Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

And another thing. Origen not mentioning the same of Celsus's Jew seems deliberate. There must have been a name. Was it Philo? Why not give the name? You could say Celsus forged the text in the name of so and so. He doesn't. There's a reason for the omission. Celsus mentions a name, Origen deliberat...

The same process. Ambrose says "here bitch. Write..."

Tertullian believed that the gospel he knew as Luke was the original version. I am uncertain whether plagiarists require direct evidence to justify reproducing someone else’s work. Their reliance often seems to stem from the perceived authority of their sources rather than verifiable proof. Concern...

Another thing I notice. The reference to the "others" associated with Celsus inevitably occur within an attempt to reference Justin's "two advent" theology: 1.56 Celsus, the Jew in his work, and everyone else failed to notice, that the prophecies speak of two advents of Christ (Ἔ...

Here's another of the Celsus + the Jew + "the others" = 2.30 And yet, neither the Jews, nor Celsus, nor anyone else can provide evidence to demonstrate that destruction turns so many people away from the overflow of evils to a life in accordance with nature, marked by self-control and the ...

In more general terms, it is difficult to find an instance where a literary work is claimed exclusively by one tradition in such a complete and unmediated way. A tradition may insist that it alone fully possesses the text and that it ought to stand apart from all other writings. Later, however, anot...

Just a tangent, the name "Marcion" seems to me to be a simple genitive form from Marcius (gens Marcia), ie the "i" is part of the root, though ultimately the nomen "Marcius" is derived from the praenomen Marcus many centuries prior. There are lots of these names derive...

but not the Marcion of Tertullian's response I've been thinking about this for thirty years. My conclusions are simple. 1. the Marcionite gospel wasn't Luke. 2. Tertullian says its Luke. 3. How to reconcile this? I have been reflecting on this issue for three decades, and my conclusions are relativ...

it's interesting that you'll take the Celsus of Origen's response, but not the Marcion of Tertullian's response. To be honest, I am trying to figure out an angle of approach for my "second part" of the paper that's going to published in England. It's always practical with me. My intellect...

Here is perhaps a sample of what I was originally talking about. Let us start at the beginning. In the preface, Origen says, effectively, that there was an anti-Celsus work, a reply to the True Word, that was roughly the equivalent of Book One and Book Two. Ambrose tells him to write a fuller respon...