In search of distinctive Matthew/John parallels

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Peter and Kephas

Post by mlinssen »

Ken Olson wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 11:09 am ...
Hi Ken, sorry for the ambushing - but I'm surfing the NHL indices again and ran into

KATHOLIKON
Katholicos.png
Katholicos.png (9.17 KiB) Viewed 1082 times
All of that from Codex VII
1. The Paraphrase of Shem (1:1-49:9)

Lovely translation of course, let's ignore that as usual - but when is the first time that this remarkable word gets used "by proper Christians"?
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1277
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Peter and Kephas

Post by Ken Olson »

mlinssen wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 12:38 pm
Ken Olson wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 11:09 am ...
Hi Ken, sorry for the ambushing - but I'm surfing the NHL indices again and ran into

KATHOLIKON

Katholicos.png

All of that from Codex VII
1. The Paraphrase of Shem (1:1-49:9)

Lovely translation of course, let's ignore that as usual - but when is the first time that this remarkable word gets used "by proper Christians"?
That's a bit outside my special expertise, but I think it's Ignatius Smyrnaeans 8.2 (if authentic, and possibly even if not, if still second century). I don't know the date of the MSS.

http://www.textexcavation.com/greekigna ... aeans.html
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: In search of distinctive Matthew/John parallels

Post by Secret Alias »

FWIW I always thought the rabbinic use of the Greek term interesting

קָתוֹלִיקוֹס, קָתְלִי׳ m. (καθολικός) financial officer, controller, esp. catholicos, an officer of the Temple treasury. Ex. R. s. 37, beg. למלך … ק׳ ומנהו וכ׳ like a king that had a friend, and when he wanted to appoint a controller, he appointed him over his entire treasury; Y’lamd. to Gen. XLIX, 1 quot. in Ar. קתוליכוס (corr. acc.). Num. R. s. 18 קרח שהיה ק׳ וכ׳ Korah who was the controller of Pharaoh’s palace and had in charge the keys &c. Y. Shek. V, 49ᵃ קתיליקוס, קתיליקון, קתיליקיס (Bab. ed. קתליקין, קתליקין; corr. acc.); a. e.—Pl. קָתוֹלִיקִין. Ib. אין פיחתין משני ק׳ (Bab. ed. a. ed. Zyt. כתל׳, corr. acc.) there were never less than two catholici in the Temple treasury.—Cant. R. to VII, 9 (expl. פחותא, Dan. III, 2) קתאליקי (some ed. קאת׳), read קָתוֹלִיקֵי or קָאת׳ (ch. pl.) controllers.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Peter and Kephas

Post by mlinssen »

Ken Olson wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 1:12 pm
mlinssen wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 12:38 pm
Ken Olson wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 11:09 am ...
Hi Ken, sorry for the ambushing - but I'm surfing the NHL indices again and ran into

KATHOLIKON

Katholicos.png

All of that from Codex VII
1. The Paraphrase of Shem (1:1-49:9)

Lovely translation of course, let's ignore that as usual - but when is the first time that this remarkable word gets used "by proper Christians"?
That's a bit outside my special expertise, but I think it's Ignatius Smyrnaeans 8.2 (if authentic, and possibly even if not, if still second century). I don't know the date of the MSS.

http://www.textexcavation.com/greekigna ... aeans.html
Thank you Ken!
I spent 5 minutes on Google and quickly drew my verdict: Eusebius is our source to Ignatius, so all this must be completely fake - and indeed it's the alleged "first use of the word catholic".
At least I now know where it comes from - LOL

There's a small footnote to it, by Jove!

SECOND TREATISE OF THE GREAT SETH 61.9-62,3 - NHL Codex VII Tractate 2, page 179

“universal”: Greek Ka0oXiK6v, and perhaps also a reference to “catholic” as used by the orthodox.

Simply amazing. It's not the only occurrence in the NHL, I flew by another few.
How is all this possible Ken, with all these great and magnificent scholars who had access to the NHL for decades, were supported by the bestest Universities in Da Universe, and themselves divinely Divinated? And then I come along, this foulmouth and loudmouth amateur, and I keep pulling treasure after treasure from it while merely glancing at it in the look for something different?

Nothing else in the comments of course, why am I not surprised. And then Stephen Emmel frowns at me - back at when I discovered the utter Chrestian complexion of the NHL, all neatly obfuscated by translating that with "Christian" - while asking "You're not suggesting that there's some conspiracy behind this are you" and I realise that it is no use - and perhaps not even very humane - to wake a dead man from his sleep when he's invested 5-6 decades of his life into a Lie

When will Christians demand honesty, sincerity and truth from their scholars and academics?
What will it take for the likes of you, Gathercole and Goodacre to stand up and shout?

"Thank you for sharing your research Martijn"

Sorry Ken, I have nothing but praise and respect for you, and you deserve nothing but from my point of view. But what does it take to turn all this around - what does it take to simply do the right thing?
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1277
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Peter and Kephas

Post by Ken Olson »

mlinssen wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 2:37 pm I spent 5 minutes on Google and quickly drew my verdict: Eusebius is our source to Ignatius, so all this must be completely fake - and indeed it's the alleged "first use of the word catholic".
At least I now know where it comes from - LOL

[Snip]

When will Christians demand honesty, sincerity and truth from their scholars and academics?
What will it take for the likes of you, Gathercole and Goodacre to stand up and shout?

"Thank you for sharing your research Martijn"

Sorry Ken, I have nothing but praise and respect for you, and you deserve nothing but from my point of view. But what does it take to turn all this around - what does it take to simply do the right thing?
I'm going to give this a serious answer. If you want other people to accept your arguments, you need to state them clearly to give others a chance to examine them them. Clarity involves things like defining your terms and stating your conclusion and giving the premises and the reasoning that led to your conclusion (i.e., true premises and a truth-preserving series of deductions leading to a true conclusion).

In this specific case, what is 'all this', the Ignatian correspondence, or just Smyrnaeans, or what? And what logical thought process did you go through to determine it came from Eusebius? And what does it have to do with the NHL? You seem to think this is all obvious. It is not.

I gather that in a lot of your posts, you are examining when a word, symbol, or concept is first found attested in surviving manuscripts. You seems to make a jump from [earliest use attested in surviving manuscripts] to [absolute earliest use] without making it explicit how you get there. There is a tendency in a lot of your writings to state a position and then mock those who don't agree with you as incompetent or dishonest. Making your logic explicit and understandable might be more helpful.

To put it another way: How do you know the things you claim to know?
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Peter and Kephas

Post by mlinssen »

Ken Olson wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 11:00 pm
mlinssen wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 2:37 pm I spent 5 minutes on Google and quickly drew my verdict: Eusebius is our source to Ignatius, so all this must be completely fake - and indeed it's the alleged "first use of the word catholic".
At least I now know where it comes from - LOL

[Snip]

When will Christians demand honesty, sincerity and truth from their scholars and academics?
What will it take for the likes of you, Gathercole and Goodacre to stand up and shout?

"Thank you for sharing your research Martijn"

Sorry Ken, I have nothing but praise and respect for you, and you deserve nothing but from my point of view. But what does it take to turn all this around - what does it take to simply do the right thing?
I'm going to give this a serious answer. If you want other people to accept your arguments, you need to state them clearly to give others a chance to examine them them. Clarity involves things like defining your terms and stating your conclusion and giving the premises and the reasoning that led to your conclusion (i.e., true premises and a truth-preserving series of deductions leading to a true conclusion).

In this specific case, what is 'all this', the Ignatian correspondence, or just Smyrnaeans, or what? And what logical thought process did you go through to determine it came from Eusebius? And what does it have to do with the NHL? You seem to think this is all obvious. It is not.

I gather that in a lot of your posts, you are examining when a word, symbol, or concept is first found attested in surviving manuscripts. You seems to make a jump from [earliest use attested in surviving manuscripts] to [absolute earliest use] without making it explicit how you get there. There is a tendency in a lot of your writings to state a position and then mock those who don't agree with you as incompetent or dishonest. Making your logic explicit and understandable might be more helpful.

To put it another way: How do you know the things you claim to know?
Thanks Ken!
Proper questions, some good points

I'm a bit surprised by your view that I take a position and then expect people to agree - I was under the impression that I present objectively verifiable data, look at that from both sides of a coin, and then make an informed decision

As example of that would be viewtopic.php?p=125462#p125462 which is a typical TL;DR post.
A much more concise one would be viewtopic.php?p=119209#p119209.
A really concise one is viewtopic.php?p=119091#p119091

Are those in line with what you see as my "default" behaviour described above?
Last edited by mlinssen on Sat Jul 30, 2022 9:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Peter and Kephas

Post by gryan »

Ken Olson wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 11:09 am
gryan wrote: Wed Jul 27, 2022 10:35 am William O Walker Jr. wrote:

"Barnikol argued that Gal 2:7b-8 (beginning with της άκροβυστίας) was an antiMarcionite insertion, dating from the late second century... To my knowledge, no one has subjected his proposal to detailed scrutiny or attempted to answer the rather cursory arguments advanced against it, or, indeed, asked whether there might be additional reasons for viewing Gal 2:7b-8 as an interpolation."

With this, he introduces his argument of this essay: Galatians 2:7b-8 as a non-Pauline interpolation, The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 65 no 4 Oct 2003

PS.

Walker wrote:
"Various scholars have noted that the deletion of v. 8 would highlight the striking parallelism between two
participial clauses, ίδόντες δτι πεπίστευμαι το εύαγγέλιον (ν. 7) and γνόντες την χάριν την δοθεισάν μοι (ν. 9), which appear to be virtually synonymous in meaning. Indeed, with the removal of both v. 7b and v. 8, vv. 7a and 9 would read smoothly as follows:

άλλα τουναντίον
ιδόντες δτι πεπίστευμαι το εύαγγέλιον καί
γνόντες την χάριν τήν δοθεισάν μοι,
'Ιάκωβος και Κηφάς και 'Ιωάννης, οί δοκούντες στύλοι είναι,
δεξιάς εδωκεν έμοί καί Βαρνάβα κοινωνίας,
ίνα ημείς είς τά έθνη, αυτοί δε είς τήν περιτομήν.

In short, as Dinkier notes, one can eliminate the material in question "without causing a break in the characteristic style of the sentence."

I agree. My argument is that Paul was lifting up the pillar James is a model of "having discerned" and "having known" his particular gift.

The proposed interpolation distracts from the authorial emphasis on the strong bond of "knowing" (a gnostic bond, if you will) between himself and the pillar James (Cf. 1 Cor 15:5-10 and Acts 15).
I've now read Walker's papers in CBQ 65.4 (2003) and JBL 123.4 (2004) and, while I agree that the material in Gal. 2.7b-8 could be removed and leave an intelligible text, I am not convinced by Walker's reasons for doing so. Also, in the JBL 2004 paper, he points out the apparently carefully constructed parallelism in the two parts of v. 7 'when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel for the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel for the circumcised', and argues that v. 8 (only) was interpolated, before giving his actual opinion that 2.7b-8 were interpolated in the conclusion and citing his 2003 work. It's sort of a weird shift in the paper.

Anyway, we could debate Walker's reasons for identifying 2.7b-8 as an interpolation (which would remove all mention of 'Peter' from the Pauline corpus). But I think for purposes of the question we're currently discussing, whether Peter and Kephas are the same person, removing 2.7b-8 would actually remove the basis for distinguishing between them. We'd have a Paul who speaks only of Kephas in Gal. and 1 Cor., then a bunch of NT references to Peter, and then John 1.43, which identifies Kephas as Peter, and our knowledge that Petros means 'rock' in Greek as Kephas does in Aramaic. Peter would then simply be the Greek name, along with some later idealization, of the person called Kephas in Paul. I think Ehrman's case for arguing that Peter and Kephas are different depends on them both appearing in Galatians.

ETA: What Ehrman wrote on his blog:
I also showed that there are grounds for thinking this. Even though John 1:42 explicitly identifies Cephas and Peter as the same person, the much earlier writer Paul, the only surviving author who actually knew Peter, or Cephas, or both, seems to indicate they were separate people. He doesn’t actually SAY so, but that appears to be the implications of what he does say, when he speaks of them both in the same breath.

And so I concluded that maybe they were in fact two different people.

https://ehrmanblog.org/finally-cephas-a ... lly-think/
Best,

Ken
Hi Ken,

Thanks for doing this reading and reflection and for sharing about it. I see the point that the interpolation hypothesis has little or no impact on the Peter Cephas identity question.

I'm not sure why I have a lower bar for an interpolation hypothesis to hold weight, but the more I study it in the context of the letter and of Paul's own writing and history of tradition, the less I think this bit is authentically Paul's writing.

I'm rushing off for the weekend,

Greg
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Peter and Kephas

Post by mlinssen »

mlinssen wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 1:32 am
Ken Olson wrote: Thu Jul 28, 2022 11:00 pm To put it another way: How do you know the things you claim to know?
Thanks Ken!
Proper questions, some good points

I'm a bit surprised by your view that I take a position and then expect people to agree - I was under the impression that I present objectively verifiable data, look at that from both sides of a coin, and then make an informed decision

As example of that would be viewtopic.php?p=125462#p125462 which is a typical TL;DR post.
A much more concise one would be viewtopic.php?p=119209#p119209.
A really concise one is viewtopic.php?p=119091#p119091

Are those in line with what you see as my "default" behaviour described above?
No hurry Ken, I'm just anxious (must be the heat)

Best
Post Reply