Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

...thus creating the need for an apology from the Catholic side against those who suspected by that time that the 'historical Jesus' was a seditious anti-Roman.

Luke 22:33-42 is absent in Mcn . In red I put the Lukan additions: 26 They sailed to the region of the Gerasenes, which is across the lake from Galilee. 27 When Jesus stepped ashore, he was met by a demon-possessed man from the town. For a long time this man had not worn clothes or lived in a house,...

This is the model I prefer: Mcn as proto-gospel addressed against Judaism and Messianism in toto , allegorized respectively with pharisees and military generic not-Jesuan messianists. Differently from Stuart, I think ''Peter'' is not still allusive of proto-catholics but is simply the generic icon o...

I already said "Mark" gave Peter the opportunity to know the God of Jesus is the Jewish God (10:6, 12:26). As I told you, Marcion, in his gospel, is never specific about matters he defended in his antitheses. His gospel allows for the anthitheses, but does not show them. Which is rather s...

The Strong Argument from Silence is this: Absence of evidence is evidence of absence only when that evidence is expected. But a Strong est Argument From Silence would be this: Absence of evidence is evidence of absence only when that evidence is expected in the interest of someone whose power is bas...

precisely.

Of course I'm supposing the priority of the marcionite Evangelion here.

Therefore not ''insertions'' in a previous hypothetical gMark o gLuke, but only different gospels based on a previous heretical gospel.

@Giuseppe What ever he mean by calling the author of Mcn (beyond he was or no the man Marcion) ''a far more obvious Joseph-Smith-style fabricator'' ??!!?? The answer : If we are admitting that the Gospel Jesus was deliberately constructed to sell a particular replacement for the OT and that no prior...

Why should I give evidence about Paul mentioning members explicitly by name? in order to prove that in Gal 1:19, where a presumed member is quoted by name (''James''), can only be interpreted as literal biological brother ''of the Lord''. Why not? Where, in his epistles, do you think Paul included ...

But the proto-catholic Luke inserted the first half of next verse Luke 8:29 (not attested in Evangelion ) because he had every reason to point out that he was not the man to be frightened, but the demon that possessed him. Hence the tone oddly apologetic, defensive , of the verse 8:29. Mark 5:6 He ...