stephan huller

But I have shown time and again that Clement's earlier version of Flavius Josephus was written AFTER Tacitus. If you can't even recognize what is plainly written on the page it becomes fruitless to continue this. at least reference Stromata Book 1

maryhelena

http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/tac/index.htm

[T2]We have five surviving works by Tacitus, with some notable large gaps in the two major texts (Annals and Histories). In chronological order these are: De vita Iulii Agricolae (The Life of Julius Agricola) [98 CE]; De origine et situ Germanorum (The Germania) [98 CE]; Dialogus de oratoribus (Dialogue on Oratory) [102 CE]; Historiae (Histories) [105 CE]; and Ab excessu divi Augusti (Annals) [117 CE].[/T2]

If you have another date for the Tacitus 'Histories' - by all means present it. The Josephan Antiquities is dated to 94 c.e. - prior to the Tacitus 'Histories'.

Josephus

stephan huller

Your myopia is becoming borderline crazy. Read the bloody words I presented from the first witness to mention Flavius Josephus and his history BY NAME. Read Turner's confirmation that this likely same chronology known to Epiphanius (= "Hegesippus").

Yes believers have been doing their best to block out the implications of this nexus of witnesses. We don't have to do this

maryhelena

icardfacepalm:

tanya

We need a Greek quote, here, Stephan, from Clement. We also require a simple, one liner, explaining the condition of the text from Clement.

Between the Christian interpolation of Josephus, and the Muslim interpolation of Clement, I am unclear about the provenance of our extant work of either author.

Tacitus? Wow. another compilation in poor condition.

Now, where did this notion that Hegesippus is just another name for Josephus, originate? It wasn't proposed by Jerome, right? So, where and when did this idea commence? So far as I understand, Hegesippus' five volumes of hypomnemata was acknowledged by Jerome as genuine. Am I wrong about this? Surely a 4th century witness, ought to be considered, at least....I had thought, maybe wrong again, that Epiphanius also attested to the existence of Hegesippus, a second century author, distinct from Josephus?

:huh:

stephan huller

What's the image here for? Can you read? Are you capable of processing the information presented to you on the written page? Do you deny that Clement was using a text of Flavius Josephus which contained a chronology that dates the text to 147 CE? what don't you understand?

maryhelena

[T2]3. And now it will not be perhaps an invidious thing, if I treat briefly of my own family, and of the actions of my own life while there are still living such as can either prove what I say to be false, or can attest that it is true; with which accounts I shall put an end to these Antiquities, which are contained in twenty books, and sixty thousand verses. And if God permit me, I will briefly run over this war, and to add what befell them further to that very day, the 13th of Domitian, or A.D. 03, is not, that I have observed, taken distinct notice of by any one; nor do we ever again, with what befell us therein to this very day, which is the thirteenth year of the reign of Caesar Domitian, and the fifty-sixth year of my own life. I have also an intention to write three books concerning our Jewish opinions about God and his essence, and about our laws; why, according to them, some things are permitted us to do, and others are prohibited. Antiquities: Book 20.ch.11.[/T2]

That dates the Josephan Antiquities to 94 c.e.

Now, if you want to say that is an interpolation - then I'll come back to you and say your quote from Clement is being misinterpreted.

stephan huller

What does this prove other than the text was altered from the time of Clement. Come on this is pathetic. You were trying to argue this same way with respect to the Acts of Pilate in another thread but here suddenly these fourteenth century manuscripts of Josephus are,pristine. Give me a break. Clement, Eusebius, Epiphanius and the Latin copies of "Hegesippus" are all smoking guns testifying to the origin of the existing material in the second century before they were "corrected" subsequently to make them appear as wholly originating in the first century

maryhelena

I don't think you will find, in anything I've ever posted on the board, that the writing of Josephus is "pristine".

If your goal is to move the dating for the writing of Josephus to the second century, then you are up against Josephan scholarship. Not that that should deter anyone from challenging scholarship - but one is going to need rather a lot more than an interpretation of Clement. If the writing of Josephus can be interpolated - then so too can the writing of Clement. And all for what? That you don't care for the Josephan account of two Jewish Kings by the name of Agrippa. Agrippa I and Agrippa II.

Stephan, your fighting a losing battle against Josephus. You cannot win against Josephus by throwing an interpretation of Clement at him. To 'get' Josephus, to separate his history from his pseudo-history, requires that one turn him on himself - his contradictions and his stories, his pseudo-history. There is enough in the Josephan writing that we do have to do just that. You don't need Clement.

stephan huller

What are you talking about? Have you lost your mind? This is not an "interpretation" its a citation of the contents consistent with other ancient sources