Well, I as going to let matters rest, but it seems not to be...
Equally? Critical text analysis requires at least a critical look at the text in question, there's nothing 'foolish' about that. But let's just have a look at the texts in question. In Galateans 2 Paul refers to the so-called apostolic council, mentioning he went to Jerusalem "based on a revelation"; he then goes on in some detail about the matter of circumcision, concluding with the statement that "we should go to the heathens, they to the circumcised". That seems clear enough - although he refers in passing to his opponents as "false brothers" and never mentions any form of payment. In 2 Corinthians 9,5 he does refer to the payment in question as "the previously agreed kind gift", stressing it being intended "as a kind gift and not a demanded gift." (You'll note I'm not using a Lutheran bible.) But what is he doing here? Why does he stress that he wants it to be taken "as a kind gift and not a demanded gift"? It couldn't really have been a question of Paul being hard pressed for cash. Could it be that it actually was a demanded gift that he'd agreed to, but - feeling slighted - felt the need to express he gave it voluntarily, ot of the goodness of his heart, so to speak. That is somewhat of a speculation, but not an unreasonable one. Be that as it may - unlike you're assuming I'm not really interested in guessing Paul's motives -, such a denial clearly indicates that at Jerusalem the gift was agreed upon at his opponents' demand.
Well, see above. (And what I said was: Whether Paul actually believed what he wrote was the truth or if [t]hat was what he wants his readers to believe isn't really answered by simply accepting Paul's word for it. There's no suggestion here that Pal was 'not merely wrong but that he was deliberately deceitful'.)
I cannot refer to someone writing 500 years ago, but it's OK for you to refer to the church fathers?* (And may I remind you that I merely mentioned Luther's translation as an illustration? Chapters and verses are above, but you'll have to find a Lutheran bible for yourself, I'm afraid, because I don't have one.)
You remember contesting Paul's payment to the Jerusalem based Christian Jews? I distinctly remember you referring to it as a "gift for the poor" (another quote of Paul's). And what is wrong with theologians "in a foreign language"? The church fathers wrote in a foreign language - but I guess you wouldn't consider them as being biased in any way? You can be certain that anyone writing a text is biased in some way. When reading source texts one should always bear this in mind: What is the author writing? Who is it intended for? and What is the author's motive?
I'll leave your last assertion, for which I cannot fathom a motive, be - it's clearly biased. QED
* For a more modern view on the bible I might recommend Bart D. Ehrman; he did some fine textcritical work on the NT and is quite readable. (Writes in English too, he does.)
Equally, merely assuming that what it says is false is just as foolish as uncritically assuming that what it says is true. However, in the absence of any reason whatsoever to think that it's false, why not take it at face value?
Equally? Critical text analysis requires at least a critical look at the text in question, there's nothing 'foolish' about that. But let's just have a look at the texts in question. In Galateans 2 Paul refers to the so-called apostolic council, mentioning he went to Jerusalem "based on a revelation"; he then goes on in some detail about the matter of circumcision, concluding with the statement that "we should go to the heathens, they to the circumcised". That seems clear enough - although he refers in passing to his opponents as "false brothers" and never mentions any form of payment. In 2 Corinthians 9,5 he does refer to the payment in question as "the previously agreed kind gift", stressing it being intended "as a kind gift and not a demanded gift." (You'll note I'm not using a Lutheran bible.) But what is he doing here? Why does he stress that he wants it to be taken "as a kind gift and not a demanded gift"? It couldn't really have been a question of Paul being hard pressed for cash. Could it be that it actually was a demanded gift that he'd agreed to, but - feeling slighted - felt the need to express he gave it voluntarily, ot of the goodness of his heart, so to speak. That is somewhat of a speculation, but not an unreasonable one. Be that as it may - unlike you're assuming I'm not really interested in guessing Paul's motives -, such a denial clearly indicates that at Jerusalem the gift was agreed upon at his opponents' demand.
Again, you seem to be countenancing that Paul was not merely wrong but that he was deliberately deceitful. I don't regard that as a feasible hypothesis - unless (yet again) YOU HAVE EVIDENCE.
Well, see above. (And what I said was: Whether Paul actually believed what he wrote was the truth or if [t]hat was what he wants his readers to believe isn't really answered by simply accepting Paul's word for it. There's no suggestion here that Pal was 'not merely wrong but that he was deliberately deceitful'.)
Why on earth should I care how the word was translated FIVE HUNDRED YEARS AGO by someone who is notoriously controversial in the field of Pauline interpretation? Scholarship has moved on just a tad since then. Find me a reason to think that the word should be translated "fee", rather than just an appeal to a highly partisan authority half a millennium old, and you might have a case. You haven't even bothered to give the chapter and verse where this supposed word "fee" appears.
I cannot refer to someone writing 500 years ago, but it's OK for you to refer to the church fathers?* (And may I remind you that I merely mentioned Luther's translation as an illustration? Chapters and verses are above, but you'll have to find a Lutheran bible for yourself, I'm afraid, because I don't have one.)
One of us must be living in a fantasy world, then, because I really think I remember contesting it. Again, if the only evidence you can find for your interpretation is a single word from an unspecified text in a five-hundred-year-old translation by a biased theologian in a foreign language, then I think I'm entitled to question the assessment of this interpretation as "a fact that isn't contested" until I see just a little bit more evidence.
I wonder if you think all scholarship consists of people shouting assertions at each other until someone gets bored, or whether you think it's only theology that doesn't require evidence and reasoning.
You remember contesting Paul's payment to the Jerusalem based Christian Jews? I distinctly remember you referring to it as a "gift for the poor" (another quote of Paul's). And what is wrong with theologians "in a foreign language"? The church fathers wrote in a foreign language - but I guess you wouldn't consider them as being biased in any way? You can be certain that anyone writing a text is biased in some way. When reading source texts one should always bear this in mind: What is the author writing? Who is it intended for? and What is the author's motive?
I'll leave your last assertion, for which I cannot fathom a motive, be - it's clearly biased. QED
* For a more modern view on the bible I might recommend Bart D. Ehrman; he did some fine textcritical work on the NT and is quite readable. (Writes in English too, he does.)