spin

You were off the perch the first time you did this excision and look the rest isn't grammatical stuff, Ben C. It hasn't improved with retelling.

You can ultimately say what you like. But what you are doing is reheating the same silliness. And I don't understand why you bother, when it is so simple, as the example I gave shows.

But you handled the issue the same way: let's hack that out and oops it's not grammatical. Well, what did you expect?

I'm still bothered that you still feel it was necessary to ask.

I didn't. I argued against it in the second paragraph of my previous post. It doesn't change my complaint about your oops, it's not grammatical routine.

Yeah, honestly! You should use a little elbow grease after you get to the oops it's not grammatical stage. Does it require major surgery or not? If not, where's the beef?


spin

dog-on

How important was a historical root to the early orthodoxy's (mid second century) view of it's founder and the authority derived from apostolic succession?


How could such a reference, by a well known and respected Jewish/Roman historian have aided this Orthodoxy in establishing such a succession and rendering their opponents impotent?

How do you historicise(?) a fictional story?

I think these are the relevant questions...

Ben C Smith

I expected a full explanation, one that makes grammatical sense. Why you feel such an explanation to be unnecessary is, thankfully, not my job to explain.

I did not ask you (again). I asked dog-on (for the first time). That you are bothered by that is, again and thankfully, not my problem.

What my asking you the last time established (for me, at least) is that the accidental gloss hypothesis is more defensible than the intentional interpolation hypothesis. I am glad I see that, and I am therefore glad I asked you, no matter how much it may have pained you to have to answer it. Your oversensitivity is mystifying.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

They are relevant questions in their own right, but they do not answer the question I asked you.

Ben.

dog-on

Right you are! You asked me what suggests an interpolation. The answers to the questions I posed may help to provide an answer to your question.

Ben C Smith

The historical roots of the Jesus story had some importance in century II. For example, Justin tries to tie parts of the Jesus story in with secular records. But I do not think the apostolic succession would have been either helped or hindered in the slightest by a reference to Jesus or to James in the Josephan histories.

I do not think the Josephus reference(s) would have helped much in this respect at all.

Is this a trick question? Are you having to assume the Jesus story is fiction in order to argue for an interpolation in Josephus?

Ben.

spin

You didn't deserve a full explanation. Oops it's not grammatical. Of course, there's no need for it to be grammatical, when the text has been worked on and you cut out the material that is the substance of the problem. When you edit a text of your own and add in an extra phrase, you will neaten the grammar up due to the insertion. How do you expect someone else to know the exact form before you added the phrase?

I didn't say you did. I did say that you are doing the same basic thing again, a rather unnecessary step it is as well.

What is?

Your gripe here seems to me as much of a blunder as the analogous act was in our encounter on the issue of looking at a text after a section has been removed. It is normal for a philologist to be confronted with a lacuna, which yields a range of possible completions. It's not difficult. You create the equivalent of a lacuna when you excise the material; you should be able to see the range of possibilities. What is the benefit of asking, when you should just as easily be able to see the possibilities?


spin

Ben C Smith

I do not expect someone to know the exact form. I expect someone to either come up with a phrase that can be dropped grammatically or give an example or two of how the grammar might have been fiddled with. Nothing fancy. When I asked you about it you did it. You offered tina, but did not commit to it. That was appropriate and (I thought) painless.

It is also normal for a philologist to give possible reconstructions. That is what I am asking for.

If the rest of your post had any substance to it, I would most assuredly respond to it.

Ben.

Amaleq13

Eusebius was happy to point out that the Jewish historian found Jesus worthy of comment but he doesn't seem to treat it like a "cornerstone evidence" for much.

aa5874

I am dealing with the TF as it is represented, and it appears to be either a forgery or an interpolation after my research. Again, according to Josephus, the Christ was expected by the Jews and their wise men sometime around 70CE, therefore the Christ could not be dead already,30 years before, as stated in the TF.

Your assumptions and guesses about what may have been in the TF cannot be confirmed in any way, so, they are of no real value.



I do not know from where you get your assumptions.

Josephus did not refer to Judas the Galilean as the expected Messiah in any of his entire writings at any time. "Wars of the Jews" 2.8, "...This man was a teacher of a peculiar sect..."

Josephus did not refer to any Egyptian as the expected Messiah in any of his writings at any time.
"Wars of the Jews' 2.13, "But there was an Egyptian false prophet, that did the Jews more mischief......."

However Josephus did write that he considered Vespasian to be expected Messiah. "Wars of the Jews" 6.5, "Now, this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judea.

Your assumption is just a guess and does not deal with the issues at hand. What makes your guess about the TF factual or relevant?