Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Stuart Just to keep things real. You keep claiming that you don't engage in personal attacks but the tone of all your posts displays the opposite: Stephen, You are becoming unglued again. What you don't seem to get is that people like you want this to be about YOU and the opinions YOU LIKE. So you b...

Well because my argument made sense to Andrew I thought because one person got it everyone was on board. All the terms connected with χράομαι throughout the section should be render as 'thing' or 'things' which allows the juxtaposition (which Andrew notes Clement already draws our attention to in Lu...

Let's look at how Lukan material is used by Clement. First let's make the Lukan sections blue and cite the material: QDS chapter 1 Mark 10, 18 QDS 1 § 2 (p.159, l.8) Luke 18, 14 QDS 1 § 4 (p.160, l.3) BP1 “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those...

By all means continue following the suggestion of Neil. I would like to complete my little investigation into Clement as it is our only ACTUAL bit of evidence for the transmission of the narrative. Now to turn around the list of citations to match the order of QDS QDS chapter 1 Mark 10, 18 QDS 1 § 2...

Part 2 Mark 10, 18 QDS 1 § 2 (p.159, l.8) Luke 18, 14 QDS 1 § 4 (p.160, l.3) BP1 Matthew 5, 16 QDS 1 § 4 (p.160, l.12) BP1 Mark 10, 27 QDS 2 § 2 (p.161, l.3) BP1 Mark 10, 25 QDS 2 § 2 (p.160, l.21) BP1, 2 § 2 (p.161, l.2) BP1, 3 § 1 (p.161, l.14) BP1 Matthew 19, 17 QDS 3 § 1 (p.161, l.15) BP1 Luke 1...

Yes. The guy who is interested in the 'gay narrative' of David and Jonathan.

'The evidence' = whatever is actually available, no matter how paltry. Part 1 the acknowledged allusions to the gospels in QDS: Matthew 5, 3 QDS 16 § 3 (p.170, l.12) BP1, 17 § 5 (p.170, l.33) BP1, 19 § 2 (p.172, l.2) BP1 Matthew 5, 6 QDS 17 § 5 (p.170, l.34) BP1 Matthew 5, 8 QDS 19 § 3 (p.172, l.5) ...

The paucity of references to Luke 10:41, 42 is extremely unusual especially when juxtaposed against Clement's casual 'you know that Mary and Martha story ...' comment. Whoever he was writing for clearly knew the story.

But you realize there is no actual EVIDENCE for any of this right? Not even Clement's use of the passage which I find particularly interesting. A stronger circumstantial case can be made for Secret Mark or whatever Origen's gospel was in the Commentary of Matthew as Clement's source than what you ar...

No but Gregory Thaumaturgos was so named