Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Randy, I will not comment on that specific unfortunate translation but RG is always telling us "it's all about Paul guys" I don't buy it. He appears out of nowhere and suddenly he's everywhere, but earlier he's absent and no-one's ever heard of him. I think he's not there at the beginning...

Every time Paul mentions Luke, he also mentions Mark (and vice versa): see 2 Timothy 4 :11, Colossians 4 :10-14 and Philemon verse 24. Regardless of whether these were part of "authentic" writings or not, I do think that this is also why the first two Gospels were attributed to Mark and L...

I think its difficult to read too much into this, since these aren't the words of a real person, but a fictional character invented by Justin.

I'm convinced that the way that NT literature developed was from a Pauline letter collection to an introductory narrative about Paul's ministry that essentially narrated the Pauline letter collection, to an introductory "Gospel" that developed a story about Jesus based on the story of Paul...

I suspect that the original Gospel (proto-Mark) also did not include the names of any family members. Because neither Luke 3-24, nor *Ev, nor the Gospel of John identify the names of the family members of Jesus. Only Matthew and Mark (and Luke 1-2) do. I don't think that if proto-Mark had these name...

Well, I'm quite confident at this point that this passage has been thoroughly misinterpreted to begin with. I'm sure you've seen my other threads about this. In the original story, it was John who was tempted by Satan, not Jesus, and the narrative element is based on the story of Elijah in 1 Kings, ...

Alright, then I still tend to think Basilides is best explained as knowing Luke. And I'm still not clear on what renders proto-Luke more than just a possible hypothesis. I addressed the issue of Basilides somewhere, but I can't find it. I think my point was that these comments about Basilides are c...

But its pretty obvious that Luke 1 & 2 are additions This can be explained as part of Luke's expansion of *Ev and the other gospels. The Luke 3 stuff (apart from a bit of Luke 3:1) can be additionally from this same author. Could be, but its relationship to the birth narrative is very strange. ...

There's always another 'possible' hypothetical. How is this (so far undefined) "proto-Luke" a better hypothesis? Proto-Luke is pretty well defined. Proto-Luke would be basically Luke 3-23ish (about half of 24). When you look at Luke 3, much of Luke 3 is not present in *Ev. Either *Ev was ...

I think earliest belief was a mythological Jesus per Paul's original letters, as explained by Richard Carrier's Jesus from Outer Space. Seems to be the general tenor of the responses. A sign of the times that Marcionites-first is rejected not because of mainstream scholarship, but because it isn't ...