Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

BeDuhn holds that the title "New Testament," which he wants to ascribe to Marcion, is otherwise little in evidence until the 4th century. But this seems to be wrong. We have already noted the anonymous anti-Montanist writer who explicitly refers to a written text as "the New Testamen...

What was the outcome here of the discussion re the nature of the temple per 2 Thess. 2:1-4 (http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3460&hilit=hadrian&start=100#p98959) ? It seems to have been deflected by a discussion on the resurrection, or have I misread the thread? ( One ...

[Please note that I added two new posts to this thread; the first is on page 3.]

A recent example of good NT scholarship that appears to me to be hampered by a confused and anachronistic understanding of NT canonicity is Jason BeDuhn's The First New Testament: Marcion's Scriptural Canon . There are two problems. First, BeDuhn adopts a 4th century, and thus anachronistic, notion ...

Consider Bruce Metzger's outline of the problem of the canon: The recognition of the canonical status of the several books of the New Testament was the result of a long and gradual process, in the course of which certain writings, regarded as authoritative, were separated from a much larger body of ...

What an extraordinary conception it is that Christ, though he was in the form of God, did not count it robbery, or, to give the words their exact grammatical force, did not think that he must make it the object of an actus rapiendi , to be equal with God. If he was God already, how could he wish to...

I find discussions of what is gnostic and what is not to be mostly useless and always tiresome. I prefer to just define the term specifically for the conversation at hand, since it is not one that everybody agrees on. I doubt very much that "gnostic" was used in the second century in the ...

:lol: Did Wright run over your cat or something? You can see on the table that I posted that the two competing arguments for "idiomatic usage" derive, respectively, from Lightfoot and from Hoover (who relied on earlier work by Jaeger, Foerster, and Gnilka); Wright himself prefers Hoover's...

I'm not impressed with a theory of "idiomatic usage" that conveniently enables NT Wright to come up with "not regarded as something to be taken advantage of." It can't be an "idiomatic usage" if there are no other usages of the phrase with that idiomatic sense (at least...

I have obviously given Philippians 2.5-11 a great deal of thought , and it has struck me that I have no real way of demonstrating whether it predates Paul (who incorporated it into his epistle), it was composed by Paul (whether for this exact epistolary context or for some other context and he deci...