Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 06-13-2013, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The OP asked a specific question about a text. This text does not depend on any characteristic of Josephus - whether he existed, or his worked were forged by Christians, or whether he was a priest. etc.

Please stick to the topic.

Though, whether Josephus existed or whether his works were forged by Christians is relevant to the relationship of his works to Christian works.

We don't know if he "existed" in some sense or another, but we know that we have the texts he supposedly wrote. That's all we have to work with.

We know that Christians preserved the texts and made at least one significant interpolation, but this is presumed to be around the fourth century. Duvduv is going off on a tangent arguing that maybe Christians wrote the original.

Duvduv · 06-13-2013, 03:27 PM

No, that is not exactly what I mean. It is possible that there were stories or some texts that survived the 1st century, and which got incorporated into Roman writings that became known under the pseudonym of Josephus (=Eusebius??!!). Not that the entirety of the texts were necessarily written from scratch by the Church.

Cesc · 06-14-2013, 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cesc

If I'm not mistaken, I believe Steve Mason (or via: amazon.co.uk) argues that the author of Luke and Acts knew and used Josephus' writings. This could be relevant, but dunno if he has anything about Jesus son of Ananias and Matthew.

Mason does not make that argument.

You could try to argue that Josephus' story is a reflection or parody of the gospel Passion story, but there are no indications that Josephus knew of the gospels.

Huh? I think you misread my post? I didn't talk about Josephus knowing the gospels, but the other way around.

Toto · 06-14-2013, 01:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cesc

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Mason does not make that argument.

You could try to argue that Josephus' story is a reflection or parody of the gospel Passion story, but there are no indications that Josephus knew of the gospels.

Huh? I think you misread my post? I didn't talk about Josephus knowing the gospels, but the other way around.

I didn't misread your post, I just added an irrelevant comment. Sorry,

aa5874 · 06-14-2013, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cesc

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Mason does not make that argument.

You could try to argue that Josephus' story is a reflection or parody of the gospel Passion story, but there are no indications that Josephus knew of the gospels.

Huh? I think you misread my post? I didn't talk about Josephus knowing the gospels, but the other way around.

I didn't misread your post, I just added an irrelevant comment. Sorry,

Are you going to withdraw the irrelevant comment because you may have knowingly mis-represented Mason?

Toto · 06-14-2013, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I didn't misread your post, I just added an irrelevant comment. Sorry,

Are you going to withdraw the irrelevant comment because you may have knowingly mis-represented Mason?

I have not misrepresented Mason.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-13-2013, 03:27 PM	#32
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	No, that is not exactly what I mean. It is possible that there were stories or some texts that survived the 1st century, and which got incorporated into Roman writings that became known under the pseudonym of Josephus (=Eusebius??!!). Not that the entirety of the texts were necessarily written from scratch by the Church.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.