CX

What am I assuming and what theoretical baggage is evident in my reply?

I'm going only based on the manuscript evidence as cited in NA27. And what would consitute and argument if not an appeal to primary sources? This is how these decisions are made. I didn't make up the methodology.


The existence of "Q" is still very much in question. The prevailing solution to the synoptic problem across the Atlantic (from the U.S.) is the Farrer Hypothesis which posits Markan priority without "Q". And anyway there are strong text critical reasons for positing a "Q" text. We are dealing with a different issue completely. Namely whether Gal 2:7-8 is an interpolation or not. The absence of any manuscript evidence for a different version of this portion of Galatians is not proof that such never existed, but it does bear significantly on the question.

Belief has nothing to do with it. I am neither a Xian nor a believer in God. I readily acknowledge that biblical texts were redacted multiple times. The secondary ending of Mark is a perfect example of that and there are numerous others. I don't even question whether the text has been manipulated or not. It obviously has. That does nothing to prove your point here.

I agree and didn't mean to imply otherwise which is why I said that understanding of the text was debateable.

Well firstly this isn't my opinion it is the mainstream academic view. Secondly all we have available as evidence is extant manuscripts, text criticism and comparative linguistics. It is indisputable that PETROS is a Greek cognate for KHFAS, thus by definition the two are interchangeable. One is a transliteration, one is a translation and both mean rock. What is controversial about this?

Well for Gal 1:18 as an example, according to the critical apparatus of NA27...

KHFAS manuscript witnesses: Aleph, A, P, 33, 81, 326, 630, 1241, 1739, 1881, 2464 (and others)

PETRON manuscript witnesses: Aleph2, D, F, G, Psi, 0278, 1739mg (and others)

is that sufficient or do you need a full citation (I'll presume you don't have a copy of NA27 in front of you or you wouldn't ahve asked).

[ March 13, 2002: Message edited by: CowboyX ]</p>

CX

Frankly your smug dismissal of one of the currently most respected continental scholars, is rather annoying, but if you want a full argument along with citations from the relevant literature read the intro text yourself. I'm quickly losing interest in this discussion you'll forgive me for saying. Better yet perhaps you could be so kind as to provide some citations of your own rather than just your own idle speculation. I don't mean to disparage, but I get annoyed by dilletantes (of which I consider myself one) who don't seem to realize their own limitations. I don't wish to make an arugment from authority and I think the argument stands without it, but honestly...I hope I haven't misjudged you (as you have apparently misjudged me) but you seem unjustifiably overconfident. (Apologies to all present for the Ad Hominem tone this is taking).

Vorkosigan

Do you have Ehrman's Intro to the NT? He asks the reader to judge for themselves on page 288, noting that from the 2nd to the 8th centuries, many commentators believed that Cephas and Peter were two different people. It's so obvious, that for six centuries avowed Christians missed it. Ehrman notes "Look especially at Gal 2:6-9 where he mentions both names, in the same breath, without indicating that he is referring to the same person. Indeed, he appears to assume that these two persons are engaged in two different kinds of activity..." )p. 288, Box 19.5

Ehrman is a scholar of the first rank. Does he mention this text in The Orthodox Corruption of the Scriptures??

Michael

[ March 13, 2002: Message edited by: turtonm ]</p>

Vorkosigan

<a href="http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/greek-3/msg00797.html" target="_blank">Here is a discussion of this on the biblical greek email list</a>

but they don't come to any conclusion....

Haran

First of all, I concur with CoyboyX's excellent and precise analysis...kinda leaves me without much to say.

Second, I didn't realize that Bart Ehrman questioned Gal. As a matter of fact, I find it ironic that this was brought up because I was going to go to the book store tonight to see if I could find his Orthodox Corruption of Scripture (long story, but it's because I'm currently reading Bruce Metzger's Canon of the NT). If I'm able to find it (big if...) then I'll lend his perspective to the mix.

The only other dissenting scholar that I am aware of is Robert Eisenman and his followers. I doubt that he holds to the integrity of Gal., but I think his issue is more with Cephas/Peter and molding it into his theories.

Haran

spin

CowboyX:
-----------------------
Frankly your smug dismissal of one of the currently most respected continental scholars,
-----------------------

There is no dismissal of this scholar. You merely cited an opinion and I called it that. I have a lot of respect for continental scholars. That's where I live.

CowboyX:
-----------------------
...is rather annoying, but if you want a full argument along with citations from the relevant literature read the intro text yourself. I'm quickly losing interest in this discussion you'll forgive me for saying. Better yet perhaps you could be so kind as to provide some citations of your own rather than just your own idle speculation.
-----------------------

Cases are not made on citations, they are made on the primary evidence. Why don't you look at the case I attempted to make rather than rejecting it from the outset?

CowboyX:
-----------------------
I don't mean to disparage,
-----------------------

This is a usual prelude to a disparagement.

CowboyX:
-----------------------
...but I get annoyed by dilletantes (of which I consider myself one) who don't seem to realize their own limitations.
-----------------------

If you are a dilletante then you are in no position of making such judgements. Wouldn't you agree?

CowboyX
-----------------------
I don't wish to make an arugment from authority and I think the argument stands without it, but honestly...I hope I haven't misjudged you (as you have apparently misjudged me) but you seem unjustifiably overconfident. (Apologies to all present for the Ad Hominem tone this is taking).
-----------------------

I work in the Jewish bible these days rather than in NT studies because of the historical difficulties in being able to say anything useful about the NT, for there is far too much assumption as axiom of what one needs to demonstrate.

You attempted to read my mind to know what I know, which only shows that you shouldn't be saying what you have said.

Citing what some continental scholar has said, without any backup to what is said is merely stating someone else's opinions, which you I gather uphold as fact. You mightn't wish to argue from authority, but that is exactly what you did.

Your efforts appear to me to be apologetic in intention, which explains why you didn't even consider the arguments. Did you look at the material posted by Michael of the analysis by Barnikol? He has come to the same conclusion from another direction and has put more thought into it than me.

As you seemed unaware that there was a problem voiced about Gal 2:7-8, I think you should reconsider my argument and Barnikol's separately but weighing on the same problem.

A serious analysis would be more apperciated than the approach that you have already used. Thanks.

Vorkosigan

Here is another discussion. Be sure to read Hurtado's reply, which makes a strong case for the Kephas-Petros identification.
<a href="http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/greek-3/msg00802.html" target="_blank">http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/greek-3/msg00802.html</a>

If you go to the main menu:
<a href="http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/greek-3/maillist.html#00800" target="_blank">http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/greek-3/maillist.html#00800</a>

you an follow the discussion. The way I follow the discussion, most scholars do not think they are different people, but Doudna does.

Michael

[ March 13, 2002: Message edited by: turtonm ]</p>

Vorkosigan

I opened James the Brother of Jesus hoping to find a concise explanation of Eisenman's opinion -- there's a forlorn hope, if ever there was -- and there are so many Galatians references I just didn't have the heart to track them all down. But Haran's analysis is correct.

Michael

Iasion

Greetings all,

Just a quick post (my first) to note that Bart Ehrman's "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture" does not refer to the Peter/Cephas issue. There is no reference to Cephas (or Gal. 1:18) in the indexes, and the references to Peter are about other issues.

luvluv

turt you'll forgive me for asking, but what is it you do for a living? And where do you find the time to read across so many disciplines? I'm just curious.