stephan huller

Any further questions?

Duke Leto

No, and I'm not going to.

The existence of the Greek as it is rips the whole proposed conspiracy to shreds.

A Jew writes a hypomena, a Christian redacts it, some other Christian uses the 1st Christian's work to write a Gospel. Some future Christians add more garbage. Some person says to them self "You know, it really doesn't make sense for a 1st Century Jew to be going on about Christianity like this, why don't I just dial it back 95%?".

If the document originated in the Christian community and remained in the Christian Community, why would they bother rewriting a version for the consumption of the Jewish and Pagan communities at all? Why not simply assert that their version was authoritative and everything else was a pack of lies? If you are going to make a sanitized version to convince people to accept your version of history, shouldn't it contain a bit more of the history you're trying to convince them of? If it was NOT confined to publication in the Christian community, then isn't there a chance someone will notice you're just re-releasing your own crap?

Most of all, and I will keep asking this until I get a damned reply, WHY put out a history that shows two of your gospels are in contradiction?

Is the Greek text the result of some group of rogue Jews and Pagans stealing the Christian document and correcting it? Why didn't they just write an accurate history?

stephan huller

Then this conversation is over because you have officially confirmed yourself as an idiot.

stephan huller

I see a pattern here. It's not that you don't accept Clement's witness about another text associated with 'Flavius Josephus.' You won't even look at the evidence which testifies to the existence of textual variants within the surviving witnesses to Josephus. That means there is no point in this discussion. You are basically saying that the Greek text of Josephus is the correct text because it is the only one you will consider to have authenticity. That's an idiotic position to take. I don't have time to waste on idiots. I have been rather indulgent until now when you have proven that you are nothing more than a bored idiot. What am I your break between masturbation sessions on the computer?

Duke Leto

Completely ignoring what I asked, but simultaneously narcissistic AND pathetic.

Let's rephrase since you named Thackeray and I was implicitly asking for contemporary scholars, not ones who have been dead for 80 years:

What percentage of the scholarly community accepts or suspects a post 1st Century composition for the Greek Text of Josephus?

How exactly does that percentage translate into "you and many others"?

stephan huller

Completely ignoring the endless nonsense you serve up. I'd have to just to breathe.

A new comment at my blog just now. Must be me.

Pete Hoge <pete.hoge@xxxxxx.com> wrote:Interesting last few sentences in your last footnote to this post where you claim there is strong support among early Church fathers that Paul is Mark and wrote the Gospel of Mark.Interesting post over all, and you leave a cliffhanger with the idea that the same sex pairings continued on in some form through Church history.

Duke Leto

I've presented a viable alternative hypothesis. You refuse to even acknowledge I've done so, much less show it's impossible.

You've given no reason in the slightest to suspect that the variant texts are anything other than what normal Josephus scholars claim they are, Christian and other nutball monks having a go at scrawling in the margins. I see no reason to spend a lot of time pouring over the alternative texts.


Especially when you seem completely at a loss to explain why your Christian conspirators would release a history that exposes two of their own Gospels as contradictory.

Ah insults. Usually a pretty good indication of victory.

You know you have an impressive breadth of reading and Price is correct that you do make interesting new connections, but you're never going to be much of a scholar if you can't effectively hear criticism of your ideas, particularly since you seem to lack that internal mental faculty to criticize them yourself before presenting them to others.

Duke Leto

If you are so intent on proving that you're cooler than a couch potato on disability, is turning around and copying and pasting a comment from your blog to prove it isn't your own really the best way to do it?

Still ought to be daylight in Seattle, you could walk the dog.

stephan huller

Hardly trying to prove I am cool. It just so happened that in the same instant I read your claim that the comments were made up one came in to my email. Having people read your blog doesn't make you cool. Personally I think having a blog makes you nerdy and weird. The truth is only started blogging at the time my father died. I don't know how that happened. Just coincidence I guess. It's just a habit that stuck with me. But back to matters from the last post.

If you are not even going to consider the impact of the Yosippon, the Slavonic and Latin texts of the Jewish War as the basis to my explanation of Clement's citation of a History of the Jews by Flavius Josephus from 147 CE it is apparent the only substance to these posts is more or less continuous attack on my person which has included - forging Robert Price's recommendation and comments at my blog. As this discussion has no apparent value for you I likened it masturbation. Please tell me what purpose this discussion has when you refuse to read other versions Josephus? There is none. I am big enough to take any insults you might throw at me. Why not just stop pretending you want to know about what I have to say and simply post insults. It would save me time from responding to your posts.

stephan huller

And I got back from walking the dog just now. Same time as in Portland here.