Jeffrey Gibson

So you don't "think" (= to have as an opinion <think it's so>) that Josephus' authorial intention was to support the the Gospel JC?


Yes. you did. But are you truly unaware that the word means "it seems to me [to be true that]" and therefore, when used as you used it -- as a preface to a statement, makes what follows this word an assertion of what a writer/speaker believes to be true?


Yes, if they then go on to show that they are not thinking very well an or that they have a tendency towards equivocation.

But be that as it may be, what do you hold to be the case with respect to the authorial intention behind "a lot of the Josephan writings"? And do you think (= maintain, believe is true), let alone have any reason to believe, that Steve Mason would agree with what you believe to be the case in this regard, whatever that is?

Jeffrey

maryhelena

Jeffrey, what do I think - I think that I'm not about to accept your cross-examination of my thinking. If there is anything in my post that you find some value in - fine - if not - move on.

Jeffrey Gibson

What I find of value in your post is how much it reveals about how you are just another of the many agenda driven, ego committed dilettantes here who posture as experts on matters NT but do not possess the knowledge of the ancient world that they lay claim to, and who dodge questions which, if answered directly and honestly, would show just how poorly grounded and uninformed their claims about the New Testament, Jesus, and the ancient world are actually, because they don't want to have to admit to themselves or others that they aren't the experts they want to believe they are.

It is impossible to understand why you have responded they way you have to my perfectly legitimate questions about what you really think the authorial intent of Josephus was and whether you know Steve Mason would back you up otherwise.


Jeffrey

maryhelena

icardfacepalm:

semiopen

Jacob_Neusner is the big academic expert on the Pharisees and he considers them to have been active in the first century,

However,

Anyway, a while back I suggested that Johanan ben Zakai might have been fictional.

A life of Yohanan ben Zakkai, ca.1-80 C.E.

Where Neusner claims that this guy was real, and a Pharisee. For example,

I'm not completely convinced, but who cares? I think that ben Zakkai has to be shown to be fictional for the OP to be taken seriously.

Also, as I've pointed out before, the Pharisaic morph into Rabbinic Judaism seems to be critical to the theology(?) of Reform Judaism.

Jeffrey Gibson

And just when do you think that "Reform Judaism" arose?

Jeffrey

semiopen

Reform_Judaism is pretty recent.

I've been musing in a few posts how they seem to be trying to put Maccabees 1 and 2 into the Jewish canon, as well as the idea that Pharisee to Rabbi was a straight shot.

I guess that is all an improvement over believing the literal truth of the Tower of Babel, but it seems a little tenuous to me.

Jeffrey Gibson

So how could an ancient movement be critical of it?

Jeffrey

Toto

Jeffrey = "critical to" not "critical of"

semiopen

Thanks Toto.

The Maccabees are key elements in this.

The Religious Ideas of the First Book of Maccabees
Author: Frank C. Porter
Source: The Old and New Testament Student, Vol. 14, No. 2 (Feb., 1892)

So Professor Porter says Macc 1 was written by a Sadducee in the first century BCE. Other commentators point out the writer did not know Purim.

On the other hand 2 Maccabees is often said to be written by Pharisees

I'm not so sure that the innovations discussed are clearly Pharisaical. This might either be my ignorance or perhaps some circular argumentation in the claims.

Also 2_Maccabees

How could 2 Maccabees be written in Greek before 1 Maccabees was written in Hebrew?

It seems that the history of these books is quite unclear.

However, if 1 Maccabees was written in the early 1st century BCE, then 2 Maccabees could have been written even in the 1st century CE. But, in any case, the Pharisaical leanings of the author have to be controversial.