Posted by AP [AP] on November 08, 1999 at 14:52:35 {Nq8EnQ8RVA0hi4VK0MIQMAe0EfOyQM}:
Keeping in mind that there are many of you and only one of me (well, two if you count Travis :), I will address all of those responses I can, when I can. Since none of you emailed me as I requested, I will only entertain those that I think are presently worthwhile.
But, for now, here is some more material for RW's site:
My previous remarks will be prefaced with GREG_1, RW's response will be prefaced with RW, and my latest remarks will be prefaced with GREG_2.
GREG_1
Be sure you get this up on your site as soon as you can! In your “Thus Saith...,” page 77, you copy the first page of "An Extract out of Josephus’ Discourse to the Greeks Concerning Hades," found in recent editions of Whiston’s English translation of Josephus’ works. On the side of the copy are your words, “No coincidence that the Jews’ belief about death fit Jesus’ words!” And, “Jesus’ listeners had little doubt what he was talking about!”
Thus, you are here presenting material allegedly from Josephus, as representative of the JEWISH view, that you advance in support of your two-compartment view of Hades so often presented by those who misunderstand the reference to “paradise” in Luke 23:43. What you DO NOT tell your readers is that in Whiston’s Sixth Dissertation in the Appendix to his English translation, he sets out to defend this "Extract" as an authentic work of the Jewish historian, claiming that it was written by him while he was "Bishop of Jerusalem, about the end of Trajan." According to Whiston, then, Josephus converted to Christianity and wrote this Extract while serving as a bishop in Jerusalem. It would not necessarily, then, have anything to do with the views of the Jews living during the time of Jesus’ ministry!
RW
So are you saying that this was not Josephus? Or is it your opinion this is not Josephus? Below you say it is uncertain.
GREG_2
It is either NOT Josephus or the result of a Christianized Josephus, writing during the reign of Trajan. THAT is where the uncertainty comes into play. Apparently you did not bother to check this out, but were merely glad you found something you could use to jamb the Witnesses' beliefs. Given the fact that the essence of this Extract is found in later writings of the ANF, it was likely not the work of Josephus at all. Are you looking up the sources I give or are you just interested in getting a reply out to try and salvage your misuse of this document? As I said:
QUOTE FROM GREG_1
What you DO NOT tell your readers is that in Whiston’s Sixth Dissertation in the Appendix to his English translation, he sets out to defend this "Extract" as an authentic work of the Jewish historian, claiming that it was written by him while he was "Bishop of Jerusalem, about the end of Trajan." According to Whiston, then, Josephus converted to Christianity and wrote this Extract while serving as a bishop in Jerusalem. It would not necessarily, then, have anything to do with the views of the Jews living during the time of Jesus’ ministry!
END OF QUOTE
GREG_2
For reasons given in my remarks, this Extract is not included in modern translations of Josephus' writings. It has nothing necessarily to do with the views of the Jews during Jesus' ministry. It is a much later work, with clear and unmistakable "Christian" additions, which is nothing new.
GREG_1
In reading through the Extract it is practically impossible to miss the many references to the NT. Whiston himself highlights a number of these, including parallels to Matthew 23:13 and 25:30, Luke 16:22-23, 1 Corinthians 15:37-38, 2 Corinthians 5:2 and others. In fact, the author of the Extract even refers to "God the word; for to him hath the Father committed all judgment; and he in order to fulfill the will of his Father, shall come as judge, whom we call Christ" (compare Joh 1:1; 5:22, 27).
Additionally, it is uncertain whether the author of the Extract is in fact the historian Josephus. Indeed, it is attributed to Hippolytus (170-236 CE) in ANF 5, 221-223, under the name, "Against Plato, on the Cause of the Universe." The fragment is also available on the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae D CD ROM (Los Altos, CA: Packard Humanities Institute, 1993), under Hippolytus. But there is no question that the Extract is the result of a "Christianized" view of Hades, as understood nearly a century (if not longer) after Jesus gave his parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31. Thus, this Extract does not tell us the view of Jewish groups prior to and during the ministry of Jesus Christ; rather, it communicates the views of later Christian interpreters of NT writings.
RW
Why is it the result of a "Christianized" view of Hades, because it doesn't match your "purer" Christian theology?
GREG_2
(!) It is the result of a "Christianized" view of Hades because, as I said (you are reading this, right?):
QUOTE FROM GREG_1
In reading through the Extract it is practically impossible to miss the many references to the NT. Whiston himself highlights a number of these, including parallels to Matthew 23:13 and 25:30, Luke 16:22-23, 1 Corinthians 15:37-38, 2 Corinthians 5:2 and others. In fact, the author of the Extract even refers to "God the word; for to him hath the Father committed all judgment; and he in order to fulfill the will of his Father, shall come as judge, whom we call Christ" (compare Joh 1:1; 5:22, 27).
END OF QUOTE
GREG_2
Does that sound like the views of the Jews living during Jesus' ministry? Does that sound like the Josephus whom you read in Against Apion or in War of the Jews?
RW
A few more references from other sources you may consider more legitimate are in order, Mr. Hat. There are quotes from the Talmud on the Jewish view, as well as intertestamental writings, early fathers, more quotes from the fathers, and discussions of the meaning of Gehenna to compare. In fact, I took much of the arguments and compared them here with the note:
The two works I have chosen to stand side by side are "The Fire That Consumes," by Edward W. Fudge (Conditionalist; pub. in 1982) and "Death and The Afterlife" by Robert Morey (Traditionalist; pub. in 1984). These represent the best of both sides, and are the most recent scholarly works available on this subject. Each incorporates the works of those who have gone before, and enlarges on them. On the left hand side of each page, I will comment on and present the Conditionalist argument (which is challenging the "traditionalist" view), and on the right side I will publish the "traditionalist" comments or refutation of this view. We trust this study will prove enlightening to you, as we feel that there are excellent points made on both sides.
In spite of reproducing large segments of quotes and text from each book, both Dr. Morey and Mr. Fudge have given permission for this project (after the fact: thank you both!) I am indebted to them for their vast knowledge on this subject. Another interesting book to read that is out of print (I believe) is "The Doctrine of Eternal Punishment" by Harry Buis. (Phila:Presbyerian & Reformed, 1957; LOC 57-8808)
Is this the kind of “truth and honesty” that you had in mind? Why don’t you stick the above on your web site, and offer an apology to your readers, for misinforming them about this issue? After all, you are after “truth and honesty,” right?
This response is obviously now on my website at: http://www.freeminds.org/doctrine/sorry4u.htm and will be updated. Please tell me specifics on how I have misinformed them. You are implying I was dishonest with my readers.
GREG_2
I have gone through all of the references in the writings of the Jews during the intertestamental period, and I have found nothing to support the view of a two-compartment Hades as you teach. Please give specific references, RW. You know, like 1, 2, or 3 Enoch, the Qumran scrolls, including the book and proper line referencing. Why are these not included in your reply? You should have some, since the books on which you lean for your information likely have referenced some of the primary sources in their writings, right?
Please quote them for us all. Now that you have acknowledged having no knowledge about the history of the document you use in your "Thus Saith...," misleading all of your readers, I am willing to see what else you have to offer. But please do not forget to take that out of your next edition, and offer an apology to the Watchtower Society for misleading people about material they did not use, and for good reason!
GREG_1
I believe I have gone far beyond the call of duty in bringing some clarity to the issues that several H2O luminaries have darkened. While I greatly regret my decisions regarding how to discuss matters of importance on the Internet, I believe it has ultimately served to show how dishonest, hypocritical and inaccurate several persons on this board are, and that is well worth the lesson I learned.
RW
Ahh, the disclaimer to the elders and the Governing Body. We'll see if Albert Schroeder makes exceptions in your case, because if he allows you to discuss doctrine with "known apostates," then it is allowed to all Witnesses, something I would welcome.
Randy Watters
GREG_2
I think you will have second thoughts about that the more of your material we discuss. As it is, you are again off track and need to refocus on the charge made against you: You are have misled your readers about the item on page 77 of your book. Please apologize for this error, and we can then test the strength of those other things that inform your present views.
If you cannot admit to your error, and your having done shallow and poor research which has resulted in your misleading others about this issue, then why should I spend one second more trying to help you out on other matters?
Apok