? about The Antiquities of the Jews

clayflingythingy · 25th February 2009, 08:15 AM

Finally decided to read the copy of Josephus given to me a while back. I hope the scholars amongst us can answer a couple of questions for me. I am reading the Whiston translation, btw.

Chapter 2.10 relates a story of Moses leading an Egyptian army against the Ethiopians not in the Christian bible.

Chapter 3.5 tells the story of the commandments and Mose's 40 day stay on Mount Sinai. It does not relate the story of the Golden Calf.

Josephus is supposed to be using as his source the sacred texts of the Hebrews. Why the differences between Josephus and what is today related in the Christian bible?

Doctor Evil · 25th February 2009, 11:22 AM

These stories contradict the Hebrew bible as well. Its unlikely that the same story would have been invented twice (both versions of the bible), so I suspect that either Joshepus was not reliable (with respect to those stories), or that his book had somehow changed from its original form. The latter could easily have happened if the books we do have are not from his time, but much later copies.

theprestige · 25th February 2009, 01:20 PM

Doctor Evil, how are these stories "contradictions" of the other stories?

If one account says "Yestreday, Joe went to the office, worked for several hours, had lunch, worked for several more hours, and then returned home";

And another account says "Yestreday, Joe ate lunch with several colleagues at a deli near his workplace, where he ordered the soup and sandwich combo special";

Does the second account "contradict" the first? Is either the first or the second somehow remiss or suspicious for including or excluding information given in the other?

Perhaps the authors of the Old Testament didn't feel their narrative would be enhanced by including certain highlights of Moses' Egyptian career. And perhaps Josephus didn't care to get into all the details of what the Israelites did at Mt Sinai, once he'd covered what he felt were the important points.

Doctor Evil · 25th February 2009, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Doctor Evil, how are these stories "contradictions" of the other stories?

If one account says "Yestreday, Joe went to the office, worked for several hours, had lunch, worked for several more hours, and then returned home";

And another account says "Yestreday, Joe ate lunch with several colleagues at a deli near his workplace, where he ordered the soup and sandwich combo special";

Does the second account "contradict" the first? Is either the first or the second somehow remiss or suspicious for including or excluding information given in the other?

Perhaps the authors of the Old Testament didn't feel their narrative would be enhanced by including certain highlights of Moses' Egyptian career. And perhaps Josephus didn't care to get into all the details of what the Israelites did at Mt Sinai, once he'd covered what he felt were the important points.

The different authors have clearly considered different facts to be essential part of the story. The may not technically contradict each other, as its always possible to assume as you do, that each have considered some fact to be unimportant. I think it is unlikely in this case, as the golden calf is fairly central to the commandment story.

Please do not make the mistake to assume that since I find it more likely that Joshepus' book is probably wrong, I would also assume that the Bible is historically accurate. I do not.

I was just looking for the simplest explanation for the discrepancy. We have two versions of the Bible, which agree with each other. The Hebrew version was completed centuries before Josephus, and is likely to be the only source he had. (I may be somewhat inaccurate here. There are claims that it was finalized at roughly the same time, but the argument seems to be about which chapters should have been included, and not their content. It seems irrelevant to this discussion.)

Ancient books have survived to this day by careful copying of texts. My claim is that various religious texts would have typically copied more often, and with greater care, and a history book such as Joshepus is more likely to have been somehow edited. This seems to me to be the simplest explanation, unless I am missing some important facts.

Doctor Evil · 25th February 2009, 02:48 PM

Also, it is worth considering the possibility that Josephus changed his history so as to appeal to his audience, which in this case was rich Romans.

GreNME · 25th February 2009, 03:16 PM

Originally Posted by Doctor Evil

Also, it is worth considering the possibility that Josephus changed his history so as to appeal to his audience, which in this case was rich Romans.

Bingo. Remember, during this time there were already several descriptions of the Jews that portrayed them in a pretty ridiculously bigoted manner. While that's not to say that Josephus may not have had his own preconceptions, his work providing a detailed and (somewhat) thorough history of these Jews was remarkably different in many ways than his contemporaries of the time, who mostly considered Jews as being backwater malcontents who mostly refused to accept the primacy of Roman civilized culture.

clayflingythingy · 26th February 2009, 06:53 AM

I suppose Josephus could have left out the Golden Calf story if he thought it made the Hebrews "look bad". And added General Moses to make him look better.

I take it there weren't variant readings of the Jewish scriptures in the 1st century CE?

shadron · 26th February 2009, 07:15 AM

Remember the following:

Josephus^WP was a Jew; the wiki says this:

Originally Posted by wiki

Josephus

Originally Posted by wiki

(AD 37 – c. 100),[2] also known as Yosef Ben Matityahu (Joseph, son of Matthias) and, after he became a Roman citizen, as Titus Flavius Josephus,[3] was a first-century Jewish historian and apologist of priestly and royal ancestry who survived and recorded the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. His works give an important insight into first-century Judaism.

He decided not to commit suicide when the Romans conquered Jerusalem in 67, instead he surrendered to the Romans.

He is as much a historian as there was in the times, but that isn't saying much compared with historical scholarship today.

The earliest known Hebrew writing is dated to 1250 BCE; the book of Exodus was probably first "written" in the 6-7th century BCE and put in final form around 450 BCE. Moses is said to have been born in 2368 BCE. Josephus wrote 1900 years ago. There is pleny of time and situation in which a text can be lost, found, "re-found" for various political or religious reasons, "re-lost" for political/religious reasons, and so on. It's a wonder that he may coincide at all with other writings.

Doctor Evil · 26th February 2009, 09:40 AM

Just a nitpick correction, Joshepus was a (very bad, as it turned out) local commander in the Galilee, and surrendered there, not in Jerusalem.

This Guy · 10th March 2009, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by clayflingythingy

I suppose Josephus could have left out the Golden Calf story if he thought it made the Hebrews "look bad". And added General Moses to make him look better.

I take it there weren't variant readings of the Jewish scriptures in the 1st century CE?

Others likely have better information than I do here, but here's my wee bit of input.

If you read parts of Genesis it certainly appears that two written accounts have been (badly) merged into one. Hence the different order of creation, and different numbers of animals taken on the ark.

I've read (on a long since forgotten WWW site) that during a period when Israel was divided into two kingdoms, each had their version, written by their priest (or whom ever wrote such things). These versions were (reportedly) merged later to form the current version. If a time was given, I've forgotten it. My understanding is the current version of the Torah, or whatever the Jews call it, was finalized around 500 BCE.

Other interest have prevented me from digging deeper into this. I do not "support" this story. I'm just repeating what little I remember of it.

Now I'll let the smart people clean up this mess I've made

tomwaits · 10th March 2009, 12:54 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

This Guy · 11th March 2009, 05:35 AM

Originally Posted by tomwaits

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

Good link! Thanks

Another link to the Wiki states:

"The majority of modern scholars believe that the Torah is the product of many hands, stretching over many centuries, reaching its final form only around the 6th and 5th centuries BCE."

And:

"The 19th century dating of the final form of Genesis and the Pentateuch to c. 500-450 BCE continues to be widely accepted irrespective of the model adopted,[36] although a minority of scholars known as biblical minimalists argue for a date largely or entirely within the last two centuries BCE."

Perhaps I'm missing something, but aren't Genesis and the Pentateuch what make up the Torah?

These two statements appear to be contradictory to me.

Either way, it appears to me that by the first Century CE, when Josephus was writing, he should have had the final version available.

It could be, as suggested above, that he wrote things to present the Jews in a better light, for his Roman audience.

Interesting subject! I'll probably shut up, and just watch now.

clayflingythingy · 11th March 2009, 06:54 AM

Well, Josephus is much easier to read than the OT. I've made it up to the death of Solomon.

I wonder if the Moses as general story was circulating indepently or if Josephus made it up?

Simon39759 · 11th March 2009, 09:26 AM

I am not all that familiar with Josephus, but I believe he has quite a good reputation and would probably not make up a story, especially one with religious implication like this one.

My personal guess would be that folk traditions developed around Biblical stories like, for example, the myth of Lilith in the middle-age or the various mythologies developed by the creationist 'scientists' in recent years.

tomwaits · 11th March 2009, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by This Guy

Good link! Thanks

Another link to the Wiki states:

"The majority of modern scholars believe that the Torah is the product of many hands, stretching over many centuries, reaching its final form only around the 6th and 5th centuries BCE."

And:

"The 19th century dating of the final form of Genesis and the Pentateuch to c. 500-450 BCE continues to be widely accepted irrespective of the model adopted,[36] although a minority of scholars known as biblical minimalists argue for a date largely or entirely within the last two centuries BCE."

Perhaps I'm missing something, but aren't Genesis and the Pentateuch what make up the Torah?

These two statements appear to be contradictory to me.

How so?

TriskettheKid · 11th March 2009, 02:05 PM

This Guy, I'm in the same boat with tomwaits.

I think you're overthinking this.

You are indeed correct, though, the Pentateuch is the Torah.

If I may help, though, it appears that they are merely saying that the last bits of Genesis were canonized, along with whatever remained to canonize of the Torah, by the 5th century BCE.

The documentary hypothesis really is a remarkable hypothesis, and one that I support, though that's not entirely uncommon amongst we Conservative Jews.

This Guy · 11th March 2009, 07:15 PM

Originally Posted by tomwaits

How so?

Originally Posted by TriskettheKid

This Guy, I'm in the same boat with tomwaits.

I think you're overthinking this.

You are indeed correct, though, the Pentateuch is the Torah.

If I may help, though, it appears that they are merely saying that the last bits of Genesis were canonized, along with whatever remained to canonize of the Torah, by the 5th century BCE.

The documentary hypothesis really is a remarkable hypothesis, and one that I support, though that's not entirely uncommon amongst we Conservative Jews.

The statements appear to say that it took the better part of 500 years to take the Pentateuch and Genesis, and put them together.

The body of the Torah (the Pentateuch and Genesis) were in their final form around 500-450 BCE. The Torah was not in it's final form until about 5 BCE.

I suppose they could have thrown in a few copies of Superman comics or something, then took them back out later, thus causing the delay in the Torah's final form.

Just seems strange to me that it took nearly 500 years to take the two completed works (the Pentateuch and Genesis) and combine them to make the final form of the Torah.

Of course, binding was a much slower process in those days

TriskettheKid · 12th March 2009, 06:52 AM

Well, the works were not completed.

Genesis is the first book of the Pentateuch. According to the Documentary hypothesis, the last source, the P source, finished the job around that time.

If you're bringing in the Redactor, though, then the final Torah is not there until around just after the P source.

But, the Torah (Pentateuch to some people) was in its final form once the P source was finished with it, so around the 5th Century BCE.

25th February 2009, 08:15 AM	#1
clayflingythingy Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 327	? about The Antiquities of the Jews Finally decided to read the copy of Josephus given to me a while back. I hope the scholars amongst us can answer a couple of questions for me. I am reading the Whiston translation, btw. Chapter 2.10 relates a story of Moses leading an Egyptian army against the Ethiopians not in the Christian bible. Chapter 3.5 tells the story of the commandments and Mose's 40 day stay on Mount Sinai. It does not relate the story of the Golden Calf. Josephus is supposed to be using as his source the sacred texts of the Hebrews. Why the differences between Josephus and what is today related in the Christian bible?

25th February 2009, 11:22 AM	#2
Doctor Evil Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Back home Posts: 1,966	These stories contradict the Hebrew bible as well. Its unlikely that the same story would have been invented twice (both versions of the bible), so I suspect that either Joshepus was not reliable (with respect to those stories), or that his book had somehow changed from its original form. The latter could easily have happened if the books we do have are not from his time, but much later copies.
	__________________ "ut biberent, quando esse nollent " (if they will not eat, then they will drink) -- Publius Claudius Pulcher "In this universe, effect follows cause. I've complained about it but ... " -- House

25th February 2009, 01:20 PM	#3
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,666	Doctor Evil, how are these stories "contradictions" of the other stories? If one account says "Yestreday, Joe went to the office, worked for several hours, had lunch, worked for several more hours, and then returned home"; And another account says "Yestreday, Joe ate lunch with several colleagues at a deli near his workplace, where he ordered the soup and sandwich combo special"; Does the second account "contradict" the first? Is either the first or the second somehow remiss or suspicious for including or excluding information given in the other? Perhaps the authors of the Old Testament didn't feel their narrative would be enhanced by including certain highlights of Moses' Egyptian career. And perhaps Josephus didn't care to get into all the details of what the Israelites did at Mt Sinai, once he'd covered what he felt were the important points.
theprestige Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 8,666

25th February 2009, 02:38 PM	#4
Doctor Evil Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Back home Posts: 1,966	Originally Posted by theprestige Doctor Evil, how are these stories "contradictions" of the other stories? If one account says "Yestreday, Joe went to the office, worked for several hours, had lunch, worked for several more hours, and then returned home"; And another account says "Yestreday, Joe ate lunch with several colleagues at a deli near his workplace, where he ordered the soup and sandwich combo special"; Does the second account "contradict" the first? Is either the first or the second somehow remiss or suspicious for including or excluding information given in the other? Perhaps the authors of the Old Testament didn't feel their narrative would be enhanced by including certain highlights of Moses' Egyptian career. And perhaps Josephus didn't care to get into all the details of what the Israelites did at Mt Sinai, once he'd covered what he felt were the important points. The different authors have clearly considered different facts to be essential part of the story. The may not technically contradict each other, as its always possible to assume as you do, that each have considered some fact to be unimportant. I think it is unlikely in this case, as the golden calf is fairly central to the commandment story. Please do not make the mistake to assume that since I find it more likely that Joshepus' book is probably wrong, I would also assume that the Bible is historically accurate. I do not. I was just looking for the simplest explanation for the discrepancy. We have two versions of the Bible, which agree with each other. The Hebrew version was completed centuries before Josephus, and is likely to be the only source he had. (I may be somewhat inaccurate here. There are claims that it was finalized at roughly the same time, but the argument seems to be about which chapters should have been included, and not their content. It seems irrelevant to this discussion.) Ancient books have survived to this day by careful copying of texts. My claim is that various religious texts would have typically copied more often, and with greater care, and a history book such as Joshepus is more likely to have been somehow edited. This seems to me to be the simplest explanation, unless I am missing some important facts.
	__________________ "ut biberent, quando esse nollent " (if they will not eat, then they will drink) -- Publius Claudius Pulcher "In this universe, effect follows cause. I've complained about it but ... " -- House

25th February 2009, 02:48 PM	#5
Doctor Evil Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Back home Posts: 1,966	Also, it is worth considering the possibility that Josephus changed his history so as to appeal to his audience, which in this case was rich Romans.
	__________________ "ut biberent, quando esse nollent " (if they will not eat, then they will drink) -- Publius Claudius Pulcher "In this universe, effect follows cause. I've complained about it but ... " -- House

25th February 2009, 03:16 PM	#6
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 8,283	Originally Posted by Doctor Evil Also, it is worth considering the possibility that Josephus changed his history so as to appeal to his audience, which in this case was rich Romans. Bingo. Remember, during this time there were already several descriptions of the Jews that portrayed them in a pretty ridiculously bigoted manner. While that's not to say that Josephus may not have had his own preconceptions, his work providing a detailed and (somewhat) thorough history of these Jews was remarkably different in many ways than his contemporaries of the time, who mostly considered Jews as being backwater malcontents who mostly refused to accept the primacy of Roman civilized culture.
	__________________ _{Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts}

26th February 2009, 06:53 AM	#7
clayflingythingy Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 327	I suppose Josephus could have left out the Golden Calf story if he thought it made the Hebrews "look bad". And added General Moses to make him look better. I take it there weren't variant readings of the Jewish scriptures in the 1st century CE?

26th February 2009, 07:15 AM	#8
shadron Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Colorado Posts: 5,719	Remember the following: Josephus^WP was a Jew; the wiki says this: Originally Posted by wiki Josephus Originally Posted by wiki (AD 37 – c. 100),[2] also known as Yosef Ben Matityahu (Joseph, son of Matthias) and, after he became a Roman citizen, as Titus Flavius Josephus,[3] was a first-century Jewish historian and apologist of priestly and royal ancestry who survived and recorded the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. His works give an important insight into first-century Judaism. He decided not to commit suicide when the Romans conquered Jerusalem in 67, instead he surrendered to the Romans. He is as much a historian as there was in the times, but that isn't saying much compared with historical scholarship today. The earliest known Hebrew writing is dated to 1250 BCE; the book of Exodus was probably first "written" in the 6-7th century BCE and put in final form around 450 BCE. Moses is said to have been born in 2368 BCE. Josephus wrote 1900 years ago. There is pleny of time and situation in which a text can be lost, found, "re-found" for various political or religious reasons, "re-lost" for political/religious reasons, and so on. It's a wonder that he may coincide at all with other writings.

26th February 2009, 09:40 AM	#9
Doctor Evil Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Back home Posts: 1,966	Just a nitpick correction, Joshepus was a (very bad, as it turned out) local commander in the Galilee, and surrendered there, not in Jerusalem.
	__________________ "ut biberent, quando esse nollent " (if they will not eat, then they will drink) -- Publius Claudius Pulcher "In this universe, effect follows cause. I've complained about it but ... " -- House

10th March 2009, 11:29 AM	#10
This Guy Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: On the corner of WALK and DON'T WALK Posts: 2,000	Originally Posted by clayflingythingy I suppose Josephus could have left out the Golden Calf story if he thought it made the Hebrews "look bad". And added General Moses to make him look better. I take it there weren't variant readings of the Jewish scriptures in the 1st century CE? Others likely have better information than I do here, but here's my wee bit of input. If you read parts of Genesis it certainly appears that two written accounts have been (badly) merged into one. Hence the different order of creation, and different numbers of animals taken on the ark. I've read (on a long since forgotten WWW site) that during a period when Israel was divided into two kingdoms, each had their version, written by their priest (or whom ever wrote such things). These versions were (reportedly) merged later to form the current version. If a time was given, I've forgotten it. My understanding is the current version of the Torah, or whatever the Jews call it, was finalized around 500 BCE. Other interest have prevented me from digging deeper into this. I do not "support" this story. I'm just repeating what little I remember of it. Now I'll let the smart people clean up this mess I've made
	__________________ I'm lost. I've gone to find me. If I should return before I get back, please ask me to wait!

10th March 2009, 12:54 PM	#11
tomwaits Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Chicago, IL, USA Posts: 2,288	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

11th March 2009, 05:35 AM	#12
This Guy Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: On the corner of WALK and DON'T WALK Posts: 2,000	Originally Posted by tomwaits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis Good link! Thanks Another link to the Wiki states: "The majority of modern scholars believe that the Torah is the product of many hands, stretching over many centuries, reaching its final form only around the 6th and 5th centuries BCE." And: "The 19th century dating of the final form of Genesis and the Pentateuch to c. 500-450 BCE continues to be widely accepted irrespective of the model adopted,[36] although a minority of scholars known as biblical minimalists argue for a date largely or entirely within the last two centuries BCE." Perhaps I'm missing something, but aren't Genesis and the Pentateuch what make up the Torah? These two statements appear to be contradictory to me. Either way, it appears to me that by the first Century CE, when Josephus was writing, he should have had the final version available. It could be, as suggested above, that he wrote things to present the Jews in a better light, for his Roman audience. Interesting subject! I'll probably shut up, and just watch now.
	__________________ I'm lost. I've gone to find me. If I should return before I get back, please ask me to wait!

11th March 2009, 06:54 AM	#13
clayflingythingy Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 327	Well, Josephus is much easier to read than the OT. I've made it up to the death of Solomon. I wonder if the Moses as general story was circulating indepently or if Josephus made it up?

11th March 2009, 09:26 AM	#14
Simon39759 Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 2,285	I am not all that familiar with Josephus, but I believe he has quite a good reputation and would probably not make up a story, especially one with religious implication like this one. My personal guess would be that folk traditions developed around Biblical stories like, for example, the myth of Lilith in the middle-age or the various mythologies developed by the creationist 'scientists' in recent years.

11th March 2009, 11:46 AM	#15
tomwaits Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Chicago, IL, USA Posts: 2,288	Originally Posted by This Guy Good link! Thanks Another link to the Wiki states: "The majority of modern scholars believe that the Torah is the product of many hands, stretching over many centuries, reaching its final form only around the 6th and 5th centuries BCE." And: "The 19th century dating of the final form of Genesis and the Pentateuch to c. 500-450 BCE continues to be widely accepted irrespective of the model adopted,[36] although a minority of scholars known as biblical minimalists argue for a date largely or entirely within the last two centuries BCE." Perhaps I'm missing something, but aren't Genesis and the Pentateuch what make up the Torah? These two statements appear to be contradictory to me. How so?

11th March 2009, 02:05 PM	#16
TriskettheKid Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,432	This Guy, I'm in the same boat with tomwaits. I think you're overthinking this. You are indeed correct, though, the Pentateuch is the Torah. If I may help, though, it appears that they are merely saying that the last bits of Genesis were canonized, along with whatever remained to canonize of the Torah, by the 5th century BCE. The documentary hypothesis really is a remarkable hypothesis, and one that I support, though that's not entirely uncommon amongst we Conservative Jews.

11th March 2009, 07:15 PM	#17
This Guy Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: On the corner of WALK and DON'T WALK Posts: 2,000	Originally Posted by tomwaits How so? Originally Posted by TriskettheKid This Guy, I'm in the same boat with tomwaits. I think you're overthinking this. You are indeed correct, though, the Pentateuch is the Torah. If I may help, though, it appears that they are merely saying that the last bits of Genesis were canonized, along with whatever remained to canonize of the Torah, by the 5th century BCE. The documentary hypothesis really is a remarkable hypothesis, and one that I support, though that's not entirely uncommon amongst we Conservative Jews. The statements appear to say that it took the better part of 500 years to take the Pentateuch and Genesis, and put them together. The body of the Torah (the Pentateuch and Genesis) were in their final form around 500-450 BCE. The Torah was not in it's final form until about 5 BCE. I suppose they could have thrown in a few copies of Superman comics or something, then took them back out later, thus causing the delay in the Torah's final form. Just seems strange to me that it took nearly 500 years to take the two completed works (the Pentateuch and Genesis) and combine them to make the final form of the Torah. Of course, binding was a much slower process in those days
	__________________ I'm lost. I've gone to find me. If I should return before I get back, please ask me to wait!

12th March 2009, 06:52 AM	#18
TriskettheKid Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,432	Well, the works were not completed. Genesis is the first book of the Pentateuch. According to the Documentary hypothesis, the last source, the P source, finished the job around that time. If you're bringing in the Redactor, though, then the final Torah is not there until around just after the P source. But, the Torah (Pentateuch to some people) was in its final form once the P source was finished with it, so around the 5th Century BCE.