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 »

"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?"

Oh come on dude, we both know that church father citations of the NT are often from memory and sloppy. If literally everyone into the 4th century was missing the word "again" because it wasn't in the manuscripts, then you would be able to just show me a 4th century manuscript agreeing with this. Plus, the logic is senseless. The lack of the word "again" doesn't indicate an interpolation in the earlier reference to Jerusalem. You can't just make this stuff up dude. And you just beg the question in favour of your own thesis: there's no more reason to claim that the first Jerusalem reference is an interpolation as the second one is. But you need the first one to be done away with, therefore it's the first one that's interpolated.

But again, there's literally no evidence for interpolation here. I couldn't have imagined a more slender basis for claiming interpolation than that "a couple quotations of Gal 2:1 from memory are missing the word "again", therefore like the half a dozen verses before it aren't original".

"The original text of Galatians emphasized the independence of Paul"

Galatians 2:9: James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised.

Sorry dude, actually try reading Galatians before making claims about it. So that was totally wrong.

Why didn't you comment on my response to your comments on Marcion earlier? It's pretty obvious Marcion was the fraud. Literally everyone had the current versions of Paul epistles across the Mediterranean, and he was the only one with his version of Paul's epistles. That means he lied. Sorry. By the way, that Trobisch quote supports nothing you've said, makes no comments on Marcion, and is just plain wrong anyways. The NT books were so widespread that it's literally impossible for a single group of editors to select what went in and out without a trace.



_______


Neil, you gonna actually address my response to you or just quote your conclusion? ROFL. Remember Neil, if you believe it hard enough, all disconfirming evidence of mythicism becomes an "interpolation".
Last edited by karavan on Thu Nov 25, 2021 9:53 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 8:50 pm 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“"
The full statement I made was

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.

I can't recall why I said that back then, ie. in 2015, but 'again' does appear in the online English-version Catholic Encyclopaedia https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103313.htm

I'll defer to Peter K who it appears I was contradicting
Peter Kirby wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 9:16 pm
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?

The rest of your response is not worth addressing, other than to ask in relation to this -
karavan wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 8:50 pm 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.
- which is a reference to this -

"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."

- where do you think there's evidence that Paul met them elsewhere for the first time?
Last edited by MrMacSon on Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
karavan
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2021 7:24 pm

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

Post by karavan »

"The rest of your response is not worth addressing"

In other words, "I got totally smashed and have nothing to say about that". Btw, I debunked that Kirby comment you deferred to. Sorry dude, but if you have no evidence for interpolation, don't pretend you do.

"- Where do you think there's evidence that Paul meet them elsewhere for the first time?"

Dude, do you even understand the point you were quoting? The claim is that Gal 2 sounds like Paul is introducing the pillars for the first time therefore didn't mention them in Gal 1. Which is just an assumption. It's not based on anything actually in Gal 2. In other words, it's not *evidence*.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8024
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 9:44 pmPlus, the lack of the word "again" isn't an inkling of evidence in favour of the earlier ref to Jerusalem being an interpolation.
Yes, it is.
karavan wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 9:44 pmHow the hell do you even make a leap in logic like that?
With a cool head. Try it sometime.
karavan wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 9:44 pm"The original text of Galatians emphasized the independence of Paul"

LOL really?
Yes, it did.

In Galatians 2:6, Paul says of his visit to Jerusalem, taken 14 years after he began, that "they added nothing to my message."
karavan wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 9:44 pmGalatians 2:9: James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised.
This verse also emphasizes that Paul had his own authority and that "they recognized the grace given to me."
karavan wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 9:44 pmI already debunked the Marcion gibberish
No, you didn't.
karavan wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 9:44 pmunanimously accepted across the whole geography of Christianity
You've provided no evidence for your beliefs about the transmission of Paul's letters prior to Marcion.
karavan wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 9:44 pmobviously wishful thinking
Based on your usage of the word, you obviously don't even know what "obviously" means.
karavan wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 9:44 pmPlus, it just looks like it's completely wrong. The New Testament actually *wasn'ṭ* edited by a specific group of editors. That's actually literally impossible because of how widespread the books of the NT were almost immediately.
When you say "completely wrong" and "literally impossible," you misuse these terms, just as you misuse the term "obviously." What you obviously mean is that it contradicts your beliefs, and you have no arguments against it, so you have to rely on hyperbole.
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 9:44 pm Oh come on dude, we both know that church father citations of the NT are often from memory and sloppy.
So, you admit there were "issues" ...

karavan wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 9:44 pm If literally everyone into the 4th century was missing the word "again" because it wasn't in the manuscripts, then you would be able to just show me a 4th century manuscript agreeing with this. Plus, the logic is senseless. The lack of the word "again" doesn't indicate an interpolation in the earlier reference to Jerusalem.
The "logic" that is senseless is your's.

karavan wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 9:44 pm You can't just make this stuff up dude. And you just beg the question in favour of your own thesis: there's no more reason to claim that the first Jerusalem reference is an interpolation as the second one is. But you need the first one to be done away with,1 therefore it's the first one that's interpolated.
It's not one person's thesis, it's several people's ...

1 Did you mean, "But you need the first one to be done away with, therefore it's the first one that's interpolated."

ie. a concessions?

karavan wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 9:44 pm But again, there's literally no evidence for interpolation here. I couldn't have imagined a more slender basis for claiming interpolation than that "a couple quotations of Gal 2:1 from memory are missing the word "again", therefore like the half a dozen verses before it aren't original".
Your imagination vs several scholars? Really?
karavan
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2021 7:24 pm

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

Post by karavan »

"Yes, it is."

Sorry dude, saying "Yes it is yes it is" isn't evidence nor an explanation. The presence or absence of the word "again" from a bunch of off-hand memory citations of Galatians 2 (which you haven't yet provided a scholarly reference for yet) means, quite literally, nothing. It has no implications. It does not imply that the Jerusalem visit in Gal. 2 was the first one, or that there was never one prior.

"In Galatians 2:6, Paul says of his visit to Jerusalem, taken 14 years after he began, that "they added nothing to my message.""

That verse literally refutes you, as does Gal 2:9 which I already noted refutes you. As you literally show in this very verse, Paul appealed to the pillars not adding anything to his message as evidence for the validity of his message. The idea that Paul couldn't have met James in Gal 1is wishful thinking at best. It's also self-contradictory. After all, how the hell can they add nothing to Paul's message in Gal. 2:6 unless Paul met them? And of course, if Paul could meet them once, he could meet them twice. Or maybe it was the same meeting. Who knows. You're just messing this all up.

"You've provided no evidence for your beliefs about the transmission of Paul's letters prior to Marcion."

You're acting like Marcion is extant, LOL. He's not dude, we don't actually know what was in and what wasn't in Marcion. Literally all the evidence shows Marcion was a fraud. He was the literal only guy who had his copy of this stuff. He also was the only guy who had a suspiciously different copy of Luke. To believe in Marcionite priority, an idea ridiculous on its face, you need to believe that after Marcion, all of Paul's letters were mass-interpolated within a few years across the whole Mediterranean without leaving a trace.

"When you say "completely wrong" and "literally impossible," you misuse these terms, just as you misuse the term "obviously." What you obviously mean is that it contradicts your beliefs, and you have no arguments against it, so you have to rely on hyperbole."

But I do have an argument, and I literally and obviously just mentioned it. Namely, the NT was *never* under the selection of a single group of editors. Anyone who says otherwise, is talking out of their arse. Just admit it Peter, you thought you had evidence for an interpolation and it turned out you didn't. All you have is Raphael Lataster's ridiculous mental gymnastics on the subject of Galatians. Lataster, recall, believes that Romans 1:3 is talking about space sperm and he blindly accepts Carrier's pseudoscintific use of Bayes theorem, where Carrier literally pulls the numbers he plugs in out of his arse (and that's after literally changing several criteria of the RR hero class, which isn't a valid "class" to begin with, to make Jesus fit it).

That's right mate, Carrier LITERALLY edited the RR hero class criteria to make Jesus an RR hero. That, in and of itself, it the most unequivocal evidence you need that Jesus isn't an RR hero, LOL.


________


Oh lord, then there's Mac's comment. Literally the only one substantive comment, because he has no response to my repeated KOs of his argument, is:

"Your imagination vs several scholars? Really?"

Nah you're deluding yourself. I've literally never heard of any scholar that says the "again" is interpolated in Gal. 2:1, or that this has any implications on Gal. 1:18-19. There literally is no contemporary scholar who thinks that part is interpolated. In other words, you just busted yourself. By the way dude, are you an actual liar? You're literally a mythicist, never say the phrase "You versus several scholars" again LOL.
Last edited by karavan on Thu Nov 25, 2021 10:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 »

I just happened to notice this. (Forgive me for not otherwise bothering to take time to read everything k writes.)
Peter Kirby wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 9:56 pm
karavan wrote: Thu Nov 25, 2021 9:44 pmThe New Testament actually *wasn'ṭ* edited by a specific group of editors. That's actually literally impossible because of how widespread the books of the NT were almost immediately.
??? is k saying that the NT was never brought together for editing because all the bits remained scattered .... so we have.....? I thought that sort of remote hyperlinking was only possible in the internet age.
karavan
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2021 7:24 pm

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

Post by karavan »

To be honest Neil, I have no idea what you're saying there LOL.
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 9:55 pm The claim is that Gal 2 sounds like Paul is introducing the pillars for the first time therefore didn't mention them in Gal 1. Which is just an assumption. It's not based on anything actually in Gal 2. In other words, it's not *evidence*.
It's more than an assumption. It is based on something in a version of Gal 2. And on other things, by several scholars

"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." [Frank R. McGuire]


.
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 has a large number of unusual features.
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 9:44 pm Neil, you gonna actually address my response to you or just quote your conclusion? ROFL. Remember Neil, if you believe it hard enough, all disconfirming evidence of mythicism becomes an "interpolation".
Ask nicely and I just might.
Post Reply