Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

You make this statement -

My main points here are the author of gLuke/'Acts' not being aware of Josephus' Antiquities (93) (but knew about 'Wars'), and potential external evidence in gJohn (95-105) and Barnabas' epistle (97).

On what basis do you make it?

You also point out some differences between the Paul texts and Acts on various issues, which is interesting.

We still don't really know who wrote Acts, though

The problem is that page links to 58 & 64, and you cite various passages or texts that you date specifically

eg. the epistle of Barnabas (dated 97 CE):

You say in http://historical-jesus.info/58.html that
"This is a very strong piece of evidence advocating the author of 'Acts' knew about 'Wars' but did not read 'Antiquities'."
There are other possibilities - they just cited Wars, but wrote after Antiquities.

Not using Antiquities does not mean a passage or text was writen before antiquities was 'published'.

Bernard Muller wrote:

We still don't really know who wrote Acts, though

Most likely the same person who wrote gLuke.

Sure, but we don't really know who that person (or group of people) was (were).

There are now authors who argue that the Gospel according to Luke was written after Marcion (& maybe other NT Gospels).

MrMacSon wrote:Sure, but we don't really know who that person (or group of people) was (were).

Bernard Muller wrote: I am most certain the author of gLuke & 'Acts" was a Gentile Christian woman from the Roman colony of Philippi, Macedonia:
http://historical-jesus.info/39.htm

Bernard Muller wrote:

There are now authors who argue that the Gospel according to Luke was written after Marcion (& maybe other NT Gospels were too).

I have been arguing against that: http://historical-jesus.info/53.html

Was gLuke, if written later, correcting gMarcion?

A similar saying is in gMatthew 5:18, and therefore would be part of Q; and in it, the tittle is about the Law, as it is in Lk 16:17. So "Luke", most likely, followed the Q saying and did not make a correction on gMarcion.

Furthermore, the wording in gLuke makes a lot of sense and avoids the problem in gMarcion version and the change in gMarcion can be explained by Marcion's well documented aversion to the Law (of Moses).

To conclude, it is more likely Marcion modified a verse from gLuke rather than "Luke" changing it from gMarcion.

the sudden appearance of disciples of a "John" in gMarcion 5:33, with no further identification (except later at 7:28, which is very odd, because it should be made when a person is mentioned for the first time), is a sure clue Marcion was working from a gospel (gLuke) and truncated it

That's http://historical-jesus.info/39.html. But I don't see a coherent argument there - just a series of biblical quotes

I can't follow much of what you assert there -

There are several spurious aspects to your case - You're appealing to a nebulous Q; you say " the wording in gLuke makes a lot of sense" ... and ... and ... [you appeal to] "Marcion's well documented aversion to the Law (of Moses)"

You say

the sudden appearance of disciples of a "John" in gMarcion 5:33, with no further identification (except later at 7:28, which is very odd, because it should be made when a person is mentioned for the first time), is a sure clue Marcion was working from a gospel (gLuke) and truncated it

You can't really know that - no one can.
Then to say "eliminating all occurrences of John the Baptist before Lk 5:33" is a big call.

Bernard Muller wrote:to MrMacSon,

That's http://historical-jesus.info/39.html. But I don't see a coherent argument there - just a series of biblical quotes

My quotes are my arguments (and I have many to prove my case). Most of the quotes are internal evidence from gLuke & 'Acts'.

What is your counter proposal? With evidence please.

Yes, you have many of quotes from the biblical texts, and you inter-relate them quite well, but you still do not prevent much in the way of argumentation or discussion about the veracity of those links (and you fail to discuss other reasons for those links and why those other links are not as valid as the links you make)

f) According to 'Acts', the "Council at Jerusalem", (when the "Nazarenes" allowed conversion without circumcision among the Gentiles (Ac 15:1-19) ) was right before Paul's visit to Philippi (50 C.E). But from the more trustworthy Galatians letter (2:1-10), this meeting occurred years later (52 C.E.), after Paul's first visit to Macedonia (details about dating in Appendix B (http://historical-jesus.info/appb.html) and Paul's third Journey http://historical-jesus.info/appf.html).

I think the relationships could go both ways much like the synoptic problem of whether Mark or Matthew came first.

An aspect that is often overlooked is if the NT-gospel texts were redacted later and, if such redaction happened, how many times they were redacted or if they were redacted in relation to each other.

MrMacSon wrote: The principle of the Burden of Proof lies with the person making the assertion - "he who avers, must prove".

Moreover, implying I cannot refute it, therefore 'it may be true' or 'it might be true', or 'it is true,' is a fallacy called 'argumentium ad ignoratum'.

and the silence on the issue is glaring - there is hardly any mention of Mark's gospel before it appears in a NT in the 4th century. The only mentions appear to be by Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Origen, and Victorinus of Pettau? Most of those mentions are in passing - no references to, or quotes from, the 'Gospel according to Mark'.

"And going forth into the way, one approached and kneeled, saying, Good Master, what good thing shall I do that I may inherit everlasting life? And Jesus says, Why do you call Me good? There is none good but one, that is, God. You know the commandments. Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour your father and your mother. And he answering says to Him, All these have I observed. And Jesus, looking upon him, loved him, and said, One thing you lack. If you would be perfect, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven: and come, follow Me. And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he was rich, having great possessions. And Jesus looked round about, and says to His disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! And the disciples were astonished at His words. But Jesus answers again, and says unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! More easily shall a camel enter through the eye of a needle than a rich man into the kingdom of God. And they were astonished out of measure, and said, Who then can be saved? And He, looking upon them, said, What is impossible with men is possible with God. For with God all things are possible. Peter began to say to Him, Lo, we have left all and followed You. And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall leave what is his own, parents, and brethren, and possessions, for My sake and the Gospel's, shall receive an hundred-fold now in this world, lands, and possessions, and house, and brethren, with persecutions; and in the world to come is life everlasting. But many that are first shall be last, and the last first."
These things are written in the Gospel according to Mark; and in all the rest correspondingly; although perchance the expressions vary slightly in each, yet all show identical agreement in meaning.

andrewcriddle wrote: Clement of Alexandria quotes a long section explicitly from Mark Who is the rich man that shall be saved ?