Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

One general issue is the prima-facie plausibility of Pseudo-Hegesippus knowing Eusebius. This depends on the date of De Excidio but if you accept a date of before 378 CE, as I would, then it is prima-facie implausible that a Latin writer at that time would have known Eusebius. If you date De Excidi...

For those wondering, there has been a relative increase in recent literature arguing against the authenticity of 20.200 or at least claiming (without argument) it is inauthentic: Would you happen to have a publicly available git repo of your notes or bibliography list? Would you be interested in st...

As far as Pseudo-Hegesippus' De Excidio is concerned, I have a paper in submission on that topic. Allen basically just relies on Whealey and Paget (who relies on Whealey) for arguing independence and none of the arguments really make that much sense. On the converse, I think there are some really go...

Yeah, Dave's stuff has been an ongoing issue, and instead of responding to any criticism he usually just blocks people (basically any time I mentioned basic criticism he did; so I finally had enough and I wrote my own in-depth reply to him). He doesn't seem to have any single methodology or matrix f...

I am personally very excited for Livesey's book and will be reading it eagerly. My own book arguing against the authenticity of Philemon is going to be coming out hopefully this year as well, so Livesey's will be a nice complementary work. I am interesting to see what she says on it (and the others).

That still leaves us with the questions of a) why Origen would have thought the ‘called Christ’ phrase was in Josephus, and b) why Eusebius would have bothered to add it. I mean, even if he was puzzled by not finding the phrase Origen had cited, it seems unlikely that he’d have reacted by assuming ...

Chris Hansen has been keeping a list of others and could tell you more (and I would identify myself as a minimalist, not a mythicist; I do not deny the existence of an historical Jesus but think we know extremely little about him). I also would identify as a minimalist (not mythicist). For those wo...

I am resting my case specifically on how Josephus uses the two forms of adelphonymics without any apparent exception that I have yet found I understand what you're doing on that level, but you haven't answered the question of how you know that the distinctions that you're making are necessary in yo...

By ‘spontaneously’, I mean using the phrase where he wasn’t quoting it from someone else. In other words, the quote from Matthew isn’t Origen coming up with it ‘spontaneously’; he’s quoting someone else. Out of all the places in which Origen refers to Jesus, the only places in which he uses ‘called...

I discussed them above (samples 1 and 2). I went through every adelphonymic I could find in Josephus' extant work and observed how he used them. In the case of (1) he introduces a new character (x), and identifies a relationship to some figure (Y), which can be unknown. In cases where the related br...