JoeWallack

JW:
Moving on to Beyer's claimed evidence for the use of "twenty-second" in Josephus the best Indirect evidence so far in this Thread is from a link Praxeus gave (thanks Praxeus):

http://users.bigpond.net.au/bkolberg...es/errors.html

"§518. As cited just above (§516), the currently known text of Josephus's Ant. 18.106 states that Philip died in the twentieth year of Tiberius (A.D. 33/34; for the regnal years of Tiberius see Tables 151ff., especially 158, 167) after ruling for thirty-seven years. This points to Philip's accession at the death of Herod in 4 B.C. (4 years B.C. + 33 years A.D. = 37 years). But Filmer suspected that a figure had dropped out and that the text should probably read the twenty-second, rather than the twentieth, year of Tiberius (A.D. 35/36). Barnes rejected this reading as "comparatively ill-attested," although he agreed with Filmer that it was a pivotal point of the debate. In fact, however, already in the nineteenth century Florian Riess reported that the Franciscan monk Molkenbuhr claimed to have seen a 1517 Parisian copy of Josephus and an 1841 Venetian copy in each of which the text read "the twenty-second year of Tiberius." The antiquity of this reading has now been abundantly confirmed. In 1995 David W Bever reported to the Society for Biblical Literature his personal examination in the British Museum of forty-six editions of Josephus's Antiquities published before 1700 among which twenty-seven texts all but three published before 1544, read "twenty- second year of Tiberius," while not a single edition published prior to 1544 read "twentieth year of Tiberius." Likewise in the Library of Congress five more editions read the "twenty-second year," while none prior to 1544 records the "twentieth year." It was also found that the oldest versions of the text give variant lengths of reign for Philip of 32 and 36 years. But if we still allow for a full thirty-seven-year reign, then "the twenty-second year of Tiberius" (A.D. 35/36) points to 1 B.C. (1 year B.C. + 36 years A.D. = 37 years) as the year of death of Herod. This is therefore the date which is accepted in the present book. Accordingly, if the birth of Jesus was two years or less before the death of Herod in 1 B.C., the date of the birth was in 3 or 2 B.C., presumably precisely in the period 3/2 B.C., so consistently attested by the most credible early church fathers (see above Table 139). Furthermore, we have seen evidence for a time of Jesus' birth in the mid-winter (Beckwith, our §473), therefore mid-winter in 3/2 B.C. appears the likely date of the birth of Jesus."


JW:
A summary of Beyer's findings is as follows:

1) British Museum - 46 Editions published before 1700 examined.

----1 - 27 read "twenty-second".

-------24 published before 1544

--------3 published after 1544

----2 - 19 read "twentieth"

--------all published after 1544

2) Library of Congress - Editions examined unknown

----1 - 5 Editions read "twenty-second"

----2 - No Editions published before 1544 read "twentieth"


JW:
Carrier's related criticism:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ius.html#Herod

"What about that obscure textual variant? Finegan's only source for this claim is a mysterious, unpublished speech given by David Beyer.[17.3] In Finegan's summary, he never identifies any actual manuscripts, and though Beyer names them he does not identify their relationship to other manuscripts or their known quality or origins. All Finegan (and Beyer) does is "count manuscripts" and argue that older manuscripts are the most reliable. But neither is true, as any palaeographer knows. We have no way of knowing which of the manuscripts Beyer counted were copies of other extant manuscripts (and thus completely irrelevant to the question), and we have no idea whether the manuscripts he looked at are known to be reliable or unreliable or to what degree or in what ways. Older manuscripts can sometimes be poorer than new manuscripts, since newer ones can be based on even older but more reliable archetypes (see "On Calvinist Scorn of Textual Criticism" for more about textual analysis), and older ones may stem from especially faulty textual traditions. Moreover, Beyer examined only manuscripts in the British Museum and the Library of Congress--yet the best manuscripts are in France and Italy--one of which is the oldest, Codex Ambrosianae F 128, inscribed in the 11th century (the oldest manuscript Beyer examined was 12th century); and another is the most reliable: Codex Vaticanus Graecus 984, transcribed in 1354; both confirming a reading of "twentieth," and thus invalidating all his conclusions from the start. Finegan and Beyer seem ignorant of all of these issues. Consequently, we cannot trust them here."


JW:
A summary of Carrier's related criticisms:

1) Beyer was limited to counting Manuscripts. Normally in Textual Criticism the related notes, if available, are consulted to help identify the Source of Textual selection.

2) The best Manuscripts are in France and Italy.

3) The oldest Manuscript, Codex Ambrosianae F 128 ("twentieth"), inscribed in the 11th century, was not looked at by Beyer.

4) The best Manuscript per Authority, Codex Vaticanus Graecus 984 ("twentieth"), transcribed in 1354, was not looked at by Beyer.

5) Carrier says elsewhere in his article that all critical editions of Josephus he is familiar with have "twentieth".

6) Carrier notes that "the oldest manuscript Beyer examined was 12th century)" yet the use of "editions" and "published" in the summary above of Beyer's findings implies that the majority/almost all versions Beyer examined were Printed and not Manuscripts.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

judge

It is a little unclear but Richard does at least imply that Beyer does not name mss.

from here

judge

Yes, but the question is was luke referring to the oath taking registration in 3BCE rather than the census of 6CE?
There are several reasons to think he was, including his own use of the word 'first".

Yes but not only this. The eclipse issue needs to be dealt with. It is clear there is much confusion about precise dates when looking to ancient histories.

The dates of eclipses OTOH can be narrowed down to specific times (or so it might be hoped )

We know there was an eclipse just before Herods death. Only one year fits. 1BCE.
It is just not good enough to throw out the parts of Josephus that agree with one's pet theory and keep the parts that agree.

JoeWallack

JW:
Carrier previously Explicitly said Beyer named the Manuscripts (emphasis mine saith the Lord):

"What about that obscure textual variant? Finegan's only source for this claim is a mysterious, unpublished speech given by David Beyer.[17.3] In Finegan's summary, he never identifies any actual manuscripts, and though Beyer names them he does not identify their relationship to other manuscripts or their known quality or origins."

Carrier's real target here is Finegan who is considered an authority by some (like Jeffrey). That's why Carrier criticizes Finegan for not naming Manuscripts. Beyer is a nobody.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

judge

Well thats no sin :devil1:

Question is, can we dismiss the facts he produces, which curiously are either ignored elsewhere or barely mentioned?

Steven Avery

Most welcome, Joe. And I will contra-compliment you for handling this part of the discussion maturely and helpfully. Of course we are all nobodies before God, however if you meant that Beyer did not have scholastic position and reputation that seems to be correct.

When you post as you did here (well I skimmed so far ), Judges as well, and some others, much more is accomplished. Whether or not each of us is

Secretary-General of the Pronoun-Challenged Association,
Mr. Tules Nesser Sari

And Toto gets a kudo for actually asking proper questions, and offering reasonable analysis (putting aside mod issues) for consideration.

Over the sabbath I hope to recover from the shock.

Oh, and Judge's last question is spot-on.
Can evidence and analysis trump polemic ?

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

judge

You are right, the problems are much graeter than I indicate. I has assumed Richard was presenting some relaible information.

I cant imagine why he would slip this information in in the way he did, perhaps there is a reason that escapes me.

Agin the links I have presented used by apologists give much more information about the specifics. See here The Lunar Eclipse of Josephus Some points are a littlr unclear but it seem the information we have can only be used to support a 1BCE death for Herod.

But Richard's curious reference (curiously unfootnoted as you mention) leaves us with the opposite impression.
Technically he doesn't lie, but I dont think it can in any way be said he is being straight with the reader by his important ommission.

From the Carrier article

I assumed he was giving us a reference from that time and that this issue was not contested.

From the apologist link above.

In addition, as you mention it doesn't help his proposal one bit. Does one need to double check everything?

JoeWallack

JW:
Oh I think at this point it's already been demonstrated in this Thread that Beyer's analysis of the Textual Variation regarding twentieth vs. twenty-second is Significantly Incomplete. Carrier has pointed out that modern Critical editions of Josephus appear to be unanimous with "twentieth". As Beyer's related study is Significantly Incomplete it can not by itself overturn the consensus of authority. Carrier has helped fill in the Gap by noting that generally what Beyer didn't look at/consider supports "twentieth".

The main result at this point of looking at the specifics of Beyer here is only going to be quantifying how Incomplete his report was. Carrier notes that SBL decided not to include Beyer's report in their written inventory of presentations for that year and my guess is because they decided it did not meet their standards (was Incomplete). I Am still going to look at what was written in Vardaman's book (which Carrier has already done).

I'm taking your main objections to Carrier's article one at a time Judge to keep it organized and focused and right now I think the above is your best one as there is an acknowledged significant textual variation to consider.

Again though, I think your objection has been satisfactorily answered by Carrier and this Thread and regarding continuing to ask indirect, general type questions we would be better off asking them now of you than Carrier:

1) Why do you think Carrier "dismissed" Beyer's facts?

2) Why do you think Carrier "ignored" Beyer's facts?

3) Why do you think Carrier "barely mentioned" Beyer's facts?

After I look at Vardaman's book I'll consider asking Richard to strengthen his related rebuttal. He could give more specifics as to who is for "twentieth", some other important manuscripts supporting "twentieth" and how a Latin translation introduced errors in the numbers.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Steven Avery

Hi Joe,

You may first ask him of evidences of any Latin-->Greek translations of Josephus, as he claims occurred with a surprising and questionable definitiveness on any Greek manuscripts with his unpreferred reading. Also how many Greek manuscripts are involved (as best he knows).

And if he could share how much of the Beyer evidence is referenced in the critical editions. If the critical editions are simply lacking salient evdience, that clearly reduces their value in trumping Beyer's referenced manuscripts.

Oh, and please point out that his "Scroll of Fasting" evidence is in a current state of disassembling and abandonment. In fact the enemy seized the weapon and has turned it back on his position. Yoiks.

And more importantly, point out that folks are real curious as to why there was no backdrop or footnote on that claim. And what his specific dates were supposed to be (ie. how many months was "soon after" and the scholarly basis for that identification and time gap as sensible).

Since there is so much squirrellyness in the "Scroll of Fasting" evidence (somebody could even conceivably claim that neither date relates to Herod's death, especially if no date 'worked' well) the way it was handled in the paper was surprising, as if the truth of the scroll was better left unsaid, yet .. damn the torpedoes, make the assertion.

It is the latter issue, even more than the Beyer concerns, that now makes us uneasy. Not having confidence in any of his assertions on this Josephus & Herod's death issue without additional independent corroboration.

Once burned, twice shy, you know.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

PS.
Let me add that I am new to this whole discussion. I thought that Richard Carrier did a fine job of disassembling some oddball Vardaman stuff and I really have little idea about the apologetic situation vis a vis 1 BC and 4 BC (or any other date). So if the chips really fell in favor of his position then we will look at the 4 BC date. However right now the weaknesses in his paper are glaring, no conclusion can be reached, and hopefully this forum and thread can help the ravelling process.

judge

Hi Joe, and apologies for not responding to some of your points throughout this thread. It's been a bit hit and run for me. I might try to put together some appropriate points WRT the carrier article sometime soon.

I did not specifically mean Richard carrier when I wrote...

Spins original reference had no note about the 22 years (although it appears to have another variant mentioned).

So from this perspective it seemed "ignored".

Richard did mention it, but as you can probably summise from our recent interaction I did miss most of what he wrote. So my comment "barely" is too harsh now I see the portion I missed.
I was a bit thrown by his comment later on that...
It now seems Beyer must have said more than a little more than Finnegan, if he in fact did name texts.

It might be helpful for it to be explained why.......in some more detail as it is such a pivotal point.

As 20 years seem to mesh with the commoner or more accepted Josephan chronology, 22 years is the more difficult reading, which goes some way to preferring it as the original reading.
Later editors saw what they thought was a problem and changed 22 to 20.





Yes I agree there are probably some improvements that can be made, but perhaps in light of the very difficult problems posed by the eclipse it may have to be abandoned altogether. :devil1:

Ok only joking.