Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Well, I'm quite confident at this point that this passage has been thoroughly misinterpreted to begin with. I'm sure you've seen my other threads about this. In the original story, it was John who was tempted by Satan, not Jesus, and the narrative element is based on the story of Elijah in 1 Kings, ...

Alright, then I still tend to think Basilides is best explained as knowing Luke. And I'm still not clear on what renders proto-Luke more than just a possible hypothesis. I addressed the issue of Basilides somewhere, but I can't find it. I think my point was that these comments about Basilides are c...

But its pretty obvious that Luke 1 & 2 are additions This can be explained as part of Luke's expansion of *Ev and the other gospels. The Luke 3 stuff (apart from a bit of Luke 3:1) can be additionally from this same author. Could be, but its relationship to the birth narrative is very strange. ...

There's always another 'possible' hypothetical. How is this (so far undefined) "proto-Luke" a better hypothesis? Proto-Luke is pretty well defined. Proto-Luke would be basically Luke 3-23ish (about half of 24). When you look at Luke 3, much of Luke 3 is not present in *Ev. Either *Ev was ...

I think earliest belief was a mythological Jesus per Paul's original letters, as explained by Richard Carrier's Jesus from Outer Space. Seems to be the general tenor of the responses. A sign of the times that Marcionites-first is rejected not because of mainstream scholarship, but because it isn't ...

If Luke (in "canonical form") was written pre-130, then Marcion probably did know about Luke and Acts. If Luke was still written recently enough in the second century, Marcion could have known that. A conclusion that Luke ripped off the gospel with "interpolations" didn't really...

But here is the kicker, I think what we have here is temporal dislocation. Maybe impossible to prove, but I suspect that in Act of the Apostle , it did say, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him , that is, in Jesus.” But thi...

So, you may know that my theory is that actually a version of Acts, what I would call Acts of the Apostle , was written BEFORE any Gospel was written. This story was a companion piece to the Pauline letters and was only about Paul, beginning with his persecutions and his conversion. And the "Go...

What I've long thought to be the case, and maybe I've been wrong, was that the relationship between Marcion and Luke was surmised based on comparison. Nothing in the works of Marcion stated explicitly that he knew anything about Luke or that there was any relationship between his Gospel and Luke. My...

I think Paul's genuine epistles were the first Christian writings except the genuine epistles constantly claim and confirm (affirm) they are not the first or original membership of the group in question how can you say they are genuine and not also accept their claim that they are not the start of ...