mountainman

Whether or not the Talmud [gittin 56a & 56b] are sources of open blatant inventions, fiction and implausibilities, the converse may also be the case if Josephus was fabricated assembled after the earliest stories of the Talmud were fabricated assembled. (AFAIK the date for the first assembly of the Talmud is c.300 CE and, if memory serves me correctly, Tom Holland in his "In the Shadow of the Sword" claims that this assembly of the Talmud took place in two cities near the Persian capital.)

The question whether Josephus borrowed from the Talmud is independent of so-called fabrications in the Talmud (or for that matter in Josephus). Regimes were fabricating their own lineages all the time in antiquity.



εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

aa5874

What you say is not logical at all because you have not established that the works of Josephus were composed after he was dead.

If Josephus lived in the 1st century he could NOT have borrowed from the Talmud which you say was FIRST assembled 300 CE or about 200 years after Josephus was supposed to be dead.

Roger Pearse

Be ignorant, then.

mountainman

One of the criteria of the historical method is that any given source (e.g. "Josephus) may be forged or corrupt. According to some investigators the "TF" was composed and then interpolated into the writings of Josephus many centuries after he was dead. Perhaps other material was also interpolated into the writings of Josephus many centuries after he was dead?

Material may have been interpolated into the writings of Josephus during the 4th century. It would appear that the Christians alone - neither the Jews nor the Greeks - preserved the writings of Josephus (and indeed Philo) from the 1st century through to the 4th century.

One thing I have never understood about the texts of Josephus is why there are such a large number of people named Jesus in them. Do we find a similar statistical distribution of the name of Jesus in any other writings of that time period, and if not, why not?






εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Steve Weiss

It is unnecessary to go back into ancient history in order to find major gaps in information and guesswork that passes for fact. In a book on MI5 and MI6
by R.G. Grant which I am reading, the author states..."Even today, our knowledge of the activities of MI5 and MI6 remains very imperfect. Many of the stories about them are uncheckable and different accounts of the same events are often contradictory. Revelations have always come from people who might well have an interest in distorting the facts.....Truth is elusive in this secret world." "Plus sa change plus c'est le meme chose."

Roger Pearse

An important point.

And remember, we may imagine that we know everything about what is going on in the world now. But if we say so explicitly, it's pretty obviously not true.

Without veering into conspiracy theory, it's worth remembering that a lot of the "important people" in this life come from a tiny circle of people, all of whom know each other, and who really decide what happens and what doesn't. It was fairly telling this week that, here in the UK, capitalist crony David Cameron, the Prime Minister, was revealed to have gone out, as a young man, with the same girl as the Voice of the Working Man, leader of the opposition, Ed Milliband.

It takes very little insight to realise that we're talking about a small circle of socially indistinguishable people. If so ... we really can ignore what the TV tell us is going on. The real deals will certainly be agreed over a lunch somewhere. Unless our politicians are spectacularly different from other people, at least.

If this is the case in our own time, it will always be true. In fact one can sometimes get better data after the fact, once nobody has an interest in spinning a current political story. We might well be better informed about Tiberius, his person and policies, than people who knew him personally. Perhaps?

aa5874

I am extremely happy that you recognize that writings of antiquity may have been forged or manipulated.

You must now admit or concede that the Talmud may have also suffered the same fate.

I am delighted that you acknowledge that the writings of Josephus [and indeed Philo] are from the 1st century.

You obviously have forgotten that you yourself claim Christianity was started in the 4th century during the time of Eusebius under Constantine so the preservation of the writings of Josephus [and Philo] from the 1st century could NOT have bee done by Christians BEFORE the 4th century.

You must now admit or concede that Non-Christians preserved the writings of Josephus [and indeed Philo] from the 1st century until at least the 4th century.

Your confusion is most remarkable. You seem to have completely overlooked the fact that all the characters called Jesus in the 1st century in the writings of Josephus were Non-Christians and were not considered messianic rulers of the Jews.

semiopen

This is really a typical Duvi thread.

He brings up an obscure but interesting bit of triva, making a ridiculous claim about the trivia's origin. After some people post he complains that his ridiculous claim is being ignored. He then starts to insult any scholars who's work is cited.

The stage we are in now is total denial.

It is remarkable that the current discussion has people suggesting various passages of the Talmud which have pieces of this legend, and Duvi (who apparently regards himself as a great expert on Talmud) remains silent.

Personally, I mentioned that the story appears in ARNa and ARNb (in addition ARN1 and ARN2 was cited). I had to look up what ARN was - just to show I know nothing about the Talmud. ARN turns out to be Avot_of_Rabbi_Natan

This apparently cannot be the source that Josephus plagiarized.

Gitten 56

Appears to be the tractate Duvi is referring to.

The above is just a digression.

As mentioned before, the messenger arrived the instant after the emperor "prediction." The story is false because the messenger would not have arrived from Rome. It is also false because of the technical details of the meeting, ie. Vespasian being near Jerusalem in any reasonable time period.

It is, of course, possible that the Josephus story is false. Not being an expert on the subject I tend to think it is possible, Vespasian was the patron of Josephus despite Josephus being an opposing general in the war. It seems totally realistic that Josephus would want to say something ingratiating on meeting Vespasian for the first time, especially given that Vespasian could easily have ordered his death.

However that has little to do with the Talmud story being Josephus' inspiration.

Josephus and Vespasian met at the Siege_of_Yodfat

True, Josephus' account of the siege and his exploits is dubious, but I think there is no question that he commanded the Jewish forces and Vespasian was there - please correct me if I'm mistaken.

Jaybees

I refuse to accept as truth the original manuscripts depicting the supposed war between the Greeks and the Trojans. I shall remain ignorant.

Duvduv

Hey, Semi. I did not bring up a bit of trivia, unless you have ruled what is trivia here and what is not. I presented reasons for rejecting the authenticity of the "Josephus" storyline. That's all.