stephan huller

Avi,

The Vulgate wouldn't necessarily be an accurate reflection of the Hebrew.

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2709.htm

I don't know that the King James edition is the only way the Hebrew can be translated into English. For Job 9:28 Genesius has “I tremble in every nerve” which is a lot closer to the LXX.

I don't know that Christian theology governed the way the LXX (or what is now taken to be the LXX) was developed.

stephan huller

The next section in our chronological comparison between Pseudo-Hegesippus and Jewish War is the entirely fictitious narrative about the how the forty witnesses to Josephus's betrayal to the Romans all killed each other off. As I said this narrative reminds me of some cheesy Saturday morning cartoon I used to watch in the seventies. Let me say it again - not only didn't this ever happen, the real Josephus of history would never have attempted to include this in his historical narrative because it would have compromised the believability of the rest of his apologia.

The Pseudo-Hegesippus narrative reads:

These things Josephus laid out, by which he voided the vindication of voluntary death. But those who had once vowed themselves to death, because they were unable to oppose their words, with their swords stood around the man as if they were about to strike immediately unless he should think he must acquiesce. But he surrounded called back one by the authority of a leader by the consciousness of courage he approached another with a severe gaze. He withdrew his right hand, he turned aside the wrath of that one, he soothed them with the wholesomeness of his counsel. By various methods he twisted away the irrational fury of each. And indeed although a last lot had twisted away the dignity of the conquered, he had not completely destroyed their respect. And so gradually their hands were withdrawn, their swords were sheathed, however their purpose persisted. When he saw himself to be held alone beset by many, he thought that by some chance or plan he should reduce the number of those opposing. 'Let us commit,' he said, 'the order of dying to a lottery, so that no one withdraws himself, since the lottery applies to all. The agreement of a lottery of this sort is, that he who will die by chance will be killed by him who follows.' And therefore it was that the lottery adjudged each to death, not his own will. 'Let each stand therefore beneath the lottery as the judge without sin and free from captivity, so that he does not quicken his future death by the decision of another or avoid it by his own. No one will be able to refuse the outcome, which either chance will have inflicted or the will of god will have designated.' An offering established faith and the agreement of everybody assented to the lottery. Each was chosen by chance, he provided death to the man following. And so it happened that all the rest having killed Josephus with one other remained for death. It necessarily remained that he would either be condemned by the lottery, or certainly if he should survive the slaughter he would be defiled by the blood of a comrade. He proposes that they should reject the lottery. Thus he escaped a domestic fight and by Nicanor was escorted to Vespasian. [Pseudo-Hegesippus 18]

The parallel section in Jewish War reads:

Now these and many the like motives did Josephus use to these men to prevent their murdering themselves; but desperation had shut their ears, as having long ago devoted themselves to die, and they were irritated at Josephus. They then ran upon him with their swords in their hands, one from one quarter, and another from another, and called him a coward, and everyone of them appeared openly as if he were ready to smite him; but he calling to one of them by name, and looking like a general to another, and taking a third by the hand, and making a fourth ashamed of himself, by praying him to forbear, and being in this condition distracted with various passions, (as he well might in the great distress he was then in,) he kept off every one of their swords from killing him, and was forced to do like such wild beasts as are encompassed about on every side, who always turn themselves against those that last touched them. Nay, some of their right hands were debilitated by the reverence they bare to their general in these his fatal calamities, and their swords dropped out of their hands; and not a few of them there were, who, when they aimed to smite him with their swords, they were not thoroughly either willing or able to do it. However, in this extreme distress, he was not destitute of his usual sagacity; but trusting himself to the providence of God, he put his life into hazard [in the manner following]: "And now," said he, "since it is resolved among you that you will die, come on, let us commit our mutual deaths to determination by lot. He whom the lot falls to first, let him be killed by him that hath the second lot, and thus fortune shall make its progress through us all; nor shall any of us perish by his own right hand, for it would be unfair if, when the rest are gone, somebody should repent and save himself." This proposal appeared to them to be very just; and when he had prevailed with them to determine this matter by lots, he drew one of the lots for himself also. He who had the first lot laid his neck bare to him that had the next, as supposing that the general would die among them immediately; for they thought death, if Josephus might but die with them, was sweeter than life; yet was he with another left to the last, whether we must say it happened so by chance, or whether by the providence of God. And as he was very desirous neither to be condemned by the lot, nor, if he had been left to the last, to imbrue his right hand in the blood of his countrymen, he persuaded him to trust his fidelity to him, and to live as well as himself. Thus Josephus escaped in the war with the Romans, and in this his own war with his friends, and was led by Nicanor to Vespasian. [Jewish War 3.8.6 - 8]

The two accounts are obviously related after a long section where the accounts diverged from one another. The core idea of Josephus escaping from the cistern by means of a lottery must be as old as the common text. The story does not appear in Vita but that does not mean that the editors of that text weren't aware of it. They may have chosen not to include it. Once again though, the story is completely unhistorical and I have strong doubts that it originates with Josephus. It was rather added to the text as a way of changing the date and place of his capture from the early part of the Jerusalem siege in order to (further) obscure his role in the massacres of Gamala and Sepphoris.

stephan huller

The next section in our side by side comparison is again very interesting. The section which follows the last cited in Pseudo-Hegesippus is;

There was a rush to the sight of his coming almost all the Romans assembling together. Some wished to see him killed, whom shortly before they saw in charge of great affairs in a position of the greatest honor, others struggled to mock the captive, others marveled at such different and changeable turns of human events. Most prudently sighed, who thought that in other circumstances the same thing could happen to them. Titus in view of all the rest was moved by an innate gentleness of spirit, him for so long a proud fighter, suddenly sentenced to the power of the enemy, to await the lottery of an alien nod the shipwreck of life banished from hope uncertain of safety. To exert such great influence in battles, so that in a short time by chance he renders unequal to himself, when the powerful are either thrown out or overthrown are released. And so the better part of them, namely those in positions of honor, give the gentler counsel. Titus was for Josephus before his father the greatest portion of his safety. Vespasian ordered him to be kept in custody, lest by chance he should escape. [Pseudo-Hegesippus 18]

The parallel section in Jewish War reads;

But now all the Romans ran together to see him; and as the multitude pressed one upon another about their general, there was a tumult of a various kind; while some rejoiced that Josephus was taken, and some threatened him, and some crowded to see him very near; but those that were more remote cried out to have this their enemy put to death, while those that were near called to mind the actions he had done, and a deep concern appeared at the change of his fortune. Nor were there any of the Roman commanders, how much soever they had been enraged at him before, but relented when they came to the sight of him. Above all the rest, Titus's own valor, and Josephus's own patience under his afflictions, made him pity him, as did also the commiseration of his age, when he recalled to mind that but a little while ago he was fighting, but lay now in the hands of his enemies, which made him consider the power of fortune, and how quick is the turn of affairs in war, and how no state of men is sure; for which reason he then made a great many more to be of the same pitiful temper with himself, and induced them to commiserate Josephus. He was also of great weight in persuading his father to preserve him. However, Vespasian gave strict orders that he should be kept with great caution, as though he would in a very little time send him to Nero. [Jewish War 3.8.8]

Without a doubt the two traditions develop from the same source but then what is so utterly surprising is that Pseudo-Hegesippus does not even retain so much as a mention of what is perhaps one of the most famous stories from Jewish War - Josephus's prophetic announcement that Vespasian would become Caesar LONG BEFORE any other Jew or anyone else. The curious passage reads:

When Josephus heard him give those orders, he said that he had somewhat in his mind that he would willingly say to himself alone. When therefore they were all ordered to withdraw, excepting Titus and two of their friends, he said, "Thou, O Vespasian, thinkest no more than that thou hast taken Josephus himself captive; but I come to thee as a messenger of greater tidings; for had not I been sent by God to thee, I knew what was the law of the Jews in this case? and how it becomes generals to die. Dost thou send me to Nero? For why? Are Nero's successors till they come to thee still alive? Thou, O Vespasian, art Caesar and emperor, thou, and this thy son. Bind me now still faster, and keep me for thyself, for thou, O Caesar, are not only lord over me, but over the land and the sea, and all mankind; and certainly I deserve to be kept in closer custody than I now am in, in order to be punished, if I rashly affirm any thing of God." When he had said this, Vespasian at present did not believe him, but supposed that Josephus said this as a cunning trick, in order to his own preservation; but in a little time he was convinced, and believed what he said to be true, God himself erecting his expectations, so as to think of obtaining the empire, and by other signs fore-showing his advancement. He also found Josephus to have spoken truth on other occasions; for one of those friends that were present at that secret conference said to Josephus, "I cannot but wonder how thou couldst not foretell to the people of Jotapata that they should be taken, nor couldst foretell this captivity which hath happened to thyself, unless what thou now sayest be a vain thing, in order to avoid the rage that is risen against thyself." To which Josephus replied, "I did foretell to the people of Jotapata that they would be taken on the forty-seventh day, and that I should be caught alive by the Romans." Now when Vespasian had inquired of the captives privately about these predictions, he found them to be true, and then he began to believe those that concerned himself. Yet did he not set Josephus at liberty from his hands, but bestowed on him suits of clothes, and other precious gifts; he treated him also in a very obliging manner, and continued so to do, Titus still joining his interest ill the honors that were done him. [Jewish War 3.8.9]

It is only because we accept the contents of Jewish War that we accept this story as genuine. There are so many problems with the narrative not the least of which is the ridiculous statement of Josephus in his proclamation to Vespasian "I knew what was the law of the Jews in this case and how it becomes generals to die." As Whiston rightly confesses "I do not know where to find the law of Moses here mentioned by Josephus, and afterwards by Eleazar, 13. VII. ch. 8. sect. 7, and almost implied in B. I. ch. 13. sect. 10, by Josephus's commendation of Phasaelus for doing so; I mean, whereby Jewish generals and people were obliged to kill themselves, rather than go into slavery under heathens. I doubt this would have been no better than "self-murder;" and I believe it was rather some vain doctrine, or interpretation, of the rigid Pharisees, or Essens, or Herodiaus, than a just consequence from any law of God delivered by Moses."

Of course Whiston is trying to make sense of an implausible passage. There is no 'law of the Jews' which can be construed to make such a demand and as Schwartz notes the particular phrasing 'the law of the Jews' cannot have been written by Josephus. He would have said 'our Law' or 'the law of the Moses.' 'The law of the Jews' has a curious sense of detachment from Judaism that is more characteristic of material from the Hegesippus tradition.

I would argue in fact that this bald statement of what is demanded by 'the law of the Jews' seems more like a reaction - or even a correction - of the long section only found in the Hegesippus tradition where Josephus considers surrendering to the Romans cited earlier. The forty Jews tell him that the 'god of the Hebrews' demands that generals die rather than be captured bringing up the example of Saul:

Where is the spirit devoted to their country of king Saul and Ionathas, and that death bravely borne for the citizens, gloriously received? The son encouraged the father by example, the father did not forsake the son in the purpose of death, who although he was able to live, preferred himself to be killed rather than to be triumphed over by the enemy. He encouraged his weapon bearer saying: Strike me lest these uncircumcised should come and strike me and make sport of me. Because his weapon bearer feared to do this, he transfixed himself with his sword, worthy whom that David in a prophetic spirit would vindicate, because Amalechita had boasted falsely about the manner of his death and had thought to diminish the renown of the man who had saved himself from the enemy, he lied that he had been killed by himself, worthy whom that even such a great prophet should praise saying: Saul and Ionathas beautiful and beloved inseparables in their life and in death they were not separated, lighter than eagles, more powerful than lions. David himself also when he saw his people struck by an angel, wished to draw the heavenly vengeance upon himself lest he should be spared with the people perishing. Finally what of the divine law, whose interpreter you have always been, which promised everlasting immortality to the righteous instead of this brief life? When the god of the Hebrews, who teaches the righteous to have contempt for death, to owe it even to escape this earthly dwelling place, to fly back to the heavenly, to that region of paradise where god consecrates pious souls? Now finally you wish, Josephus, to live, when it is not fitting, indeed not permitted, what indeed is more important it is not proper? [Pseudo-Hegesippus 16]

Notice now that the forty Jews see it as nothing short of the command of the 'god of the Hebrews' that a general such as Josephus must die rather than be captured. They are channeling 1 Samuel which declares that Saul, to escape the ignominy of capture, asks his armour bearer to kill him, but is forced to commit suicide by falling on his sword when the armour bearer refuses.

This HAS TO BE THE SOURCE of the strange statement in Jewish War that has Whiston scratching his head - i.e. Josephus in Jewish War claiming that the 'law of the Jews' (and not 'the law of Moses) commands that generals must die rather than be captured. Josephus for his part goes on to deny this interpretation but the important point we have to see is that the statement Jewish War makes no sense unless you know the argument which is present in the Pseudo-Hegesippus tradition.

No one would have been understood if they stood up and just said 'the law of the Jews demands that generals die rather than be captured.' The bald statement in Jewish War was developed from the lengthy discussion of the example of Saul WHICH ONLY APPEARS IN PSEUDO-HEGESIPPUS.

In short, we have demonstrated once again that Jewish War was developed subsequently to the establishment of the narrative in Pseudo-Hegessipus.

We should also remember that Josephus in Pseudo-Hegesippus goes on to deny that the interpretation of the Jews is correct. He says that:

Truly the precedent of king Saul comes to mind, his certainly who was both chosen king against the divine will and merited the displeasure of god, whence even while he was living he received his successor. An excellent example of a man to whom the favor of god was wanting. Yet also he wanted to die, because he could no longer live. He wanted moreover that his companion should kill him, but the latter thought it a sin, he refused the service. Not therefore making use of his plan but lacking a helper he accomplished, that he should turn his sword upon himself. If fearful he accomplished that he should not bring ridicule upon himself, how do you praise what is the result of fear? If he feared not, why did he first choose another? I do not fear the Romans either speaking mockingly or lying. Saul alone killed only himself, not Ionathas, not anyone else in our scriptures. Is it a wonder if he was able to kill himself, who was able even to kill his son? [Pseudo-Hegesippus 17]

Indeed it is because of his rejection of this interpretation put before him by the Jews that he goes on to surrender himself to the Romans. Nevertheless, Christian editor of the received text of Jewish War must have read the argument of the forty Jews and thought that it agreed with the doctrine of Christian martyrdom and then subsequently put into the mouth of Josephus as part of the invented claim that Josephus predicted Vespasian would go on to be Caesar.

Again you can't have the argument in Jewish War without the lines of proof or explanation in Pseudo-Hegesippus. I also think that the fourth century editor didn't like having the overt (and lengthy) discussion of scriptural among the Jews in the cistern. It sounded 'too Jewish' and took away from the Thucydidean history he was creating.

The bottom line for our thesis is that we have a clear example that the received text is based on the reworking of a highly theological and 'scripturally oriented' original from the Hegesippus tradition. While the scriptures cited here are not specifically Christian, the subject is 'the law of the Jews.' It is not surprising that 'second century Josephus' doesn't employ the gospels or New Testament material to make his point. In any event, the fourth century editor removed the highly theological and 'scripturally oriented' passage and created something else more palatable for his Gentile readership but - most importantly - retained the underlying logic in a passage which follows a few sentences later.

As I said, you can't get to 'the law of the Jews says generals must kill themselves rather than be captured' without the original argument of the forty Jews in the cistern in Pseudo-Hegesippus 16. It just doesn't make any sense.

I would have to say this is a very important proof for my thesis!

avi

Thanks Stephan,
what would make this question more readily understood, by me at least, would be for you to certify that the Hebrew, which I provided, above, in post 100, is WRONG.

Alternatively, if you wish to offer a superior translation of the Hebrew in post 100, that would also be satisfactory to me. Sorry, I know not even the alphabet, save aleph, in Hebrew. I normally am also very skeptical of the Latin translations, thinking that the Vatican influence may be overwhelming, but, in this instance, the Latin rings true to my ear, thereby revealing with precision my renowned hypocrisy.

With regard to whether or not the LXX found in Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus represents the authentic, original LXX, obviously, I have no evidence one way or the other.

I have a prejudice, however, which is that expressed in several threads, now including this one, namely, that Christianity distorted the original LXX. As I see it, through my rosy spectacles, the Masoretic Hebrew is completely at variance with your Hebrew, so I ask again, WHERE is your reference? If LXX is your reference, WHICH edition of which papyrus manuscript are you using? I believe that EVERY extant copy of LXX is corrupted, save those from Qumran. If you have a quote from the Qumran caves, that would be the Gold standard, in my eyes.

For your argument re Hegesippus and Josephus to ring true, it seems to me, that it would be worth your while to identify, with precision, the sources you are employing.

A while back, I quoted from Roger's excellent web site, and offered, what I think is indisputable, namely that we have no certainty at all, regarding the "authentic" text of Josephus. Consequently, if true, then, your musings on the relationship of the writings attributed to Josephus, versus those of Hegesippus, must be tempered a bit, by the reality that long quotes of garbage are not necessarily productive, in an historical inquiry.

avi

stephan huller

We had a very important discovery in our last citation of the comparative study of the two narratives, Pseudo-Hegesippus and Jewish War. But we only got there because we were patient enough to wade through the evidence systematically. No one before us has ever bothered to check if Hegesippus might have been a source for our received text of Jewish War. It was just assumed that things were the other way around.

So let's continue with our methodology. The next section in Hegesippus reads:

From there after a few days he returns to Ptolomaidis and from there he hastens to Caesarea, the greatest city of Judaea, but mostly filled with gentile inhabitants, for which reason they received the Roman army with applause and happiness not only from the favor of the Roman alliance having been longed for, but from an innate hatred also of the people of Judaea, whose leader Josephus they cried with the greatest clamor should be punished. Which Vespasian ignored in silence as the rabble's anger conceived without judgment. And because the season and the city were suitable for spending the winter, he stationed two legions in Caesarea, also the tenth and the fifth legion in the city of Scythopolis lest Caesarea should be worn away by the burden of the entire army. And therefore the celebrated city dedicated to Diana Scythica, although founded by Scythians, and named a city of the Scythians as Marseilles is of the Greeks. The location of the place reveals that the founders selected it more from the innate accessible hardness of the plains than from its advantages for the use of residences. For instance open to both the severity of winter and the burning season of summer it has more of labor than of pleasure, inasmuch as in winter they are open more to cold and the burning heat of summer is more severe in these places, in which they receive the entire sun without any pleasantness of a green field. And so the flat and coastal region of the renowned city is heated even more by the heat of the sea. [Pseudo-Hegesippus 19]

The parallel passage in Jewish War reads:

Now Vespasian returned to Ptolemais on the fourth day of the month Panemus, [Tamus] and from thence he came to Cesarea, which lay by the sea-side. This was a very great city of Judea, and for the greatest part inhabited by Greeks: the citizens here received both the Roman army and its general, with all sorts of acclamations and rejoicings, and this partly out of the good-will they bore to the Romans, but principally out of the hatred they bore to those that were conquered by them; on which account they came clamoring against Josephus in crowds, and desired he might be put to death. But Vespasian passed over this petition concerning him, as offered by the injudicious multitude, with a bare silence. Two of the legions also he placed at Cesarea, that they might there take their winter-quarters, as perceiving the city very fit for such a purpose; but he placed the tenth and the fifth at Scythopolis, that he might not distress Cesarea with the entire army. This place was warm even in winter, as it was suffocating hot in the summer time, by reason of its situation in a plain, and near to the sea. [Jewish War 3.9.1]

While the two accounts are very similar it is worth noting that Hegesippus provides some extra details about Sythopolis and its similarity to the Greek city of Marseilles in southern France. I wonder whether Jewish War can again be demonstrated to actually be summarizing Hegesippus. For one the Hegesippus is certainly more historically accurate when it says "although founded by Scythians, and named a city of the Scythians as Marseilles is of the Greeks." It seems to me at least that the editor of our received text of Jewish War just saw the comparison to the Greek city of Marseilles and said that Sythopolis was full of 'Greeks' which wasn't historically accurate. So too its report that "[t]his place was warm even in winter, as it was suffocating hot in the summer time, by reason of its situation in a plain, and near to the sea." The account seems to be a summary of the much fuller explanation in Hegesippus which takes the time to explain why a city was founded in this exact spot - "the location of the place reveals that the founders selected it more from the innate accessible hardness of the plains than from its advantages for the use of residences. For instance open to both the severity of winter and the burning season of summer it has more of labor than of pleasure, inasmuch as in winter they are open more to cold and the burning heat of summer is more severe in these places, in which they receive the entire sun without any pleasantness of a green field. And so the flat and coastal region of the renowned city is heated even more by the heat of the sea." This narrative just has sounds more authoritative. It is difficult to argue at the very least that the Pseudo-Hegesippus took Jewish War's one sentence "[t]his place was warm even in winter, as it was suffocating hot in the summer time, by reason of its situation in a plain, and near to the sea" and augmented it. The reference to the Scythians selecting the city BECAUSE OF THESE reasons - its remoteness and the unbearable heat - seems to be the original and Jewish War provides a shorthand summary of that account.

aa5874

It is EXTREMELY difficult to argue that 1st century Josephus copied 4th century pseud-Hegesippus and especially when the author of Pseudo-Hegesippus claimed he was aware of 1st century Josephus.

The Prologue of "Pseudo-Hegesippus 1
It is more likely that the author of the christianized 4th century pseudo-Hegesippus used passages from non-christianized 1st century Josephus.

stephan huller

AA,

Yes we are in basic agreement but

(a) the original non-christianized 1 century Josephus IS NOT the existing narrative of the Jewish War; it was written in Aramaic, undoubtedly NOT in the third person and closer in form to Vita (so Laqueur and Cohen).
(b) Clement points to a version of the historical text of "Josephus the Jew" that was written in the second century where presumably this second century Josephus writing in the tenth year of Antoninus incorporates the original first person account of first century Josephus into a highly theological narrative. The theology and heavy scriptural reference WERE NOT present in Josephus's original hypomnema.
(c) our received text of Jewish War is a 'fixing' and perfecting of this second century Josephus more in the typology of Thucydides to make Josephus appear less like a barbarian, and a Jewish Christian.

What you have to imagine is a basic development as follows (i) a lost first century Aramaic hypomnema (ii) a second century work attributed to another 'Josephus the Jew' which consistently made an effort to interpret the original history in terms of theology (iii) a fourth century 'fixing' of this second century narrative to make it appear as if were Josephus's original narrative but now written by a Jew who had embraced Greco-Roman values. In short Josephus had been transformed into Justus without the theological mixing of Judaism and Plato (which was by now associated with heresy).

We're getting there AA. We're getting there.

aa5874

Clement of Alexandria does not appear to be credible. What he claimed about Josephus does NOT add up.

Clement of Alexandria does not appear to know how to ADD or what 1st century Josephus wrote.

Clement of Alexandria wrote that Simon Magus was AFTER Marcion.

Clement of Alexandria is simply NOT credible. He was a FAKE theologian.

Please examine some of the bogus claims of Clement.

"Stromata" 7.17 Clement of Alexandria is NOT credible.


"Stromata"7.17 Clement of Alexandria is bogus.

How in the world could Clement not know that Marcion was AFTER Peter who was supposedly dead since the time of NERO and was the 1st bishop of Rome about 80 years BEFORE Marcion?

How could Clement of Alexandria not know that Simon Magus was in the days of the Emperor Claudius?

Clement of Alexandria was either an invented FAKE theologian, a liar or a complete idiot.

This is where I have reached with Clement of Alexandria.

Where are you?

stephan huller

How do we know when Marcion lived or even if there ever was a Marcion. If Marcion is developed from Mark then Clement is right. All we ask from these Church Fathers is to honestly report the manuscripts that they had before them. Remember, in the case of "Josephus the Jew who calculated a chronology to the tenth year of Antoninus" we are not asking whether or not there really was a "Josephus the Jew" who lived in 147 CE but whether or not Clement had a manuscript that reflected this. Given that Eusebius had a parallel manuscript from some named "Hegesippus" who calculated a chronology to the tenth year of Antoninus, I'd say that Clement was reporting what lay before him quite honestly.

stephan huller

It takes a while for discovery to really sink in but I just want to say that the more I think about what I uncovered in this post http://freeratio.org/showthread.php?...96#post6483096 the more that I think that I found a key that unlocks the underlying context for the Jewish War tradition being written in 147 CE.

Let's start again at the beginning.

Scholars have always scratched their heads when Josephus tells Vespasian that 'the law of the Jews' says that a Jewish commander has to kill himself rather than be captured. As I noted in the post there is nowhere in the Torah where such a demand is made to Israelites.

Nevertheless we uncovered in the chapter 16 of Book Three of Pseudo-Hegesippus the underlying scriptural context of this statement - the example of Saul in 1 Samuel chapter 31 when, surrounded by a hostile foreign army:

Saul said to his armor-bearer, "Draw your sword and run me through, or these uncircumcised fellows will come and run me through and abuse me." But his armor-bearer was terrified and would not do it; so Saul took his own sword and fell on it. When the armor-bearer saw that Saul was dead, he too fell on his sword and died with him. So Saul and his three sons and his armor-bearer and all his men died together that same day. [1 Sam 31.4 - 6]

The forty Jews who argue against Josephus's surrender to the Romans do so with the example that the 'god of the Hebrews' put forward Saul as an exemplar for how Jews should live their lives. They should die as inflexible martyrs.

I explained all of this already but I want to reinforce that when our received text of Jewish War has Josephus say that the law of the Jews demands that generals die rather than be captured it can only point to this chapter. The problem of course is that someone excised the material from our received text. In our version of the Jewish War the forty Jews never bring forward this scriptural explanation so scholars like Whiston are left scratching their heads about why Josephus makes these 'unfounded claims' about Jewish law.

What crossed my mind as I was getting into the car an hour ago was the rest of Whiston's footnote (cited in the last post). The point is that the curious understanding about 'what the Law of the Jews demands' - i.e. falling on one's sword - isn't isolated to the seemingly stupid statement made to Vespasian by Josephus.

It is one of the central doctrines of the Jewish War.

Whiston notes that the high priest Eleazar will come forward and echo the same ideas as being the demands of God and the law. The idea also appears at the beginning of the narrative in relation Phasaelus. And when I looked up the context of these references it was especially linked with one of the most controversial narratives in the Jewish War - the story of the mass suicide at Masada (which a number of scholars have noted is completely unhistorical).

What took so long to gestate in my brain is why Jewish War would have erased the original speech where the understanding of "what the law teaches about divinely sanctioned suicide" is fully expounded.

And then I figured it out.

The key to making sense of everything is that Josephus turns his back on this sort of extremism. The Jewish law teaches the example of Saul but Josephus decides to go over to the superior ways of the Romans. This is the key to unlock the purpose of establishing the highly theological grandfather text to our Jewish war in 147 CE a little over a decade after the great Jewish revolt of bar Kochba and seventy seven years after the anniversary of the destruction of the temple in the first Jewish war.

The purpose of the narrative was to provide an example of a Jew who turned his back on this central demand 'of the law of the Jews' toward extremism and zealotry. The same characterization of Judaism permeates Celsus near contemporary account. Judaism reaches an irrational logos which led to the Jews loosing everything i.e. not having a patch of earth to call their own.

First century Josephus being developed as a repentant Jew who turns his back on the example of Saul and goes over to a more 'civilized belief' is the whole purpose of the narrative. The only reason people haven't seen this before is because they were too busy pretending that it was a historical text.

And this also explains why the speech by the forty Jews to Josephus spelling out that the example of Saul is the essence of the law of the Jews had to be removed. First of all, it's stupid - Saul was envisioned as a rejected king, hardly the exemplar of virtue but more importantly the presence of this long and highly theological declaration (something more at home in rabbinic literature than in a Greek history book) taints the whole historical narrative.

Masada never happened. But the invented story of Jews falling on their swords in a mass suicide is immediately explainable as a literary creation when you realize that the original narrator - 'second century Josephus' - is using 1 Samuel chapter 31 and the example of the bad king Saul - as a paradigm for what is wrong with Judaism and why it leads to political extremism.

Josephus's surrender to Vespasian now can now be seen to be a paradigmatic decision to turn one's back on the extremism which ravaged through Judea and left the province looking like a nuclear blast had hit it. The point is that Masada wasn't originally conceived by 'second century Josephus' as a historical event at the end of the first Jewish War (which really ended in 70 CE with the destruction of the Jewish temple) BUT rather a prelude for the para-suicidal extremism which would continue into the future and culminate with the much bigger catastrophe which was the bar Kochba revolt.

Whatever appeared in Josephus's original hypomnema about his role in the first Jewish War, however it attempted to excuse his war crimes a second century editor writing a decade after the much bigger catastrophe - the bar Kochba revolt - was developing the traitor Josephus into a paradigmatic figure who embodied the metanoia from traditional Jewish extremism.

As such the story of Josephus capture at Jotapata and his discussion in a cistern with forty Jews about the demands of the Jewish god for falling on one's sword, Josephus's speech to Vespasian which references this same demand of the 'law of the Jews' no less than the climactic conclusion at Masada where thousands upon thousands of Jews take up Saul's example quite literally - i.e. falling on their swords - ARE ALL LITERARY INVENTIONS developing from that passage in Book 3 Chapter 16 of Pseudo-Hegesippus.

None of these things happened. Josephus was not captured at Jotapata. Masada never happened. They were all invented to go beyond the historical circumstances of the Jewish war which culminated in the mass slaughter of hundreds of thousands of victims behind the walls of Jerusalem to a profound 'spiritual' critique of the failings of the Jewish religion.

Josephus effectively turns his back on the way Judaism was being interpreted in the age to a belief system which was compatible with being a good citizen of the Roman Empire. But the only way we can get there as if we stopped trying to follow the example of Saul (who incidentally was supplanted by king David the forerunner of the messiah for those keeping track at home).

For our present purposes it is enough to reinforce that we can go beyond merely saying that the speech in chapter 16 of Book Three of the Hegesippus not only MUST HAVE BEEN in the original grandfather text behind Jewish War - it is nothing short of the Rosetta Stone which makes sense of the whole narrative - but that we can also understand why the fourth century editor decided to take it out and replace it by new material.

When the speech of the forty Jews about everything in Judaism coming down to the misapplication of the example of Saul THE NARRATIVE SEEMS FAKE - like a bad movie with a 'hit over the head' message that no one takes seriously.

It's better to just have the Jews acting inflexibly and irrationally attempting to resist a Roman onslaught they can't possibly defeat than making it seem staged as part of some overarching 'lesson from history' written by someone after the bar Kochba revolt.

And for those who don't believe me when I say that Jewish War was developed as an explicit warning against those who might want to revolt from the Empire again JUST READ WHAT THE TEXTS OF JOSEPHUS THEMSELVES SAY. http://books.google.com/books?id=-aF...ellion&f=false It doesn't get more obvious than this but then sometimes the best place to hide something is to put in plain view ...