spin

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

CowboyX:
------------------
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.
------------------

Here you go again! CbX, if you can't state an argument giving evidence, please don't bother citing people without giving their evidence.

spin:
------------------------------
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?
------------------------------

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

"largely" is not illustrative of the statement.

CoyboyX:
------------------
I fail to see how Paul is changing the topic in mid-thought here.
------------------

What does tounantion attach to?

CowboyX:
------------------
There is no apparent relationship between Cephas and Peter in English. This is not so in Greek. KHFAS and PETROS are cognates.
------------------

I have already dealt with this in the previous post. You are assuming too much in your reference to this data.

CowboyX:
------------------
I don't know how to explain it to you any better than that.
------------------

That's your problem.

CowboyX:
------------------
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).
------------------

I don't understand this comment.

CowboyX:
------------------
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.
------------------

As you seem to have access to this manuscript evidence you might like to answer the question I posed in my previous post about which manuscripts dated when attest to which names.

CowboyX:
------------------
(I'm not even Xian so why would I be apologetical),
------------------

Then you have even less excuse.

luvluv

Out of curiousity, how long has this forum been around?

Vorkosigan

Post this in the Feedback section. Bill or Don will answer you with an accurate accounting.

Michael

CX

This is getting tedious. I gave a coherent original and well supported argument which you have completely ignored and cited Schnelle for additional support. The whole point of citations is so that readers can lookup additional evidence and argumentation on their own.

...EMOI GAR hOI DOUKONTES OUDEN PROSANEQENTO. In your opinion what problem does this pose? (Please refer to the original Greek and not an English translation).

Further evidence in favor of non-interpolation is the agreement of case between IDONTES in 2:7 and GNONTES in 2:9

You keep asserting that without demonstrating it.

Meaning that the same Hebrew name can take different forms to give different emphasis as in the case of Yehoshua which contracts to Yeshua.


Anyone with a copy of NA27 has access to this manuscript evidence. The critical apparatus provides extensive citation of major and minor witnesses (Including the uncials, papyri, minuscules, versions and Church Fathers) for variant readings. I already cited the manuscript evidence directly from NA27, did I not? Here it is again:

Does anyone else see any point in my continuing this discussion? I am not inclined to do so unless:

1)My original lexical argument is addressed

2)The additional argument above (regarding case agreement) is addressed.

3)Support is provided for the original argument for interpolation (and not a cut and paste rebuttal)

4)A strong case for rejecting the manuscript evidence is presented

5)My alleged incorrect assumptions are outlined and refuted.

spin

CoyboyX,

I don't agree with what you said about your citing methods, but let's move on (unless you want to get back into it).

CoyboyX:
------------------
I fail to see how Paul is changing the topic in mid-thought here.
------------------

spin:
------------------
What does tounantion attach to?
------------------

CowboyX:
------------------
...EMOI GAR hOI DOUKONTES OUDEN PROSANEQENTO.
------------------

Perhaps I should have said "How does tounantion attach to what comes before it?", which I thought should have followed. And I would still like an answer!

CowboyX:
------------------
In your opinion what problem does this pose? (Please refer to the original Greek and not an English translation).
------------------

The text in v.6 talks about those of opinion -- or those that seem (dokountes -- note the spelling) -- who add (prosaneQento) nothing (that's the ouden), ie these people (adding nothing to Paul) is the topic of the whole verse (not just the last part), taken up again in v.9. tounantion, like the Latin, contra, needs something to refer to, you know, to be contrary to. What follows is a change of topic. This topic change is partly suggested by the discussion in v.9 about the "pillars" entrusted with the circumcised, but note Paul doesn't mention the "uncircumcised" (akrobustia) in v.9, but the eQnh (though Paul does use akrobustia elswhere without feeling the need to use synonyms instead of repeating). v.9 deals with those of opinion, calling them oi dokountes stuloi, so you can see the direct relationship with v.6.

v.6 deals with those of opinion, which is what is taken up again in v.9 which leads to the notion of the different missions. In fact, vv 7-8, beside the reference to Peter, are somewhat superfluous (or else the second part of v.9 is).


CoyboyX:
------------------
Further evidence in favor of non-interpolation is the agreement of case between IDONTES in 2:7 and GNONTES in 2:9
------------------

It's not case, CowboyX, unless you've got some interesting Greek grammar. It's a matter of verb conjugation. They're both aorists, but what form of the verb would you want otherwise? And what's so incredible about it, when the only similarities are the verb endings? Is it just that aorists are not common in the passage?

CowboyX:
------------------
There is no apparent relationship between Cephas and Peter in English. This is not so in Greek. KHFAS and PETROS are cognates.
------------------

spin:
------------------
I have already dealt with this in the previous post. You are assuming too much in your reference to this data.
------------------

CowboyX:
------------------
You keep asserting that without demonstrating it.
------------------

Perhaps you didn't read what I said. Cephas is a nickname, not a name. If Cephas is a nickname, then so is Peter. You seem to be inferring that the only person in the world at that time with a nickname of the sort was the one you want it to be.

CowboyX:
------------------
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).
------------------

spin:
------------------
I don't understand this comment.
------------------

CowboyX:
------------------
Meaning that the same Hebrew name can take different forms to give different emphasis as in the case of Yehoshua which contracts to Yeshua.
------------------

The problem is that these terms were used in different eras and there is no evidence that they were used contemporaneously. Also, we have no evidence of Paul using duplicate names elsewhere.

CowboyX:
------------------
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.
------------------

spin:
------------------
As you seem to have access to this manuscript evidence you might like to answer the question I posed in my previous post about which manuscripts dated when attest to which names.
------------------

CowboyX:
------------------
Anyone with a copy of NA27 has access to this manuscript evidence.
------------------

I don't. I work in old testament. If I had something of the sort, I wouldn't have made my prior comment.

CowboyX:
------------------
The critical apparatus provides extensive citation of major and minor witnesses (Including the uncials, papyri, minuscules, versions and Church Fathers) for variant readings. I already cited the manuscript evidence directly from NA27, did I not? Here it is again:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for this information. Unfortunately, this doesn't deal with what I was referring to: the relationship between manuscripts and dates. I know of Aleph, which is Sinaiticus. What's Aleph2? Psi is irrelevant, being a group which is all late medaieval. If D is Codex Bezae, I didn't think it had the Letters. As you see though. you seem to have the apparatus and I don't. Perhaps, if you have time you might care to respond to my initial request ("about which manuscripts dated when attest to which names").

CowboyX:
------------------
Does anyone else see any point in my continuing this discussion? I am not inclined to do so unless:

1)My original lexical argument is addressed
------------------

Sorry, I didn't see one. What are you referring to the nicknames?

CowboyX:
------------------
2)The additional argument above (regarding case agreement) is addressed.
------------------

I gather you mean conjugation agreement, which you haven't argued the significance of but asserted taht it is somehow important to you.

CowboyX:
------------------
3)Support is provided for the original argument for interpolation (and not a cut and paste rebuttal)
------------------

This just means that you are not considering it. You have shown little interest in dealing to much of it.

CowboyX:
------------------
4)A strong case for rejecting the manuscript evidence is presented
------------------

The manuscript evidence talks of the state of the manuscript at the time the manuscript was produced. What is the earliest manuscript evidence we are dealing with, Sinaiticus? How long after Paul's time was that copied? We know that there were lots of texts written in the name of Paul (including letters with Seneca of all people). There are also variations in manuscripts which show differences were creeping into the texts after the first manuscript evidence appears. It seems arbitrary to conclude that there was none before the existing manuscripts, especially given the amount of time between the time of writing and the copies we have, or that one cannot argue that there was on other grounds.

CowboyX:
------------------
5)My alleged incorrect assumptions are outlined and refuted.
------------------

I'm writing this off-line as I've spent far too long online writing such lengthy responses. The easiest thing for me to do, is to withdraw unconditionally any allegations I have already given (I can't remember now), and say that you assume that Cephas and Peter must be the same person, which I don't need to refute -- you have only asserted this, despite the fact the names are nicknames --, and you seem to assume that manuscript evidence has some relevance to prior to the time of the manuscript.

CX

Let's cut to the chase. Of particular complexity in translating this passage is the repeated use of different inflections of the verb DOKEW (to seem, to think). I suspect you are using an interlinear and a lexicon (in fact the online lexicon at OliveTree.com renders this word as to be of opinion) but translating it the way you have is very unclear and leads one to conclude you don't really understand the syntax here.

We have Paul referring to TWN DOUKOUNTWN EINAI TI or those who seemed (to Paul) to be someone(or something) meaning important people at the beginning of verse 6. DOUKOUNTWN is in the genitive plural masculine. Because there is no subject in this sentence, the verb DOKEO has TI (something or someone) as it's indirect object, but because it is preceded by a conjugation of "to be" it is in the predicate nominative (just like in English although in English we actually end up with a prepositional phrase rather than an indirect object. Anyway the point is none of the inflections of DOKEW is a noun as seems to be implied by your statements above.

Verse 6 ends with (NA27):

...EMOI GAR hOI DOKOUNTES OUDEN PROSANEQENTO
But to me those who seemed [to Paul to be something] conferred nothing.

Here again we have a conjugation of the verb DOKEW only this time there is no indirect object because it's implied in the beginning clause.


Verse 7:

ALLA TOUNANTION IDONTES hOTI PEPISTEUMAI TO EUAGGELION...

But rather having seen that I was entrusted with the gospel...

this thought finishes up in verse 9 (after the Pauline gloss beginning at the end of verse 7 and ending in verse 8) with KAI GNONTES THN XARIN THN DOQEISAN MOI...

And having known the grace given to me...

And finally we identify the subject of the verb DOKEW from the previous verses:

...IAKWBOS KAI KHFAS KAI IWANNHS

Incidentally it is worth pointing out that NA27 lists a variant reading here where PETROS is used in lieu of KHFAS and cites manuscript witnesses including P46 which is one of the earliest atttestations of this passage we have dating to around the end of the 2nd century.

I agree I was not clear before. I hope the above elaboration proves helpful.

You still didn't point out what invalid assumption I am making. Furthermore you are just wrong. KHFAS is not a "nickname" nor is PETROS. Perhaps you are misunderstanding the nickname analogy I offered which I made clear was only a loose analogy. To reiterate KHFAS and PETROS are cognates. KHFAS is an aramaism and PETROS is the greek translation of the same name. It is akin to believers today who use both Yeshua (a transliteration of the Hebrew) and Jesus to refer to Christ. Not only that, but KHFAS and PETROS have the same rhetorical significance expanded on by AMt.

Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick! Do you even understand the argument? If you do work in the OT I presume you read and understand Hebrew. If you've done any work in multiple languages you must be familiar with the idea of a cognate. Yes? What is this nonsense about nicknames?

Honestly you've spent so much time dancing around I've forgotten the bulk of the argument, but I'm pretty sure I addressed each point and you responded with insulting invective.

I'm not concluding any such thing I'm saying one of the primary sources we have for reconstructing ancient texts is manuscript evidence. One of the biggest reasons to conclude that the ending of GMk is a late interpolation is the manuscript evidence. Obviously this is not the only evidence to consider, but it should be considered and is by anyone doing work in this field.

I didn't merely assert that KHFAS and PETROS refer to the same person I gave a lengthy lexical argument which you ignored. They aren't nicknames. I'm sorry I made that analogy to begin with since it obviously confused you. If you reject the relevance of the manuscript evidence without giving any real reason other than "the originals might have been different" I have nothing more to say on that score.

[ March 19, 2002: Message edited by: CowboyX ]</p>

spin

CowboyX:

Your intent in this recent discussion has been one of flaming, as, it seems, someone has dared to make a simple claim that a text has been worked on, and challenged your vast linguistic knowledge on the matter. I am not the only one to make this claim, however. What do you do, go around attacking everyone the same way?

Then you proceed to call me a liar, for, notwithstanding the fact that I said I wrote the response off line, you in your psychic wisdom can say that I probably used some internet site to get my translation. You are simply wrong, you have made a false accusation, and you may apologize.

(And I note that you left out the one piece of information which would have been interesting in your post, the part about the dating of the various manuscripts in order to come to some useful conclusion about your apparent red herring regarding minor support for Peter instead of Cephas in 1:18, which is yet another example of a text being touched -- either way, but almost certainly to use Peter there.)

Then you present an obfuscation of a key part of the text as a serious translation:

---------------------
Verse 7:

ALLA TOUNANTION IDONTES hOTI PEPISTEUMAI TO EUAGGELION...

But rather having seen that I was entrusted with the gospel...
---------------------

Note this "rather", when the word enantios (to enantion) specifically talks of contrariness, the Latin equivalent being adversus. Contrary to what? was my original question, so you neatly supplied the previous statement. Duh. He was talking about those reputed or accounted (or, if you want, seem) to be something at the beginning of v.6, then repeats them again at the end of the verse. These are his topic, repeated for emphasis, so how tounantion is applicable with what comes before? It somehow attaches to the preceding clause in some undefined way which you don't seem to explain. How does the discourse flow from what proceeds through the word tounantion?

CowboyX:
---------------------
We have Paul referring to TWN DOUKOUNTWN EINAI TI
---------------------

Is this doukountwn really some weird variant or are you just persevering in this spelling?

CowboyX:
---------------------
...or those who seemed (to Paul) to be someone(or something) meaning important people at the beginning of verse 6.
---------------------

(If you really think "to Paul", then you miss the sense altogether.)

CowboyX:
---------------------
DOUKOUNTWN is in the genitive plural masculine. Because there is no subject in this sentence, the verb DOKEO has TI (something or someone) as it's indirect object, but because it is preceded by a conjugation of "to be" it is in the predicate nominative (just like in English although in English we actually end up with a prepositional phrase rather than an indirect object. Anyway the point is none of the inflections of DOKEW is a noun as seems to be implied by your statements above.
---------------------

Well, yeah, it's a participle (you could have included that piece of jargon, the most important here, along with the rest), and, with the article twn, it's hard not to think of it as a noun substitute, is it?


CowboyX:
---------------------
Verse 7:

ALLA TOUNANTION IDONTES hOTI PEPISTEUMAI TO EUAGGELION...

But rather having seen that I was entrusted with the gospel...

this thought finishes up in verse 9 (after the Pauline gloss beginning at the end of verse 7 and ending in verse 8) with KAI GNONTES THN XARIN THN DOQEISAN MOI...

And having known the grace given to me...
---------------------

Whoa, cowboy, you can't assume, if it's a gloss, that it is a Pauline gloss.

What you are doing is simply relying on the two participles, ignoring the unrelatedness of tounantion to anything.

The verb gnontes is important not for the similar appearance of idontes, but to the contrast with the verb dokountes, the contrast between reputed, opined, etc., and what is known.

CowboyX:
------------------
And finally...
------------------

"And finally" is right after the separation from v.6 by vv 7-8.

CowboyX:
------------------
.... we identify the subject of the verb DOKEW from the previous verses:

...IAKWBOS KAI KHFAS KAI IWANNHS
------------------

And you'll note that vv 7-8 show no interest in dokountes at all, whereas it's specifically used again here: oi dokountes stuloi. I thought you were supposed to be tying these verses into the discourse, but it seems that you are relying solely on the appearance of two aorist participles.

CowboyX:
------------------
Incidentally it is worth pointing out that NA27 lists a variant reading here where PETROS is used in lieu of KHFAS and cites manuscript witnesses including P46 which is one of the earliest atttestations of this passage we have dating to around the end of the 2nd century.
------------------

But obviously the weight of the manuscript evidence argues against it, right?

CowboyX:
------------------
There is no apparent relationship between Cephas and Peter in English. This is not so in Greek. KHFAS and PETROS are cognates.
------------------
spin:
------------------
I have already dealt with this in the previous post. You are assuming too much in your reference to this data.
------------------

CowboyX:
------------------
You keep asserting that without demonstrating it.
------------------

Perhaps you didn't read what I said. Cephas is a nickname, not a name. If Cephas is a nickname, then so is Peter. You seem to be inferring that the only person in the world at that time with a nickname of the sort was the one you want it to be.


CowboyX:
---------------------
You still didn't point out what invalid assumption I am making. Furthermore you are just wrong. KHFAS is not a "nickname" nor is PETROS.
---------------------

Alright, CowboyX, if they are not nicknames, what are they and who is Simon called Peter?

CowboyX:
---------------------
Perhaps you are misunderstanding the nickname analogy I offered which I made clear was only a loose analogy. To reiterate KHFAS and PETROS are cognates. KHFAS is an aramaism and PETROS is the greek translation of the same name. It is akin to believers today who use both Yeshua (a transliteration of the Hebrew) and Jesus to refer to Christ. Not only that, but KHFAS and PETROS have the same rhetorical significance expanded on by AMt.
---------------------

See below on your erroneous use of the term "cognate".

CowboyX:
------------------
1)My original lexical argument is addressed
------------------

spin:
------------------
Sorry, I didn't see one. What are you referring to the nicknames?
------------------

CowboyX:
------------------
Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick! Do you even understand the argument? If you do work in the OT I presume you read and understand Hebrew. If you've done any work in multiple languages you must be familiar with the idea of a cognate. Yes? What is this nonsense about nicknames?
------------------

Yes, I know what a cognate is. The problem is, you don't. Perhaps this may help you: a cognate is a word in one language whose origin is the same as in another related language. "five" and "penta" are cognates because they come from the same source, "hamsa" is not a cognate though it means the same thing (though the Hebrew xm$ is a cognate of the latter).

Cephas and Peter are simply not cognates.

Just to help you along this is the OED for "cognate":
---------------------------------------------------------------
Of the same linguistic family; representing the same original word or root; of parallel development in different allied languages (as English father, G Vater, L pater)
---------------------------------------------------------------

CowboyX:
------------------
3)Support is provided for the original argument for interpolation (and not a cut and paste rebuttal)
------------------
This just means that you are not considering it. You have shown little interest in dealing to much of it.


CowboyX:
---------------------
Honestly you've spent so much time dancing around I've forgotten the bulk of the argument, but I'm pretty sure I addressed each point and you responded with insulting invective.
---------------------

Pot calling kettle black, CowboyX. Do I call you a liar?

CowboyX:
------------------
4)A strong case for rejecting the manuscript evidence is presented
------------------

spin:
---------------------
The manuscript evidence talks of the state of the manuscript at the time the manuscript was produced. What is the earliest manuscript evidence we are dealing with, Sinaiticus? How long after Paul's time was that copied? We know that there were lots of texts written in the name of Paul (including letters with Seneca of all people). There are also variations in manuscripts which show differences were creeping into the texts after the first manuscript evidence appears. It seems arbitrary to conclude that there was none before the existing manuscripts, especially given the amount of time between the time of writing and the copies we have, or that one cannot argue that there was on other grounds.
---------------------

CowboyX:
---------------------
I'm not concluding any such thing I'm saying one of the primary sources we have for reconstructing ancient texts is manuscript evidence. One of the biggest reasons to conclude that the ending of GMk is a late interpolation is the manuscript evidence.
---------------------

This is assumed, CowboyX. The point was that, you are making a false demarcation line on the "manuscript evidence". I point out that there are numerous changes to NT materials to be seen in the manuscript evidence and there is no logical reason to accept that there was none before the first manuscript, so your manuscript evidence as I said is only worthwhile for the period when the manuscript was written: it cannot be used for the preceding periods.

CowboyX:
---------------------
Obviously this is not the only evidence to consider, but it should be considered and is by anyone doing work in this field.
---------------------


CowboyX:
------------------
5)My alleged incorrect assumptions are outlined and refuted.
------------------

spin:
------------------
I'm writing this off-line as I've spent far too long online writing such lengthy responses. The easiest thing for me to do, is to withdraw unconditionally any allegations I have already given (I can't remember now), and say that you assume that Cephas and Peter must be the same person, which I don't need to refute -- you have only asserted this, despite the fact the names are nicknames --, and you seem to assume that manuscript evidence has some relevance to prior to the time of the manuscript.
------------------

CowboyX:
------------------
I didn't merely assert that KHFAS and PETROS refer to the same person I gave a lengthy lexical argument which you ignored. They aren't nicknames. I'm sorry I made that analogy to begin with since it obviously confused you.
------------------

Incredible! The fellah's name is supposed to have been Simon, ws it not? How did he get the name Rock in the first place?

I remember you attempted to say something about Hebrew names Yeshua and Yehoshua and the vain possibility that Paul being a Jew would have used them freely. This is not an argument. Hopefully, my memory fails me on this. What you are trying to claim is that Paul arbitrarily fluctuates from Cephas to Peter and back again without any logical reason and expects a reading audience to follow. Paul only uses Cephas to the Corinthians (though I'm sure you can find some manuscript evidence for Peter somewhere in there, for obvious reasons) and doesn't fluctuate it with Peter. Which other names do you think he does this sort of thing with??

CowboyX:
---------------------
If you reject the relevance of the manuscript evidence without giving any real reason other than "the originals might have been different" I have nothing more to say on that score.
---------------------

I gather you also reject the notion of Marcan priority and Q, because there is no manuscript evidence for them.

CX

These posts are getting far to long so i will try to shorten my response this time.

On the contrary while I admit my tone has at times bordered on hostile, my intent has not been to flame you. I am frustrated, but I will do my best to maintain some decorum.

I did no such thing. If anything I said carried the implication that you were a liar I apologize. I do not think you have lied about anything. I do however question your familiarity with Koine Greek. I base this on your participation in this discussion so far. If I am wrong and you can demonstrate that fact I will retract that assessment as well, but I think it has bearing on this debate.

An acceptable defintion of rather is "on the contrary" so this observation strikes me as pendatic. I translated the word TOUNANTION as "rather" for clarity. If you feel this is an obfuscation I have no qualms about translating it as "on the contrary", but it doesn't change the meaning significantly, if at all. I already demonstrated how it relates to the previous clause. These people who seemed important to paul conferred nothing to him, which is to say his message or theological program for the Gentiles, on the contrary they saw he had been entrusted with his version of the gospel (from God he implies) and they knew the grace bestowed on him so they basically accepted him as the apostle to the gentiles. The transition here is perfectly reasonable and smooth (setting aside for the moment the name change issue) . Not only that but it fits in with Paul's overall purpose in this letter which is to say that his gospel is accepted by the people of authority in Jerusalem and that he has a legitimate claim to apostolic authority as much as any of Jesus' actual followers.

It's a typo. My apologies. I should have written DOKOUNTWN. Strike the errant upsilon and let's move on.

In that case provide your own translation. Or perhaps, if Haran is lurking, he could explain why my translation is so lacking.

I'm using gloss only in the sense of an explanatory note inserted in a text. I am not neccessarily using the more technical term as employed by scholars which carries with it the implication of an addition that is the work of a redactor. Perhaps a better term would be an "aside". Conseqeuntly I retract my use of the word gloss as it was not appropriate in this context. Futhermore (since I'm copping to linguistic foibles)...

You are correct and I'll freely cop to that despite the fact that it makes me look foolish after I harped on you about it. It is doubly embarassing since I just finished a discussion on cognates in my Greek grammar text and the accompanying software uses cognates (in the correct sense of the word) to help with vocabulary. Even so you never addressed the fact that KHFAS and PETROS are etymologically related in an important way which I already explained. Is it not awfully coincidental that one is a greek transliteration of the aramaic and one is a greek translation of the aramaic? Can this really be dismissed with just some simple hand waving? If you have presented a more in depth rebuttal of this idea I missed it.

This is what is so infuriating. I did consider your argument point by point and found it wanting. I explained why as anyone who has followed this discussion can attest. Why do you continue to maintain otherwise?

By "dancing around" I mean obfuscating and writing a lot without actually saying much. This is hardly an accusation of lying. Furthermore, no you do not call me a liar, but you have called me equally insulting things. Be that as it may I am sure I'm not free from rhetoric in this thread so we'll call it even.

This is simply ridiculous. There is no MSS evidence for the NT prior to the 2nd century. The oldest fragment (P92?), the John Ryland's fragment, contains only a few fragmentary verses from GJn. By your reasoning then we cannot use manuscript evidence for reconstructing the text of the NT and yet how else can we reconstruct the text? This argument makes no sense.

The better question is how did he get the name Simon? Who knows where these traditions came from; they undoubtedly precede the texts in question. The point is can you offer a reasonable explanation for for their striking agreement in meaning? It is obvious enough that AMt seized on it for his clever play on words that the Catholics use (inappropriately in my opinion) as a proof text for Peter's primacy in the church heirarchy.

This is a red herring. The text critical arguments for Marcan priority are legion far more so than an awkward reading of a couple pericopae. Secondly I am not convinced of the argument for Q but it is not because of a lack of manuscript evidence. In any case the arguments for both are not analagous to the arguments for interpolation in Galatians.

spin

CowboyX:
----------------------
I do however question your familiarity with Koine Greek. I base this on your participation in this discussion so far. If I am wrong and you can demonstrate that fact I will retract that assessment as well, but I think it has bearing on this debate.
----------------------

I don't have much familiarity with Koine. As I have said, I've been dealing with Tanakh for a long time. But nothing I have seen from you requires a deep knowledge of Koine, but then, it's not the only Greek around.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note this "rather", when the word enantios (to enantion) specifically talks of contrariness
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CowboyX:
------------------
I translated the word TOUNANTION as "rather" for clarity. If you feel this is an obfuscation I have no qualms about translating it as "on the contrary", but it doesn't change the meaning significantly, if at all. I already demonstrated how it relates to the previous clause. These people who seemed important to paul conferred nothing to him, which is to say his message or theological program for the Gentiles, on the contrary they saw he had been entrusted with his version of the gospel (from God he implies) and they knew the grace bestowed on him so they basically accepted him as the apostle to the gentiles.
------------------

It shows the problem of semantic linking: there is nothing significantly contrary being dealt with. There is already an alla ("but") to mark the shift to a different view, but this "on the contrary" needs justification which you have been unable to supply, for what you say is sufficiently dealt with using alla. (I come not to destroy but [alla] to fulfil the law.)

CowboyX:
------------------
The transition here is perfectly reasonable and smooth (setting aside for the moment the name change issue) . Not only that but it fits in with Paul's overall purpose in this letter which is to say that his gospel is accepted by the people of authority in Jerusalem and that he has a legitimate claim to apostolic authority as much as any of Jesus' actual followers.
------------------

If you say so. For me putting asides in two consecutive sentences makes for a very disrupted text. Then when we consider the second aside it contains numerous anomalies, starting with the name problem, then the apparently not directly connected repetition of the circumcision/uncircumcision rhetoric, the reference to this Peter being entrusted with the gospel the circumcised, yet Cephas (not Peter) being well-known to the Corinthians, but more importantly the picture of Cephas carousing with the Gentiles in 2:11-12 should tell you that we are not dealing with the same person who was entrusted with the gospel the circumcised.

Without the two verses there is a much clearer flow of discourse and the links between the principal ideas are clear. Our topic is Paul's distinction between those who are reputed to be something and himself who even those reputed know his value. Paul has prepared this from 2:2 with its tous dokousin.

(Your doukountwn appeared in two posts and was seen three times. I would have thought someone who was professing knowledge in the field would not repeat the same "typo" three times.)

spin:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(If you really think "to Paul", then you miss the sense altogether.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CowboyX:
------------------
In that case provide your own translation. Or perhaps, if Haran is lurking, he could explain why my translation is so lacking.
------------------

Paul has been questioning their repute, although others give it to them.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whoa, cowboy, you can't assume, if it's a gloss, that it is a Pauline gloss.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CowboyX:
------------------
I'm using gloss only in the sense of an explanatory note inserted in a text. I am not neccessarily using the more technical term as employed by scholars which carries with it the implication of an addition that is the work of a redactor. Perhaps a better term would be an "aside". Conseqeuntly I retract my use of the word gloss as it was not appropriate in this context. Futhermore (since I'm copping to linguistic foibles)...
------------------

... an aside which follows an aside in the previous verse, really makes for wonderful prose, don't you think?

CowboyX:
------------------
Even so you never addressed the fact that KHFAS and PETROS are etymologically related in an important way which I already explained. Is it not awfully coincidental that one is a greek transliteration of the aramaic and one is a greek translation of the aramaic? Can this really be dismissed with just some simple hand waving? If you have presented a more in depth rebuttal of this idea I missed it.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CowboyX:
------------------
3)Support is provided for the original argument for interpolation (and not a cut and paste
rebuttal)
------------------
This just means that you are not considering it. You have shown little interest in dealing
to much of it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is what is so infuriating. I did consider your argument point by point and found it wanting. I explained why as anyone who has followed this discussion can attest. Why do you continue to maintain otherwise?

spin:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
manuscript evidence as I said is only worthwhile for the period when the manuscript was written: it cannot be used for the preceding periods.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CowboyX:
------------------
This is simply ridiculous. There is no MSS evidence for the NT prior to the 2nd century. The oldest fragment (P92?), the John Ryland's fragment, contains only a few fragmentary verses from GJn. By your reasoning then we cannot use manuscript evidence for reconstructing the text of the NT and yet how else can we reconstruct the text? This argument makes no sense.
------------------

Our subject is Gal 2:7-8. If the manuscript evidence doesn't cover it, then you can only theorise based on the manuscript evidence. This should be obvious. Yet, as we have seen from the manuscript evidence there have been so many variations in texts that it is common and the norm, not the odd situation out, so to argue on manuscript evidence is to admit the possibility of textual management. It is not a firewall.

CowboyX:
------------------
The .. question is how did he get the name Simon? Who knows where these traditions came from; they undoubtedly precede the texts in question. The point is can you offer a reasonable explanation for for their striking agreement in meaning? It is obvious enough that AMt seized on it for his clever play on words that the Catholics use (inappropriately in my opinion) as a proof text for Peter's primacy in the church heirarchy.
------------------

You are aware that Cephas is not a name at all. I was trying to track down a Hebrew reconstruction of the name Caiaphas, which would be something like kyph, so that I could retransliterate it back into Greek for you: this might end up Kipas or, given the vocalization before the yod, Kepas, but not really transliteration but a transcription of the name heard. You are merely assuming because the two words come according to the tradition from the same significance, that they must be the same person. Well, tell me why the Epistle of the Apostles lists them separately?

CowboyX:
---------------------
If you reject the relevance of the manuscript evidence without giving any real reason
other than "the originals might have been different" I have nothing more to say on that
score.
---------------------

spin:
------------------
I gather you also reject the notion of Marcan priority and Q, because there is no
manuscript evidence for them.
------------------

CowboyX:
------------------
This is a red herring. The text critical arguments for Marcan priority are legion far more so than an awkward reading of a couple pericopae. Secondly I am not convinced of the argument for Q but it is not because of a lack of manuscript evidence. In any case the arguments for both are not analagous to the arguments for interpolation in Galatians.
------------------

No red herring. It tells you that the heavy weight you put on manuscript evidence is misplaced. The vast majority of scholars in the field accept the two document hypothesis at the cost of any argument on manuscript evidence, so I wouldn't put so much hope in manuscript evidence.

You still haven't supplied a serious understanding of why Paul should chop from one name to another in mid discourse, which I think is best explained through interpolation. It's a bit like someone talking about a Ivan in German and suddenly calling him Johannes. Hey, the names mean the same, but that doesn't help the basic communicative problem which you in turn have not attempted to deal with the Cephas and Peter alternation, though it would seem that early apologists have attempted to deal with it by changing the text for clarity's sake emending Cephas to Peter according to the manuscript tradition.

Haran

Sorry guys. I don't have the time to get into a discussion on greek grammar, but it's interesting. Here are a few tidbits I'll throw into the mix.

Caiaphas? Hmm... I never thought about the relation. I'll have to look that up. However, Cephas does seem to come from the Aramiac/Hebrew Keph, meaning rock. This same word can be found in the OT (in the plural) at: Jer 4:29 and Job 30:6. It also has a cognate in Syriac. (BTW, I actually read a book one time that attempted to prove that Greek was semitic in origin... If it had worked, then CowboyX's "cognate" in the Greek wouldn't have been far off... ).

As far as MS evidence, p46 is the earliest witness, dating to around 200 A.D. as CowboyX pointed out (although some, like Philip Comfort, date it to around 150 A.D.). P46 includes Gal verses 7 & 8 using "Peter". So the earliest and best witnesses have these verses. Could there have been an interpolation before the texts were written down? Sure. However, this remains only a theory until physical proof is found. I do not believe it happened, so the MS evidence is final for me.

I don't see the problem with "tounantian" and feel that Spin is splitting hairs with his definition of "changing topics". Anyway, "tounantian" was used elsewhere by Paul, in 2 Cor 2:7 to be exact. It was used in Gal. 2:7 for emphasis. Since the word is used elsewhere by Paul, it is easy to conclude that he would have used it again here in Gal. 2:7. I don't think these verses are an interpolation.

Man, I wish I had more time. This is interesting.

Haran

[ March 20, 2002: Message edited by: Haran ]</p>