Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

maryhelena wrote: ↑Sat Aug 10, 2024 10:07 pm OK - fight to the death over your theory but perhaps keep your scholarly hat on rather than seeking to denigrate a non-scholar who rejects your theory.

maryhelena wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2024 9:25 amOh dear, Ken, any excuse to knock me down.

maryhelena wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2024 9:25 amKen, methinks desperation is beginning to cloud the issue here. Sad, very sad.

maryhelena wrote: ↑Sun Aug 18, 2024 8:28 am oh dear - I was mistaken to think there was just a glimmer of light - oh well, life goes on and so does the controversy over the TF set within a context of 19 c.e. Wishing it away, wishing it out of that context - is not a way forward in this debate.

maryhelena wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2024 4:08 amAre you going to argue that Eusebius made a mistake with the 19 c.e. context ? And you are now going to correct Eusebius ? All in order to save your Eusebius theory......

maryhelena wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2024 8:06 amGreat - that is a pretty obvious interpretation of Mason's words - why on earth you had to go hell for leather attempting to pull him down a peg or two is beyond me.

maryhelena wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2024 8:06 amMason does not hold to a whole cloth Eusebius interpolated TF into Antiquities - deal with it - rather than trying to make an own goal out of his words. Ken, you have a theory to uphold, hence have a vested interest in prompting your theory.

maryhelena wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 10:45 pmThe real issue here is why on earth a NT scholar is seeking to continually denigrate a view that challenges his own, vested interest, position.

maryhelena wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 10:45 pmThat Ken can't do this is truly sad.

More than once, these posts have escalated rhetoric severely. As moderator, I also find that there is a pattern of harassment towards Ken Olson. Part of this harassment includes comments that characterize Ken Olson negatively in various ways regarding his posting on the forum.

I am giving a one week suspension, so that such comments are discontinued.

Some kind of discussion ensues here: viewtopic.php?t=12536

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dl0NR-PQeEE

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2024 5:58 am Consequently, I think Mason's claim that the interpolation of the Testimonium as a whole into the text of the Antiquities would have been an unparalleled act of scribal audacity should probably be read as a rhetorical flourish expressing Mason' opinion in favor of the theory of partial authenticity rather than a hard fact supported by a sound argument.

JW:
Preface: I think you have graced this unholy Forum with some of the best posts we have ever had:

• 1) Organized
  2) The right amount of detail
  3) The Counter presented
  4) Emphasis on evidence rather than conclusion

Body: Perhaps more amazing than Jesus' supposed resurrection is the claim that a wholesale forgery of the TF would be unparalleled in orthodox Christian writings/copies/edits/interpolations/forgeries. Jewish Skeptics only buy wholesale.

What about The Ending of GMark?

Buibleet list of audacity:

• 1) This was a Christian writing.
  
  2) This was a Gospel.
  
  3) This looks like the original Gospel narrative.
  
  4) The most important assertion of orthodox Christianity was that multiple known witnesses witnessed a resurrected Jesus. The forged ending flips GMark from having no witnessing of a resurrected Jesus which is consistent with the rest of GMark to just another Gospel that narrates supposed known historical witness to a resurrected Jesus.

This list is just for starters.

Bonus material for Solo: How do the Argumenta of the ending of GMark possibly parallel to Eusebius' commentary on Origen's commentary of Josephus possibly muscling its way into the Text?


Joseph

The New Porphyry

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2024 5:58 am ...Mason' opinion in favor of the theory of partial authenticity . . . [sans] hard fact supported by a sound argument.

Carrier's opinion