Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

To me your struck-out words (I have them in brackets above) do not really improve my understanding of the existing text. Unfortunately, my Latin is practically non-existent (Oh ... I have dictionaries and a grammar and some lexicons, pretty basic). I was trying to show how little of the content of ...

For me the strongest point against authenticity is the silence in Christian sources about any such persecution in Rome: this point is confuted very well by Anthony Barrett. I invite you to read about it. If christians were executed publicly, then knowing Tacitus is not necessary. The only manuscrip...

It is thought to be highly improbable that a 4th century Christian could have emulated the great historian so convincingly. The style is perfectly “Tacitean.” But most of the story could have been from Tacitus , with only the names switched out— Sed non ope humana, non largitionibus principis aut de...

From an older thread : There is a good discussion of the Testimonium Taciteum in a recent publication by 3 classical scholars: The Emperor Nero: A Guide to the Ancient Sources (Princeton UP, 2016), by Anthony Barrett, Elaine Fantham, & John Yardley (pp. 161-170). About Tacitus’ incorrect identif...

The LXX concordance at Blue Letter Bible gives 12 instances of the adjective χρηστός ("good"). In 11 out of 12, it is "The Lord" who is called good. (κύριος, with or without the article). Of these, 9 appear in Psalms. The others are at Jeremiah 33:11 and Nahum 1:7. In 6 cases the...

The gospel of Marcion being the first gospel is a seducing idea but Marcion was anti-jewish and didn't like the OT. :consternation: This is like saying “I’m not sure that Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence because he was racist.” Then why can we read multiple references and midr...

Klinghardt’s book has been out for a little while. Has anyone studied Volume 1? Is it the great work of our time, or not worth the price?

Most of chapter 9-11 is post-marcionite patchwork par excellence, not just 9:15. I completely agree. 9–11 reflects a 2nd century context, and all I have been saying is that 9:5 is an even later gloss upon it. It doesn’t fit what the author of Romans 9 would have been talking about, and reeks of a C...

A recent translation of Seidel into Spanish is here.

Obviously Seidel was a post-Reformation figure; not c. 1500 but 1600.

I recently read a decent (but not great) scholarly history of Socinianism in England, but it has no mention of Seidel.

The Socinians were the first the raise basic historical questions about the NT. I think Schweitzer is right to the extent that historical ideas were hopelessly muddled well into the middle of the 18th century, when all minds were sunk in the quest for true religion . By the time of Reimarus and Rous...