Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Frans, I agree that Mark 13 (as well as Luke 21, and Matt 24) are pivotal. But it is always assumed that this pertains to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE! Instead, ponder these three segments: “One of his disciples said to him: ‘Look, Teacher, what large stones and what large buildings!’ Then...

And this is my thought: The authors of the New Testament tell not one, but two histories: The history of the Jewish rebellion against Rome -- all of it, from beginning to end. And the history of one messianic rebel leader -- active during a very limited period of time -- who probably survived and v...

Frans, I agree that Mark 13 (as well as Luke 21, and Matt 24) are pivotal. But it is always assumed that this pertains to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE! Lena, you give the impression that I only want to show that Mark 13 discusses the war against the Romans and the destruction of Jerusalem....

First I will give a little clarification on Paul and ‘it seems impossible that this Life (= Vita) story is the same story as the crucifixion story in the Gospels.’ The emphasis is indeed on seems . At first sight , starting from the NT texts as they have come to us, placing the core events of the Go...

As my theory consists of many different synergetic approaches, it will be difficult to summarize it briefly. I will start with the eye opener that launched my research many years ago. We’ll see how far we get. In the recent topic ‘The woman with the hemorrhage’ DC Hindley mentions the crucifixion of...

Since a discussion about different New Testament time shift scenarios arose under a previous topic (The Woman with the Hemorrhage), it was suggested that this discussion be moved to a new topic. I will attach two of my previous posts, with some elaboration. I hope other time shift scenarios will al...

Further commenting on DCHindley's statement that placing Jesus in a different era than the Gospels claim "requires a reason, and a means": The reason d) (the answer to "why the time shift?"): If Jesus, in reality, was not exactly the kind of person that the Gospels portray -- if...

The problem I see with a theory that "Jesus" (whether under that name or another) actually existed, but at a later time than Gospel and early Christian tradition places it, is that it requires a reason, and a means, to antedate the events by 40 years. It seems we are back to some sort of ...

In Josephus: Jesus' (son of Sapphas) + Eleazars (son of Ananias) joint appointment probably means that the revolutionary council believes that these two can work together, maybe they are friends. In John 11: Jesus is asked to come to the aid of Lazarus. I believe it is not difficult to conclude from...

[quote="Lena Einhorn"]To Frans: That Lazarus (Eleazar in Hebrew) is Eleazar son of Ananias is an interesting thought. As also Eleazar son of Ananias is a rebel leader in the Jewish war -- just like Eleazar son of Jairus -- it could of course be him. The replacement of "Lazarus" w...