Was TF inserted?

[achilles12604]

Goat is of the opinion that the Testimonium Flavianum, attributed to Josephus was a total invention and insertion by Christian copiests. I of course do not think so. I think that it was originally penned by Josephus but was "doctored" by later copies.

So I invite the original view to present its case. Then I shall rebut.

[Goat]

Then the 4th paragraph is a long detailed account about a love affair capped off with the 5th paragraph about how the Jews were having troubles in Rome.

And you think that 4 and 5, fit better with 1 and 2 that the TF despite the obvious facts 1) That they don't have any of the same people involved, 2) They don't take place in the same area, 3) The upheavals were totally different in nature

This is how you justify this?

At least tell me I have gone blind and that the totally obvious differences listed above (1,2,3) between the first two and the last two Paragraphs don't really exist.

Are you purposely being obtuse? The chapter deals with 4 people whose actions cause calmaity on the Jews, One was Pilate.

The paragraph about Jesus does not fit that pattern. It MIGHT be a digression, however, the subject matter is not referred to either previously or after. It uses terminology that Josephus did not use, but that Eurisbus did.

It specifically mentioned in the 5th paragraph about these are the four people whose actions brought calamity upon the Jews and got them kicked out of the city.

Now, Jesus does not fit into that theme, not as it is written.

Now, here is the 18th chapter, translated, and I suggest you read it. Look at what chapter 3 specifically says. see if you can use the passages that Josephus sums up his arguement at the end of chapter three, and fit the TF into it.

The very last line is what Chapter 3 was about..

Thus were these Jews banished out of the city by the wickedness of four men.

You can't.. and not be honest about it.

[achilles12604]

Then the 4th paragraph is a long detailed account about a love affair capped off with the 5th paragraph about how the Jews were having troubles in Rome.

And you think that 4 and 5, fit better with 1 and 2 that the TF despite the obvious facts 1) That they don't have any of the same people involved, 2) They don't take place in the same area, 3) The upheavals were totally different in nature

This is how you justify this?

At least tell me I have gone blind and that the totally obvious differences listed above (1,2,3) between the first two and the last two Paragraphs don't really exist.

Are you purposely being obtuse?

Not at all. Are you purposefully being accute? Personally I prefer Rhombus. I think I will purposefully be Rhombus. I have an extra side that way.

The chapter deals with 4 people whose actions cause calmaity on the Jews, One was Pilate.

So in the first 3 Paragraphs Pilate is the only person mentioned. . .

Then in the last 2, he isn't mentioned AT ALL.

How on earth is this a pattern to you? To me, when you remove the main Character from a story, and then replace him WITHOUT ANY CONNECTIONS AT ALL, with 3 totally unrelated and different characters in a totally different story, with new places and new story line, I don't call them a continuous, related story. Apparently you do.

I am glad however that we are now clear on the subject.

The reason for our differences is that when I compare 5 parts of a story, and 3 of them are similar with the same players, and 2 of them are totally different, I don't point at one of the 3 and declare it out of place. When you see 2 matching, 1 which you don't like, and then 2 more matching but totally unrelated to the first two, you jump up on the passage you have already decided against and try to make it not fit despite the fact that it has the same characters and scenery as the first two.

I understand our differences now. I guess we will have to agree to disagree here and we shall let the readers decide which paragraphs contain the same people and places and story line, and events . . . . and which two are totally different in EVERY way.

The paragraph about Jesus does not fit that pattern. It MIGHT be a digression, however, the subject matter is not referred to either previously or after. It uses terminology that Josephus did not use, but that Eurisbus did.

Once again with the terminology. That's good actually since this is where I am going next. Be sure to start googling your atheist sources so we can see if they are actually on the level or if they might just skew some of the information like the other sources you were citing in the Tacitus thread.

It specifically mentioned in the 5th paragraph about these are the four people whose actions brought calamity upon the Jews and got them kicked out of the city.

No Goat.

No.

He, then living at Rome, professed to instruct men in the wisdom of the laws of Moses. He procured also three other men, entirely of the same character with himself, to be his partners. These men persuaded Fulvia, a woman of great dignity, and one that had embraced the Jewish religion, to send purple and gold to the temple at Jerusalem; and when they had gotten them, they employed them for their own uses, and spent the money themselves, on which account it was that they at first required it of her. Whereupon Tiberius, who had been informed of the thing by Saturninus, the husband of Fulvia, who desired inquiry might be made about it, ordered all the Jews to be banished out of Rome; at which time the consuls listed four thousand men out of them, and sent them to the island Sardinia; but punished a greater number of them, who were unwilling to become soldiers, on account of keeping the laws of their forefathers. (11) Thus were these Jews banished out of the city by the wickedness of four men.

This 5th Paragraph has NOTHING to do with the 4th Paragraph. The 4 men listed does NOT include Pilate as you have stated.

The chapter deals with 4 people whose actions cause calmaity on the Jews, One was Pilate.

One was NOT Pilate Goat. No no no.

You asked me earlier if I was being purposefully obtuse. . . . .

My answer is still no. You are just flat wrong about these things and your assumptions, and your trust in your atheist sources is clearly misplaced if that is where you are getting these ideas. They obviously didn't bother to read Josephus at all.

Now, Jesus does not fit into that theme, not as it is written.

Now, here is the 18th chapter, translated, and I suggest you read it. Look at what chapter 3 specifically says. see if you can use the passages that Josephus sums up his arguement at the end of chapter three, and fit the TF into it.

The very last line is what Chapter 3 was about..

Thus were these Jews banished out of the city by the wickedness of four men.

You can't.. and not be honest about it.

I am honest Goat. But in being honest, I actually look at the evidence itself instead of just trusting some Christian "experts" opinion on the matter. I used to do this and I was continually embarrassed by their stupidity. Experts are not always right. Paragraph 5 of Josephus. . . Re-read it and then tell us all again that Pilate was one of the 4 who brought calamity. In fact please try and tell us again that these 5 paragraphs are all connected.

[Goat]

I am honest Goat. But in being honest, I actually look at the evidence itself instead of just trusting some Christian "experts" opinion on the matter. I used to do this and I was continually embarrassed by their stupidity. Experts are not always right. Paragraph 5 of Josephus. . . Re-read it and then tell us all again that Pilate was one of the 4 who brought calamity. In fact please try and tell us again that these 5 paragraphs are all connected.

I don't think you are being honest with yourself.

Now, tell me, what evidence do you have that it actually existed before the 4th century? You admitted it was at least tampered with. Give me evidence it existed before hand. If it got tampered with, it is corrupted. Show good evidence that
it existed before the 4th century, or admit you cant. I am not going to be distracted from that question.

[achilles12604]

I am honest Goat. But in being honest, I actually look at the evidence itself instead of just trusting some Christian "experts" opinion on the matter. I used to do this and I was continually embarrassed by their stupidity. Experts are not always right. Paragraph 5 of Josephus. . . Re-read it and then tell us all again that Pilate was one of the 4 who brought calamity. In fact please try and tell us again that these 5 paragraphs are all connected.

I don't think you are being honest with yourself.

Now, tell me, what evidence do you have that it actually existed before the 4th century? You admitted it was at least tampered with. Give me evidence it existed before hand. If it got tampered with, it is corrupted. Show good evidence that
it existed before the 4th century, or admit you cant. I am not going to be distracted from that question.

Way to change the subject. Shall we finish our conversation about Pilate being one of the 4 guys cited in Paragraph 5?

[Goat]

I am honest Goat. But in being honest, I actually look at the evidence itself instead of just trusting some Christian "experts" opinion on the matter. I used to do this and I was continually embarrassed by their stupidity. Experts are not always right. Paragraph 5 of Josephus. . . Re-read it and then tell us all again that Pilate was one of the 4 who brought calamity. In fact please try and tell us again that these 5 paragraphs are all connected.

I don't think you are being honest with yourself.

Now, tell me, what evidence do you have that it actually existed before the 4th century? You admitted it was at least tampered with. Give me evidence it existed before hand. If it got tampered with, it is corrupted. Show good evidence that
it existed before the 4th century, or admit you cant. I am not going to be distracted from that question.

Way to change the subject. Shall we finish our conversation about Pilate being one of the 4 guys cited in Paragraph 5?

I have been asking that since before you wrote this thread.

I see you still won't answer.

[achilles12604]

*sigh* Changing the subject when you have made an error is sly, but in this case transparent Goat. I shall address your last post here, and then let's move on.

[achilles12604]

I am honest Goat. But in being honest, I actually look at the evidence itself instead of just trusting some Christian "experts" opinion on the matter. I used to do this and I was continually embarrassed by their stupidity. Experts are not always right. Paragraph 5 of Josephus. . . Re-read it and then tell us all again that Pilate was one of the 4 who brought calamity. In fact please try and tell us again that these 5 paragraphs are all connected.

I don't think you are being honest with yourself.

Now, tell me, what evidence do you have that it actually existed before the 4th century? You admitted it was at least tampered with. Give me evidence it existed before hand. If it got tampered with, it is corrupted. Show good evidence that
it existed before the 4th century, or admit you cant. I am not going to be distracted from that question.

Way to change the subject. Shall we finish our conversation about Pilate being one of the 4 guys cited in Paragraph 5?

I have been asking that since before you wrote this thread.

I see you still won't answer.

Oh common Goat. I HAVE addressed this. In fact the entire first part of our debate was about this very subject.

Common.

Post - 95 Show good evidence that
it existed before the 4th century, or admit you cant.

POST - 19 In short Goat, there is no evidence of this passage being quoted before 300 CE because there is no reason for it to be cited before 300 CE.

I already admitted MULTIPLE times that there is no mention between when it is written and 300CE.

I have also pointed out multiple times that this DOESN"T MATTER.

Goat we have dozens of documents from that time, which don't show up in other writings for hundreds of years. News Flash - If it was written 2000 years ago . . . It just might have gotten, destroyed, re-written, or many other things. There was an entire library in Greece which was destroyed with everything in it. Many works were lost.

So your demand is, as I have pointed out many times before, pointless.

Now if you want to re-hash the first 3 pages of this debate that is fine. It will at least draw attention from the obvious errors you have made concerning Josephus.


Or better yet, you can supply me with a reason for citing the TF like I have asked from since the beginning. That of course would return us to the first 3 pages again where I asked repeatedly for some good explaination WHY the early father would have WANTED to cite this passage.



Tell ya what.

Let us pretend that your argument from silence is somehow valid, and that you were totally wrong about Josephus and your atheist sources. Shall we move on to the style and content of his writings?

[Goat]

*sigh* Changing the subject when you have made an error is sly, but in this case transparent Goat. I shall address your last post here, and then let's move on.

Yes, let's since you won't answer, I will assume you can't, and wish to avoid the subject.

[achilles12604]

*sigh* Changing the subject when you have made an error is sly, but in this case transparent Goat. I shall address your last post here, and then let's move on.

Yes, let's since you won't answer, I will assume you can't, and wish to avoid the subject.

And post 97 was what if not an answer? Post 19? Post 69?

Please review that one real quick. In fact why doesn't everyone re-read post 97 and see if I really didn't answer.

And then re-read post 92.

Still wait for a couple of responses. Your question: What evidence exists before 300CE? My answer: None. But then again there really shouldn't be any now should there?

See. I answered your question Goat.

Here let me answer it for the 12th (or so) time.

Q: What evidence exists before 300CE?

A: None. But then we don't have any reason to assume that there SHOULD be evidence between 94 CE and 300 CE.




Now that I have answered your question 12 or 13ish times, care to address post 92 at all?

[Goat]

*sigh* Changing the subject when you have made an error is sly, but in this case transparent Goat. I shall address your last post here, and then let's move on.

Yes, let's since you won't answer, I will assume you can't, and wish to avoid the subject.

And post 97 was what if not an answer? Post 19? Post 69?

Please review that one real quick. In fact why doesn't everyone re-read post 97 and see if I really didn't answer.

And then re-read post 92.

Still wait for a couple of responses. Your question: What evidence exists before 300CE? My answer: None. But then again there really shouldn't be any now should there?

See. I answered your question Goat.

Here let me answer it for the 12th (or so) time.

Q: What evidence exists before 300CE?

A: None. But then we don't have any reason to assume that there SHOULD be evidence between 94 CE and 300 CE.




Now that I have answered your question 12 or 13ish times, care to address post 92 at all?

So, you don't have any evidence. I DO disagree with your remark about 'their should be'. We know that Origin used book 18, and for him NOT to remark on that passage would be totally remarkable.