Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

"...unwillingness to bring up Secret Mark was shared by Origen."

What, beyond silence, if anything expressible, possessed you to claim that about Origen?

Try giving a reference first before giving your response next time?

Back to maryhelena's question on publications. In some cases journal authors, or their institutions, are even required to pay a fee in order to be published in a journal. (I never did this.) An opposite extreme is some free nonsense on the internet. One hopeful development is some publications, howe...

You have still not explained the proposal of Daniel McClellan to which you decided that your reaction was something appropriate for others here to read.

Not everyone researches bible the same way. Not news.

Another try: what "crazy theories" of Daniel McClellan are to responding to?
Or: why this update on your unspecified opinions?

It may be that Marcion's main historical consequence was in proposing a canon, that in part, but not by itself, helped prompt others to (slowly) expedite an alternate canon.
It may well be that Marcion had no new verses, maybe mostly just Luke.

To rephrase. You tell us your view of Daniel McClellan, as if readers here should want to know that.
But I, for one, do not know who Daniel McClellan is nor what he claims.
So, not for the first time, please, if you post, give an indication what you are responding to.
Or, consider stop wasting time.

Without a link or quote or reference, your personal reactions are mere self-important diary notes.

Peter K. asked how are you helping here, I assume in reference to the thread title.

If I may add, an attempt to divide the audience into two separate groups, bible scholars and rational savants, is
a rookie move.