If I am able, I will read the new book.
The claim "25 BCE - 25 CE; Thomas, Coptic" appears imo to be extremely early, despite his otherwise relying on Coptic dictionaries, made by folks who, iiuc, date Coptic beginnings later.
Search found 1660 matches
- Sat Sep 23, 2023 2:00 pm
- Forum: Christian Texts and History
- Topic: Mlinssen's next book "by the end of this year"...
- Replies: 2
- Views: 81
- Tue Sep 19, 2023 8:11 am
- Forum: Christian Texts and History
- Topic: Secret Mark and the Gospel of Marcion in Origen
- Replies: 47
- Views: 726
Re: Secret Mark and the Gospel of Marcion in Origen
I mentioned above (Thu Sep 14, 2023 10:03 am): "....(There is extensive literature comparing and contrasting what Josephus wrote about Essenes with what Refutation has. E.g., did the two share a source or was there an intermediate between the two? By the way, one scholar who changed his opinion...
- Fri Sep 15, 2023 5:57 am
- Forum: Christian Texts and History
- Topic: How Krijbolder confutes definitely G.A. Wells and Ellegard?
- Replies: 7
- Views: 204
Re: How Krijbolder confutes definitely G.A. Wells and Ellegard?
"....precisely....and nothing else."
Such dogma.
Such dogma.
- Fri Sep 15, 2023 4:40 am
- Forum: Christian Texts and History
- Topic: How Krijbolder confutes definitely G.A. Wells and Ellegard?
- Replies: 7
- Views: 204
Re: How Krijbolder confutes definitely G.A. Wells and Ellegard?
John the Baptist and Qumran have some similarities and have some differences.
If you, Giuseppe, wish to deny that statement, there may be some more appropriate
way.
[added later:]
A range of views on John the Baptist are available in this 2021 conference:
http://enochseminar.org/online-2021
If you, Giuseppe, wish to deny that statement, there may be some more appropriate
way.
[added later:]
A range of views on John the Baptist are available in this 2021 conference:
http://enochseminar.org/online-2021
- Thu Sep 14, 2023 11:10 am
- Forum: Christian Texts and History
- Topic: How Krijbolder confutes definitely G.A. Wells and Ellegard?
- Replies: 7
- Views: 204
Re: How Krijbolder confutes definitely G.A. Wells and Ellegard?
Whether John the Baptist had been at or with Qumran at some time is a debated question. If so, he may have left it. In other words, saying "John the Baptist = Qumran" may be misleading or overstated.
- Thu Sep 14, 2023 11:02 am
- Forum: Christian Texts and History
- Topic: Dr. Sarah's Friendly Refutation of all Mythicism
- Replies: 67
- Views: 18034
- Thu Sep 14, 2023 10:12 am
- Forum: Christian Texts and History
- Topic: Talmud Sanhedrin 43a as parody of the doctrinal trial against the early Jesus cult
- Replies: 2
- Views: 101
Re: Talmud Sanhedrin 43a as parody of the doctrinal trial against the early Jesus cult
Rabbinic writings also address his parentage, so, in such cases, a person, not a group.
- Thu Sep 14, 2023 10:03 am
- Forum: Christian Texts and History
- Topic: Secret Mark and the Gospel of Marcion in Origen
- Replies: 47
- Views: 726
Re: Secret Mark and the Gospel of Marcion in Origen
One of the differences between Refutation of All Heresies and the known (or accepted) works of Origen is that the former has a long passage (9. 18-28) about Essenes, but Origen's extant works make no mention of them. (There is extensive literature comparing and contrasting what Josephus wrote about ...
- Wed Sep 13, 2023 9:04 am
- Forum: Other Texts and History
- Topic: Massive New Biography of Spinoza by J. Israel
- Replies: 3
- Views: 364
Re: Massive New Biography of Spinoza by J. Israel
That biography, I would guess, is the result of excellent research.
Minor, minor curious note. In my browser the thread title read
"Massive New Biography of Spin..."
Minor, minor curious note. In my browser the thread title read
"Massive New Biography of Spin..."
- Wed Sep 13, 2023 9:00 am
- Forum: Christian Texts and History
- Topic: Secret Mark and the Gospel of Marcion in Origen
- Replies: 47
- Views: 726
Re: Secret Mark and the Gospel of Marcion in Origen
Stephan H., earlier today in the "reported:..." thread, you began with "Eisegesis...."
Is that what you are doing here?
Why not also consider the arguments (by many) that the Letter dates to some time after Eusebius?
Is that what you are doing here?
Why not also consider the arguments (by many) that the Letter dates to some time after Eusebius?