Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I read Klinghardt and was very skeptical, but Now we see that he he sees at most that Marcion's text was parallel to GLuke, not its predecessor. There was a proto-gospel of some sort underlying both, but we should not follow Stephan Huller in calling it a Diatessaron.

I'm quite willing to believe we humans do not have free will.
As long as I can still believe that I do.
Realize that to stand against what is fore-ordained assures failure.

to Ben, Christian gospel writings (Q, Signs Source, Passion Narrative). Signs Source, Passion Narrative: hypothetical documents unproven to have existed, but loved by some Christian apologists. There are a lot more evidence for the existence of Q: http://historical-jesus.info/q.html & http://ww...

The Passion Narrative seems agreed upon by critical scholars as a source underlying all four gospels. (Already listed by Ben in OP along with Q and Signs Source.)

Good points, Don. As I went to track down your quotes from Did Jesus Exist? about Wells and Price, I stumbled across this argument from Ehrman (underlining and boldfacing mine):.... But this reasoning seems to fly in the face of the argument that Ehrman makes in Forged concerning the "we"...

Are you serious? OK, I over-reacted. "L" would reasonably be thought to stand for Luke as a whole, but convention since B. H. Streeter in 1924 calls the material unique to the Gospel of Luke (and further limited to chapters 3 to 24) as "L", or as James R. Edwards prefers, "S...

All based on "everyone's" assumptions about everyone's assumptions. The last scholarly work "establishing" that there were no eyewitness writings came from Canon Dennis Nineham in 1956 and 1959. Yet even he posited no particular strength to his case. So I repeat again, as no one ...

The argument here against early dating presupposes that predictions (or at least reasonably accurate predictions) are never made.

What evidence? (I contend that biblical "scholars" have settled on the terminus post quem ) Well, no. Bishop John A. T. Robinson was a notable Liberal ("Honest to God") who demonstrated that there is no proof that any of the NT was written after 70 A. D. Top University of Sheffi...

As you recognized, Charles, John 19:20 does not fit where it is placed. Even Teeple's fine-tuning did not separate out this verse as from "G". I had not myself extracted it from "E" to "G" until you pointed this out. John 19:20 was drawn from the voluminous Discourse ma...