Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
karavan
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2021 7:24 pm

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by karavan »

@MrMacSon LOL

Looks like you just pulled a bunch of random verses from all over Paul and tried to put together some sort of pseudo-resemblance with Numbers 12. Plenty of those "parallels" are completely imaginary, i.e. there's literally nothing to compare. How does THIS:

... I was persecuting the assembly of God … (Gal 1:13)

… I persecuted the assembly of God. (1 Cor 15:9)

Compare to THIS?:

And Mariam and Aaron spoke against Moses … (Numbers 12:1)

"And why were you not afraid to speak against my attendant Moses?” And the anger of the Lord’s wrath was against them ... (Numbers 12:8-9)

LOL. People speaking "against Moses" is magically a parallel to Paul's admission of persecuting Christians prior to his conversion?

WTH is this comparison?

… the gospel having been preached by me, is not according to man … but by a revelation of Jesus Christ. (Gal 1:11-12)
But when God ... was pleased to reveal His Son in me ... (Gal 1:15-16)

… And the Lord … said to them, “Hear my words: If there is a prophet of you for the Lord, in a vision I will be known to him, and in sleep I will speak to him." (Numbers 12:5-6)

Like seriously bro, please tell me, where's the parallel? I see one passage speaking of the good news being preached by Paul due to revelation. I see another prophesying of a coming prophet in the future. Are you daft?

The whole rest of that chart is equally BS. Make that 99%, LOL.


_____________________


"So k wants us to believe that Loisy and Walker just made stuff up. They're not real scholars at all."

Neil oh come on dude what's with this giant mass of misdirections and distractions? Of the four "arguments" you gave:

1. One of them literally says the David part is original
2. One is a blatantly false claim about manuscript G having a known difference in Romans 1.
3. One is "too long for Paul to write .... but not too long for the interpolator!" In other words, a combination of an argument from personal incredulity & special pleading.
4. The last one is just literal arse-pulling BS.

Admit it, Romans 1:3 is an interpolation because you need it to be, not because it is. Because by all standards (or ANY standards) of evidence, it's not an interpolation. Ditto Gal. 1:18-19; 4:4; 1 Cor. 11. Literally everything you need to be an interpolation is an interpolation.

Found another Godfrey'ian interpolation LOL: https://vridar.org/2020/05/20/rulers-of ... rinthians/
Last edited by karavan on Thu Nov 25, 2021 9:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by MrMacSon »

karavan wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 8:28 pm Michael the Syrian DOES have some variance though: he says, not that Christ "was" the Christ in his version, but that he was "believed to be the Christ". And Agapius provides even closer evidence. Agapius:

"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus His conduct was good, and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."

This is DRASTICALLY different from the other versions of the TF. The only part here which raises ANY suspicion is the final bit at the end. This is unequivocal attestation of a version of Josephus almost completely lacking the Christian elements. It's almost original, in fact - literally just the few words at the end need to be snipped off, and if you do that, there is 0 remaining suspicion. No matter how you cut it, Michael the Syrian but even moreso Agapius is i) clear attestation confirming the literary presumption of an interpolation ii) verifiable evidence that was predicted by the partial interpolation model. But the wholesale interpolation model is quite more awkward with the Agapius version. After all, it would predict a wholesale Christianized original, rather than an original that was barely if not Christian sounding at all to begin with.

Carrier addresses this:

.
... the Syriac quoted by Michael declares Jesus “was believed to be the Christ,” a softer assertion that perhaps maybe a Jew like Josephus might write. This same emendation appears in the Latin translation of Jerome, written just half a century after Eusebius. Note, however, that in both cases, Jerome’s Latin and Michael’s Syriac are quotations of the early 4th century Church History by Eusebius, and not of any manuscript of Josephus ...

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/12085
.

Previously,

.
... Alice Whealey proved, quite conclusively, that in fact Agapius was translating the Syriac edition not of Josephus, but of Eusebius. And it therefore certainly did not come from any earlier manuscript tradition untouched by Eusebius, but the very same one, in fact from Eusebius himself!

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/12085
.

Last edited by MrMacSon on Thu Nov 25, 2021 9:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by Peter Kirby »

karavan wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 8:50 pmMarcion probably butchered the crap out of his version of Paul's letters.
That is a possibility. However, the opposite must also be considered: subsequent publishers of the Apostolikon interpolated the hell out of it.

We already know that they added at least three entire letters (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus).
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by Peter Kirby »

karavan wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 8:50 pm "We know that, 100% of the time, manuscript evidence cannot turn up any variants that are prior to the archetype."

And yet the "archetype" tends to survive into the manuscript period when there's a relevant amount of manuscript attestation. That's a fact.
What?
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by MrMacSon »

karavan wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 8:53 pm
@MrMacSon LOL

Looks like you just pulled a bunch of random verses from all over Paul and tried to put together some sort of pseudo-resemblance with Numbers 12. Plenty of those "parallels" are completely imaginary, i.e. there's literally nothing to compare ...
< . . snip . . >
Like seriously bro, please tell me, where's the parallel? I see one passage speaking of the good news being preached by Paul due to revelation. I see another prophesying of a coming prophet in the future. Are you daft?

The whole rest of that chart is equally BS. Make that 99%, LOL.
.
That is from someone else's post, whuich I posted as a bit of an addendum (to mine here: viewtopic.php?p=129423#p129423)

Now, perhaps you might like to address my post and not a strawman

karavan wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 8:53 pm
... I was persecuting the assembly of God … (Gal 1:13)

… I persecuted the assembly of God (1 Cor 15:9)
.
Thanks. Noted
Last edited by MrMacSon on Thu Nov 25, 2021 9:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by MrMacSon »

karavan wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 8:50 pm Marcion probably butchered the crap out of his version of Paul's letters.
Yet
Peter Kirby wrote: Sat Jul 04, 2015 7:59 am
An extremely high proportion of the supposed references to a historical Jesus in the letters of Paul are absent from the Apostolikon... and, in all likelihood...inserted as post-Marcionite interpolations (some of them anti-Marcionite interpolations).
.
karavan
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2021 7:24 pm

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by karavan »

"That is a possibility. However, the opposite must also be considered: subsequent publishers of the Apostolikon interpolated the hell out of it."

Possibilities and probabilities aren't the same. Paul's letters were insanely popular and distributed across the whole of the geography of Christianity very quickly. The idea that Marcion's Apostolikon from around 140 was mass interpolated and that mass interpolated version instantly replaced the versions of Paull across the whole Mediterranean in every single church without a trace is literally an insane consideration. Paul's letters were widely distributed way before Marcion, it is literally impossible that everything was suddenly changed after him everywhere.

"We already know that they added at least three entire letters (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus)."

That is a WHOLE different phenomena of simply adding books to the canon, that is not at ALL the same as replacing every copy of Galatians, 1/2 Corinthians, 1 Thess, Philemon, and Philippians within a few years between Marcion and the subsequent mass attestation of Paul's letters in their unanimously non-Marcionite version across all Christianity. This is about the equivalent of claiming that someone suddenly replaced the Quran around 850 AD. Even if we closed our eyes and pretended that none of our Quranic manuscripts existed, that would just be a plain logistical impossibility. You can't just replace every single Quran without a trace so unanimously after it had already become widespread and accepted.



__________

"That is from someone else's post,"

And you quoted it, and therefore you bought the BS I debunked.

"Now, perhaps you might like to address my post and not a strawman"

Scroll up dude, already responded to the whole thing.

"Yet"

Nah, not yet at all. See my comments in this post, it's a fact of history that Marcion was the fraud.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by Peter Kirby »

karavan wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 8:50 pm So Irenaeus has the word "again" in Gal. 2:1 (which isn't even the point of discussion). But here:

"Irenaeus (A.H. 3.13), Tertullian’s quotation of Marcion (A.M. 5.3.1), Augustine (Quaestionum Evangeliorum 2.40, Migne PL vol. 35 col. 1355), John Chrysostom (Commentary on Galatians 2.1, Migne PG vol. 61 col. 633), a certain Greek Catena in epistulam ad Galatas (e cod. Coislin. 204, page 27, line 10), the Bohairic Coptic version, and a manuscript of the Vulgate have Galatians 2:1 without the word “again.”"

You say Irenaeus does NOT have the word "again". So, which is it?
Irenaeus and Tertullian do not have the word "again" in describing the visit of Paul to Jerusalem in Galatians 2:1. This is one of the arguments for viewing the reference to the earlier visit as an interpolation:

https://rossonl.wordpress.com/2014/06/2 ... mment-2850
Irenaeus’ Latin copy of Galatians had Gal 2:1 thus: “Then after fourteen years I went up [again] to Jerusalem” – missing the word again. (See Adversus Haereses book 3, 13 – https://archive.org/stream/sanctiirenae ... 4/mode/2up ) This suggests that the word “again” was an interpolation, which in turn suggests that the first visit to Jerusalem discussed at canonical Gal 1:18-19 is likewise an interpolation. For why add the word “again” if not to partner a newly added prior visit?

Secondly, the apparent interpolation of the first visit to Jerusalem introduces a contradictory narrative as set against Gal 1:22-3: “And I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. They only were hearing it said, “He who used to persecute us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.”” But how can Paul be unknown in person to the churches of Judea if he has already taken the trouble to visit two pillars of the Jerusalem Church? Jerusalem was the centre of the Church in Judea.

Thirdly, why would the author include the sentence, “(In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!)” if he were not introducing something controversial or novel? There does not seem to be anything controversial or novel about reporting a visit to Jerusalem, unless such a visit is only newly being reported at a point in time when it has become polemically useful. I would suggest that making Paul visit Jerusalem early is a strike by the Proto-Catholic Church against Marcionites who asserted Paul’s independence and held the “second” visit to be the first one. A Catholic may have wanted to tie Paul much earlier to the Jerusalem Pillars. Perhaps he limited Paul’s acquaintance at the time to Cephas and James in a bid to avoid the contradiction above.
You made an argument that verse 20 belongs with verses 18-19. This was your only argument from the internal evidence. You're not wrong about that. The three verses likely were added together, with the insistence on not telling a lie belonging to the one adding the falsehood.

The original text of Galatians emphasized the independence of Paul, that "I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was" and "I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ." The interpolation directly undermined and contradicted Paul's argument by having him confer much earlier with the other apostles in Jerusalem.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by Peter Kirby »

karavan wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 9:12 pm Paul's letters were insanely popular and distributed across the whole of the geography of Christianity very quickly. The idea that Marcion's Apostolikon from around 140 was mass interpolated and that mass interpolated version instantly replaced the versions of Paull across the whole Mediterranean in every single church without a trace is literally an insane consideration. Paul's letters were widely distributed way before Marcion, it is literally impossible that everything was suddenly changed after him everywhere.
David Trobisch is completely sane and has studied this subject closely. As he puts it: "The thesis of this study is that the New Testament, in the form that achieved canonical status, is not the result of a lengthy and complicated collecting process that lasted for several centuries. The history of the New Testament is the history of an edition, a book that has been published and edited by a specific group of editors, at a specific place, at a specific time." (The First Edition of the New Testament, p. 6)

Add in the very likely idea that Marcion had access to a pre-NT collection of the letters of Paul, given that Marcion is early enough chronologically and wasn't exactly vibing with the people that put together the New Testament, and voila.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Gullotta and Hurtado versus Carrier: a 'dialogue' between deaf

Post by neilgodfrey »

karavan wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 8:15 pmPeople are creative, they make stuff up all the time. And yes, you believe in those interpolations SOLELY due to your blatant bias and wish to save Carrier's arse on this one. You have not the <<slightest actual inkling of evidence>> for interpolation.

I mean, seriously, let's apply the lightest possible scrutiny to your article on Romans 1:3.

https://vridar.org/2015/02/17/jesus-the ... rpolation/

Argument 1: It's "too long" for Paul to have written it, but definitely not too long for the interpolator to have written it, LOL.

Argument 2: Manuscript evidence for once! Not, LOL. This other O'Neill guy (not to be mixed up with Tim) was BSing that claim. Manuscript G is actually insanely faded in this part, making it impossible to actually check which part is or isn't present in Romans 1. Looks like you didn't check your facts, kinda like when you said there aren't pre-70 synagogues. https://www.google.ca/books/edition/The ... frontcover

Argument 3: Here, you cite this dudes reconstruction of the original solely based on his opinion, rather than any real criteria of redaction or anything. It "seems" that the original contained a doublet? WTH? LOL. But most hilariously of all, this guys "reconstruction" still has the David lineage part, ROFL. So argument 3 in this post literally refutes your position, rather than argues for it.

Argument 4: Worth quoting this one at all:

"The reference to “the apostleship” in the last line (verse 5) in our Bibles breaks the surrounding thought but was added to give the creed some direct connection to the introduction of this letter where the apostle is establishing his credentials according to O’Neill."

Talk about pulling things out of your arse. No wonder you had to go back over half a century to find someone who believed this.


Come on dude, don't make me do this. I can rampage your whole blog if this convo goes on long enough. Just admit you made that crap up and you just want mythicism to be true, hence literally everything disconfirming your presuppositions is an interpolation.

For the record, here is my conclusion to that particular post k is addressing here:
Since this view is supported by outstanding (non-mythicist) lights such as Alfred Loisy and J. C. O’Neill as well as by (anti-mythicist) A. D. Howell Smith, we can focus on the question of the development of early Christian thought for its own sake (i.e. without reference to the mythicist debate). The original introduction thus removes Romans as a piece of evidence that as been used to support the view that Christianity was a product of Davidic messianic hopes. It strengthens the very early date of the letter to the Romans given that it was written before such a formal credal statement was part of Paul’s vocabulary. The interpolation is further evidence of Paul’s letters being used in theological battles after his passing.

As for the mythicism debate, removing the interpolation removes a point often used against mythicists (the belief that the passage indicates Jesus was physically descended from David — a point that has been covered at length in other posts here) and it may also remove a text that has been used in favour of mythicism (O’Neill would remove the reference to Paul’s gospel being derived from Scripture but Loisy would retain that passage.)
I try to be careful not to be dogmatic in areas where I know opinions will always vary but I think it is worthwhile making known to a slightly wider audience that there are other views than the mainstream in the scholarly discussion. As pointed out in my conclusion, if the passage is an interpolation then mythicists also lose one of their common arguments!

What we have here is room for reasonable doubt. Paul may well have written the whole thing and it survived through centuries of theological debates and skullduggery intact. But we have reasonable grounds to ask questions, nonetheless. Questions can't be answered and explored by looking at that one passage alone but need to be assessed with other sources. We have no grounds to be dogmatic as k is -- unless one is still shaped by the Sunday School catechisms and proof-texting mentality.

K says something about me needing to defend Carrier here, but sheesh -- that this passage is genuine and NOT interpolated is one of the foundations of Carrier's sperm bank theory!!!
Post Reply