Harold Corkern: “Buy Truth and Never Sell It” (Prov. 23:23)

1 Corinthians ch. 7 v. 25 explicitly offers Paul's judgment where he has no command of the Lord; Galatians ch. 1 v. 12 appeals to revelation.

The absolute claim confuses frequent scriptural argument with exclusive reliance on written scripture. Treating Paul's letters themselves as inspired does not show that his arguments always originated in an existing scriptural text. The narrower observation that his extant letters do not quote Gamaliel is accurate, but does not establish the larger conclusion.

Paul distinguishes his own judgment from a command of the Lord in 1 Corinthians, claims revelation as the source of his gospel in Galatians, and uses a saying commonly associated with Greek literary tradition in 1 Corinthians. Acts additionally depicts him quoting Greek poets.

BDAG distinguishes epichorēgeō, 'provide/supply,' from the related noun for a chorus leader or sponsor.

The explanation collapses a verb's etymological background into its meaning in this passage. That background can illustrate generous provision, but it does not establish that readers would understand the verse as referring to the personal expense of a theatrical sponsor. The transcript is incomplete immediately before this statement, which limits certainty about the speaker's exact formulation.

The form in the verse is epichorēgēsate, an imperative meaning 'supply' or 'provide.' The related noun chorēgos could designate a chorus leader or, institutionally, a sponsor who financed a chorus. Standard translations use 'supplement,' 'make every effort to support,' or similar wording.

Mishnah Avot ch. 1 v. 16 attests the later designation 'Rabban Gamaliel,' not the historical circumstances of its first conferral.

The statement reflects a familiar traditional account but presents retrospective attribution as securely documented contemporary history. 'First' and 'higher' require qualifications about when the titles and their ranking became established.

Rabbinic texts preserve the designation 'Rabban Gamaliel.' Acts calls him a teacher of the law rather than documenting this title or a hierarchy between rabban and rabbi. The surviving sources do not securely establish when Gamaliel first received the designation.

Acts ch. 22 v. 3 supplies no curriculum, duration, or requirement to memorize a comprehensive body of oral laws.

The appeal to unnamed research gives a speculative reconstruction the appearance of documented educational history. Later rabbinic practices cannot automatically be projected backward onto Paul's training.

Acts describes rigorous education in ancestral law without providing a syllabus or memorization requirements. Paul describes exceptional zeal for ancestral traditions. Neither source documents the volume of material memorized or a 'relentless' institutional program.

The speaker makes a reasonable devotional inference from David's refusal, then extends it by analogy to personal religious study. The passage does not establish that an offering has no value unless the worshipper personally purchases everything involved.

Araunah offers the threshing floor, oxen, and equipment, and David insists on paying. The immediate context is erecting an altar to stop a plague, not acquiring religious knowledge. The narrative is a primary source for what the biblical story says, not independent corroboration of the event.

Romans ch. 3 vv. 1–2 affirms Jewish advantages; no Pauline letter attributes his reassessment of Gamaliel's instruction to Mark ch. 7 vv. 7–8.

This is an imagined account of Paul's understanding presented as biography. Paul does relativize former status in comparison with knowing Christ, but that does not establish his adoption of this particular passage or wholesale repudiation of Jewish learning.

Mark's passage concerns disputes over tradition and divine commandments, with a concrete example involving obligations to parents. Paul does not quote it. His letters can positively affirm Jewish advantages and possession of God's oracles, while rejecting reliance on inherited status as the basis of righteousness.

The lexical explanation is sound. Its immediate application is Paul's valuation of former advantages relative to Christ, not proof that every element of his earlier education was false or useless.

Philippians uses the plural skybala. Translations variously render it 'rubbish,' 'refuse,' or 'dung.' Paul lists ancestry, circumcision, Pharisaic identity, zeal, and legal righteousness before explaining their changed comparative value.

The illustration has a genuine historical basis. However, classical Athenian choregia was a civic liturgy, not simply a spontaneous charitable contribution. Presenting that institution as the ordinary contemporary setting of 2 Peter is imprecise.

Athenian choregoi financed training, costumes, and other expenses for choruses. The classical institution was reorganized in the late fourth century BCE, centuries before the late-first- or early-second-century dates commonly proposed for 2 Peter. Later theatrical patronage continued in varying forms.

This is organizational religious identity presented as settled reality, not merely a personal illustration. It assumes that the community possesses 'the truth' and interprets challenges to it through an adversarial spiritual framework. The cited texts cannot independently establish that identification.

Proverbs describes a buyer who disparages goods and later boasts. Isaiah condemns people who reverse moral distinctions within a series of prophetic denunciations. Neither passage mentions Satan, Jehovah's Witnesses, or contemporary criticism of the organization.

Matthew ch. 4 v. 10 grounds Jesus' refusal in exclusive worship, not in a statement that Satan's offer is a lie.

The speaker supplies an unreported judgment about Jesus' knowledge and shifts the reason for refusal from forbidden worship to a fraudulent offer. That reading is possible within a broader theology of Satan as deceiver, but this narrative does not establish it.

Jesus answers by invoking the duty to worship and serve God alone. In Luke's parallel, Satan explicitly claims authority to distribute the kingdoms, and Jesus does not directly contest that claim. Matthew's Greek quotation uses kyrios, 'Lord'; 'Jehovah' is the NWT's rendering here rather than the wording of extant Greek manuscripts.

This accurately reports Acts and reasonably describes Gamaliel's remembered status. Historical certainty should nevertheless be distinguished from the explicit testimony of one later narrative source.

Acts identifies Gamaliel as a respected law teacher and places Paul under his instruction. Paul's letters attest strong commitment to ancestral traditions but do not name Gamaliel. The Mishnah, compiled much later, also remembers Gamaliel the Elder with distinction.

Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, book 13, sections 297–298, attests unwritten Pharisaic traditions but does not attribute the claimed hierarchy to Gamaliel.

The speaker turns a broad description of Pharisaic tradition into a specific accusation about Gamaliel's priorities. It also imposes a scripture-versus-tradition opposition on interpreters who generally understood inherited interpretation as explaining and applying Torah.

Josephus says Pharisees transmitted ancestral regulations not written in the laws of Moses. That does not establish that Gamaliel personally regarded those regulations as more important than scripture. Surviving evidence for Gamaliel the Elder's teaching is limited and often preserved in later sources.