Haran

Aw... Ya spoiled my fun!

Well, I actually did find the book. From my examination, I have come to the same conclusion as Iasion, though I'm a little surprised that the Cephas/Peter issue doesn't come up there because of the seeming implications.

However, Ehrman does appear to subscribe to the integrity of Galatians in his Intro, as I noticed with a cursory glance. However, I don't guess I see what he sees in the two-fold mention of Cephas/Peter...

Welcome Iasion! But I, also, (as a Christian) feel the need to say of this forum, Caveat Emptor...

Haran

Haran

Thanks for the reputable links.

Haran

CX

Frankly I'm at somewhat of a loss as to what to say at this point. I disagree with your characterization of my argument as nothing more than citations. The only secondary citation I made was an addendum to my original argument. That argument consisted of a lexical analysis of the original Greek for which I cited primary sources. You made no attemp to rebutt that argument. Consequently our debate is at somewhat of an impasse. The only apparent argument you make for Paul mistakenly identifying Cephas and Peter as two different people lies in the fact that Gal 2:7-8 is awkward in modern English usage. Fair enough. It's an awkward passage for modern readers that does not in any way establish or strongly corroborate your conclusion. If I failed to sufficiently rebutt the argument it is because there isn't really an argument to rebutt. In any case my counter argument was never addressed despite what I consider the obvious problems it creates for your hypothesis. Still let's revisit your previous summary of your position.

This time demonstrates that he is using the names interchangeably. Given that Paul was conversant in both Koine Greek and Semitic languages, the fact that KHFAS and PETROS mean the same thing would not be lost on him. In any case given this underlying issue your point above only serves to reinforce my assessment despite the fact that it seems peculiar in English.

This is more a text critical argument for interpolation than for misidentification, so perhaps you are conflating the two issues in one argument. In any case this is not convincing evidence against either issue. It is unconvincing in demonstrating that Paul thought Peter and Cephas were different people for reason already mentioned and it is unconvincing for demonstrating that this passage is an interpolation because a)the manuscript evidence doesn't support the hypothesis b)The context of the larger passage tends to support its authenticity regardless of what we might think of it's literary difficulties (which I submit are overstated if one looks at the original language and cultural context it was written in). Paul is trying to establish his own apostolic authority in the face of apparently vocal opposition. By portraying the agreement reached at the Apostolic Council (and we have no idea how much spin he is putting on it, but I suspect it is significant) as an amicable agreement wherein he preaches to the Gentiles and the Petrine community continues preaching to Jewish Xians he is lending credence to his theological formulae and to himself as an authority within the Gentile church. This fits perfectly in the overall framework on purpose for his letter to the Galatians.

It seems to me you are begging the question. It is evident that on several occaisions members of the Jewish Xian community interacted with some of Paul's gentile congregations. It is certainly reasonable to conclude that a)Peter had had contact with some of Paul's congregations (Paul describes one such meeting casting very bad light on Peter) and b)That Peter and Paul reach an agreement that they would divide up their missions between Gentile and Jewish congregations respectively. Unless we presume that that Cephas and Peter are not interchangeable (which you have failed to establish) this usage is eprfectly understandable.

Until there is a concretely established internal argument, citation of extra-canonical sources seems premature. Whether or not the author of Epistle to the Apostles confuses the two names has no bearing on Paul's usage.

Lastly, I fail to see how my analysis of the Greek words KHFAS and PETROS is in anyway apologetic. It's just simple lexical analysis.

Vorkosigan

I had to learn about the NT here at Infidels so I could play with the big boys like Haran, Nomad, Bede and Polycarp.

Finding time? I do that by neglecting my work. Is there another way?

Michael

[ March 14, 2002: Message edited by: turtonm ]</p>

spin

I won't deal with all your, CowboyX's, assumptions.

The bald citation of Schnelle's opinion, unsupported, is a prime example of what you are frankly unaware of having done.

You say, "The only apparent argument you make for Paul mistakenly identifying Cephas and Peter as two different people lies in the fact that Gal 2:7-8 is awkward in modern English usage."

You are insistent on reading the surface of the problem of continuity of thought. Coherence is not bound to the linguistic form it is found in. You want to read the problem as one of philological differences. Fine, you do that. Normally when someone changes topic in mid thought, a reader notes a problem. When, however, the reader is an apologist, well, there's no problem; who would ever think of such a thing?

As you continue to be befuddled with the Greek, passing the problem off onto an uneasy translation into English, please tell me about it from the Koine point of view.

This is a great one: "It is unconvincing in demonstrating that Paul thought Peter and Cephas were different people". Who said anything about Paul knowing a Peter? Your misguided comment apparently shows that you don't understand what is being argued.

You continue: "This time demonstrates that he is using the names interchangeably." This is know as assuming your conclusion, a typical apologetic trait.

You say, "I fail to see how my analysis of the Greek words KHFAS and PETROS is in anyway apologetic. It's just simple lexical analysis."

spin:
--------------------------------------
3) although Peter is supposed to have been "sent" to the circumcized, Cephas is well-known to the uncircumsized Corinthians;
--------------------------------------

CbX:
--------------------------------------
It seems to me you are begging the question. It is evident that on several occaisions members of the Jewish Xian community interacted with some of Paul's gentile congregations. It is certainly reasonable to conclude that a)Peter had had contact with some of Paul's congregations (Paul describes one such meeting casting very bad light on Peter) and b)That Peter and Paul reach an agreement that they would divide up their missions between Gentile and Jewish congregations respectively. Unless we presume that that Cephas and Peter are not interchangeable (which you have failed to establish) this usage is eprfectly understandable.
--------------------------------------

There is no point in assuming knowledge from texts you can't date to be related to the one we are delaign with.

"Paul describes one such meeting casting very bad light on" Cephas. Please don't manipulate the data until you're justified in doing so. You see, starting off with the presupposition that Cephas and Peter are the same, simply renders you incapable of judging the problem.

spin:
--------------------------------------
4) the Epistle to the Apostles is blithely unaware of the fact that the two figures are supposed to be the one, listing them as distinct apostles.
--------------------------------------

CbX:
--------------------------------------
Until there is a concretely established internal argument, citation of extra-canonical sources seems premature. Whether or not the author of Epistle to the Apostles confuses the two names has no bearing on Paul's usage.
--------------------------------------

This is the divide and conquer approach to apologetics. Ignore all other relevant points, until you've hedged and blocked on the ones you can. It is a very normal approach to show how people within the tradition understood elements of the tradition touched upon by texts whose content is being analysed. YOu are arbitrarily dismissing data.

And I'm sure you believe that everyone called John, Sean, Ewen, Ian, Jan, Johannes, Ivan, Jean, Juan, Ioannis, Juhanni and Joan must actually be the same person on your "simple lexical analysis". Simple is the word. Do you conflate all the Johns in the NT and fathers? Is every reference you've heard to someone called "Red" or "Carot Top" to the same person? Is everyone called "Rocky" the same person? Duh, simple lexical analysis, indeed. The NT tells you that Cephas was a nickname. Get the idea?

(The nickname of course may be a way of conflating traditions of a Simon with those of a "Rocky".)

Vorkosigan

spin, CowboyX is not an apologist, but someone who carefully tracks the mainstream scholarly opinion and understands why it is so. Your tone is in dire need of modulation.

Michael

Haran

Spin,

I think you might have missed the part about CoyboyX not being a Christian. If not, I fail to see why you keep referring to him as an "apologist".

As to CoyboyX's use of Udo Schnelle, I think that it is perfectly reasonable. Since none of us (to my knowledge) are true scholars in this area of study, we tend to ultimately fall back on scholarly opinion. CoyboyX seems to have done the necessary reading to discover who are the more reputable scholars. Since the scholars and experts are the ones who teach us things, I fail to see the problem with an "appeal to authority" (as long as that authority is known to be reputable). It's the way we learn things...teacher-pupil.

Ultimately, I see no reason for CoyboyX to continue discussion with you because I believe you are being very unreasonable. I believe others would probably say the same.

Haran

CX

On the contrary I didn't include his arguments or citations because I didn't feel like doing your homework for you. It was secondary to my point and just added for emphasis. However if you are going to insist on full citations, despite providing none of your own, I will do so.

The footnote to the passage I already cited from Schnelle says, Evidence in Gerd Ludeman, Chronology (see above 2.1) 64-69. I'll leave it to you to look at Section 2.1 in Schnelle's text for the full chronology of Paul's missionary enterprise and it's relationship to this argument.

In 2.7.7 "Traditions and Sources" Schnelle continues, In Gal 2.7-8(hOTI PEPISEUMAI...TA EQNH [I had been entrusted...the Gentiles]) and 2.9e(hHMEIS EIS TA EQNH, AUTOI DE EIS THN PERITOMHN [We to the Gentiles, but they to the circumcision] is found a pre-Pauline tradition stamped by personal recollections of the Apostolic council.

In the foot note to the above Schnelle again cites Ludeman, Chronology 48-75.

This argument is largely Ad Hominem but let's address the salient point by looking at the entire passage.

I fail to see how Paul is changing the topic in mid-thought here. The purpose for this entire section is to establish apostolic authority independent of the Jersualem group, probably in the face of opposition in the Galatian church from people who claimed authority from those considered the real disciples of Christ. In that framework, how is Paul's comment about the splitting up of the mission between the Jews and the Gentiles divergent from the central theme? It adds weight to his argument.


It is not that the translation is difficult (it isn't) it is that the result lacks the rhetorical significance of the original. There is no apparent relationship between Cephas and Peter in English. This is not so in Greek. KHFAS and PETROS are cognates. I don't know how to explain it to you any better than that. Plus when we consider that Paul was a pharisaic Jew it makes even more sense given the variable morphology of Hebrew names (i.e. Yeshua, Yehoshua).

Furthermore the manuscript evidence is inconclusive as to which name is used where indicating that later redactors and copyists may have been confused about the two names, but not that Paul was. (Clearly this usage is difficult for English readers given that most modern translations seem to translate both KHFAS and PETRON as Peter, probably to avoid arguments such as this one altogether.)

I wonder if someone else familiar with Koine would like to weigh in on this. I'm at pains to think of what else to say. You are making assertions without supporting them. You are ignoring the bulk of my argument and you are providing no evidence aside from your own speculation to support your position all the awhile accusing me of being "befuddled", an apologist (I'm not even Xian so why would I be apologetical), and misunderstanding the argument. Let me ask you this, have you looked at the Greek texts? Do you understand Koine Greek?

[ March 14, 2002: Message edited by: CowboyX ]</p>

CX

I have yet to address this comment. I think my position has softened somewhat. Though I am still unconvinced that Gal 2:7-8 is an interpolation or that KHFAS and PETROS are not used interchangeably I do acknowledge that it was an overstatement to say the question was absurd or that the conclusions should be obvious to anyone conversant in Koine Greek.

I have found the various citations presented here very interesting if not compelling enough to change my opinion (which I freely acknowledge is only that), particularly the Barnikol article cited by Michael.

To me the compelling arguments are still the etymological connection between the two names and the lack of manuscript evidence to the contrary as well as the relative concensus, though it's certainly not unanimous, in the academic community.

I'm not sure there is much more to say on the issue, even those far more qualified than we have had difficultly resolving the question completely, but it has been an interesting discussion nonetheless.

Vorkosigan

I have found the various citations presented here very interesting if not compelling enough to change my opinion (which I freely acknowledge is only that), particularly the Barnikol article cited by Michael.

Yes, I found the Barnikol article compelling...but you're one ahead of me. I haven't even developed a view, let alone modified it....

Michael