Originally Posted by sschlichter

it does not seem strange to me that he would be referred to by both names since one is a given name and the other was a name later givien to him. I would not be surprised if the name assigned to him was used in conjunction with his post.

However, it appears to me that there is no confusion over which name was used in Gal 2:7, 8 and therefore no reason to make assumptions on what text should not be there.

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Why couldn't this speak to a uniformity of practice. there are certianly other indications that would lend themselves to this conclusion.

there is indication that this eclecticism did not typically occur during the first centuries of the church. the first christians were jews and did no such thing to their scriptures as Jews. Jewish christian scribes would have emulated Jewish scribal practices. There is evidence among earliest manuscripts that this is the case such as indications of uniformity of divine titles that is more complex than would be useful if not standardized. many of the early manuscripts contain aids, such as breathing marks indicating they were used for public reading in worship.

This is typically quite arbitrary based more on the thoughts and dispositions of the anlayst than anything else (as evidence in this thread). A mythicist will interpolate thusly, a HJer will bend it this way, a Christian that way. it is a plain waste of time.

No other ancient text has anywhere near the number of mss and short timespan relative to the event than nearly all the books of the NT. we have better copies today of the NT than Alexandrian textual 'critics' had for the Iliad. they would have foamed at the mouth to have what we have available to us. This is 2000 years later and nobody feels the need to start chopping the Iliad up based on eclectic reasoning and whyms of what it should have said.

it does not seem strange to me that he would be referred to by both names since one is a given name and the other was a name later givien to him. I would not be surprised if the name assigned to him was used in conjunction with his post.

However, it appears to me that there is no confusion over which name was used in Gal 2:7, 8 and therefore no reason to make assumptions on what text should not be there.

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Again, like many others on these questions, you confound evidence and proof.

Originally Posted by Chaucer

A discovered ms. of the 1st or early 2nd century that would contain disputed passages would be proof of the authenticity of such passages

Originally Posted by sschlichter

yes, is hacking out the entire paragraph arbitrarily the solution to that.

Originally Posted by sschlichter

this appears to be an appeal to an appeal to authority.

The idea that Jesus actually was god incarnate is patently absurd and rejected outright with no further justification required. So that leaves us with the task then of figuring out how Christianity really started. It's not an easy task, but the clues are there for those willing to analyze rather than just blindly believe of absurd ancient nonsense.

Originally Posted by spamandham

To a degree, yes, but not entirely. Appeals to authority are only without merit if they are vague and unsubstantiated.

Originally Posted by spamandham

Is there any particular reason we should *not* presume interpolation where it seems obvious?

Originally Posted by spin

Let me hold your hand.

1. In antiquity Peter and Cephas were not necessarily the same entity, as I have already told you, so your assumption that they would be interchangeable is nothing more than that. You are retrojecting the interchangeability back into Paul when you have no grounds for doing so. One has to justify why Paul would suddenly use the name Peter twice, while normally using Cephas if they were in fact the same person at the time of his writing. (According to gospel tradition, Peter's given name was Simon, so you seem terminally confused about his given name.)

2. Difficult readings always have more need for consideration. "Peter" is much more accessible than "Cephas" to anyone who has received the notion of Petrine authority, so one can understand a change from Cephas to Peter, but not vice versa. That Gal 2:7-8 shows no variation whatsoever is consistent with the preference for Peter in the tradition. However, no change in the Corinthians evidence from Cephas to Peter indicates that there was nothing to suggest the need for such a change. Turning to Galatians, all the early codices feature Cephas outside 2:7-8. The data in DCH's table shows confusion in later tradition, along with P46 which is an early papyrus. This confusion is apparently the result of 2:7-8 (where there is no confusion at all, reflecting Petrine ascendency). Scribe either deliberately as in the case of miniscules 06 & 012 or they do so incoherently as in P46.

The evidence suggests that 2:7-8 were introduced into Gal 2 causing confusion over the correct name to use. 1 Cor is our control.


spin

Originally Posted by sschlichter

everything made perfect sense until you started drawing conclusions on how to relieve the tension.

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Can we use the same logic to figure out the later interpolation in this case?

it is only a matter of context and formality that makes someone call JFK jack. There is no confusion among the original audience on who he is talking to. The names are used interchangably. I agree the names caused later confusion but that is no reason to cry interpolation. Paul is likely using the names in conjunction to the post he is referring to. Peter only appears to be used in conjunction with his apostleship. Cephas in other circumstances. perhaps less formally.

Originally Posted by spin

Alfred E. Newman rides again.

Aren't you even the teensiest bit embarrassed by such a limply weak-kneed analogy? Must you merely assert that the names are used interchangeable in Paul? And aren't you even the slightest bit puzzled by the fact that the Peter references in Gal 2:7-8 get no confusion whatsoever? How depressing.


spin