Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

The internal evidence alone excludes any possibility of eyewitness testimony. They don't claim to come from witnesses. they are riddled with historical anachronisms and errors, they are clearly post-70 (no matter what Roger says, he knows the scholarship is not with him on this), they are written in...

Why would a census record say anything about Jesus anyway? At most, it might list the name Joseph, but why would it mention anything about children except possibly a number? Even the name "Yeshua" was common as dirt. There's also no reason that these records would be shipped to Rome. For w...

I can't find whatever Ehrman is talking about in the Satyricon . I wonder if he might have made a mistake in the citation. Either that or its just way to subtle for me. Found it! In the narrative of the married woman from Ephesus (111, 5, in the Loeb edition p228-9). And it is very relevant: At thi...

I don't find your post coherent enough to respond to in detail. Papias offers no evidence as to the authorship of Canonical Mark and Matthew because he doesn't say anything about Canonical Mark and Matthew. Mark is not derived even indirectly from a Petrine memoir and is, in fact, hostile to Peter a...

I don't think you can use that reference from Josephus about what Jews did during an active revolt to what the Romans themselves practiced during normal occupation. Jews looted armories too, that doesn't mean that looting armories was a normal practice under Roman occupation. No, I agree: the circu...

I can't find whatever Ehrman is talking about in the Satyricon. I wonder if he might have made a mistake in the citation. Either that or its just way to subtle for me.

I've just looked through several pages looking for that tombstone and am not finding it. Can you point me to the page of the thread? It was in the same post where I first named the references which you quoted. It was very paraphrased and inexact because I was speaking from memory. Ehrman's footnote...

I don't think you can use that reference from Josephus about what Jews did during an active revolt to what the Romans themselves practiced during normal occupation. Jews looted armories too, that doesn't mean that looting armories was a normal practice under Roman occupation.

Bauckham is a joke. For instance, he thinks Papias is actually evidence and he uses an invented hermenutic whereby he imagines he can tell that Mark is writing from the viewpoints of different witnesses. Bauckham is a fucking hack apologist. Papias is evidence, Gilligan. why would he not be? 'Gilli...

I think it's almost a distinction without a difference. Nobody thinks Matthew composed the Q material himself, do they? So either way the Q material predates Matthew which means it is only academic whether Luke had access to the material independently, only through Matthew or both.