Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Diogenes the Cynic · 09-09-2012, 05:18 PM

You're assuming that Josephus had access to a Hebrew text or had it memorized. I would also argue that since he would have to translate any Hebrew into Greek anyway, it would have been much more convenient to him to use the already translated Suptuagint than to make an independent translation from Hebrew himself. That would be a somewhat tedious and gratuitous thing to do. Why bother?

aa5874 · 09-09-2012, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

As such this is one of a hundred reasons why what passes as the writings of Jewish Pharisee from Palestine was not written by a Jewish Pharisee from Palestine.

I agree with JP Meier that Josephus was never a sincere Pharisee and that his claims in his Life to have been a Pharisee from early manhood are not credible.

Hence arguments about how a Pharisee would behave may not be relevant.

Andrew Criddle

You have ZERO evidence that Josephus was NOT a Pharisee from early manhood.

No Sources of antiquity claimed Josephus was NOT a Pharisee.

If it was known by the Romans that Josephus was NOT Credible then he could have been executed.

stephan huller · 09-09-2012, 05:54 PM

Let's consider for a moment how many layers of change must have come over Josephus in order to write the Jewish Antiquities. On some level he was formerly a Pharisee and then after the War he gives up on his group identification. He employs assistants not only to help him use the LXX but to modify its contents to positions which were shared by Christians. Take for instance the transformation of the verb describing the creation of the world. From Feldman (cited above):

Quote:

Moreover, in his recasting of the narrative, Josephus seeks to resolve fheologicul problems and contradictions in the text. Thus he substitutes (Ant. 1:27) the verb Ext~tzv, ‘founded’, for the Septuagint’s &JCOC~UEY, ‘made’, his purpose being, presumably, to avoid the inference that God had created the world out of pre-existing matter, since that would be implied in the use of the verb J~OI&. That this is a deliberate change seems clear, since Josephus’ language, including word order, is exactly the same as it is in the Septuagint (and Philo)- except for this one word. Again, there is a genuine theological problem (Gen 1:26) in the use of the plural ‘Let us make man in our image’, as if God had collaborators in His creation of man or as if God were Himself a plurality of forces, such as a Trinity. Indeed, according to the rabbis (B. T. Megillu 9a), the translators of the Tora into Greek changed the verse to read ‘I shall make man’. Josephus himself (Ag.Ap. 2: 192) -perhaps in answer to Plato (Timueus 41C, 42E) and Philo (On the Creation 72), who had asserted that God had employed collaborators -
specifically stresses that God performed his creation ‘not with assistants, of whom He had no need’. Josephus, in his paraphrase of Genesis, resolves this problem by asserting (Ant. 1:32) merely that ‘on this day also He formed man’, omitting also the troublesome phrase ‘in His image’, presumably because it raised problems of anthropomorphism. Again, the Bible (Gen 2:17) declares that God told Adam that he would die on the day that he would eat from the tree of knowledge. The fact, of course, is that not only did Adam not die but he lived until the age of 930. Josephus (Ant. 1%)) resolves the problem by omitting the phrase ‘on the day’ and by generalizing that if they touched the tree it would prove the destruction of Adam and of Eve

It is not as if Josephus is making the LXX read as the Masoretic (which would be expected). He is artificially 'correcting' the original material. All of this of course taking place and being executed by someone with a masterful command of Greek (which excludes Josephus).

Bingo the Clown-O · 09-09-2012, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

You'd expect him to know the Masoretic version of 1 Samuel. Yet he omits the famous 'the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David and he loved him as himself.' Indeed the editors here note that he follows the LXX entirely ...

Same deal in Antiquities 1.3.4.

He says that Seth was born when Adam was 230 years old (Genesis 5:3 LXX). Not 130 (MT).

aa5874 · 09-09-2012, 06:18 PM

I have never heard that such logical fallacy--- Josephus used the LXX therefore he was a Myth.

What is going on here??

Identifying the Sources of Josephus does NOT make him a Myth.

Duke Leto · 09-09-2012, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I only hear you attack the man rather than the ball (to use a soccer analogy). You can always find reasons to hate someone. That's the easy part at this forum.

My intense dislike for you and your methods in promoting your work is irrelevant to my argument.

And my counterarguments to your original post stands as I stated it:

Maybe the LXX is actually a more accurate reflection of what was the generally accepted Hebrew text in the 1st Century then the MT, in which case there is no issue.

You have yet to conclusively show that Josephus actually was a lifelong Pharisee. There was obviously cultural interchange going on between the Greeks and Jews in the area Josephus was born, he could easily have picked up some ability to read Greek in that way even as he was brought up a Pharisee. How many Madrassah students in Pakistan are there that can speak and read English?

Josephus alleged himself to be an objective historian. Maybe he actually believed the LXX text was more accurate!

stephan huller · 09-09-2012, 07:08 PM

it might be but that alone cant account for the parallels. as feldman notes josephus knows and cites tge aristeas letter with approval. josephus is unlikely to have possessed the skill to translate the pentateuch into the nuanced greek in jewish antiquities.

stephan huller · 09-09-2012, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Josephus alleged himself to be an objective historian. Maybe he actually believed the LXX text was more accurate!

Are you suggesting the Pentateuch was written in some other language than Hebrew?

stephan huller · 09-09-2012, 07:13 PM

I don't know if you have ever met an individual who belongs to an ancient faith - they tend to resist changing holy scriptures or thinking new thoughts about an old religion. Only Protestants examine their inherited faith in this way. For the rest of the world, religious truth was decided centuries earlier.

stephan huller · 09-09-2012, 07:17 PM

Quote:

You have yet to conclusively show that Josephus actually was a lifelong Pharisee.

Here it is:

Quote:

THE family from which I am derived is not an ignoble one, but hath descended all along from the priests; and as nobility among several people is of a different origin, so with us to be of the sacerdotal dignity, is an indication of the splendor of a family. Now, I am not only sprung from a sacerdotal family in general, but from the first of the twenty-four courses; and as among us there is not only a considerable difference between one family of each course and another, I am of the chief family of that first course also; nay, further, by my mother I am of the royal blood; for the children of Asamoneus, from whom that family was derived, had both the office of the high priesthood, and the dignity of a king, for a long time together. I will accordingly set down my progenitors in order. My grandfather's father was named Simon, with the addition of Psellus: he lived at the same time with that son of Simon the high priest, who first of all the high priests was named Hyrcanus. This Simon Psellus had nine sons, one of whom was Matthias, called Ephlias: he married the daughter of Jonathan the high priest, which Jonathan was the first of the sons of Asamoneus, who was high priest, and was the brother of Simon the high priest also. This Matthias had a son called Matthias Curtus, and that in the first year of the government of Hyrcanus: his son's name was Joseph, born in the ninth year of the reign of Alexandra: his son Matthias was born in the tenth year of the reign of Archclaus; as was I born to Matthias in the first year of the reign of Caius Caesar. I have three sons: Hyrcanus, the eldest, was born in the fourth year of the reign of Vespasian, as was Justus born in the seventh, and Agrippa in the ninth. Thus have I set down the genealog of my family as I have found it described in the public records, and so bid adieu to those who calumniate me [as of a lower original].

Now, my father Matthias was not only eminent on account of is nobility, but had a higher commendation on account of his righteousness, and was in great reputation in Jerusalem, the greatest city we have. I was myself brought up with my brother, whose name was Matthias, for he was my own brother, by both father and mother; and I made mighty proficiency in the improvements of my learning, and appeared to have both a great memory and understanding. Moreover, when I was a child, and about fourteen years of age, I was commended by all for the love I had to learning; on which account the high priests and principal men of the city came then frequently to me together, in order to know my opinion about the accurate understanding of points of the law. And when I was about sixteen years old, I had a mind to make trim of the several sects that were among us ... So when I had accomplished my desires, I returned back to the city, being now nineteen years old, and began to conduct myself according to the rules of the sect of the Pharisees, which is of kin to the sect of the Stoics, as the Greeks call them. [Vita 1,2]

On the dating of this statement in Vita:

Quote:

His prophecy became true in 68 C.E. when Nero committed suicide and Vespasian became Ceasar. As a result, Josephus was freed; he moved to Roman and became a Roman citizen, taking the Vespasian family name Flavius. Vespasian commissioned Josephus to write a history of the war, which he finished in 78 C.E., the Jewish War. His second major work, the Antiquities of the Jews, was completed in 93 C.E. He wrote Against Apion in about 96-100 C.E. and The Life of Josephus, his autobiography, about 100. He died shortly after. http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/josephus/index.htm

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-09-2012, 05:18 PM	#21
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	You're assuming that Josephus had access to a Hebrew text or had it memorized. I would also argue that since he would have to translate any Hebrew into Greek anyway, it would have been much more convenient to him to use the already translated Suptuagint than to make an independent translation from Hebrew himself. That would be a somewhat tedious and gratuitous thing to do. Why bother?

09-09-2012, 06:18 PM	#25
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	I have never heard that such logical fallacy--- Josephus used the LXX therefore he was a Myth. What is going on here?? Identifying the Sources of Josephus does NOT make him a Myth.

09-09-2012, 07:08 PM	#27
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	it might be but that alone cant account for the parallels. as feldman notes josephus knows and cites tge aristeas letter with approval. josephus is unlikely to have possessed the skill to translate the pentateuch into the nuanced greek in jewish antiquities.

09-09-2012, 07:13 PM	#29
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I don't know if you have ever met an individual who belongs to an ancient faith - they tend to resist changing holy scriptures or thinking new thoughts about an old religion. Only Protestants examine their inherited faith in this way. For the rest of the world, religious truth was decided centuries earlier.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.