stephan huller

Just packing but Avi the reason why we know that Josephus probably didn't write his original text in Greek is that the existing texts make this inference. From Roger Pearse's wonder site again:

Josephus received aid from Greek assistants (synergoi). Two of these -- the principal assistants -- are most visible in the later books, where the author seems to have handed over composition to them. Books 15-16 are the work of an assistant who also worked on the Jewish War, a cultured writer with a love of the Greek poets and Sophocles in particular. Books 17-19 show the marked mannerisms of a hack, a slavish imitator of Thucydides. In these books the two assistants have practically taken over the entire task. In the earlier books they have lent occasional assistance.

The development of Jewish Antiquities was certainly modeled after Roman Antiquities of Dionysius of Halicarnassus. This just has a strangeness about it.

Josephus himself stated that, at least for the War, he first wrote an Aramaic version (cf War I.3, also Against Apion I.50). The first version it is claimed was sent to the 'barbarians' of the Upper Country. The claim for the help of synergoi is laid out in the last reference:

for what happened in the Roman camp I saw, and wrote down carefully; and what informations the deserters brought [out of the city], I was the only man that understood them. Afterward I got leisure at Rome; and when all my materials were prepared for that work, I made use of some persons to assist me in learning the Greek tongue, and by these means I composed the history of those transactions. And I was so well assured of the truth of what I related, that I first of all appealed to those that had the supreme command in that war, Vespasian and Titus, as witnesses for me, for to them I presented those books first of all, and after them to many of the Romans who had been in the war. I also sold them to many of our own men who understood the Greek philosophy; among whom were Julius Archelaus, Herod [king of Chalcis], a person of great gravity, and king Agrippa himself, a person that deserved the greatest admiration. Now all these men bore their testimony to me, that I had the strictest regard to truth; who yet would not have dissembled the matter, nor been silent, if I, out of ignorance, or out of favor to any side, either had given false colors to actions, or omitted any of them.

There have been indeed some bad men, who have attempted to calumniate my history, and took it to be a kind of scholastic performance for the exercise of young men. A strange sort of accusation and calumny this! since every one that undertakes to deliver the history of actions truly ought to know them accurately himself in the first place, as either having been concerned in them himself, or been informed of them by such as knew them. Now both these methods of knowledge I may very properly pretend to in the composition of both my works; for, as I said, I have translated the Antiquities out of our sacred books; which I easily could do, since I was a priest by my birth, and have studied that philosophy which is contained in those writings: and for the History of the War, I wrote it as having been an actor myself in many of its transactions, an eye-witness in the greatest part of the rest, and was not unacquainted with any thing whatsoever that was either said or done in it. How impudent then must those deserve to be esteemed that undertake to contradict me about the true state of those affairs! who, although they pretend to have made use of both the emperors' own memoirs, yet could not they he acquainted with our affairs who fought against them.

This digression I have been obliged to make out of necessity, as being desirous to expose the vanity of those that profess to write histories; and I suppose I have sufficiently declared that this custom of transmitting down the histories of ancient times hath been better preserved by those nations which are called Barbarians, than by the Greeks themselves.

I don't have the time to go through why I am so suspicious of this acknowledged 'rewrite' but I think it came much later than Josephus. The other account which Josephus is referencing is that of Justus of Tiberius. The Catholics in my opinion had more to fear with his text as he was undoubtedly the source of the rabbinic and Alexandrian's tradition identification of Agrippa as the messiah of Daniel 9:26 (which now also appears in the narratives of Josephus). I think that at some point the account of Justus was merged with the narrative of Josephus but that's another story ...

Sorry for citing so heavily from other sources but http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/...anges-and.html

Steve Mason also notes other types of apparent internal inconsistency (in Lee McDonald and James Sanders, edd., The Canon Debate (or via: amazon.co.uk) [Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002], pp. 119-121). Elsewhere, Mason refers to "countless changes and contradictions" (Josephus, Judea, And Christian Origins (or via: amazon.co.uk) [Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2009], p. 42).

J.J. Scott comments that "Parallel sections of different works have unreconcilable variants." (in Joel Green, et al., edd., Dictionary Of Jesus And The Gospels (or via: amazon.co.uk) [Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1992], p. 393

Paul Maier writes:

"At times he is inconsistent in statements made in The Jewish War when compared with those in Antiquities, even if many of these may be understood as corrections in the latter writing on the basis of better knowledge. The discrepancies between The Jewish War and his Vita, however, are more serious. They include irreconcilable versions of a brutal incident involving Josephus's activities at Taricheae (Magdala) in Galilee, when enemies tried to attack him in his lodging. The accounts of his escape not only strain credibility but show a streak in his character that is more cruel than crafty." (The New Complete Works Of Josephus (or via: amazon.co.uk) [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 1999], p. 14)

Much more could be cited. See the first chapter of the second book by Mason cited above, for example. We can reconcile such problems with Josephan authorship, but we likewise can reconcile the New Testament problems Jon cites with Pauline authorship. As I said above, in some cases even the large majority of liberal scholars don't see these characteristics that Jon cites as inconsistent with Pauline authorship. Why doesn't Jon explain why those liberal scholars supposedly are wrong? Does he even know what they would argue?

One more thing, there are like FIVE different interpretations of Daniel 9:24 - 27 in Josephus's writings. This is very curious and rarely noted . I think it argues for Christian interpolation and/or the incorporation of Justus's original narrative in to Josephus.

maryhelena

Just as a matter of interest - could you give the Josephan references re the five different interpretations of Daniel ch.9.

stephan huller

Well Mary Helena if you look at my words I said 'like FIVE' meaning it might be more or less five. If you look up any critical work on Josephus or do a Google Books search you will find it. From memory the surviving texts connect the prophesy to (a) the Maccabean period (b) Herod (c) the destruction of the Temple but even within these periods it connects the messiah to different figures. FROM MEMORY AGAIN ( I am packing) in (c) for instance there is (i) Vespasian (ii) Agrippa at least implicitly (iii) the high priest etc. The same goes for the other periods too AGAIN FROM MEMORY

This is again impossible to explain if Josephus wrote the material from beginning to end (which he certainly didn't). It's a hodge podge of interpretations because its a hodge podge of authors and narratives.

maryhelena

But is that not what prophetic interpretations are about - they move with the territory. Consequently, different prophetic interpretations from Josephus are a mark of his willingness to move with the times and not a reflection upon his ability to record history. Josephus is not *just* a historian - to limit him is to limit our understanding and appreciation of his work.

(I was hoping you had the relevant references to hand...)

stephan huller

I am packing and I apologize for my unwillingness to copy out a text with two screaming children running around but I don't understand your argument. Josephus is supposedly writing a history of the Jewish people in which God and prophetic knowledge is actively shaping that history. The way Josephus affirms that THIS PERSON or THIS MOMENT is the one Daniel was referencing CANNOT be explained by your analysis.

I wrote a long post with five different points. Why don't do some investigation of your own instead arguing with an interpretation you obvious don't know anything about otherwise you wouldn't be asking me for the original references?

I put forward a number of examples of problems with Josephus. You focused on this one and then said:

(a) it could be explain another way and that
(b) you didn't know the references and could I give them to you.

This is illogical. You can't base a refutation of my interpretation without actually being familiar with the material.

I usually have more time to deal with these things but as I said 'I am heading to Toronto' as Jessica Tandy says throughout Camilla (the worst film in history if you asked me, but my wife and I have a theory that ANY film that references Toronto is going to horrible. The more times the worse).

maryhelena

Stephen, I simply asked you for references - not for the actual text of those references. And no, I have not given any refutation of your interpretation of Daniel' prophecy - if that is what you are referring to. Actually, I don't think you gave an interpretation...you simply said that Josephus has give a number of different interpretations.

Yes, I'm aware that Josephus has shown an interest in prophetic interpretations - I just don't have all the references to hand. Suggesting that I go do the looking up myself - well, that's fine I suppose - I just thought you would have then to hand since your post referenced them. My being familiar or not familiar with the material in question has no relevant connection to the request I made.

And as for prophetic interpretation - that is anyone's game.

stephan huller

Maybe its the nerves associated with flying but it seems to me that your last post was (a) an attempt to offer another interpretation of the numerous explanations of Daniel in Josephus's history:

Immediately followed by an acknowledgement that you didn't know what you are talking about:

Again here's the post in its entirety:

The first part offers a different explanation than my argument that someone other than Josephus wrote at least some of the passages which connect Daniel 9:24 - 27 to (a) the time of the Maccabees (b) Herod and (c) the destruction of the temple:

Immediately followed by an acknowledgement that you really don't have a clue about what the original references I am talking about look like, what they say or how this shows that more than one author must have written them:

When I land tomorrow I will try to track down the source on Google Books. But please, stop trying to offer explanations before actually seeing the material ...

mountainman

Does David Trobisch's think that Eusebius just waved a magical wand around a stack of Irenaeus's books in the libraries of Rome between 312 and 324 CE, or how is Eusebius not to be considered as the 'final editor' of the New Testament which was physically published (as our best evidence suggests) 50 times over by Constantine? Hello Canon with Hermes and the Shepherd.

Eusebius lived under the Tetrarchy -- the leadership of four people.
Miraculously in the life of Eusebius the leadership had collapsed to an imperial christian monotheism.
Did Eusebius preserve the books of "Irenaeus" or is it the other way around?

stephan huller

And I had Four Cheese Macaroni for dinner. What's your point? Irenaeus never says there should be four gospels because there are four Emperors. The justification are the four hiyyot, the four winds - one could even argue that the Marcosian interest in the first word of Genesis αρχή (in the same way that they venerated the number six because of בראשית.

But the four Emperors, why? Why would that matter? How did the four Emperors agree to conspire against Christianity in the midst of all their infighting? It has also been argued that Constantine used Hosius of Cordoba to line Christians up against his enemies. Why then make the gospel four rather than one for Constantine?

Irenaeus makes more sense than the Eusebius conspiracy ...

aa5874

It would appear that "Wars of the Jews" was translated into Greek.

This is the Preface to "Wars of the Jews".

See http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studi...s/war-pref.htm