175 replies to this topic

[Jor-el]

Tiggs, on 03 May 2012 - 11:08 PM, said:

Utter rubbish.

The use of "Again" implicitly presumes a previous visit. In it's absence, no such visit is implied.

I'm also amused by your apparent view that if the sentence still makes sense without the word in it - then that is a reason to discount later insertion.

Pretty much the opposite, I think you'll find.



Keep reading it. Let us all know when you finally work it out.



Or, y'know. The tense of the verb that follows it,.


It's not essential at all. The only thing which is essential is that there's no evidence of Paul having met them before - which clearly - there is not.



Or, y'know, Not.

Tiggs, my friend,

Have you ever considered that you might be wrong?

[Tiggs]

Jor-el, on 04 May 2012 - 10:54 PM, said:

Tiggs, my friend,

Have you ever considered that you might be wrong?

Literally - almost every time before I say or type anything.

How about you? Ready to confess yet that in the sentence  - "the evidence for its omission is so slight that it must be original" - the "it" can only refer to one thing - the word "again"?

I'm guessing probably not.

Because if you do, then you'd also have to confess that the prior part of that sentence "Although "again" is found both before and after "went up" in the manuscript evidence favoring it" shows that a word moving around in the text is generally held to be good evidence that the word may have been inserted.

And that would destroy your entire "sloppy copy" apologetic, right?

[Jor-el]

Tiggs, on 05 May 2012 - 05:38 PM, said:

Literally - almost every time before I say or type anything.

How about you? Ready to confess yet that in the sentence  - "the evidence for its omission is so slight that it must be original" - the "it" can only refer to one thing - the word "again"?

I'm guessing probably not.

Because if you do, then you'd also have to confess that the prior part of that sentence "Although "again" is found both before and after "went up" in the manuscript evidence favoring it" shows that a word moving around in the text is generally held to be good evidence that the word may have been inserted.

And that would destroy your entire "sloppy copy" apologetic, right?

Oh I admit that we have insertions in the New Testament text, but I do not agree that we are dealing with one here. To me it is still a matter of sloppy copying. Some of those scribes included margin notes that were not part of the original text. It was everything but scientific. I'm amazed that we don't have even more versions of the text laying about.

But even with all that, this has very little to no evidence for an insertion. Alot of supposition and suspicion, yes, but no evidence. We usually don't condemn the suspect without evidence.

[Tiggs]

Jor-el, on 05 May 2012 - 07:20 PM, said:

Oh I admit that we have insertions in the New Testament text, but I do not agree that we are dealing with one here. To me it is still a matter of sloppy copying. Some of those scribes included margin notes that were not part of the original text. It was everything but scientific. I'm amazed that we don't have even more versions of the text laying about.

Marginal gloss's will never cause words to change position within the text.

Quote

But even with all that, this has very little to no evidence for an insertion. Alot of supposition and suspicion, yes, but no evidence. We usually don't condemn the suspect without evidence.

As always - there's a difference between "no evidence" and "no evidence that Jor-el is willing to accept".

I believe that the evidence for this being an insertion is generally as strong as the evidence for any early insertion can be, without written contemporary evidence of an outraged external witness saying "These lines were inserted!".

You claim otherwise.

I say black, you say white.

Which is why, in general, these discussions are pointless and I'm calling this conversation to an end. I have better things to do with my time, quite frankly.

I will, however, leave you with this to consider:

It has been a known problem within Pauline studies for some time, that the accepted date of the events in Galatians 2, being 46 AD, minus the 14 years and the 3 years, would mean that Paul's conversion takes place in 46 - 17 = 29 AD.

Which is problematic. Given that it's generally accepted that Jesus was still alive at that point.

Generally, the only viable explanation is that Paul must have included those first 3 years when counting the later 14 years.

Unless...

[Jor-el]

Tiggs, on 06 May 2012 - 06:22 AM, said:

Marginal gloss's will never cause words to change position within the text.


As always - there's a difference between "no evidence" and "no evidence that Jor-el is willing to accept".

I believe that the evidence for this being an insertion is generally as strong as the evidence for any early insertion can be, without written contemporary evidence of an outraged external witness saying "These lines were inserted!".

You claim otherwise.

I say black, you say white.

Which is why, in general, these discussions are pointless and I'm calling this conversation to an end. I have better things to do with my time, quite frankly.

I will, however, leave you with this to consider:

It has been a known problem within Pauline studies for some time, that the accepted date of the events in Galatians 2, being 46 AD, minus the 14 years and the 3 years, would mean that Paul's conversion takes place in 46 - 17 = 29 AD.

Which is problematic. Given that it's generally accepted that Jesus was still alive at that point.

Generally, the only viable explanation is that Paul must have included those first 3 years when counting the later 14 years.

Unless...

I have to ask... and I'm not being in any way facetious here...

Where and what is the evidence that allows them to date the Letter to 46 A.D.?

[Tiggs]

Jor-el, on 07 May 2012 - 08:21 PM, said:

I have to ask... and I'm not being in any way facetious here...

Where and what is the evidence that allows them to date the Letter to 46 A.D.?

The date is for the visit detailed in Galatians 2, rather than the date that the letter itself was written.

The dating argument is as follows:

• The visit in Galatians 2 corresponds to the visit in Acts 11, where Paul and Barnabas stayed in Jerusalem for a year.
  
• The premonition of the coming great famine within Acts 11 is identified explicitly as being during Claudius' reign, placing it between 41 and 54 AD
  
• That great famine corresponds to the great famine which overlapped the procuratorships of Cuspius Fadus and Tiberius Julius Alexander  - which ran between 44-46 and 46-48 AD, reported by Josephus, giving us an exact point (46 AD) when the famine would have been in place, and hence establishes the latest date for Paul's visit.

To a far lesser extent, the reported death of Herod in Acts 12, said to be "at around this time" and generally accepted as AD 44, confirms that we're within the right sort of ballpark, date wise.

[Jor-el]

Tiggs, on 07 May 2012 - 09:37 PM, said:

The date is for the visit detailed in Galatians 2, rather than the date that the letter itself was written.

The dating argument is as follows:

• The visit in Galatians 2 corresponds to the visit in Acts 11, where Paul and Barnabas stayed in Jerusalem for a year.
  
• The premonition of the coming great famine within Acts 11 is identified explicitly as being during Claudius' reign, placing it between 41 and 54 AD
  
• That great famine corresponds to the great famine which overlapped the procuratorships of Cuspius Fadus and Tiberius Julius Alexander  - which ran between 44-46 and 46-48 AD, reported by Josephus, giving us an exact point (46 AD) when the famine would have been in place, and hence establishes the latest date for Paul's visit.

To a far lesser extent, the reported death of Herod in Acts 12, said to be "at around this time" and generally accepted as AD 44, confirms that we're within the right sort of ballpark, date wise.

Hmm thank you.

I'm thinking that something doesn't jive here.

According to the above, the famine existed for a number of years. At least 3 to 4 years in all. It wasn't just in the year 46. The famine lasted the whole time of both the procuratorships.

Then came Tiberius Alexander as successor to Fadus; he was the son of Alexander the alabarch of Alexandria, which Alexander was a principal person among all his contemporaries, both for his family and wealth: he was also more eminent for his piety than this his son Alexander, for he did not continue in the religion of his country. Under these procurators that great famine happened in Judea, in which queen Helena bought corn in Egypt at a great expense, and distributed it to those that were in want, as I have related already.

Josephus, Antiquities, Book XX, Chapter 5, par. 2

This means that the latest date would of necessity be 48 AD, not 46 AD.

Another interesting aspect here in regards to Herod Agrippa Is' death, which occured in 44 AD. This is part of chapter 12 right, so what is Paul doing in Jerusalem in chapter 9 of Acts?

If his 1st visit was 14 years after his conversion, what is he doing in Jerusalem sometime in the decade of 30 AD, long before there was ever a famine?

Another aspect to think of, there is nothing connecting Pauls visit to Jerusalem in the period of the famine to his visit in in Galatians 2. And there is evidence to actually think otherwise.

Acts 11:29

29 The disciples, as each one was able, decided to provide help for the brothers and sisters living in Judea. 30 This they did, sending their gift to the elders by Barnabas and Saul.

It is probably more accurate to associate his visit of Galatians 2 to Acts 15 and the Council of Jerusalem.

Naturally this will not please a number of people, but I see no problem with it. Paul didn't exactly have the greatest of relationships with the Jerusalem church after this.

[Tiggs]

Jor-el, on 07 May 2012 - 11:50 PM, said:

I'm thinking that something doesn't jive here.

Colour me surprised.

[Jor-el]

Tiggs, on 08 May 2012 - 03:46 AM, said:

Colour me surprised.

Well I'll give you points for consistency and perserverence.

[Tiggs]

Jor-el, on 08 May 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

Well I'll give you points for consistency and perserverence.

I've kind of given up, to be honest.

• I could point out that Acts 11 concerns a prophecy via the Holy Spirit of the upcoming famine, which occurred whilst Paul and Barnabas were in Jerusalem. Most people not called Jor-el would probably conclude that the prophecy event occurred prior to the actual famine itself. Due to it being a prophecy, and all.
  
• I could point out that if the famine crosses the rule of both procurators - then the one time that it must absolutely be in force is in the crossover year between the two of them - 46 AD. Basic geometry, and all.
  
• I could point out that if you combine those two pieces of information, then there's only one logical conclusion.
  
• I could point you to a fifth century historian that also states that the famine occurred in 46 AD. Just for giggles.
  
• I could point out that Paul's second visit in Galatians was in response to a revelation. Or as they're known in the trade - a prophecy.

And so on, and so forth.

Even if I did do all of that - the end result, however, would be exactly the same as it is now - you'd find something else, somewhere, with which you'll patch together some sort of apologetic possibility for why it might not be so.

I'm happy that I've demonstrated that a reasonable case can be made for there having been a possible insertion. Others opinions may vary.

I say black. You say white. It's impossible to definitively prove either.

Hence, Meh.

Edited by Tiggs, 08 May 2012 - 09:44 PM.

[Jor-el]

Tiggs, on 08 May 2012 - 09:42 PM, said:

I've kind of given up, to be honest.

• I could point out that Acts 11 concerns a prophecy via the Holy Spirit of the upcoming famine, which occurred whilst Paul and Barnabas were in Jerusalem. Most people not called Jor-el would probably conclude that the prophecy event occurred prior to the actual famine itself. Due to it being a prophecy, and all.
  
• I could point out that if the famine crosses the rule of both procurators - then the one time that it must absolutely be in force is in the crossover year between the two of them - 46 AD. Basic geometry, and all.
  
• I could point out that if you combine those two pieces of information, then there's only one logical conclusion.
  
• I could point you to a fifth century historian that also states that the famine occurred in 46 AD. Just for giggles.
  
• I could point out that Paul's second visit in Galatians was in response to a revelation. Or as they're known in the trade - a prophecy.

And so on, and so forth.

Even if I did do all of that - the end result, however, would be exactly the same as it is now - you'd find something else, somewhere, with which you'll patch together some sort of apologetic possibility for why it might not be so.

I'm happy that I've demonstrated that a reasonable case can be made for there having been a possible insertion. Others opinions may vary.

I say black. You say white. It's impossible to definitively prove either.

Hence, Meh.

I say black. You say white. It's impossible to definitively prove either.

Hence, Meh.

I like that so much, It think I'll end off right here as well, using the words you so kindly gave us.