Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sschlichter · 09-14-2009, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

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

my chart indicated the difference in p46. confusion on whether they were the same person, or whether to use the aramaic name. confusion in the 5th thru 10th century is irrelevant.

regardless, any confusion that may or may not have existed provides no aid to your argument. if anyone was confused on cephas and peter, the context in gal 2:7-8 referring to him as the apostle to the jews would have exempted it from any confusion.

if there was a cephas, he was not associated with that title.

spin · 09-14-2009, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

my chart indicated the difference in p46. confusion on whether they were the same person, or whether to use the aramaic name. confusion in the 5th thru 10th century is irrelevant.

A fifth century copy wasn't written in a vacuum. You're already over 150 years after the reputed time of writing of the text with P46, a text which doesn't reflect its own manuscript tradition here. You are faking data by excluding texts. But then I've already pointed out that you don't know the range of data.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

regardless, any confusion that may or may not have existed provides no aid to your argument. if anyone was confused on cephas and peter, the context in gal 2:7-8 referring to him as the apostle to the jews would have exempted it from any confusion.

Doh! That's why there was no confusion about 2:7-8.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

if there was a cephas, he was not associated with that title.

Deep.

spin

sschlichter · 09-14-2009, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

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.

for God's sakes. that's because the authority you just appealed to is making the same assumption. I don;t blame you. If you assume there is no resurrection of the dead, then you have to go to the next best thing - no matter how bad it is.

sschlichter · 09-14-2009, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

my chart indicated the difference in p46. confusion on whether they were the same person, or whether to use the aramaic name. confusion in the 5th thru 10th century is irrelevant.

A fifth century copy wasn't written in a vacuum. You're already over 150 years after the reputed time of writing of the text with P46, a text which doesn't reflect its own manuscript tradition here. You are faking data by excluding texts. But then I've already pointed out that you don't know the range of data.

Doh! That's why there was no confusion about 2:7-8.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

if there was a cephas, he was not associated with that title.

Deep.

spin

are you aware of any references to cephas the apostle to the jews?

spin · 09-14-2009, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

A fifth century copy wasn't written in a vacuum. You're already over 150 years after the reputed time of writing of the text with P46, a text which doesn't reflect its own manuscript tradition here. You are faking data by excluding texts. But then I've already pointed out that you don't know the range of data.

Doh! That's why there was no confusion about 2:7-8.

Deep.

are you aware of any references to cephas the apostle to the jews?

Changing the subject, eh?

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

spin

spamandham · 09-14-2009, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

for God's sakes. that's because the authority you just appealed to is making the same assumption. I don;t blame you. If you assume there is no resurrection of the dead, then you have to go to the next best thing - no matter how bad it is.

I don't know what authority you think I'm appealing to., but the generally accepted range of dates for p46 has nothing to do with the Cephas/Peter argument you and spin are engaged in; it is instead based on paleography.

If you know what you're talking about in regard to paleography, you are welcome to present your analysis of p46. Until then though, I will defer to the expert concensus (Sanders, Kenyon, Griffin, Comfort and Barrett...the references are listed in the Papyrus 46 wiki).

Yes, this is an argument from authority. Like I said, I find this to be a valid form of argument when it's specific.

sschlichter · 09-14-2009, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

are you aware of any references to cephas the apostle to the jews?

Changing the subject, eh?

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

spin

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

sschlichter · 09-14-2009, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

for God's sakes. that's because the authority you just appealed to is making the same assumption. I don;t blame you. If you assume there is no resurrection of the dead, then you have to go to the next best thing - no matter how bad it is.

I don't know what authority you think I'm appealing to., but the generally accepted range of dates for p46 has nothing to do with the Cephas/Peter argument you and spin are engaged in; it is instead based on paleography.

If you know what you're talking about in regard to paleography, you are welcome to present your analysis of p46. Until then though, I will defer to the expert concensus (Sanders, Kenyon, Griffin, Comfort and Barrett...the references are listed in the Papyrus 46 wiki).

Yes, this is an argument from authority. Like I said, I find this to be a valid form of argument when it's specific.

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.

it appears to me that you are guided by your assumptions and discard all evidence that is contrary to it.

spamandham · 09-14-2009, 11:50 AM

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?

sschlichter · 09-14-2009, 12:04 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?

yes, kim (1988), comfort (2001), and griffin argue for an earlier date, kim much earlier. comfort says later first, early 2nd - too early for your theory

Others, Kenyon, Sanders (from the 1930's) argue for a later date, some much later.

we have learned a lot in 70 years.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.