Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 09-13-2009, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

maybe it will help you understand if we redo the chart ignoring all the crap that was loaded into from the 9th century. let's just do the earliest samples.

Verse	GNT	TR	KHFAS	PETROS

1 COR 1:12	KHFA	KHFA	ALL
1 COR 3:22	KHFAS	KHFAS	ALL
1 COR 9:5	KHFAS	KHFAS	ALL
1 COR 15:5	KHFA	KHFA	ALL
GAL 1:18	KHFAN	PETRON	p46, 01, 02, 03
GAL 2:7	PETROS	PETROS		ALL
GAL 2:8	PETRW	PETRW		ALL
GAL 2:9	KHFAS	KHFAS	01, 03, 04	p46
GAL 2:11	KHFAS	PETROS	01, 02, 03, 04	p46
GAL 2:14	KHFA	PETRW	p46, 01, 02, 03, 04

Now, isn't that better. There is just one discrepancy in p46 on gal 2:9 and 11 on the name in 500 years or so. All the others are in agreement on all other passages. Interpolations occurred in later scribal practices, not earlier. I thought you were supposed to be good at sniffing out self serving sources. The first Pope getting stuffed by Paul is certainly the right conditions for self serving alterations on the part of some, wouldn't you say? but they could hardly change the name in Gal 2:7-8 with reference to his being an apostle.

Someone else gives you a selection and you assume that's all there is.

Put 06 (Bezae) back. And check the other materials, before you rush into such errors.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

No reason to be confused.

When you jimmy the results you can make them comforting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

fortunately, we have a very early example in p46 and do not need to count on those scribes from 700 years later.

So, with no evidence of interpolation

I don't know why you hide you light under a drift of sand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

it is difficult for me to see Paul as the 'starter' when he (among the other reasons ) says

(Gal 2:7) On the contrary,

not only did they not add any restrictions to the good news of justification by faith alone, but...

when they saw that I was entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised just as Peter was to the circumcised (Gal 2:8)

they saw that he was entrusted with THE gospel, just as Peter was...

(for he who empowered Peter for his apostleship to the circumcised also empowered me for my apostleship to the Gentiles)

same gospel, same he, peter first, then Paul. hence, Paul is not the starter.

~Steve

spin

spamandham · 09-14-2009, 04:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

I start with the assumption that they are the work of multiple authors over time.

of course, assumptions are not really a good place to start in any type of analysis.

...unless they have a basis of course. Then it makes perfect sense to start with them. Baseless assumptions are the ones we want to avoid.

angelo · 09-14-2009, 04:15 AM

To get back to the subject question: Why do atheists ask for evidence outside of the babble, or gospels? Because there's precious little inside the gospels!

sschlichter · 09-14-2009, 04:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

of course, assumptions are not really a good place to start in any type of analysis.

...unless they have a basis of course. Then it makes perfect sense to start with them. Baseless assumptions are the ones we want to avoid.

what is the basis for this assumption?

spamandham · 09-14-2009, 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

...unless they have a basis of course. Then it makes perfect sense to start with them. Baseless assumptions are the ones we want to avoid.

what is the basis for this assumption?

The proliferation of pseudepigraphical Christian material in the late 2nd century, combined with modern assessments that ~half the works previously attributed to Paul were also pseudepigrapha, suggest as much. There is no reason to assume the texts have been dutifully transmitted to us, and every reason to assume the opposite.

Is there any basis for making an assumption of complete authenticity?

sschlichter · 09-14-2009, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

what is the basis for this assumption?

The proliferation of pseudepigraphical Christian material in the late 2nd century, combined with modern assessments that ~half the works previously attributed to Paul were also pseudepigrapha, suggest as much. There is no reason to assume the texts have been dutifully transmitted to us, and every reason to assume the opposite.

Is there any basis for making an assumption of complete authenticity?

P46 should be dated long before your assumption.

spin · 09-14-2009, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

The proliferation of pseudepigraphical Christian material in the late 2nd century, combined with modern assessments that ~half the works previously attributed to Paul were also pseudepigrapha, suggest as much. There is no reason to assume the texts have been dutifully transmitted to us, and every reason to assume the opposite.

Is there any basis for making an assumption of complete authenticity?

P46 should be dated long before your assumption.

As you hadn't noticed, P46 doesn't help you. You faked your results.

spin

sschlichter · 09-14-2009, 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

P46 should be dated long before your assumption.

As you hadn't noticed, P46 doesn't help you. You faked your results.

spin

that is not true. I limited to sampling so that it is relevant. finding interpolations in the 7th century, is not relevant.

just as assumptions on the proliferation of anything in the late 2nd century has no bearing on p46.

spin · 09-14-2009, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

As you hadn't noticed, P46 doesn't help you. You faked your results.

spin

that is not true. I limited to sampling so that it is relevant. finding interpolations in the 7th century, is not relevant.

just as assumptions on the proliferation of anything in the late 2nd century has no bearing on p46.

P46 is an Alexandrian type text, yet it doesn't agree with any of the other Alexandrian exemplars on Gal 2:9 and 2:11. It is the odd text out, indicating confusion.

Your trying to get buoyancy from an ambivalent text. You obviously don't know the evidence and refuse to deal with it. You're on your way down. Faking evidence won't help you. Put 06 back: it isn't part of the Alexandrian tradition. And you still haven't looked at the other sources. For example, the entire Latin tradition supports Peter in 1:18.

spin

spamandham · 09-14-2009, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

The proliferation of pseudepigraphical Christian material in the late 2nd century, combined with modern assessments that ~half the works previously attributed to Paul were also pseudepigrapha, suggest as much. There is no reason to assume the texts have been dutifully transmitted to us, and every reason to assume the opposite.

Is there any basis for making an assumption of complete authenticity?

P46 should be dated long before your assumption.

I don't see how. It's generally dated to the late 2nd century on the early end, which would put it smack in the middle of that period's pseudepigrapha cottage industry. It would need to be dated substantially earlier than this period of rampant shenanigans before my starting assumption would be impacted.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-14-2009, 04:15 AM	#583
angelo Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 5,706	To get back to the subject question: Why do atheists ask for evidence outside of the babble, or gospels? Because there's precious little inside the gospels!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.