More "interesting" stuff at r/Academic Biblical

Pytine's comment and ex-Mormon's response are both "interesting," but I believe incorrect, especially no-Moremon.

First, Pytine.

The Cureton thesis on Ignatius is a minority view among scholars; Wiki has a decent summation of the issue. For more detail, see this link off a footnote there, that argues Ignatius had to have written post-140. It may not be a tiny minority view, but it's pretty darn small from what I read. That blows that idea out of the water, but with a 140s date, that as a terminus ad quem for the Gospels allows late dating of them. That said, there is another angle that might be possible. That is that the middle recension is original, but has interpolations, at least as we have it today; see Wiki's "authenticity."

The idea that Luke is dependent on the Gospel of Marcion, rather than him redacting Luke, I still find laughable. And, the Ockham's Razor claim by Pytine doesn't hold water. Rather, it's quite possible that, even though Luke went to Adam with his genealogy, vs Matthew to David, it was still too Jewish. Besides, there's Option 3, again per Wiki, that both derived independently from a common source document. In any case, the Lukan recension of Marcion holds less water when the Cureton idea on Ignatius is rejected.

No-Moremon? His buying the laughable theory, that still gets bruited, that Mark was writing in response to Caligula's proposed actions, is Not.Even.Wrong. Since Paul invented the Eucharist, how could Mark have written earlier? Crossley's theory is also laughable because it seems to be based on a Lukan-inspired take on the general historicity of a broad-ranging Council of Jerusalem.

No-Moremon then has a sub-comment to himself, but is brought up sharply by "Spike" on just what the "right hand of fellowship" in Acts probably actually meant. That said, Spike can be problematic and has been in the past; on this issue, citing THE R. Joseph Hoffman's take on the historical Jesus without noting RJ was once a mythicist, but abandoned that due to academic politics and more, is a lacuna. That said, RJ's hint that Judas Iscariot is really a cover for Judas the Galilean is interesting. But, the idea that Jesus was both a proto-Zealot and a member of the "fourth philosophy" is laughable.

For much more on the Marcionite vs Lukan priority, see this AB post. Per one commenter there, I agree, contra Pytine, and call it the "Gospel" of Marcion rather than seemingly privileging it by calling it the "Evangelicon."