Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duke Leto · 07-19-2012, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Apparently there is a reference to the years from Exodus to David as 585 in Josephus

Objection! Relevance?

stephan huller · 07-19-2012, 09:24 PM

Whiston's solution:

Flavius Josephus the Jew, who composed the history of that nation, when he collected the series of years, says, That from Moses to David [from the Exodus out of Egypt to the death of David] there were 585 years [change ε, or 5, into η or 8, and you will have the exact number 588, as frequently in Josephus elsewhere]. From David to the second year of Vespasian [AD 70] 1179. From whence to the tenth year of Antoninus [AD 147] are 77. So that the whole sum from Moses to the tenth year of Antoninus is 1833 [it should be 1841 or 1844] years.

Whiston seems to think the text is Josephan - http://books.google.com/books?id=y45...ian%22&f=false based on the number of years from the Exodus to the destruction of the temple:

Quote:

And this Citation is the more remarkable, as it agrees, within very few Years, with those particular sums which even all the present copies of Josephus give us, and that as to both parts of this entire interval: the one, from the going out of Egypt, in the days of Moses, to the death of David, which is usually in Josephus, at this day, the sum of 588 years, as we shall show hereafter. The other, from the death of David to the destruction of Jerusalem, in the second year of Vespasian, A. D. 70, is not only in the place cited just 1179 years, Jewish War, 6.10. Iff., but is nearly the sum of the particular years at the conclusion of the 20th book of Antiquities.

stephan huller · 07-19-2012, 09:38 PM

Ben Zion Wacholder http://books.google.com/books?id=RoZ...ed=0CC4Q6AEwAA says that Jewish War 6 gives part of the Josephan text known to Clement but not the 585 number:

Quote:

But his text gives only part of Clement's citation— the period of 1179 years from David to Vespasian (Titus in Josephus)— but not the first part— 585 years from Moses to David, a number not found in our copies of Josephus.

stephan huller · 07-19-2012, 09:42 PM

The reference at the end of Book Six of Jewish Wars:

Quote:

However, David, the king of the Jews, ejected the Canaanites, and set-tied his own people therein. It was demolished entirely by the Babylonians, four hundred and seventy-seven years and six months after him. And from king David, who was the first of the Jews who reigned therein, to this destruction under Titus, were one thousand one hundred and seventy-nine years; but from its first building, till this last destruction, were two thousand one hundred and seventy-seven years; yet hath not its great antiquity, nor its vast riches, nor the diffusion of its nation over all the habitable earth, nor the greatness of the veneration paid to it on a religious account, been sufficient to preserve it from being destroyed. And thus ended the siege of Jerusalem.

I think we've settled that the text is definitively Josephan. The question is whether Clement as our oldest witness can be assumed to have a worse copy of Josephus than Eusebius writing centuries later and how best to explain the chronology continuing down to the tenth year of Antoninus Pius.

stephan huller · 07-19-2012, 09:56 PM

I guess I am surprised that no one gets as excited about not knowing the answer about things. Clement's testimony just throws a bucket of cold water over any certainty with respect to Josephus. I think it's kind of cool. Sort of like Marcion for the gospels.

maryhelena · 07-19-2012, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Apparently there is a reference to the years from Exodus to David as 585 in Josephus

http://books.google.com/books?id=jeF...sephus&f=false

There is no reference in Josephus to the 585 years mentioned by Clement. The Josephan years from the Exodus to the start of temple building under Solomon are given as 592 years. This being the 4th year of Solomon. Thus, four years back - and it's 588 years from the Exodus to the death of David.

So - Clement is already misquoting, or more correctly, misusing or misinterpreting the Josephan text. His maths are questionable. Thus, any attempt to use Clement as a proof that the Josephan writer was a second century writer is based on a very fragile footing. The case would be thrown out of any historical court. Scholarship needs more than an imaginative interpretation of a writer who can't do his sums.

Quote:

Aniquities book 8 ch.3

1. SOLOMON began to build the temple in the fourth year of his reign, on the second month, which the Macedonians call Artemisius, and the Hebrews Jur, five hundred and ninety-two years after the Exodus out of Egypt; but one thousand and twenty years from Abraham's coming out of Mesopotamia into Canaan, and after the deluge one thousand four hundred and forty years; and from Adam, the first man who was created, until Solomon built the temple, there had passed in all three thousand one hundred and two years. Now that year on which the temple began to be built was already the eleventh year of the reign of Hiram; but from the building of Tyre to the building of the temple, there had passed two hundred and forty years.

maryhelena · 07-19-2012, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The reference at the end of Book Six of Jewish Wars:

Quote:

However, David, the king of the Jews, ejected the Canaanites, and set-tied his own people therein. It was demolished entirely by the Babylonians, four hundred and seventy-seven years and six months after him. And from king David, who was the first of the Jews who reigned therein, to this destruction under Titus, were one thousand one hundred and seventy-nine years; but from its first building, till this last destruction, were two thousand one hundred and seventy-seven years; yet hath not its great antiquity, nor its vast riches, nor the diffusion of its nation over all the habitable earth, nor the greatness of the veneration paid to it on a religious account, been sufficient to preserve it from being destroyed. And thus ended the siege of Jerusalem.

I think we've settled that the text is definitively Josephan. The question is
whether Clement as our oldest witness can be assumed to have a worse copy of Josephus than Eusebius writing centuries later and how best to explain the chronology continuing down to the tenth year of Antoninus Pius.

Not so fast......................The Clement text contains only one reference to something from Josephus: "And from king David, who was the first of the Jews who reigned therein, to this destruction under Titus, were one thousand one hundred and seventy-nine years;". Clement has paraphrased it: "from David to the second year of Vespasian, a thousand one hundred and seventy-nine;"

That's it. The rest is nothing more than Clement's own imaginative play on numbers.

stephan huller · 07-20-2012, 12:08 AM

I happened to be reading this before I signed in so MH's comments weren't blocked. I don't think you are getting it. We don't know that we have 'Josephus's text.' We have a text which claims that. But so do the Slavonic, Hebrew and Latin texts. There were certainly others. The text in Origen's hand for instance. A word here, a word there. Someone should look at the Leemings side by side translation of the Slavonic and the Greek. According to many experts on the subject of Josephus we have a more polished version of Josephus which is not necessarily from the hand of Josephus. Perhaps even not arranged the way he originally intended it.

I go back to Jewish Antiquities. I find it hard to believe that the Jewish general who forcibly circumcised non-circumcised residents of Galilee and who found the depictions of animals in Agrippa's palace offensive suddenly 'turned around' to embrace Hellenism. It's silly. It's implausible.

The only reason that mainstream scholarship does this is because it gives them something to work on. It makes what they do seem more authoritative and less frivolous.

stephan huller · 07-20-2012, 12:12 AM

Again I'd take math over words in a sentence any day. There was probably no 'king David' and no one knew when he lived so that you have two texts claiming to be by 'Flavius Josephus' that agree on the number of years between this imaginary figure and the real historical event of the destruction of the temple establishes a relationship between those two texts.

stephan huller · 07-20-2012, 12:14 AM

I can't believe that you actually can't see past the inherited assumption that we have Josephus's actual writings. Was the gospel of Matthew really written by someone named Matthew? Or Luke? Was someone actually recording the words of Jesus. Why is this different?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-19-2012, 09:56 PM	#285
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I guess I am surprised that no one gets as excited about not knowing the answer about things. Clement's testimony just throws a bucket of cold water over any certainty with respect to Josephus. I think it's kind of cool. Sort of like Marcion for the gospels.

07-20-2012, 12:08 AM	#288
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I happened to be reading this before I signed in so MH's comments weren't blocked. I don't think you are getting it. We don't know that we have 'Josephus's text.' We have a text which claims that. But so do the Slavonic, Hebrew and Latin texts. There were certainly others. The text in Origen's hand for instance. A word here, a word there. Someone should look at the Leemings side by side translation of the Slavonic and the Greek. According to many experts on the subject of Josephus we have a more polished version of Josephus which is not necessarily from the hand of Josephus. Perhaps even not arranged the way he originally intended it. I go back to Jewish Antiquities. I find it hard to believe that the Jewish general who forcibly circumcised non-circumcised residents of Galilee and who found the depictions of animals in Agrippa's palace offensive suddenly 'turned around' to embrace Hellenism. It's silly. It's implausible. The only reason that mainstream scholarship does this is because it gives them something to work on. It makes what they do seem more authoritative and less frivolous.

07-20-2012, 12:12 AM	#289
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Again I'd take math over words in a sentence any day. There was probably no 'king David' and no one knew when he lived so that you have two texts claiming to be by 'Flavius Josephus' that agree on the number of years between this imaginary figure and the real historical event of the destruction of the temple establishes a relationship between those two texts.

07-20-2012, 12:14 AM	#290
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I can't believe that you actually can't see past the inherited assumption that we have Josephus's actual writings. Was the gospel of Matthew really written by someone named Matthew? Or Luke? Was someone actually recording the words of Jesus. Why is this different?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.