Haran

P.S. - The church father known as Epiphanius supposedly mentions many of the omissions made by Marcion. Does he mention this passage as an omission? I do not have time at the moment to look it up.

Bede

Haran, thanks.

Great post.

B

Yuri Kuchinsky

• Haran,
  
  There's no need to speculate.
  
  We simply need some more information about these refs to Marcion, Irenaeus, and Tertullian omitting this passage. Peter Kirby can probably provide this later. AFAIAC, this patristic evidence may well be reliable.
  
  
  Quote:

  2. The Coptic-Bohairic version, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Chrysostom, Ambrosiaster, Augustine, and uncial 075 omit the word PALIN when quoting Gal 2:1, which (taken together with the absence of the preceding passage in the second century) suggests that it was added after the Gal 1:18-24 passage was inserted. {Haran} The evidence for the omission of 'palin' here is somewhat misleading. There is only one witness in this list considered by textual critics as primary evidence. Aside from this uncial MS 075 (a 10th century MS which omits the 'palin' but still contains Gal. 1:18-24), the only evidence for the omition of the 'palin' is considered by textual critics to be secondary (versional) and tertiary (church fathers) evidence.

  This is not correct. Both versional evidence and the evidence from the church fathers are primary evidence.
  
  
  Quote:

  Of the secondary evidence, one Vulgate MS out of the entire Vulgate tradition omits the 'palin'. Only the Coptic-Bohairic does not have the 'palin', the other Coptic versions (i.e. Sahidic, etc.) do seem to have it. Only a part of the Georgian version omits the 'palin', and the other has it.

  What you're saying is based on a misunderstanding. This isn't how Textual Criticism works. One of the basic rules of TC is that the numbers of MSS make no difference for determining which text is authentic. Very often, one ancient MS can outweigh a 1000 late MSS -- if it is determined that these 1000 MSS, in their own turn, all derived from a defective MS.
  
  
  Quote:

  The rest of the evidence is from the church fathers, considered by textual critics to be tertiary evidence because they often quote biblical verses from memory and/or paraphrase them.

  No, this isn't correct. In fact, the testimony of the fathers is of primary value in determining the state of the text as it was used in their time and location.
  
  
  Quote:

  Greek fathers: Only the latin manuscript of Irenaeus omits the 'palin'. Irenaeus was a Greek church father (in fact, he quotes the 'palin' in the source used by the CCEL website). Chrysostom is from a lemma (i.e. NT text preceding commentary), and according to the footnote 12 on p. 37 of the UBS4th, "citations from the commentary part are frequently more faithful than the lemma". Latin fathers: Tertullian was addressing Marcion's work. Both Ambrosiaster and Augustine are split! They each have a reading without the 'palin' and a reading with the 'palin'. Therefore, their inclusion in this list was somewhat misleading. Were they addressing Marcion in the one place they omitted the 'palin'? Can anyone find a book/chapter reference for these quotes in these fathers works? [/COLOR]

  All this is beside the point. Yes, Greek text of Irenaeus may be different from his Latin text, and some patristic testimony may well be split. But what you need to explain is not why some of these patristic citations happen to agree with the canonical text, but why some of them happen to _disagree_ with the canonical text -- and in such a way that these divergent citations agree with each other.
  
  So why do they agree with each other against the canonical text? The most economical explanation is that they depend on the pre-canonical text!
  
  
  Quote:

  3. Not only is there the textual evidence cited in the previous two points, but the desire to portray Peter&James as in harmony with Paul and to imagine Paul not to be as independent of human authority as he says he is earlier in Galatians is a clear motive for insertion. {Haran} I believe the Motive here is slight compared to Marcion's. Marcion rejected the apostles in favor of Paul and his teachings. The only gospel Marcion accepted was the gospel of Luke, probably because he believed Luke to have been a disciple of Paul.

  
  
  Sorry, but this makes no sense. Because Marcion didn't title his gospel as "Luke"! So why didn't he?
  
  
  Quote:

  According to Irenaeus and Tertullian (among other church fathers such as Epiphanius), Marcion omitted large parts of Luke and Paul's letters. In fact, the whole 5th book of Tertullian's 5 book series, Adversus Marcionem - Against Marcion, addresses Marcion's omissions from the various letters of Paul which Marcion decided to include in his canon. Galations was important to Marcion and was considered the basis of his rejection of the apostles teachings in favor of Paul's. It seems highly probable that, if Galations 1:18-24 was ever missing at all, Marcion would be the most likely culprit. With so many omissions to his name, this one would fit right in with the rest. The fact that he would have been eliminating a reference to Paul visiting with the apostles Peter and James speaks volumes.

But please keep in mind the possibility that Marcion was using the shorter text simply because the original text _was_ shorter.

Quote:

Where is the evidence that leads us to assume that Galations 1:18-24 was ever even missing?

Yes, this still needs to be clarified further.

Quote:

For that matter, why do major, modern textual critics not mention this? Why, of all scholars, would Dr. Bart Ehrman not mention this in his "Orthodox Corruption"?

Because they are dishonest? Because they are just crypto-apologists masquerading as "objective scholars"?

Quote:

Perhaps these are questions best asked on the TC-List?

Good Luck! I did ask quite a few questions on TC-List in my own time... didn't get many answers, though. And then they banned me, using a transparently contrived excuse. These people have no shame.

Yours,

Yuri.

Haran

I think 'correct', here, is a matter of opinion, considering that you find major, modern TC critics to be "crypto-apologists masquerading as 'objective scholars'.

One can certainly get the impression that versional evidence is considered secondary and evidence from the church fathers is considered tertiary from the TC intros of the Alands, Metzger, and others.

At the very least, one can pull many statements of caution and warning from books on TC against the use of versions and church fathers, and for good reason - i.e. versions are translations and church fathers may have been quoting from memory or paraphrasing.

I think you've misunderstood me. I am not arguing from a majority of MSS perspective, I'm simply trying to show that these witnesses are split (many times in quite a lop-sided way in favor of the inclusion of 'palin').

Again, I differ with you and think 'correct' is a matter of opinion. I think that the church fathers are valuable for sure, but not extremely useful in determining what the original wording might have been.

Let's make clear that we are only talking about the absense of 'palin' here, not Gal. 1:18-24 (for which there is no evidence of omission). The fact that even the meager witnesses to the omission of the word are split seems to indicate an accidental scribal omission - and in fact, this is what Dr. Metzger calls it in his Textual Commentary on the GNT. In light of the fact that Irenaeus is split with his native language attesting to the 'palin', we really only have Tertullian's omission to account for and that could easily have been an accident. What else is there to account for that is not split or questionable?

This is not really the point. The point was to show that Marcion, according to Irenaeus, Tertullian, and other church fathers severely hacked up Luke and the letters of Paul (with emphasis on the letters of Paul for which Marcion mostly did keep their original titles).

Regardless, why does it not make sense? He supposedly grew up within Christian tradition. He knew enough to reject the apostles and accept Luke (who by tradition was Paul's disciple). This is the explanation given by many. Do you disagree with all scholars?

I'll keep it in mind, but I think the probability of it is very low.

Even Ehrman!?!? I like you Yuri, and I do think you've got some interesting ideas that scholars should pursue, but I find this extremely cynical view untenable.

Ehrman's book was addressing the very sort of issues that Peter has brought up. You have read his work, right? I would have thought he'd mention it in that work if it was worth consideration, because it fits the whole purpose of his book.

I'm sorry you feel you were treated unfairly, Yuri, but I just do not agree that these scholars are so biased and "shameless".

The reason I thought it would be a good idea to bring it up on the TC list, is because there might be a reason that Dr. Ehrman did not mention this in his book. Since Dr. Erhman frequents the list, it would be interesting to get his input on the topic.

Peter Kirby

First things first. What is the evidence that any ancient person's copy of Galatians ever lacked the passage on the first visit of Paul to Jerusalem after three years? Regardless of what you make if it, there is some evidence found in the way Tertullian treats the historical material in the epistle of Paul to the Galatians, in three separate passages.

McGuire says: "Tertullian, in his Prescription against Heretics, even alludes
to Paul's having gone to Jerusalem to meet Peter but it soon becomes apparent
that the author is simply reading his own interest in Peter into the account
of the meeting with Peter, James and John. Treating Acts ix, 26f as the
account of Paul's first visit to Jerusalem, he seems to apply both Gal. ii,
1-10 and an account similar to i, 18f to the second visit."

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf03-24.htm
Chapter 23
Afterwards, as he himself narrates, he "went up to Jerusalem for the purpose
of seeing Peter,"247 because of his office, no doubt,248 and by right of a
common belief and preaching. Now they certainly would not have been surprised
at his having become a preacher instead of a persecutor, if his preaching
were of something contrary; nor, moreover, would they have "glorified the
Lord,"249 because Paul had presented himself as an adversary to Him They
accordingly even gave him "the right hand of fellowship,"250 as a sign of
their agreement with him, and arranged amongst themselves a distribution of
office, not a diversity of gospel, so that they should severally preach not a
different gospel, but (the same), to different persons,251 Peter to the
circumcision, Paul to the Gentiles. Forasmuch, then, as Peter was rebuked
because, after he had lived with the Gentiles, he proceeded to separate
himself from their company out of respect for persons, the fault surely was
one of conversation, not of preaching.252

McGuire says: "Moreover, in this instance Tertullian is writing primarily for
orthodox consumption; in his early 3rd century anti-Marcionite treatise,
where he must meet hostile readers on their own ground, he refers to Paul as
going up (not 'up again') to Jerusalem after fourteen years 'so great had
been his desire to be approved and supported by those whom you [Marcion] wish
on all occasions to be understood as in alliance with Judaism!' Obviously
Marcion's text of Galatians did not include the account of a previous visit
'after three years' and Tertullian, if indeed he had ever seen such a
reading, was not inclined to take it seriously."

http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf0...#P7223_2090790
But with regard to the countenance77 of Peter and the rest of the apostles, he
tells us78 that "fourteen years after he went up to Jerusalem," in order to
confer with them79 about the rule which he followed in his gospel, lest
perchance he should all those years have been running, and be running still,
in vain, (which would be the case, ) of course, if his preaching of the
gospel fell short of their method.80 So great had been his desire to be
approved and supported by those whom you wish on all occasions81 to be
understood as in alliance with Judaism! When indeed he says, that "neither
was Titus circumcised,"82 he for the first time shows us that circumcision
was the only question connected with the maintenance83 of the law, which had
been as yet agitated by those whom he therefore calls "false brethren
unawares brought in."84 These persons went no further than to insist on a
continuance of the law, retaining unquestionably a sincere belief in the
Creator. They perverted the gospel in their teaching, not indeed by such a
tampering with the Scripture85 as should enable them to expunge86 the
Creator's Christ, but by so retaining the ancient régime as not to exclude
the Creator's law. ...

Finally, there is a stunning passage in Book IV that McGuire doesn't mention.

There would be still wanted that Gospel which St. Paul found in existence, to
which he yielded his belief, and with which he so earnestly wished his own to
agree, that he actually on that account went up to Jerusalem to know and
consult the apostles, "lest he should run, or had been running in vain; "63
in other words, that the faith which he had learned, and the gospel which he
was preaching, might be in accordance with theirs. Then, at last, having
conferred with the (primitive) authors, and having agreed with them touching
the rule of faith, they joined their hands in fellowship, and divided their
labours thenceforth in the office of preaching the gospel, so that they were
to go to the Jews, and St. Paul to the Jews and the Gentiles. Inasmuch,
therefore, as the enlightener of St. Luke himself desired the authority of
his predecessors for both his own faith and preaching, how much more may not
I require for Luke's Gospel that which was necessary for the Gospel of his
master.64

If Tertullian wants to show that Paul sought the approval of the Jerusalem
apostles and conferred with them on doctrine, how can he consistently ignore
the trip in Gal 1:18-24 and refer only to that which happened after 14 years?

The most plausible answer, on the evidence of what Tertullian says and fails to say, is that Tertullian knew of a text of Galatians without the first visit by Paul to Jerusalem after three years.

But does this mean that the passage is inauthentic?

No, that's not proven. There is motive for its insertion, but there's also motive for its removal, as I noted in the original post.

But there are some ways in which the hypothesis of inauthenticity for this passage could come out bankrupt. I invite anyone reading this to comment on these considerations.

Epiphanius, like Tertullian, wrote a work against Marcion. If Epiphanius says that Marcion's text of Galatians had the first visit passage, then we had better go back and try to figure out where we went wrong in interpreting Tertullian. Perhaps we can bother the scholars on some academic list about the statements of Epiphanius on Marcion's text here.

Another thing to bother some text crit wizzes about is the exact locations of the references to Gal 2:1 in Ambrosiaster, Chrysostom, and Augustine. The inauthenticity of the palin is critical to the inauthenticity of Gal 1:18-24. If we could show that the reading with the palin is superior, we would have established the authenticity of the first visit passage. Metzger alleges that the omissions are "either accidental or the result of scribal uncertainty concerning its precise significance in the context" (A Textual Commentary, p. 391). Bede explains why a paraphrastic quotation of Galatians by a church father would likely omit the 'again' word, as it would make less sense outside of the context (where, in Galatians, the first visit would have been narrated, while the first visit isn't narrated by the church father). The plausibility of the accidental or paraphrastic explanation of the patristic references is supported by the split witnesses of Ambrosiaster and Augustine, mentioned by Haran, which suggests that a patristic writer could have omitted the word "again" in an allusion even if his manuscript had the word.

Haran states that the uncial 075, the only extant Greek manuscript that supports the omission of the palin, is "a 10th century MS which omits the 'palin' but still contains Gal. 1:18-24." Of course, ex hypothesi, the palin would have been added after the interpolation of the first visit passage, so we should expect to find manuscripts without the palin but with the preceding passage. The problem that we may run up against is this: if the entire passage and the word "again" were missing as late as the time of Tertullian, why would no extant manuscripts lack the passage and only one tenth century manuscript lack the "again"?

In considering this question, it would be helpful to review the manuscript evidence for Galatians, which is summarized (probably omitting many later manuscripts) here:

http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/tc/galmss.htm

The person who told Vinnie that "P46 and P75 are the oldest extant copies of the Pauline corpus" is mistaken. See Willker's page for the fact that P75 contains portions of Luke and John. P46, of course, is the famous codex of Pauline letters, which contains the entire passage in question and the "again." Based on Carlson and Metzger, it appears that the only other papyrus that attests to Galatians is one dated c. 400 with the siglum p51. It also happens to be P. Oxy 2157 and encompasses Gal. 1:2-10, 13, 16-20. Given that it is such a short manuscript, is anyone able to provide the full Greek transcription? That might be interesting.

The above are all external considerations. Are there any internal indications of authenticity or interpolation?

To try to answer that question, I turned to whatever commentaries I could get ahold of at the university. Here are some quotations.

Burton writes: "The phrase 'after three years' is argumentative in purpose, not merely chronological. The mention of the period subsequent to his conversion during which he voluntarily abstained from contact with the apostles at Jerusalem." (A critical and exegetical commentary on the epistle to the Galatians, p. 59)

Burton writes: "Its use here [the oath] shows clearly that the facts just stated are given not simply for their historical value, but as evidence of what he has before asserted, his independence of the Twelve. [font face="Symbol"]a grafw[/font] doubtless refers to all that precedes, from v. 13 (or v. 15) on. Even so one cannot but wonder why Paul should use such very strong language unless he had been charged with misstating the facts about his visits to the other apostles." (ibid., p. 61)

Lightfoot writes: "The strength of St Paul's language is to be explained by the unscrupulous calumnies cast upon him by his enemies. See the note 1 Thess 2:7." (St. Paul's epistle to the Galatians, p. 85)

Duncan writes: "Paul knows he must be careful in his statement of his Jerusalem visits, beacuse his detractors appealed to them as proof of his subjection to the Jerusalem 'authorities' (cf. ii. 6); hence he is at pains to point out that this journey was made only after an interval of some years, and that it arose from a simple and natural desire to make the acquaintance of Cephas (i.e., Peter). Paul here purposely employs a word which is frequently used of travellers paying visits: he went to visit Peter, not to receive instruction from him. Further, the visit lasted only a fortnight; and during it he saw, besides Peter, no other apostle, except only James the brother of the Lord. His opponents, he knows, had published a very different version of this visit, hence he adds that what he writes is the sheer truth, and he confirms this statement by a solemn oath." (The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians, p. 31)

Neil writes: "Paul stresses the fact, however, that this was purely a private visit and not that of a second-rate apostle trying to get himself upgraded. He therefore insists that he met none of the rest of the Twelve at that time. In other words, if he is now being accused by the fanatical Judaizers who are upsetting the congregations in Galatia of perverting the gospel which he had been authorized to preach by the Twelve, he is making it quite plain that he never received any such commission from them. He never even saw them on the one occasion which would have been the obvious time for this to have happened." (The letter of Paul to the Galatians, p. 30)

I started out thinking that the passage is suspicious because the author swears an oath, while the event is merely an "incidental and nondescript fortnight in Jerusalem" if it were written by Paul. It now becomes apparent, however, that if Paul wrote the passage, Paul was working with the facts—i.e., that Paul went to Jerusalem after three years—and trying to deflect criticism on the grounds that Paul received a commission from the earlier apostles, doing this by saying that he met only Peter and James and only for the purpose of a short visit. Now, how should I understand the passage if it were interpolated by an anti-Marcionite? Well, why would an anti-Marcionite emphasize that the visit was short, uneventful, and only to two persons...and then swear an oath that this account and nothing more is the case? This sounds like the person writing is trying to protect the autonomy of Paul. On the other hand, if a Marcionite received the letter without such a passage, there would be no thought of making an interpolation to this effect. Thus, we have a cogent argument, based on internal considerations, for thinking Paul wrote the passage.

I entered this discussion with a great amount of suspicion, but some of those suspicions turned out to be unfounded. While I could be swayed again by further argumentation, it now seems to me at the moment that one is not justified in believing this particular passage to be interpolated.

best,
Peter Kirby

Yuri Kuchinsky

Well, Haran, if you wish, everything can be considered as a matter of opinion, but I don't see how is this going to advance the discussion of this passage.

If you read the works of the Alexandrian drones (i.e. those TC scholars who accept Alexandrian priority uncritically), they usually go out of their way to poo-poo versional and patristic evidence. And they, of course, have a vested interest in so doing, since versional and patristic evidence pretty well nullifies Alexandrian priority.

But if you read the other scholars, i.e. those who favour Western text, for them, versional and patristic evidence is centre stage, since it clearly supports Western priority.

So I guess these things simply depend of where you start, or, in other words, on your basic presuppositions.

Quote:

I think you've misunderstood me. I am not arguing from a majority of MSS perspective, I'm simply trying to show that these witnesses are split (many times in quite a lop-sided way in favor of the inclusion of 'palin').

And now you're just making the same mistake, since you use the words "lop-sided". "Lop-sidedness" is irrelevant here, as I've tried to explain already.

Quote:

Again, I differ with you and think 'correct' is a matter of opinion. I think that the church fathers are valuable for sure, but not extremely useful in determining what the original wording might have been.

You're just repeating these Alexandrian mantras, but in fact they are value-laden to the max.

Quote:

Let's make clear that we are only talking about the absense of 'palin' here, not Gal. 1:18-24 (for which there is no evidence of omission).

I beg to disagree.

Quote:

The fact that even the meager witnesses to the omission of the word [palin] are split seems to indicate an accidental scribal omission

But to me it indicates something else...

Quote:

- and in fact, this is what Dr. Metzger calls it in his Textual Commentary on the GNT. In light of the fact that Irenaeus is split with his native language attesting to the 'palin', we really only have Tertullian's omission to account for

This is incorrect.

Quote:

and that could easily have been an accident. What else is there to account for that is not split or questionable?

There are also other witnesses.

And also, the fact that "Irenaeus' native language" attests 'palin' is irrelevant. In general, I consider the Latin textual witnesses more faithful than the Greek, because IMO there was less censorship with Latin texts. Since the Latin Irenaeus lacks /palin/ in this passage, to me this is very important witness.

Quote:

This is not really the point. The point was to show that Marcion, according to Irenaeus, Tertullian, and other church fathers severely hacked up Luke and the letters of Paul (with emphasis on the letters of Paul for which Marcion mostly did keep their original titles). Regardless, why does it not make sense? He supposedly grew up within Christian tradition. He knew enough to reject the apostles and accept Luke (who by tradition was Paul's disciple). This is the explanation given by many. Do you disagree with all scholars?

Marcion didn't title his gospel as "Luke". Therefore any appeal to the apostolic authority of Luke becomes moot, in so far as Marcion is concerned. Contrary to what you said.

Quote:

{Yuri} But please keep in mind the possibility that Marcion was using the shorter text simply because the original text _was_ shorter. {Haran} I'll keep it in mind, but I think the probability of it is very low.

Not in my books.

Quote:

Even Ehrman!?!?

Yes, even Ehrman. Although, personally, I wouldn't describe him as out and out dishonest -- more like genuinely confused. But this would still make him a crypto-apologist...

Quote:

I like you Yuri, and I do think you've got some interesting ideas that scholars should pursue, but I find this extremely cynical view untenable.

No, not "cynical". Try the word honest.

Quote:

Ehrman's book was addressing the very sort of issues that Peter has brought up.

Not really. What Peter has brought up is a lot more serious business, compared to what Ehrman's book addresses.

Quote:

You have read his work, right? I would have thought he'd mention it in that work if it was worth consideration, because it fits the whole purpose of his book.

Yes, I've read his book. And, still, I consider what you say as quite naive. The question of Pauline authenticity is a veritable minefield for any establishment scholar. 99% of biblical scholars today avoid this issue like the plague. Thus, you're giving Ehrman too much credit that he would want to step into this minefield.

Quote:

I'm sorry you feel you were treated unfairly, Yuri, but I just do not agree that these scholars are so biased and "shameless".

A matter of opinion...

Quote:

The reason I thought it would be a good idea to bring it up on the TC list, is because there might be a reason that Dr. Ehrman did not mention this in his book. Since Dr. Erhman frequents the list, it would be interesting to get his input on the topic.

I already gave you a reason why he would not mention this in his book. By all means, you can try to bring this up on TC-List, but I don't expect that you'd get much mileage out of it there.

Yours,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Peter,

Thanks for all this work that you've done in analysing these two passages in Gal. What you've done can be considered as a good start in addressing these related problems, although the full treatment would have to take in a lot more factors.

Yes, I agree with that.

Quote:

But does this mean that the passage is inauthentic? No, that's not proven.

But neither is the opposite proven!

You see, who has the burden of proof is really the key to this whole area -- to the question of Pauline authenticity.

Generally speaking, when some document, such as a letter or a will, is being presented in the course of some legal proceedings, the first step is always document authentication.

And it should be exactly the same thing in any serious historical investigation. It is the job of those who are introducing any historical document for consideration to verify that it is authentic.

So where's the proof that the "7 authentic epistles by Paul", that everyone thinks are authentic, are really authentic? It is our biblical establishment that has the burden of proof here -- not the other way around! And this burden hasn't been met.

All too often, the establishment apologists want to tilt this field so that the sceptics might appear as some sort of weirdos because they are simply asking the basic question, Where's the proof of authenticity?

One cannot just _assume_ that "the 7 sacred epistles" are authentic, because this would be pseudo-science... And since our modern Pauline studies completely ignore this issue, this simply means that it's pseudo-scientific.

You see, the problem with our NT academic establishment is that they still haven't evolved to the fully scientific level. And the way they approach Pauline literature is especially the case in point. Because I've never yet seen this elementary first step, document authentication, being applied to any of those "7 authentic letters" that Paul was supposed to have written.

You will not find this in any standard treatment of the Pauline letters. Thus, the whole field is pseudo-scientific. So it's not the sceptics who are being weird in this case. It's the establishment.

Quote:

[snip] I entered this discussion with a great amount of suspicion, but some of those suspicions turned out to be unfounded.

Well, I'm not so sure about this, Peter. I think you suspicions were very well founded.

Quote:

While I could be swayed again by further argumentation, it now seems to me at the moment that one is not justified in believing this particular passage to be interpolated. best, Peter Kirby

I snipped most of your detailed analysis simply because I believe that the way the discussion has been structured so far has been unsatisfactory. If you consider that the critic "must prove" the interpolations, then, whether we like it or not, it seems like the dissident has already lost the battle.

The establishment simply circles the wagons, and then it's you, all alone, against the thousand self-satisfied drones, who simply sit there, waving their credentials, their appeals to authority, and a bunch of other red herrings in lieu of arguments... "If all those Wise Authorities pronounced the 'Sacred 7' as authentic, how could they be wrong?"

So this is why I, personally, decided against pursuing Pauline authenticity matters some years ago. AFAIAC, the whole thing is a hoax.

Even with the best of intentions, these questions are extremely complex. In order to give justice to this whole problem, an open mind is essential in an investigator. And when I found that open minds among Pauline scholars are nowhere in sight, I just gave it up.

The only way I would start dealing with this stuff again is when some establishment authority will finally begin doing his or her job, and present some valid arguments why these 'Sacred 7' should be seen as authentic. I'm still waiting...

All the best,

Yuri.

Haran

Peter requested a transcription of p51. Here is my reconstruction using Swanson's GNT:

(2) ... .mo. pante.. ... siaiV thV ...
(3) ... .min kai eir(h).. ... .u hmwn iu c.
(4) ... ...n uper twn ... ...n, opwV ex...... ... aiwnoV to. ... ....rou kat. ... kai prV hmwn
(5) ... eiV tous .iw... ... amhn.
(6) ......w oti outwV t..... ......esqe apo tou ka........ .n cariti cru e.. ... .u...elion,
(7) o ouk esti. ... ... m. .ineV eisin oi t.......... .m.. kai qelonteV m.......y.. .o euaggelion t. ...
(8) ... .meiV h aggel.. ... ...n euaggelize... .......isameqa um.. ...
(9) wV proeirhk.... ... ..in legw ei t.. ... ........etai par o el.... ... estw.
(10) Arti g.. .............
-----------
(13) ...................... ......ian .ou .u k.. ........
-----------
(16) ......uy.i t.n u.... ... .na euaggel..... ... toiV eqnes.. ....wV ou prosaneqemhn ... ..i aimati
(17) oude aphlqon eiV .........a proV touV pro e... .......ouV, alla aphlqon ... kai palin upestr... ...kon.
(18) Epita meta ... ..hl.on eiV Ier....... ....rhsai Khfan ... proV auton hm.... ...
(19) twn aposto... ..k eidon .udena ei mh Iak.... ... adelfon tou ku.

Hope that worked in 'symbol' font. I wouldn't pay much attention to the spacing (periods) because I wasn't real accurate. I was mainly trying to represent the letters that were there. Following along in a GNT should allow you to see approximately what text was there with this transcription, though. It is apparently pretty fragmentary. I haven't seen an actual picture of it. I was hoping they had one on the Oxyrhynchus website, but they didn't.

{Edited to say: I thought I'd seen this done before, but I can't get the 'Symbol' font to work. Sorry. At least you can still sort of read the transcription, but it looks a lot better in Greek letters.}

Bede

Haran,

I trust you mean p51 and not Yuri's favorite, p 52.

B

Haran

Well, I paid a visit to the library the other day and found Epiphanius' work. Apparently his work was found among the Nag Hammadi scrolls, though I'd suspect it was known from others finds before this. It looks like a very interesting read. He was a heresiologist and covered nearly every sect imaginable.

The work is known as:
The Panarion (i.e. "Medicine Chest") of Epiphanius of Salamis (in Cyprus) ~375 AD
- Translated by Frank Williams
(Vol. 35 of the Nag Hammadi Studies series - Editor: James M. Robinson)


For those who can find the work and would like to look at it closer, we are interested in Book 1, Section 3, Christian Sect #42, titled "Against Marcionites".

Unfortunately, I have not had the time to really analyze it yet, but from a cursory reading, I could not find any reference to the verses in question (i.e. Gal. 1:18-24 or 2:1).

Epiphanius seems to have had a copy of Marcion's gospel in front of him and seems to say that he is trying to refute Marcion from what he still retains. I imagine that Tertullian and Irenaeus did the same, which may be the reason we do not have verses 1:18-24 mentioned. It would not have done any good to argue with Marcion about verses that he had thrown out...

Anyway, here are some selected quotes from his work:

I would suggest reading the work in its entirety if possible.