Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 07-16-2012, 08:34 PM

Come on. Really? That's your explanation? Maybe next you'll use the Bermuda Triangle to explain the development of the canonical gospels.

Duke Leto · 07-16-2012, 09:44 PM

The canonical Gospels actually ARE made up. Why invoke anything to explain them?

You're STILL dodging the core question though. I'm no longer taking as a fact maryhelena's assertion that you're trying to disprove historicity of Herod Agrippa I because Price told me that he doesn't remember that from "Real Messiah". That leaves in question just what your hidden agenda is since you obviously have one.

If Mr. 147 wrote a history based on core Joseph's short work, then who's to say he didn't also make a reasonable attempt at historical accuracy based on other sources?

Not all the Church Fathers were lying, manipulative pedophiles, just most of them.

If Eusebius suppressed something in the canon, what was his motivation for doing so?

All you have now is a conspiracy theory and you have yet to explain the motivations of all the conspirators.

You obviously think your discovery changes history somehow and you aren't sharing how.

Perhaps we can agree that this site, which comes up when you Google Josephus and Clement of Alexandria, is certainly the work of a diseased mind.

stephan huller · 07-16-2012, 10:49 PM

Why do I have to have an agenda. Does the philanderer need a secret agenda other than the pleasure he receives from womanizing Does the glutton need any justification more than the taste of good food and wine? Does the gambler need any other motivation other than his compulsion?

I enjoy solving puzzles. Besides my vice is cheaper than whore mongering, gluttony and gambling.

Duke Leto · 07-16-2012, 11:44 PM

Fine. So what's the puzzle solution?

Even IF Mr. 147 is the genuine author or redactor and not simply someone who is quoting Antiquities, what then? Since he's only 50-60 more years removed from the events than we assume the current Josephus was, why assume he must have been any more unreliable?

Are there any revisions you are proposing to Hasmonean-Herodian Jewish History based on distortions in the historical record by Mr. 147? If so what are they and why were they made?

Do you believe Eusebius made any additions or deletions besides the change in attribution? If so, what were they and why?

If no deliberate changes were made to the historical record, then one is equally justified in believing that Mr. 147 was the author (or redactor) as one is in attributing it to 1st Century Joseph who Mr. 147 quoted in a chronological context and was in turn quoted by Clement and the other guy.

Either is justifiable because it makes no difference... but even still, Occam's Razor says 1st Century is the way to go because it's a less complicated explanation.

SO, does this change history or doesn't it?

stephan huller · 07-17-2012, 12:03 AM

When Bob knew me back in the day my interest was always Marcionitism. It is still is to a large part. The question that has always interested me is HOW we come to know what parts of the canonical gospels are later additions. Many people have suspected that the final redactor of the gospels used Josephus in various places in his new narrative(s). I also think the gospels were redacted much later than let's say Trobisch or Hengel think they were compiled. Luke only gets mentioned with Irenaeus and John runs into opposition in Rome as late as the beginning of the third century.

I don't think it is that unrealistic to imagine that the four canonical gospels were designed to fit together as a set. To this end, adding Josephus was done at the time of redacting - my guess 180 - 200 CE. If the Diatessaron was part of the dissemination process then Josephus needed to be only added once originally and modified by a late second century redactor with slight modifications in each text of the set (to make it seem a natural addition). How else can the story of John the Baptist being beheaded for example?

maryhelena · 07-17-2012, 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duke Leto

I'm no longer taking as a fact maryhelena's assertion that you're trying to disprove historicity of Herod Agrippa I because Price told me that he doesn't remember that from "Real Messiah". That leaves in question just what your hidden agenda is since you obviously have one.

Duke Leto - you don't have to take my word for it. Stephan has made plain the fact that he does not accept the Josephan history that there were two Jewish Kings by the name of Agrippa.

Quote:

The real issue for me is that the rabbinic literature only knows of one Agrippa not two. I know that there are lots of stupid biographies in the rabbinic literature (the story that Nero was a proselyte stands outhttp://www.jstor.org/pss/1453470) but there are certainly others.

But why don't the Jews act as if there is just one Agrippa? Why do they preserve traditions that he was the messiah? Why does Alexandrian Christian exegesis agree with the rabbinic sources insofar as Agrippa being the messiah of Daniel 9:26? Is the 'Jewish history' that Origen cites as confirming Agrippa as the messiah of Daniel a variant text of Josephus or the Chronicle of Justus of Tiberias, Agrippa's secretary? The last answer seems right. But as I have pointed out many times elsewhere if you actually look at the structure Josephus's narrative (forget about the whatever changes might have been made by Christian editors) the account of the destruction perfectly fits the standard Jewish and Alexandrian exegesis where Agrippa is 'cut off' after attempting to get the Jews to give up their revolt in its early stages and then he 'disappears' from the narrative basically, confirming the Hebrew of Daniel 9:24 - 27.

<snip>

In short, whenever I justify my use of rabbinic material for the construction of my argument that there was only one Marcus Agrippa rather than two I was not thinking of undateable anecdotes in either Talmud. As for the reliability of the process, here is one striking instance. The Tosefta, the halachic midrashim, and the Palestinian Talmud preserve enough information about the High Priest Yishma‘el ben Piyavi [Greek Phiabi] to show that he was a Sadducee, though the reader has to see the evidence and put it together. This person is always mentioned with respect as the first link in the chain of transmission of older metaphysics into the Rabbinic system!

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....57#post6442857

my bolding

=============

footnote:

Quote:

Indeed it is only in Josephus that we find it suggested there were two Marcus Agrippas. This is a preposterous idea in Jewish terms since it is impossible amongst Jews for father and son to bear the same name.

The Real Messiah (or via: amazon.co.uk) Stephan Huller

Duke Leto · 07-17-2012, 12:26 AM

Matthew and Luke were obviously written independently of one another based on Mark and Q because their infancy narratives are contradictory.

If the canonical Gospels were written at one time and in one place and Josephus was modified at that time to corroborate the narrative, then the person writing Matthew and Luke would have to have been a complete and utter moron.

If you have control of the text of Josephus then you should have messed with the sequence of Archelaus's reign in Judea so that it isn't obvious that Matthew places the birth of Jesus at the beginning of his reign while Luke places it at the end. If not that then the LEAST you should have done is harmonized the two infancy narratives.

The theory won't hold water.

And you STILL aren't giving a simple and direct list of which parts of Antiquities and the Jewish War are fake and why they were changed.

I'm trying to be reasonable here. Any historian interested in provable facts rather than clever ideas WILL ask these same questions of you.

stephan huller · 07-17-2012, 12:57 AM

I didn't say WRITTEN, I said REDACTED. Luke is unknown before Irenaeus. Patristic evidence says that Matthew was formerly called 'the Gospel According to the Hebrews' or something like that. Irenaeus cites material as being in Mark which is no longer in Mark. John as it stands strangely doesn't make reference to the Transfiguration of which John is said to have been a witness in the synoptics. Parts of John must have been in the Marcionite gospel given that Marcion is said to have identified Paul as the Paraclete. The list goes on and on.

Duke Leto · 07-17-2012, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I didn't say WRITTEN, I said REDACTED. Luke is unknown before Irenaeus. Patristic evidence says that Matthew was formerly called 'the Gospel According to the Hebrews' or something like that. Irenaeus cites material as being in Mark which is no longer in Mark. John as it stands strangely doesn't make reference to the Transfiguration of which John is said to have been a witness in the synoptics. Parts of John must have been in the Marcionite gospel given that Marcion is said to have identified Paul as the Paraclete. The list goes on and on.

So? Almost nobody on this site is going to argue that the Gospels are historical sources of any value whatsoever or imagine for a second that they ought to be attributed to the traditional authors.

Doesn't answer my questions. If the Gospels and Josephus were redacted into their final form in the late 2nd century why not use the opportunity to correct the glaring contradictions?

I didn't ask about redaction in Gospels, I want to know what changes were made to Josephus and why. Why do you keep dodging this question?

stephan huller · 07-17-2012, 01:09 AM

I don't see what view I have of how the four gospels were redacted has any relevance on the question of whether Clement and Epiphanius are witnessing a second century Josephus.

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

07-16-2012, 08:34 PM	#161
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Come on. Really? That's your explanation? Maybe next you'll use the Bermuda Triangle to explain the development of the canonical gospels.

07-16-2012, 09:44 PM	#162
Duke Leto Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Philadelphia, PA Posts: 3,387	The canonical Gospels actually ARE made up. Why invoke anything to explain them? You're STILL dodging the core question though. I'm no longer taking as a fact maryhelena's assertion that you're trying to disprove historicity of Herod Agrippa I because Price told me that he doesn't remember that from "Real Messiah". That leaves in question just what your hidden agenda is since you obviously have one. If Mr. 147 wrote a history based on core Joseph's short work, then who's to say he didn't also make a reasonable attempt at historical accuracy based on other sources? Not all the Church Fathers were lying, manipulative pedophiles, just most of them. If Eusebius suppressed something in the canon, what was his motivation for doing so? All you have now is a conspiracy theory and you have yet to explain the motivations of all the conspirators. You obviously think your discovery changes history somehow and you aren't sharing how. Perhaps we can agree that this site, which comes up when you Google Josephus and Clement of Alexandria, is certainly the work of a diseased mind.

07-16-2012, 10:49 PM	#163
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Why do I have to have an agenda. Does the philanderer need a secret agenda other than the pleasure he receives from womanizing Does the glutton need any justification more than the taste of good food and wine? Does the gambler need any other motivation other than his compulsion? I enjoy solving puzzles. Besides my vice is cheaper than whore mongering, gluttony and gambling.

07-16-2012, 11:44 PM	#164
Duke Leto Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Philadelphia, PA Posts: 3,387	Fine. So what's the puzzle solution? Even IF Mr. 147 is the genuine author or redactor and not simply someone who is quoting Antiquities, what then? Since he's only 50-60 more years removed from the events than we assume the current Josephus was, why assume he must have been any more unreliable? Are there any revisions you are proposing to Hasmonean-Herodian Jewish History based on distortions in the historical record by Mr. 147? If so what are they and why were they made? Do you believe Eusebius made any additions or deletions besides the change in attribution? If so, what were they and why? If no deliberate changes were made to the historical record, then one is equally justified in believing that Mr. 147 was the author (or redactor) as one is in attributing it to 1st Century Joseph who Mr. 147 quoted in a chronological context and was in turn quoted by Clement and the other guy. Either is justifiable because it makes no difference... but even still, Occam's Razor says 1st Century is the way to go because it's a less complicated explanation. SO, does this change history or doesn't it?

07-17-2012, 12:03 AM	#165
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	When Bob knew me back in the day my interest was always Marcionitism. It is still is to a large part. The question that has always interested me is HOW we come to know what parts of the canonical gospels are later additions. Many people have suspected that the final redactor of the gospels used Josephus in various places in his new narrative(s). I also think the gospels were redacted much later than let's say Trobisch or Hengel think they were compiled. Luke only gets mentioned with Irenaeus and John runs into opposition in Rome as late as the beginning of the third century. I don't think it is that unrealistic to imagine that the four canonical gospels were designed to fit together as a set. To this end, adding Josephus was done at the time of redacting - my guess 180 - 200 CE. If the Diatessaron was part of the dissemination process then Josephus needed to be only added once originally and modified by a late second century redactor with slight modifications in each text of the set (to make it seem a natural addition). How else can the story of John the Baptist being beheaded for example?

07-17-2012, 12:26 AM	#167
Duke Leto Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Philadelphia, PA Posts: 3,387	Matthew and Luke were obviously written independently of one another based on Mark and Q because their infancy narratives are contradictory. If the canonical Gospels were written at one time and in one place and Josephus was modified at that time to corroborate the narrative, then the person writing Matthew and Luke would have to have been a complete and utter moron. If you have control of the text of Josephus then you should have messed with the sequence of Archelaus's reign in Judea so that it isn't obvious that Matthew places the birth of Jesus at the beginning of his reign while Luke places it at the end. If not that then the LEAST you should have done is harmonized the two infancy narratives. The theory won't hold water. And you STILL aren't giving a simple and direct list of which parts of Antiquities and the Jewish War are fake and why they were changed. I'm trying to be reasonable here. Any historian interested in provable facts rather than clever ideas WILL ask these same questions of you.

07-17-2012, 12:57 AM	#168
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I didn't say WRITTEN, I said REDACTED. Luke is unknown before Irenaeus. Patristic evidence says that Matthew was formerly called 'the Gospel According to the Hebrews' or something like that. Irenaeus cites material as being in Mark which is no longer in Mark. John as it stands strangely doesn't make reference to the Transfiguration of which John is said to have been a witness in the synoptics. Parts of John must have been in the Marcionite gospel given that Marcion is said to have identified Paul as the Paraclete. The list goes on and on.

07-17-2012, 01:09 AM	#170
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I don't see what view I have of how the four gospels were redacted has any relevance on the question of whether Clement and Epiphanius are witnessing a second century Josephus.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.