- Goto Message #
(18)David, I think GThom 13 is a critique of Thomas' predecessors, Peter, whose gospel was written by Mark, and Matthew, whose gospel was the second source. In
(68)Ron, You may be right about the points you listed. I, however, reject the common authorship of Luke and Acts, so I would not find many of the items you listed
(21)Maurice Casey came very close to the truth when he wrote: "..... Jesus spoke Aramaic. This creates a prima facie case for there having been Aramaic sources at
Fetching Sponsored Content...
(4)I have no intention of following Don all the way through Revelation. But the issue is Synoptically relevant. Briefly, then . . . 1. To call a text
E Bruce Brooks
(4)Thanks, Don. I like "The Hebrew Scriptures according to Matthew "! Chuck Sent from my iPhone ... Thanks, Don. I like "The Hebrew Scriptures according to
(299)Ron, I was suggesting that the style in which of some of Sondergut Mt and Sondergut Lk material is written might suggest they came from the same source, even
(3)Thanks, Bruce for (again) pointing me to these resources. Thanks, Chuck Rev. Chuck Jones Atlanta, Georgia Sent from my iPhone
(3)Great questions, David S. The oldest resurrection tradition is in I Cor. 15, where Peter is mentioned as experiencing the first vision of post-death Jesus.
(3)Emmanuel Fritsch cited Boismard to the effect that the women passages in Mark may be due to Lukan input. I very much don't think so. Further, I detect here
E Bruce Brooks
(18)David I, I like the way you state the test. I also agree with you that the fact that we have only a small portion of GHeb makes the test much more difficult to
(8)The arguments for alteration of Mk that amounts to free composition are strong. The primary two being: (1) Every bit of the massive addition advances the
View First Topic Go to