Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Lucretius, De rerum natura is known from one manuscript dated 1483; that late date does not make it a forgery. Of course old manuscript finds, such as Qumran, are most welcome. Of course I think there are forgeries, e.g. that Clement did not write "To Theodore." But older is not always bet...

That is not an example of forging a work of Origen. I give you credit for submitting an article to J. of Hellenic Studies. (I do wonder why you chose that journal, rather than J. of Roman Studies, or the like.) And credit for publishing the explanation why it was not accepted. Yet, you seem not to h...

Of course good history research is possible!
I am trying to say that if one first excludes, for example, even the possibility of oral transmission, then the quality of the result will be negatively affected.

LC/P.R.F. Brown (Toth?) etc., it is your de facto application of sources that do not comport with the work of historians that you quote piecemeal. One example. I wrote above in part: "there is a lack of any "primary source" manuscript evidence for his [LC's] assertion that Christianit...

This is so stupid.
Do you know all that was written down?
Do you know all that was spoken?

RH, above, in part:
"....the only real place anybody ever could have gotten these ideas is from a written text."
Oh, does no person ever talk with you?

rgprice wrote above that other (than Mark) sayings could have come from "Anywhere," but a priori excludes one possible source. Rookie move.

So, is your view that because sometimes people make up stuff, like you do, that somehow your currently-preferred-though-changing sorting of such is the truth?

iiuc, rgprice, you hold to gospel priority of Mark.
That is a quite respectable opinion, if not absolute truth, as your rookie bombast pretends.
But where might other sayings of Jesus, not limited to canon, have come from?

Not quite.