Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

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.

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 ἀρθῆ...

There's always another 'possible' hypothetical. How is this (so far undefined) "proto-Luke" a better hypothesis?

Origen: "if any one who is a man mortifies the lusts of manhood ... he the greatest in the kingdom of heaven." Commentary on Matthew 13.16 "For Jesus called a little child," [Matthew 18:2] etc. But first we may expound it in simple fashion. One, expounding the word of the Saviour...

According to Origen in the Commentary on Matthew, the prince of this age, however, acted out of ignorance, "since none of them knew the wisdom of God which was hidden in a mystery." [1 Corinthians 2:7-8] Let it be granted, then, that, as in the case of Job, the Father first delivered up th...