Amaleq13

The answer to your question is in the very post to which you replied.

JoeWallack

JW:
Before I comment on the above Andrew is it originally your argument or someone else's?



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

driver8

I admit to normally just committing a drive-by here in the faint hope of finding something new or resolved. This is, however, just too rich to pass. dgeering caught Roger's pleading. Such irony.

Better yet is the response:

Anyone notice what was omitted in the response? Surely an accident?

Thanks for the chuckle, and pardon the interruption.

razlyubleno

It has been said before, and no doubt bares saying again: It is easier to criticize a position than to defend one. I take it you will do the honorable thing and return here once Richard has made a reply? Or do you simply enjoy taking pot-shots at dozing pigeons?

andrewcriddle

Hi Joe

The use of pseudo-Hegesippus as supporting evidence for the TF goes back at least to Whiston.

The particular form of the argument in the Older Thread is mine although it is obviously partly based on previous literature, particularly the book by Alice Whealey Josephus on Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk) and the critical edition of pseudo-Hegesippus by Ussani.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

It is virtually hopeless to use pseudo-Hegesippus, a writing that may also have been subjected to forgery, where authorship is uncertain or unknown, to try to ascertain or establish authorship of some other writing that may have also been forged.

Once ps.Hegesippus was dated after the TF then it cannot be ascertained that ps.Hegesippus was unlikely to use Eusebius since the author could have used the very same manipulated passage that was forged by Eusebius if it was indeed done by Eusebius himself

JoeWallack

JW:
Hi Andrew. Whealey looks like an Apologist to me.

http://vridar.wordpress.com/2009/03/...nst-hierocles/

Let's date Demonstratio Evangelica at c. 310 Eusebius of Caesarea

Let's date Pseudo-Hegesippus at c. 375 Pseudo-Hegesippus

Clearly on the wrong side (after) of Eusebius based on the External. Keep in mind that the External evidence is completely consistent. No evidence of the TF before Eusebius. Even worse, it looks like Eusebius uncovered it during his career.

Now on to the Internal, which is more subjective.

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=105512

JW:
We already have the following reasons to think it likely that E's TF is the original source for PH TF:

1) E is the only known source for the TF before PH.

2) The TF would be of huge interest to PH.

3) Approximately 65 years are between.

Nothing else is needed. Here though, note that what is supposedly reMarkable, no reference to "Christ", is not remarkable at all. We have the following reasons to doubt this proves E was not the original source for PH:

1) The PH style is paraphrase and "he was the Christ" is the most unbelievable part of the TF. A perfectly good reason to exorcise it.

2) Origen explicitly says that Josephus did not think Jesus was the Christ.

3) Jerome makes the same type of remarkable change, while almost certainly having E's TF available to him:

http://vridar.wordpress.com/2009/03/06/josephus/



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

andrewcriddle

Hi Joe

Do you think Pseudo-Hegesippus is using Eusebius directly for the TF or do you think he was using a manuscript of Antiquities which had already been interpolated under the influence of Eusebius ?

Both options are formally possible but both IMO have problems.
Which option do you think most likely ?

Andrew Criddle

JoeWallack

JW:
Let's start filling in the argument that the TF is F'd:

1) Discovery

1 - No evidence for the TF before Eusebius

1) General silence - expectation that if the TF existed
it would have been used due to its importance to
Christianity.

2) Specific silence - http://vridar.wordpress.com/2009/03/06/josephus/

ca.140’s CE Justin Martyr

ca.170’s CE Theophilus - uses Josephus

ca.180’s CE Irenaeus - uses Josephus

ca.190’s CE Clement of Alexandria - uses Josephus

ca.200’s CE Tertullian - uses Josephus

ca.200’s CE Minucius Felix - uses Josephus

ca.210’s CE Hippolytus - uses Josephus

ca.220’s CE Sextus Julius Africanus - uses Josephus

ca.230’s CE Origen - uses Josephus

ca.240’s CE Cyprian

ca.270’s CE Anatolius - uses Josephus

ca.290’s CE Arnobius

ca.300’s CE Methodius - uses Josephus

ca.300’s CE Lactantius

Of the 14 Fathers here who show no awareness of the TF
10 show use of Josephus. Comically, Roger Pearse started this
list in order to demonstrate that the Fathers in general would
have no interest in Josephus and ends up demonstrating that
the conclusion he disputes is correct.

2 - Evidence that the TF was created during the career of Eusebius

2) Familiarity - Parallels to Eusebius' own Adversus Hieroclem.

3) Language - The key phrases are generally Eusebian and not Josephan.

4) Context - The context of the TF is contrary to Josephus.

5) Manuscript - Relative uniformity of the TF post Eusebian.

6) Lack of any coherent argument for originality.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

andrewcriddle

One problem is that some of these writers did not necessarily know the Antiquities eg Tertullian and Theophilus use Against Apion and Minucius Felix uses the Jewish Wars, but they do not use the Antiquities

Andrew Criddle