Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

If you can find me a commentary on any synoptic gospel that spends most of its time comparing the two feeding narratives to John I will give you $100. Why find a commentary that spends most of its time on the feedings comparing the two Matthean/Marcan narratives to John when not even Origen's comme...

If you can find me a commentary on any synoptic gospel that spends most of its time comparing the two feeding narratives to John I will give you $100. Why find a commentary that spends most of its time on the feedings comparing the two Matthean/Marcan narratives to John when not even Origen's comme...

Secret Alias wrote:What I meant about the Latin stuff is Origen's commentary starts to be preserved in Latin in the next book

I thought you were still in book 11 right now. There is still Greek text for the next few books, is there not?

I think this is a decisive passage because it takes the implausibility of Origen's analysis here to a new level. We all agree that this is supposed to be a Commentary on Matthew. If it was odd enough that Origen brought in John the last time (rather than a synoptic text) this time Origen does it ag...

Secret Alias wrote:But I don't know if that is really an objection....

And you are right about this. It is not an objection. It is a question.

But I don't know if that is really an objection because I am not arguing for a 1:1 identification of 'it' (the Alexandrian Diatessaron of Ammonius) with the Arabic Diatessaron. The fact that there is even a consistent relationship (my next one is quite interesting) is quite powerful I think. But th...

How much material overall is present , from among the canonical four, only in the gospel of Mark but absent from the Arabic Diatessaron? For example, when I turn to a pericope that contains much special Marcan material, Mark 1.35-38 = Luke 4.42-43 , I find the following, with the special Marcan mate...

I thought I had answered that when I initially hypothesized that Eusebius (or someone subsequent to Origen) recast the original text as a commentary on Matthew. Like asking why someone in an ape costume looks now like an ape. So you seem to be saying that Eusebius (or somebody) added many/most of t...

When Clement says this: As for Mark, then, during Peter's stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord's doings, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed. That was l...

I think you should take the credit for posting the text here based on Roth and BeDuhn. You did the formatting; you have posted the attestations and I think the translations from the Latin. Well, granted; I did the formatting, and I took the lists of references/sources from BeDuhn and Roth, tracked ...