Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

1. In these citations, Price is not saying that Marcion “was only a collector.” But rather, that Marcion might himself have written much, but not all of , the central Pauline material. 2. You are right to notice that Klinghardt has no argument for his view—which is thus only an assumption—that Marci...

Thanks for noting this. A few thoughts— 1. The most important insight of a work like this is simply recognizing that C1 & C2, in their canonical form, when read as though they were authentic copies of two actual letters, are incoherent to the point of being unintelligible. Hughes and Jewett take...

Across most ancient traditions, fire was a commonplace symbol of the sky god, the sun, the heavens, the apocayptic judge of mankind, the testing of the righteous and the wicked. Jewish scriptures are full of it: Sodom and Gomorrah, Elijah, various prophets. Egypt, pre-Socratic philosophy, etc Absurd...

mlinssen— 1. I could be misreading this thread, but is the argument that the popularity of gJohn from 200 onwards should count as evidence for its being written before Marcion/Synoptics/Thomas? (To me the abundance of some writers over others in the manuscripts is shakey evidence to begin with, but ...

rgprice wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2023 1:38 pm A pertinent question is: Why would two anti-Marcionite writers use Marcion's Gospel as the basis for their Gospels?

Why would anyone other than Grant be buried in Grant's Tomb? It makes no sense.

I still see no objection to my LukeMatthew as a single editorial to Mark, yet looking at the quoting circus around and against "Marcion", it seems like it was a work in progress, which contradicts everything that we have found. Naturally the FF don't t want to disclose *Ev unless it suits...

For BeDuhn also, the 'Semler Hypothesis' is irrelevant to deciding whether Luke expanded Marcion, or Marcion epitomised Luke; in his case, because his reading of the evidence suggests that the two texts are not directly related. According to his (any ?) reconstruction, the Evangelion is contaminate...

I want to highlight this again as it did not get a reply. Irenaeus mentions Polycarp in Adv. Haer., III.3.4. But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also s...

In his preserved works, Justin doesn’t mention the “Gospel According to” any author. Now, I have no reason to doubt that Justin was familiar with texts very much like what we call the Gospels According to Matthew, Mark, and Luke (John is trickier). But the issue Larsen’s work raises is that Justin ...

Here I'll argue that it is reasonable to assume that: 1. Justin knew Paul's letters and 2. Justin regarded Paul as proto-orthodox. It is really something to argue—IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT JUSTIN EVIDENTLY DIDN’T MENTION PAUL OR ECHO HIS WRITINGS—that ACTUALLY Justin must have known Paul’s letters....