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.
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 7:26 pm ...if someone claims that these passages are interpolations solely because it refutes their ridiculous space sperm in heaven theory, that's circular and arbitrary
That's an illogical non-sequitur (and a red-herring)
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 7:26 pm for Galatians 1:18-19; 4:4, Romans 1:3, and 1 Cor 11?
At least three of those have been proposed as possible interpolations by mainstream critical scholars, one of whom was virulently anti-mythicist. I guess they just made up for no reason that there was a serious possibility of them being interpolated. Scholars do that, ya know. No reason at all. Just made it up.
karavan
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2021 7:24 pm

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

Post by karavan »

@MrMac

The significance is that it confirms the partial interpolation model. Forgot the other guys names, I think Agapius or something. And my last comment is ABSOLUTELY 100% true. If there was the tiniest inkling of evidence to the contrary, a mythicist down here woulda cited it by now LOL. But instead, all I'm getting from everyone is an attempted deep philosophical discussion about manuscripts and the Torah and whatnot and no <<<actual evidence>>>. Just admit it dude, you solely blindly accept the interpolation wee woo nonsense because you need to, otherwise daddy Carrier is wrong. If you deny this obvious fact, then just go ahead, cite the evidence you wish existed, and prove me wrong for once. I'm waiting. I just want *evidence* for this interpolation. Can you produce it? Will you respond to my comment and pretend that I never asked you for the evidence for the interpolation you claim existed? That's dishonest!


_____

"At least three of those have been proposed as possible interpolations by mainstream critical scholars, one of whom was virulently anti-mythicist. I guess they just made up for no reason that there was a serious possibility of them being interpolated. Scholars do that, ya know. No reason at all. Just made it up."

Neil, stop with the BS man. You know, for a fact, that you had to dig DEEP AND HARD into the history of scholarship to find ANYONE who believed that, LOL. As Tim O'Neill pointed out, if you dig hard enough, you can find literally anyone to support some sort of position at least once, maybe twice. People 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.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8025
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 7:26 pm "The reference here was to "all manuscript evidence.""

Nah, we're obviously talking about the fact that if there's a reasonable amount of attestation, interpolations tend to be identified somewhere in that attestation. And it's a fact that partial interpolation is indicated by the known attestation of 18.3.3, which was supposed to be your counterexample.
This is what Michael the Syrian says:
In his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus says, “There was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works — a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and the gentiles. It is believed that he was the Christ, and not as the leaders of the peoples say. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, condemned him to the cross, those who loved him from the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day.”
Michael the Syrian has the phrases "if it be lawful to call him a man" and "for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other things concerning him," in agreement with the Greek manuscripts, even though they're commonly argued to be interpolations. And, Michael the Syrian also has the phase "It is believed that he was the Christ," even though that's also commonly argued to be an interpolation. If we were limited to arguing for textual modifications that are in the "attestation," then on the basis of Michael we would have one new possibility, of rephrasing part of Ant. 18.3.3 to "It is believed that he was the Christ." At least one scholar holds this position, but there are other well-reasoned views of the text that differ.

Of course, you've already conceded that we're not limited to arguing for textual modifications that are in the "attestation."

Even when the "attestation" does recover an archetype, it's not necessarily the original.
karavan
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2021 7:24 pm

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

Post by karavan »

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.
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 8:15 pm And my last comment is ABSOLUTELY 100% true. If there was the tiniest inkling of evidence to the contrary, a mythicist down here woulda cited it by now LOL ... Just admit it dude, you solely blindly accept the interpolation wee woo nonsense because you need to ... then just go ahead, cite the evidence you wish existed, and prove me wrong for once. ... I just want *evidence* for this interpolation. Can you produce it? ...
I presume your referring to
MrMacSon wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 7:29 pm
karavan wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 6:46 pm
... there isn't the slightest additional inkling of evidence to suggest Gal. 1:18-19 is an interpolation is an interpolation than the two verses prior ...
.
That's not true.

Well, here's scholarship on Gal 1:19 and other associated verses

.
Gal 1:18-24

These verses are unattested as being in Marcion. 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.”

There is some level of expectation that Tertullian would have quoted it in an attempt to show subordination of Paul to Peter and James.

Some or all of these verses are considered an interpolation on other grounds by J. C. O’Neil (The Recovery of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians, p. 25), Frank R. McGuire (“Did Paul Write Galatians?“), Hermann Detering (“The Original Version of the Epistle to the Galatians,” p. 20), David Oliver Smith (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul, p. 72), Robert Price (The Amazing Colossal Apostle, p. 415), and in some comments online.

http://peterkirby.com/marcions-shorter- ... -paul.html


G. D. Kilpatrick - in, 'Peter, Jerusalem and Galatians' 1:13—2:14 Novum Testamentum Vol. 25, Fasc. 4 (Oct., 1983), pp. 318-326 - noted Gal 1:13—2:14 have a large number of unusual features. He says "we can only conclude that a real difference of language exists between Gal 1:13—2:14 and the Pauline epistles as a whole."

Peter Kirby wrote: Sat Jul 04, 2015 7:59 am
Earlier thread on this topic [Galatians 1:19]:

Shorter Readings of Paul
http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... f=3&t=1447

Non-HJ Interpretations
http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... ation+paul

Especially starting here ("90% of the passages..."):
http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopi ... 194#p33194


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, absent from the letters of Paul and inserted as post-Marcionite interpolations (some of them anti-Marcionite interpolations).
.

In Against Heresies Irenaeus appears to quote the usual reading of Gal. ii, 1 – “went up again to Jerusalem“ – but makes no specific reference to the Pauline visit described in Gal. i, 18f. Where Tertullian, in his Prescription against Heretics, alludes to Paul’s having gone to Jerusalem to meet Peter it soon becomes apparent that Tertullian is simply reading his own interest in Peter into the account of the meeting with Peter, James and John.


Frank R. McGuire, in 'Did Paul Write Galatians?', Hibbert Journal, 1967, 66 (61): 52ff, proposed, reiterated, or noted -
  • Galatians is a response to Acts.
  • more than one „Paul“ had a hand in the writing of Galatians.
  • Galatians and II Corinthians are not by the same writer
  • "the underlying implication [of Galatians], as Paley observed [in Horae Paulinae], is that Paul’s own commission was „inferior and deputed“. Accordingly, the first chapter of Galatians emphasizes the divine origin of his apostleship while the second emphasizes Paul’s independence of Jerusalem."

    Paley had concluded the author of Acts had not read Galatians as he (and we) know it today, "otherwise he would not have omitted the Arabian interlude and various meetings between Paul and Peter."

But McGuire induced that
absolute neglect of Galatians is not the problem. The actual literary problem is Luke’s apparent relative neglect of the epistle. How can he have made limited, largely negative use of Galatians, as he seems to have done, without knowing its contents? Was Galatians there for Luke to know, or is it the Pauline writer who makes limited, negative use of Acts?

To repudiate Luke’s image of Paul, Bruno Bauer was to declare sixty years after Paley's Horae Paulinae, was part of the purpose of Galatians. Several modern scholars who accept the traditional authorship of Galatians have come remarkably close to saying the same thing e.g. Johannes Weiss (Earliest Christianity) suggests that Galatians was directed against some account not unlike Acts.

Christianity was not 1st century, messianic Judaism hellenised by Paul or anyone else, Bauer contended, but an originally Greek religion judaised in the second century. Acts, with its „apostolic decree“ and the like, is an expression of this quasi-Jewish movement and Galatians a literary reaction. That the author of Galatians had read Acts, Bauer evidently never got around to demonstrating in concrete terms.

McGuire looked at the internal evidence -

Let us tentatively suppose, with Enslin, that Paul’s flight from Damascus is most reliably described in II Cor. xi, 33-3; that the account in Acts ix, 23-5 is secondary, the same incident being only barely alluded to in Gal. i, 17. Paul has somehow antagonised the Arabian political authorities and has taken refuge in Damascus. The „governor under King Aretas“ has posted a guard on the city walls, with orders to arrest Paul should he venture outside Damascus, hence his unceremonious escape – not from immediate danger, however, but through danger.

Luke, wishing to commend Christianity to the Roman authorities as apolitically inoffensive movement, represents Paul as the victim of Jewish persecution for purely religious reasons. Not only his liberty but even his life is threatened by local Jews, yet in Acts ix, 26 we next find him in Jerusalem. Although Jerusalem would be the least likely destination for a Paul who had fled from Damascus for the reason given in Acts, in the light of II Corinthians – which does not say where he went – it does not seem at all unreasonable. But where doe she go in Galatians? Into Arabia – where, on the evidence of II Corinthians, the danger is greatest.

Despite the marked similarity of the two epistles, I submit that Galatians comes from a later hand and presupposes the reader’s knowledge of II Corinthians. If Paul did go to Arabia, what did he do there and how long did he stay? In the absence of such details, Gal. i, 17 serves no other purpose than to improve on the earlier first-person account and refute Luke’s version of his movements between Damascus and Jerusalem.

The remainder of Galatians 1 is at variance with the first half of Chapter 2 of the same letter. In 1, 15-19 „Cephas“ (Simon Peter?) and „James the Lord’s brother“ emerge as well known apostles; in 2,2ff they are merely reputed pillars of the church at Jerusalem, and Paul gives the impression of meeting them for the first time.

. . // . .

Treating Acts ix, 26f as the account of Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem, Tertullian seems to apply both Gal. ii, 1-10 and an account similar to i, 18f to the second visit. Moreover, in this instance Tertullian is writing primarily for orthodox consumption; in his early 3rd century anti-Marcionite treatise, where he must meet hostile readers on their own ground, Tertullian refers to Paul as going up (not „up again“) to Jerusalem after fourteen years „so great had been his desire to be approved and supported by those whom you [Marcion] wish on all occasions to be understood as in alliance with Judaism!“ Obviously Marcion’s text of Galatians did not include the account of a previous visit „after three years“ and Tertullian, if indeed he had ever seen such a reading, was not inclined to take it seriously.

According to the original text, then, Paul returned to Damascus after his sojourn in Arabia (Gal. 1, 17) and did not go up to Jerusalem until whatever is implied by „after fourteen years“; whether a full fourteen years later, or in the fourteenth year of his apostleship, makes little difference.

A second writer considers an interval of three years sufficient to demonstrate Paul’s independence of Jerusalem; he may also have noticed, as William Paley was to do some 1600 years later, that the „many days“ which the Paul of Acts spends in Damascus could have amounted to three years.

The author of Gal. 1:18-24 did not bother to coordinate the second chapter with his own account; perhaps he hoped to displace the earlier Pauline version of Paul’s first apostolic contact with the church at Jerusalem. To differentiate between the two visits now recorded, a still later „Paul“ inserts the word „again“ so conspicuously absent from Tertullian’s reading of Gal. ii, 1. Perhaps from the same hand comes such incongruities as Peter at the head of a mission to the circumcised (ii, 7-8),* anticipating the arrangement to which Peter becomes a party in the verse that follows.

While the narrative of Galatians is more plausible if stripped of known or demonstrable interpolations, the second chapter is still basically nonsensical. It does not become less so in light of Acts-Luke’s fifteenth chapter, the reader’s acquaintance with which is tacitly presumed throughout, it simply makes the unintelligibility more understandable.

Frank R. McGuire, 'Did Paul Write Galatians?', Hibbert Journal, 1967, 66 (61): 52ff

* There's many scholars who've had issues with Gal 2:7-8, too -
  • Ernst Barnikol, Der nichtpaulinische Ursprung des Parallelismus der Apostel Petrus und Paulus (Galater 2 7-8) (Forschungen zur Entstehung des Urchristentums des Neuen Testament und der Kirche 5; Kiel: Muhlau, 1931)

    Translated into English by Darrell J. Doherty with B. Keith Brewer as
    • Ernst Barnikol, 'The Non-Pauline Origin of the Parallelism of the Apostles Peter and Paul', J. Higher Criticism 5/2 (Fall 1998), 285-300.
    Barnikol referred to Gal 2:7b-8 as a textual problem representing apostolic parallelism in the second century, and offered insights into the history of the origin of it.
  • William O Walker Jr, 'Galatians 2:7b-8 as a Non-Pauline Interpolation', The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 65, No. 4, Oct 2003, pp. 568-587.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Thu Nov 25, 2021 9:52 pm, edited 10 times in total.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8025
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 8:28 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 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.
It still has "They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive" and "he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders" in the Agapius version, which nonetheless are widely believed to be interpolations.
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 8:15 pm And my last comment is ABSOLUTELY 100% true. If there was the tiniest inkling of evidence to the contrary, a mythicist down here woulda cited it by now LOL ... Just admit it dude, you solely blindly accept the interpolation wee woo nonsense because you need to ... then just go ahead, cite the evidence you wish existed, and prove me wrong for once. ... I just want *evidence* for this interpolation. Can you produce it? ...
Furthermore, in addition to my post-reply just above, -
robert j wrote: Tue Jul 07, 2020 9:52 am
I think Paul’s seemingly enigmatic sojourn in Arabia, very briefly mentioned in Galatians 1:17, has a straightforward and reasonably simple explanation.

It seems Paul used Numbers chapter 12, along with Jeremiah and Isaiah, to construct his story about his earliest experiences with a belief in Jesus Christ. And also to construct his story of his "calling" through the grace of God by means of a revelation. Paul associated himself with Miriam from Numbers because he was also ignorant and sinned when he persecuted the assemblies of God, and also like Miriam he was redeemed by God's grace and, like Miriam, the cleansing was capped by a sojourn in the land of Moses. Paul drew on the story of Miriam to construct his own backstory.

Paul evidently told the Galatians and the Corinthians the story in some detail during his initial evangelizing visit --- and he reminded them about the story in his letters as seen in the first citations in the table. The portion about Paul's sojourn in Arabia is highlighted in the last row ---

Paul
Galatians chapter 1
and 1 Corinthians chapter 15
Numbers
Chapter 12 (LXX)
and a bit of Jeremiah and Isaiah
For you have heard of my former way of life in Judaism … (Gal 1:13)

For I delivered to you first of all … (1 Cor 15:3)
... I was persecuting the assembly of God … (Gal 1:13)

… I persecuted the assembly of God. (1 Cor 15:9)
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)
And last of all, as the ektroma, he was seen by me also … because I persecuted the assembly of God. (1 Cor 15:8-9)

[Paul was like the ektroma because, like Miriam, he was ignorant and he sinned]
… Mariam was leprous like snow … And Aaron said to Moses, “I beg you, Sir, do not lay extra sin upon us, because we were ignorant in that we sinned. Do not let her be like unto death, like an ektroma coming out of a mother’s womb… " (Numbers 12:9-12)
But when God, the One having selected me from my mother's womb, and having called me by His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles. (Gal 1:15-16)And a word of the Lord came to him, saying, “Before I formed you in the belly, I knew you, and before you came forth from the womb, I had consecrated you; a prophet to nations I had made you.”(Jeremiah 1:4-5).

[And like Jeremiah, Paul's calling, his appointment, came later. Jeremiah was a youth (1:6) when the Lord said to him --- ]

"Behold, today I have appointed you over nations ... " (Jeremiah 1:10)

[Paul also used Isaiah 49:5-6 here]
… 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)
But when God … having called me by His grace … (Gal 1:15)

… I went away into Arabia and returned again … (Gal 1:17)


[Like Miriam, Paul separated himself in the land of Moses, and returned cleansed]
And Moses cried out to the Lord, saying, “O God, I beg you, heal her!” And the Lord said to Moses … Let her be separated for seven days outside the camp, and afterwards she shall enter.” And Mariam was kept apart outside the camp … until Mariam was cleansed (ἐκαθαρίσθη).
(Numbers 12:13-15)

karavan
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2021 7:24 pm

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

Post by karavan »

Oh come on dude, a large chunk of that is literally just "not in Marcion". But we don't have Marcion's text, and Marcion probably butchered the crap out of his version of Paul's letters. What's "in" Marcion is, therefore, a total red herring. As for all those other guys, missing the word "again" in Gal. 2:1? Like, wha?

"noting these verses have a large number of unusual features"

WHAT unusual features?

You seem to contradict yourself. In one instance:

"In Against Heresies Irenaeus appears to quote the usual reading of Gal. ii, 1 – “went up again to Jerusalem“"

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?

"but makes no specific reference to the Pauline visit described in Gal. i, 18f."

Sorry dude, that's not evidence.

Those claims by McGuire are so ridiculous as to be hilarious. Galatians was composed by multiple people in response to Acts? Oh lordy. I guess anything goes, right? Literally a huge part of that whole gigantic quotation is about McGuire's complete inability to conceive that Paul, at some point, went to Arabia after he got his revelation. The evidence he produces for this requiring usage of 2 Corinthians is literally nil, absolutely nothing whatsoever. The next part:

"The remainder of Galatians 1 is at variance with the first half of Chapter 2 of the same letter. In 1, 15-19 „Cephas“ (Simon Peter?) and „James the Lord’s brother“ emerge as well known apostles; in 2, 2f if they are merely reputed pillars of the church at Jerusalem, and Paul gives the impression of meeting them for the first time."

This is total BS. The discrepency here is completely imaginary. It doesn't exist. They are "merely" pillars of the church? WTH? Paul "gives the impression of meeting them for the first time"? Ugh, WHERE? LOL. He certainly doesn't say it was the first time. There literally is nothing to this effect.

"It still has "They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive" and "he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders" in the Agapius version, which nonetheless are widely believed to be interpolations."

That first quote isn't actually suspicious, Josephus says that "they reported", i.e. he's not making the claim it's true. Here's merely describing their belief. And that last part in the end is literally the only Christian-sounding part. Which is what I already pointed out in my last comment. Agapius' version is HEAVILY de-Christianized compared to the other versions. This is direct, verifiable manuscript evidence for modification of Josephus and the partial interpolation model.

"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.
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 pm

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.
ade that crap up and you just want mythicism to be true, hence literally everything disconfirming your presuppositions is an interpolation.
So k wants us to believe that even Loisy and Walker just made stuff up, that they're not real scholars at all.

(k -- some of have room for doubt and provisional hypotheses -- we're not all black and white proof-texters like you. oh, i forgot -- you think serious scholarly thinking is code for wishy washy mythicism -- even if we're not arguing for mythicism and get tired of people like you who have really serious hangups about it)
Last edited by neilgodfrey on Thu Nov 25, 2021 8:59 pm, edited 6 times in total.
Post Reply