Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Thanks Ken!

And thank you to Viklund and Hedrick.

I wasn't commenting on the other considerations. From the perspective of your outline as a whole, perhaps it's at most a minor flaw. I was commenting specifically on the point where we have in effect excluded the data from the Pallas example, with respect to mentioning someone with reference to anot...

And I am really just skeptical that it's even possible to justify the premise mentioned at all. It seems like a major flaw.

Most likely a satisfactory answer to that question moves beyond a mechanical search through the text of Josephus. By which I mean that the scope of data considered would have to be wider, not just Josephus, or that the consideration would have to be motivated by some other knowledge by which we can ...

I am resting my case specifically on how Josephus uses the two forms of adelphonymics without any apparent exception that I have yet found I understand what you're doing on that level, but you haven't answered the question of how you know that the distinctions that you're making are necessary in yo...

Alternatively, "Luke" was chosen as a pseudonym to counter the tradition of "Mark" being an associate of Paul and involved in writing his gospel (heretical associations). And "Mark" had the association with Paul obscured by an association with Peter.

Well, unless we can speculate a very convincing reason, I think Occam’s razor still cuts through to the much simpler explanation that the passage actually was original to Josephus I think that you have not read my confession here , where I have given up to doubt about the authenticity of the Baptis...

Possibly Mark and Luke were important in Christian circles, and they worked alongside one of the greats, Paul, before going on to do their own things literarily after Paul died. Think of people like Steve Martin and Martin Short, Ben Affleck and Matt Damon. Famous people work with other famous peopl...

So my question is: Does the evidence best support (1)/(3), or is there some good reason to suggest (2)/(4) here? TL;DR: If there were any Marcionite sondergut, it's hard to imagine that the Father's wouldn't have jumped all over it. Feel free to skip the wall-of-text that follows. It's always trick...

Well, unless we can speculate a very convincing reason, I think Occam’s razor still cuts through to the much simpler explanation that the passage actually was original to Josephus I think that you have not read my confession here , where I have given up to doubt about the authenticity of the Baptis...