Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I should ignore this, as the real answer requires a lot of build up and dependencies. So I'll give the short answer, and follow with a really stripped down background explanation. The answer is possibly, but we have to consider context. The context you likely are thinking of are the stories about M...

Someone has argued that Lista'a is a caricature-name for P'lista'a : Pilate . I like your enthusiasm, but does not this interpretation run against the way "midrashic" word plays worked? I'm thinking of Greg Doudna's explanation at https://vridar.org/2020/12/10/another-pointer-towards-a-late-date-fo...

What is the evidence that you see in 1 John for the author presenting himself as (a) the beloved disciple, or (b) any kind of historical witness? I defer to Georg Strecker's commentary (Strecker, Georg. The Johannine Letters. A Commentary on 1, 2, and 3 John Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996. -- pa...

1 John doesn't present himself as an eyewitness in any meaningful way "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched" I read this as a collective 'we' recalling something historical of the group, but with...

He seems to think that the author of 1 John is presenting himself as an eyewitness to Jesus in essentially the same manner as the GJohn puts forward the beloved disciple, and I don’t see any basis for that. Are there any good arguments for Gospel priority? At the risk of testing your patience and a...

A thought about the relative chronology of 1 John and GJohn— The Gospel of John can be read as one big YES to the interconnected questions in 1 John 2: 22 and 4:3, Was Jesus the Christ? Did Jesus Christ come in the flesh? For that reason alone it seems much more natural that the epistle would have ...

I accept and get those points. What I'm saying is that the fact there's mention of and perhaps even a notion of Jesus in Paul's letters is because the name Jesus' may well have been inserted in them. He's what Frans J Vermeiren says about this - . Christ, Jesus, and Jesus Christ The Nestle-Aland Gr...

And the idea that this was simply not a matter of interest is absurd. The legitimacy of the resurrection was absolutely in question at the time that Luke was writing. Here the writer has them in a court of law, the perfect place to make his case. But the case is not made because the writer is follo...

The issue is not whether the underlying source is itself historically accurate, its whether there is an underlying source that was written prior to the first Gospel. The narrative may well be fictional, but but even so, its a fictional narrative created without a view of a crucifixion of Jesus at t...

There is a problem with using the logic of "where one would expect such references [to a human Jesus]". Who sets those expectations, and how are they determined? For example: if you expect such references in Acts, a text which no-one doubts is 'historicist', and those expectations are not met, then...