Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

It's not surprising that thought sprang from the mind of a Latin writer, given "Christ" was a title that didn't have any meaning beyond the religious one for them.

Note that the early church fathers usually don't source their quotes, which leads to the often heard interpretation in your sense, i.e., that "church fathers just quoted from memory". However, that's just one possible interpretation. I think Ben made a few statistics regarding certain church father...

Hitler was a good Catholic boy, until the end. He never stopped paying his church dues. Also, membership in the SS was forbidden for non-believers. It sure is a bit contentious between historians, but I guess there's still reason to think that Hitler's hate of Jews had at least one of its roots in C...

Those concise summaries are great. Thanks!

This is a good one .

You and I may agree that Mark 16:8 was the source of Matthew 28:8 and the Greek text shows to what extent Matthew used Mark's text. In some formal sense we could say that Matthew 28:8 incorporates Mark 16:8. But I doubt that a reader or hearer of the 2nd century would agree with us. It is not only ...

@Secret Alias: The symmetry is certainly embellished. I don't think gMatthew had anything to do with heretics. Those claims were just added to not single out the actual target(s) too much. The situation with gMark is a bit more complicated. There is still the possibility that it was the text of some...

94% is nearly the complete gMark. It gets even clearer when you look at what gMatthew left out, like the one parable in Mark that nobody seems to know of what it is supposed to mean, including Matthew it looks like. Matthew also left out (A) the exorcism of the Capernaum demoniac and (B) the healin...

The way Matthew and Luke 'agree' with Mark was part of a broader pattern of the totality - the fourfold gospel - outlawing other readings, other agreements, other gospels. Does anyone disagree with this? It's ridiculous that this isn't THE FIRST THING said about the canonical gospels. Well, yes, ma...

Mmh, maybe it's just a question of our pov's. My impression from GMatthew is – under the assumption of Marcan priority - that even „Matthew“ (author) did not want to write a new version, which replaces the old GMark, but an separate gospel, which in his opinion was more appropriate as a Christian g...