Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Well, Ehrman calls it as he sees it. He wholly accepts the Q hypothesis. I lean towards the existence of some sort of Q also, but am not as convinced as he. But I agee that it is problematic to use a hypothetical source as "evidence". I agree with you on that one. But I think you have to r...

Wow. It seems you have some serious fire in the belly against Ehrman. Had he not read his own book? Have you never stated/written something that you later realised didn't really reflect your view or point as well as you could have? Did he not realise he was giving misleading information to tens of t...

Of course, I am going by Ehrman's Huffington Post article , which apparently underwent a mysterious redaction by person or persons unknown, ruining the clear logic of Bart, by introducing all kinds of errors that he never made.but which appeared in the article. There's nothing "mysterious"...

toejam said: "Even if we didn't have Philo or the Pilate Stone, Pilate's governership would still be a safe historical bet, despite not being attested to by contemporaries. And the same goes for a historical Jesus." If this is so, what sources would you rely on to establish the existence ...

^Exactly. I agree completely.

Ehrman does (briefly) discuss Philo's reference to Pilate and the Pilate Stone in DJE? . Check p.44. The Huffington Post article that stevencarrwork is quoting is a summary. So Ehrman makes a minor gaff in an edited newspaper article by failing to clarify that he's talking about scribal sources, not...

The precence of James the Just here seems odd here if Thomas post-dates the Synoptics. No parallel is found in the Synoptic sayings. Plus it doesn't seem like the kind of thing that the clearly Gnostic author/redactor of the Thomas would make up given that James is typically associated with the Ebi...

I think the whole point of the Gospel of Thomas is to be vague and mysterious, to let the hearer fill in the blanks in his/her own head. It's about creating the illusion of substance. Kind of like a pseudo-intellectualism. It does this by imitating the (becoming-authoratative) 'voice' of the Synopti...

Co-Synoptic? Rather than pre- or post- ?? After reading Goodacre, I'm confident it's post-Synoptic. Of course if this were a murder trial I'd like some more evidence, but with what we've got, post seems the most likely. As to whether Thomas is pre or post John 's gospel is another question though. ...

It has long been recognised that about half the sayings in the Gospel of Thomas have parallels with Synoptic Gospel sayings (that is, Mark , Matthew , Luke and possibly Q ). One of the major questions regarding this relationship in NT scholarship has been 'Who wrote first?' - i.e. Were the Synoptics...