Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

A battle to establish the authority behind their teaching would be underway from the beginning. They could, for example, claim that Jesus was a prophet sent by God. But the concept of the "false prophet" provides the basic defense mechanism against such claims. If that so-called prophet w...

Fair enough. I can't see it myself what do you say that yourself can't see, precisely? The impossibility for a forger to betray the his real temporal position in comparison to the time of what he is going to narrate? Yes, pretty much. Though I'd say "unlikely" rather than "impossible...

So why did the fabricator use the past tense instead of the present tense? Incompetence? Or did the fabricator want to give the impression that Paul wrote long after the Pillars were dead? The fabricator wanted to write as he would have desired the genuine Paul would have written. Only by using the...

I can't never write the following phrase in this thread: As for Ken Olson who was held in high esteem—whatever he was makes no difference to me; the evidence does not show favoritism—he added nothing against the my argument. ...unless Ken Olson is already dead from a long time. A long time? :confus...

Where do you see hostility in 2 Cor? for your information, the expression " super-apostles " is full of contempt and despise. No other evidence is necessary. That's neither information nor evidence. Please explain the hostility to me here: 2 Cor 12: [11] I am become a fool in glorying; ye...

another naive mistake by you. The "super-apostles" attacked by Paul in 2 Corinthians (in the present time) are clearly the Pillars. The hostility against them is a constant for a genuine Paul. But you and Ken Olson want that it was a fact merely of the past and relegated in it , which mak...

Paul never used the present tense in Galatians when he described the hostility felt by him against the Pillars. I.e. to describe the exact thing that had to be a fact also of the present. Unless also the Pillars are a fact of the past. I would argue that Paul (or whoever wrote the letter) was indic...

Ignoring the fact that for me even 'ideologically' is a better adverb than 'apologetically' , I explain better the my (and Bruno Bauer's) position in the following table: How a genuine Paul would write: How a false Paul writes: Under that logic, surely it should be: How a genuine Paul would write: ...

What is *Ev? I'm having a hard time googling it or searching for it on this site. It seems to be nomina sacra (for some!) for "Evangelion", Marcion's Gospel. (Personally I think nomina sacra weren't sacred at all, but used to avoid misspellings, like how we use *Ev on this forum. Maybe it...

Paul can mention Jesus genealogy on multiple occasions without mentioning the virgin Mary, Joseph, Bethlehem, Nazareth, Herod, Egypt, floating stars, shepherds, wise men, or a census. Sure I agree that most of that is made up but its pretty odd for the guy not to know Jesus parents names if he actu...