Chris Weimer

Ad hominem attacks are irrelevant to the discussion. Expletives carry a point, ad homs don't. The focus is evidence.

Of course - however, because person X has analyzed it, doesn't make it factually accurate, nor the accepted opinion, nor correct. This is, after all, a discussion board, and not a "read a book by some known author" forum.

I never said it has been answered definitively, which is why debate on the subject still exists. Instead, if we don't familiarize ourselves with previous arguments, especially ones easily accessible here, than we are, in effect, asking a stupid question. As I said, there's nothing wrong with bringing a fresh perspective to the table, but no one wants to touch rotten meat.

DavidfromTexas

Petery Kirby's analysis is indeed excellent.

The following site gives much of the same information in Kirby's analysis... The site has other information that may be of interest regarding the writings of Josephus.

http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/testimonium.htm

Phlox Pyros

Expletives evoke emotion. The focus is "spin" if expletives are used. To criticize me and not spin is contrary to good discourse. Ad hominem also carries a point on occasion, that a particular author is biased an one should be very wary of taking their "word" as authoritative.

Of course, everyone will follow their own beliefs. However, "spin" uses language to make it sound as if the matter is settled, which seems to be his trick. It is far from settled except, perhaps, in his own mind.

Chris Weimer

No one was taking spin at his word. He did, as I pointed out, bring up evidence, and his advice on reading the archives (which was in itself an allusion to RTFM - read the fucking manual) is very good advice for any newby.

Perhaps it is settled for him? What's wrong with that? If he's come to his conclusion through rational discourse and presenting evidence, there's nothing wrong with that, is there? He's not saying that he's infallible and inerrant, but that this is where the evidence led him.

Phlox Pyros

Sorry, Chris. I don't understand this defense of spin. spin was kicked out of another, less skewed forum for just such rants.

spin

(I'd be sorry if I were you too.)

Sadly Ben C. didn't seem to know that Simon son of Giora had already been mentioned twice before. I pointed it out privately.


spin

Amaleq13

This comment is irrelevant and inappropriate. Please refrain from attacking individuals and focus on any arguments or evidence presented. There is a very significant difference between general caustic comments and specifically directed insults. Only the latter is prohibited by the rules and subject to edits.


Thanks in advance,


Amaleq13, BC&H moderator

Phlox Pyros

I believe that profanity is mentioned in the rules as well, but no one pays attention to that one. I find it absolutely absurd that I am being scolded while spin has not even had a slap on the wrist. This is abuse, plain and simple. Is this my right to freedom of speech, or will I be censored?

Amaleq13

I would be interested in knowing why, despite the above, Roger considers it "quite possible" that Josephus used that phrase to describe Christians.

Roger Pearse

Because I see no reason why he should not.

Those arguments given don't seem to me to have any weight as arguments. All of them lack any checks for false positives. The word, per se, isn't very critical, since it may have been damaged. But the idea of Jews and Gentiles and indeed Christians as if they were a race is not fourth century, since it appears in the second century Apology of Aristides and the Epistle of Barnabas at least and probably elsewhere (I haven't looked). As soon as Christians had a separate identity from Jews and gentiles, the idea of them as a third kind of being (from a Jewish perspective) is a natural one, even if the attestation were to be late.

Yesterday I came across this review from BMCR interesting, by the way, on the use of ethnos (I presume without looking that this is the word used by Josephus?).

But I have no interest in getting into a wrangle about the TF. In my post I merely clarified the position from which I posted, since I was sure that an ad hominem would come my way if I did not.

All the best,

Roger Pearse