the_cave

Ah, now this is an interesting discussion!

But you wouldn't know from either Luke or Josephus that Quirinus was a procurator, as Justin states. This suggests to me that Justin is not drawing on either...rather, he may be drawing on one of Josephus' sources, perhaps either Nicolaus of Damascus or Justus of Tiberias.

Indeed, according to Josephus Cyrenius was not procurator of Judea--that was Coponius!

Now of course, Justin could be misreading Josephus just as easily as he could be misreading either Nicolaus or Justus. But I see little that could help decide the question of which source Justin could have been using. This applies just as well to his discussion of Moses.

andrewcriddle

One of the general issues here is that knowledge of Against Apion (and the Jewish War) seems to have been more widespread among early Christians than knowledge of the Antiquities.

Hence accepting (at least FTSOA) that Justin knew Against Apion would not in itself make it probable that he knew the Antiquities.

Andrew Criddle

spin

I'm sorry babies, but the word "procurator" is Latin, so neither Josephus nor Justin uses it. Checking Josephus, he uses hgemwn ("ruler"), eparxos ("commander"), and epitropos ("administrator"), all of which Whiston translates as "procurator".

Of course Quirinius was not a procurator anyway: he was a proconsular legate and the senior Roman authority in the east. During the time of Quirinius, a procurator was a glorified financial administrator. Probably Coponius was a prefect, as Pilate was. Judea was only a small province. (While the prefect of Judea had a cohort or two, the legate of Syria had three legions under his command.)


spin

the_cave

And, note that Cyrenius and his responsibility for the taxation are mentioned in War 7.8.1.

(This is not to say that it wouldn't be interesting to learn that Justin had read Josephus, even if only War or Against Apion.)

the_cave

Yes, and I am using the term to refer to epitropos, as is customary. Point being that Justin calls Cyrenius/Quirinius epitropos in Apology 30.3, actually epitropou), but to my knowledge, Josephus does not.

Now maybe Justin was just using epitropou to loosely refer to Cyrenius' office--but in that case, he could just as easily have based it off the reference in Luke, than in Josephus (and again, Cyrenius is mentioned in War, in connection to the taxation, just as well as Antiquities.)

spin

A point which I have pointed out in this case was anachronous.

Obviously Quirinius was not a procurator. He was a patrician and procurators were drawn from the equestrian class or from freedmen. I have indicated elsewhere when procurators were first given power over certain provinces, ie during the reign of Claudius when he assigned his procurators some of his own personal magisterial powers which gave a procurator the power to deal with Roman legal issues.

If Justin calls Quirinius an epitropos, he was either not using it to mean "procurator" or he was in error.

If you'd checked Luke, you'd know that the writer didn't use epitropos for Quirinius, but a verb hgemoneuw, meaning "to rule".


spin

spin

This misrepresents the role of Quirinius. He enforced a census for evaluation purposes which would have govern taxation, but the taxation was not his interest, but the evaluation of the potential of the new province. In War 7.253 he is called a timhths, "an evaluator", which Feldman gives in the context as "censor". Perhaps it's time to stop using Whiston and get something more recent.


spin

the_cave

He does (both in the First Apology and in the Dialogue with Trypho).

I agree completely.

I did check Luke. My point is that because Justin's terminology matches neither Luke nor Josephus, Justin could just as easily made the error from Luke, as from Josephus.

I am not saying that Quirinius was anything more than that. I meant exactly what you say: that he was an administrator when the enrollment was carried out.

JoeWallack

JW:
Oh but you're confusing "knowledge of" with "direct evidence of usage". The underlying question is are the Fathers in general familiar with Antiquities 18? "Familiar" does not require having or having access to the work. It only requires being aware of anything that would be of interest to a Father, such as a reference to Jesus.

I'm just looking for "likely" here and not "prove". I don't require a clear reference to Josephus to establish likeliness. I have General reasons:

1) Church Fathers interested in 1st century Israel history.

2) Josephus most famous 1st century Israel historian.

3) Once a Father is aware of Josephus this exponentially increases sources of awareness for other Fathers and Theodopilus is clearly aware of Josephus early.

If you or TC or A&W want to dispute my general assertion than deal with the above instead of avoiding it.

JW:
Specifically for Justin he is in Rome where Josephus was published and probably most accessible. Justin's education level makes it likely he was familiar with Josephus and if we can take OCD at its word that Justin had the audience of the Emperor than at that level he is probably familiar with the official Roman/Jewish historian of 1st century Israel.

We also have Justin's bookends, "Luke" and Theophilus, who are likely and definitely respectively aware of Josephus as well as Fake Justin who directly refers to Antiquities whose author clearly thought it was something Justin could/should have said.

How Justin could have been aware of Against Apion and not Antiquities is truly amazing:

Flavius Josephus Against Apion BOOK 1

If Justin knows Against Apion than he knows Antiquities. I just can't see Justin or any Father seeing that reference and than not trying to find the book or someone familiar with it. That's how the Fathers spent their time, looking for/manufacturing support for Jesus. It's what they did. That's their Acts like Rip Curtain Torn. They don't dance.

I don't know if TC understands the difference here between likely being aware of and showing direct knowledge of, but I'm sure you do. As always, any Father who is aware of Josephus doesn't even need to track down the books. They just need to find someone familiar with them. I'll assume you agree that Josephus was always available in Rome and OCD asserts that Rome was a center if not the center of Christianity early on. So when any nearby Father was in Rome...



Joseph

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

spin

I wasn't partaking in the argument you were involved in. I was merely dealing with your inaccuracies of statement, such as your blissful use of "procurator".

You seem quick to eliminate Josephus as a source for Justin's use of epitropos for the head Roman official in Judea, so where do you think Justin got it from, if not from Josephus who uses it frequently enough, for example several times in AJ 20, for Fadus 2, 14, 99, for Cumanus 132, and for Felix 142, 162 (as well as several times in War bk 2).

Thanks. That's certainly clearer than your earlier comment about "his responsibility for the taxation".


spin