[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Josephus & DSS
Jim
Have you read Josephus or Acts right through and compared them with the
old records? Like many modern critics of the Bible and Ancient History you
castigate them as unreliable but when I myself have checked the records I
have found the Bible and Josephus very reliable especially the former. In Britain
some years ago we had this chap, I think he was Ian Wilson, who spouted on
TV and in print how Luke was historically inaccurate with things like the census.
Obviously he had not read Augustus' autobiography nor records of ancient
inscriptions. I am overjoyed that the DSS are now available for the rest of us
to study and I am sure they will help to authenticate statements in the Scriptures
and Josephus.
Thanks Beruriah Bloom with the statement:
"Now it seems as though you are suggesting that an unknown, unnamed author of a
text found at Qumran is more reliable than Josephus is."
and Ian Hutchesson with the statements:
"I find the advice given here almost scandalous(!?)" and
"I'd rather go for Josephus on the Essenes than flaky modern wish-fulfilment."
I wish there were more of you making your voices felt against all these critics who
keep denigrating the ancient writings which include the Bible. Perhaps these critics
should give us some facts from the DSS which they say disprove the New
Testament and Josephus and then we can make our own minds up instead of just
accepting wild statements like this implying that Acts is unreliable.
_____________________________
> First, I would suggest that you virtually disregard Josephus as a credible
> witness to the Essene movement or anything else.
> in short, he is as historically reliable as something like the Biblical book
> of Acts.
> Once Josephus has rightly been abandoned as a historical source ...
> Jim West
______________________________
Karl Ian Ransome
4 Cleekim Road, Edinburgh, EH15 3HU
Scotland, UK
ransome@sasa.gov.uk