Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 07-17-2013, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

I am not going to be drawn into your attempt to redirect away from the points I raised. I was specifically indicating that lack of reliability of the author called Josephus and his stories. If you wish to address those points then you can go back and reread all of our exchanges. However, I am not going to be distracted in this thread away from my original points.

What absurdity you post. You specifically mentioned the Talmud as evidence against the credibility of Josephus and now refuse to discuss the credibility of the Talmud a source of fiction and mythology.

Please re-examine your own OP

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

]...Then there is the story of how "Josephus" predicted that Vespasian would become emperor. So not only is this Josephus a great general and a serving priest but he was a major rabbinical authority.........despite the fact that the story replicates the events told in the Talmud (Gittin 56b) about Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai who was taken out of Jerusalem in a coffin to avoid the meshugene zealots and went to plead with Vespasian on behalf of the rabbinical center in Yavneh, at which time he called Vespasian "king"....

Duvduv · 07-17-2013, 02:42 PM

So what? You mention your friend Justin at every opportunity.
The purpose of the thread was not to prove the veracity of the entire Talmud containing 63 tractates and over 6,200 pages. In any case I stand by my previous posting regarding the reliability of Josephus and your diversions.
Josephus was neither prophet nor fortune teller, and the author does not even go so far as to present any qualifications for him to be one, unlike someone who was the head of the Sanhedrin, a major rabbinical personality, R. Yochanan ben Zakkai. And no traditional Jewish source anywhere says anything about him as either a general, priest, historian, rabbi or prophet.
Now go back to the points I made originally.

aa5874 · 07-17-2013, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

So what? You mention your friend Justin at every opportunity.
The purpose of the thread was not to prove the veracity of the entire Talmud containing 63 tractates and over 6,200 pages. In any case I stand by my previous posting regarding the reliability of Josephus and your diversions.
Josephus was neither prophet nor fortune teller, and the author does not even go so far as to present any qualifications for him to be one, unlike someone who was the head of the Sanhedrin, a major rabbinical personality, R. Yochanan ben Zakkai. And no traditional Jewish source anywhere says anything about him as either a general, priest, historian, rabbi or prophet.
Now go back to the points I made originally.

Please, do not derail your own thread with strawman arguments.

Again, you are the one who introduced the Talmud as evidence against the credibility of Josephus in your OP

The Talmud [Gittin 56] is a source of fiction and mythology.

You must first show that the Talmud story is corroborated and that the story was known before Josephus was dead and that he did copy it.

aa5874 · 07-17-2013, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

So what? You mention your friend Justin at every opportunity.
The purpose of the thread was not to prove the veracity of the entire Talmud containing 63 tractates and over 6,200 pages. In any case I stand by my previous posting regarding the reliability of Josephus and your diversions.
Josephus was neither prophet nor fortune teller, and the author does not even go so far as to present any qualifications for him to be one, unlike someone who was the head of the Sanhedrin, a major rabbinical personality, R. Yochanan ben Zakkai. And no traditional Jewish source anywhere says anything about him as either a general, priest, historian, rabbi or prophet.
Now go back to the points I made originally.

Again, you are the one who introduced the Talmud as evidence against the credibility of Josephus but now refuse to address the credibility of the Talmud.

It is completely unacceptable for you to use sources of fiction and mythology like the Talmud which were most likely composed AFTER Josephus was supposed to be dead to argue against his credibility.

mountainman · 07-17-2013, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

A composite job of some original writings about the Jews combined with fanciful additions from the Church.

I still keep wondering about [Josephus = Eusebius].

Arnaldo Momigliano has some interesting things to say about Josephus:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pagan and Christian Historiography in the Fourth Century A.D.

Eusebius certainly had in mind Jewish-Hellenistic historiography, as exemplified for him and for us by Flavius Josephus. In Josephus he found the emphasis on the past, the apologetic tone, the doctrinal digression, the display (though not so lavish) of documents: above all there was the idea of a nation which is different from ordinary pagan nations. Jewish historiography emphatically underlined the importance of the remote past in comparison with recent times and the importance of cult in comparison with, politics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography

"A Demetrius of the third century BC and an Eupolemus of the second century BC who wrote about Jewish history, were taken to be pagans by Josephus. Later Eusebius realised, we do not know how, that they were Jews. No doubt some Jews disguised themselves as pagans in order to be more effective in their propaganda - and some interpolated authentic pagan works, such as those by Manethro and Hecateus of Abdera, in order to counter counteract hostile comments by pagans.

////

New discoveries are not likely to disprove the obvious conclusion that neither II Maccabees, nor Philo, nor Josephus were ever reabsorbed into
the Jewish tradition. They remained operative only in Christian learning. II Maccabees, in spirit if not in form, is behind the Christian Acta Martyrum. Philo's conception of history is related to that of Lactantius' De Mortibus Persecutorum. More generally, Philo is the predecessor of the Christian Platonists. Finally, Josephus is one of the writers without whom Eusebius would not have been able to invent Ecclesiastical History."

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Jaybees · 07-17-2013, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

So what? You mention your friend Justin at every opportunity.
The purpose of the thread was not to prove the veracity of the entire Talmud containing 63 tractates and over 6,200 pages. In any case I stand by my previous posting regarding the reliability of Josephus and your diversions.
Josephus was neither prophet nor fortune teller, and the author does not even go so far as to present any qualifications for him to be one, unlike someone who was the head of the Sanhedrin, a major rabbinical personality, R. Yochanan ben Zakkai. And no traditional Jewish source anywhere says anything about him as either a general, priest, historian, rabbi or prophet.
Now go back to the points I made originally.

Again, you are the one who introduced the Talmud as evidence against the credibility of Josephus but now refuse to address the credibility of the Talmud.

It is completely unacceptable for you to use sources of fiction and mythology like the Talmud which were most likely composed AFTER Josephus was supposed to be dead to argue against his credibility.

When one considers the fact that the old manuscripts we have are frequently copies of copies of copies of copies, that often fragment are all that's available, that emendations are bound to creep in, that dating of ancient writings are iffy at best, that translations frequently vary in unbelievable ways, etc.

How, then, can such dubious writings either authenticate or refute other dubious documents?

DCHindley · 07-17-2013, 05:59 PM

I liked the fact that Josephus claimed have invented the war trumpet and flag communication system found in the War Scroll among the DSS. Until the discovery of the DSS, Josephus was imagined to have picked up Roman battle savvy by osmosis while he journeyed to Rome to negotiate in behalf of the vegetarian priests. It now seems that he was simply claiming credit for a tactic that Romans had noticed some of the rebels were using.

It means 2 things:

1) Some 1st century Jewish rebels were so strongly influenced by War Scroll like documents (which describe a totally engulfing holy war against infidels) that they adopted some of the tactics described in it.

2) Josephus had also read them, as what he describes of hese tactice fits the War Scroll(s) to the "T".

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

All this defense of this Josephus who is unknown in a Jewish context is unnecessary. The fact is that his interaction with Vespasian was clearly copied out of the story of R. Yochanan Ben Zakkai simply to shore up Josephus's reputation as a trustworthy source because the Conan Doyle writer saw it necessary as a literary device.

Duvduv · 07-17-2013, 06:12 PM

In addition to my doubts that the Toldoth Yeshu texts were originally ever written by Jews, I add my doubts that much of Josephus' books were originally written by Jews, and even that much of Philo was written by a Jew. Ah, indeed, standing there are also Eusesbius........Acts......GLuke......

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

A composite job of some original writings about the Jews combined with fanciful additions from the Church.

I still keep wondering about [Josephus = Eusebius].

Arnaldo Momigliano has some interesting things to say about Josephus:

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography

"A Demetrius of the third century BC and an Eupolemus of the second century BC who wrote about Jewish history, were taken to be pagans by Josephus. Later Eusebius realised, we do not know how, that they were Jews. No doubt some Jews disguised themselves as pagans in order to be more effective in their propaganda - and some interpolated authentic pagan works, such as those by Manethro and Hecateus of Abdera, in order to counter counteract hostile comments by pagans.

////

New discoveries are not likely to disprove the obvious conclusion that neither II Maccabees, nor Philo, nor Josephus were ever reabsorbed into
the Jewish tradition. They remained operative only in Christian learning. II Maccabees, in spirit if not in form, is behind the Christian Acta Martyrum. Philo's conception of history is related to that of Lactantius' De Mortibus Persecutorum. More generally, Philo is the predecessor of the Christian Platonists. Finally, Josephus is one of the writers without whom Eusebius would not have been able to invent Ecclesiastical History."

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

semiopen · 07-18-2013, 07:43 AM

YOHANAN BEN ZAKKAI, AMICUS CAESARIS:*
A JEWISH HERO IN RABBINIC EYES

From Amazon -

Quote:

Amram Tropper is a Mandel Scholar at The Mandel Institute of Jewish Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a lecturer in the university's Department of Jewish History.

Quote:

In a famous rabbinic legend, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai flees
besieged Jerusalem, surrenders to the Romans and heartens the
Roman leadership by predicting their military success and
Vespasian’s promotion to emperor. This very same legend, in three of
its four versions, also describes how Vespasian enabled Rabban
Yohanan ben Zakkai to establish a rabbinic academy in Yavneh, the
academy that would come to be viewed retrospectively as the central
core of the burgeoning rabbinic movement. Thus the foundation myth
of Yavneh, the story designed to describe the providential
establishment of the rabbinic academy in the wake of the destruction
of Jerusalem, risks depicting its central hero as a deserter, perhaps
even as a defector and a traitor. Why would the rabbis have portrayed
one of the most important sages of the formative period in rabbinic
Judaism in this apparently unfavorable manner?

There are four versions of the legend, the major point of which is the establishment of the academy at Yavneh.

The paper goes on to analyze how both Josephus and Yohanan's actions were seemingly cowardly.

However, as is usual in Judaism, Yohanan was actually unbelievably brave

Quote:

Thus, the rabbis assure us that Rabban Yohanan ben
Zakkai’s motivations were pure and that rather than fleeing to save his
own life, he consistently endangered himself to fulfill a higher calling.
This rabbinic portrayal of Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai that
exonerates him of any wrongdoing has impressed Jews for centuries,

He comments on the stories

Quote:

In light of the negative reaction to Josephus’ defection amongst
his contemporaries and the concerted effort the rabbis made to portray
Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai as a selfless leader, it is clear that our
question is not anachronistic. Why did the rabbis risk tarnishing
Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai’s image with such a potentially
damaging story? Even if the escape motif originates from Josephus’
account, oral traditions devolving from Josephus or some other
source,11 why project the story onto Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai?

Footnote 11 -

Quote:

See, for example, Aaron Kaminka, Studies in Bible, Talmud and Rabbinical
Literature (Tel-Aviv: Dvir, 1951), pp. 99–100 [Hebrew]; Baer, “Jerusalem,”
pp. 178–186; Anthony J. Saldarini, “Johanan ben Zakkai’s Escape from
Jerusalem: Origin and Development of a Rabbinic Story,” JSJ 6:2 (1975), p.
198; Israel J. Yuval, “Jews and Christians in the Middle Ages: Shared Myths,
Common Language,” in Demonizing the Other: Antisemitism, Racism, and
Xenophobia, ed. Robert S. Wistrich (Amsterdam: Harwood Academic
Publishers, 1999), pp. 93–94; Rubenstein, Talmudic Stories, p. 139 n. 2. For an
extensive list of studies which deal with the historicity of, or sources
underlying, the escape legend, see Galit Hasan-Rokem, Web of Life: Folklore
and Midrash in Rabbinic Literature, trans. Batya Stein (Stanford: Stanford
University Press, 2000), p. 171 n. 74 (pp. 242–245).

Dr Tropper calls the Yohanan story a legend. He seems to feel that the Josephus story could reasonably be considered the basis.

This seems reasonable to me. The sages would have loved taking Josephus' dubious actions and showing how a righteous guy could do the same thing.

With all the caveats that this theory might not be true, it seems safe to say that the opposite was certainly not true.

Steve Weiss · 07-18-2013, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaybees

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Again, you are the one who introduced the Talmud as evidence against the credibility of Josephus but now refuse to address the credibility of the Talmud.

It is completely unacceptable for you to use sources of fiction and mythology like the Talmud which were most likely composed AFTER Josephus was supposed to be dead to argue against his credibility.

When one considers the fact that the old manuscripts we have are frequently copies of copies of copies of copies, that often fragment are all that's available, that emendations are bound to creep in, that dating of ancient writings are iffy at best, that translations frequently vary in unbelievable ways, etc.

How, then, can such dubious writings either authenticate or refute other dubious documents?

Correct. The default position is myth or fiction.

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

07-17-2013, 02:42 PM	#32
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	So what? You mention your friend Justin at every opportunity. The purpose of the thread was not to prove the veracity of the entire Talmud containing 63 tractates and over 6,200 pages. In any case I stand by my previous posting regarding the reliability of Josephus and your diversions. Josephus was neither prophet nor fortune teller, and the author does not even go so far as to present any qualifications for him to be one, unlike someone who was the head of the Sanhedrin, a major rabbinical personality, R. Yochanan ben Zakkai. And no traditional Jewish source anywhere says anything about him as either a general, priest, historian, rabbi or prophet. Now go back to the points I made originally.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.