Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sschlichter · 09-14-2009, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

look closer. you skipped one of the authorites on the page (Kim) who dates it as early as 80 and you misrepresented Comfort who dates it between 85-150 for good reason.

I listed those most in line with the consensus that I referred to. There are outliers on both the low and high end, to include Kim's low end ~80 CE date and Griffin's high end date of 255.

Are you trying to argue that the consensus is *not* what I stated it to be?

by the way, you cannot take the average of dissenting opinions and call it consensus.

DCHindley · 09-14-2009, 02:12 PM

Well, let's cut through the crap and see what the dates of these mss REALLY are:

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	06, 012, 018, 020
GAL 2:7	PETROS	PETROS		ALL
GAL 2:8	PETRW	PETRW		ALL
GAL 2:9	KHFAS	KHFAS	01, 03, 04, 018, 020	p46, 06, 012
GAL 2:11	KHFAS	PETROS	01, 02, 03, 04, 015	p46, 06, 012, 018, 020
GAL 2:14	KHFA	PETRW	p46, 01, 02, 03, 04, 015	06, 012, 018, 020

The dates of those mss are:

p46 (c. AD 81-96 [Kim]/c. AD 150 [Comfort]/c. AD 200 [Aland])
p66 (c. AD 90-110[Hunger]/c. AD 150 [Comfort]/c. AD200 [Aland])
p75 (c. AD 175-225 [Martin/Kasser]/c. AD 275-300 [Comfort]/III [Aland])
p106 (c. AD 200-250 [Comfort])
01 = Aleph (Sinaiticus, IV)
02 = A (Alexandrinus, V)
03 = B (Vaticanus, IV)
04 = C (Ephraemi Rescriptus, V)
06 = D (Claromontanus, VI)
012 = G (Boernerianus, IX)
015 = H (Euthalianus, VI)
018 = K (Moscow, IX)
020 = L (Rome, IX)

The mss up to the 8th century CE are in bold. The preponderance of early mss are still in the side of Cephas in all cases EXCEPT Gal 2:7-8. Folks can make their own decisions.

DCH

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.

No reason to be confused.

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

spin · 09-14-2009, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Explain why Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus and Vaticanus (ie 01, 02 & 03) do not support Peter anywhere except 2:7-8.

because Paul referred to Cephas except in 2:7-8

Umm, assuming your conclusion. Wise.

spin

spin · 09-14-2009, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Well, let's cut through the crap

Just a procedural issue: sschlichter isn't consulting the literature on the distribution of manuscripts on the issue. He is merely manipulating your data.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

and see what the dates of these mss REALLY are:

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	06, 012, 018, 020
GAL 2:7	PETROS	PETROS		ALL
GAL 2:8	PETRW	PETRW		ALL
GAL 2:9	KHFAS	KHFAS	01, 03, 04, 018, 020	p46, 06, 012
GAL 2:11	KHFAS	PETROS	01, 02, 03, 04, 015	p46, 06, 012, 018, 020
GAL 2:14	KHFA	PETRW	p46, 01, 02, 03, 04, 015	06, 012, 018, 020

Three interesting and important issues on 2:9 (James and Cephas/Peter and) --

A has only James ("iak."), ie no Cephas or Peter.
D^p has Peter and James ("pet. k. iak."), ie Cephas has been fronted.
P46 has James and Peter ("iak k. petros"), ie only James is abbreviated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

The dates of those mss are:

p46 (c. AD 81-96 [Kim]/c. AD 150 [Comfort]/c. AD 200 [Aland])
p66 (c. AD 90-110[Hunger]/c. AD 150 [Comfort]/c. AD200 [Aland])
p75 (c. AD 175-225 [Martin/Kasser]/c. AD 275-300 [Comfort]/III [Aland])
p106 (c. AD 200-250 [Comfort])
01 = Aleph (Sinaiticus, IV)
02 = A (Alexandrinus, V)
03 = B (Vaticanus, IV)
04 = C (Ephraemi Rescriptus, V)
06 = D (Claromontanus, VI)

I've been a little confused here. Driving NA27 is like trying to keep hold of a monster, but I thought D was Bezae. Now it seems that D is actually two manuscripts: 05 (D or more correctly now D^ea) is Bezae! 06 (D^p) is Claromontanus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

012 = G (Boernerianus, IX)
015 = H (Euthalianus, VI)
018 = K (Moscow, IX)
020 = L (Rome, IX)

The mss up to the 8th century CE are in bold. The preponderance of early mss are still in the side of Cephas in all cases EXCEPT Gal 2:7-8. Folks can make their own decisions.

Where's the Syriac and the Vulgate data? The Harklean tends to favor "Peter", though all extant Syriac tradition is for Cephas in 2:9.

spin

DCHindley · 09-14-2009, 06:19 PM

Maybe Steven worked for the GWBush government on the global warming issue.

The chart is not supposed to be exhaustive by any means. It is somewhere about 12 years old, and I probably used my old UBS 2 and that handy chart of mss it includes. I left the non-Greek translations and the quotations by the church fathers out of the equation to simplify it.

I guess you can designate the various mss that once were in the collection labeled D by the content (e = Gospels, a = Apostolikon or Acts + general Epistles, and p = Epistles of Paul).

There are three mss designated "D":

05 D Bezae Catabrigiensis (6th century) only has the Gospels (e) and Apostolikon (a), and is currently at Cambridge. This is also known as D^ea.

06 D Claromontanus (also 6th century) has only the epistles of Paul (p) and is currently in Paris. This apparently is D^p.

D^abs is a 9th century copy of Claromontanus and is sometimes called 06^abs. There may even be two mss, ^abs¹ and ^abs².

I used BibleWorks to determine the text of the GNT versus the Textus Receptus. How I determined the supporting mss for each of these readings is not certain to me at the moment. I think I used a series of Journal articles exchanged between Bart Ehrman and a well known conservative scholar whose name escapes me at the moment on the subject of whether Peter and Cephas are two different persons or the same.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Well, let's cut through the crap

Just a procedural issue: sschlichter isn't consulting the literature on the distribution of manuscripts on the issue. He is merely manipulating your data.

Three interesting and important issues on 2:9 (James and Cephas/Peter and) --

A has only James ("iak."), ie no Cephas or Peter.
D^p has Peter and James ("pet. k. iak."), ie Cephas has been fronted.
P46 has James and Peter ("iak k. petros"), ie only James is abbreviated.

I've been a little confused here. Driving NA27 is like trying to keep hold of a monster, but I thought D was Bezae. Now it seems that D is actually two manuscripts: 05 (D or more correctly now D^ea) is Bezae! 06 (D^p) is Claromontanus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

012 = G (Boernerianus, IX)
015 = H (Euthalianus, VI)
018 = K (Moscow, IX)
020 = L (Rome, IX)

The mss up to the 8th century CE are in bold. The preponderance of early mss are still in the side of Cephas in all cases EXCEPT Gal 2:7-8. Folks can make their own decisions.

Where's the Syriac and the Vulgate data? The Harklean tends to favor "Peter", though all extant Syriac tradition is for Cephas in 2:9.

spin

Thor Q. Mada · 09-14-2009, 07:53 PM

Actually, I don't ask for further evidence. Quite frankly I don't care. It is just that if one comes with outrageous claims for over 2000 years for which evidence is totally lacking apart from a book of doubtfull origin and quality, one would logically speaking expect the defenders of this book to try to have some more credible eveidence. Not for me but rather for themselves.
Don't they know that questioning everything inclusive themselves is the start of science and wisdom??

sschlichter · 09-14-2009, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

because Paul referred to Cephas except in 2:7-8

Umm, assuming your conclusion. Wise.

spin

says one assumption to another.

sschlichter · 09-14-2009, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Maybe Steven worked for the GWBush government on the global warming issue.

The chart is not supposed to be exhaustive by any means. It is somewhere about 12 years old, and I probably used my old UBS 2 and that handy chart of mss it includes. I left the non-Greek translations and the quotations by the church fathers out of the equation to simplify it.

I guess you can designate the various mss that once were in the collection labeled D by the content (e = Gospels, a = Apostolikon or Acts + general Epistles, and p = Epistles of Paul).

There are three mss designated "D":

05 D Bezae Catabrigiensis (6th century) only has the Gospels (e) and Apostolikon (a), and is currently at Cambridge. This is also known as D^ea.

06 D Claromontanus (also 6th century) has only the epistles of Paul (p) and is currently in Paris. This apparently is D^p.

D^abs is a 9th century copy of Claromontanus and is sometimes called 06^abs. There may even be two mss, ^abs¹ and ^abs².

I used BibleWorks to determine the text of the GNT versus the Textus Receptus. How I determined the supporting mss for each of these readings is not certain to me at the moment. I think I used a series of Journal articles exchanged between Bart Ehrman and a well known conservative scholar whose name escapes me at the moment on the subject of whether Peter and Cephas are two different persons or the same.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Just a procedural issue: sschlichter isn't consulting the literature on the distribution of manuscripts on the issue. He is merely manipulating your data.

Three interesting and important issues on 2:9 (James and Cephas/Peter and) --

A has only James ("iak."), ie no Cephas or Peter.
D^p has Peter and James ("pet. k. iak."), ie Cephas has been fronted.
P46 has James and Peter ("iak k. petros"), ie only James is abbreviated.

I've been a little confused here. Driving NA27 is like trying to keep hold of a monster, but I thought D was Bezae. Now it seems that D is actually two manuscripts: 05 (D or more correctly now D^ea) is Bezae! 06 (D^p) is Claromontanus.

Where's the Syriac and the Vulgate data? The Harklean tends to favor "Peter", though all extant Syriac tradition is for Cephas in 2:9.

spin

the problem is not that it is not exhaustive enough. the issue i have with the chart is the relevance of 6th century documents. it is agreed that some interpolation occurred after the first couple centuries. what is a mistake is to extrapolate that the conditions were the same in the early church. Evidence indicates that they were not.

sschlichter · 09-14-2009, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Well, let's cut through the crap and see what the dates of these mss REALLY are:

lets keep cutting.

Quote:

[B]p46 (c. AD 81-96 [Kim]/c. AD 150 [Comfort]/c. AD 200 [Aland])

Quote:

"It is safe to date the codex between 85 and 150"

Philip J Comfort. The Quest for the Original Text of the New Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk). page 77.

The representation of 150 is inaccurate (albeit unintentional) of someone that dates a text from 85 to 150.

spin · 09-15-2009, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Umm, assuming your conclusion. Wise.

says one assumption to another.

You've seen the evidence. All you've done is shape it and fake it. You know what your conclusion is so you then make what you can muster point to it, including cherrypick DCH's table.

spin

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

09-14-2009, 07:53 PM	#606
Thor Q. Mada Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Asia Posts: 3,558	Actually, I don't ask for further evidence. Quite frankly I don't care. It is just that if one comes with outrageous claims for over 2000 years for which evidence is totally lacking apart from a book of doubtfull origin and quality, one would logically speaking expect the defenders of this book to try to have some more credible eveidence. Not for me but rather for themselves. Don't they know that questioning everything inclusive themselves is the start of science and wisdom??

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.