Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

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 "...

on the one hand, it provides answers to many old questions, some of them seemingly resolved a long time ago, others fiercely debated for many decades. While I don't see nothing of "noble" in these matters (probably because of the my own views on morality, as my avatar makes it clear: only...

I stand on this position well described here.

why not just conclude the whole thing was written at one time, by one author? The "giant midrash" could be added by only an editor, while the original author had only the short survived (not-historical) nucleus about Jesus being given to an anonymous Roman Governor who ordered the his cru...

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...

It seems that you are begging the question about the implications of an alternative dating. When the alternative dating carries with itself the risk of a total invention de novo of Jesus (with the first gospel), then the original Jesus is reduced to be only a tiny prototype of the invented Jesus: th...

Sorry, I meant my question in a slightly different sense: Why would inventing a trial before the Romans and a crucifixion make people believe that Jesus was the Messiah? Jews didn’t want to believe in a Messiah who’d died a humiliating death, and crucifixion wouldn’t have fitted well with their exi...

What sentence even remotely implies that Jesus never existed? it seems to me that the difference escapes to you, between the Jesus lived in the remote past (under Janneus) and, for example, the claim that the historical Jesus was Jesus ben Sapphat, crucified in 70 CE by Titus. In the first case (th...