Joe Atwill

JGibson

There is no pedigree linking or delinking the neo-Flavians to the first century Caesars. My conjecture is based strictly upon the fact that given that the Flavian Caesars wrote the Gospels, it is highly likely that someone with their name and who made Christianity the state religion, would have a descendant.

Joe

jgibson000

I see. So, leaving aside the matter that there most certainly is a delinking (to my knowledge, neither Titus nor Domitian had issue), what you originally put forward as a fact about Constantine is buttressed by no more than a historically uninformed supposition, and is in the end is nothing more that a speculation that arises from another speculation.

One wonders qal wahomer what else of yours ...

JG

Toto

What difference does it make if Constantine was an actual descendent of the Flavians?

flavius

Joe Atwill

JG.

Titus had a child and Domitian named Flavian family members as heirs.
As far as your attempt to depict my conjecture concerning Constantine as indicative of other grievous sins of scholarship, I would note that everyone - past a certain base level - knows the lineage between the Flavian Caesars and Constantine is uncertain. Therefore when I make such conjectures it is with the understanding that it is obvious that they are conjectures.

I would hope, however, that you apply your zeal for precision upon all of NT scholarship as so much of it is in desperate need of such policing.

Joe

Joe Atwill

Toto:

Constantine's ancestry is not relevant to the thesis, but is an interesting area of speculation.

Joe

jgibson000

Uncertain or non existent? Have you read Syme on this?

It wasn't. Nor was there anything given to indicated that it was being presented this way.

But be that as it may be, how many of your other "facts" and assertions are we to take as only (and obviously) conjectures?

And you know this how?

JG

Joe Atwill

Hi Jeff:

Gee, first you write:
“Not being as conversant with the ancestry of Constantine as I should be, I am unaware of this.”

But then it turns out you are conversant.

“Uncertain or non existent? Have you read Syme on this?”

And then ask:

“And you know this how?” to my point that NT scholarship is in desperate need of such policing for precision (meaning honesty). ”

To answer this question just read our exchange.

Jeff, are you aware that your whole approach is ad hominen? If my analysis is flawed then just show it to be so, don’t waste your time trying to cast me as someone who lies. I don’t.

Joe

Joe Atwill

Jeff:

One more thought. One area of 'precision’ in NT scholarship that can use some policing is this business of critiquing books without reading them. For example, neither Carrier nor Harwood ever read Caesar’s Messiah, but this did not stop them issuing critiques of it.

Please tell us if you have read the book. If you haven’t, allow me to send you a copy as I would be interested in an exchange with you concerning the thesis.

Joe

jgibson000

How is asking you which of what appear to be assertions are to be taken only conjecture, not fact an ad hominem given that you yourself have noted that, at least in some cases, at least some of your "assertions" are to be taken as conjectures, not statements of fact?

The issue isn't your analysis of anything. It's the import of your admission that at least some what appear to be statements on your part of fact are really only conjectures.

So far as I can see, I never said you were (someone who lies). Nor have I been trying to cast you as a liar.

But what you have done is to avoid answering the question that you brought on yourself when you noted (have I read you correctly?) that a lot of what you do when you post is to engage in conjecture -- namely, how many of your other assertions, besides the one about Constantine's ancestry, are we to take as only (and obviously) conjectures and not statements of fact?

May we expect an answer any time soon?

JG

Joe Atwill

Jeff:

If you read the posts you will see that my speculation concerning Constantine was in response to Mountainman’s conjecture.

“If the gospels were fabricated, then there were
one or more historical fabricators, and a modus
operandi, a place of "shall-we-say-inspiration"
and a date, somewhere before the year 330 CE
when the gospels were first published in context
by the King of the Roman Empire, Constantine.”

To your question:

“how many of your other assertions, besides the one about Constantine's ancestry, are we to take as only (and obviously) conjectures and not statements of fact?”

If you are confused as to whether or not I am speculating or issuing a statement of fact, simply ask. I would suggest that a careful reading (see above) will usually establish the context.

Joe