pinkvoy

would you mind deleted aaa's responses and possibly mountainman then as totally unrelated?

pinkvoy

How is it out of place? Josepheus also occassionally digressed.

A manuscript with the proposed TF would show that Josepheus made a free association of Pilate with Christians. It would also show Josepheus accepted Jesus as a historical figure.

pinkvoy

Let me repeat this,

finding an early copy of the TF that reads as described in the OP would show that it was not forged. It is textual evidence Josepheus accepted Jesus as a historical figure.

pinkvoy

silence?

The version of the TF with Christian interpolations removed would not need to be commented on.

aa5874

Now, you blatantly argue from silence.

pinkvoy

would you please provide specific instances in which TF' would be required in a second or third century writer, such that the failure to allude to TF' shows it must be a forgery as the best explanation

aa5874

Let us NOT get diverted from your blatant argument from silence.

You have been Exposed as one who argues from silence.

LegionOnomaMoi

Forgive the following anecdote, as I'll explain the relevance: My grandfather finished his dissertation ("De consonantibus quae laryngophoni vocantur, praecipue quod ad linguam antiquam Graecam attinet") and obtained his PhD age 25, shortly after the US entered WWII. After receiving his doctorate, he joined the OSS. While in Italy he met Benedetto Croce, a philospher. According to my grandfather, he wanted to give Croce a gift, and searched high and low for something adequate, but found only an old book (I forget what it was).

I wasn't there. I wasn't even alive. I wasn't in my "prime" when I heard that story the first time, or the second, or ever (he died about 10 years ago). In fact, it was about 40 years between the time this incident with my grandfather and Croce happened and my birth.

Yet, despite the length of time which passed between this event and my "prime" (much longer than the 30 years you mentioned), I know about it.

The point is that counting years can be quite deceiving. An eyewitness reports seconds after an event can be quite wrong. There was an experiment in which subjects walking alone through campus were stopped by an experimenter and asked for direction. While these were given, two others who were in on the experiment and were dressed in construction outfits (hardhats, toolbelts, etc.) passed through the two people talking with a board. Crouching behind the board was a third participant who (when the person who had asked for directions was completely obscured by the board) switched places with the the person getting directions. After the subject finished giving directions, she or he was asked whether or not s/he noticed the switch. A significant number did not even notice that the person they had been talking to was replaced by a completely different person.

That's a period of a few minutes. I can report part of an event which happened ~40 years before I was born. In fact, although my grandfather never told me, my father told me about my grandfather's experience in a math class taught by Alfred North Whitehead. That's even longer ago, and it is secondhand information. Yet I know of it. This is true of most people (they see things they forget right away but can recall accounts they were told as children).

Don't get hung up too much on intervals of time.

aa5874

Again, you just post rhetoric.

Please, if you were ever to be questioned by the Police about any matter please try to REMEMBER what you just said.

Never change your story or else you might become a suspect. Try to improve your short term memory.

LegionOnomaMoi

You realize that one definition of rhetoric is effective use of language and convincing arguments? It was actually a discipline for centuries.

Here's the experiment: "Failure to detect changes to people during a real-world interaction."