EarlDoherty

This is a diversionary tactic. Even if I introduced an irrelevancy (which I did not) does not excuse a complete misunderstanding of what I said in that paragraph and running with it as though it somehow disproved my entire article.

I "bothered" with it because it served as an introduction to my disagreement with the general interpretation of Galatians 4:4f by scholarship, namely that the earlier exapesteilen in verse 4 (God sent his Son born of woman...) was referring to Jesus' life on earth several decades earlier than Paul wrote, whereas the same exapesteilen in verse 6 refers to God sending the spirit of the Son into the hearts of believers as a result of their faith response to Paul's preaching. (My view is that they are right on the second part but not on the first.) A use of the imperfect tense in translating the second phrase conveys that time-separation quality in English, even if it were not intentional on the part of the translator.

Therefore, my argument about the translations was entirely relevant, and served to point up the standard interpretation as opposed to my preferred interpretation which I then went on to outline and argue at great length. If you had read on, or if you had brought even a modicum of comprehension to it, you would have seen this, and you would not now be demanding to know why the point about translations was something to "bother" with.

And that demand is nothing resembling a "counter argument."

Earl Doherty

Lugubert

I see. You're relying on readers not sufficiently knowledgable to see through your smokescreens.

FathomFFI

Yet, you have not provided any evidence that anyone would understand that "God sent" and "God has sent" would imply two completely different understandings.

All you did was create a pointless argument with yourself.

FathomFFI

This is where this argument stumbles, right off the bat. In order for you to justify your statement of "but this may well be a significant misreading, and then continue on with the rest of your argument, you must alter the text. Following your altering, you then present an argument. It is only then that your argument has legs.

So far, we have not been given reason as to why the text should be altered. Where's the argument to this point that the text should not be there? How does your argument have validity at this point? You should be presenting evidence that the text should not be there first, before you attempt to present this theory. The rest of your argument is just a theory based upon your altering of the text, and it does nothing to support that the text should not be there in the first place.

Arguing that Paul could have meant this, or could have meant that is easy when the text is altered. Anybody can argue anything with this method. But it is invalid because you have invented a scenario to justify the rest of your argument. We could alter the text also, and demonstrate another argument completely different from your own. Anybody can do this.

But the reality is that we know the text existed in the 2nd century, some 120 - 140 years after Paul wrote the letter, and the time frame for any Christian interpolation is very small, and without any support.

Again, you are presenting a theory which absolutely requires altered text. This makes your argument fallacious in it totality.

Toto

120-140 years is but an instant??

Surely you jest.

FathomFFI

Evidence to support interpolation, please. :huh:

The only one we have seen altering text so far, is Earl Doherty.

Ben C Smith

Out of curiosity, do you think the phrase born of a woman was in the text used by Marcion? Do you agree that, according to Tertullian, that line was not in the Marcionite version of the Pauline epistle of Galatians?

Ben.

Toto

Evidence to support interpolations: read this thread Interpolations in the Pauline Epistles by William O. Walker Jr.

FathomFFI

I agree with your point. It has good evidence.

The problem I am having is they were near contemporaries, and it is Tertullian who accuses Marcion of altering texts. When we consider the early church's persecution of Marcion, it is rather obvious that everyone else had the same text as Tertullian, as the consensus was decidedly against Marcion.

FathomFFI

That get's silly right here:

Chapter 3 Burden of Proof

Fallacious argument. The letters' mere existence stands as evidence on their own. Claiming that the letters were not interpolated is a negative claim, while claiming that they are interpolated is the positive claim.

The burden of proof is with he who makes the positive claim.

How does anyone prove a negative?