Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Evidently the implication escapes your attention. If Mark is not Paulinist, then the next question is: who is more Paulinist among the other gospels?

Are you saying that Canonical Luke precedes *Ev?
Are you saying that James the Just is mentioned by Josephus?

Are you saying that Jesus existed?

If you are agnostic about the historicity of Jesus, what is for you the best case for mythicism?

Therefore, the Gospel of Mark should be read independently of Paul so that its unique features might be first understood within its own narrative world, rather than interpreted through a Pauline lens. https://scholarlypublishingcollective.org/sblpress/jbl/article-abstract/143/1/125/386882/Is-the-Go...

Here we see the greatness and decadence of Canonical Luke: a gospel that is the more small-minded of all in his clumsy corruption of *Ev (he omitted the names because in *Ev the same brothers are absent), ..and yet the gospel without which we couldn't verify that *Ev preceded even Mark and Matthew (...

Simple: he didn't find these names in *Ev because not even the brothers were named there. It would be very strange that Canonical Luke was based on Matthew and opted for the deliberate omission of the names of the brothers of Jesus. Note that Acts betrayes the need of having brothers of Jesus recogn...

It is clear that you want to nail me between the two horns of the beast. I would answer "yes" to reassure you that I understand perfectly your point: in abstract logical terms the Talmudist was a historicist, he didn't deny the historicity of Jesus. I felt someway 'obliged' to answer "...

on the one hand, it provides answers to many old questions, some of them seemingly resolved a long time ago, others fiercely debated for many decades. While I don't see nothing of "noble" in these matters (probably because of the my own views on morality, as my avatar makes it clear: only...

I stand on this position well described here.

why not just conclude the whole thing was written at one time, by one author? The "giant midrash" could be added by only an editor, while the original author had only the short survived (not-historical) nucleus about Jesus being given to an anonymous Roman Governor who ordered the his cru...

Well, unless we can speculate a very convincing reason, I think Occam’s razor still cuts through to the much simpler explanation that the passage actually was original to Josephus I think that you have not read my confession here , where I have given up to doubt about the authenticity of the Baptis...