spin

There is no logic here. You have shown no relation between Pliny's statement and that of Philo, so you can't make any statements of what is a secondary source. All you seem to be doing is accepting Elior's basic argument and running with it.

As you have no connection between Philo and Pliny, you have no reason to say this.

That in no way changes what I said.


spin

maryhelena

Indeed, which I think you know already.......

Solo

Ok, I see...but looking at the post #5881010 I still see a problem:

I am not sure what you mean by "mental antenna" but "picking up odd signals" sounds like someone is broadcasting thoughts to you, which is not a good sign. Be it as it may, I have not seen Josephus historicity questioned by reasonable people and especially not by the knight move in logic which questions his existence "simply" on the basis of the improbability of the TF, or disagreements that another historian in antiquity had with his works.

Your way of thinking nothwithstanding, it has been well established that Josephus is historical.

Jiri

maryhelena

Would *feeling* be a better word for you? Or how about *intuition*? Or even *gut reaction*? No psychology issues here I'm afraid - no voices in the night or dreams with messages - methinks we can leave all of that stuff to 'Josephus'...

"reasonable people" would not question the historical existence of 'Josephus'? I'm surprised that such an approach to an intellectual investigation would be even voiced! And, in fact when I wrote that original post on 'Josephus' I asked a question:

As I wrote, I have doubts - but am quite happy to look at any evidence that might put my doubts to rest....

Solo

Definitely better... But would call these notional bases the tools of historical investigation ?

Please, assure yourself that I did not say any such thing. I said I had not seen such an argument made by reasonable people. I did not say it was impossible a case for it could be made. Naturally, anything can be questioned. But the issue here is whether your doubts are conversant with rational thought or simply self-justified by the fact they occur.

I have not seen you produce a valid ground for questioning Josephus historicity. The likelihood that Josephus' work was interpolated, or the opinion that he was not a reliable as a historian are irrelevant in that query.


My good friend Lorri, who teaches high school math in Saskatchewan reported to me the increased incidents of her students to doubt the things we all in our teens happily took for granted. For example, the Pythagoras' theorem. When she asked one vocal opponent to explain her position, the student accused her of fixing the examples so it "would look like you want it". You mean like the square of the hypotenuse equal the sum of the squares of the triangle legs, asked Lorri naively. "Whatever.....I just want proof !" the student demanded. Lorri wanted to know what she would consider a proof. And the student, after a thoughtful pause, replied: "There is just no way the two small thingies of the triangle should even have squares on them !".

Some doubts are hard to fathom.

Jiri

the_cave

In defense of your friend's student, the Pythagorean theorem is in no way intuitive, and IMO should not be taken for granted simply because a math instructor states that it is true (though their word should count for something, after all!). Indeed, a good teacher should be able to provide the student with the proof they need without too many days' effort. (I suspect the student was protesting the use of 3-4-5 right triangles as an example of the theorem...it's easy to show that there are intuitive examples of the Pythagorean theorem, but harder to show that it is true in general.)

Indeed, the student had a rather interesting philosophical insight; geometry is in some important ways a human construct. The squares of a hypotenuse, and indeed even the hypotenuses themselves, are abstract concepts. This doesn't remove the veracity of geometry at all, but it does mean that some students will (rightly, IMO) resist being taught mathematical truths by rote methods. Their needs should be nurtured and answered, not mocked.

Anyway, back to 2 Cor 11:32.

Solo

I think you are reading something else into it than what the teacher was trying to convey: the obsessional thrashing of authority, (any authority) is out of hand. Thinking sucks; melodrama rules.

My impression of it was that there was no 'insight' in the student at all. She just could not handle abstracts assigned to her grade and sought to compensate her inadequacy by dreaming up a conspiracy.

It's ok when they do that (I did that). But the 'resistance' in Lorri's student was evidently to something else.

Jiri

spin

So we can't really get any further with you on the subject. The problems are obvious, why you're running with it isn't.


spin

Minimalist

I don't know guys, (and ladies). Goranson makes a pretty compelling case for Agrippa.

The ultimate defeat of this Parthian invasion by Herod the Great with Roman help would have been a prime interest to mid-first century AD Romans, who were still concerned with Parthia as a serious enemy. In any event, Agrippa (as a friend and confidant of Augustus) would be certain to have his work widely available in Rome. Can we say the same for Philo in the mid-first century AD?

We do know that the Greek version of The Jewish War was published in Rome c 78 AD and, as Pliny died in August of 79 (at the eruption of Vesuvius) it is at least possible that he had access to it and Natural History was published in Rome c 77-79 AD.

spin

Of course I'm sure he can make a similarly compelling case for Donald Duck. Did he show any comparable material to the Essene description that he can show was actually by M.V.Agrippa? (Short answer: no.) Geographical material is one thing, but wonderful vignettes are quite another.


spin