Keith&Co.

Slow, it is exactly not my fault that you're the one that posits a date range from diapers to, well, diapers again. If you want to be taken credibly, maybe think a bit before posting.

Meatros

...So how do you know it's not true if you have no personal insight into it at all?

I agree that in debate, generally, 'almost universally admitted' can be a loaded statement - but when it is, you generally should have knowledge about it being so prior to saying it is. For example, saying that it is 'almost universally admitted' that the earth goes around the sun is a loaded statement - but it's also one that is true.

Point being, without any personal insight into the matter, how do you know that there is *any* dissention with the opinion that the TF has fabricated parts? In short, how do you know it's not on the same solid ground as the statement that the earth goes around the sun is 'almost universally admitted'?

You don't.

I think there is a communication problem - my point is that it's obvious that the works were altered. I'm a layman with a passing interest and they appear obviously altered to me. My point of contenion with you is that you suggested that there was a number of people who *did* dissent from what (I take to be) is obvious.

I feel like I'm in a monty python sketch. You are changing your story here. You initially attempted to argue that some people (scholars?) didn't think the Josephus TF had any interpolation in it - that it was genuine. That's what you meant (unless you ROYALLY screwed up english!) when you wrote this:

It doesn't matter at all what your personal feelings toward the TF being an interpolation are since you made the claim that other's believe that the TF are genuine.

So are you now retreating to the position that no one accepts the idea that Josephus' TF does not include at least some interpolation?

Meatros

I concede that this is an interesting point, when faced with just the passage quoted. However when put into the context of the rest of Josephus's writings, I think it's quite clear that this isn't the case.

Or do you disagree? If you do, or if SlowTrainComing still wants to back his claim that *some* (not necessarily himself) people (scholars?) disagree then please present some evidence.

Equinox

STC pointed out that Jeff Gibson & Toto dispute the 94 date for Josephus. how about we just make this discussion simpler by accepting a date of 94 for josephus? It's really a side issue that doesn't deserve our time, and STC's claim of "myriad" "contemporaneous" accounts of Jesus' life isn't helped by Josephus anyway.

Jeffrey Gibson

It is? On what basis?

Quite a change from your previous assertion of 94 as its indisputable and (reputedly) academically undisputed date! So, despite what you said previously, you do have reason to doubt what the many (but as yet unnumbered and unnamed) sources "you've read" said was the case?

Please show me where I ever made a claim that Josephus wrote the Antiquities "outside of his life time" or that I have evidence that presents Josephus as doing so?

And please tell me why you are not taking into account the evidence I provided you from Josephus himself regarding when he wrote The Antiquities.

Jeffrey

SlowTrainComing

I don't!! Never said I did!! NEVER at ANY point did I claim that I knew his works weren't altered!! NEVER!! Never ever!! Wow, this can be exhausting.

Again, all i did was correct that person's statement that it was "almost universally admitted" by stating that "some believed so." In essence, I corrected from "almost definitely" to "maybe," since a statement like "almost universally admitted" paints too jaded a picture.

You are free to believe that. But if you believe that Josephus' HISTORICAL claims of Jesus' life were invented by an outside party, you'd be best served to present that claim with a little backing. Otherwise, it's just some dude saying it.

Huh?

SlowTrainComing

Just unreal.

93-94 is its indisputable date according to every source I've seen. My 37 - 100 range was sarcastic.

In what year was it published, then?

Jeffrey Gibson

[QUOTE=Equinox;5440041]STC pointed out that Jeff Gibson & Toto dispute the 94 date for Josephus. how about we just make this discussion simpler by accepting a date of 94 for josephus?

Because that's not what Josephus himself says about when he wrote The Antiquities. And contrary to what STC claims, 94 is not what is "recorded academically" and is "universally understood to be" the date of the Antiquities' composition.

Bad scholarship is never a side issue when the "scholar" who is mired in it keeps claiming to be superior in his knowledge of the things being discussed.

Jeffrey

Meatros

Once AGAIN, I'm not claiming that you said that his works weren't altered.

Get that through your head - I'm not saying you personally feel the TF is authentic.

THIS (not your personal opinion) is what I have been questioning; ie, WHICH SOME BELIEVE SO.

In short you seem to be <wrong> when you said some, since you haven't been able to produce these 'some'. You simply disagreed because you were incredulous.

Correct???

I don't even know what you mean by 'historical claims of Jesus' life'. I haven't been arguing about that as far as I can tell (depending on what you mean). All I have been arguing is that it's obvious that the TF has interpolation. You said 'some' would disagree - we haven't gotten past that point and you keep attempting to steer into a strawman by suggesting that I am saying that *YOU* think that the TF is authentic.

If you believe that some (scholars? Laymen? aliens) think that the TF is 100 percent authentic, then please provide evidence of this.

Jeffrey Gibson

That you won't tell us your reasons for your belief? Yes, it is.

And what besides Wiki are the sources you've seen? Do they include Mason, Feldmann, Thackery, etc. (Do you even know who these fellows are?) Why won't you tell us?

I've given you the answer in the text of Josephus I quoted. Can you not read it?

Jeffrey