Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Your koans are deflection. I don't know why we're even typing here lol.

StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 11:26 am Incorrect.

What's correct according to you?

If I understand correctly, the "18th century" paleographical conclusion - which could be imitation or genuine - isn't the main concern.

If I understand correctly, paleography does not include the study of whether a hand is instead a deliberate attempt at imitation.

The question becomes which arguments are persuasive that it was:

"a modern, later, anomalous imitation of c.18th-century handwriting"

his answer was that it was a modern, later, anomalous imitation of c.18th-century handwriting. To me, this answer can be described as stating that it is a forgery. Perhaps you think differently. I agree that it doesn't have to be complicated by additional hypotheses: "Did person X have an acco...

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 10:34 am Tell me which arguments for forgery that Tselikas brings up which you found persuasive.

Seems like a reasonable request...

Alright, then I still tend to think Basilides is best explained as knowing Luke. And I'm still not clear on what renders proto-Luke more than just a possible hypothesis. I addressed the issue of Basilides somewhere, but I can't find it. I think my point was that these comments about Basilides are c...

Alright, then I still tend to think Basilides is best explained as knowing Luke. 3) There is a third text in which Basilides appears to be commenting on the text of Luke, which is found in (Pseudo) Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, given here with David Litwa’s translation: ὁπότε οὖν ἔδει ἀρθ...

The references to death "for our sins" and a putative resurrection "on the third day" may be significant, coming immediately before the phrases κατὰ τὰς γραφάς. The appearances weren't said to be κατὰ τὰς γραφάς, and they would possibly provide a context for saying "that he ...

rgprice wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 9:15 am But its pretty obvious that Luke 1 & 2 are additions

This can be explained as part of Luke's expansion of *Ev and the other gospels.

The Luke 3 stuff (apart from a bit of Luke 3:1) can be additionally from this same author.