(April 8, 2020 at 5:58 pm)Jehanne Wrote:(April 8, 2020 at 10:54 am)Vicki Q Wrote: I'm surprised that you think that, given it is the consensus of scholarship that they are. Indeed, so assumed is it that writers are using that as a basis for implications
To be fair, they are widely recognised as being far more than simple bioi. Luke subverts the thrust and context of pagan bioi by proclaiming his monotheistic theology. Matthew tells it as a conclusion to the Jewish story. Etc.
But they are all for sure within the category of bios.
The reference from your Wikiipedia article is from 2004, but, fine, then I am happy to reject the "scholarly consensus"! The scholar whom I trust, Professor Bart Ehrman, is the author of the following (now in its 7th edition):
The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings 7th Edition
Can't recommend Professor Ehrman's writings enough!!
BWAHAHAHA. Two or three days ago, I saw a religious cretin in debate with Bart actually accuse him of not understanding the bible (Licona I think).
They don't care about truth. At all.
