Toto

I did address your arguments, and your response implied that Walker might have deliberately picked a topic to inflame religious passion. I saw no reason to let that stand.

Ben C Smith

Thanks, David. I scanned through the list, but am unsure which item(s), if any, you were proferring as an example of a patronym suspended until the second (or later) mention of the name. (Lacking a patronym altogether is different than having one but saving it for later.)

Ben.

ETA: I missed your subsequent post the first time through. That is possibly a somewhat analogous case, but there are some issues, the most important of which is that description of a man in terms of his property does not seem quite the same thing as the usual name of father or family.

Amaleq13

Wow! That's going to seriously cut down on your reading list!! In fact, I'm curious as to what it leaves available.

Yes, how dare Toto demonstrate that you are, once again, talking out of your hat!! The gall of some people!!!

:rolling:

You are correct, obviously, that some basis must be presented for any particular claim of interpolation but that appears to have no relationship to anyone's argument against the short reference in Josephus. The true question is whether the bases that have been offered are sufficient for the conclusion. spin has pointed out what he considers to be problematic grammatical structure, for example.

jjramsey

To be fair, I'll note that Ben C Smith pointed out a problem with the grammatical objections.

the_cave

Vork doesn't seem to have answered, so I'll give it a go: I think you're confusing Hegesippus and pseudo-Hegesippus. Hegesippus is cited by--let me check--yes, Eusebius, who was fourth-century, so it is 3rd-century at the latest. If you assume that Hegesippus is authentic, it can be dated to the 2nd century--as the Catholic Encyclopedia (1st ed.) says: "The date of Hegesippus is fixed by the statement that the death and apothesis of Antinous were in his own time (130), that he came to Rome under Anicetus (154-7 to 165-8) and wrote in the time of Eleutherus (174-6 to 189-91)"

Pseudo-Hegesippus, on the other hand, is a Latin paraphrase of War of the Jews with some other additions. Its origin remains unclear. However, its author does seem to have used Antiquities to some extent. My guess is the author used War to use the fall of Jerusalem as a moral lesson, but maybe he just thought it was more exciting.

Edited to add: Oh, and pseudo-Hegesippus is dated to the late 4th c.

the_cave

Olson's argument is demonstrably faulty, IMO. But please note that this in no way proves that the TF is authentic.

I can run down its faults if there is any demand for it.

Toto

Well, yes, please explain. You can start a new thread if you want.

the_cave

Vork, do you have any opinions about how and where Jesus son of Damneus would have been mentioned prior to James? This has been discussed on IIDB before but no one has made any specific suggestions.

the_cave

Let me qualify that: there's some interesting evidence there that Eusebius at least tampered with the TF. I'm inclined to accept that there was at least some tampering, and Olson IMO makes the best argument for it.

Doug Shaver

Not until it is demonstrated that at no time during the first centuries of the era could Christians have had their own copies of a text.

Maybe I'm missing something that ought to be obvious, but I'm still waiting for someone to show it to me.

And who controlled and operated those gates between approximately 400 CE and 1400 CE?

The only scholars I have found espousing that notion are evangelical apologists, and even they apply it only to texts that support their dogma. They couldn't care less if someone told them that Plato had been miscopied.