Solo

That alas appears to be a different position from the one you took two weeks ago, maryhelena:

So, is what you are saying now, that from the Jesus "mythicist point of view", it would be perhaps more useful to view Josephus as a historical nonentity, in preference to him being dimissed as, say, something of a lying S.O.B. ?

Jiri

the_cave

This is just the issue at hand. If you are correct, then the writer of 2 Cor 11:32 was talking about the ruler of Damascus. But why should anyone believe him, if ethnarchs did not rule Damascus?

Yes, there were (supposedly) guards in Damascus, keeping an eye out for Paul. An ethnarch was in charge of them.

So you are saying it is natural to assume that an ethnarch ruled Damascus?

[gentle chuckling] But this is not what Feldman says. Feldman himself seems to think that Josephus is correct. He cites Reinach's opinion (Theodore, I assume) that it isn't. But he follows it up with a conjecture from H. Box that it is. (I've ordered a copy of Phlonis Alexandrini In Flaccum and will have a peek at it when it arrives.)

The guards? So what?

Yes--but a sheik probably was not in charge of Damascus! Yet couldn't a sheik still post guards? And again, maybe Paul is just exaggerating.

Actually I got it from you, but since you now don't think it refers to that, I agree

Me, too, but based on context.

I have no feeling one way or the other--I don't actually care much if Paul wrote it or not. The point is that the author's intention (whoever he was) was to refer to Aretas IV during the time of Paul--not because he had conquered Damascus, but simply because he had an ethnarch there. This is not as helpful in terms of dating as Pauline authorship would be, but it's not bad.

Well, do you think everything Paul says is true?

Minimalist

Damascus sat at the convergence of the Silk Road from China and the trade routes from Arabia and Palmyra. That Silk Road also served as a primary invasion route from Central Asia to the West and it was one of the main reasons why 4 Roman legions, 1/4 of the Roman Army under Augustus, was sitting in Syria in the first place.

The suggestion that a race as pragmatic as the Romans would willingly give such an important commercial and strategic position to a man who had recently been chased back to Nabatea by one of their generals is, simply, silly. It derives solely from this questionable report in "Paul." No Greco-Roman historian makes the slightest reference to it.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...stC_CE_gr2.png

The Romans did not build a great empire by being stupid.

maryhelena

No change of position regarding Josephus....

The post you referenced is dated May 10. The post in which I first set out my doubts about Josephus is dated April 6, same Rachel Elior thread. Post #5881010.

As I said to Minimalist, perhaps I should, when referencing Josephus, say something along the lines of, *if historicity is assumed, therefore.....* when mentioning Josephus - so that my words are not taken as a change of mind.....

It would not be a big deal for my way of thinking were it established that Josephus was historical - so I've no great investment either way.

And no, either historical or not historical, I would not be too quick to label Josephus as a "lying S.O.B." Josephus is not just a historian. That historical errors are in Josephus is most probable - but as with the NT writers, these historical errors would need to be considered within the context of his motive or intent - for instance a combining of history with prophetic interpretations or number symbolism - before a charge of error or lying can be entertained.

footnote: either a historical Josephus or whoever is writing under the name of Josephus....

Minimalist

I missed out on the Elior thread.....it was too far along when I saw it...but it isn't just Philo and Josephus. Pliny the Elder wrote of them also but his source was Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa who was governor of Syria in 15 BC

spin

How do you test the "if"? Answer, you apparently can't. Hence, the problem of meaningfulness.

The point is, it's not just "keep watch" in some generic sense, it suggests some official duty.

Too bad you can't beat this idea into people over the internet: read the meaning of a text for what it allows you to think; if it doesn't provide extra contextualization it's terminology must mean what they commonly mean.

Feldman doesn't take a side. I merely pointed to his footnote. Don't misrepresent what someone says. What is important is that the issue that you want to use for a point cannot be leaned on.

Natural reading.

You have no grounds to say this.

How exactly?

I don't know what you are agreeing with. And where exactly did you get the idea from me?? It seems to me that you invented the "whole city garrison" involvement. It is sufficient that some of the ethnarch's minions be implicit in the statement in 2 Cor 11.

Your notion of context doesn't seem to agree with any text scholar I've read.

You might know about an Aretas IV, but the text doesn't call him that and do you honestly think that people those days went around even thinking something similar? (Think of Daniel 11 which talks about the king of the north and the king of the south, not just two kings but whole strings of Seleucids and Ptolemies, but which coalesce in the chapter into two figures.)

And insisting on a contorted reading (that the text doesn't mean what it says on the surface, but that the ethnarch was not over Damascus) because it somehow allows you to reconcile something in your head is called eisegesis. Why don't you at least try to read what it says. Rather than constructing a "context" that suits you somehow?

(Putting aside the false dichotomy of true and false here) you've got to give it a chance. I have to take what you say as a sincere representation of what you think (ie you're not simply making things up), no matter what sort of contortions go on in your head to get there.


spin

spin

There's nothing to think from what Pliny says that the reference to Essenes in his work is derived from M.V.Agrippa -- though Pliny does use geographical material from Agrippa. But Pliny is a sufficient separate source.


spin

maryhelena

I think all Pliny got from Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa was to do with geography and nothing to do with the Essenes themselves.....the earliest source of which is Philo.

Not to get this thread off topic it's perhaps best to read the Rachel Elior thread itself....

In the meantime here are Rachel Elior' comments on Pliny.

spin

Her approach to Pliny means she isn't aware of his methodology. Pliny was an inveterate collector of information. Elior would have to show that some of his other information similarly false.

As Pliny used his sources without much criticism, the "thousands of generations" came from someone before him. Hirschfeld showed that there was a camp above Ein Gedi where there was communal life (in an article in Tel Aviv -- a scholarly journal -- on hermits). Exaggerations don't make an idea wrong in itself. Were the McCarthy types simply wrong about communist interests to be found in Hollywood or were they simply misguided about how much?

The linguistic claim is utterly meaningless -- other than to say that etymology doesn't get done that way. When a term under consideration is in another language than its reputed sources then it simply becomes harder to say things about the word's origin. As I have indicated elsewhere there are numerous theories as to the etymology, most of which are from Semitic sources. They mightn't be right, but this statement:

No noun, no verb, no adjective is associated with the term Essenes, no chronicle or recollection of the legendary Essaioi or Essenes is to be found in the language of the land

is based on an argument from silence and has no value whatsoever.

From what you've indicated Elior has nothing reasonable to say about Pliny or his methods.


spin

maryhelena

And what about the methodology of Josephus - or Philo for that matter? Since Philo is the first written record of Essenes, Pliny' reference to the Essenes is a secondary source - and if Pliny is unaware of what the intent of Philo was - then his own reference to the Essenes does not, necessarily, follow on with the same intent of Philo.

spin, all of Rachel Elior' arguments are over on the other thread....
Rachel Elior' new book has been published - but unfortunately, only in Herbrew.