Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

And let's factor in that the NT version of Matthew (in every manuscript and translation we have) is combined with Mark, as is Luke (which I think also used Matthew, as per the Farrer Hypothesis). Does this early harmonization not suggest that more or less all early Christians were okay with those t...

haha yes, is it possible to put forward a basic premise though, that at some point the different gospels were in use by different churches? i can't believe that the gospels circulated like new Steven King novels and each church just stuck them on the bookshelf and started using them until the magic ...

CW what do you make of Paul's correspondence with Seneca? People say it's spurious but when i read it, it struck me as very curious indeed http://wesley.nnu.edu/index.php?id=2220 SENECA TO PAUL, greeting I have arranged some writings in a volume, and given them their proper divisions: I am also reso...

interesting Ben, only just to add i didn't mean an early sayings source but an early source for deeds of Jesus,
did Mark get these from some proto-John source?
If I see Eusebius i'm going to tell him he totally fustrated me with his meagre quotes of Papias

Didn't Papias only say that Matthew collected a list of logia, not write a complete gospel? It possible that the gospel of Matthew was so named because it was based on the sayings collected by Matthew in Aramaic? Papias also says something like they each 'interpreted them as best they were able' whi...

"Mark has the stone being placed in front of Jesus' tomb but does have the spices being placed with Jesus. John has the spices being placed with Jesus but does not have the stone. It would seem that both would necessary in both stories. Mark would not want us to think of Jesus' body stinking w...

Ben has the antidote for all erroneous suppositions and flights of fancy i for one will not post my theories whenever he's online

ok, sounds interesting. i recon John's disciples thought he was a son of God or Christ or something like that, a bit embarassing maybe but nothing really too bad what would be embarassing is the idea John (or Jesus) was some pro-Roman stooge or leader of some violent rebels or a magician or whatever...

The problem is that if John the Baptist existed, then he was a figure that the original author of Revelation had to mention. Even the clementine literature is against the followers of the Baptist, but not against the Baptist himself. Hence my strong suspicion in this thread is that the entire "...

what do you mean as "deviant" for a Jew (pseudo-Clement) about another Jew (John)? I meant the Clementines are not referring to John the Baptist but another John. I didn't mean they are referring to 'John the Baptist' we are familiar with but are referring to some other John who may also ...