them as political or social reasons. That strikes me as a more useful assessment. The survey apparently did not question whether sin or the desire to sin played a role in the decision to leave.

What we see again is that there are multiple reasons for leaving and that intellectual issues are not a very big reason for youth leaving.