Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Because the implication is that at least some Gospel pericopes in a canonical gospel are, strange to say, affected by marcionism and/or anti-marcionism. Which implies that given the other known fact that the synoptical pericopes of different gospels are strictly connected between them, probably also...

My point here is different: Even assuming the more subtle concession a conservative reader may give to the storm called Marcion, i.e. that both Marcion and Luke are based on a proto-Luke (in turn based on Matthew), the result is still a strong shadow of doubt on the certainty that a first gospel (Ma...

My point is more sound: once a canonical synoptic gospel is placed around the time of Marcion (second century) there are no reasons to place the others (one or all) still in the first century.

Apart conservatives who think that not even Luke's priority is touched by Marcion (and not even partially), what is left after the passage of the storm called Marcion? Put simply, what is definitely collapsed is the certainty that some gospels can be still dated in the first century CE. This is corr...

It would be interesting to know the answer by the people who already consider 'called Christ' in 20:200 a Christian interpolation. Afterall, just as 'called Christ' breaks the context (the brother of Jesus ben Damneus being the victim of Ananus), a similar breaking of the context is in action in Gal...

My difficulty in accepting it (even if I may think of Jesus being human, but atemporal, for other reasons in Paul), is that if you think that "born by woman" is genuine, then accordingly you have to conclude that probably Marcion removed the birth from Luke (i.e. Luke precedes *Ev). But th...

JarekS wrote: ↑Mon Apr 15, 2024 6:23 am I believe this is the original text.

if I understand well, you believe that 'born from woman, born under the Law' (Gal 4:4) is the original text.

JarekS wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2024 8:06 pm Paul's Jesus was a human

Do you think that 'born from woman, born under the Law' (Gal 4:4) is not an anti-marcionite interpolation?

So you now accept my argument that Jesus' explicit statement that the deaf hear in Matt 11.4-5 and Luke 7.22 works only if there were an explicit story of Jesus curing a deaf person earlier, which Matthew has at Matt 9.32-34, while Luke has no such story? a thing is the comparison between actions a...

Not so late, however. Since in proto-John the Paraclete is Marcion.