Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

But we have to start with something, we have to start somewhere. Sometimes in this field or at this forum it feels a little like 15 people speaking in different languages AT one another. The idea that Mark was used to make Matthew and then Luke is generally regarded as basically correct. Yes the Chu...

I will have to try this. Nothing better than learning something new about food. Thanks for sharing that.

Genesis 1, 26 QDS 36 § 2 (p.183, l.24) BP1 Genesis 3, 19 QDS 17 § 1 (p.170, l.17) BP1 Genesis 4, 9 QDS 42 § 10 (p.189, l.20) BP1 Isaiah 1, 18 QDS 39 § 4 (p.185, l.22) BP1 Ezekiel 18, 21 - 22 QDS 40 § 3 (p.186, l.16) BP1 Daniel 3, 50 QDS 41 § 7 (p.187, l.24 - V) BP1 Matthew 5, 3 QDS 16 § 3 (p.170, l....

I think it's safe to assume that Luke and John were later than Mark and Matthew - not in the least because that's what our earliest sources tell us.

But do any completely excise the passage? And in a text like QDS where Clement NEEDS the material to be there for his argument (or at least my reading of his argument)? Odd to have that excised at that critical moment.

Of the canonical four, Mark and Matthew. Please don't postulate that this was in Marcion. Please.

And just to make clear Ulan for the sake of edification the specific title "THE Apostle" or THE Spokesman is Samaritan. It is a title of Moses drawn from repeater references to Moses being sent by God to speak for him.

How is it explained that the "Mary and Martha" unit are known to everyone but the earliest gospels?

And interestingly the Martha passage uses a word derived from χράομαι: “Martha, Martha,” the Lord answered, “you are worried and upset about many things but (only) one thing is needed (χρεία). Mary has chosen what is the good (ἀγαθὴν) portion, and it will not be taken away from her.” [Luke 10:41, 42...