Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I might add a point about the potential relevance of the argument that Mark 1:2-3 were not part of the original text. In the view of Raschke , without those two verses the door to an entirely different (non-Elijah/OT) theological interpretation of John the Baptist's role opens -- an interpretation ...

Curiously, you had read in past this article of Couchoud/Stahl but without commenting further on it. The article says that it was actually not Jesus who was crucified, but Simon of Cyrene, or wait, but Barabbas. Furthermore, Barabbas was not Barabbas at all, but the son of the unknown god. I know y...

I don't think that eyewitness reports have anything to do with it. There is no reason to think that any part of Mark comes from eyewitnesses. Saying that, "if you believe that the Gospels are based on reports from eyewitnesses, then the titulus and the whole King motif in Mark 15 is most likel...

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 2:35 amIt seems likely in principle that a public execution would include some public explanation of the reason why the culprit was being executed.
...
This is oral not writtrn but the principle is the same.

Thanks Andrew. I think this case is a pretty good parallel.

Certain ideographic spellings in Babylonian cuneiform are often difficult to decipher; but when the reading is provided, every cuneiform scholar immediately recognizes that the reading is correct, just as someone who cannot read a rebus is still able to judge the correctness of a proposed interpret...

The parallel simply indicates a Concept that was well-known ... and therefore appeared as a Meme in varied works of the period. Perhaps in Josephus's version of Esther AJ 11.6.10 too (it's not in the Hebrew or Greek books of Esther) However he (Haman) went out, and led the horse, and took the purpl...

how do you know Philo isn't using Mark? it's not as if we have the virgin manuscript that Philo himself wrote while his wife brought him bagels. No, we have a copy that presumably was in Jewish hands for a century or more. If they objected to any of it (if? what am I saying!) they could easily put ...

JD Crossan wrote ( Who Killed Jesus? , pp. 124-125): Thanks. I've never read Crossan, but I like what he's written here. He carefully looks at the individual details and puts them in a meaningful context. His view has the advantage that you don't have to make many things up and read them into it (a...

What do YOU think Giuseppe? curiously, I think that the only theological reason to neutralize the Seditious Jesus Hypothesis in the specific case of the titulus crucis , is partially explained by Peter Kirby in this thread: Jesus is not the Christ: A Reading of Mark ... If I was without this theolo...

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 7:47 am It would seem difficult to argue for the likelihood that the nomen sacrum XU overline meant something other than Christou in this case.

Yes, very convincing.