Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

dewitness wrote:This is passage is not from you. Why don't you identify your source? Merely repeating a passage with no explanation is of real value.

It starts with a J and ends with an osephus. Thanks, real value is what I do.

But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the...

Balderdash!

So far, MrMacSon, nobody in this thread but arnoldo has said that the reference is to the NT James and Jesus. The most significant disagreement has been whether it is an interpolation of 'the brother of Jesus, the one called Christ' (as spin has suggested?) or merely of the words 'the one called Chr...

The use of 'christ' does not appear in the Greek of Josephus outside of these two references in Ant. 20.9.1 and Ant. 18.3.3 (both probably spurious). Josephus nowhere else chooses to use such language to refer to the appointing of a high priest (or, indeed, at all).

I remembered that I didn't put Epictetus on my site for a reason. In the period between 70 and 135 AD, nobody (especially among the educated) in the Roman Empire could have been ignorant of the troubles caused in the east that resulted in the rise of a new imperial dynasty. That Epictetus calls them...

Yes, there is no evidence that the James of Ant. 20.200 (Ant. 20.9.1) has anything at all to do with the James of Christianity, beyond the obvious gloss, the coincidence of name, and the confusion of Origen and Eusebius on the matter. (Origen may just be reading zealously into the text of Ant. 20.20...

Detering mentions this: "Sed enim Marcion nactus epistolam Pauli ad Galatas..." ("But now, since Marcion discovered the letter of Paul to the Galatians...") from Tertullian, A.M. 4.3 He continues: "Tertullian clearly seems to allude here to the claim by the Marcionites, or ...

It is most amazing to me that scholars would accept claims by Irenaeus and Tertullian about Marcion when the very same scholarship almost universally reject their claims about authors, date of writing, chronology and contents of the Gospels and the Epistles. No more strange than that I could accept...

Not sure what you're implying (and why).