Duvduv

AA, why do you keep running around in circles? When you read a text you ANALYZE the substance and content of the text and its CONTEXT. It has nothing to do with imagination. Except to the extent you ask me "to imagine" something about Acts.
Yes, I examine the content and context of Philippians 2 and conclude the the CONTENT and CONTEXT of the verses addressing the readers after verse 11 is DIFFERENT than the interlude of the prayer reminding everyone about Jesus. I showed the verses without the interlude and it makes sense. Hence I conclude that the verses 5-11 were added into the text.

So sue me...........and while you're at it, ask me again to "imagine" something relevent to your exclusive understanding of the material.

It's almost like the story of Paul in Galatians and the exclusivity of his gospel. It is similar to the spirit of your own personal gospel, AA.

Grog

What would you not expect? You are gifted at fitting every conceivable bit of evidence and counter-evidence into your basket of "what we would expect to find" about the enigmatic Jesus of Nazareth.

Find that Paul is silent on the details of the life of Jesus? That is what we would expect to find (given Paul's psychological peculiarities).

Find that there are contradictory views about the who, what, where, and when of Jesus? That is what we would expect to find. (oral tradition, cross-cultural transference, etc)

Find that there is no mention of Pilate or Mary in relation to Jesus outside the Gospels until the second century (assuming that the Gospels themselves are not 2nd C, which I think they are)? That is what would expect to find. (The story of the obscure preacher was too well-known to go over and over these details of his life.)

Find no mention of Jesus in contemporary accounts? That is what we would expect to find. (Jesus was an obscure figure.)

Find that the "Fathers" relay a logos-belief rather than a concrete belief in a Jesus who walked around and preached a new gospel? That is what we would expect to find. (They feared persecution.)

We can go on and on along these lines. These are all ad hoc rationalizations for explaining away why we don't find what we would expect to find in the historical record.

Can you think of a null hypothesis for your theory that there was a Jesus of Nazareth, executed by Pilate, who served as the human inspiration for Christianity?

aa5874

Are you NOT the one who claimed if certain parts of the Pauline writings are REMOVED that they become "smooth"??

I EXPOSE the Holes in the Pauline letters.

maryhelena

Yep, and that alone should be raising a red flag! Especially so as Josephus is contradicting himself with these years he has given to Gratus and Pilate re his context of 19 c.e. for the TF. GLuke would be unable to move the JC storyboard from the 15th year of Tiberius in 29 c.e. to 36 c.e. A 7 year ministry for JC (born in 6 c.e. crucified at about 30 years in 36 c.e.) And again, Josephus plays nice by having JtB still alive prior to the war between Antipas and Aretas.

The Aretas story is probably creative writing anyway - 36/37 c.e. being about 100 years since Aretas III laid siege to Jerusalem - and had his own run-in with the power of Rome under siege in Petra - becoming a Roman vassal King - but tables turned in the Josephan re-run of the historical tape - this time it's Antipas, a Roman vassal ruler, that gets his comeuppance...

LegionOnomaMoi

In other words, you will continue to misunderstand both Eusebius and your own source? WTF? Why cite someone you aren't prepared to use?

Why not use your own source, who (along with everyone else) believes that the Acta Pilati is a forgery, and Eusebius is correct here, and stop talking about some "re" whatever? You aren't dealing with a random claim, but a specific document. Schwartz knows this, as does every other expert on Josephus. But you still insist on acting as if Eusebius were talking about some random claim, rather than a specific forgery.

Right. And like all references, they reference something. You cited Schwartz. Did you read Schwartz? If so, why ignore his discussion about the document Eusebius was talking about what he said about this forgery? And why ignore Eusebius?

What?? By whom?
No, he doesn't. I know you can't read greek. But even the translation you are using doesn't say this. Eusebius refers to a "forgery" which dates the birth to this year. Try reading your own sources before posting crap.

maryhelena

Oh my - so its "crap" when one reads the Josephus TF in it's context of 19 c.e. It's "crap" to read Eusebius as referencing a passion and not a birth for JC in the 7th year of Tiberius:

LegionOnomaMoi, you are wasting my time! I prefer not to give the time of day to anyone who responds with "crap" to any argument that I put forward. Reasoned rebuttal is welcome - but you have chosen attack rather than offer reasoned critique of what I have posted re the Josephan TF context of 19 c.e.

All I can think of is that my argument has touched a rather raw nerve in regard to the question of the assumed historicity of the gospel JC - and how that assumption is using the Josephan TF for support.

That the argument that I have posted brings into question the use of the TF for support for the assumed historicity of the gospel JC - is, for me, a side issue. I'm interested in Josephus, in and of himself. Whatever the fall out from that investigation - let the pieces fall where they may...

I suggest that you keep to what you know - linguistics - and leave interpreting Josephus to those who are prepared to take the Josephan writer for what he is - a writer keenly interested in OT prophetic issues - in other words, as modern scholarship is now demonstrating - a prophetic historian.

Duvduv

Maryhelena, it could be argued that Josephus' so-called divine prophecy was just an exaggeration to impress his sponsors who of course admired the Emperor Vespasian who Josephus "prophesied" about. Even when the Talmud states that R. Yochanan ben Zakkai predicted this it did not describe it as akin to biblical prophecy, but simply a feature of divine inspiration which in Hebrew is "ruach hakodesh."

Duvduv

AA, if you are interested, you can see that the source for that prayer in verses 5-11 is in Isaiah 45:23 when referring to God himself, but of course nothing from Isaiah 40 or Isaiah 23. See below:

Turn to me and be saved,
all you ends of the earth;
for I am God, and there is no other.
23 By myself I have sworn,
my mouth has uttered in all integrity
a word that will not be revoked:
Before me every knee will bow;
by me every tongue will swear.
24 They will say of me, ‘In the Lord alone
are deliverance and strength. ’”
All who have raged against him
will come to him and be put to shame.
25 But all the descendants of Israel
will find deliverance in the Lord
and will make their boast in him.

maryhelena

Duvduv, prophecy and prophetic interpretations are anyone's game. When I refer to the Josephan writer as being a prophetic historian, I'm simply using a designation that modern scholarship is referencing - as per the two books I mentioned (links above - and I've previously, on a number of occasions, quoted much from these two books).

OT prophecy is linked with Jewish history i.e. interpretations of prophecy relate to historical events that have relevance for Jewish history. Now we can, with out modern skeptical minds, write this off as of no consequence to us today. However, if we want to search for early christian origins - and that search takes us to the Josephan writer - then we have to be prepared to consider the prophetic mindset. What's involved, how does that mind-set actually work - and so on. Sure, we can say that interpretations are pure speculation, illogical etc - but that does not negate the function interpretation of prophecy played in the writing of Jewish history. After all, is that not what we have with the gospel JC storyboard?

As to Josephus and Vespasian - whatever interpretation of what prophecy he was using - he struck it lucky! And that's the bottom line with interpretations and speculations - one needs a little bit of luck to hit the jackpot....

Or, as I think the Josephan writer has done, one can use the prophetic interpretation to create a pseudo-history - i.e. translate the interpretation into 'history' - that way one can have ones cake and eat it too! Prophetic interpretation works, prophecy fulfilled - because one made it so with a bit of poetic license....And of course, is this not the way the gospel writers have created their JC pseudo-historical storyboard. And if the gospel writers can do this - why not the writer that modern scholarship is saying was a prophetic historian?

aa5874

Three Contemporaries of Vespasian claimed he was the PROPHESIED Messianic ruler as predicted in Hebrew Scripture.

Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius ALL ATTEST that VESPASIAN was the prophesied Messianic ruler.

And, not ONLY was he the Prophesied Messianic ruler, it was also claimed that he Performed Miracles.

Vespasian healed the Lame and used Spit to make the Blind See based on Suetonius in "Life of Vespasian"

The TF is a blatant forgery--Vespasian was the Prophesied Messianic ruler in Hebrew Scripture who HEALED the sick and blind--NOT OBSCURE HJ.