Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Giussepe Thank you for the kind words about my new book. I'm glad you're enjoying it. Many years ago I had an online discussion with Doherty about Mark's use of Paul. He could not see it. He accepted the mainstream argument that the evangelists did not know Paul's letters. His mind was closed to the...

While canonical Mark is a jumbled mess, defying the attempts by NT scholars to tease out an organization, the original gospel as written by the author was tightly constructed and a unified whole until a redactor changed its Christology. I show in my book "Unlocking the Puzzle" that every p...

Giuseppe, interesting. It's my belief that Mark 1:9 originally read: "And it happened in those days, that Jesus the Nazarene came from Galilee, and was baptized by John in the Jordan." I think "Nararet" was substituted for "Nazarene" by a redactor. Mark uses "Nazar...

I disagree with Joe Wallack that Mark is separationist. I think it is adoptionist. However, a separationist interpretation is not illogical under a reading of canonical Mark. Unfortunately, the original Gospel of Mark has been heavily redacted to obscure the clear adoptionist christology of the auth...

Giuseppe wrote: "it doesn't explain why, according to Irenaeus, for the original readers of Mark, only the human Jesus suffered while the spiritual Christ remained impassible." Irenaeus was wrong. He was writing in the late second century. Matthew and Luke had rejected Mark's adoptionism a...

I don't agree that going into the wilderness is a direct effect of the voice from heaven. To me going to the wilderness is the direct effect of being infused with the spirit. It's the spirit that drives (casts, or throws as you point out) Jesus into the wilderness. Kai euthys (and immediately) is us...