Paul and the Judaizers

[tabibito]

Very possibly the latter. This is a time when a woman often gave birth out in a field where she was working and who'd go back to work very shortly after doing so^[1].

Moreover, Joseph and Mary might very well have not been able to afford a donkey or other beast of burden which would limit their means of travel to their feet.

1. something that can still be observed today in some Third World Countries, such as in Central America where I have witnessed it myself.

Still mulling this lot over (and have been the past 40 years). The argument that they had goods delivered by the magi could make "they were a poor family" a bit problematical. How many of their possessions did they pack up and take with them? Did Joseph possess beasts of burden for use in his trade? Too many questions that aren't addressed in the gospel records (and there don't seem to be any other records at all) make anything that might be said a matter of pure speculation.

Even the idea that Joseph and family were poor seems more a matter of later speculation than anything originating with the Biblical authors - though "not rich" does seem to glean some support.

[rogue06]

Amazon only shows extracts from each text However, should you wish to, you can buy all six in kindle versions for the princely sum of $31.47.

The series title is also Correcting the Misinformed which has a decidedly pedagogic tone and also a distinct whiff of arrogance, suggesting that anyone who disagrees with a particular viewpoint must be misinformed.

Nor did I threaten to review his material, I merely made a suggestion that perhaps my comment should have been entered on the Amazon site.

However, premised on what is available I made the comment:

they all appear to be

My emphasis.

I also referred to

a degree of critical assessment

Furthermore, my only personal reference was to the gentleman's academic background.

Interesting how you determined that RG is a historian but when he says something you disagree with it is nothing more than his opinion, but whenever you cite a historian (who naturally you agree with) then you tend to act like this is undisputable fact. Not the first time you've done this. Not by a long shot.


And then, you have no problem offering your opinion on his scholarship based solely on some snippets available on Amazon, without bothering to read the works themselves -- something you harangue everyone else for if they do so.

Just when I thought you couldn't become an even bigger hypocrite.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Where?

It is his "signature". Only visible [like our own] when not logged in.

Hence when not logged in mine reads:

"It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

Yours includes an image and reads:

I'm always still in trouble again

"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

And his reads:

My Amazon Author page: https://www.amazon.com/-/e/B0719RS8BK

[rogue06]

That should be "site (sic) seeing" or even "site seeing (sic) on the way,"

Over here its sightseeing.

[tabibito]

Over here its sightseeing.

Same here, though if memory serves it's meant to be hyphenated.

[rogue06]

Same here, though if memory serves it's meant to be hyphenated.

At least here in 'Murica...

Source: Site Seeing or Sightseeing – Which is Correct?

Sightseeing is a compound word, which means it is made up of multiple smaller words added together. The first part of this compound word, sight, refers to places of interest to tourists and visitors in a city. Seeing means visiting or literally looking at in this context.

As a compound word, sightseeing should always be spelled as a single word when referring to the activity of visiting tourist attractions. The two-word alternative sight seeing is considered a typo in this context.


Source

© Copyright Original Source

Of course in a land addicted to superfluous vowels and getting "er" backwards in various words...

[tabibito]

Interesting how you determined that RG is a historian but when he says something you disagree with it is nothing more than his opinion, but whenever you cite a historian (who naturally you agree with) then you tend to act like this is undisputable fact. Not the first time you've done this. Not by a long shot.


And then, you have no problem offering your opinion on his scholarship based solely on some snippets available on Amazon, without bothering to read the works themselves -- something you harangue everyone else for if they do so.

Just when I thought you couldn't become an even bigger hypocrite.

The Existence of God ... (book 1) looks to be a workmanlike presentation based on a partial reading - nothing startling, but a reasonable presentation and discussion of the basic arguments.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Interesting how you determined that RG is a historian

I did not "determine" [to conclude or ascertain, as after reasoning, observation, etc.] anything. His Amazon page provides information that he is a former student at Chichester University, UK. In other words it is in the public domain.

but when he says something you disagree with it is nothing more than his opinion

His arguments [premised on the pages available courtesy of Amazon] are rather muddled and somewhat dogmatic and he clearly has his own proverbial axe to grind.

, but whenever you cite a historian (who naturally you agree with) then you tend to act like this is undisputable fact. Not the first time you've done this. Not by a long shot.

RG can hardly be compared with academics such as E Mary Smallwood, Miri Rubin, John P. Meier, Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar, Mark Chancey, Michael Speidel, P A Brunt, Mark S Smith, or Francesca Stavrakopoulou and I seriously doubt he would consider himself to be in any way comparable with their level of scholarship.

Nor did my searches on various journals yield any papers by the gentleman or reviews of his texts.

And then, you have no problem offering your opinion on his scholarship based solely on some snippets available on Amazon, without bothering to read the works themselves -- something you harangue everyone else for if they do so.

I am not prepared to waste euros paying for his texts.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The Existence of God ... (book 1) looks to be a workmanlike presentation based on a partial reading - nothing startling, but a reasonable presentation and discussion of the basic arguments.

Fancies himself doesn't he? "lay readers".

He also needs to sort out his criterion from his criteria. Logically and grammatically there is no "this criteria" it has to be these criteria.

I would like to see him go head to head with Francesca Stavrakopoulou, or Marcus du Sautoy, or Stephen Law.

[tabibito]

Fancies himself doesn't he? "lay readers".

An admission that the books are not written for the benefit of academicians.

He also needs to sort out his criterion from his criteria. Logically and grammatically there is no "this criteria" it has to be these criteria.

Yes, the books would benefit from the services of a proof reader.

I would like to see him go head to head with Francesca Stavrakopoulou, or Marcus du Sautoy, or Stephen Law.

From what I have seen of Stavrakopoulou's work, Ventress' work could hold its own by comparison.

[Rational Gaze]

To paraphrase Shakespeare "Get thee to a reference library".

No.

[Rational Gaze]

I am not prepared to waste euros paying for his texts.

Oh no. Whatever shall I do.

[tabibito]

Oh no. Whatever shall I do.

kowtow.gif

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

No.

Rather an unusual comment from a noted academic.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

An admission that the books are not written for the benefit of academicians.

Was it? Or was it an example of pomp? That books were not "written for the benefit of academicians" is self evident from the sections I read.

From what I have seen of Stavrakopoulou's work, Ventress' work could hold its own by comparison.

Can he read ancient Hebrew? Does he hold an academic Chair? How many post-graduate students is he supervising? And where have his offerings been peer reviewed in a reputable journal?

Still I am sure he is glad he has at least one fan here.