judge

Ok I am going to have to go over all this as according to the apologist article there are other ways to understand this.


*Dio Cassius, XLIV.22.

**Josephus, Antiquities XIV.487.

***The notes to the Loeb edition of Josephus explain many of these problems.

From here...The Dark Decade in History

The thing that is really set in stone and unable to be moved in all this are the dates of eclipses. These texts can be wrong but the dates of eclipses cannot be. Which seems a reasonable argument to use the dates of eclipses where possible to help us.

Added in edit:
I am having trouble finding the reference the site gives for Cassius Dio. I think I have the correct book mentioned here, that being book 44, but it appears to be about something else. Anyone more familiar with Cassius Dio?

spin

It should be XLIX, ie 49.

The use of the text is based on a misreading of it. Dio Cassio is giving some background on the Jews, explains their first clash with the Romans (under Pompey though not mentioned by name) and says that Antony entrusted the Jews to Herod to govern, though you can't get a when from the passage.

49.22.2 At any rate, Antony got neither hostages (except two and these of little importance) nor the money which he had demanded, but he granted Antiochus the death of a certain Alexander, who had earlier deserted from him to the Roman side. After doing this he set out for Italy, and Gaius Sosius received from him the governorship of Syria and Cilicia. 3 This officer subdued the Aradii, who had been besieged up to this time and had been reduced to hard straits by famine and disease, and also conquered in battle Antigonus, who had put to death the Roman guards that were with him, and reduced him by siege when he took refuge in Jerusalem. 4 The Jews, indeed, had done much injury to the Romans, but they suffered far more themselves. The first of them to be captured were those who were fighting for the precinct of their god, and then the rest on the day even then called the day of Saturn. 5 And so excessive were they in their devotion to religion that the first set of prisoners, those who had been captured along with the temple, obtained leave from Sosius, when the day of Saturn came round again, and went up into the temple and there performed all the customary rites, together with the rest of the people. 6 These people Antony entrusted to a certain Herod to govern; but Antigonus he bound to a cross and flogged,— a punishment no other king had suffered at the hands of the Romans,— and afterwards slew him.

49.23.1 This was the course of events in the consulship of Claudius and Norbanus; during the following year the Romans accomplished nothing worthy of note in Syria.

The dating in 49.23.1 is for the capture and execution of Antigonus which was the topic, not for the inclusive background regarding the Jews. This was a useful place for Dio Cassio to mention the fact that Herod had been given the government of the Jews.

However, if you want to persist with trying to make Herod be given government of the Jews the same time as the death of Antigonus, then you should realize that the same date (which you want to be 37 years before Herod's death) is the start of the 34 years of effective reign given by Josephus, only a year earlier than Josephus, so in that case I guess you'll now advocate 5 BCE.

It seems that if your source's reading is correct Dio Cassio has telescoped Josephus's two events separated by three years into one time reference. I don't think the reading is correct. Which ever way it goes, it's no help to your cause.


spin

Steven Avery

Hi Judge,

Lectio difficilior ideas are vastly overused in Bible readings, so we should be cautious when trying to use them with Josephus.

I will give two NT examples I just recently ran into ..

1) Matthew 1:18 and Luke 1:14. where folks can wax poetic about genesis & gennesis when both readings have early support and clearly a dropped letter - haplography - should be the most simple possibility to consider.

2) Mark 7:19 -"thus he declared all foods clean" in the modern versions - quite similar in terms of there being no substantive reason for "harder reading" conjectures either way and such arguments could easily be on both sides anyway. Yet scholars will write in depth with very fanciful conjectures. However, it is fair to consider which is the more consistent original reading within the text but the likelihood is that the actual bifurcation was simply a scribal faux pas, one way or another, not some type of conscious scribal smoothing attempt.

So I am similarly concerned that they could be overused here, or become a diversion or rabbit trail. Of course there are factors to consider, how close is the Greek (or Latin), is there a tendency for rounding by the copyists ? More importantly, how consistent is Josephus and the potential consistency of alternate readings. However, all that being said, I would suggest that the lectio difficilior area (the scribe changed the number as part of some vast and deep calculative design) would tend to be little more than a quagmire. On either side.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Doug Shaver

For many Christians, probably a majority, it doesn't matter a bit.

For a certain minority of them, though, the infallibility of the Bible's authors is absolutely fundamental to their worldview. One provable error, no matter how superficially trivial, would destroy everything.

That is one reason they are so indifferent to the plausibility of their counterarguments. All they need is something on which to ground a claim that "You can't prove that that isn't true."

Steven Avery

Even in apologetics this is largely true. Since we are removed here in the discussion a couple of steps from the direct issues. And trying to work out various claims (by the skeptics) of errancy based on the Josephus statement about the eclipse, the date of death of Herod, the date of birth of the Lord Jesus, and issues about "the taxing that was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria" and whatever else is germane.

The skeptics made the claim, afaik they spend a lot more time on it than Judge or I do (a rather curious aspect of this) so it is a bit funny that when we simply point out some gaping holes (such as the apparent major Carrier blunder on the fast days and the eclipse) in their argument, they scratch their head that we actually do the dialogue and give response. If we did not, of course, they would say "aha.. no answer". Personally, I enjoy learning about the historical background of the Bible, including the chronology issues.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver For a certain minority of them, though, the infallibility of the Bible's authors is absolutely fundamental to their worldview. One provable error, no matter how superficially trivial, would destroy everything.

If the word of God were not true then those of us who believe the Bible may end up as badly off as the folks in unbelief today, unsure of God's purpose and truth and righteousness and perfection.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver That is one reason they are so indifferent to the plausibility of their counterarguments. All they need is something on which to ground a claim that "You can't prove that that isn't true."

This may be true for some, however I definitely consider what you call 'plausibility' as something for close examination. Arguments (including those made by Christian apologists) frequently are properly rejected precisely on such grounds.

To give a simple example, I do not consider the JPH arguments for Jerash being ok to consider as by the Sea of Galilee as plausible. As it flies in the face of every historical record and usage of language that we have seen.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

jgibson000

Whach you talkin' 'bout, Willis?

JG

Doug Shaver

Steve, I'll happily agree that you're not in the same intellectual league as most of the apologists I've run across on the Internet.

I wish I had time to take you on in a proper debate, but right now I have too many other irons in the fire. Things might be different about a month from now, if you're interested.

Pataphysician

I was wondering about something somewhat speculative. It seems to me there is one similarity between Matthew and Luke's dating of Jesus birth. They both are dated to years when a sedition was raised by someone named Judas. Is it possible that the only tradition preserved, was that Jesus was born in the year that Judas started a sedition. Mathew then decided this was the year of the sedition of Judas, the son of Saripheus, in roughly 5-4BCE. Whereas Luke decided this must be the sedition of Judas the Galilean in 6CE?

aguy2

Is this the same Quintilius Varus who was the Roman commander at Teutonburger Wald?
aguy2

judge

Seems so.