Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Regarding the first issue, I know none who “accepts Whealey's contention that the agreement between Jerome's Latin and Michael's Syriac versions of the Testimonium in the reading "He was thought to be the Christ" (Credebatur/Mistabra) is original and, with this allowed, the Testimonium is ...

On the second issue I have a note made that Rainer Riesner have accepted it. But now I seem to be unable to find his article. It should be on page 176 in Riesner, Rainer (2003). ”Die Emmaus-Erzählung (Lukas 24,13–35). Lukanische Theologie, judenchristliche Tradition und palästinische Theologie”. in ...

Sad!

First let me remind that I do not assume that Smith (who wrote some fine scholarly contributions) had read the novel about Mar Saba; maybe he did or maybe he did not. I do not know. For another example, some of the observations based on the JTS archives by Alan Pantuck are worth considering. Some o...

FWIW, There is a theory that Shakespeare didn't actually write all of his works. I don't think it's very reliable therefore to use Shakespeare as the only case study to disprove the theory of the vocabulary as a way to find authenticity. Among those seven works there were four undisputed works (i.e...

Thanks Andrew and Ben for your clarifications regarding the word naked.

And so what if the youth was "wearing a linen cloth over his naked body"? I gather this is the same youth mentioned in Mk. 14:51-52 and 16:5-7: I’m a bit curious about the adjective naked in the sentence καὶ ὀψίας γενομένης ἔρχεται ὁ νεανίσκος πρὸς αὐτὸν· περιβεβλημένος σινδόνα ἐπὶ γυμνοῦ...

Here’s the real problem with the Smith forgery hypothesis, and the thing the forgery advocators have to deal with, unless of course, they do like they do most of the time, ignore the facts. Here’s the real problem with Criddle’s theory in his 1995 study. According to Criddle the letter has too many ...

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Fri Jan 25, 2019 9:30 am You mean NOT envision Smith reading

I was trying to be ironic.

. And I explicitly wrote here that whether Smith read the novel you mentioned is unknown; that was an attempt to illustrate that I do not in fact accept all such arguments. He probably at least saw the novel. It was a bestseller in the UK after it came out in 1940. I think M. Smith was in the UK ab...