Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

On another thread I have just made a suggestion regarding the beloved disciple which, if true, pretty effectively removes John 21.18-24 from my list of passages supporting an historical Jesus.

Here are the primary (certain) references to the beloved disciple in the gospel of John: John 13.21-30: 21 After he had said this, Jesus was troubled in spirit and testified, “Very truly I tell you, one of you is going to betray me.” 22 His disciples stared at one another, at a loss to know which of...

(For the record, even if I am right about this one, it is not looking to me so far as if some of the others are going to be as yielding.)

Matthew 5.17. From Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.7.4: [3] Indignum denique ut Romulus quidem ascensus sui in caelum habuerit Proculum affirmatorem, Christus vero dei descensus de caelo sui non invenerit annuntiatorem, quasi non sic et ille ascenderit iisdem mendacii scalis, sicut et iste descendit....

Quick answer. No the primacy of the 'super gospel' theory is not necessary (do you think Andrew would go that far?). All you need to see is that chapter 1 of Book 4 has one plan for the work (i.e. that it will be directed against Marcion's interpretation according to the 'Antitheses') and that chap...

........................................ PS: Does the position that the original Against Marcion was using a gospel harmony require Stephan Huller's view that the first gospel was a supergospel (which we would view as a harmony, like the Diatessaron) which was cut up to create the four canonical go...

I am hoping that someone who can communicate with clarity and conciseness will be able to respond to this post. I have heard on this forum at least twenty times now that both Stephan Huller and Andrew Criddle agree that Tertullian is basing his specific attack on Against Marcion , not on the Marcion...

My OP gave the following list of passages in Matthew that Tertullian seems to be accusing Marcion of having omitted from Luke: Matthew 5.17. Matthew 5.45. Matthew 5.21-48. Matthew 8.4. Matthew 10.10. Matthew 10.34 (Luke 12.51). Matthew 12.48 (Mark 3.33). Matthew 15.24, 26 (Mark 7.37). A recent post ...

Not necessarily, one can imply "portrayed" based on the Galatians having seen what was written in the past in the scriptures. I have highlighted yet another word that you have to introduce in order to make the verse say what you want it to say (for reasons unclear to me). What was before ...

robert j wrote:

Ben C. Smith wrote:The Galatians can, however, have seen Jesus portrayed before them with their own eyes (whether literally or metaphorically) ...

Exactly, the Galatians saw Jesus portrayed before their own eyes in the scriptures.

This entails the verb meaning "portrayed", not "forewritten".