Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I have found no evidence that the Latin was "bad." I have seen a lot of references to "good" or "bad" or high/low "quality" Greek/Latin on this forum that are practically meaningless. Specificity is everything here. If Suetonius had wished to indicate that ex...

In a Bryn Mawr Classical Review of H. Dixon Slingerland's Claudian Policymaking and the Early Imperial Repression of Judaism at Rome , South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism, 160; Scholars Press, 1997, Erich Gruen notes: Slingerland proceeds to take on the notorious crux in Suet. Claud . 24...

Iudaeos impulsore Chresto 1 assidue tumultuantis Roma expulit [hr] "Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome." . I suspect the Latin may not be as elaborate prose as that traditional translation, eg. "Roma expul...

Godfrey insists again and again on the his absolute certainty that the WWII is a fact with probability. WWII was and is a fact with 100% certainty. But he ignores the equally probable fact that within 10000 years, the human beings on the earth will share not the same certainty. Why are you doing th...

From what [Brodie] wrote, [quoted] above, I'd be surprised if Brodie would find any value in a whole cloth Eusebius TF interpolation. What is certain is that it is extremely risky to conclude that Josephus did not have access, direct or indirect, either to serious discussion with some Christians or...

I think he's saying that views about the Jewish deity among some 'non-orthodox' early Christian groups 1 aligned with interpretations of this verse. essentially, I think he did infer 'arose,' but I'm not sure (1) if he might only have inferred that so as not to entertain or invoke the issue of the r...

Brodie published Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus in 2012,
ie., before Ken Olson's "A Eusebian Reading of the Testimonium Flavianum" was published in 2013;
and it doesn't seem as if Brodie knew Olson, 1999: reference to it doesn't appear in the Bibliography.

I reckon, (1) given what ἐκ may mean, eg., 3.2. below, and (2) where ἐστὲ is, ie., at the end, that "ὑμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστὲ" may well mean: You [descended] from the father are of the devil; ἐκ (ek) ( governs the genitive ) 3. ( of origin ) ( of materials ) made out of someth...

Can someone explain this more clearly to me? The Greek is: ὑμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστὲ This literally translates to: You of the father the devil are Is this the "first genitive phrase"? ὑμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς is 'of the genitive' - πατρὸς is the genitive singular of πατερ, father (...

M David Litwa addresses John 8.44 in a 2020 article 'The Father of the Devil (John 8:44): A Christian Exegetical Inspiration for the Evil Creator,' Vigiliae Christianae 78: 540-65 and in a chapter in his 2021 book, The Evil Creator (essentially a shortened version of the 2020 article) In a footnote ...