Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Schwab, Günther. Echtheitskritische Untersuchungen zu den vier kleinen Paulusbriefen. Band I: Halbband A. Norderstedt: Books on Demand, 2011. [pp. 87–199 argues that Philemon is entirely inauthentic and based in large part on Colossians] Off the top of my head, this looks the most promising. It is ...

Thanks that all sounds super interesting! For those wondering, I have found a few more pertinent resources and annotated them briefly below. This is a list of academic works I have found arguing or claiming that Philemon was inauthentic explicitly: Bauer, Bruno. Kritik der paulinischen Briefe. 3 vol...

"It requires a real courage the profession of a historicist belief based only on the Gospels" Uh... since when? Until the mid-20th century most people tended to agree that the Testimonia Flaviana were interpolations, regardless of their position on Jesus' historicity. Ken Olson thinks Jesu...

I wish, but it is 83 A4 pages (minus my translation of Philemon which will be included as an appendix). As a side note I found interesting: BeDuhn's volume on Philemon, there is actually a contradiction. Tertullian claims there were no alterations to the text of Philemon (Against Marcion 5.21), whil...

That just sounds like more reason to consider the term arbitrary and useless. If it doesn't even translate well (and it doesn't into other languages either), requiring you to render in English this obscure and confusing phrase only known in a pretty hazy and fringe blogosphere, then maybe we should ...

For anyone curious, I have now finished the first draft of my book on Philemon and am now editing it. It is hopefully going to be published late this year or early next year.

Returning to the original complaint, Jesus historicism is not a noun, but it is a noun phrase. That is, the whole phrase can convey a specific meaning of its own which is different from what someone might infer from the meanings of its component parts. The problem being that most of the time no one...

One can take a position without using strange and confusing terminology. I firmly think there was a historical Jesus. I do not think "historicist" is a useful term for describing that position due to the fact it already refers to a completely different topic, and most scholars know that to...

Firstly. Hoffmann does not make the case as his singular opinion is not determinative for everyone else. He gets to speak for no one but himself. As for me, I have changed my opinion over the course of the last year, again, because I have become more familiar and engaged in other fields. Hence, I no...

I don't exactly care if Hoffmann uses it. Hoffmann's opinion is just that, a random opinion on a blog. Also, I have only ever heard the "Buddha historicist" and "Muhammad historicist" terms used by Jesus mythicists. No one in Islamic or Buddhist studies (or similar) uses these te...