Archeological data and primary sources for New Testament characters

Obtenebrator said:
So are you of the opinion that the TF doesn't show up until Eusebius?




Then I think you may not understand the topic. The first appearance of the TF is when Eusebius mentions it in the FOURTH CENTURY CE.

That's the key problem. It does not appear to show up in any translations that I am aware of that are concurrent with Josephus.

Let me hightlight an important bit you seem to be glossing over

"both derive from the Syriac translation of Eusebius"
Click to expand...
That has nothing to do with it being a hoax as you claimed. Now you are just grasping at straws.


Just think.....all that time frantically Googling on a topic Perry had never heard of or read about, only for him to find a link to someone who undermined his claims, and supported mine.
 
Cypress said:
What a fucking waste of time
Click to expand...

Well, at least we can agree that a lot of the Testimonium Flavianum cannot be found anywhere prior to Eusebius in the fourth century CE. Literally 400 years after the fact.

I agree with you that there is the possibility that Josephus did reference Jesus and as I have already agreed, many scholars believe his secondary reference to James' brother is authentic. It appears from Whealy that your hypothesis of PARTIAL Christianization may be accurate but it is hard to tell.

Most people consider the Whealy article to be evidence against the Arabic translations a proof of the original TF as it is understood now
 
Obtenebrator said:
This really sounds much more like it supports an hypothesis YOU put forther that it is only PARTIALLY christianized. This may also be true. But it doesn't sound like your Arabic Translations pre-date Eusebius.
Click to expand...
Correct.
Finally. And after wasting large amounts of my time.

But now you have backpedaled, backtracked, retreated from your original preconceived ideas.

You have invested your message board credibility claiming the references to Jesus in Josephus were total forgeries, total fakes, and cannot be counted as historical data.

I said, continue to say, and am supported by most of the academic community that the references to Jesus are authentic, even in those translations that have spiced the narrative up with Christianizing elements.
 
Wikipedia Scholar said:
That has nothing to do with it being a hoax as you claimed.
Click to expand...

First offf: I NEVER CLAIMED IT WAS A HOAX. I never did. Not once.

What I have done is ask the question: is it truly considered to be wholly accurate? Right now the balance of the evidence is "no" but it's open for debate. Clearly Josephus does have at least ONE legitimate refernce to James' brother.

But it does sound like the TF is if not wholly then at least partially forged.


The key is that RIGHT NOW you cannot place the TF as being original to Josephus as written. The FIRST time it is discussed is 400 years after the fact.

That is why Eusebius is considered one of the possible folks who Christianized it. But again, I am open to anything.

Chemically Castrated said:
Now you are just grasping at straws.
Click to expand...

YOU introduced the Arabic translations as proof of the TF originally in Josephus. Whealy has shown that the Arabic translations appear to leverage EUSEBIUS.

Doesn't Understand the Topic said:
Just think.....all that time frantically Googling on a topic Perry had never heard of or read about, only for him to find a link to someone who undermined his claims, and supported mine.
Click to expand...

And yet, at the end of the day I'm right.
 


Cypress said:
But now you have backpedaled, backtracked, retreated from your original preconceived ideas.
Click to expand...

Actually I agreed to this point many posts ago, Wikipedia Scholar. But since you read so poorly you missed it! As per usual!

(Life sure does pass you by unnoticed doesn't it?)
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
I am not a frantic Googler for tidbits of information like you are. So I don't have usually have Google links to share. Most of what I know is from books, articles, podcasts, classes.
Click to expand...

Is that why there are SO MANY Wikipedia articles in your posts?
 
Obtenebrator said:
First offf: I NEVER CLAIMED IT WAS A HOAX. I never did. Not once.
Click to expand...
Baloney. You have a history of claiming the Jesus references in Josephus can't be relied on as historical data because they were forgeries.

Now, you have flip flopped and have started using information I taught you about Josephus Antiquites.
 
Wikipedia Scholar said:
Balonehy.
Click to expand...

Never once. If you are honest you will see I've been open to all sides. I just like CONSIDERING all sides and not just screaming at the ones I dont' like.

You have a history of claiming the Jesus references in Josephus can't be relied on as historical data because they were forgeries.
Click to expand...

Let's correct you yet again: what I have is a history of pointing out the "other side" of the story. You just can't handle anyone doing that.

Now, you have flip flopped and have started using information I taught you about Josephus Antiquites.
Click to expand...

You are a Wikiepdia Scholar.
 
Thinks Jesus' Teachings are a Joke said:
Check it again Einstein
Click to expand...

Oooh, Cypress, I don't think that will pass muster. We'll get it checked out by the mods. Usually the change has to be relatively obvious. Subtle changes might still get you into trouble.

But kudos on your "morality" being on display again. Skirting right up to the edge of MASSIVE dishonestly.

You really DO have the morality of a hog. Actually a hog probably has a better moral compass than you.

LOL.
 
Wikipedia Scholar said:
Frantic Googling for tidbits of information is nothing to be proud of, and certainly will not give you the kind of integrated knowledge one gets from reading books and taking classes.
Click to expand...

Relying on Wikipedia and then telling everyone you primarily rely on books and classes is not something to be proud of either, Wikipedia Scholar.

But there you are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top