spin wrote:
"Let's establish the provenance of this text."
"How do we do that?"
"Well, first let's look at it closely."
"Which edition?"
"The first, of course."
"Oh, you mean the 1867 edition."
"No, the actual document."
"But we don't have that. It was lost centuries ago. What'll we do?"
"Let's read the Loeb apparatus. It'll give us clues."
"OK, we've got some clues. What do they tell us about provenance of the text?"
"Well, we know where the earliest manuscripts reside.... I know! Let's get some critical analyses."
"Hey, wow. There's a lot of stuff written by these religious scholar guys about the text."

Still no provenance. But then, so many of the texts we have to deal with don't yield up their provenance in any substantive way whatsoever. There is no substitute for reading the text to get what can be found out about it and that includes first literally.

Oh dear. You can't establish the provenance of a text from the self-testimony of a text. Your little farce is just a circularity.

Guess what. We don't know the provenance of the Gospel of Mark. So what do we do? Break the rules? Or do we accept our lack of knowledge and work within all the variables that that leaves us with when attempting to ascertain its nature?

Hell, we don't even know the provenance of Paul's letters! So what do we do? If we take them at face value and interpret them all literally then we are making assumptions about their provenance and character that are without evidential support.

spin wrote:

I made the point that reading certain parts of Galatians literally rather than through the eyes of later tradition leads one to come to very different ideas, to conflict between later tradition and what Paul says. I think that is significant. I'm really sorry, if you don't like that, but it is a waste of a reader's time--if they are in the business of evaluating a text for what it says and how it fits into a context--not to attempt to find out what it says as closely as they can, which entails reading it literally among other things. Without doing so, you have no hope of contextualizing it. So go ahead, don't read what a text says literally and see what you can say that is useful about it. Nothing, of course, because you haven't actually read it.

Later traditional interpretation of a text is only another layer of mystification of the text, to be removed if you don't want to face all sorts of misdirections. The problem is that we come with much of that later traditional interpretation already built in, through the long effects of christian cultural dominance, so a literal reading is inherently harder to get. To start afresh you have to get back to the literal reading.

Yes, I read your point setting out the false-dilemma. And your efforts to suggest my case is some sort of rejection of a close reading of the text itself.

spin wrote:
"Let's establish the provenance of this text."
"How do we do that?"
"Well, first let's look at it closely."
"Which edition?"
"The first, of course."
"Oh, you mean the 1867 edition."
"No, the actual document."
"But we don't have that. It was lost centuries ago. What'll we do?"
"Let's read the Loeb apparatus. It'll give us clues."
"OK, we've got some clues. What do they tell us about provenance of the text?"
"Well, we know where the earliest manuscripts reside.... I know! Let's get some critical analyses."
"Hey, wow. There's a lot of stuff written by these religious scholar guys about the text."

Still no provenance. But then, so many of the texts we have to deal with don't yield up their provenance in any substantive way whatsoever. There is no substitute for reading the text to get what can be found out about it and that includes first literally.

that's a strawman & red-herring.

spin wrote:I made the point that reading certain parts of Galatians literally rather than through the eyes of later tradition

another strawman - who says "certain parts of Galatians" are read "through the eyes of later tradition" ??

spin wrote:... it is a waste of a reader's time--if they are in the business of evaluating a text for what it says and how it fits into a context--not to attempt to find out what it says as closely as they can, which entails reading it literally among other things. Without doing so, you have no hope of contextualizing it.

You don't give anyone credit for contextualising it, other thanyourself??

spin wrote:So go ahead, don't read what a text says literally and see what you can say that is useful about it. Nothing, of course, because you haven't actually read it.

that's a non-sequitur.

Later traditional interpretation of a text is only another layer of mystification of the text,

That's a loaded statement - a poisoning- the-well fallacy.

You constantly special-plead for 'literal consideration' for the Pauline epistles as them being attestations to actual history: Your appeals to reading Paul "literally" is also equivocation fallacy to do that. You do not acknowledge they are theological texts incorporated with a bunch of other theological texts.
.

neilgodfrey wrote:

spin wrote:
"Let's establish the provenance of this text."
"How do we do that?"
"Well, first let's look at it closely."
"Which edition?"
"The first, of course."
"Oh, you mean the 1867 edition."
"No, the actual document."
"But we don't have that. It was lost centuries ago. What'll we do?"
"Let's read the Loeb apparatus. It'll give us clues."
"OK, we've got some clues. What do they tell us about provenance of the text?"
"Well, we know where the earliest manuscripts reside.... I know! Let's get some critical analyses."
"Hey, wow. There's a lot of stuff written by these religious scholar guys about the text."

Still no provenance. But then, so many of the texts we have to deal with don't yield up their provenance in any substantive way whatsoever. There is no substitute for reading the text to get what can be found out about it and that includes first literally.

Oh dear. You can't establish the provenance of a text from the self-testimony of a text. Your little farce is just a circularity.

Guess what. We don't know the provenance of the Gospel of Mark. So what do we do? Break the rules? Or do we accept our lack of knowledge and work within all the variables that that leaves us with when attempting to ascertain its nature?

Hell, we don't even know the provenance of Paul's letters! So what do we do? If we take them at face value and interpret them all literally then we are making assumptions about their provenance and character that are without evidential support.

Still misrepresenting what you are trying to analyse. If you can't read what you need to analyse, you won't get anywhere.

neilgodfrey wrote:

spin wrote:I made the point that reading certain parts of Galatians literally rather than through the eyes of later tradition leads one to come to very different ideas, to conflict between later tradition and what Paul says. I think that is significant. I'm really sorry, if you don't like that, but it is a waste of a reader's time--if they are in the business of evaluating a text for what it says and how it fits into a context--not to attempt to find out what it says as closely as they can, which entails reading it literally among other things. Without doing so, you have no hope of contextualizing it. So go ahead, don't read what a text says literally and see what you can say that is useful about it. Nothing, of course, because you haven't actually read it.

Later traditional interpretation of a text is only another layer of mystification of the text, to be removed if you don't want to face all sorts of misdirections. The problem is that we come with much of that later traditional interpretation already built in, through the long effects of christian cultural dominance, so a literal reading is inherently harder to get. To start afresh you have to get back to the literal reading.

Yes, I read your point setting out the false-dilemma. And your efforts to suggest my case is some sort of rejection of a close reading of the text itself.

Facile misrepresentation, such as you have put together here, ends discourse. I'm happy to discuss things, Neil, so why not cut the attitude and we can get on. It's ok to disagree.

spin wrote:

neilgodfrey wrote:

spin wrote:
"Let's establish the provenance of this text."
"How do we do that?"
"Well, first let's look at it closely."
"Which edition?"
"The first, of course."
"Oh, you mean the 1867 edition."
"No, the actual document."
"But we don't have that. It was lost centuries ago. What'll we do?"
"Let's read the Loeb apparatus. It'll give us clues."
"OK, we've got some clues. What do they tell us about provenance of the text?"
"Well, we know where the earliest manuscripts reside.... I know! Let's get some critical analyses."
"Hey, wow. There's a lot of stuff written by these religious scholar guys about the text."

Still no provenance. But then, so many of the texts we have to deal with don't yield up their provenance in any substantive way whatsoever. There is no substitute for reading the text to get what can be found out about it and that includes first literally.

Oh dear. You can't establish the provenance of a text from the self-testimony of a text. Your little farce is just a circularity.

Guess what. We don't know the provenance of the Gospel of Mark. So what do we do? Break the rules? Or do we accept our lack of knowledge and work within all the variables that that leaves us with when attempting to ascertain its nature?

Hell, we don't even know the provenance of Paul's letters! So what do we do? If we take them at face value and interpret them all literally then we are making assumptions about their provenance and character that are without evidential support.

Still misrepresenting what you are trying to analyse. If you can't read what you need to analyse, you won't get anywhere.

neilgodfrey wrote:

spin wrote:I made the point that reading certain parts of Galatians literally rather than through the eyes of later tradition leads one to come to very different ideas, to conflict between later tradition and what Paul says. I think that is significant. I'm really sorry, if you don't like that, but it is a waste of a reader's time--if they are in the business of evaluating a text for what it says and how it fits into a context--not to attempt to find out what it says as closely as they can, which entails reading it literally among other things. Without doing so, you have no hope of contextualizing it. So go ahead, don't read what a text says literally and see what you can say that is useful about it. Nothing, of course, because you haven't actually read it.

Later traditional interpretation of a text is only another layer of mystification of the text, to be removed if you don't want to face all sorts of misdirections. The problem is that we come with much of that later traditional interpretation already built in, through the long effects of christian cultural dominance, so a literal reading is inherently harder to get. To start afresh you have to get back to the literal reading.

Yes, I read your point setting out the false-dilemma. And your efforts to suggest my case is some sort of rejection of a close reading of the text itself.

Facile misrepresentation, such as you have put together here, ends discourse. I'm happy to discuss things, Neil, so why not cut the attitude and we can get on. It's ok to disagree.

No attitude on my part, "spin". If you can address the method and logic then do so. I'm only stating the standard methods for textual interpretation and analysis in any other historical discipline. Applying the same standards to the biblical texts. You're the one with the sarcastic response. I'm trying to point out the obvious first steps for understanding a text. How do you know that the self-witness of a text should be taken as-is unless you first know details such as provenance and do some comparative textual analysis for starters? You can't.

But I can understand why you would interpret an exposure of your own groundless assumptions and faulty logic as "misrepresentation" of what you are writing. Much easier than demonstrating why your logic is not flawed or why your assumptions are supportable.

RealityRules wrote:

spin wrote:
"Let's establish the provenance of this text."
"How do we do that?"
"Well, first let's look at it closely."
"Which edition?"
"The first, of course."
"Oh, you mean the 1867 edition."
"No, the actual document."
"But we don't have that. It was lost centuries ago. What'll we do?"
"Let's read the Loeb apparatus. It'll give us clues."
"OK, we've got some clues. What do they tell us about provenance of the text?"
"Well, we know where the earliest manuscripts reside.... I know! Let's get some critical analyses."
"Hey, wow. There's a lot of stuff written by these religious scholar guys about the text."

Still no provenance. But then, so many of the texts we have to deal with don't yield up their provenance in any substantive way whatsoever. There is no substitute for reading the text to get what can be found out about it and that includes first literally.

that's a strawman & red-herring.

Simple assertion isn't constructive.

RealityRules wrote:

spin wrote:I made the point that reading certain parts of Galatians literally rather than through the eyes of later tradition

another strawman - who says "certain parts of Galatians" are read "through the eyes of later tradition" ??

I do. Most arguments that make assertions about "James the brother of the lord" seem to me to fit as an example. We normally understand this phrase because later tradition has determined that "the lord" here must refer to Jesus. Later tradition rejects Paul's statement that he received his gospel from a revelation as not being reflective of the fact that he got his knowledge of Jesus from his predecessors and his revelation gets overlooked. But he says that he got his knowledge of Jesus not from other people, so he literally disagrees with later tradition.

RealityRules wrote:

spin wrote:... it is a waste of a reader's time--if they are in the business of evaluating a text for what it says and how it fits into a context--not to attempt to find out what it says as closely as they can, which entails reading it literally among other things. Without doing so, you have no hope of contextualizing it.

You don't give anyone credit for contextualising it, other thanyourself??

The question does not follow.

RealityRules wrote:

spin wrote:So go ahead, don't read what a text says literally and see what you can say that is useful about it. Nothing, of course, because you haven't actually read it.

that's a non-sequitur.

No. It is a basic necessity.

RealityRules wrote:

Later traditional interpretation of a text is only another layer of mystification of the text,

That's a loaded statement - a poisoning- the-well fallacy.

You constantly special-plead for 'literal consideration' for the Pauline epistles as them being attestations to actual history: Your appeals to reading Paul "literally" is also equivocation fallacy to do that. You do not acknowledge they are theological texts incorporated with a bunch of other theological texts.

You misunderstand. I say that before you can sufficiently deal with any text, you have to have read it. A literal reading should be the first reading. From that you can start to make determinations as to how the text should ultimately be read. If you cannot get to a literal reading--what the words mean and how they interact to form semantic units that you hang together to yield the complete text--then you can't really start making any useful determinations about the content and its context.

neilgodfrey wrote:

spin wrote:

neilgodfrey wrote:

spin wrote:
"Let's establish the provenance of this text."
"How do we do that?"
"Well, first let's look at it closely."
"Which edition?"
"The first, of course."
"Oh, you mean the 1867 edition."
"No, the actual document."
"But we don't have that. It was lost centuries ago. What'll we do?"
"Let's read the Loeb apparatus. It'll give us clues."
"OK, we've got some clues. What do they tell us about provenance of the text?"
"Well, we know where the earliest manuscripts reside.... I know! Let's get some critical analyses."
"Hey, wow. There's a lot of stuff written by these religious scholar guys about the text."

Still no provenance. But then, so many of the texts we have to deal with don't yield up their provenance in any substantive way whatsoever. There is no substitute for reading the text to get what can be found out about it and that includes first literally.

Oh dear. You can't establish the provenance of a text from the self-testimony of a text. Your little farce is just a circularity.

Guess what. We don't know the provenance of the Gospel of Mark. So what do we do? Break the rules? Or do we accept our lack of knowledge and work within all the variables that that leaves us with when attempting to ascertain its nature?

Hell, we don't even know the provenance of Paul's letters! So what do we do? If we take them at face value and interpret them all literally then we are making assumptions about their provenance and character that are without evidential support.

Still misrepresenting what you are trying to analyse. If you can't read what you need to analyse, you won't get anywhere.

neilgodfrey wrote:

spin wrote:I made the point that reading certain parts of Galatians literally rather than through the eyes of later tradition leads one to come to very different ideas, to conflict between later tradition and what Paul says. I think that is significant. I'm really sorry, if you don't like that, but it is a waste of a reader's time--if they are in the business of evaluating a text for what it says and how it fits into a context--not to attempt to find out what it says as closely as they can, which entails reading it literally among other things. Without doing so, you have no hope of contextualizing it. So go ahead, don't read what a text says literally and see what you can say that is useful about it. Nothing, of course, because you haven't actually read it.

Later traditional interpretation of a text is only another layer of mystification of the text, to be removed if you don't want to face all sorts of misdirections. The problem is that we come with much of that later traditional interpretation already built in, through the long effects of christian cultural dominance, so a literal reading is inherently harder to get. To start afresh you have to get back to the literal reading.

Yes, I read your point setting out the false-dilemma. And your efforts to suggest my case is some sort of rejection of a close reading of the text itself.

Facile misrepresentation, such as you have put together here, ends discourse. I'm happy to discuss things, Neil, so why not cut the attitude and we can get on. It's ok to disagree.

No attitude on my part, "spin". If you can address the method and logic then do so. I'm only stating the standard methods for textual interpretation and analysis in any other historical discipline. Applying the same standards to the biblical texts. You're the one with the sarcastic response. I'm trying to point out the obvious first steps for understanding a text.

Talking about farces and false dilemmas and putting my name in inverted commas are indications of an attitude.

neilgodfrey wrote:How do you know that the self-witness of a text should be taken as-is unless you first know details such as provenance and do some comparative textual analysis for starters? You can't.

You're right, but until you read it literally you can't do anything of any use. You first read it literally and then you start building up what the text is doing and how it fits its a context.

spin wrote:If you cannot get to a literal reading--what the words mean and how they interact to form semantic units that you hang together to yield the complete text--then you can't really start making any useful determinations about the content and its context.

By "literal reading" we do not normally mean "how semantic units hang together" -- we mean a literal interpretation of the text. How semantic units hang together is a basic function of "reading", whether we are interpreting the words literally or otherwise.

.
Assessing a text involves assessing the content in context - one is constantly thinking, referencing, & re-thinking & re-referencing.

It is an ongoing process, [eventually] taking on board other's ideas.

spin wrote:

neilgodfrey wrote:

spin wrote:

neilgodfrey wrote:

Oh dear. You can't establish the provenance of a text from the self-testimony of a text. Your little farce is just a circularity.

Guess what. We don't know the provenance of the Gospel of Mark. So what do we do? Break the rules? Or do we accept our lack of knowledge and work within all the variables that that leaves us with when attempting to ascertain its nature?

Hell, we don't even know the provenance of Paul's letters! So what do we do? If we take them at face value and interpret them all literally then we are making assumptions about their provenance and character that are without evidential support.

Still misrepresenting what you are trying to analyse. If you can't read what you need to analyse, you won't get anywhere.

neilgodfrey wrote:
Yes, I read your point setting out the false-dilemma. And your efforts to suggest my case is some sort of rejection of a close reading of the text itself.

Facile misrepresentation, such as you have put together here, ends discourse. I'm happy to discuss things, Neil, so why not cut the attitude and we can get on. It's ok to disagree.

No attitude on my part, "spin". If you can address the method and logic then do so. I'm only stating the standard methods for textual interpretation and analysis in any other historical discipline. Applying the same standards to the biblical texts. You're the one with the sarcastic response. I'm trying to point out the obvious first steps for understanding a text.

Talking about farces and false dilemmas and putting my name in inverted commas are indications of an attitude.

neilgodfrey wrote:How do you know that the self-witness of a text should be taken as-is unless you first know details such as provenance and do some comparative textual analysis for starters? You can't.

You're right, but until you read it literally you can't do anything of any use. You first read it literally and then you start building up what the text is doing and how it fits its a context.

You compose a sarcastic, farcical dialogue and I call it a farcical dialogue and I'm the one with the "attitude"? Not the one writing the farcical dialogue, of course!

You make a point with a false-dilemma and I point out that you are making a false-dilemma and I suddenly have an attitude?

I put a pen-name in inverted commas to stress the anonymity of the good self who rebuffs my points with claims of "butterfly treatment" and generally falls into fundamental fallacies like false-dilemmas and retorts with farcical sarcasm and I am the one with the attitude?

It seems to me that in your eyes anyone who points out the logical flaws in your responses, and that your responses are unconvincing because they come in the form of sarcasm, flippant dismissal, etc is guilty of having a bad attitude.

The method you are arguing here strikes me as a rationale for your assumptions about your approach to the letters of Paul. You don't seem to be able to engage with an argument that it might be flawed in some way so you respond with sarcasm, assertion, and now ad hominem.

neilgodfrey wrote:

spin wrote:If you cannot get to a literal reading--what the words mean and how they interact to form semantic units that you hang together to yield the complete text--then you can't really start making any useful determinations about the content and its context.

By "literal reading" we do not normally mean "how semantic units hang together" -- we mean a literal interpretation of the text. How semantic units hang together is a basic function of "reading", whether we are interpreting the words literally or otherwise.

I guess you're bored, Neil.

How do you make a literal interpretation of a text? You read the text for what it appears to say. Unfortunately, you can't deal with the "otherwise" until you've dealt with the "literally". (Of course, as I've pointed out, you can be told what is in the text and then you don't need to read the text. That's what happens with later tradition whispering in your ear.)

RealityRules wrote:.
Assessing a text involves assessing the content in context - one is constantly thinking, referencing, & re-thinking & re-referencing.

It is an ongoing process, [eventually] taking on board other's ideas.

Do you agree that in order to do this, first you must read what the text appears to say?

spin wrote:
I guess you're bored, Neil.

Attitude, attitude . . . .

spin wrote:

RealityRules wrote:.
Assessing a text involves assessing the content in context - one is constantly thinking, referencing, & re-thinking & re-referencing.

It is an ongoing process, [eventually] taking on board other's ideas.

Do you agree that in order to do this, first you must read what the text appears to say?

I like the way "literal reading" has been changing its meaning in these last few responses

spin wrote:

RealityRules wrote:.
Assessing a text involves assessing the content in context - one is constantly thinking, referencing, & re-thinking & re-referencing.

It is an ongoing process, [eventually] taking on board other's ideas.

Do you agree that in order to do this, first you must read what the text appears to say?

Of course you must read the text, but trying to determine what it "appears to say" might invite or invoke reification (concretism) - a fallacy.

Determining it's meaning and position (perhaps relative to other text or ideas) is another thing.

spin wrote:

RealityRules wrote:

spin wrote:I made the point that reading certain parts of Galatians literally rather than through the eyes of later tradition

another strawman - who says "certain parts of Galatians" are read "through the eyes of later tradition" ??

I do. Most arguments that make assertions about "James the brother of the lord" seem to me to fit as an example. We normally understand this phrase because later tradition has determined that "the lord" here must refer to Jesus.

I don't determine that. It could mean a number of things: I keep an open mind about vague text in unclear context.

spin wrote:Later tradition rejects Paul's statement that he received his gospel from a revelation as not being reflective of the fact that he got his knowledge of Jesus from his predecessors and his revelation gets overlooked. But he says that he got his knowledge of Jesus not from other people, so he literally disagrees with later tradition.

That is illogical - how could Paul "disagree with later tradition"?

I don't assume he got knowledge of Jesus. I don't assume he got that alleged knowledge from others.

I consider it likely it was edited when it was later collated.

ie. I don't take it literally.

neilgodfrey wrote:You compose a sarcastic, farcical dialogue and I call it a farcical dialogue and I'm the one with the "attitude"? Not the one writing the farcical dialogue, of course!

You make a point with a false-dilemma and I point out that you are making a false-dilemma and I suddenly have an attitude?

I put a pen-name in inverted commas to stress the anonymity of the good self who rebuffs my points with claims of "butterfly treatment" and generally falls into fundamental fallacies like false-dilemmas and retorts with farcical sarcasm and I am the one with the attitude?

It seems to me that in your eyes anyone who points out the logical flaws in your responses, and that your responses are unconvincing because they come in the form of sarcasm, flippant dismissal, etc is guilty of having a bad attitude.

We were basically having a reasonable discussion with its usual mix of banter, until you posted this. That's where it seems to me you jumped the rails. It was a response to the post that talked of "Scrogg & Groff's ... butterfly effort" and asked "Where is the, umm, baptism?" Hey, hell, my post was really bad attitude.

neilgodfrey wrote:The method you are arguing here strikes me as a rationale for your assumptions about your approach to the letters of Paul. You don't seem to be able to engage with an argument that it might be flawed in some way so you respond with sarcasm, assertion, and now ad hominem.

We have both strangely maintained our different views in the discussion. You thinking that I'm not engaging with arguments and I think you are not engaging. What's it to be, Neil? Is there a discussion here to be had?

neilgodfrey wrote:

spin wrote:

RealityRules wrote:.
Assessing a text involves assessing the content in context - one is constantly thinking, referencing, & re-thinking & re-referencing.

It is an ongoing process, [eventually] taking on board other's ideas.

Do you agree that in order to do this, first you must read what the text appears to say?

I like the way "literal reading" has been changing its meaning in these last few responses

I like the way you went off half-cocked without waiting to see if you understood what was being talked about.

RealityRules wrote:

spin wrote:

RealityRules wrote:.
Assessing a text involves assessing the content in context - one is constantly thinking, referencing, & re-thinking & re-referencing.

It is an ongoing process, [eventually] taking on board other's ideas.

Do you agree that in order to do this, first you must read what the text appears to say?

Of course you must read the text, but trying to determine what it "appears to say" might invite or invoke reification (concretism) - a fallacy.

Without reading what the text appears to say, you haven't touched the text.

RealityRules wrote:Determining it's meaning and position (perhaps relative to other text or ideas) is another thing.

Which cannot be done without engaging with what the text puts before you, ie reading it as literally as possible. That allows you to decide what text type it purports to be and whether its words purport to be matter of fact, florid, metaphorical, allegorical, mystical. I agree that a dealing with a text, especially one distant from our cultural context, requires a lot of work. The first step however should be a literal reading, otherwise you can't do much work at all.

RealityRules wrote:

spin wrote:

RealityRules wrote:

spin wrote:I made the point that reading certain parts of Galatians literally rather than through the eyes of later tradition

another strawman - who says "certain parts of Galatians" are read "through the eyes of later tradition" ??

I do. Most arguments that make assertions about "James the brother of the lord" seem to me to fit as an example. We normally understand this phrase because later tradition has determined that "the lord" here must refer to Jesus.

I don't determine that. It could mean a number of things: I keep an open mind about vague text in unclear context.

Great. But not many people seem to follow what you say.

RealityRules wrote:

spin wrote:Later tradition rejects Paul's statement that he received his gospel from a revelation as not being reflective of the fact that he got his knowledge of Jesus from his predecessors and his revelation gets overlooked. But he says that he got his knowledge of Jesus not from other people, so he literally disagrees with later tradition.

That is illogical - how could Paul "disagree with later tradition"?

That's an interesting case of a literal reading gone wrong. But to try to answer, you compare what is written in Paul and what is written in later tradition, as a reader who has access to both can do, then you can determine whether they agree or not. I determined that the content of the material I was concerned with did not agree with later tradition. He, in his writings, disagreed with later tradition. I did not imply he was aware of later tradition and interacted with it.

RealityRules wrote:I don't assume he got knowledge of Jesus. I don't assume he got that alleged knowledge from others.

I consider it likely it was edited when it was later collated.

ie. I don't take it literally.

Then you haven't read the text, because, until you see what it says... literally, you can't put yourself in the position of knowing anything about its content. You can choose not to read the text and still truthfully say, "I don't assume he got knowledge of Jesus. I don't assume he got that alleged knowledge from others."... at least if you are reacting to what you read from me. When you say "I consider it likely it was edited when it was later collated", that indicates that you have read the text literally and rejected aspects of the content, based on your reactions to that and subsequent readings, as the work of editing and collating.

(For clarity: although I recommend trying to get through to a more literal reading of Paul in Galatians, I don't advocate just reading a text for what it says literally, but going through all the efforts to analyse the text to get the most objective understanding of it.)

neilgodfrey wrote:

spin wrote:
I guess you're bored, Neil.

Attitude, attitude . . . .

I don't see why you say that. You yourself said,

I'm bored with this conversation. *

I'm belatedly agreeing.