spin wrote:Waffle aside, where does one get the basic evidence to establish the meaning of kuriakos?

What "basic evidence"?

The root "κυριος" is master/lord/someone of high esteem (which even your argument doesn't seem to quibble), and "κυριακός" is the possessive form, with its "-ακός" suffix, as with "οἰκιακός": those of your house. (Tufts Perseus def. here.)

So kuriakos is the possessive form of kurios, and kuriakon deipnon is that possessive form used in a double-accusative, with the first object kuriakon relating to the second deipnon.

Once again, we have something perfectly simple -- a possessive adjective translated as "Lord's" -- swamped in needless micro-analysis, apparently in the cause of eliminating a section of 1 Corinthians that you don't like. (I repeat my waffling request for those academic articles backing up your view that the Last Supper account's an interpolation.)

I decided some time back that there is no point in engaging Byron. He simply and consistently doesn't know what he is meddling with. This means that anything he looks at will tend to reflect the shallowness of analysis that leads to blatant error. However, some errors need to be corrected, otherwise people may get the wrong idea.

The subject here is the significance of words formed from others by the addition of a suffix. Consider the notion of "economic", derived from "economy". The Oxford Shorter gives the definition "Of, pertaining to, or concerned with economics; relating to the wealth of a community or nation." "Economic" doesn't mean "the economy's", eg "economic measures" and *"the economy's measures". The "of" in the definition does not indicate possession, but "concerning, about". This can be a characteristic, aspect or reflection.

In Greek we find οικονομος from which οικονομικος is derived. The first means "one who manages a household, administrator". The second, οικονομικος, means "practised in the management of a household, thrifty frugal, economical" (*). Note how "οικονομικος" can mean "thrifty", a notion derived from the good management of a house. Obviously οικονομικος doesn't mean "the administrator's".

There is simple connection between κυριος and κυριακος, in that the suffix ακος has been added to κυριος and an adjective has been created with a meaning related to the noun, κυριος. The suffix -ακος has the same significance as -ικος, but only appears after a noun that ends with an -ιος or -ια, as in the examples κυριος and οικια ("house") with the derived adjectives κυριακος and οικιακος. And obviously οικιακος doesn't mean "the house's".

Here are some derived words:

kardiakos - of, or pertaining, to the heart
daimoniakos = daimonikos - of persons or animals possessed by a demon
paidiakos - of children
bibliakos - versed in books
hliakos - of the sun, solar
Qemeliakos - of or for the foundation
elegeiakos - elegiac

To go to a dictionary and read a definition starting with "of" and presume that it is possessive is a crass blunder. None of the examples above indicate a notion of "possessive", merely that they are words whose meanings have been derived from other words.

As to οικιακος its principal meaning is "domestic (person)", as seen in Mt 10:36 and in the Vulgate translated "domestici" (plural).

κυριακος doesn't mean "the lord's". There is a nice simple way of saying "the lord's" in Greek: "[του] κυριου". The lord's supper would be "δειπνον [του] κυριου", which of course Paul didn't say in 1 Cor 11:20. Had he wanted to indicate "the lord's meal" Paul would not have said, "κυριακον δειπνον". To understand the grammar, the form κυριακον is accusative neuter, indicating that it is an adjective qualifying the neuter noun δειπνον ("meal").

One problem we face is that the term κυριακος is relatively rare in ancient Greek, making its significance not so easy to discern. When a term is derived from a noun it may simply reflect a characteristic of that noun or it can have only loosely connected significances, as in the case of βιβλιακος, one who is "versed in books" or ελεγειακος, signifying "elegiac" or "written in distiches (poetic form used in elegies)". However, because of its rare use in Greek writings (these constitute or basic evidence for understanding the significance of Greek words), deriving a useful meaning from Liddell & Scott's definition of κυριακος as "of or for an owner or master" is not easy. The one thing we know is that it is not possessive. There is already a grammatical representation of possessive in Greek, as indicated above. Obviously Paul knew that.

κυριακος should reflect what one considers to be attributes of a κυριος. This is the reason it is better to translate it as "lordly", ie "reflecting a lord". If one translates it as "the lord's" as in "the lord's supper" one is obscuring the original language and making it appear to be the same thing as "δειπνον [του] κυριου" which truly means "the lord's supper". In English this term denotes the institution inaugurated by Jesus in the gospels, an institution that we cannot presume Paul knew about. To use "the lord's supper" is certainly tendentious. A neutral translation guarantees the distinction that Paul conveys and stops us from misunderstanding "κυριακον δειπνον" by confusing what he says with "the lord's supper".

One of the tasks of understanding what is written is not to put impediments in the way of understanding, such as by convenient redefining of terms so that one gets a meaning one is familiar with. Paul did not say "the lord's supper". (κυριακον is not a possessive, but a qualifying adjective.) He said "κυριακον δειπνον", which is safest translated as "the lordly supper".

Byron wrote:

spin wrote:Waffle aside, where does one get the basic evidence to establish the meaning of kuriakos?

What "basic evidence"?

The root "κυριος" is master/lord/someone of high esteem (which even your argument doesn't seem to quibble), and "κυριακός" is the possessive form, with its "-ακός" suffix, as with "οἰκιακός": those of your house. (Tufts Perseus def. here.)

So kuriakos is the possessive form of kurios, and kuriakon deipnon is that possessive form used in a double-accusative, with the first object kuriakon relating to the second deipnon.

Once again, we have something perfectly simple -- a possessive adjective translated as "Lord's" -- swamped in needless micro-analysis, apparently in the cause of eliminating a section of 1 Corinthians that you don't like. (I repeat my waffling request for those academic articles backing up your view that the Last Supper account's an interpolation.)

Spin, very informative, thanks for clarifying.

Tell me, what do you think of Acts 12:2 as an interpolation? I ask because it reads like one.

R. G. Price brought it to my attention here: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/artic ... llowup.htm

All very nice Spin, but pick up a Greek lexicon sometime.

Mine is the Greek New Testament/Fourth revised Edition/with Greek dictionary by the German Bible Study and United Bible Societies. My other is simply a Koine Greek textbook written by Dr. David Alan Black. Both dictionaries, the one in lexicon and the other in the text book, are clear that κυριακός means "belonging to the Lord."

It is it's own noun. It is not the possessive of κυριος like you said. However, it still means "belonging to the Lord."

dogsgod wrote:Spin, very informative, thanks for clarifying.

Tell me, what do you think of Acts 12:2 as an interpolation? I ask because it reads like one.

R. G. Price brought it to my attention here: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/artic ... llowup.htm

It's possible and suits Price's thinking, but interpolations are hard to ascribe solely to logistical analysis. One needs other pointers in the text to develop a case for interpolation. That's why I try to indicate linguistic evidence, grammatical, syntactic or lexical, to give substance to the case.

willhud9 wrote:All very nice Spin, but pick up a Greek lexicon sometime.

Don't be presumptuous.

willhud9 wrote:Mine is the Greek New Testament/Fourth revised Edition/with Greek dictionary by the German Bible Study and United Bible Societies. My other is simply a Koine Greek textbook written by Dr. David Alan Black.

Mine's the L & S (1996) edition.

willhud9 wrote:Both dictionaries, the one in lexicon and the other in the text book, are clear that κυριακός means "belonging to the Lord."

As they are bible study dictionaries I would expect nothing less. My old Lampe lexicon (1961) gives that meaning as well, but that comes from the patristic usage and is irrelevant for understanding the usage in the time of Paul.

willhud9 wrote:It is it's own noun. It is not the possessive of κυριος like you said. However, it still means "belonging to the Lord."

You need to know more than how to open a dictionary. Meanings of words are based on corpus analysis. L & S only give passing credence to biblical and patristic sources preferring to use a wider corpus including classical and hellenistic Greek. When L & S give ο κυριακος φισκος in their entry for κυριακος, you should know that it has nothing at all to do with the later christian meaning of the word. It is wrong to translate Paul's "κυριακον δειπνον" with "the lord's supper". Paul inherited his language usage from his cultural context. Understand that, not the later christian context.

spin wrote:

willhud9 wrote:It is it's own noun. It is not the possessive of κυριος like you said. However, it still means "belonging to the Lord."

You need to know more than how to open a dictionary. Meanings of words are based on corpus analysis. L & S only give passing credence to biblical and patristic sources preferring to use a wider corpus including classical and hellenistic Greek. When L & S give ο κυριακος φισκος in their entry for κυριακος, you should know that it has nothing at all to do with the later christian meaning of the word. It is wrong to translate Paul's "κυριακον δειπνον" with "the lord's supper". Paul inherited his language usage from his cultural context. Understand that, not the later christian context.

So you happen to be an expert at understanding Paul's cultural context?

I simply cited the dictionary definitions to show you that no biblical scholars interpret κυριακος as belonging to the Lord.

But I forgot, biblical scholars and those who've studied biblical Greek don't know anything. Especially since you scoffed at the fact that both sources were biblical study aids. You "expected nothing different." So why is your source and definition all of a sudden more qualified to be the correct one when plenty of Greek scholars would disagree with it?

willhud9 wrote:

spin wrote:

willhud9 wrote:It is it's own noun. It is not the possessive of κυριος like you said. However, it still means "belonging to the Lord."

You need to know more than how to open a dictionary. Meanings of words are based on corpus analysis. L & S only give passing credence to biblical and patristic sources preferring to use a wider corpus including classical and hellenistic Greek. When L & S give ο κυριακος φισκος in their entry for κυριακος, you should know that it has nothing at all to do with the later christian meaning of the word. It is wrong to translate Paul's "κυριακον δειπνον" with "the lord's supper". Paul inherited his language usage from his cultural context. Understand that, not the later christian context.

So you happen to be an expert at understanding Paul's cultural context?

I simply cited the dictionary definitions to show you that no biblical scholars interpret κυριακος as belonging to the Lord.

Cite a reputable one.

willhud9 wrote:But I forgot, biblical scholars and those who've studied biblical Greek don't know anything.

You didn't read what I said.

willhud9 wrote:Especially since you scoffed at the fact that both sources were biblical study aids. You "expected nothing different." So why is your source and definition all of a sudden more qualified to be the correct one when plenty of Greek scholars would disagree with it?

You have missed the issue. How do you establish the meaning of words at any particular time? To understand what Paul meant, you cannot expect to cite the language of later people and expect that to be relevant to him. Teaching tools are for people learning the basics. They are not for disputing the significance of words. In Greek christian literature κυριακος came to mean "belonging to the lord (ie christ)". This meaning was certainly not the case when it was used to refer to the κυριακος φισκος. So you can now continue misconstruing what I have said and thinking you have understanding of Paul because you possess a small lexicon at the back of your Greek NT, but you don't seem to get what I have said here.

spin wrote:I decided some time back that there is no point in engaging Byron. He simply and consistently doesn't know what he is meddling with. This means that anything he looks at will tend to reflect the shallowness of analysis that leads to blatant error.

Show, don't tell, spin. As this ridiculous omertà arose from me asking you to explain how a method-governed edit was "arbitrary", the above is as rich as rich gets.

However, some errors need to be corrected, otherwise people may get the wrong idea.

Hang on, so you're not talking to me, but you are producing mini-dissertations in response to my posts. What a farce.

The one thing we know is that it is not possessive. There is already a grammatical representation of possessive in Greek, as indicated above. Obviously Paul knew that.

We "know" that kuriakos isn't possessive 'cause there's an alternative way of showing possession in Greek? Languages are rationed to a single way of doing something, are they?

Now, someone who's fluent in Greek could have shown I was in error on the spot. Show the declensions make kuriakos all wrong for possession and bang, done. Instead, you've taken over a fortnight to produce a pseudo-dissertation, featuring, bizarrely, a list of variants on the "-ακός" suffix showing ... erm, possession!

Here's the Perseus entry for kuriakos. As you've helpfully conceded with your list of variants, the LSJ definition "of or for an owner or master" is appropriate. If something is "of" something, then possession is indicated. You could translate the phrase as "the supper of the Lord", but it'd mean the exact same thing. Oh! Look, English has more than one way of indicating possession: fancy that!

spin wrote:To understand what Paul meant, you cannot expect to cite the language of later people and expect that to be relevant to him.

Fair enough, if you can show that the norms of 1st Century Greek made a possessive kuriakos impossible.

What this craftily does is rule out all the Greek grammars, making your assertions the only game in town. Unfortunately for you, assertions prove squat. You need to show why all those scholars are in error.

(Your arguments have a schizophrenic attitude to scholarship, don't they, spin -- you dismiss the entire historical community when it suits, then upbraid people for not following supposed "academic norms" that, like your musings on Greek, appear to exist only in your posts.)

And once more, we've been drawn into disproportionate evidential micro-analysis. What does it prove if "lordly (non-possessive) supper" is a better translation? It doesn't magic away the last supper account as an interpolation, or make sense of spin's nonsensical "titular/non-titular kurios" category, which is how the whole tangent got started.

Byron wrote:Unfortunately for you, assertions prove squat. You need to show why all those scholars are in error.

(Your arguments have a schizophrenic attitude to scholarship, don't they, spin

In error about what? A grammatical detail? Is that what HJ scholars pin their hopes on, because it sure looks that way to me.

This brings up the central question for investigators of this stripe. The dilemma is that you either baldly cite the authority of your preferred community of scholars, assert a consensus without doing any work yourself, or do some work yourself.

Maybe that's a trilemma.

The metadiscussion you prefer is to argue as to how present scholars can actually get inside the heads of the authors they are trying to parse. A possible variant is to claim that the consensus opinion is the one 'most likely' to be accurate, because it consists of a majority sample of people investigating the texts.

Assuming that an alternative position has to be shown to be in error simply defaults yours to being correct, since showing it to be in error employs the dubious technique of inspecting ancient texts as a modern scholar. Your critical style is immune to questions as to how modern scholarship really manages to get inside the heads of ancient authors, and dismisses as minutiae the sort of textual analysis that spin does. All this does is attempt to preserve bible scholarship as a literary profession.

Byron wrote:It doesn't magic away the last supper account as an interpolation

The textual (micro)analysis is what identifies something as an interpolation. Bringing in an argument in favour of the value of the last supper account is already beginning your descent into microanalysis, but with a literary bent. Text analysis is an antidote to that for some people.

The part of your point that might be well-taken is that the settling of this kind of question should not turn on textual microanalysis. The fact that it reduces to just this pastime in every case is a bad sign for gnosticism in this matter. I think it's either that, or swallow it whole, and just read the bible as if Jesus is historical.

My approach, of course, is to recognise that the only reason you are trying to parse the Lord's supper down to the last grapheme is because you're still trying to pin down James as the sibling of Jesus, as if that would prove that a Pauline epistle was worth anything as a documentation of real persons alive at the time.

It's hardly necessary to prove a scholar in error if all you have to do is disclose a microanalysis that does not really go all the way down to the last grapheme, and in fact avoids doing so when nobody presses him on the issue.

On the subject of interpolation, Eusebius tells us of a certain bishop of Corinth, Dionysius:

The same writer also speaks as follows concerning his own epistles, alleging that they had been mutilated: "As the brethren desired me to write epistles, I wrote. And these epistles the apostles of the devil have filled with tares, cutting out some things and adding others. For them a woe is reserved. It is, therefore, not to be wondered at if some have attempted to adulterate the Lord's writings also, since they have formed designs even against writings which are of less accounts." H.E. 4.23.11-12 (Italics mine)

Hmm, interpolation and bowdlerization running rife in the christian factions.

Cito di Pense wrote:Your critical style is immune to questions as to how modern scholarship really manages to get inside the heads of ancient authors, and dismisses as minutiae the sort of textual analysis that spin does.

"Textual analysis" that gives undue weight to the thing it's "analyzing" is minutiae. As I pointed out above, it doesn't make any great difference in the scheme of things if Paul referred to a "lordly supper", as the last supper account that follows is the thing of interest to historians. Analysis needs to be selective and proportionate. Arbitrary micro-analysis is just a waste of keystrokes.

History can't "get inside the heads" of ancient authors, nor does it try to. It makes the best interpretation of their arguments, and fits them into its hypothesis.

The textual (micro)analysis is what identifies something as an interpolation.

Not this sort of "analysis." Now, if you showed that the vocabulary in the last supper account was uncharacteristic of Paul (consistently so, not just one word), you'd be doing something useful.

We got onto the last supper 'cause spin does insist on pushing his nonsensical "titular/non-titular" ideas to magic away the reference to James as Jesus' brother (spin's argument does like a nice complex line, so it does). I've stuck with it to show the general flaw in all spin's arguments: superficially impressive, and coupled with the aggressively confident delivery, intimidating: dig the smallest inch, and they fall apart. All show, vanishingly little substance.

Spin's still not talking to me, so perhaps you can pass this along, in best recess fashion.

Byron wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:Your critical style is immune to questions as to how modern scholarship really manages to get inside the heads of ancient authors, and dismisses as minutiae the sort of textual analysis that spin does.

"Textual analysis" that gives undue weight to the thing it's "analyzing" is minutiae. As I pointed out above, it doesn't make any great difference in the scheme of things if Paul referred to a "lordly supper", as the last supper account that follows is the thing of interest to historians. Analysis needs to be selective and proportionate. Arbitrary micro-analysis is just a waste of keystrokes.

History can't "get inside the heads" of ancient authors, nor does it try to. It makes the best interpretation of their arguments, and fits them into its hypothesis.

The textual (micro)analysis is what identifies something as an interpolation.

Not this sort of "analysis." Now, if you showed that the vocabulary in the last supper account was uncharacteristic of Paul (consistently so, not just one word), you'd be doing something useful.

We got onto the last supper 'cause spin does insist on pushing his nonsensical "titular/non-titular" ideas to magic away the reference to James as Jesus' brother (spin's argument does like a nice complex line, so it does). I've stuck with it to show the general flaw in all spin's arguments: superficially impressive, and coupled with the aggressively confident delivery, intimidating: dig the smallest inch, and they fall apart. All show, vanishingly little substance.

Spin's still not talking to me, so perhaps you can pass this along, in best recess fashion.

Where do you get the magical idea that Paul would be making reference to an earthly brother of Jesus? Paul worships a Son of God that has a brother walking the earth? I love your thinking Byron, it's what keeps us coming back, seriously, we love serious scholars and their dedicated seriousees.

dogsgod wrote:we love serious scholars and their dedicated seriousees.

Ain't that the titular. The Totally Titular. Let's make a clean breast of it.

Byron wrote:
History can't "get inside the heads" of ancient authors, nor does it try to. It makes the best interpretation of their arguments, and fits them into its hypothesis.

Best interpretation? Oooh. Now, let's measure 'bestnessness'. Suit yerself, Byron. Do what suits.



I can't keep up with proliferating definitions of 'best'. I give up. I didn't want to say out of hand that historicism is subjective, but this business about 'best interpretation'? What about the student's T test? 'T' is for fucking-Titular.

Byron wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:Your critical style is immune to questions as to how modern scholarship really manages to get inside the heads of ancient authors, and dismisses as minutiae the sort of textual analysis that spin does.

"Textual analysis" that gives undue weight to the thing it's "analyzing" is minutiae. As I pointed out above, it doesn't make any great difference in the scheme of things if Paul referred to a "lordly supper", as the last supper account that follows is the thing of interest to historians. Analysis needs to be selective and proportionate. Arbitrary micro-analysis is just a waste of keystrokes.

History can't "get inside the heads" of ancient authors, nor does it try to. It makes the best interpretation of their arguments, and fits them into its hypothesis.

The textual (micro)analysis is what identifies something as an interpolation.

Not this sort of "analysis." Now, if you showed that the vocabulary in the last supper account was uncharacteristic of Paul (consistently so, not just one word), you'd be doing something useful.

We got onto the last supper 'cause spin does insist on pushing his nonsensical "titular/non-titular" ideas to magic away the reference to James as Jesus' brother (spin's argument does like a nice complex line, so it does). I've stuck with it to show the general flaw in all spin's arguments: superficially impressive, and coupled with the aggressively confident delivery, intimidating: dig the smallest inch, and they fall apart. All show, vanishingly little substance.

Spin's still not talking to me, so perhaps you can pass this along, in best recess fashion.

That's the sure sign of a cultist, not to engage anyone who's too effective against his position. You can check this out with any creationist.

Stein

Stein wrote:

Byron wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:Your critical style is immune to questions as to how modern scholarship really manages to get inside the heads of ancient authors, and dismisses as minutiae the sort of textual analysis that spin does.

"Textual analysis" that gives undue weight to the thing it's "analyzing" is minutiae. As I pointed out above, it doesn't make any great difference in the scheme of things if Paul referred to a "lordly supper", as the last supper account that follows is the thing of interest to historians. Analysis needs to be selective and proportionate. Arbitrary micro-analysis is just a waste of keystrokes.

History can't "get inside the heads" of ancient authors, nor does it try to. It makes the best interpretation of their arguments, and fits them into its hypothesis.

The textual (micro)analysis is what identifies something as an interpolation.

Not this sort of "analysis." Now, if you showed that the vocabulary in the last supper account was uncharacteristic of Paul (consistently so, not just one word), you'd be doing something useful.

We got onto the last supper 'cause spin does insist on pushing his nonsensical "titular/non-titular" ideas to magic away the reference to James as Jesus' brother (spin's argument does like a nice complex line, so it does). I've stuck with it to show the general flaw in all spin's arguments: superficially impressive, and coupled with the aggressively confident delivery, intimidating: dig the smallest inch, and they fall apart. All show, vanishingly little substance.

Spin's still not talking to me, so perhaps you can pass this along, in best recess fashion.

That's the sure sign of a cultist, not to engage anyone who's too effective against his position. You can check this out with any creationist.

That certainly means that you are not too effective.

But you misunderstand the situation. I don't expect you to know anything about linguistics so when Byron pretends to, you can only hear that he's making your sort of noise, but then I'm not interested in noise. Byron is still blubbering stupidity about possessives. One can tell he hasn't done a serious language course in his life, let alone know anything about linguistics. And what Byron lacks in knowledge and understanding, he makes up for in noise production. I bet he's got a dog-eared copy of Schopenhauer's "The Art of Controversy". If he could ever change the signal to noise ratio, someone might start listening to him again, but he's too committed. He shouldn't be at a skeptical forum, but then neither should you. You see Rule #1 of skepticism is: everything you hold to be foundational is up for question.

However, the hysterical jesusers of this forum are now plainly worse off than when they started here. They have few pretensions of having any evidence to support their sorry beliefs. It is apparent that their tenets are just a crock of shit. Just look at the sorry fact that Byron misquotes Gal 1:19 now. He's given up trying and you are left shouting like a hungry waif in a food riot. (Really, did you think you could capitalize your way into credibility?)

Cito di Pense wrote:

dogsgod wrote:we love serious scholars and their dedicated seriousees.

Ain't that the titular. The Totally Titular. Let's make a clean breast of it.

Byron wrote:History can't "get inside the heads" of ancient authors, nor does it try to. It makes the best interpretation of their arguments, and fits them into its hypothesis.

Best interpretation? Oooh. Now, let's measure 'bestnessness'. Suit yerself, Byron. Do what suits.

I can't keep up with proliferating definitions of 'best'. I give up. I didn't want to say out of hand that historicism is subjective, but this business about 'best interpretation'? What about the student's T test? 'T' is for fucking-Titular.

Would you stop playing word association football goal posts a letter of the law firm get your hands off that?

spin wrote:But you misunderstand the situation. I don't expect you to know anything about linguistics so when Byron pretends to, you can only hear that he's making your sort of noise, but then I'm not interested in noise. Byron is still blubbering stupidity about possessives. One can tell he hasn't done a serious language course in his life, let alone know anything about linguistics. And what Byron lacks in knowledge and understanding, he makes up for in noise production. I bet he's got a dog-eared copy of Schopenhauer's "The Art of Controversy". If he could ever change the signal to noise ratio, someone might start listening to him again, but he's too committed. He shouldn't be at a skeptical forum, but then neither should you. You see Rule #1 of skepticism is: everything you hold to be foundational is up for question.

Witness here a post that's as high on bluster as it's low on evidence. Spin makes a lot of confident assertions about the flaws in my argument. If pressed -- through a third party, I guess, or whatever vagary his "not talking to, but about" tactic prefers -- we might even get that bluffing trump, "Your argument's so stupid it's not worth responding to."

Spin's argument must bluff, as the inherent absurdity of his case as tied him in a veritable Gordian knot, so tangled that a slice is the only way out. His own post admits that kuriakos is a relational word. His case has resorted to asserting that the relation isn't possessive. Even if we accepted spin's assertions, on his own terms, the vague "lordly supper" is insufficient. We should at least have "the supper that pertains to the Lord" or "the supper that is of the Lord." Spin's already conceded enough to undo his proposition. It tickles when an opponent refutes their own argument, it truly does.

However, the hysterical jesusers of this forum --

Very good, spin!

-- are now plainly worse off than when they started here. They have few pretensions of having any evidence to support their sorry beliefs. It is apparent that their tenets are just a crock of shit. Just look at the sorry fact that Byron misquotes Gal 1:19 now. He's given up trying and you are left shouting like a hungry waif in a food riot. (Really, did you think you could capitalize your way into credibility?)

Here we again have bluff covering some awkward points, including spin's failure to adequately define "evidence", failure to show that the academy uses his half-definition of "hard evidence" that relegates text, and that awkward, awkward failure of the academy to adopt his interpolation claims. Even his man William O Walker admits that allegations of widespread Pauline interpolation "have gained little scholarly acceptance," and that " 'there has been no scholarly agreement about the probability, or even the plausibility, of any of these hypotheses about glosses and interpolations. ' " Walker again quotes that " 'no particular passage ... has gained undisputed interpolation status.' " (The Pauline Canon, ed. Stanley E. Porter, pp.190 & 194)

This from spin's own source!

No wonder spin is maintaining radio silence on everything I write. I've pulled apart his assertions, and it wasn't even hard. It's probably not happened in a good long while. I sympathize with him, I truly do.