Duvduv

Why do so many people assume that the texts attributed to Josephus were actually written by an educated Jew of the Pharisee persuasion rather than a churchman, especially since the writings of Josephus were not in the hands of Jews. Ironically the Arabic rendition of the name Josephus or Josippon was YOSIBUS, not much different than the name EUSEBIUS if you ask me..........(historians, historians.....)

Stuart

The problem as you know, is that Christians did interpolate texts. They even interpolated Canonical texts, correcting them, adding stories - like the awesome adulterous women in John - which defend the faith and pass the traditions that started in Apocrypha into the received text. Too bad we don't have 1000 copies of Josephus like we do the NT from which to try and perform textual criticism on. It is what it is. That forces examinations to be on a higher critical plain. This is the equivalent of "follow the money" to figure out where passages came from.

The questions, "does this passage fit," and if not, "what characteristics and points of view does it carry," are those from which we try to make a call. FYI, you do not successfully refute Higher Critical positions (except in gross misstatement of the underlying material) without a Higher Critical analysis of your own that can put forth a plausible explanation for an anomaly in question different from the one suggested.

--You should stretch yourself and apply some higher critical analysis; it also works on solidly orthodox passages, confirming them --

There will never be certainty. But allowing false histories and interpolations in does nothing but hide and obscure the truth. So you shouldn't let it stand.

BTW, you are one of the better critics of radical analysis, finding things that are not quite right, and I like that. You would be a bit better received if you suggested alternative techniques, rather than simple negativity. I have seen you run certain people the wrong way (not that they don't deserve it)

Anyway again, thanks, I appreciate your criticism, you make me sharpen my blade.

Stuart

Andrew,

one more point on the Sadduccees and the silly claim that Ananus was a member. Just two chapters before Josephus completely contradicts the phrase you so helpfully pointed out

Antiquities 18.2.4, 16-17
But the doctrine of the Sadducees is that souls die with the bodies. Nor do they perform any observance other than what the Law enjoins them. They think it virtuous to dispute with the teachers of the wisdom they pursue. This doctrine is accepted but by a few, but those are of the highest standing. But they are able to accomplish almost nothing, for when they hold office they are unwillingly and by force obliged to submit to the teachings of the Pharisees, because the multitude would not otherwise tolerate them.

In War 2.8.14 the Saduccees are said to suffer infighting among themselves, apparently not able to agree on anything. Again in complete disagreement with the picture presented in the disputed passage

The context of the text is a problem, the content inconsistent with the rest of Josephus work, and there is a the dependence upon the James passage to give the additional content in question context. So there are three solid grounds to doubt the additional passage you identified as being part of Josephus' original.

aa5874

Again, you make use of writings that are in a far worse condition than Josephus.

Well, you should also tell that to those who are arguing that Jesus was mentioned by Josephus.

Duvduv

The WHOLE IMAGE of the works of "Josephus" as a *virtually* impeccable Jewish source needs an overhaul, a total and thorough re-examination.
What, if anything, was written by a 1st or 2nd century Jew named Joseph son of Mattityahu (or Gorion), and what was written by church writers who had exclusive access to these texts for hundreds of years? And was has any reliability in those texts and what does not?

For starters we can toss out the stories of Christ/James and Masada, and question very highly the idea that the author was of the kohen priestly caste serving in the Temple.

And then we want to identify the inspiration from the earliest text for what ended up in the gospels and Acts.

andrewcriddle

Hi Stuart

I'm not sure that the passsage in War 2.8.14 about Sadducees quarrelling even with other Sadducees conflicts with the Ananus passage. Ananus' determination to have his own way whatever others might think does seem to indicate a quarrelsome disposition.

The claim in Antiquities 18 that the Sadducees were unable to do anything that the Pharisees disapproved of has generated a lot of scholarly discussion. Some would argue that the passage is inconsistent both with other specific passages in Josephus and with the general picture of Jewish life in Josephus. See for example Judaism in late Antiquity Possibly Josephus is anachronistically treating the Pharisees as having always had the influence in Jewish circles that they had acquired c 90 CE when Antiquities was written.

Many scholars think (rightly or wrongly) that most high priests, coming presumably from the wealthy aristocracy, were at least sympathetic to the Sadducees' views.

Andrew Criddle