SlowTrainComing

Nor has anyone else in this thread, even those making wild claims. Why aren't you railing on them?

oh... wait.. I got it.....

Toto

I gave you a link to Peter Kirby's massive study of the Testimonium, and you brushed it off.

But you are the one making claims here of contemporaneous or near-contemporaneous evidence, or that all scholars agree with a certain interpretation. We're waiting for you to back this up.

If someone else makes this sort of blanket assertion, you may also ask for sources.

SlowTrainComing

Because it was, for lack of a better term, silly. It presented no evidence as the the alterations of the text, rather a series of questions on the grammar used and a few opinions from the author thrown in. If you'd like me to believe for CERTAIN that the text was altered, especially that it was altered even beyond what we've discussed, then let's see it. But don't expect me to swallow grammatical differences as proof of a Christian conspiracy.

And anyway... are you going to admonish Keith, Equinox, etc. in the same manner as me? I don't recall either presenting scholarly works to further the discussion. Are they in trouble too?

Jeffrey Gibson

[QUOTE=SlowTrainComing;5440179]We can play this game all night, but until you show me the relevant need, [quote]

I told you why I thought it was relevant that you do so. I guess I didn't meet your standard of what constitutes "relevance".

In other words, your sources are crap. They do not represent, as you claim, what is said on the matter in question by the "rest of academia". They do not give the exact date you initially claimed they did for the composition of the Antiquities. And they do not include anything from acknowledged experts in the Antiquities.

I thought as much. Thanks for clarifying.

Jeffrey

Zaphod Beeblebrox

Funny you should be saying this . . .

SlowTrainComing

No, "relevance" would entail explaining why you doubt the widespread claim of a 93-94 publication. Since all you did was puff out your chest and post a Greek paragraph you now refuse to translate, you've refused to explain why I should take your doubts seriously enough to play your game.

Well, who do you consider to be "experts in the Antiquities"? My sources appear to be derived from Josephan biographers Maier and Mason. I assume you feel you have some magical rebuttal from underground scholars exiled from mainstream academia, and therefore are only known to you, or something?

Jeffrey Gibson

Ah the old fallacy of bifurcation piled high on a slice of red herring.

Should we take what you say about Josephus and Josephan scholarship as well informed and worth listening to or not?

Do you think you know what you are talking about when it comes to the claims you've made, including your claims that others are wrong in their claims about Josephus, or not?


Jeffrey

SlowTrainComing

I based that post on your words, not on mine.

You can take them for what they are. What I'd rather you didn't do is a) call me a liar, and b) pretend that I'M pretending to be the world's foremost expert on Josephus. I'm not. I've merely presented points gathered from a number of Josephan sources. I'm sorry they don't pass your test.

Which claims would those be again? Refresh me.....

On that note, I'm heading out for dinner. I may or not pop back in here this evening, but perhaps we'll continue this. Let it be known that I hold no ill will whatsoever.

Prayers all around and God bless all. Have a good night/weekend!!

~ Justin

Jeffrey Gibson

You've yet to show that it is widespread, especially in academic circles and among acknowledged experts in Josephus.


Yes, that's exactly what I did!

Mis-characterization two.

Appear??? So despite your claim to know what the rest of academia thinks on the date of the Antiquities, you're not actually directly acquainted with the works of Josephan scholars. You are relying on what you think, but do not know, is derived from the works of Josephan scholars, and you have no idea, not having read what Paul Maier and Steve Mason have written, whether your "sources" have accurately reproduced what M & M have said???:huh:

You can assume what you wish. But what is plain is that any assumptions you make are as well grounded and as well informed -- and therefore of the same value -- as are your claims about what the "rest of academia" says with respect to the dating of the Antiquities (and dare I say it?) the TF.


Jeffrey

Toto

I have had some private PM's with SlowTrainComing (must not turn that into slow train wreck) and I hope this thread will be a bit more productive if he comes back.