Freethought & Rationalism Archive

maryhelena · 07-15-2012, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I will repeat this until you answer the question -does Clement claim to use a 'History of the Jews' from an author named 'Flavius Josephus' and provides a chronology from that text which ends in the tenth year of Antoninus Pius?

And I will repeat that you are interpreting the Clement citation.

And that is it Stephan - no more on this issue, on this thread, from me.

stephan huller · 07-15-2012, 02:27 PM

Where is the danger or abuse in reading this as a summary or a citation from Flavius Josephus's History of the Jews as it was known to Clement of Alexandria:

Quote:

from Moses to David were five hundred and eighty-five years; from David to the second year of Vespasian, a thousand one hundred and seventy-nine; then from that to the tenth year of Antoninus, seventy-seven.

This is how everyone at all times has read this material. It is the natural reading. Why would Clement have picked the date of 'the tenth year of Antoninus Pius' out of the air? It doesn't fit the context in any discernible way. Clement isn't talking about Antoninus Pius.

stephan huller · 07-15-2012, 02:30 PM

Again let's go back to Turner's summary:

Quote:

The existence of a chronographer of the tenth year of Antoninus Pius (AD 147-148) has been assumed in explanation of the curious coincidence that both Clement of Alexandria (once) and Epiphanius (once) employ this year as a term in chronological calculations. The latter interrupts his series of bishops of Jerusalem, after the twentieth bishop Julianus, with the note 'all these down to the tenth year of A. Pius,' Haer. lxvi 1. The former tells us that ' Josephus reckons from Moses to David to the second year of Vespasian 1179 years, and from that to the tenth of Antoninus seventy-two years,' Strom, i 21 147; and as the mention of this this last date cannot come either from Josephus, who wrote half a century before it, or from Clement himself, who wrote half a century after it, it is a reasonable supposition that it is borrowed from some other intermediate writer, who will also have been the source of Epiphanius. This lost writer is conjectured by Schlatter l, following von Gutschmid, to be identical with the Judas mentioned above ; but something more than mere conjecture is wanted before we can accuse Eusebius of mistaking the tenth year of of Severus for the tenth of A. Pius. With better judgement, Harnack suggests Cassianus was the author, we have seen that Eusebius knew nothing of him ; if Judas, we must conclude that Eusebius knew next to nothing of a book which ex hypothesi he dated fifty years too late.[Journal of Theological Studies 1900 p. 193 - 194]

You can argue that the chronology which ends in the tenth year of Antoninus Pius is wrongly identified as being written by 'Flavius Josephus.' But the supporting evidence of Eusebius, Epiphanius and the Latin text of Hegesippus works against that argument.

Duke Leto · 07-15-2012, 02:48 PM

I have yet to see a single thing in this thread that causes me to doubt my assessment of Stephan Huller's character.

You have failed to address a single one of my points preferring instead to attack my character and intelligence, which in the first case you have no evidence to base your assertions on, whereas I have your behavior as a writer.

As to what you have now fallen back on, I can pretty easily turn it around on you. Why should I accept the testimony of a theologian on when a historical document was written? But as maryhelena has noted, the passage you are now hysterically grasping at doesn't say what you want it to say. Clement was getting a date for Moses not Josephus. He was quoting Josephus for the authority of the date of Moses based on the date of the Jewish War, and THEN, the keyword being THEN, stating that it was 77 years until 147 CE. Why did he do this? He was writing sometime around Commodus as you note. If I had a wild guess it would be that Clement was born in 147, since that fits with his other dates.

But it doesn't matter because Clement isn't a reliable authority.

Even if dating Josephus to 147 CE WERE the most logical reading of the passage, you still need to explain:

Why was the history abbreviated to stop at the destruction of the Temple when the Bar-Kosiba revolt had happened in the interim?
Why fabricate a biography for a 1st Century author and include that author in the narrative?
Why lace the corpus with the political opinions and prejudices of your made up author?
Why leave out critical elements that would corroborate the narratives of Acts and the Gospels?
Why have a text that is so indifferent towards Christianity?

If the corpus is a forgery it's one of the most subtle forgeries of all time.

Forgers are lazy and stupid. They don't usually take the extra time to fabricate extensive provenance and they don't bother to be understated. If you want to forge a historical record that authenticates your religious histories you are going to include corroboration for the whole of your religious histories, not just bits and pieces.

That's it. You can't argue with someone infatuated with their own hypotheses who clearly has the emotional maturity of a toddler.

If you're still looking maryhelena, double check those wiki articles on the Mauritanian Drusillas, you'll find that all the dates given for them (and Ptolemy) are suppositions based on Tacitus along with some numismatics and inscriptions.

stephan huller · 07-15-2012, 02:54 PM

Let's get something straight here. You came on like gangbusters accusing me of all kinds of things even before we stopped to say hello. I called you 'Duke Leotards' as my worst offense.

I don't need to explain how we ended up with one version of Josephus and Clement had another. It is enough to say that Clement had another unless you or anyone else argues that he is misidentifying his source.

Quote:

He was writing sometime around Commodus as you note. If I had a wild guess it would be that Clement was born in 147, since that fits with his other dates.

This is wild speculation. The tenth of Antoninus matches the tenth of Antoninus in Hegesippus cited by Epiphanius et al. Hegesippus = Josephus.

stephan huller · 07-15-2012, 03:15 PM

The reference in Epiphanius:

Quote:

These all [the bishops of Jerusalem] exercised their office up until the tenth year of Antoninus Pius. http://books.google.com/books?id=DAP...nus%22&f=false

The source is again Hegesippus as many have noted including Lawlor (Eusebiana), Lightfoot, just google it yourself.

stephan huller · 07-15-2012, 03:20 PM

Another reputable scholarly interpretation of the reference demonstrating that 'the tenth year of Antoninus' was part of the text:

Quote:

The earliest of the Patristic writers [to mention Josephus], Clement of Alexandria, quotes Josephus as to chronology, but it is fairly certain that he did not know the works at first hand, since the era he refers to runs from Moses to the tenth year of Antoninus. http://books.google.com/books?id=qoL...nus%22&f=false

stephan huller · 07-15-2012, 03:25 PM

Robert Eisler's explanation in the Messiah Jesus:

Quote:

Now, Clement in turn made use of a chronographer who wrote in the tenth year of Antoninus Pius (a.d. 149), who in his turn utilized Josephus for his investigation of the year-weeks in Dan. ix.10

Eisler again reinforces that the 'tenth year of Antoninus' was part of the citation not something added by Clement.

stephan huller · 07-15-2012, 03:29 PM

That the name Hegesippus is a corruption of Josephus:

Quote:

The name Hegesippus itself appears to be a corruption of Josephus, through the stages Iosippus, Egesippus, Hegesippus http://books.google.com/books?id=FDB...sephus&f=false

stephan huller · 07-15-2012, 03:36 PM

The point is that I can't see how it is unreasonable to suggest that the History of the Jews by Flavius Josephus was indeed written in 147 CE as two independent sources of testimony acknowledge. If this is true, it stands to reason the author was a Christian or a 'Jewish Christian' and - as Shaye Cohen and others have also intimated - pulled together different scraps of information, perhaps even an original 'hypomnema of a first century Jew named Joseph, and assembled a much broader composition which resembled our current Jewish War - or more correctly the Five Books ascribed to 'Hegesippus' and which is used as the source for various texts detailing the events of the fall of Jerusalem (i.e. the Slavonic text, the Yosippon, the Arabic text etc).

I can't for the life of me see why this is an unreasonable hypothesis given the state of the evidence.

07-15-2012, 02:48 PM	#114
Duke Leto Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Philadelphia, PA Posts: 3,387	I have yet to see a single thing in this thread that causes me to doubt my assessment of Stephan Huller's character. You have failed to address a single one of my points preferring instead to attack my character and intelligence, which in the first case you have no evidence to base your assertions on, whereas I have your behavior as a writer. As to what you have now fallen back on, I can pretty easily turn it around on you. Why should I accept the testimony of a theologian on when a historical document was written? But as maryhelena has noted, the passage you are now hysterically grasping at doesn't say what you want it to say. Clement was getting a date for Moses not Josephus. He was quoting Josephus for the authority of the date of Moses based on the date of the Jewish War, and THEN, the keyword being THEN, stating that it was 77 years until 147 CE. Why did he do this? He was writing sometime around Commodus as you note. If I had a wild guess it would be that Clement was born in 147, since that fits with his other dates. But it doesn't matter because Clement isn't a reliable authority. Even if dating Josephus to 147 CE WERE the most logical reading of the passage, you still need to explain: Why was the history abbreviated to stop at the destruction of the Temple when the Bar-Kosiba revolt had happened in the interim? Why fabricate a biography for a 1st Century author and include that author in the narrative? Why lace the corpus with the political opinions and prejudices of your made up author? Why leave out critical elements that would corroborate the narratives of Acts and the Gospels? Why have a text that is so indifferent towards Christianity? If the corpus is a forgery it's one of the most subtle forgeries of all time. Forgers are lazy and stupid. They don't usually take the extra time to fabricate extensive provenance and they don't bother to be understated. If you want to forge a historical record that authenticates your religious histories you are going to include corroboration for the whole of your religious histories, not just bits and pieces. That's it. You can't argue with someone infatuated with their own hypotheses who clearly has the emotional maturity of a toddler. If you're still looking maryhelena, double check those wiki articles on the Mauritanian Drusillas, you'll find that all the dates given for them (and Ptolemy) are suppositions based on Tacitus along with some numismatics and inscriptions.

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

07-15-2012, 03:36 PM	#120
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The point is that I can't see how it is unreasonable to suggest that the History of the Jews by Flavius Josephus was indeed written in 147 CE as two independent sources of testimony acknowledge. If this is true, it stands to reason the author was a Christian or a 'Jewish Christian' and - as Shaye Cohen and others have also intimated - pulled together different scraps of information, perhaps even an original 'hypomnema of a first century Jew named Joseph, and assembled a much broader composition which resembled our current Jewish War - or more correctly the Five Books ascribed to 'Hegesippus' and which is used as the source for various texts detailing the events of the fall of Jerusalem (i.e. the Slavonic text, the Yosippon, the Arabic text etc). I can't for the life of me see why this is an unreasonable hypothesis given the state of the evidence.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.