aa5874

So, if a scholar that you respect holds a view that appears to be erroneous would you not question the respected scholar's position?

I am not obligated to acept the position of any scholar if their position appears erroneous

avi

Thanks Andrew, for this excellent link to Roger Pearse's scholarly effort, much appreciated.
Yeah, it is a bit discouraging to read that the oldest manuscripts, according to what Roger has listed, seem to be written in Greek, and date from about fifth century. I thought Josephus was a rabbi from Jerusalem. Wouldn't he have written rather, in Aramaic? I am skeptical about using Josephus, as a source for the existence of any of the persons mentioned in the OP. As Roger explains, And that was two hundred years BEFORE Nicea....Imagine Constantine's subsequent editorial brushwork to the canvas.

Toto

I think the earliest manuscript of Josephus is from the 10th century, although there are earlier writers who quote from his work. Josephus would have written in Greek for the sake of his intended audience.

Doug Shaver

That is why I would not attempt to convince you of anything. If you think that is "in effect" what I said, then you don't understand plain English. And if you think it was a circular argument, then you don't understand elementary logic, either.

Doug Shaver

The chronological sequence alone establishes only the possibility of influence. Likelihood would have to demonstrated by showing that the gospels contain certain ideas that the authors were unlikely to have gotten from any source other than the epistles.

The only unmistakably Pauline idea I see in the gospels is "Jesus Christ was crucified and resurrected."

andrewcriddle

I think you're misreading here
A Latin translation was made in the 5th century.
The earliest manuscripts (Greek or Latin) are from a few centuries later.
The early version of the Jewish War was written in Aramaic in the 70s CE. It has not survived.
Josephus' later works ( including the heavily revised version of the Jewish War were written in Greek.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

Please don't try to confuse the issue by claiming I don't understand English. Your English is extremely easy to understand.

In an earlier post, I asked you, "How are you going to SHOW that the Pauline Epistles are independent of the Gospels"?

This your response in English: Now, you have, in effect, a FAITH-BASED postion (a wild guess), you really have nothing to SHOW for your BELIEF that the Pauline Epistles are independent of the Gospels.

And, using the Epistles, can you point out to me anything, any event with respect to Paul that MUST have occurred, or was most likely to have happened?

bacht

But you must accept the opinions of some researchers on some issues yes? We are forced to to do this aren't we? Or do you have the time and training to personally investigate every detail of the subject in question?

How could you possibly be able to evaluate the work of every archeologist, numismatist, Koine expert, manuscript historian, Aramaic specialist etc? Any given passage in the Bible could have been analysed by dozens of people from various specialties.

Part of the scientific process is acknowledging our own limitations. It is colloborative, otherwise solitary researchers would be shut away in their own caves re-inventing the wheel every week. Progress comes from sharing knowledge doesn't it?

aa5874

But, how could accept opinions from respected scholars that are blatantly erroneous?

I cannot investigate every matter, but I will always reject opinions from anyone when it can be shown that those opinions are in fact mis-leading and erroneous.

For example, I have refused to accept that there are such a thing as "authentic" Pauline Epistles when it is absolutey obvious that there are no KNOWN and CONFIRMED original writings from any author who was known as Paul. In fact, scholars have deduced that more than one person used the name Paul.

Authenticity of the Epistles has been compromised.

The next obvious questions would be, "Was there really some-one named Paul, when did he live? When did he write? How is it no-one as early as the 2nd century ever realise that there was at least one fake Paul? Why did not Eusebius in Church History realise that more than one person used the name Paul?

And why would a fake Paul ask Timothy, the buddy of another Paul, to bring his coat and books? Did Timothy carry the cloak and the books to the fake Paul?

2 Timothy 4.13 One explanation is that NO-ONE in the Churches or any of the named persons ever saw these Epistles.

bacht

Fair enough. Boards like this are places for us to discuss our pet theories yes?

Any reconstruction has to answer the same questions: who, what, where, when, why, how - if your explanation covers all the known problems then that's great.

If your complaint is that the academy refuses to consider fresh thinking that's a different issue.