(my formatting)
https://kenolsonsblog.wordpress.com/202 ... flavianum/
In that blog post I concluded:
There is thus a clear line of transmission from Eusebius to George Hamartolos to the Chronographer. This does not exclude the possibility that the Chronographer also had other sources for his Jesus material, but he had at least Hamartolos, which depends on Eusebius.
That quote is why I posted material from Kate Leeming's article. Dating manuscripts - in this case the Slavonic Josephus, does not date the stories they relate. That Hamartolos knew Eusebius is neither here nor there. The issue is the Slavonic stories themselves and how these stories relate to the gospel stories.
I appreciate that you have a theory to defend. I don't find it at all convincing that Eusebius, in attempting to discredit the Acts of Pilate dating re the 7th year of Tiberius - interpolated his TF into a contexts of 19 c.e. A context in which modern Josephan scholarship places Pilate's arrival in Judaea. (thus negating Eusebius's attempt to discredit the Acts of Pilate dating structure.) Modern Josephus scholarship aside, interpolation of a TF to a context of 19 c.e. -- after stating Pilate was only in Judaea in the 12th year of Tiberius -- negates his own argument.
Ken, that's all - I've no interested in debating with you - I reject your Eusebius TF theory - hence will continue to look elsewhere for arguments regarding the Slavonic Josephus stories and the Antiquities TF.
Statistics: Posted by maryhelena — Sun May 26, 2024 9:13 am