Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Haran · 05-18-2003, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bede
Haran,

I trust you mean p51 and not Yuri's favorite, p 52.

B

Doh!!!

You're right. Lemme see if I can still change it.

Haran · 05-18-2003, 03:28 PM

I was also able to find a reputable work on Marcion by a scholar I have seen mentioned favorably in many scholarly books, Adolf Von Harnack. The work is titled "The gospel of the alien God". I would highly recommend reading it.

He has the following to say about Gal. 1:18-24, which he specifically singles out:

Quote:

Von Harnack
Chapter 1:18-24 probably were omitted because Marcion could not allow these connections of the apostle with Peter and the Jewish-Christian communities to stand; they must have been inserted by the "pseudoapostoli et Iudaici evangelizatores" (Tert. V 9). Chapter 2:1,2 were at the most only slightly altered, yet in all probability the "with Barnabas" was omitted; Marcion did not wish to see Paul's apostolic sovereignty influenced from any quarter.

The introduction to the apostolic council either was omitted or was reformed (2:6-9a).

With the number and type of alterations Marcion apparently made to Luke and Paul's letters, I just think it is highly likely that Marcion removed Gal. 1:18-24.

Jumping to the topic of witnesses for/against the 'palin', I would also still like to understand the reasons Ambrosiaster and Augustine are split if anyone can find the appropriate references.

Vorkosigan · 05-18-2003, 05:56 PM

If you read the works of the Alexandrian drones (i.e. those TC scholars who accept Alexandrian priority uncritically), they usually go out of their way to poo-poo versional and patristic evidence. And they, of course, have a vested interest in so doing, since versional and patristic evidence pretty well nullifies Alexandrian priority.

But if you read the other scholars, i.e. those who favour Western text, for them, versional and patristic evidence is centre stage, since it clearly supports Western priority.

Yuri, can you please provide and article or an argument? You say strong, wonderful things like this, but almost always fail to provide any support.

Vorkosigan

Peter Kirby · 05-18-2003, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Yuri Kuchinsky
So where's the proof that the "7 authentic epistles by Paul", that everyone thinks are authentic, are really authentic?

I don't know that this is really about the authenticity of seven letters. I thought it was about the original text of Galatians, regardless of whether it was written by Paul.

Quote:

Originally posted by Yuri Kuchinsky
Well, I'm not so sure about this, Peter. I think you suspicions were very well founded.

In my original post, I suggested that the tiebreaker was verse 20. I have since discovered that the first visit to Jerusalem was not necessarily "incidental and non-descript" and that the oath is undestandable.

best,
Peter Kirby

Yuri Kuchinsky · 05-19-2003, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
YURI: If you read the works of the Alexandrian drones (i.e. those TC scholars who accept Alexandrian priority uncritically), they usually go out of their way to poo-poo versional and patristic evidence. And they, of course, have a vested interest in so doing, since versional and patristic evidence pretty well nullifies Alexandrian priority.

But if you read the other scholars, i.e. those who favour Western text, for them, versional and patristic evidence is centre stage, since it clearly supports Western priority.

VORK: Yuri, can you please provide and article or an argument? You say strong, wonderful things like this, but almost always fail to provide any support.

Vorkosigan

Vork,

I'm sorry that I might have created such an impression. In fact, I'm always glad to provide support for anything I say, if and when people ask for it. It's difficult for me to know in advance what people might or might not find controversial, but when I'm asked for some stuff specifically, I'm glad to oblige.

The leader today among English-language TC scholars in so far as the study of Western text is concerned seems to be WL Petersen. So he's the leading supporter of Western text in the English-speaking world. (In France, there's a lot more such scholars.) But also, Petersen's writings and opinions are not something that I always agree with. I've had my own run-ins with him over the years, especially in regard to the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. (See my webpage for some of these controversies.)

In any case, here's a useful quote from his recent article, demonstrating that the citations from the early fathers are extremely important. There's a lot more relevant stuff in this article, and some useful bibliography.

Quote:

NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM AND EXEGESIS: FESTSCHRIFT J. DELOBEL, A. Denaux, ed. Leuven: Sterling, Va.: Peeters, 2002 (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium: 161)

Earlier suggestions that Justin's citations came from memory (and were, therefore, garbled) or that Justin was simply careless in his manner of citation are not supported by the facts. Smit Sibinga's investigation of Justin's quotations from the Pentateuch [J. Smit Sibinga, "The Old Testament Text of Justin Martyr", I. The Pentateuch Leiden, Brill, 1963.] showed that what -- at first glance -- appeared to be deviating citations (i.e., differing from both the MT and the LXX) often found parallel in the Dead Sea Scrolls or the "Old Greek" (i.e., citations in other writers which seem to come from a pre LXX form of a Greek translation of a Hebrew text).

In other words, what seemed to the uneducated eye to be "singular" forms of a text actually turned out to be forms of the text known to and cited by other ancient writers. The same may be said of Justin's gospel citations. Bellinzoni's investigation [Bellinzoni, "The Sayings of Jesus"] showed that many of them found parallels in other very early Christian sources, such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, or the Vetus Latina, to name only a few. Additionally, on more than one occasion Justin cites the same pericope in exactly the same deviating manner. This is hardly what one would expect if he were careless or subject to lapses of memory. In short, Justin's deviating citations are not always lapses of his mind or pen; rather, they often appear to be part of a tradition that was current in the early church and prized by the martyr Justin, but which later died out.

All the best,

Yuri.

Peter Kirby · 05-21-2003, 01:22 AM

Is there anyone here who still thinks that Gal 1:18-24 was interpolated? If so, what do they think about the lengthy post at the end of the previous page that I wrote?

Or, if you think the passage is authentic, is there anything you could add?

best,
Peter Kirby

Evangelion · 05-21-2003, 01:23 AM

Quote:

Is there anyone here who still thinks that Gal 1:18-24 was interpolated?

Calling Toto...

Yuri Kuchinsky · 05-21-2003, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
I don't know that this is really about the authenticity of seven letters. I thought it was about the original text of Galatians, regardless of whether it was written by Paul.

Peter,

There are a number of possibilities there about the Galatians.

1. The whole letter may be a forgery.
2. Both accounts of Paul's visits to Jerusalem may be forgeries.
3. Only the first short visit was a forgery, while the one "after 14 years" was real.
4. Some parts of either the first or second visits are forgeries, while others are real.
5. Only the word /palin/ was a forgery.
6. The whole letter is authentic.

Out of these possibilities, I'd be inclined to choose somewhere between the numbers 2 and 4. But, as I say, in a proper historical investigation, it's the one who introduces evidence for consideration that has the burden of authenticating it.

So if some mainstream scholar wants to claim that Galatians proves the existence of the HJ, I'd just ask them to demonstrate first that the letter is authentic. They have no idea how to do it. Thus, all such evidence should be seen as invalid.

Best,

Yuri.

Haran · 05-22-2003, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Haran
(2) ... .mo. pante.. ... siaiV thV ...
(3) ... .min kai eir(h).. ... .u hmwn iu c.

Hey! This did actually print the text in Greek! But only for Internet Explorer and an older version of Netscape.

Does anyone know why I can't see the Greek in Netscape 7.0?

Toto · 05-22-2003, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Haran
Hey! This did actually print the text in Greek! But only for Internet Explorer and an older version of Netscape.

Does anyone know why I can't see the Greek in Netscape 7.0?

Netscape does not handle the SYMBOL font well; IE handles it automatically.

Greek fonts in Netscape

also from here

It looks like it would take a coding change to the II website to allow you to see the Greek characters using the symbol font in Netscape 7.0

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

05-18-2003, 05:56 PM	#33
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	If you read the works of the Alexandrian drones (i.e. those TC scholars who accept Alexandrian priority uncritically), they usually go out of their way to poo-poo versional and patristic evidence. And they, of course, have a vested interest in so doing, since versional and patristic evidence pretty well nullifies Alexandrian priority. But if you read the other scholars, i.e. those who favour Western text, for them, versional and patristic evidence is centre stage, since it clearly supports Western priority. Yuri, can you please provide and article or an argument? You say strong, wonderful things like this, but almost always fail to provide any support. Vorkosigan

05-21-2003, 01:22 AM	#36
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Is there anyone here who still thinks that Gal 1:18-24 was interpolated? If so, what do they think about the lengthy post at the end of the previous page that I wrote? Or, if you think the passage is authentic, is there anything you could add? best, Peter Kirby

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.