Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: ↑Tue Jan 05, 2021 6:22 am

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Jan 05, 2021 2:32 am IT CANNOT BE A COINCIDENCE!!!

Giuseppe, something doesn't come true just because you shout it.

You know, like exciting stuff on close word studies of the nativity to accurately reconstruct the type of house baby Jesus was born in?

Have you ever heard of spaghetti code?

The ambiguity results from awkward combining of different segments of interpretation and from later editing of different layers or editions of the text So which came first the Matthean parable or the Matthean layer/edition/different segmet/interpretation? At least from the quote you provided the 'd...

Like Babylon wasn't a metaphor for Rome? Or so the story goes.

Trobisch is correct, most 2nd century christian writings sound like reactions to various published texts within the wider movement. You two should collaborate, you're both saying the same thing more than you realize.

I believe Tom Dysktra wrote on this subject
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00L1Y5YDC/re ... TF8&btkr=1

he's also the author of the great book Mark: Canonizer of Paul

I agree with that case. I think you should start looking into the time frame that they dropped the NS for Jesus and started spelling it out as well, probably following the rise of the printing press.

What about spelling jesus in full?

very intriguing

So is the thought that the 18-19th century scribe converted the NS to modern form during the transcribing, used modern NS to shorten the actual words (no ancient NS) in the original text, or that using the modern NS indicates that it was a 18-19th century forgery?