aa5874

Again, your statement is absurd. You asked for people's opinion and is now ridiculing those who respond to your OP.

Please, if everything else remains the same and your proposed TF is found it will still be deemed a forgery because Josephus did NOT know of any character called Christ in the time of Pilate based on his EARLIER writing called "WARS of the Jews".

In fact, Josephus fought Against the Romans Expecting a Jewish MESSIANIC RULER at around 70 CE.

The War of the Jews was FOUGHT Against the Romans Expecting a Jewish Messianic ruler.

Wars of the Jews 6.5.4 Once you introduce the writings of Josephus as evidence to support an historical Jesus then the WRITINGS of Josephus MUST be thoroughly ASSESSED not just your proposed TF.

All references in Josephus to a character called Jesus Christ in the time of Pilate Jose are forgeries.

The Jews expected Messianic rulers at c 68 CE.

pinkvoy

Why would we expect Josepheus to write about Jesus in Jewish Wars? Jewish Wars make no mention of John the Baptist. Would you expect to find Philo of Alexander also mentioned?

I understand the proposed TF would be deemed a forgery by Jesus-mythicist fundamentalists who reject all evidence and logic to support their a priori beliefs in Jesus nonexistence. I don't see how it would be deemed a forgery by rationalists who study ancient history using the scientific method.

You use a lot of emotionally charged language like "absurd" "deemed forgeries" "ridiculing"

Toto

Please stop speculating about others' emotions. Someone might make the same observation about you, and then we would have to get into comparative emotional states, which would get us off topic.

Confine your discussion to the facts and the arguments.

Thank you

Toto

If you don't like people calling you names, please stop calling your debate opponents "fundamentalists."

And if you don't want people using emotionally charged language, stop using the term fundamentalist for anyone other than a real fundamentalist, and stop accusing a whole class of people of rejecting all evidence and logic.

Your proposed reconstructed TF has in fact been judged to be a complete forgery by rationalists who study ancient history using the scientific method. If you don't see why, you haven't read enough the subject. You might want to start here and concentrate on the arguments of Ken Olson.

stephan huller

I am not sure what the point of any of this is. I am of the opinion that the texts of Josephus were manufactured in the second century from earlier testimonies and hypomnemata. I am not sure that the texts of Josephus ever had a stable form until the fourth century. I find this discussion pointless.

Toto

Your reconstruction does not meet that test. The subject matter is out of place.

The statement says nothing about Josephus' personal knowledge, and there is no way he would have been a witness to Jesus. He might have witnessed some of the events in Acts, except that Peter and Paul are completely missing from his narrative.

Repeating this does not make it true. You will find that even historicists do not want to rely too heavily on the TF. The fact that it has obviously been forged by a Christian makes it too difficult to know what the original passage might have said, or even if it was about Jesus.

thief of fire

What rationalists? All rationalists? A handful of rationalists? Hardly any rationalists?
Who used the "scientific method". What made their method "scientific"?

thief of fire

What test are you talking about?

Toto

Please see the references above to Ken Olson's thesis that the TF was forged by Eusebius. Olson has published peer reviewed articles to that effect; he was a graduate student at the time and has since received his PhD.

This is really old news. You might want to do some research yourself. There have been many previous threads on this topic.

Toto

The test that pinkvoy referred to in the previous sentence - that the section is in Josephan language and fits the context where it is found (except that it doesn't.)