Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - RE: [corpus-paul]: rules of evidence

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "David C. Hindley" <dhindley AT compuserve.com>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.metalab.unc.edu>
  • Subject: RE: [corpus-paul]: rules of evidence
  • Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 14:46:26 -0400


Eric,

You say "(a) Galatians is generally considered to contain authentic
first-person witness references to Peter" and "Consequently, amongst these
mentioned sources, the best evidence for formulating hypotheses about Peter
would be (a) Galatians."

This would be true if one follows the Textus Receptus, which mixes Cephas
and Peter almost indiscriminately, but what if you accept the "other"
consensus in which the Nestle-Aland GNT more likely represents the original
NT texts. Then only a parenthetic statement, vss 2:7b-8, uses the name Peter
while in all other cases in the Pauline documents only Cephas is referred
to. That renders the passage that contains "Peter" as suspect. If
eliminated, you are now talking about a document that contains authentic
first-person witness references to Cephas. The author of Acts only speaks of
Peter. To link them, you would be forced to harmonize the accounts.

How would *that* be accepted as evidence in a trial? As I said earlier ...
consensus is relative and the devil is in the details.

Respectfully,

Dave Hindley
Cleveland, Ohio, USA






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page