spin

Thinking a little more on the Barnikol article, the trajectory which tracks the insertion down to the west also fits another analysis of mine, that the messianic title "Son of Man" (as against the normal Hebrew use "<mere> human being") is not known (outside the gospels) in the early church fathers until the time of Justin Martyr, a silence which is totally unexplainable if the phrase actually came from someone who already gave it a messianic significance in the first century.

In no clearly identifiable Jewish text, did the Jews ever use "Son of Man" in a messianic manner. The only text of doubt is the Similitudes found inserted into 1 Enoch, though all the rest of that book was known from Qumran. Where Jews showed interest in messianic parts of Daniel (eg 4 Ezra), they do not use the term "Son of Man", after all, Daniel talks of a figure which was "like a son of man", ie had a human form, whereas the others had forms similar to animals.

The use of "Son of Man" in Mark 13 reflects a lack of understanding of the original text on two counts: first, that "son of man" is not a title, but a descriptive simile; and second, the figure was going up to heaven, not down to earth.

Add to this though that the gospel of Mark seems to have come from a Roman background, if one can go on the mention of a Roman denarius and a few other incidental markers.

Rome was where a lot of Christian action was going on. It was quite liberal, accepting all comers, such as Valentinus and Marcion, though rejecting them around the time of Justin Martyr.

That changes took place in the west might not be of any surprise.

Godless Dave

And the Christians who were killed by the Romans may have believed their stories too. There are several decades between the events described in the New Testament and the advent of Roman persecution of Christians.

Even if actual apostles of Christ who witnessed his execution were willing to die for their beliefs, that doesn't prove their stories are true. An apostle may well have known that the ressurection story wasn't true, but could still have been willing to die for the message of the story.

CX

I hate to butt in here and perhaps Haran or someone else has already raised this issue, but this is just ridiculous. This illustrates the problem with not using original texts for analysis. Firstly Gal 2:7-8 are undisputed in NA27. There are no variants in the textual apparatus. Unless you can provide strong manuscript or lexical evidence that these passages are interpolations your assertion to that effect is without merit.

Secondly KEFAS and PETRW are used interchangeably throughout the NT to refer to Peter Jesus' disciple. The reason is obvious to anyone who has studied the original text. KEFAS is an aramaism. It is a Greek transliteration of the aramaic word that is a derivative of stone or rock. PETROS is the Greek cognate which derives from the Greek word for stone. It is part and parcel of orthodox theology (and whether this reflects reality or not is debateable) that Peter is the "rock" on which Jesus would build his church (thereby supporting the doctrine of apostolic succession and lending authority to the church in Rome). The two are interchangeable and arguments that they are referring to different people is just absurd.

Furthermore it is difficult to say for certain what the autograph actually says since, for example in Gal 1:18, there is major manuscript evidence (see the critical apparatus of NA27) for either KEFAS or PETRW being used.

Kosh

Are we guilty of viewing the ancient world
through 21st century glasses here? THe reason
I ask is because nowadays, if I tell you my
name is Kosh, and I go to another country, I
will not try to determine what "Kosh" means in
English, then rename myself to a similar word
in the other language. I will simply remain
"Kosh". Was this a more common practive in the
old days?

Thanks.

CX

Addendum: In The History and Theology of the New testament Writings by Udo Schnelle, Dr. Schnelle specifically addresses the suggestion of Gal 2:7-8 being an interpolation,

CX

I say unquestionably yes. First we need to recall that the disciple's given name according to gospel accounts was actually SHMWN (Simon). The name Peter is given to him as a rhetorical device in order to make the play on words in GMt 16:18. So from the get go references to Peter by that name have an underlying rhetorical significance.
We also need to remember that we are dealing with a cross-cultural environment and particularly where language is concerned we see a mixing of Koine Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew. As a pharisaic Jew, Paul was familiar with all three languages so naturally this informs his writing somewhat. Plus in the 21st century Western world, with some exceptions, names don't have obvious everday meanings like they did in the ancient world. For example, not many people would be immediately aware that my name, James, means "supplanter" in the original Hebrew and I was not so named because of it's original meaning. In 1st century texts we regularly see a mixing of Hebrew and Greek cognates (James is rendered as both IAKOBOS and the Graecised IAKOB) This would thus not have been confusing to anyone.

There really isn't a good way to illustrate this in English except possibly to consider the concept of "nicknames". If someone refers Jonathon and later on refers to the same person as John, the reader will generally understand that the same person is being referred to. This isn't precisely analogous, but it gives you an idea of what it would have been like for readers (and hearers since most were illiterate) in Hellenised 1st century Palestine and Asia Minor.

Vorkosigan

Secondly KEFAS and PETRW are used interchangeably throughout the NT to refer to Peter Jesus' disciple. The reason is obvious to anyone who has studied the original text.

It is non-obvious to many scholars who have studied the original text, or there would be no controversy over the issue.

CX

Which scholars? NA27 lists the passage as undisputed. Scholarly concensus appears to be that Gal is authentic and that 2:7-8 is not an interpolation. Furthermore the issue that even raises any question on the passage is not the use of the word PETROS so much as the "unpauline" phrases "to the circumcised/to the uncircumcised". I don't think anyone seriously disputes that Cephas and Peter refer to the same person. Can you cite evidence to the contrary. Preferably something published somewhere besides just web? I don't want to seem smug or dismissive, but honestly this (do the names Peter and Cephas refer to the same person) seems like a non-issue.

spin

spin:
---------------------------
..I have talked about Galatians 2:7-8 elsewhere. Paul knows a Cephas as 1 Corinthians shows us and here in Galatians after mentioning Cephas, suddenly the text throws in references to Peter. These references are spurious. They do not fit into the discourse.
---------------------------

CowboyX:
---------------------------
I hate to butt in here and perhaps Haran or someone else has already raised this issue, but this is just ridiculous. This illustrates the problem with not using original texts for analysis.
---------------------------

You assume to much. And have no way of saying what is ridiculous or not, when you carry around too much theoretical baggage.

CowboyX:
---------------------------
Firstly Gal 2:7-8 are undisputed in NA27.
---------------------------

This is not an argument. It merely says that we have no disputes in the texts we have. Before we had many of the primary sources we have today, there are many things we didn't know about. You can't assume that as there is no sign in the current array of primary sources that there was no insertion here.

CowboyX:
---------------------------
There are no variants in the textual apparatus. Unless you can provide strong manuscript or lexical evidence that these passages are interpolations your assertion to that effect is without merit.
---------------------------

Perhaps you are not away that there are no remains of a Q text either, but the majority of scholars in the field support it. You require something here for two sentences that is not required for a whole document. OK, you've indicated that there is no primary evidence for such an text amendment. I knew that before we started.

CowboyX:
---------------------------
Secondly KEFAS and PETRW are used interchangeably throughout the NT to refer to Peter Jesus' disciple.
---------------------------

That would make things simple, but if what I've argued is correct, then you need to rethin the assumptions here.

CowboyX:
---------------------------
The reason is obvious to anyone who has studied the original text. KEFAS is an aramaism.
---------------------------

You'll find the word in the plural used twice in the Hebrew bible. But you're too full of assumptions to take notice of them. You just don't want to believe that the text may have been manipulated. So you're a believer. I can understand. People fall over their beliefs every day.

CowboyX:
---------------------------
It is a Greek transliteration of the aramaic word that is a derivative of stone or rock. PETROS is the Greek cognate which derives from the Greek word for stone.
---------------------------

That's correct.

CowboyX:
---------------------------
It is part and parcel of orthodox theology (and whether this reflects reality or not is debateable) that Peter is the "rock" on which Jesus would build his church (thereby supporting the doctrine of apostolic succession and lending authority to the church in Rome).
---------------------------

That is a Catholic misunderstanding of the text. We are dealing with a word game not a covert bestowing of authority.

CowboyX:
---------------------------
The two are interchangeable and arguments that they are referring to different people is just absurd.
---------------------------

The two have become interchangeable. But I knew that. What is absurd to you without knowing the textual tradition prior to the earliest version we have, renders your opinion of little value.

CowboyX:
---------------------------
Furthermore it is difficult to say for certain what the autograph actually says since, for example in Gal 1:18, there is major manuscript evidence (see the critical apparatus of NA27) for either KEFAS or PETRW being used.
---------------------------

Thanks for this datum. But I'd then need to know which texts had which, before commenting on it.

spin

CowboyX notes:
-------------------------
Addendum: In The History and Theology of the New testament Writings by Udo Schnelle, Dr. Schnelle specifically addresses the suggestion of Gal 2:7-8 being an interpolation,

The literary integrity of Galatians is
undisputed. The unpauline expressions
in Galatians 2.7-8 (EUAGGELION THS
AKROBUSTIAS/THS PERITOMHS [gospel to the
uncircumcised/to the circumcised] PETROS
[Peter]) do not suggest a non-Pauline
interpolation, but are an indication of
pre-Pauline tradition. (Schnelle p. 100)

-------------------------

I'm used to unsupported opinions in this field being sold as facts. Schnelle is welcome to his opinion like everyone else. It doesn't make it a fact because he, as an authority states his opinion.