Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

MrMacSon wrote: Lena, when do you think the canonical gospels might or could have been written? I really don't have much of an opinion on this. I just have three thoughts: 1. I think it's reasonable to assume that Luke and Acts were written after Josephus wrote Antiquities of the Jews (ca. 93), sinc...

To Frans: To me, the story of the demoniacs in Gerasa/Gadara is symbolic. By that I don't mean symbolic in a non-realistic sense, but rather symbolic in that the story is all in subtext. If, as I have suggested earlier in this thread (page 2) the story is about Simon bar Giora and John of Gischala -...

Ben C. Smith wrote: You stated somewhere that you have trouble imagining why John might add a cohort of soldiers to the narrative, but might it not merely be to highlight Jesus' complete control over the situation? Might it not be the Johannine equivalent of the twelve angelic legions in Matthew 26....

iskander wrote: The reformer ignores the atoning sacrifice of the temple and the commandments ordained by the priesthood of the temple ; instead, the reformer warns him against the Oral Law and he insists that only the Decalogue comes from God and hence keeping the 10 statements, utterances of God i...

Peter Kirby wrote:

No, please point out each and any such difficulty, in detail and with a battery of supporting argument

I don't know about others, but I would really like that, Peter.

Ben C. Smith wrote: No, the English translations have done that because "Jesus Barabbas" is very much a minority reading, and the manuscripts that oppose it are highly respected, especially in combination with each other That's fair. My purpose was not to second-guess why the name "Je...

To Iskander (about the ten commandments etc):
That makes sense. But does that lead you to a theory of whether, and if so where, he is described outside of the NT?

To make myself clear: picking apart a theory by all evidence-based means available is great.

maryhelena said:

Ridicule, Lena - not in my post.

I never said it was in your post.

Evidence is great. Ridicule, however, is not. It is of course the best way to silence a discussion. But if one is truly interested in that discussion, and the evidence, it's not the way to stimulate it.