So the source you accept says his work is not always accepted as reliable but you keep quoting him as if his word (in translation!) is absolute and correct. Some day you will learn about the word "irony."
What led to that view? Well, I cited the Bible and you have rejected what it says. And citing Romans isn't citing the Bible. Or history.
No that's not what happened, you must have presumed we'd agreed a topic and strict boundaries to our discussion, we didn't.
That's dogma, blind belief on your part, not reasoned discourse, simply a sequence of repeated blanket rejections.
You are encouraged to access the source documents in their original languages and give me your "proper" translation. The piece I quoted is short, so really shouldn't take you very long.
Did you translate them yourself I wonder...
This is the check-mate of our discussion - the only way to support your claim Josephus is what you describe him to be, is to compare his accounts with someone else's accounts, yes? This is preposterous, all you are doing now is more unsupported assertions "my sources are better than yours".
I'd have thought that was obvious; because it supports my argument about the meaning of "Jew", would you like me to quote Charles Dickens perhaps?
I do not claim to be a linguist, nor a scholar of Hebrew or ancient Greek, but that does not negate the arguments I've put forward. I'm not concerned about the efficacy of the translations, if you are then do as I suggested, translate them yourself and share with us your translation.
Define for me please, what you understand by the phrase "historical term"?
That you don't know what "Bible" or "History" means goes some way to explaining your obvious confusion.
The phrase "not always accepted as reliable" does not mean "always accepted as unreliable", why must I give you English and logic lessons, but this is all your own fault, trying to peddle dogma might work with some, but not with Sherlock Holmes, I do this kind of detective work for a living.
Yes, I assumed that you would stay on topic and not arbitrarily change. You must be great at parties, randomly changing what you are talking about with no explanation.
The fact that you admit you don't know the original material and that you haven't rebutted what I have posted is dogma?
Another swing and a kiss for you. You are reading in translation and deciding that it is correct and telling me I should check the original. You should have checked it before you posted it (like for the video of the Jew in which the Hebrew and English don't match up). You are basically bragging that your ignorance is a defense.
Because the translation includes words that have no equivalent in ancient Hebrew so I can sure that there is a problem.
You still haven't checked the evidence I cited I guess.
In my head, as I read the Hebrew. And then I checked with other translations (into Aramaic and English) to confirm my understanding. What steps did you take?
OK, sure. His statements contradict the biblical account. I'll take the Bible, thanks.
Yes, the Bible is better than Josephus. If you disagree, that's on you.
So even though you accept that his writings are unreliable and you haven't even checked the source material you use it because it supports your argument. That's not an especially rigorous approach.
Actually, it does. You are claiming that an ancient Hebrew or Greek text says something without being able to read the text.
Clearly.
Wow, another miss. The entire fact that you read them in translation is the problem and you want me to do your homework for you?
A term that exists throughout a particular chronological frame. An English word cannot be an historical term in the Bible because there was no English for a long time after the bible.
If you choose not to read them, then they don't exist? Fascinating.
Nor does it mean "always accepted as reliable" but that's what you are doing. Are you really this dim? I pity anyone who hires you as a detective.
lol. You really don't understand what's going on. If you think Romans is either Bible or history then you are in the wrong place. If you'd like, I can give you a link to the Bible and you can show me where Romans is.
That you get confused easily is not my concern.
I'm assuming the translation of Josephus and Romans capture the original meaning, that's what I do with experts I am prepared to trust them until given a reason not to.
I cannot "check it" myself, I assume it's trustworthy, relying on other competent specialists is accepted practice when we're dealing with unfamiliar problem domains. If you care to give me doubt about the translation's efficacy then I'm happy to consider it.
Yes so you keep saying, don't "assure" me, show me, show us all what that problem is? (other than you hate what it says).
I trust the translators to capture the original meaning.
Do his statements ever concur with the Biblical account?
It's not better when it comes to history that is not recorded in the Bible.
You need to reread, I did not accept his writings are "unreliable" you TRANSLATED what I wrote and did an abysmal job.
I trust the translators, have they translated it incorrectly?
No, I want you to prove there's translation flaw in the English translation of that Josephus text, you cannot else you'd do so.
I think your just confusing pronunciation with meaning.
Why give me something I can't read? you are busy telling me that unless we read it in Hebrew then we can't understand it.
Indeed, it means sometimes accepted as reliable, now you're catching on.
That's interesting to know, I respect your expertise, I acknowledge it. My wife is a linguist, I am more than slightly familiar with the subject. But claiming the Josephus quote is not translated correctly and mis-conveys the meaning in the original text still requires some evidence. Given your acknowledged expertise what's the problem with translating it yourself? what's the problem with showing the errors in the translation I quoted?
Nor is reality, apparently.
So you know who the translators are and their qualifications, right?
So you can't check it and believe what a translator writes. And when the translator uses a term that has no equivalent in the original you can't know it. And how do I know it has no equivalent? Because I have studied the original.
No but I investigate the shop before going. Did you vet the translator?
Besides that it uses words that don't appear in the original? Or that it makes claims that contradict the biblical accounts? How would you like me to show you that a word doesn't exist in the original if you don't understand the original?
Like the guy who translated that video and was completely wrong. Well, you can't know he was wrong and don't believe anyone who tells you it is wrong even if that person is fluent in the source language.
Does that matter? These don't and these are what is at issue. Or did you just suddenly change topics again?
Except that this was recorded and is contradicted.
Actually, I inferred. We detectives know how to do that.
Yes. The simple fact that they used a word which has no equivalent in the original is proof of that.
I have. The word Israelite doesn't exist as a distinct term. Go find the original and check. This is your claim. I'm just pointing out that it cannot be correct.
Then you don't know the meaning of the word "pronunciation." Maybe it would be easier if we stuck to something you do know. Is there anything you know?
That's my point. Thank you.
And sometimes not. How do you decide that in this case which contradicts the Bible it is reliable?
I don't know Greek so I rely on an expert
Do you really believe that there is a "tribe of Judas"?
www.blueletterbible.org
So you like the Christian texts and consider them authoritative about history even though they are rife with errors. What translation of them do you use? Why that one? Or is it only Romans that you trust as a history book? I don't trust any of it so you aren't going to make much progress trying to make an argument on a translation of a text which has no authority to me.
So your no better positioned than me to assess the efficacy of that Josephus translation.
They're not "Christian" texts, they're Jewish texts, emanating from Jewish culture, they are inherently Jewish products and predate "Christianity" by centuries.
If you'd said from the outset that you were only willing to accept arguments based on sources that you consider valid, you should have said so, would have saved us both a lot of time.
And I hope you took note of the results of my research. The translators were certainly taking liberties. I note you didn't address what I pointed out.
The Gospels are Jewish texts? Wow. Not even close.
We'll, they make claims that contradict Jewish law based on the various translations I have read. It isn't an issue of wording but of factual inaccuracies. If the Gospels make the claim that there was an accusation of blasphemy when the actions described have no connection to actual Jewish law then that's an error.
Really? You cited a combination? Why did you cobble together a bunch and not just use one? How did you decide that one was better than another in any particular place?
If you don't know the problems with Josephus and with translations and the position of the Gospels outside of Christianity then you need to study. If you had admitted at the outset that you actually don't know these things, we could have saved a lot of time.
Not just the "gospels" the epistles too and the extra-canonical writings.
You are free to interpret things as you see fit including "Jewish law" a term that has no meaning since the laws were given to the Israelites not just the subset of tribes known as "Jews".
Because translations are not algorithmic, different translators produce different translations, sticking to a single translation to the exclusion of all others is to risk a misunderstanding.
You objected to the passage I quoted from Josephus citing translation shortcomings, when asked to elaborate on these you refused. Then I gave you an opportunity to translate the passage from Josephus yourself, you refused telling me you did not know Greek. The I asked you how you can claim the passage has been poorly translated if you don't know Greek and again you simply procrastinate.
That's just more you are wrong about.
You live that word Israelite even though it had no ancient analogue. And you are wilfully misusing the word Jew because you don't like the truth. I have given biblical evidence that the word Jew is not tribal. You have provided nothing to counter that. Jewish Law is a thing and it applies to Jews who come from every and no tribe. Get a clue.
So how do you decide how and when to pick and choose from each translation?
So you didn't see the Greek I presented and the problems with the translation of the Greek? You should reread. It is embarrassing for you to claim I didn't do something that I clearly did. Would you like me to provide a link to that post or can you scroll up by yourself and look like a big boy?
