Ben C Smith

Maybe. I do not know. You will need to show evidence for this (even if indirect).

That is their problem, not mine.

No. Just an item or two would be sufficient, and not something that could just as easily have come from the LXX.

What I think is that you tried to make your case with material that could have come from the LXX just as easily as from the Antiquities. That obviously will not do, since the guts of Antiquities at this point happen to coincide with the guts of Genesis.

Also, you tried to connect the word ancientness with the Antiquities, and that was a mistake on your part, since this word is what writers used to refer to Against Apion.

Also, you ignored the immediate context attributing to Josephus those references to Draco, Lycurgus, and Minos, which are definitive in pointing to Against Apion, not to the Antiquities.

IOW, when Theophilus explicitly references Josephus here, there is no doubt that he is explicitly referencing Against Apion. If he is also using Antiquities as a source in the ensuing context, he does not mention it.

Which of course he is, even when he is incorrect. You would have to redefine the term scholar to count him out.

I am not defending Whealey. I am reacting to my own gut level astonishment at your arrogance. And, incidentally, still reeling from your unbelievable post to the_cave, whose contributions here have been solid, as usual. This entire board would brighten up immediately if you, Joe Wallack, were to (A) keep every single position you currently hold, but (B) act human.

I have no horse in that race. I know that the Antiquities circulated in two halves, books 1-10 and books 11-20, but have by no means traced each half along the various authors. I honestly do not know how much familiarity to accord (A) a father who refers to, say, the War but not to the Antiquities or (B) a father who refers to books 1-10 but not books 11-20.

No, the issue for my part is the faulty argumentation that you used to support your point. Period.

You were wrong. Period.

Your point may still stand. Just find better arguments for it.

Yes, this is a start. In Against Apion Josephus refers back to the Antiquities, so presumably Theophilus, who has obviously read enough of the former to recall three specific names, would know that Josephus wrote the latter. Did he have access to it?

I am not arguing that Theophilus did not know or read the Antiquities. Read that twice or thrice if you have to. I am countering an argument of yours, a rather poor one, that he did know and read the Antiquities. If you can find a better candidate passage for knowledge of the Antiquities (even books 1-10) in Theophilus, or a better argument to that effect, I will be delighted.

Please, Joe, I am begging you here, cut the swagger and just enjoy these forum exchanges with people like the_cave who politely challenge you.

Ben.

aa5874

It is reasonable to infer that a person is familiar with the writings of Josephus if such a person mentioned the writings of Josephus.

It is reasonable to infer that if the TF did exist in Antiquities of the Jews that Theophilus would have known about it.

the_cave

Reasonable, sure--but more reasonable than not?

It also seems reasonable to assume that if someone shows no textual evidence of having read a work, that they did not.

Both are reasonable assumptions--without more evidence, how can you decide?

(Also, "familiar with the writings of Josephus" is different from "a reader of Antiquities")

But this is a different claim altogether--if it's true at all, it's true regardless of whether Theophilus had read anything else by Josephus.

I myself do not currenly incline towards Josephan authorship of the TF. I also currently think that Eusebius had a hand in its final form. But that still doesn't mean Eusebius composed it. There are too many other unanswered questions.

JoeWallack

JW:

General

For starters I think it likely that Theophilus was familiar with Antiquities. Agree or not? If he was than Antiquities would be a much better source for his argument here than a Christian Greek translation of the Jewish Bible (in my NHO "the LXX" is a figment of the Christian imagination). Agree or not (not the LXX part)? If you agree with me on both than I need nothing further to agree with you that it is likely Theophilus was familiar with Antiquities. I make no claim of proving anything here. That I leave to Whealey and Bauckham.

Specific

1) Theophilus periodically refers to Moses as the author of chunks of history just like Josephus and unlike the Bible.

2) Riddle me this:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...lus-book3.html

Verses:

Where is this in the Bible?



Joseph

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

Ben C Smith

Agnostic. Not sure how to assess the probability of an ancient author knowing the very bulky Antiquities, even if he knows the other, briefer works by Josephus.

Moses was considered the author of the Pentateuch by this time. Theophilus does not need Josephus to consider him the author of those five books or any portions thereof.

It is not in the Bible. Both Theophilus and Josephus attribute the quotation to Menander. Either both are quoting Menander independently, or Theophilus is cribbing from Josephus to quote Menander. If the quotations are exactly as you have snipped them, then I would say that yes, Theophilus is cribbing from Josephus. How else would he match the contours of the quotation so exactly, starting and finishing in the same spot? But, if, say, Theophilus goes on to quote parts of Menander that Josephus lacks, then it would seem more likely that Theophilus is accessing Menander directly. I am very much pressed for time here; which do you find to be the case?

Ben.

aa5874

There are two basic options.

1. Theophilus was likely to be familiar with Antiquities.
2. Theophilus was unlikely to be familiar with Antiquities.

Option 1, base on extant information or evidence, may be perfectly reasonable. Option 2 is not so.

It makes very little sense to assume that a writer is only familiar with or aware of only the isolated topics or events found in his writings.

It is just a case of futility to think that Theophilus is not aware of Adam or Eve if he only mentions Moses in a writing.

Against Apion is a rebuttal to Apion who contradicted the writings of Josephus. Once Theophilus is aware of Against Apion it can be reasonable inferred that he was also aware of Antiquities and may have accepted Josephus writings as credible.

andrewcriddle

Hi aa..


You are right that the attribution to Apollinaris is very speculative. Some modern scholars attribute the work to Marcellus of Ancyra.

Marcovich in Pseudo Justinus claims that chapter 9 of the Hortatory Address (on the Antiquity of Moses) makes use of the Chronicle of the early 3rd century Christian scholar Julius Africanus. If so the work must be after 217 CE.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

So, it may be that it was Julius Africanus who used parts of Justin Martyr's Hortatory Address to the Greeks.

A church writer, Eusebius, has already attributed "the Hortatory Address" to Justin since the fourth century. The very same Eusebius, in the same century, mentioned Aficanus and did not attribute the writing to Africanus.

Church History 6.31 by Eusebius Frankly, I am not even certain of the historicity of Africanus and his writings, very little is known of him.

And, in any event, the passage found in Justin's Hortatory Address indicates that Antiquities of the Jews was used or known before Eusebius, so that information only augments the claim that it is likely that the TF is Eusebian.

JoeWallack

Wars. Hist. What Is It Good For

JW:

CIRCUMSTANTIAL

1) Discovery

1 - No evidence for the TF before Eusebius

1) General silence - expectation that if the
TF existed it would have been used due to its importance
to Christianity.

2) Specific silence - http://vridar.wordpress.com/2009/03/06/josephus/

ca.140’s CE Justin Martyr

Philosopher in Rome and his interests were:

1) Jesus

2) 1st century Israel

3) Arguing with Pagan and Jewish philosophers

The related question should be:

Why wouldn't Justin be familiar with Josephus?

Focusing on Justin here the above general information already makes it likely that Justin was familiar with Josephus. Christianity had 3 eras (errors) of attitude on The Way to taking control:

1) Paul - Anti-Historical - Faith

2) Justin - Historical Neutral - Philosophical

3) Eusebius - Historical - Advocate

Note that Justin here, being historical neutral, confesses that his historical evidence for Christianity is no better for an objective person than the Pagan's historical evidence for Paganism. Justin therefore relies on philosophical arguments, granting his opponents the same type of historical claims that he makes. Specific sources are thus relatively unimportant to Justin as he generally does not try to question the accuracy of other's sources. Specifically here this means it is less likely that he would cite Josephus by name even if he used it as a source.

Now, on to the specifics:

JUSTIN MARTYR -- THE FIRST APOLOGY OF JUSTIN

Quote:

CHAPTER XXXIV -- PLACE OF CHRIST'S BIRTH FORETOLD. And hear what part of earth He was to be born in, as another prophet, Micah, foretold. He spoke thus: "And thou, Bethlehem, the land of Judah, art not the least among the princes of Judah; for out of thee shall come forth a Governor, who shall feed My people." Now there is a village in the land of the Jews, thirty-five stadia from Jerusalem, in which Jesus Christ was born, as you can ascertain also from the registers of the taxing made under Cyrenius, your first procurator in Judaea.

JW:
The question is what is Justin's likely source here? The registers? Probably not since "Luke's" related infancy narrative is likely a complete fiction and there probably were no such registers in Justin's time anyway. Note that Justin does not say where the registers are.

Is "Luke" the source for the above?:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Luke_2

Quote:

Luke 2:1 Now it came to pass in those days, there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be enrolled. Luke 2:2 This was the first enrolment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria.

With apologies to Stephen Carlson, "Luke" only references Quirinius as a time marker. You wouldn't know from "Luke" that Quirinius was in charge of the census and Judea part of his assigned territory. Justin needs another source (of course Josephus was also "Luke's" likely source here). What better source than the official Roman/Jewish historian of 1st century Israel:

Antiquities of the Jews - Book XVIII

Quote:

1. NOW Cyrenius, a Roman senator, and one who had gone through other magistracies, and had passed through them till he had been consul, and one who, on other accounts, was of great dignity, came at this time into Syria, with a few others, being sent by Caesar to he a judge of that nation, and to take an account of their substance. Coponius also, a man of the equestrian order, was sent together with him, to have the supreme power over the Jews. Moreover, Cyrenius came himself into Judea, which was now added to the province of Syria, to take an account of their substance,

Isn't Josephus Justin's most likely source here?

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

JoeWallack

Wars. Hist. What Is It Good For

JW:

CIRCUMSTANTIAL

1) Discovery

1 - No evidence for the TF before Eusebius

1) General silence - expectation that if the
TF existed it would have been used due to its importance
to Christianity.

2) Specific silence - http://vridar.wordpress.com/2009/03/06/josephus/

ca.140’s CE Justin Martyr

Philosopher in Rome and his interests were:

1) Jesus

2) 1st century Israel

3) Arguing with Pagan and Jewish philosophers

The related question should be:

Why wouldn't Justin be familiar with Josephus?

Focusing on Justin here the above general information already makes it likely that Justin was familiar with Josephus. Christianity had 3 eras (errors) of attitude on The Way to taking control:

1) Paul - Anti-Historical - Faith

2) Justin - Historical Neutral - Philosophical

3) Eusebius - Historical - Advocate

Note that Justin here, being historical neutral, confesses that his historical evidence for Christianity is no better for an objective person than the Pagan's historical evidence for Paganism. Justin therefore relies on philosophical arguments, granting his opponents the same type of historical claims that he makes. Specific sources are thus relatively unimportant to Justin as he generally does not try to question the accuracy of other's sources. Specifically here this means it is less likely that he would cite Josephus by name even if he used it as a source.

Now, on to the specifics:

JUSTIN MARTYR -- THE FIRST APOLOGY OF JUSTIN

Quote:

CHAPTER XXXIV -- PLACE OF CHRIST'S BIRTH FORETOLD. And hear what part of earth He was to be born in, as another prophet, Micah, foretold. He spoke thus: "And thou, Bethlehem, the land of Judah, art not the least among the princes of Judah; for out of thee shall come forth a Governor, who shall feed My people." Now there is a village in the land of the Jews, thirty-five stadia from Jerusalem, in which Jesus Christ was born, as you can ascertain also from the registers of the taxing made under Cyrenius, your first procurator in Judaea.

JW:
The question is what is Justin's likely source here? The registers? Probably not since "Luke's" related infancy narrative is likely a complete fiction and there probably were no such registers in Justin's time anyway. Note that Justin does not say where the registers are.

Is "Luke" the source for the above?:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Luke_2

Quote:

Luke 2:1 Now it came to pass in those days, there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be enrolled. Luke 2:2 This was the first enrolment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria.

With apologies to Stephen Carlson, "Luke" only references Quirinius as a time marker. You wouldn't know from "Luke" that Quirinius was in charge of the census and Judea part of his assigned territory. Justin needs another source (of course Josephus was also "Luke's" likely source here). What better source than the official Roman/Jewish historian of 1st century Israel:

Antiquities of the Jews - Book XVIII

Quote:

1. NOW Cyrenius, a Roman senator, and one who had gone through other magistracies, and had passed through them till he had been consul, and one who, on other accounts, was of great dignity, came at this time into Syria, with a few others, being sent by Caesar to he a judge of that nation, and to take an account of their substance. Coponius also, a man of the equestrian order, was sent together with him, to have the supreme power over the Jews. Moreover, Cyrenius came himself into Judea, which was now added to the province of Syria, to take an account of their substance,

Isn't Josephus Justin's most likely source here?


JUSTIN MARTYR -- THE FIRST APOLOGY OF JUSTIN

Quote:

CHAPTER LIX -- PLATO'S OBLIGATION TO MOSES. And that you may learn that it was from our teachers--we mean the account given through the prophets--that Plato borrowed his statement that God, having altered matter which was shapeless, made the world, hear the very words spoken through Moses, who, as above shown, was the first prophet, and of greater antiquity than the Greek writers; and through whom the Spirit of prophecy, signifying how and from what materials God at first formed the world, spake thus: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was invisible and unfurnished, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God moved over the waters. And God said, Let there be light; and it was so." So that both Plato and they who agree with him, and we ourselves, have learned, and you also can be convinced, that by the word of God the whole world was made out of the substance spoken of before by Moses. And that which the poets call Erebus, we know was spoken of formerly by Moses.

JW:
Wouldn't Josephus be Justin's best potential source, with him in 2nd century Rome, for the assertion that Moses was more ancient than the Greek authors?:

Flavius Josephus Against Apion Book 1

Quote:

5. ...We therefore [who are Jews] must yield to the Grecian writers as to language and eloquence of composition; but then we shall give them no such preference as to the verity of ancient history, and least of all as to that part which concerns the affairs of our own several countries.

Josephus goes on to give a detailed argument that Moses was of greater antiquity than the Greek writers. Who would be a better potential source for Justin? He thinks Christians are the successors to the Jews. Who would give Justin a better/more authoritative history of the Jews through the Christian era and be more accessible to Justin than Josephus?

Note the following forgery though tacked on to The First Apology:

Point Doherty! aa and mm lookout!



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page