Because HE SAYS SO!!

[achilles12604]

Comments please.

I have encountered both sides failing to think for themselves. Instead they cite one or two "professionals" who happen to agree with their position and ignore the fact that there are always experts on the other side as well.

Why is it that several members on this cite do nothing but cite the opinions of other experts rather than reading what is there "Evidence", and then drawing their own conclusions about it?

[achilles12604]

Steve Mason:

Finally, there is a peculiarity with the reference to the "principal men among us." Josephus elsewhere refers to the "principal men," but Josephus consistently refers to the principal men "of Jerusalem" or "of the city," using these phrases instead of the first person plural. In his autobiography, Josephus refers to the "principal men of the city" (2), "the principal men of Jerusalem" (7), the "principal men of the city" (12), the "principal men belonging to the city" (12), the "principal men of the city" (12), and the "principal men of Jerusalem" (44). In each case Josephus identifies the leading men as belonging to Jerusalem.

Is this true? Does Josephus "consistently" refer to the principal men with the qualifiers "of Jerusalem" or "of the city"?


Let us examine the truthfulness of this atheist apologist shall we?

Hereupon Moses said he not speak to him any more about them, for he himself, together with the principal men among the Egyptians,

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... /ant2.html

Mason says that Josephus did not write "Principal men among us." But here Josephus clearly writes "principle men AMONG the egyptians." Hmm, not conclusive but let's continue. . .

He also gave a particular exhortation to the principal men of the Hebrews,

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... /ant3.html

Of the Hebrews. Well at least he got the preposition correct this time.

there were two hundred and fifty, and those of the principal men also, who were eager

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... /ant4.html

Hmm. No preposition at all. Apparently Josephus didn't read Steve Mason's commentary before he wrote.

and even where some of the principal men were illustrious on account of the virtues of their fathers, they also were corrupted together with the rest.

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... /ant4.html



Let us skip to when Jerusalem actually existed shall we . . . .

Now the principal men of the country

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... /ant7.html

Mr. Mason probably missed this one. Here we have the Jews labeled the principal men of the country. Not city, and not Jerusalem.

13 more books to go. I hope Mr. Mason's theory holds water.

He there also constituted judges out of the priests and the Levites, and principal persons of the multitude, and admonished them to pass all their sentences with care and justice

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... /ant9.html


Again, not city or Jerusalem. A totally new subject of the preposition.

The principal men of the people were corrupted also together with him

Of the people . . . this time. We have yet to see of the city or of Jerusalem. Maybe Mr. Mason over stated things a tad?

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... /ant9.html

because this crime had reached the principal men among the people;

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... ant11.html

UH OH. This one is almost identical to the phrase used in the TF. This could start to be a problem for Mr. Mason.

Jechonias, a principal man in Jerusalem, came to him

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... ant11.html

FINALLY. We see our first example of the phrase that Mr. Mason says Josephus used . . . consistently.

This uncle was of the tribe of Benjamin, and was one of the principal persons among the Jews.

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... ant11.html

Among the Jews. Well that is the first time we have seen this prepositional phrase. It is similar to the TF but not exact. . . so maybe we can let it slide as an "other".

both the priest and the ancientest of the elders, and the principal men of their commonwealth, made it their request,

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... ant12.html


Of the commonwealth. Interesting, yet another prepositional subject.

of the principal men, and slew them

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... ant12.html

This is one of three examples of the words "principal men" being used without any prepositional phrase at all.

he slew also the principal men of that city

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... ant12.html

Hey. We found another one!! That is 2 Mr. Mason.

with the king among the principal men in the country,

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... ant12.html

Not of the city, but not among us either. Shall we say neutral?

He also fortified the citadel at Jerusalem more than all the rest. Moreover, he took the sons of the principal Jews as pledges

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... ant13.html

This one may be problematic. Here is the PERFECT opportunity to fulfill Mr. Mason's claims, and he doesn't do it. Perhaps Josephus doesn't really conform to the "consistently" pattern that Mr. Mason alleged.

As this happened at the time when the feast of unleavened bread was celebrated, which we call the passover, the principal men among the Jews left the country,

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... ant14.html


OUCH!. Almost word for word like the TF.

3. But now the principal men among the Jews, when they saw Antipater

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... ant14.html

And again. Almost identical phrasing.

and called together the principal men among the Jews; and when they were come,

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... ant17.html

And again. I am still looking for another "of Jerusalem" of "of the city".

there were also very great robberies and murder of our principal men.

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... ant18.html


OUR principle men. Is that more like "principle men among us" or "principle men of the city."?

principal citizens of Jerusalem

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... ant20.html

This one is kinda close to Mr. Mason's claims.

principal men in Jerusalem.

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... ant20.html

Ah good. A direct reference.

But for some of our own principal men

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... /war1.html

Another missed opportunity to prove Mr. Mason right.

5. However, after this, there came a hundred of the principal men among the Jews to

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... /war1.html

Among the Jews. Among us. Hmmm . . . .

many of the principal men of the city

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... /war2.html

Another hole in one. Good job Mr. Mason.





So now gentle reader, please decide for yourselves. As a small side note I included EVERY SINGLE REFERENCE of "of the city" or "of Jerusalem" in the antiquities and war. However as I noted that "among the ______" were so numerous that it was silly to include them all, I left out many of these sorts of references.

So please do consider carefully and decide for yourself . . . .



Should Mr. Steve Mason be trusted as a scholar, honest and unbiased? Did he tell us the truth when he publically published the following statement?

Josephus elsewhere refers to the "principal men," but Josephus consistently refers to the principal men "of Jerusalem" or "of the city," using these phrases instead of the first person plural.

Is Mr. Mason trustworthy? Is he a good source?

[Goat]

Is Mr. Mason trustworthy? Is he a good source?

What do his peer say? Let's look as some reviews of his book "Jospehus and the New Testament"

Mind you, this is the book company, so they probably cherry picked some reviews.. but lets look at them anyway.

he first edition (1992) of this study of how to approach Josephus so that he will shed light on NT texts was described in NTA 37, p. 308. After stating the book's purpose, Mason, professor of humanities (classics and religious studies) at Vanier College, York University, Ontario, considers the use and abuse of Josephus, the career of Josephus, the writings of Josephus, who's who in the NT world, early Christian figures mentioned by Josephus, and Josephus and Luke-Acts. He concludes with general comments on the significance of Josephus for NT study. In his three-page preface to the second edition, he notes that while the format and logic of the original have been retained, the content has changed in significant ways to point that this version marks a generational change from its parent."
—New Testament Abstracts

”The first edition of this work appeared in 1992. The component chapters of this second edition have been revised to varying degrees in light of the explosion of Josephus studies in the last decade and developments in Mason’s own thinking. New maps have likewise been provided, as has a ‘preface to the second edition.’ The book consists of six chapters preceded by an introduction and conclusion: 1) The Use and Abuse of Josephus; 2) The Career of Josephus; 3) The Writings of Josephus; 4) Who’s Who in the New Testament World?; 5) Early Christian Figures Mentioned by Josephus; and 6) Josephus and Luke-Acts. There are indexes of subjects and ancient sources as well as a number of historical charts interspersed throughout.”
—Old Testament Abstracts

“One of the most important and interesting personalities in extra-biblical history of the New Testament era is Flavius Josephus (ca A.D. 37-100). This work is a new and expanded edition of the author’s 1992 work under the same title. The author brings significant academic credentials to this undertaking. He is widely regarded as a leader among living Josephan scholars and is the general editor of the multi-volume Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary (Brill, 2000), a new English edition of the works of Josephus.

“This new edition is well designed and includes a new series of charts and maps that are helpful in sorting out the various personalities and groups. . . . Mason has written an overview and a lucid and detailed introduction that deals with a quite complicated corpus of work from a singularly unique individual. . . . This work is well indexed (particularly the index of Josephus’ works cited) and provides excellent bibliographic references.”
—The Master’s Seminary Journal

“Mason. . . . improves upon the first edition of his work on Josephus and the New Testament by substantially rewriting parts of it, notably chapter three on the writings of Josephus, by far the longest chapter at nearly a hundred pages, reflecting the explosion of scholarship in this field since 1992. Mason is overly modest in describing the intention of this book as making Josephus accessible to the New Testament reader. This book is now the best one-volume introduction to Josephus for anyone, presenting in language both clear and deft the contemporary appreciation of a master rhetorician whose project bore many similarities to the gospel writers, for whom he provided a foundation and model. . . . The clear introductions and conclusions to each chapter, charts summarizing dynasties and important contemporary events, together with new maps, make this volume especially enjoyable to read.”
—Heythrop Journal

“Mason presents a balanced and informed analysis of Josephus and his writings, presenting fresh, thoughtful assessments of Josephus’s purposes for writing his four known works, contrary to traditional interpretations and frank admission to the limits of present knowledge. . . . This volume is a helpful examination of the writings of an important literary figure who impacts biblical studies.”
—Southwestern Journal of Theology

So, it seems he gets respect from his peers about his book.

Are you finished with your ad homenin attack?