jgibson000

Speaking of command of English! I take it you meant to say: "Maybe that your Greek is not as good as I think it is". If not, thanks for the recognition of my capacities and your vote of confidence in them.

"As you do". And all this might mean, however it is you think I'm acting, is that your experience of professors is not very wide.

How is this relevant for the questions at hand? Instead of trying to gather data for (I assume) a posioning of the well attack, how about you actually enaging with my arguments?

Jeffrey Gibson

Ben C Smith

Why would you throw a question like this one at a nontheist like Gibson?

Ben.

jgibson000

Speaking of interesting and belaboured English, you do realize. don't you, that given the contruction of the sentence above, you are saying that Earl has] been trying to embarass himself by murdering someone in public but so far has only succeded in committing murders in private?

No wonder he was writing an episode about hit men and hidden murders for Law and Order. Ripped from his own headlines, I guess.

Or did you mean to say something else?

Jeffrey Gibson

dog-on

1 Cor. 15:3-9 Yes, I believe this is an interpolation.

Galations 1:19 - I discussed this here:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...69#post3512969

Gal 2:9 Maybe, this whole chapter is strange, I am on the fence at this time.

1 Cor. 9:5 - Yes, at least the reference to the brother and Cephas.

JoeWallack

JW:
No, I meant to say what I did. If English is not your first language than maybe Greek is.

You like to highlite the rare mispelling of your opponents yet your posts are full of it.


JW:
I Am married to an Academic Doctor <edit> who is a Full Professor.

JW:
I can understand why you avoid the question. Usually Professors are proud of their placement. You look to me to be a visiting Assistant professor (the lowest category) at De Paul. Why doesn't the web site list you as a faculty in the Religious Department when their summary says that's where you were assigned?

"How is this relevant"? This from someone who constantly questions other's qualifications. <edit>



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Ben C Smith

I looked that post over, and I admit I do not follow the reasoning. For example:

Well, yes, the meeting was irrelevant (according to Paul). That is what Paul is trying to say. This is an argument for authenticity, not for interpolation.

It sounds like you are reading Paul as inserting that meeting with James in a positive way. But the context is crystal clear; Paul is admitting that he met with James but playing down the meeting, since his claim (which may be doubted to some extent) is that he got absolutely nothing from the pillars, that it all came from a revelation.

Thus Galatians 1.18-20, where his point is that his interactions with the pillars were very limited, and Galatians 1.11-12, where his point is that his gospel came from Christ, not from men, hang together.

You appear to be saying that the flow originally went from verse 18 straight to verses 22-23.

Now you appear to be saying that verse 18 was not there at all.

To the contrary, if Paul had already spoken with Cephas, and Cephas had already unofficially approved of his gospel, that would help explain why Paul went up to Jerusalem 14 years later. He could tentatively predict that his reception would be favorable.

Your conclusion...:

...receives no evidentiary support at all besides a couple of pseudo-problems. No text-critical argument, no patristic references, no discussion of why somebody would insert the pillars into Galatians in order both to give them authority and to critique them, no analogies with other, more secure interpolations, nothing.

Just so you know, I am always skeptical of interpolation theories, whether conservative or liberal or theist or atheist or in Christian works or in pagan or Jewish works. There are those on this board who will propose them at the drop of a hat. It is hard to argue against the argument this seems strange to me.

Ben.

dog-on

Ben, Maybe this is clearer:

This is how I would read it. The italisized parts are also suspicious.

JoeWallack

JW:
<edit>

Okay, so Doherty has a few problems like deciding whether he is an Advocate or Judge for Mythical Jesus. I applaud Gibson's questioning of Specifics of Doherty's Argument. That's only going to make Doherty better. But Gibson's General attack on Doherty is Hypocritical as Doherty is the Leading (only?) high profile proponent of MJ which is a Serious position that has been dishonestly suppressed/ignored by 2,000 years of Liars for Jesus. So Doherty is providing a valuable and courageous public service to try and end the pernicious superstition.

Gibson provided a link to Chris Price without comment. Talk about bad scholarship! If Gibson is so god damn concerned with bad Bible scholarship why does he choose to focus on Doherty when there are so much better Targets on the "other" side.

Why do you think that is Ben?



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

dog-on

Ben, of course, Galations may not have been written by Paul at all. As per the radikals, it could have originally been written with a view towards "Luke's" Acts (as in late) and then only later interpolated by the orthodoxy.

Have you read the Detering paper?

S.C.Carlson

How likely really is it that the proto-orthodox would bother to co-opt the texts of their rivals by interpolation instead of doing something easier and less traceable, such as forge their own texts?

Stephen Carlson