Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

And surely I could make life easy on me and howl along with the mundane and mediocre wolves of biblical academic, asserting that Thomas really is about any Jesus, and any xtianity - but it's not, and the evidence leads me there, the text dictates it Go through the way too long Commentary, 600+ pages...

Indeed I don't find, personally, a strong argument apart the Argument From the Earliest Rivalry with John the Baptist. The reason is that the case of Klinghardt remains more or less what he had drafted in his original article of 2008, only more elaborated: 1) Marcion precedes Luke (easy proof, only...

There's no need for anything, all is perfect. No reason to think, judge, act, do - there is only bliss... ...in enlightenment. I assume this thought was replicated in *Ev. How well do the reconstructions of *Ev. maintain the fidelity of this thought as it originally occurred, or is it lost? No, tha...

Iphigenia among the Taurians doesn't appear in any manuscripts until the 14th century Codex Laurentianus, but its reception is all over the place in antiquity, from Aristotle on down, as well as in artwork. Even if we can only be confident in 95% of the data of the Laurentianus text, that is still ...

Check. There's no need for anything, all is perfect. No reason to think, judge, act, do - there is only bliss...

...in enlightenment.
To get there, a lot of toiling is needed. If the right kind, mind you

Finally, Matthew states explicitly that the questioners were the disciples of John. As you know, it is then „strictly forbidden“ for conservative scholars to assume anything else for Mark. It is only permissible that the Pharisees are there in addition. ;) Why should we think that we are more able ...

[T]he GoP author would have called the "orthodox" Christians of his time as "Chrestians"? There are multiple GoP authors over multiple periods! True Paul is related to *Ev. Plutarch certainly is a source of inspiration and text for the Churchians , but not Thomas or *Ev. Is *Ev....

mlinssen wrote above, in part: "... you just take a dictionary and verify it - and that is a completely objective exercise." May I, SG, suggest that such is not "completely objective"? For example, when one word has more than one sense? Some dictionaries (such as OED online) are...

ML, I think you have the texts of gPhilip 56.12-13; 62.8-17. And I would guess that you are a faster and better typist than I am. Is gPhilip correct about e.g. Nazarene? No. If I may say so, better explanation is in Anchor Bible Dictionary, "Nazarenes." PS Just hypothetically, if lexicogr...

Whatever the author of the Gospel of Philip had in mind--given that some of the proposed "etymologies" or word meanings in the text are surely bogus [56.12-13; 62.8-17]--would it be naive to assume that many in the time of writing agreed with "Philip," and even more naive to ret...