Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

This appears to assume that b) Evidence 1 c) Evidence 2) and d) Evidence 3 are independent probabilities, this seems unlikely to be even approximately true. Andrew Criddle Not sure if it matters. An individual could break out probabilities any way they wanted. I thought that Evidences 1 & 3 cou...

Say what you want about the evidence, Im not claiming it is perfect or even good. I will also state with 100% certainty it is not devoid of historical content either. Using the NT is not circular in any way when used properly. It did not come out of a vacuum. In other words, you refuse to apply sta...

So there should be evidence of someone, anyone, denouncing the man, had he not existed. And this is the critical time period when people could recall living memory to refute it. We also see no counter claims against heresy. If this character had been created 200-400 years in the past, I would be ri...

The problem I have with this sort of argument is that it seems to imply that even if we knew the claims that Christians in the time of Claudius were making about Jesus we would be unable to determine the historical truth behind theses claims. I don't regard this as at all an absurd position, but it...

I think this is a very skewed view of Ehrman and Casey's views. Ehrman would never say the gospels "can be generally trusted", only that they need to be run through *standard* historical criteria to find what are most likely the nuggets of history. Ehrman's most decisive points are the im...

I don't think I do have to explain that. But, first, because you are engaging with Price's theory, I am wondering if you have read it? He argues that the Q material is dependent on Mark. If the Q material is dependent on a fiction written by 'Mark,' then it could not have originated as "tantri...

Since what you call the mainstream works with presuppositions of no merit that New Testament books are forgeries it really is irrelevant for any discussion with a Bible-believing perspective. And I earnestly wondered if there was any substance in the Pauline historicity question as a challenge to t...

Price's view is not too far removed from this. He just believes 'Q' was originally part of gMark: Even if it was part of gMark, that still means you have to explain why the tantric-mystic Jesus of Q1 and non-passion Mark was absorbed by another type of (christian) Jesus that is totally at odds with...

I cannot move away from the historical Jesus because Q1 and the non-passion portion of Mark are fully compatible and yet the author of Mark could never have made up Q1 because he shows no understanding of its ideology whatsoever. It is much more likely that the author of Mark used a copy of the edi...

That's a big project. The wider literature must include (as a subset) that literature which is today considered as a forgery but which was once accepted as genuine. Yes, written or forged in the FIrst and Second Centuries CE. The list can be found on Peter Kirby's Early Christian Writings website h...