Freethought & Rationalism Archive

maryhelena · 07-15-2012, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

What are you talking about? Have you lost your mind? This is not an "interpretation" its a citation of the contents consistent with other ancient sources

icardfacepalm:

stephan huller · 07-15-2012, 01:29 PM

What's with the constant face image. This is not an interpretation:

Quote:

Flavius Josephus the Jew, who composed the History of the Jews, computing the periods, says that from Moses to David were five hundred and eighty-five years; from David to the second year of Vespasian, a thousand one hundred and seventy-nine; then from that to the tenth year of Antoninus, seventy-seven. So that from Moses to the tenth year of Antoninus (= 147 CE) there are, in all, two thousand one hundred and thirty-three years.

This identification has been argued to be a mistake (i.e. Clement is 'misidentifying' his citation). But it can't be an interpretation. He's not 'interpreting' anything. Do you understand what interpretation is? You're engaging in interpretation albeit misinterpreting by saying it is an interpretation. Clement is not interpreting anything. This is the most ridiculous debate I have ever had in the history of my participation in the this forum. Either Clement is mistaken or he is correct in identifying the name of the chronology dated to the tenth year of Antoninus Pius as 'Flavius Josephus." That's the only wiggle room open to scholars. The facts are that there was a fucking chronology dated to the tenth year of Antoninus Pius. This is not an interpretation. It can't be. The question is only did 'Flavius Josephus' write this chronology as Clement claims. The evidence of the other witnesses (Eusebius, Epiphanius, Latin Hegesippus) supports his identification. The name Hegesippus is natural from the taking of the Greek name Josephus in to Latin which is used by all.

Stop talking about 'interpretation.' It is either (a) Clement of Alexandria was witnessing the earliest version of Flavius Josephus's history of the Jews or (b) he was using some other 'History of the Jews' but mistook the name of the author. That's it. There are no other options.

maryhelena · 07-15-2012, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

What's with the constant face image. This is not an interpretation:

Quote:

Flavius Josephus the Jew, who composed the History of the Jews, computing the periods, says that from Moses to David were five hundred and eighty-five years; from David to the second year of Vespasian, a thousand one hundred and seventy-nine; then from that to the tenth year of Antoninus, seventy-seven. So that from Moses to the tenth year of Antoninus (= 147 CE) there are, in all, two thousand one hundred and thirty-three years.

This identification has been argued to be a mistake (i.e. Clement is 'misidentifying' his citation). But it can't be an interpretation. He's not 'interpreting' anything. Do you understand what interpretation is? You're engaging in interpretation albeit misinterpreting by saying it is an interpretation. Clement is not interpreting anything. This is the most ridiculous debate I have ever had in the history of my participation in the this forum. Either Clement is mistaken or he is correct in identifying the name of the chronology dated to the tenth year of Antoninus Pius. But the evidence of the other witnesses (Eusebius, Epiphanius, Latin Hegesippus) supports his identification.

Stephan, it is you that is doing the interpretation - not Clement. The citation from Clement does not say that Josephus 'says' anything about 77 years. Nil, zero. Those 77 years are not from Josephus. Those 77 years are sourced from elsewhere. It is your interpretation of the Clement citation that is reading this citation to say these 77 years are from Josephus. You are doing an interpretation of this citation.

stephan huller · 07-15-2012, 01:46 PM

What the fuck are you talking about? Get the wax out of your ears, put your reading glasses, stop drinking whatever you are drinking or smoking whatever you are smoking. I couldn't care less about the seventy seven years or whether it was Clement or Josephus who said that. The question is only whether the 'History of the Jews' of 'Flavius Josephus' used by 'Clement of Alexandria' contained a chronology which ended in the tenth year of Antoninus Pius which Clement clearly attests to being present in the text in his citation.

That's all that matters. Josephus couldn't have written a chronology in 94 CE which mentions the 'tenth year of Antoninus Pius' in 147 CE unless of course you share the Christian predeliction for 'the power of prophesy.'

stephan huller · 07-15-2012, 01:48 PM

Is it your argument that the tenth year of Antoninus was added by Clement? No one has read the text that way. It's crazy to suggest that. Clement lived after Commodus. Where is the tenth year of Antoninus coming from?

stephan huller · 07-15-2012, 01:50 PM

Here is the full reference from Clement:

Quote:

And they say that it was the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, the fifteenth day of the month Tubi; and some that it was the eleventh of the same month, And treating of His passion, with very great accuracy, some say that it took place in the sixteenth year of Tiberius, on the twenty-fifth of Phamenoth; and others the twenty-fifth of Pharmuthi and others say that on the nineteenth of Pharmuthi the Saviour suffered. Further, others say that He was born on the twenty-fourth or twenty-fifth of Pharmuthi.

We have still to add to our chronology the following, -- I mean the days which Daniel indicates from the desolation of Jerusalem, the seven years and seven months of the reign of Vespasian. For the two years are added to the seventeen months and eighteen days of Otho, and Galba, and Vitellius; and the result is three years and six months, which is "the half of the week," as Daniel the prophet said. For he said that there were two thousand three hundred days from the time that the abomination of Nero stood in the holy city, till its destruction. For thus the declaration, which is subjoined, shows: "How long shall be the vision, the sacrifice taken away, the abomination of desolation, which is given, and the power and the holy place shall be trodden under foot? And he said to him, Till the evening and morning, two thousand three hundred days, and the holy place shall be taken away."

These two thousand three hundred days, then, make six years four months, during the half of which Nero held sway, and it was half a week; and for a half, Vespasian with Otho, Galba, and Vitellius reigned. And on this account Daniel says, "Blessed is he that cometh to the thousand three hundred and thirty-five days." For up to these days was war, and after them it ceased. And this number is demonstrated from a subsequent chapter, which is as follows: "And from the time of the change of continuation, and of the giving of the abomination of desolation, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and thirty-five days."

Flavius Josephus the Jew, who composed the history of the Jews, computing the periods, says that from Moses to David were five hundred and eighty-five years; from David to the second year of Vespasian, a thousand one hundred and seventy-nine; then from that to the tenth year of Antoninus, seventy-seven. So that from Moses to the tenth year of Antoninus there are, in all, two thousand one hundred and thirty-three years.

Of others, counting from Inachus and Moses to the death of Commodus, some say there were three thousand one hundred and forty-two years; and others, two thousand eight hundred and thirty-one years.

Clement clearly is expanding the chronologies of various writers down to his own time. First he uses the gospel dated to 29 or 30 CE (we can quibble about what is meant here but it is immaterial to the discussion):

Quote:

they say that it was the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, the fifteenth day of the month Tubi; and some that it was the eleventh of the same month, And treating of His passion, with very great accuracy, some say that it took place in the sixteenth year of Tiberius, on the twenty-fifth of Phamenoth; and others the twenty-fifth of Pharmuthi and others say that on the nineteenth of Pharmuthi the Saviour suffered. Further, others say that He was born on the twenty-fourth or twenty-fifth of Pharmuthi.

Then he adds the date of the destruction of Jerusalem using Daniel's seventy weeks as a chronology in what immediately follows or 70 CE:

Quote:

These two thousand three hundred days, then, make six years four months, during the half of which Nero held sway, and it was half a week; and for a half, Vespasian with Otho, Galba, and Vitellius reigned.

Then Clement goes to the second century author 'Flavius Josephus' from his 'History of the Jews' to get even closer to his own time or 147 CE seventy seven years from the last chronology (= Daniel):

Quote:

Flavius Josephus the Jew, who composed the history of the Jews, computing the periods, says that from Moses to David were five hundred and eighty-five years; from David to the second year of Vespasian, a thousand one hundred and seventy-nine; then from that to the tenth year of Antoninus, seventy-seven.

And then finally he goes to an even more recent chronology which dates events from the time Clement was writing (= after the death of Commodus) or 192 CE:

Quote:

Of others, counting from Inachus and Moses to the death of Commodus, some say there were three thousand one hundred and forty-two years; and others, two thousand eight hundred and thirty-one years

If you can't see this you should stop engaging in Biblical interpretation. This is acknowledged by everyone. The only difference is that people argue that Flavius Josephus did not write this chronology which dates to the tenth of Antoninus Pius. Yet no one agrees who the original author was because it is a silly argument to begin with. Clement must have known the fucking name of the author he was using.

maryhelena · 07-15-2012, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

What the fuck are you talking about? Get the wax out of your ears, put your reading glasses, stop drinking whatever you are drinking or smoking whatever you are smoking. I couldn't care less about the seventy seven years or whether it was Clement or Josephus who said that. The question is only whether the 'History of the Jews' of 'Flavius Josephus' used by 'Clement of Alexandria' contained a chronology which ended in the tenth year of Antoninus Pius which Clement clearly attests to being present in the text in his citation.

That's all that matters. Josephus couldn't have written a chronology in 94 CE which mentions the 'tenth year of Antoninus Pius' in 147 CE unless of course you share the Christian predeliction for 'the power of prophesy.'

Stephan, you are bringing far too much emotional baggage to this discussion. It's time for me to pull out of it. I don't like to be talked to in the manner that you are now doing. Resorting to ridicule of your opponent speaks of desperation in attempting to uphold your very fragile argument.

stephan huller · 07-15-2012, 02:09 PM

Really? Fragile argument? I have Clement's clear testimony to the existence of this text. I'd tell you to go jump in a lake or something stronger but I am sure you'd start playing the abused victim card so why don't you go back to your fantasy world where real evidence doesn't allow the light to shine in.

There are lots of 'goddess forums' where you can talk about the kinds of things you like to talk about without having them stand up to the rigor of factual examination. Why don't you spend your time there?

Clement cites a chronology of Josephus which ends in the tenth year of Antoninus. I am not making this up. I understand why a believer would have a problem with this evidence. I even have sympathy for their plight. I don't have the same concern for someone like you or me who presumably has the ability to change their opinions as they were made up only recently and should - at least theoretically - bend with the wind of new evidence.

Why do you have such a problem with the 'history of the Jews' of 'Flavius Josephus' being composed in the 147 CE? You'd think that would be a gift from heaven.

maryhelena · 07-15-2012, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Really? Fragile argument? I have Clement's clear testimony to the existence of this text. I'd tell you to go jump in a lake or something stronger but I am sure you'd start playing the abused victim so why don't you go back to your fantasy world where real evidence doesn't allow the light to shine in.

icardfacepalm:

stephan huller · 07-15-2012, 02:16 PM

I will repeat this until you answer the question -does Clement claim to use a 'History of the Jews' from an author named 'Flavius Josephus' and provides a chronology from that text which ends in the tenth year of Antoninus Pius?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-15-2012, 01:46 PM	#104
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	What the fuck are you talking about? Get the wax out of your ears, put your reading glasses, stop drinking whatever you are drinking or smoking whatever you are smoking. I couldn't care less about the seventy seven years or whether it was Clement or Josephus who said that. The question is only whether the 'History of the Jews' of 'Flavius Josephus' used by 'Clement of Alexandria' contained a chronology which ended in the tenth year of Antoninus Pius which Clement clearly attests to being present in the text in his citation. That's all that matters. Josephus couldn't have written a chronology in 94 CE which mentions the 'tenth year of Antoninus Pius' in 147 CE unless of course you share the Christian predeliction for 'the power of prophesy.'

07-15-2012, 01:48 PM	#105
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Is it your argument that the tenth year of Antoninus was added by Clement? No one has read the text that way. It's crazy to suggest that. Clement lived after Commodus. Where is the tenth year of Antoninus coming from?

07-15-2012, 02:09 PM	#108
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Really? Fragile argument? I have Clement's clear testimony to the existence of this text. I'd tell you to go jump in a lake or something stronger but I am sure you'd start playing the abused victim card so why don't you go back to your fantasy world where real evidence doesn't allow the light to shine in. There are lots of 'goddess forums' where you can talk about the kinds of things you like to talk about without having them stand up to the rigor of factual examination. Why don't you spend your time there? Clement cites a chronology of Josephus which ends in the tenth year of Antoninus. I am not making this up. I understand why a believer would have a problem with this evidence. I even have sympathy for their plight. I don't have the same concern for someone like you or me who presumably has the ability to change their opinions as they were made up only recently and should - at least theoretically - bend with the wind of new evidence. Why do you have such a problem with the 'history of the Jews' of 'Flavius Josephus' being composed in the 147 CE? You'd think that would be a gift from heaven.

07-15-2012, 02:16 PM	#110
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I will repeat this until you answer the question -does Clement claim to use a 'History of the Jews' from an author named 'Flavius Josephus' and provides a chronology from that text which ends in the tenth year of Antoninus Pius?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.