Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Just a couple thoughts... The anointing story makes lack of a proper burial more likely if Mark cannot or is constrained not to invent a burial that includes anointing the body. I.e., Mark is giving Jesus a proper burial in advance. It could also be that Mark viewed it as the beginning of Jesus’ Dav...

Ben: Fascinating, high quality post. Much appreciated!

This is the perfect kind of issue for getting people riled up. There's no practical argument one way or another. It's just a couple letters that have interchangeable meanings. Choosing one or another can only be done on the basis of whom you want to please or displease. I find that using AD / BC he...

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2017 7:15 pm Piers Morgan is the editor of this paper and a Trumpite. They're always trying to stir up the old people.

No big deal, but Morgan edited the Mirror, not the Mail, but hasn't done so for years. The point holds, though.

Peter: The primary source vs. primary information distinction is helpful to clarify in some circumstances, I think. With some materials, though, the precise definitions get in the way, imo. With some materials, the heuristic might better be set out as "generally speaking, though not always, th...

Peter: The primary source vs. primary information distinction is helpful to clarify in some circumstances, I think. With some materials, though, the precise definitions get in the way, imo. With some materials, the heuristic might better be set out as "generally speaking, though not always, the...

Peter Since the definition of 'primary source' doesn't include anything about being the minimum standard necessary to be usable as evidence, it's only logical that things other than primary sources (including some of those 'secondary sources' that we keep hearing about) could possibly be usable as ...

What historical studies (apart from biblical studies) do you know of that do not have primary sources (as defined by Mark Day) at their base? You use what is usable as you see it. Chracterize it and prioritize it as you will, making your arguments and qualifying your conclusions, and others will ul...

Interesting post, thanks. I once heard an apologist argue that the idiom is purely Hebrew, and since Paul used the phrase in Greek in an original composition, Paul was not "translating" the idiom or expressing the concept in Greek. Therefore the word usage was significant because Paul was...

It seems to me that, by preserving the strict definition of what a 'primary source' is, we tend to undermine the idea that they're strictly necessary for good history. Since the definition of 'primary source' doesn't include anything about being the minimum standard necessary to be usable as eviden...