Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Ben Smith wrote: I plan to respond to the rest of your post at some point, but in the meantime: if Eusebius found nothing whatsoever in Josephus about Jesus, and if he penned the entire Testimonium (at least in one of its forms) in Josephus' name (even if he did not physically insert the paragraph i...

Ben Smith wrote: I have noticed that a lot of people, when referring to your work, assume that you are arguing for some kind of forgery. And that I argue that the Testimonium is in Eusebius's style, not Josephus' style. In fact, I don't actually use the word style or any of its cognates in either of...

Thanks, Andrew. I’m familiar with Casey Elledge. He recaps the witnesses of Jerome, Michael, and Agapius and observes: Such noncommital assessments of Jesus’ messiahship may more likely approximate Josephus’s original language prior to the blatant Christian redaction of the Greek version. He doesn’t...

Right; I meant specifically scholars who were convinced by Whealey's text-critical argument that credebatur/mistabra show that the original read "He was thought to be the Christ" because Jerome's and Michael's readings could not plausibly be explained any other way. There are several other...

Thanks for the Riesner citation, Roger. It looks like there's a library in my area that has Fleckenstein's book in storage. It may take me a while to get it.

Best,

Ken

I have a bibliographic question for anyone on the forum who has followed the scholarly literature on this issue. Can anyone cite a scholar who, in a published academic work, accepts Whealey's contention that the agreement between Jerome's Latin and Michael's Syriac versions of the Testimonium in the...

Ben, Thanks for the reply. Let me unpack the question I was asking. In your response in the other thread, you said Eusebius did not forge the passage about James the Just and emphasized the distinction between misquoting a manuscript (misattributing a quotation to an author might be a more precise w...

Over in The (Hegesippan?) list of Roman bishops thread, Ben Smith wrote concerning the passage concerning James, which Eusebius misattributes to Josephus in HE 2.23.20. Eusebius did not forge the passage. Had he added it (from Origen) to some physical manuscript of Josephus, that would be forgery. I...

Ben Smith wrote: I want to compile a list of passages for which arguments have been mounted (not merely suspicions coddled) in favor of Eusebius, instead of merely quoting a source, having actually forged that source, or at least added interpolations to it. Ben, have you looked at the examples in Sa...

The New Testament Review posted a new episode today (the *real* episode 19), on Roman persecution of Christians, with Ben Sheppard replacing Ian as Laura's co-host, The episode title says they're discussing de Ste. Croix's work, but it's really a more general discussion and they give about as much a...