Bunsen , and L. Dindorf The editio princeps P and the Dindorf edition D supplement the two mss see Zahn, p. An English translation of the adumbrationes is in the ANF 2, here. Thanks Roger.
This only confirms my suspicions about this text. Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as the rest of the apostles, as the brethren of the Lord and Cephas?
But we have not used this power. Peter and Philip had children, and Philip gave his daughters in marriage. Even Paul did not hesitate in one letter to address his consort. The only reason why he did not take her about with him was that it would have been an inconvenience for his ministry.
Photius was clearly right when he says that Clement did not right the Hypotyposes. Clement believed that when Paul pointed to Cephas as a married apostle he meant Peter.
- The Conscious Illusion;
- World Cup WAGS (WAGS World);
- Mingana Syriac 11.
- Calaboose celebrates Juneteenth at Cephas;
- The Rebound Guy!
- Crystal: Book 1 in the Glassmakers saga.
And this is exactly the way any sane person would read the reference. Photius must have seen a number of contradictions in the manner of the one I just cited. One more think Roger. Thank you. My role, as a taxpayer, is merely to pay for it. As you may have noticed, there are several other interesting papers there as well. This scholar is to be commended for making his reprints so easily accessible!
Yes, all scholars should promote themselves this way, if they can. I imagine in 10 years few will not do so.
I came across this post while doing research on the way the Church Fathers understood the incident in Antioch. He then adds a few comments which I find puzzling. Could anyone help me do a translation of these paragraphs? Does Oecumenius actually suggest that Paul merely used the accusations brought to Peter by the Jews as a pretext to rebuke them? I do not fully understand the text but it would be interesting to read a translation. Fragmenta in epistulam ad Galatas in catenis , ed. Staab, Pauluskommentar aus der griechischen Kirche aus Katenenhandschriften gesammelt.
These commentaries are of particular interest to those researching the Comma Johanneum; as both Clement and Bede, appear to quote 1st John from the Greek MSS without the extra wording.
Didymus passes over these verses without any comment. Does this Library have a web-site by any chance? Do you happen to know if a member of the public can have access to, or arrange to view the manuscript by private appointment? Here is the text: They say that Sosthenes also, who wrote tothe Corinthians with Paul, was one of them. Codices and deal with the other two works.
- Harley MS 3843;
- Rare Books & Manuscripts.
- Essential Microbiology.
- So Much More Than Worthless.
- Rare Books & Manuscripts | Boston Athenæum!
Like this: Like Loading It is from the edition of Staab. William Walker talks about the "Protocol Hypothesis," where. This hypothesis now enjoys rather widespread support, whether as proposed by Dinkler, in somewhat modified form, or with significant alteration. As for well-known supporters of this, he cites Betz, Bruce, Ludemann. As for alternate hypotheses: I suppose one could suggest just stylistic variation. Honestly though, this is one of those conspicuous occasions where I think a more complicated theory is called for.
Almost certainly, these variants reflect the influence of Gal b Perhaps the most extreme alternate hypothesis would be to suggest that Peter and Cephas are in fact different people. This idea was in fact known in the patristic period; and in the past few decades, Ehrman seriously considered it in his JBL article "Cephas and Peter. In any case, as for Walker's view itself Of course, Walker is highly overeager to see many interpolations throughout the Pauline corpus; and this is an extreme minority view that I think is quite improbable in many if not most cases.
The Hypotyposes (Outlines) of Clement of Alexandria
He cites only five scholars from the 19th century through to the midth who've similarly suggested Galatians as an interpolation:. As for scholars in the latter half of the 20th century who've followed suit for b-8, Walker cites -- and included among these, predictably, is J. O'Neill, who like Walker is also highly enthusiastic about a hyper-interpolated Pauline corpus and, really, the whole corpus of NT epistles in general In my view: if the difference between the two can't plausibly be ascribed to mere stylistic variation, yet if on the other hand interpolation would be an option of last resort, then I think by necessity something like the Protocol Hypothesis would be your best bet.
Despite its own weaknesses, which Walker discusses. Sandbox for notes. By Brad McAdon. Walker, Jr.
Codex Sinaiticus - See The Manuscript | 1 Corinthians |
Bart Ehrman also once wrote an article arguing that Peter and Cephas were different people. He has since recanted it on the basis that "Cephas" and Peter" would both be unusual names in their respective languages. Personally, I think it most likely just shows that even Paul's uncontested letters were probably reworked by proto-orthodox redactors. I've assumed the "Peter" passage is an interpolation; it goes off on what might be called a Catholic tangent.
Can you elaborate on how "Walker is highly overeager to see many interpolations throughout the Pauline corpus"? Is there any good evidence that the corpus hasn't been so heavily interpolated? There is an elephant in this room. Paul stated in Gal that there is only one gospel and anyone proposing anything different should be cursed, so the proposition that there is a gospel to the uncircumcised and a gospel to the circumcised is incredible coming from the writer of Gal People will rush to justify the implication of b-8 with notions like "it's the same gospel, only different receivers", though this would be pure eisegesis that is contrary to Pauline gospel rhetoric.
Everything from "of the uncircumcised" to the end of v.
Paul doesn't qualify the gospel. There is no other. The mention of Peter here represents a post-Pauline status quo and helps to explain a well-know scribal phenomenon called "fatigue", which is a lapse in concentration involving the use of a more common form in the new text for a less common one found in the source text. It is only in Gal. It is significant that there are no alternations in Gal for only Peter is found there. As there is no such "infection" in 1 Cor. The notion that Paul was following some name protocol makes little sense.
That there is no alternation with Cephas in Gal suggests that it was written when the church status quo regarding Peter was established.