Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

"The publisher" ????

Provisionally, about dating, though not a simple subject--nor is naming unnamed ancient authors!--I note that it is rather widely agreed that Celsus used a previously-written Jewish source about Jesus, and it may turn out that some baraitot (early traditions) are relevant.

Prof. A. D. Nock (and his office) was at Harvard rather than Columbia.
Some other bits don't ring true to me, but I don't know if you want such feedback.

Rev. 1:7 does not mention a "figure falling dead from the sky."

Revelation 1:7 does not mention a "figure falling dead from the sky."

If his own son (besides me) is not believed, what is the point of writing here?

So many exceedingly-ffy, unevidenced, presumptions.

Neusner watched lots of, and repeated, TV according to his son (and according to the prof. who knew him).

The prof who mentioned Neusner I knew--Neusner himself at conferences was hard to miss--was imo a reliable source, the point being: excess publications, without even long work days.

If I get this right, you, rgprice, have written that Mark was a genius but that Matthew and Luke totally misunderstood his supposed-by-you fiction and then added to it mistakenly from other sources as if not fiction, and that Mark was originally shorter except when it was originally longer.

On the post Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sat Apr 06, 2024 8:43 am To my knowledge, the consensus says that Luke is a gospel addressed to gentiles. Gentiles are not obliged to know the geography of the Judea and Galilee. Even less to know a priori where Capernaum is. Therefore: *Ev precedes Luke. ~~~ I still rea...