Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

We just need to beware of Parallelomania : In historical analysis, biblical criticism and comparative mythology, parallelomania refers to a phenomenon (mania) where authors perceive apparent similarities and construct parallels and analogies allegedly without historical basis. You like the definiti...

Proof-texting was the term I was looking for in my initial post. Each side has its list of "proof-texts" or "dot points" to rebut the other case and buttress their own. It's an elaborate form of fundamentalist-style arguments, each with its briefcase of proofs and arguments to make their case. One s...

. . . the only way to make this work is either to have some of the least parsimonious interpretations of Rom. 1:3, Gal. 1:18-19 and 4:4-5, 1 Thess. 2:14-16, and others or to adhere to unsubstantiated interpolation theories which have been thoroughly rebutted by academics of all kinds ... i.e. we ca...

Thanks for these links and directions!

(4) If Jesus was betrayed by someone, anyone, even Bueller, than Jesus existed.

This is question-begging. To hypothesize that Jesus was betrayed is to begin with the assumption that he existed.

Hi Giuseppe. You wrote: René Salm has read only few photocopies of his book, for his same admission, but I have his entire book on the Mandeans, and he says expressly how Jesus was invented when he talks about the Christian origins. Do you know where one can purchase or borrow Stahl's book? Salm cit...

or What George Smiley Taught Me About Secret Mark: Lessons From John Le Carre's Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. A wonderful discussion, Ken. Very thought-provoking. But I am reluctant to take time to wade through 19 pages of the ensuing discussion (esp seeing the tone of the initial responses) so wonder...

For the purposes of this thread, assume that there is/was no historical Jesus who was crucified and then thought to be the Messiah or the Son of God or whatnot. The notion, then, that the Messiah or the Son of God had to be crucified must have come from some other source than historical misfortune....

The most obvious answer to how Elizabeth knew the son's name was to be John was that her husband told her -- the same scene tells us that he was well able to communicate by writing!

Any quest to identify the "name above all names" ought to consider the contribution of the classicist John Moles. The pdf link is at https://research.ncl.ac.uk/histos/documents/2011104MolesJesustheHealer11782.pdf (On Histos: https://research.ncl.ac.uk/histos/Histos_BackIssues2011.html) I discussed h...