Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I assume that John Van Maaren has read these books before that he has published this article.

A Paulinist is an evangelist who bases a lot of midrash on Paul.

In addition to share with Paul the same form in U of the Christ's voyage: descent, death, ascent.

You are eluding the question. I can concede willingly that an original TF talked about an unnamed rebel crucified by Pilate. But what is the true origin of Christianity for you, if you don't see a relation of cause-effect between that rebel and the early Christian sect behind the epistles and the fi...

Not essential to the proposal, but Jesus “Damnaeus” could be a doublet or variant tradition of the same 62 CE Jesus, though that identity not recognized by Josephus or his writing staff composing Antiquities, where doublets abound of actually identical referents. That is, the text of Ant in its com...

Evidently the implication escapes your attention. If Mark is not Paulinist, then the next question is: who is more Paulinist among the other gospels?

Are you saying that Canonical Luke precedes *Ev?
Are you saying that James the Just is mentioned by Josephus?

Are you saying that Jesus existed?

If you are agnostic about the historicity of Jesus, what is for you the best case for mythicism?

Therefore, the Gospel of Mark should be read independently of Paul so that its unique features might be first understood within its own narrative world, rather than interpreted through a Pauline lens. https://scholarlypublishingcollective.org/sblpress/jbl/article-abstract/143/1/125/386882/Is-the-Go...

Here we see the greatness and decadence of Canonical Luke: a gospel that is the more small-minded of all in his clumsy corruption of *Ev (he omitted the names because in *Ev the same brothers are absent), ..and yet the gospel without which we couldn't verify that *Ev preceded even Mark and Matthew (...

Simple: he didn't find these names in *Ev because not even the brothers were named there. It would be very strange that Canonical Luke was based on Matthew and opted for the deliberate omission of the names of the brothers of Jesus. Note that Acts betrayes the need of having brothers of Jesus recogn...

It is clear that you want to nail me between the two horns of the beast. I would answer "yes" to reassure you that I understand perfectly your point: in abstract logical terms the Talmudist was a historicist, he didn't deny the historicity of Jesus. I felt someway 'obliged' to answer "...