stephan huller

For once we agree on something, there is a parallel between Herod the Great's war with the Arabs and Antipas's. I am at work but I will dig out what I observed about this. I think I might have argued that the story from one Herod might have been transferred to the other.

spin

Up to a year before his death. A very inconvenient time in that it implies that John the Baptist's death was not long before that, though when would that mean Jesus was crucified?

...Though I've seen no reasoning for your doing so.

Perhaps you could give a few verifiable examples of where Josephus is inventive about facts (rather than say manipulating them for his own benefit)?

I have found Josephus to have frequently been confirmed by archaeology with regard to events -- such as the sieges of Jopatapa or Masada.

Maybe so, but what has it got to do with any contention here about the veracity of the narrative?

I suppose you can be imaginative about anything--maybe there are codes in Josephus as well--, but we are supposed to be dealing with the text not projecting onto it.

Where do you find the date of Tiberius' 15th year in Josephus? Aren't you mixing and matching gospel and antiquity for your own convenience?

I think you are shortchanging Josephus, an author whose historicity has frequently been checked and whose narrative has often been corroborated, by trying to use texts, whose historical merits cannot compare with his work, to manipulate the content to fit your desires.

We have seen that the JtB material in Josephus is not from a christian source because it doesn't support the content of the gospel version, other than giving an independent witness to JtB.

There are problems using Josephus as a source when he is the only witness for the material, but he has proven himself to be an expert witness, which puts him in a position to need doubters to have some evidence before rejecting his narrative. What would you like to present that is sufficient for you to reject his narrative?


spin

stephan huller

Here's what is strange about the Aretas narrative. I am going to use pseudo-Hegesippus because it is the oldest surviving Josephus MS (fourth century) and it is the grandfather (or knows the grandfather) of the Slavonic Josephus and the Yosippon and related traditions.

Antipas is originally called 'Antipas' throughout but then suddenly and for no apparent reason in Book Two Chapter Three the editor decides to change his name to 'Herod':

There remained however [p. 136] the tetrarchs Philippus and Herodes, the last who was previously called Antipas with a changed name. For Salome dying had left the regions which she had held and the rule over her people to Livia the wife of Caesar. This was the status of Judaea when Caesar died, leaving Tiberius, his stepson, the son of his wife Livia by her previous husband, the successor of the Roman empire, in whose honor Herodes founded Tiberiadis. Philippus also thought a city should be named Livia from the name of his mother. And because it has been proposed by us to reveal the causes, by which the people of the Jews defected from the Roman empire and hastened destruction for themselves, the event indicates that Pilatus the governor of the province gave the beginning of its ruin, seeing that the first of all he did hesitate to bring into the Jerusalem temples the images of Caesar. When the people disturbed by this resisted and he decreed the images had to be received. he forced very many into death. While these things were going on in Judaea, Agrippa the son of Aristobolus arrived at Rome desiring to contend in court before Tiberius against Herodes the tetrarch, but disdained by Tiberius, while he was spending time in Rome, he associated very many to himself in friendship and especially Gaius the son of Germanicus, who whether by reason of his father's name was loved by the people, or from the nearness to the royal family was considered the closest to the supreme power, or whether by a certain presentiment he zealously cultivated, which consideration of either age or his reputation allowed, so that on a certain day raising his hands he prayed, that Tiberius would die soon and he would see Gaius as emperor. Which having been revealed by Eutychus his freedman, Agrippa by order of Tiberius is commanded into chains and tortured in the most severe fashion, [p. 137] he was not released before Tiberius concluded his life. Whose loathsome times and retirement to the wantonness of the island of Capri-- the intolerable idleness--they incited no man however of effective work to his death, from respect for the recent Roman empire, as I judge, or from terror of the savage cruelty, because generally the more painful the harshness the safer it is.

And again a few pages later 'John' the Baptist suddenly appears in this second editorial amended section too:

Philippus and Herodes [p. 140] who was previously called Antipas we showed above to have been brothers; the wife of Philippus (had been) Herodias whom Herodes unlawfully and wickedly associated to himself by right of marriage. Johannes did not tolerate this and said to him: "it is not lawful for you to have the wife of your brother." Then the former provoked threw Johannes into prison. And not much later he killed the just man and immovable executor of divine law. For not only as a preacher of the gospel had he blamed the incest of the brother's marriage bed, but even as an executor of the law he censured the transgressor of the law who had taken by force the wife of a living brother, especially having seed of him. Aroused by this the hatred and retribution of almost all Jews was hastened against Herodes. The supporter of whom Herodias, seeing Agrippa to have had much influence with Caesar, drove him to go to Rome, where he should win over the favor of the emperor to himself, putting before him the affront of idleness, because shunning work, while he stayed at home, he allowed indignities to be brought forward against himself. For since from being a private citizen Agrippa had been made a king, how much more therefore should Caesar not hesitate that he should confer a kingdom upon him who had already long been a tetrarch. And so by no means sustaining the reproaches of his wife, he proceeded to Rome, while he was seeking the friendship of Gaius, impugned by Agrippa he lost even the tetrarchy, which he had received from Julius Augustus, and going into exile in Spain together with his wife Herodias he died from grief of mind. Tiberius having died also Gaius succeeded, who, [p. 141] wishing himself as the ruler both to be seen as and to be called a god, gave causes to the Jews of a very serious rebellion, and lest he should destroy the empire with a quick end, made a quicker end of the nation of the Jews. For not only did he not call his men back from illegal acts, but he even threatened those sent into Judaea with the ultimate punishment, unless they accomplished with their arms everything against justice and the dictates of religion. Agrippa was very powerful in his state, but while he wished to encircle Jerusalem with a great wall, so that it would become impregnable to the Romans---for he foresaw its imminent destruction---prevented by death he left the task unfinished. Nor did he exercise less power while Claudius was ruling, because he was also in the midst of his own beginnings, since with Gaius having been killed he had been thrust by the soldiers into the rule of the empire, the senate resisting him from weariness of the royal power, he sent Agrippa as his deputy, with whom as negotiator the promise of moderation having been given, an accommodation having been begun, a peace is agreed upon. In place of Agrippa the father Agrippa his son is substituted as king by Claudius Caesar.

Fancy that! The section which 'agrees with the gospels' just happens to use the terminology of the gospel - i.e. 'Herod' as opposed to 'Antipas' which Josephus was previously using to designate 'Antipas.'

But the bullshit doesn't stop there. To the best of my knowledge EVERY REFERENCE TO JOHN THE BAPTIST IN "JOSEPHUS'S NARRATIVE" APPEARS BESIDE SECTIONS WHERE ANTIPAS IS CALLED 'HEROD' (which isn't the original Josephan nomenclature. The last of course appears in the war against Aretas:

For when this same Herod was travelling to Rome, having entered the house of his brother for the purpose of lodging, the wife to whom was Herodias the daughter of Aristobolus, [p. 165] the sister of king Agrippa, unmindful of nature he dared to solicit her, that the brother having been left behind she should marry him, when he had returned from the city of Rome, with the consent of the woman an agreement of lewdness having been entered into information of which thing came to the daughter of king Areta still remaining in marriage of Herod. She indignant at her rival insinuated to her returning husband that he should go to the town Macherunta which was in the boundaries of king Petreus and Herod. He who suspected nothing, at the same time because he had impaired the whole state around the same, by which he could more easily keep the faith of the agreement to Herodias if he should get rid of his wife, agreed to her diversion. But she when he came near to her father's kingdom revealed the things learned to her father Areta, who by an ambush attacked and completely destroyed in a battle the entire force of Herod, the betrayal having been made through those, who from the people of Philippus the tetrarch had associated themselves to Herod. Whence Herod took the quarrel to Caesar, but the vengeance ordered by Caesar the anger of god took away, for in the very preparation of war the death of Caesar was announced. And we discover this assessed by the Jews and believed, the author Joseph a suitable witness against himself, that not by the treachery of men but by the arousing of god Herod lost his army and indeed rightly on account of the vengeance of John the Baptist a just man who had said to him: it is not permitted you to have that wife. But we construe this thusly as if in their own people the Jews preserved their lawful rights, among whom the power of the high priest had perished and the avarice of those killed and the arrogance of the powerful, who thought the right to do what they wished was permitted to them. For from the beginning Aaron [p. 166] was the chief priest, who transmitted to his sons by the will of god and a lawful anointing the prerogative of the priesthood, by whom by the order of succession are constituted those exercising the chief command of the priesthood. Whence by the custom of our fathers it became valid for no one to become the foremost of the priests, unless he was from the blood of Aaron, to whom the first law of this method of the priesthood was entrusted. It is not permitted to succeed to a man of another descent even if a king. Finally Ozias, because he seized the office of the priesthood, overspread with leprosy ejected from the temple, he spent the rest of his life without authority. And without doubt he was a good king, but it was not permitted to him to usurp the office of religion.

This is complete bullshit to use a technical scholarly term. There is so much wrong with Josephus but this takes it to the next level. I think I once argued that the Christian editors introduce a story originally attributed to Herod the Great but now 'passed on' to Antipas. Why so?

Because John the Baptist had no real historical existence. Josephus was once again being used by second century (or perhaps third century) Christians to prove the existence of invented historical figures like John the Bapist (among other reasons - the creation of two Agrippas is another).

And if anyone should argue that the thirteenth century Greek manuscripts of Josephus are preferable to pseudo-Hegesippus, I think the same argument can be made from them. I just prefer using the oldest MSS possible.

aa5874

From the passages you quoted it is CLEAR that Josephus was NOT used for the details about John the Baptist.

You are putting forward a MOST absurd notion that the author of pseudo-Hegesippus used Josephus and then the Church or some apologetic character REMOVED corroborative evidence from the very Greek writings of Josephus.

Once pseudo Hegesippus was ORIGINALLY compatible with the Greek version of Josephus with ALL respect to John the Baptist then there would have been NO advantage for the Church to REMOVE the corroborative evidence from the Greek Josephus.

This is found in "Antiquities of the Jews"18.5.2 by Josephus, NOT Hegesippus.

The detailed information about John the Baptist found in the Greek AJ 18.5.2 is fundamentally NOT compatible with Hegesippus.

Would it not be the work of an IDIOT or a CLOWN to quote and copy passages from the supposed original Josephus only to find that the Greek Josephus was NOT a corroborative source for pseudo-Hegesippus?

The details about John the Baptist in pseudo-Hegesippus were not likely originally from Josephus since the Church would have NOT removed such information from their Greek version.

charles

Hi aa5784:

Hegesippus is a corruption of the name Josephus. It is an early Latin translation of the core Josephus material or as the New Advent writes:

A fourth-century translator of the "Jewish War" of Flavius Josephus. The name is based on an error. In the manuscripts of the work "Iosippus" appears quite regularly for "Josephus". From Iosippus an unintelligent reviser derived Hegesippus, which name, therefore, is merely that of the original author, ignorantly transcribed. In the best manuscripts, the translator is said to be St. Ambrose.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07195a.htm

I was confused too and went to double check!

stephan huller

I am only following the manuscript evidence. We don't have the original Josephus. Josephus - as Roger Pearse (hardly some 'radical') has shown that it can't be demonstrated that Josephus was known or cited by any Church Father before Nicaea. Eusebius is our first witness to Josephus in any substantial form. But the text most often cited by Church Fathers is Jewish War. Jewish Antiquities is problematic as it is unlikely IMO that the historical Josephus ever authored an imitation of Dionysius of Halicarnassus's Roman Antiquities. I believe this text was concocted by a fourth century author to make it appear Josephus was a good citizen of the Empire.

Roger Pearse also provides us with the evidence that no manuscript of this text survives before the 11th century:

If we go back to the issue of the dating of Jewish War Roger Pearse also provides us with these details:

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/ma...jewish_war.htm

The one think Roger doesn't say clearly enough is that outside of Europe there is little evidence for our version of Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities. The most influential MS is that of Pseudo-Hegesippus. This is developed into the Slavonic, Hebrew and Ethiopic texts and the author is identified as 'Josephus.'

Pseudo-Hegesippus is a very important text and it is by far the earliest witness to the lost original text of Josephus's war narrative, seven hundred years older than the European manuscripts.

maryhelena

Well, all the gospels spell it out - the crucifixion was sometime during the time of Pilate - anywhere between 26 -36 ce. Luke seeks to narrow the field to post 29/30 ce to 33 ce - but the others only state in the time of Pilate.
spin - I've just asked about the war with Aretas - and looks like you were unable to provide any historical data to support the contention of Josephus that there was such a war....And the war between Antipas and Aretas?

Yes the text - text from a source that is deemed to be written by "a prophetic historian". In the gospel of Luke. And since, seemingly, Luke had one eye on Josephus as he writes - it might be worth while considering the writing of Josephus from a Lukan perspective: Luke sees Josephus with the war with Antipas and Aretas in 36/37 ce - and views that 'historical' event as an end time scenario - and places his Jesus storyline 7 years prior to the end time...Jesus being 'cut off' in the middle of that week of years (the 3 year ministry in gJohn).


Take the gospel of Luke out of the picture and there is then complete agreement with Josephus re the John the Baptist storyline. Jesus was crucified around 36 ce. The gospel of Luke is problematic not only re the crucifixion of Jesus - but also with his birth. It is only Luke and Josephus that are at loggerheads over John the Baptist - not Josephus and Mark, Matthew and John. Luke, with his 15th year of Tiberius is stuck with the latest date for his crucifixion story at 33 ce - the other gospels can run their storyline right up to 36 ce.

So, there is no argument that the Josephan story re John the Baptist is not supporting the gospel storyline - 3 gospels verse 1 gospel storyline. It's Luke that is the 'problem' in this case. Josephus is providing a 'historical' veneer for the gospel story re John the Baptist.

How about Herodias being married to Philip. How about some historical evidence for the war with Aretas.

Your letting Josephus off too easily.
My aim is not to make Josephus look foolish - on the contrary, my aim is to see Josephus acknowledged for what he was - a historical prophet.

And, of course, Rachel Elior has taken him to task over the Essenes - that Josephus has made Philo's philosophical Essenes historical - by dating them.

aa5874

My point is that pseudo-Hegesippus contains details about John the Baptist that is not found in the Greek version of "Antiquities of the Jews 18.5.2.

The 4th century historian of "Church History", Eusebius, appears to have used the Greek version of Josephus "Antiquities of the Jews" 18.5.2 which is not even compatible with the NT Canon about John the Baptist.

maryhelena

A story 'transferred' from one Herod to another Herod. I think Josephus was simply replaying the historical tape recorder - using different faces and contexts. History repeats itself - what goes around comes around - cycles of life. For a prophetic historian, as was Josephus, then if there was a 'salvation' story to tell, if there is some insight to be gained from past historical events - then repeating, retelling, the earlier history within a new historical context - and perhaps with a twist to the tale - is a method of updating or reaffirming the 'salvation' storyline.

charles

I read somewhere that Josephus and other ancient chroniclers were in the habit of adding bits of information they didn't know what to do with at the end of sections. Perhaps that is what is happening here