Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Peter Kirby wrote:Thank you for these comments. I'm working on other things right now, but I do intend to come back to this.

No problem. No rush.

Ben.

I keep trying to link the two sons of Simon to two names known from the Pauline and pseudo-Pauline epistles: Rufus, a select man in the Lord (Romans 16.13), and Alexander the coppersmith, who did Paul much harm (2 Timothy 4.14) and who may be the same Alexander whom Paul supposedly delivered over to...

Secret Alias wrote:Clearly Peter's argument here requires us to abandon any of the stupid 'white' suppositions about pagan myths and the like being at the heart of the gospel narrative (via allegory).

What is a white supposition?

Ben.

I am not committed to that order of steps; indeed, the order is pretty hard to get right. Rather, it is the number of steps that matters. I tried to write that without step #4, but I felt I could not take it out in good conscience. I think I may have found a way to eliminate one step from the silph...

Thank you for this, Ben. I would like to come back to this, but first may I ask, what did you think of the other half of the proposal in the OP regarding Mark 15:20b-22 [and Numbers 19:2b-3]? Does this elicit your "yes" or does it incline you towards "no"? I can see where this m...

I appreciate any critical and productive comments based on a careful reading. Thank you. Hi, Peter. I hope I have been reasonably careful in my reading, but I trust you will point out where I have not been. :) When I first read Crossan describing various points of his prophecy historicized idea in ...

We're just making castles made of sand here. The study of early Christianity is principally a study of corrupt texts that aren't recognized as corrupt texts. There isn't just the potential for misrepresentation. The misrepresentation of what we are dealing with is baked into the end products of all...

Personal incredulity is the conclusion, not the premise from which the argument arises. Thank you for explaining, Neil. Did not Ludemann seem to be using an argument from incrudulity when he asked rhetorically who would have had a correct recollection of that ? But I do not have the context, so may...

Secret Alias wrote:But we have to be ready at any given moment to collapse our constructs because they might be completely wrong.

I am ready for that. Any time. I just do not think that the threat of our notions toppling equals our notions actually toppling.

Ben.

But this is another bullshit thing. There was no heretic named Cerinthus. My point does not depend on there being an actual Cerinthus. All that matters to my point is that Gaius rejected the fourth gospel, and the reasons he did so. That he attributed it to Cerinthus is just color, so far as my poi...