"Paul" What's Bullshit and What Isn't?

[Amarok]

Lets rewrite this 

1. We know how to identify interpolations in other ancient texts including the bible itself .

2. We haven't identified interpolations in Paul's letters but considering what we know about other ancient texts including the bible  it's highly likely  there are interpolations

3. Therefore it's highly likely  Paul's letters contain interpolations.

Now it makes and is purged of Beta's biased misinterpretations

---

The logic (so to speak) in the article boils down to:

1. We know how to identify interpolations, e.g. these texts.

2. We haven't identified interpolations in Paul's letters.

3. Therefore, Paul's letters contain interpolations.

Scholars have identified numerous interpolations in other ancient texts — “Homeric, Classical, Hellenistic, Jewish and Christian.” We know of interpolations in letters by ancient philosophers to their followers. Even in the Gospel of Mark we have the little disputed interpolation of the final chapter, 16:9-20; and in the Gospel of John there is the episode of the woman taken in adultery found in 7:53 – 8:11. And in the gospels of Matthew and Luke we find that huge chunks have been interpolated into the gospel of Mark. So if we know for a fact that texts were very often expanded with inserted material then we should surely be surprised if Paul’s letters proved to be the exception.

I'll grant you that the article doesn't deliver rock solid evidence for interpolations. But, all it's arguing is that interpolations are likely given what we know about treatment of other ancient texts, including those found in the Bible.

Gotta love how Beta fail tries to condense it down while ignoring all specifics of why they think it's likely their are interpolations his whole numbskull argument that none have been directly found therefore they are not there . Also love how he ignores the the second reason which is the stronger of the two .

[Minimalist]

They desperately need their bullshit story to be true.

Sucks to be them.