Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Ulan that is correct. https://archive.org/details/canonsoffirstfou00brig (Greek) https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/nicea1.txt (English) CANON VII. Since custom and ancient tradition have prevailed that the Bishop of Aelia should be honoured, let him, saving its due dignity to the Metropolis, hav...

Further Jerusalem is now regarded as Holy, so we are probably well past Constantine. Here just a remark regarding this line of reasoning: I wouldn't really draw such a conclusion. Keep in mind that the Greek transliterations of Hebrew Yerushalaim in the Bible were Hierousalēm, Ierousalēm (Ιερουσαλή...

Ben, Andrew's point does tie the destruction of Jerusalem to the prophecy, but not the eschatological end times. The Marcionite text speaks more of an end time. That could have been motive to remove "This Generation." However this is not associated with the "abomination / sacrilege&qu...

Two comments. The desolation is Jerusalem with the armies surrounding it, clearly nothing to do with any sacrilege. This even carries over into Luke's version as verses 21:21-24 add nothing to it. Second, this generation is not present instead "heaven and earth,' meaning the entire concept of ...

FYI, the Marcionite text is missing "this generation" in verse 21:32 of Luke. Epiphanius makes explicit note that verses 21:18, 21:21-22 are not present. Zahn in his reconstruction also omits 21:23-24 (correctly). Further the text of verse 21:31 reads 'heaven and earth' instead of 'this ge...

The two stories about Jerusalem are from different sources in Galatians. verses 1:18-24 are at odds with 1:15-17, and 2:1 onward The secondary nature of 1:4-5 and of 2:7b-8 is well established. Verses 3:6-9, 11-12, 14-25 concern the "promise" replacement theology, fundamentally opposed to ...

I feel so tempted to pull a typical Stephen Huller antisocial response: "the view I am referring to of course" :cheeky: I mean the view that the passages in Mark could be first century that use Greek "Rabbi" and still be the original hand. Of course making them a later hand intro...

The term Rabbi appears to have come about no earlier than the very end of the 1st century, and more probably in the early 2nd century. Give it a generation or so to become widely known in the empire and you arrive at dates no earlier than the 2nd quarter of the 2nd century for Gospel usage, that is...

So far I know the view that the term „Rabbi“ is an anachronism in the Gospels (not only for the „time of Jesus“, but also for the usual date of GMark around 70 CE) assumes that this title was not in usage before 70 CE, probably not before 80 CE. It assumes that the title „Rabbi“ was a new creation ...

Peter has this, so can delete