tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4669291590397336050.comments2023-11-20T01:10:41.810-06:00Seeking the truth...Marcus Maherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07729718021822471179noreply@blogger.comBlogger324125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4669291590397336050.post-91151521324055372932023-11-20T01:10:41.810-06:002023-11-20T01:10:41.810-06:00Discover the potency of Maxgun 100, a powerful sol...Discover the potency of <a href="https://buy-strip.com/product/maxgun-100/" rel="nofollow">Maxgun 100</a>, a powerful solution for enhancing male performance. <br />Elena Loganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01133720010538015380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4669291590397336050.post-39367292086429859212023-05-14T07:19:43.884-05:002023-05-14T07:19:43.884-05:00Thanks for sharing this worth reading article. Thi...Thanks for sharing this worth reading article. This is really helpful. Keep sharing. <a href="http://67goldenrules.com/numerologist-report-reviews/" rel="nofollow">numerologist review</a><br />Foreign Automotivehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02529628077735981360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4669291590397336050.post-65945466852159478022020-06-15T07:39:49.135-05:002020-06-15T07:39:49.135-05:00This is a very useful post and relevant post. Than...This is a very useful post and relevant post. Thanks for this post. Keep blogging.<br /><a href="http://tarotinseeya.in/" rel="nofollow">Famous Numerologist In Hyderabad</a>Tarot Card Readerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01346379625073338358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4669291590397336050.post-86973764045593936832020-05-19T12:35:32.104-05:002020-05-19T12:35:32.104-05:00Tenth-century Jew Saadiya Gaon is supposed to have...Tenth-century Jew Saadiya Gaon is supposed to have said that the Song of Songs is "like a lock whose key is lost..." I wonder if your ironic reading might be that key? I really enjoyed reading your series; it's definitely given me a lot to think about. I've always found the Song rather puzzling myself. <br /><br />I was wondering: In the years since writing this series, have you come across anything like your view in any of the scholarly literature on the Song? My reservations with adopting it are: 1) If it's the best interpretation of the text, why hasn't it been proposed before now? And 2) Would it make good sense of the title being "The song of songs," implying that it's supposed to be the best of all love songs? It's hard (for me at least) to see how an ironic tragedy would be the greatest of all love songs. Not that these are insurmountable difficulties, but I'd be curious to hear your thoughts. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04100061964550046338noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4669291590397336050.post-26347694926432338612017-09-28T09:46:08.376-05:002017-09-28T09:46:08.376-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15398233043627727930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4669291590397336050.post-77558618836735161162016-04-21T11:08:32.872-05:002016-04-21T11:08:32.872-05:00Thank for your comments. I spent a lot of time tal...Thank for your comments. I spent a lot of time talking this over with my friend those first few days after seeing it. <br /><br />I haven't really followed anything Snyder has said about the reception of his film, so I'm not totally certain why he hasn't commented on that. I can say that it's not uncommon for artists generally to avoid making too strong of a statement about how we are to understand their art, and I think that's because after the art is released they no longer completely control the meaning and interpretation. We are co-participants in the art once we engage it. Giving too much guidance on how to interpret things kills that creative enjoyment of the art.Marcus Maherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07729718021822471179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4669291590397336050.post-1743936060596776212016-04-21T10:58:24.683-05:002016-04-21T10:58:24.683-05:00This is the best film ever. No doubt. What it surp...This is the best film ever. No doubt. What it surprises me is the date of your post! March 29, 2011!! I have looked the whole internet to look for answers after seeing the film like three times. And you had the answer 4 days after the release!! My accomplishments! But why does Snyder never comment this view of babydoll not existing?Sistemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12960236850358571504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4669291590397336050.post-7626093388076530472015-08-22T13:49:04.735-05:002015-08-22T13:49:04.735-05:00People pulled money due to their acceptance of gay...People pulled money due to their acceptance of gay marriage. If the opposite occurred, I'd be equally upset.Marcus Maherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07729718021822471179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4669291590397336050.post-28554027806543823962015-08-19T21:54:04.350-05:002015-08-19T21:54:04.350-05:00So, did people pull money because WV briefly went ...So, did people pull money because WV briefly went queer, or because it resiled from its ill judged act?Critiashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16237963162637891378noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4669291590397336050.post-19325129233825129422015-04-15T01:17:47.932-05:002015-04-15T01:17:47.932-05:00I don't know that I liked it, but I certainly ...I don't know that I liked it, but I certainly didn't hate it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08474551845661031816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4669291590397336050.post-12445954606795932392013-11-12T09:25:59.724-06:002013-11-12T09:25:59.724-06:00I think McCoy's presence in the movie probably...I think McCoy's presence in the movie probably is a strong reason to keep it in the canon. I hadn't thought about that before. <br /><br />I've seen the Curse of Fenric panned (couldn't tell you where anymore) and the general sense I've received from other friends who watch the show and from the book I mention above, The Vault, is that the last season in particular, and the era of the last two Doctors as a whole is viewed as being a little weaker. Colin Baker is, as far as I know, often viewed as being the worst of the Doctors. He himself didn't like the way the writers wrote his part. In fact he refused to show up on screen for his regeneration. McCoy filled in for him. I think Colin Baker is better than he's given credit for though. I strongly dislike Peri, and after she was gone I liked him more.<br /><br />McCoy's run is particularly difficult to assess. I think there are some positives, especially the way they developed the relationship between Ace and the Doctor (the episode in season 6, the God Complex falls short in many ways, and it's magnified when one compares it to the Curse of Fenric). Most of the episodes themselves just don't engage me. The Curse of Fenric, Delta and the Bannermen, The Remembrance of the Daleks, and Dragonfire are very good. Paradise Towers and The Happiness Patrol are awful. The rest of the episodes are fair to middling in my estimation.<br /><br />The first half of season 6 is great (except for the curse of the Black Spot). I really did not care for the second half, although the first time around I liked them more than I did on a second viewing.<br /><br />Steven got on my nerves, particularly in the Time Meddler, but maybe he was supposed to and I'm being a bit unfair. I probably should have picked Ben or Dodo. While they didn't annoy me, they were very flat characters. <br /><br />The issue for me with James Cordan is that he plays a very significant character who appears in multiple episodes. That to me gives him an identity within the universe that makes multiple appearances weird where it doesn't for the others. The closest I come to having an issue elsewhere is with the second Romana. She played a major role in the finale of the season prior to the one in which she became the Doctor's companion.Marcus Maherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07729718021822471179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4669291590397336050.post-70140048121776001532013-11-11T23:14:24.828-06:002013-11-11T23:14:24.828-06:00On the whole, I agree with most of this. I'm b...On the whole, I agree with most of this. I'm been watching the show from the beginning, including reconstructions of the missing episodes based on stills shot on the set. I'm about midway through season 19 at this point (just having finished The Visitation).<br /><br />I think the main reason they decided to keep the Eighth Doctor movie as canon is because it had Sylvester McCoy in it, and a lot of fans do love Paul McGann. His audio episodes have been very well received. I haven't seen that movie yet or heard any of those episodes, but that's the sense I get from the more die-hard fans who go that far into things. <br /><br />A few of your judgments surprise me, though. I was under the impression that fans generally love the last two seasons of the show (the two Ace seasons of the Seventh Doctor), so I'm not sure why you say they're derided. I've even seen The Curse of Fenric itself listed as one of the best stories of the Seventh Doctor, by people who say the show was canceled just as it was getting to be a much stronger show than it ever had been, even at the height of Tom Baker's time.<br /><br />I'm only about halfway through the sixth season of the newer episodes, but I'm not sure why you hate that season. I'm really enjoying it so far.<br /><br />I agree with you on the three best Doctors (2,4,10), although that's without having seen all of 5,7,11 and without having seen any of 6 or 8. I can't imagine why you don't like Steven, though. He was one of my favorite companions from the original series. He was intelligent and was able to contribute to adventures rather than just letting things happen to him and having to be rescued. That's only true of Ian, Barbara, and Steven (and once or twice Vicki) for the First Doctor. The others are either mostly brawn or all maidens in distress most of the time. It's a recurring problem for women. Only Zoe, Jo Grant, Romana, and Nyssa consistently broke out of that pattern (and Sarah Jane in her later seasons) up to the point I'm watching, and Steven has struck me as one of the better companions even among the male ones. He's certainly not as endearing as Jamie, but I liked him from his very first episode, which I can't say of most of the ones I did eventually come to like.<br /><br />It is a little weird for an actor to return as the same character and then play a different character, but there is a lot of history of actors returning to play different characters throughout the history of the show. It's one of the running features of the Wikipedia entries for each episode to list which actors had been in other episodes, and most stories have three or four who had been or would later be in other stories, sometimes with people who had been in three or four stories. And that continues in the new show, even with major characters (Martha, Amy, and the Twelfth Doctor all appeared earlier as other characters).Jeremy Piercehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03441308872350317672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4669291590397336050.post-40887672050736332422013-08-17T21:38:27.062-05:002013-08-17T21:38:27.062-05:00Thanks, Marcus, for this generous review. You'...Thanks, Marcus, for this generous review. You're right about the section on the origin of T12P -- but it's the sort of thing that, had I not included it, I would be slammed by scholars who have come to the point of view that these are Christian texts (I'll no doubt be slammed anyway, but not for ignorance of the arguments, at least :) ). An appendix actually would have been a good place to relegate it. Never occurred to me....David deSilvahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13619871426830223929noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4669291590397336050.post-79643663247274993282013-07-25T08:35:12.768-05:002013-07-25T08:35:12.768-05:00I know some, including some close friends/'fam...I know some, including some close friends/'family who I think would be upset a bit. They could view aspects of my argument as "communist."Marcus Maherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07729718021822471179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4669291590397336050.post-30236080981447474332013-07-24T17:41:56.006-05:002013-07-24T17:41:56.006-05:00Most conservative evangelicals I know would agree ...Most conservative evangelicals I know would agree with everything you say here. I'm not sure why you expect it to ruffle feathers.Jeremy Piercehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03441308872350317672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4669291590397336050.post-30426144678230125812013-05-28T21:57:51.013-05:002013-05-28T21:57:51.013-05:00I think we agree that 1:10 and 5:11 both show that...I think we agree that 1:10 and 5:11 both show that the Galatians were questioning whether Paul was really against circumcision, in some sense. We may differ on the exact nature of the misunderstanding, but we agree that Paul's commitment was, in some way, in doubt. To these verses we can add 6:17, where Paul seems to be saying that his wounds prove his commitment.<br /><br />Incidentally, the connection between 1:10 and 5:11 is strengthened by their respective contexts. Paul refers to the Galatians' confusion in both 1:7 and 5:11. He calls down a punishment in 1:8-9, as well as in 5:10 and 5:12. Also, both 1:8 and 5:11 refer to Paul's preaching.<br /><br />So, I think you would propose that there were two false rumours in Galatia:<br />1) Paul was not completely opposed to circumcision.<br />2) The Jerusalem apostles agree that it is OK to be circumcised and they should be followed.<br /><br />The problem that I have with this is that once we have accepted 1), there is no longer any need for 2). Occam's razor removes it.<br /><br />The rumour that Paul challenges in 5:11 must be relevant to the Gentile addressees and it must be a very serious misunderstanding because Paul wants punishment (5:10) and even castration (5:12) for those who propagate the confusion. For these reasons, I don't share Dunn's view that 5:11 shows only that Paul was suspected of preaching circumcision to Jews. His interpretation is an act of desperation (Campbell describes it as "absurd" and incoherent). When Paul writes "why am I still being persecuted if I am still preaching circumcision" the two "stills" refer back to an earlier time, which can naturally be taken to be Paul's last visit to Galatia, which is the most recent common point of reference between Paul and his readers. Paul's logic here implies that at this earlier time he preached circumcison (in some sense) and at the same time was persecuted for NOT preaching circumcision. It seems to me, therefore, that the earlier time, to which the two "stills" refer, was the time of Acts 16:3-4 when Paul preached circumcision (in some sense) to Timothy while delivering the decision of the elders that circumcision was not necessary. From Acts 16:3-4 and Gal 5:11 it seems that Paul gave mixed signals about what he really believed about circumcision. The Galatians/agitators could well have concluded that Paul preached gentile liberty to them only to please the Jerusalem apostles, whose decisions he had delivered. There is then no need to suppose that the agitators appealed to the authority of the Jerusalem apostles. What is the evidence for this?<br /><br />Nor do we need to suppose that in 1:10 Paul is defending himself against the accusation of trying to please his potential gentile converts. In 1:10 Paul says that he was not motivated by a desire to please "men", and in 1:11 and 1:12 he also refers to "men", and we know from the remainder of the chapter that these "men" are the Jerusalem apostles. Surely the "men" in 1:10 refers to the Jerusalem apostles too. If "men" in 1:10 refers to gentiles, how could Paul expect his readers to realize right away that "men" in 10:11-12 refers to the Jerusalem apostles?Richard Fellowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06777460488456330838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4669291590397336050.post-63613434279669420372013-05-27T01:15:57.628-05:002013-05-27T01:15:57.628-05:00Hi Marcus. Thanks for the continued interaction.
...Hi Marcus. Thanks for the continued interaction.<br /><br />Longencker's claim that "he came" in 2:12 is a scribal slip is very weak. "he came" is (on the surface) the harder reading and is better attested so it should be preferred. A scribe who did not realize that Peter went to Antioch twice would not be able to make sense of the "he came" so could easily have changed it to "they came". So far the best published piece on this is pages 162-164 of Carlson's thesis <a href="http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/5597/Carlson_duke_0066D_11426.pdf?sequence=1" rel="nofollow">here</a>.Richard Fellowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06777460488456330838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4669291590397336050.post-53399215040702240062013-05-26T20:03:42.361-05:002013-05-26T20:03:42.361-05:00Hi Richard,
Paul's hand may have been forced ...Hi Richard,<br /><br />Paul's hand may have been forced to bring up Antioch if the agitator's had deceitfully/mistakenly appealed to the Antioch incident to make their case. <br /><br />If Carlson is correct then it definitely damages my case. I haven't seen his work. Can you give me the reference? In the commentaries I own Longenecker is the only one to discuss the variant (Martyn, Dunn, and Fee have no discussion) and he dismisses the reading you propose.<br /><br />I think you slightly misunderstand my argument on authority. The teachings of those commissioned by the risen Lord were authoritative. The commissioning made what they said authoritative, not their reliance on the teachings of Jesus (hence why we don't find the epistles citing Jesus' sayings very often). Since the appearance to Paul was less verifiable and after the ascension as well as because of his past, he had to work harder to prove his authority.<br /><br />On my assumptions, I would change b and say that the Teachers were deceptive. I don't view Paul as inept, more trying to respond to the actual arguments the Teachers were making. With that said, I don't think Galatians was completely successful. I am persuaded by Campbell that Galatians represents an early bout with these false teachers and that Romans represents Paul's more polished attack when he knows them and their teaching better.<br /><br />I do understand "men" to refer to the addressees. I do think the question of whether verse 11 starts a new section or not is difficult. One interesting note is the well attested variant 'de' at this point (which Longenecker prefers) showing that even an/some early scribes had difficulty seeing causal force in 'gar' at this point, assuming the 'gar' is original. I'm not well versed enough to take a stand on whether or not 'gar' is always significant. <br /><br />As for how I interpret there, I would say that (following e.g., Dunn, Fee) Paul is responding to a specific charge that he did not preach circumcision to try to make easy converts. Instead he was preaching the gospel divinely revealed (and hence authoritative). Marcus Maherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07729718021822471179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4669291590397336050.post-26901628555782785422013-05-22T23:12:51.167-05:002013-05-22T23:12:51.167-05:00Acts has no tendency to gloss over rifts between t...Acts has no tendency to gloss over rifts between the early Christians, since it mentions plenty of them. However, Luke's space constraint meant that he could not possibly mention all of them, so it would not be surprising if he did omit a rift that had no long lasting effect. The Antioch incident is such an incident. You an I disagree only on the question of how temporary and serious it was.<br /><br />If the agitators had appealed to the Antioch incident in the way that you suggest, why did Paul not simply say, "Although Paul ate with Jews, he never advocated circumcision: in fact he and James wrote the decree which frees gentile believers from any circumcision requirement"? If the agitators thought that James and Peter were more supportive of circumcision than in fact they were, why does Paul not correct that misinformation in Gal 2:11-14? By bringing up the Antioch incident Paul would be playing into the agitators' hands, wouldn't he?<br /><br />Incidentally, it was not the arrival of the men from James that prompted Peter to withdraw from eating with gentiles. As Carlson has shown, the better attested variant in 1:12 has "he came", not "they came". Evidently the sequence was as follows:<br />1) Peter visited Antioch and ate with gentiles<br />2) Men "from James" came to Antioch. These were the men from Judea of Acts 15:1. They gave the mistaken impression that they had the backing of the apostles (see Acts 15:24)<br />3) Paul and Barnabas and others went to Jerusalem (Gal 2:1-10, Acts 15)<br />4) Peter went to Antioch again and this time he ate with Jews.<br /><br />The issue is not what was generally the source of authority in the early church. The question is what was the source of authority on the issue of circumcision. Since Jesus did not address the issue prior to his ascension, it cannot be said that James and Peter had a leg up on Paul.<br /><br />Naturally, the conventional interpretation of Gal 1-2 can be sustained by piling up the kinds of assumptions that you do. One has to assume,<br />a) A serious rift arose between Paul and Jerusalem and it mysteriously closed.<br />b) The agitators continued to misunderstand the Jerusalem apostles, even after the decree.<br />c) Paul was inept in his response to the misinformation.<br />But what do we gain from making these assumptions? What is the payback? What advantage does your interpretation have over mine? What evidence is there that Paul's authority (rather than his sincerity) was being questioned in Galatia?<br /><br />How do you understand 1:10-11? Paul is saying here "I am not writing against circumcision to please the Jerusalem apostles for (gar) I do not owe my gospel to them. If you understand "men" in 1:10 to refer to the addressees, then how do you explain the connection between 1:10 and 1:11? gar in Paul's writings is always significant, isn't it?Richard Fellowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06777460488456330838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4669291590397336050.post-29517642913554417612013-05-22T15:05:20.673-05:002013-05-22T15:05:20.673-05:00Let me clarify one statement. I said, "This f...Let me clarify one statement. I said, "This fact they exploited, showing that Peter was on their side generally"<br /><br />I mean by that, they showed, as in, they used the Antioch incident as a proof to the Galatians.Marcus Maherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07729718021822471179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4669291590397336050.post-24942333425038119582013-05-22T15:03:49.178-05:002013-05-22T15:03:49.178-05:00Acts is definitely concerned to paint early Christ...Acts is definitely concerned to paint early Christianity in a good light so I'm not surprised that it would gloss over a temporary rift between Peter and Paul. <br /><br />I'll flesh out my ideas in the second paragraph more fully. The Teachers in Galatia were either the same ones involved in the Antioch incident or part of the same "group." They were sent by James to see what was going on in Antioch (this doesn't imply James agreed with them in all facets of their "theology"). Perhaps they even pressured James to be sent. They arrived and got Peter to buckle to their pressure. This fact they exploited, showing that Peter was on their side generally, even though he wasn't necessarily on their side related to circumcision.<br /><br />How much would education have mattered as a source of authority in the early church? 1 Corinthians 15 and Acts seems to imply that seeing the risen Lord, especially prior to his ascension, was the ultimate source of authority in the early church, an area where both James and Peter have a possible leg up on Paul.<br /><br />This is what's at the core of Paul's claims in 1:19, for example, in my opinion. His authority is derived from the risen Lord, like the other apostles, even though he appeared to him later, after the ascension. I think this makes perfect sense if there is some sort of rift, real or perceived between him and Peter and James.Marcus Maherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07729718021822471179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4669291590397336050.post-7923033875974528572013-05-21T02:23:26.633-05:002013-05-21T02:23:26.633-05:00Marcus, you mention 2:6 and 2:11, but these texts ...Marcus, you mention 2:6 and 2:11, but these texts actually support my position, don't they? It seems from 1:10-11 that Paul is worried that his letter will be dismissed as merely an attempt to stay on good terms with the Jerusalem church leaders. This creates a real dilemma for Paul when writing. Almost anything he writes could be rebutted by the agitators with words like "well he's just saying that to promote the doctrine that the Jerusalem leaders want him to promote: he knows that circumcision is necessary". He cannot simply tell the Galatians "I am not just a sycophant of the Jerusalem leaders", since a sycophant would write the same thing to promote the Jerusalem leaders' doctrine. In 1:18 Paul says that he did not go to Jerusalem to ingratiate himself with the apostles, and 1:19 tells us that he is worried that his readers will not believe him. Paul's dilemma is very real and it forces him to escalate his rhetoric. Thus he writes "And from those who were acknowledged leaders (what they actually were makes no difference to me)" (2:6), and "But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face" (2:11). In both verses Paul is saying that he is not motivated by a desire to please his leaders, and he uses strong terms because the worries that his readers would otherwise not believe him. Notice how he even resorts to cause language in to prove his sincerity, "I wish those who unsettle you would castrate themselves!" (5:12). In all these texts the emphasis is on Paul's motivations, not the Jerusalem apostles. He writes, "what they actually were means nothing <i>to me</i>" not "what they actually were should mean nothing to you". And notice the words, "I wish" in 5:12.<br /><br />Marcus, 2:6 and 2:11 have given you the feeling that there was not complete unity between Paul and Jerusalem. Fine. That illustrates that the Galatians may have come away with the same feeling. If they did, Paul will have achieved his purpose of showing that he was not Jerusalem's messenger boy. Paul's strongly negative statements about Peter in 2:11 and 2:6 fit perfectly with my hypothesis. On the conventional hypothesis (yours), they are harder to explain, since we would have to suppose that a rift occurred between Paul and Peter that was still unresolved at the time of writing and which left no trace in Acts or in any other writing.<br /><br />I'm not sure whether I understood your second paragraph. You seem to be saying that the false teachers appealed to the authority of James and Peter to support their requirement of circumcision. How could they do this if, as you (rightly) suggest, James and Peter did not support circumcision?<br /><br />I think they appealed to Paul's authority. This is inherently more likely because he was better educated than James and Peter, and because he was a founding missionary of the Galatian churches.Richard Fellowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06777460488456330838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4669291590397336050.post-8622045985522177892013-05-20T20:18:55.311-05:002013-05-20T20:18:55.311-05:00Sorry this took me a week to get to. It's been...Sorry this took me a week to get to. It's been a busy week.<br /><br />Bockmuehl is opposing those who think that Paul's opposition was directly backed by Peter,(Simon Peter in Scripture and Memory p. 94). I would advocate nothing of that sort and agree with Bockmuehl that it was a temporary but significant rift. Maybe I see it as more significant than Bockmuehl but he's not very strong in his expression of his conclusions.<br /><br />Also, as Bockmuehl notes, there's no evidence that Peter or James ever required circumcision (this is a very strong point in favor of Nanos in my opinion). Not all Jews held that converts had to be circumcised, but it's highly likely that they would have been offended by the complete lack of law adherence by these new members of Israel. It's possible that there was some temporary buckling to pressure by James and Peter to make these Gentiles at least follow food laws, a point a false teacher could exploit in favor of his own requirement of circumcision.<br /><br />The reason why I think that Paul's attempts to distance himself are in a different key is the subtle remarks like 'those esteemed as pillars.' It seems at least slightly derogatory to me. The way he expresses his opposition to Peter in 2:11 is also pretty strong. I just don't get the feeling of complete unity, and still some conflict.<br /><br />Does that explain where I"m coming from better?Marcus Maherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07729718021822471179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4669291590397336050.post-84453990666962879242013-05-14T00:23:21.120-05:002013-05-14T00:23:21.120-05:00Thanks, Marcus. I look forward to your thoughts in...Thanks, Marcus. I look forward to your thoughts in due course.Richard Fellowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06777460488456330838noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4669291590397336050.post-59978665110253023952013-05-13T19:16:15.887-05:002013-05-13T19:16:15.887-05:00Hi Richard,
Thanks for the lengthy reply. As I sa...Hi Richard,<br /><br />Thanks for the lengthy reply. As I said, I do think your approach is interesting and your additional comment helps me see where you're coming from more precisely. <br /><br />Let me take a little time to think through your questions and provide a full response. It's been a couple of years since I've worked through Galatians, especially the early chapters so I can't respond in detail off the top of my head.Marcus Maherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07729718021822471179noreply@blogger.com