Duke Leto

That was my first suggestion. His general readership would never have gone to the Hebrew texts.

The second suggestion is that the Hebrew he was using didn't contradict the Hebrew texts of the day, because the LXX translation more accurately reflects Hebrew texts of its time then the Masoretic text. Thus Josephus using the LXX would not have been controversial since there were fewer substantive differences.

stephan huller

But in Against Apion he admits that his Greek sucks and had to get 'assistants' to help him. You should look at the subtleties to his modification of the LXX in Feldman's article. The 'assistants' must have had a significant role in this literary development. http://media.sabda.org/alkitab-2/PDF...Mikra%2005.pdf How much 'Josephus' is in any of this?

Duke Leto

I see. The posts on Feldman are not helping defuse my suggestion that you spend too much time talking to yourself in these threads.

The fact that you intuited a problem at a young age is a irrelevant, you can acquire a longstanding mistaken prejudice at any age.

The presumption that there's at least some kernel of authentic Josephus in the Greek texts is a little hard to deny. His population, military size and casualty numbers are absurd (please God, don't let outhouse find this thread...), but I understand his geography is generally correct and his description of the military maneuvers is logical and plausible. He makes up bullshit speeches but that's what all the classical historians did. So he exaggerates the depravity of the Zealot rebels to convince diaspora Jews God destroyed the Temple to punish the Zealots. So he kisses Roman ass. To the extent that he remained a Jew he needed to believe the Temple's destruction was God's will and to the extent that he was living in Rome, he had to defer to the Romans. And so there are two interpolations that make the Greek Text appear Christian. Given the means of transmission that's almost required.

The received Greek text less the Testimonium and the James interpretation doesn't have a Christian POV, and it doesn't have a POV that makes one proud to be Jewish either. Neither does Jeremiah which was written under similar circumstances. Just because Josephus doesn't make you happy doesn't mean he was written by Christian conspirators trying to get you down.

In any case, I'm sorry, but your 2nd Century synergoi theory is simply incomprehensible.

Your proposal of the Josephan material being added to Luke while Matthew and Luke were simultaneously being finalized in the late 2nd century is preposterous. The redactor would have to have been retarded not to see the Infancy Narrative chronology problem adding the census of Quirinius to Luke. Since Justin Martyr mentions the census and was writing at or about the 150s and 160s, it stands to reason that he must already have had a gospel with Josephan material in it.

And as noted, the level of subtle ingenuity required to pull off the fabrication of the Greek Text as you describe it is totally beyond the Church Fathers. These people were stupid hucksters not chessmasters.

stephan huller

Again, one doesn't have to subscribe to any second century theory about Josephus to engage in a discussion about the strangeness of having a Palestinian Jew turn aside from the Hebrew text to the LXX. Your difficulty is that you can't engage in theoretical discussions without psychologizing about the motives of your 'opponent.' The only way we get to the truth is by hearing what even people with whom we disagree have to say. My favorite discussions at this forum are with people who I don't agree. I am not an atheist, I am not an observant person. I enjoy hearing what other people have to say.

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.

DCHindley

That is not the impression I get from reading Josephus. In fact, he is very proud of his heritage and their traditions. He acknowledges that there were differences of opinion which he groups under three headings. He goes over the Maccabean rebellion in the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes that was a reaction to attempts to flout the received traditions. He makes a point of explaining how the later Roman governors had flouted their laws and traditions, enraging part of the populace to extremism (the fourth philosophy). He laments the fact that "sober minded" Jews of the elite classes failed in their attempts to bring the rebellion under control.

For a guy who is a retainer of the Roman emperor, it is a wonder that he was allowed to be as critical of Roman authorities as he was, and praise the courage and zeal the rebels exhibited for their ancestral customs as he did.

Or should we adopt William Whiston's 1737 position that Josephus was a secret Christian?

DCH

andrewcriddle

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

stephan huller

But this isn't just about him being an observant Pharisee (even though I am not convinced that the real Josephus of history was not just that). Is there an example of someone using the Hebrew text of the Bible and then 'switching' to the LXX? Greek to Hebrew (like Origen and modern evangelicals is sensible enough). But where is the example of someone going original to copy? Not just theoretically but actually?

It is worth noting that there are examples where the use of the Greek was mandated. Yet these come in later Roman legal edicts. They say once you've had black you never go back. There are many examples of this being silly (not that there was a question). But isn't going from Hebrew to Greek like a Muslim switching from an Arabic rescension of the Quran to something profane? I just can't see how that is possible. My assumption is that people are pretty much 'locked into' their version of the Bible. How could Josephus ignore 1 Samuel 18:1 - 5 when it is so damn interesting?

outhouse

lets ask a serious question then.

before and after jesus, how deep did roman god-fearers reach into judaism??


judaism was very multicultural then.


Im beginning to think a educated roman could easily be a Pharisee in that time, and probably why passages of greed found in the Woe's was written.


I highly doubt pauls judaism in claiming himself as a Pharisee.

outhouse

god fearers, doesnt that explain it well enough?

Toto

Is this a series of typos? What does it refer to?

Should I split these posts off as off topic?