semiopen

Since Duvi is not defending himself against my points, I assume he is admitting defeat with the Talmud story.

As I've mentioned several times above, Vespasian was elected Emperor by his legions and was the Ultimo Hombre in the Roman political maneuverings of 69AD.

69 AD:The Year of Four Emperors

goes into great detail.

This discusses the events leading up to the Senate's recognition of Vespasian as emperor.

Vespasian was the emperor for some time without the Senate's approval, and by December 21st all the civil war, etc had been put down.

Therefore the Senate recognition was not a big deal, perhaps a messenger was dispatched to tell Vespasian, but he had already been emperor in fact for six months. I'm also sure he was not even in Judea at that point.

Vespasian

Vespasian was in Egypt from the time he was declared Emperor by the Senate until he returned to Rome.

The Talmud's account is obviously false here, he was not notified of Rome's decision while Yohanan was talking to him. My impression (based on a source that I mentioned above) is that the Talmud writers were unaware that three other guys were made Emperor after Nero and before Vespasian, this ignorance might be clearly displayed in the Avot of Rabbi Natan.

An argument could be made that certain elements of the story are not fictional, also as I documented above, but this is not Duvi's style and he is committed to total factuality for religious reasons.

Duvduv

Semiopen, you were not reading my postings. I follow the Jewish dating which dates the destruction of the temple to August 2, 68 CE (9th of Av). You still have a problem with what the Talmud says about R. Yochanan in this regard and timing. Your personal attacks notwithstanding.

Worse than that is that since you do not read my postings you ignore the fact that I have argued that WITHIN the historic Jewish context the so-called author "Josephus" is not corroborated in his suicide battles and his own reputation as a "prophet" by a single source in the ancient Jewish texts. But you don't care about this fact because all you are interested in is banging on the Talmud itself, all 63 tractates and over 6,200 pages of it.
Not to mention the several thousand names of tannas and amoras in those texts, which do not include among them one Yosef son of Matityahu.

aa5874

You don't care about Josephus and don't care that he did NOT mention R Yochanan. You don't care that there is no corroboration for your Talmud story.

I have already exposed that the Talmud [gittin 56 ] is a source of fiction and implausibilities.

Duvduv

I don't know how else to explain the point to you. WITHIN A JEWISH CONTEXT of the Jewish literature that concerns the period of the 1st century, that is the thousands of pages of the two Talmuds and all the midrashim, there is not a SINGLE mention of this person Josephus or his alleged battles or Massada etc. None. Is that hard for you to understand? He was not deemed a rabbi of the Sanhedrin, not a general, not an author, not a priest, not a writer. NOTHING in the context of all those thousands of pages.

jdboy

But was it really a Jewish context? Who ruled the world, who won the wars of that time period? Can we agree that we are dealing with a Roman context and they most likely took control of the literature during their rule?
The fact the Talmud makes no mention of Josephus at all is telling.
A supposedly Jewish work? I don't think so

semiopen

I have to admit that I haven't heard of 68 CE and assumed you just posted that in error.

The Destruction of the Second Holy Temple - from my friends at Chabad.

However Table of Important Dates During Second Temple Era*

also worth noting is the bizarre date for the destruction of the first temple

I don't think these dates can be justified except by backing the dates from the Talmud, which is dubious to say the least, they had no idea what the right date was.

First_Jewish_Revolt_coinage

Officially Minted Coins of the First Jewish Revolt

Coins from the First Revolt

If the temple was destroyed in 68 CE why do we find coins from several years afterwards?

Also worthy of note, how come these guys didn't know what the date was?

If you are taking the Talmud dates, how would the difference in years make a difference in the discussion?

You simply don't want to discuss this logically which is understandable, you actually putting yourself in the position where you are obligated to respond is just crazy. That's why Haredi generally don't take part in secular discussions - they wind up looking like idiots.

I'm not arguing about Josephus, just mentioned that his story about his meeting with Vespasian seems sort of reasonable. If you prove my hunch wrong, it would be less important to me than the Packers losing an exhibition game.

Duvduv

If it gives "year 1" then that year can be an earlier year on the western calendar. I don't see what the issue is here. And the inscriptions are hard to read anyway.

semiopen

I'm just saying there was a four year period in which the coins appeared, and wondered why the didn't use nice Jewish dates. This is because the Jewish dates weren't invented yet.

However this is a digression. By changing the date of the destruction of the temple to two years sooner you can't make a coherent argument anymore - not that your previous arguments have been coherent.

The date of 70CE is virtually universally accepted.

I guess you are conceding that if the temple was destroyed in 70 CE the talmud is wrong.

Duvduv

For heaven's sake. The use of the number 1 or 2 or 3 does not refer to the original dating system on a coin like we use today. Then they should have used the Seleucid dating system since Jews used that system on contracts!

Anyway, this is not the point. You are free to think however you want. It is unimportant whether people date using 70 CE or use the date 2013 from the "birth of Christ." The Jewish dating system does not correspond to the secular one. In any case, what does this have to do with the issue of the reliability of an unknown person named "Josephus"?
These digressions and diversions are getting boring.

semiopen

You are the one digressing, the issue is the reliability of the Vespasian story in the Talmud as stated in your OP. You are also the one trying to desperately wiggle out of this position by seeking refuge in the Jewish calendar.

Your bringing up of the date 68 CE had me stunned for a moment at your outrageous stupidity.

The big problem with the Talmud story is that Vespasian receives a messenger from Rome, telling him he has been declared Emperor, while Yohanan is still talking to him.

The actual date is not important. Believing the year of the destruction of the temples was 68 CE doesn't change the impossibility of the Talmud account.