Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is a Literal Reading of the Bible a Relatively New Gimmick?
ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6237 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 31 of 43 (85574)
02-11-2004 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Brian
02-11-2004 5:13 PM


Re: Kummel
I will have a look at some of Hayes' books on Friday and get back to you unless you can make sense of the above.
Not I.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Brian, posted 02-11-2004 5:13 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Brian, posted 02-15-2004 1:49 PM ConsequentAtheist has not replied

  
ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6237 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 32 of 43 (85583)
02-11-2004 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Phat
02-11-2004 8:17 AM


Re: Testing the theory of scriptural agreement
Consequent, the point that I am making is that ...
My difficulty was not in understanding the point, but in respecting its author.
Your source that you recommend as a more recent commentary states this bit of "wisdom"(?) ...
Supplementing plagiarism with inane sarcasm is hardly an improvement.
For the sake of my test, ...
Good grief.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Phat, posted 02-11-2004 8:17 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Phat, posted 02-11-2004 11:14 PM ConsequentAtheist has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 33 of 43 (85600)
02-11-2004 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by ConsequentAtheist
02-11-2004 10:04 PM


Re: Testing the theory of scriptural agreement
Gentleman: I am starting a new topic with this title. I will repost the original scripture there. The point is to stick to the topic. I am sorry if I threadjacked my subtitle into your post. Atheists can be logical. OK? There.
Consequent writes:
My difficulty was not in understanding the point, but in respecting its author.
Which author? The anonymous one? The unknown one? Or Phatboy?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 02-11-2004 10:04 PM ConsequentAtheist has not replied

  
AdminBrian
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 43 (85685)
02-12-2004 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Cold Foreign Object
02-11-2004 7:45 PM


Hi WT
You're too dumb to realize that by doing this you have ruined your own objective reputation concerning Luther/Protestantism.
There are other examples in your post but can I bring Forum Rule 3 to your attention:
Respect for others is the rule here. Argue the position, not the person.
I realise that you feel very strongly about the content of TL's post, but there are rules here and we all need to follow them if we are to have profitable discussions.
AdminBrian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-11-2004 7:45 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-12-2004 11:08 PM AdminBrian has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 35 of 43 (85944)
02-12-2004 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by AdminBrian
02-12-2004 3:37 AM


For what it is worth - I apologize for breaking the rules. I should of phrased my criticism in the third person - sorry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by AdminBrian, posted 02-12-2004 3:37 AM AdminBrian has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4958 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 36 of 43 (86437)
02-15-2004 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by ConsequentAtheist
02-11-2004 9:50 PM


Re: Kummel
Hi CA,
Do you have Israelite and Judaean History Edited by John H Hayes and J Maxwell Miller SCM Press London 1977?
The reference in question, which is from an essay in Long's book, is part of the first chapter of the Hayes and Miller book.
If you dont have it I can get it from Glasgow Uni library, but not until wednesday, or maybe there is a library near you that has it?
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 02-11-2004 9:50 PM ConsequentAtheist has not replied

  
ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6237 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 37 of 43 (86763)
02-16-2004 7:11 PM


No, Brian, I have not read the book. How does it justify the generalization in question?

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Brian, posted 02-17-2004 5:52 AM ConsequentAtheist has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4958 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 38 of 43 (86911)
02-17-2004 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by ConsequentAtheist
02-16-2004 7:11 PM


I don't know yet, I cannot get the book until wednesday. I will have a look and let you know. I only know it is from that book because I had another look at Long's book and it has a footnote that says the essay is from Haye's other book.
I will have a look at it on Wednesday and let you know.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 02-16-2004 7:11 PM ConsequentAtheist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 02-24-2004 7:27 AM Brian has replied

  
godsmac
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 43 (87456)
02-19-2004 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Brian
02-04-2004 3:15 PM


I have often wondered if there might not be some connection to the Crusades and when some Christians first began thinking of the Bible as the inerrant word of God. Was this idea perhaps "borrowed" from Islam, a hallmark of which is the belief that the Koran is the strict and literal word of God as passed to Mohammed by Gabriel? Indeed most (if not all) Muslims revere the Koran, even each individual copy, as a sacred object, never to be defiled or marred. It seems to me that this has always been an effort on the part of Islam to prove itself as the only true religion - the Koran being consideered the only truly unaltered text to proclaim God's Word. Perhaps some early Crusaders, exposed to these ideas in the Holy Land, brought them home to Europe? "The Bible is the true Word of God, therefore it must be at least as literal, and unadulterated, as the 'pagan' Koran is claimed to be?" I've never taken time to research this topic, so if anyone has information to pass on, it'd be appreciated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Brian, posted 02-04-2004 3:15 PM Brian has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4058 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 40 of 43 (87692)
02-20-2004 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Cold Foreign Object
02-11-2004 7:45 PM


You brand Luther an anti-semite.
You're too dumb to realize that by doing this you have ruined your own objective reputation concerning Luther/Protestantism. No objective person reading this smear from you now cannot ever trust anything you argue about Luther or Protestantism. You played the race card at the drop of a hat.
I guess I am too dumb to realize that, because I have no intention of recanting the truth. By the way, I mentioned the anti-semitism in passing. I didn't know you would consider it the center of my post. Nonetheless, the charge is true.
This website has a very kind treatment of what he said about Jews.
The issue to me with Luther is not his dislike of the Jews or Jewish beliefs; it is his willingness to translate that dislike into active persecution. Here's a pertinent quote from the web site above:
quote:
...but then eject them forever from this country. For, as we have heard, God's anger with them is so intense that gentle mercy will only tend to make them worse and worse, while sharp mercy will reform them but little. Therefore, in any case, away with them!
quote:
However, we must avoid confirming them in their wanton lying, slandering, cursing, and defaming. Nor dare we make ourselves partners in their devilish ranting and raving by shielding and protecting them, by giving them food, drink, and shelter, or by other neighborly {the site ends the sentence here}
This is the final straw:
quote:
With prayer and the fear of God we must pratice a sharp mercy to see whether we might save at least a few from the glowing flames. We dare not avenge ourselves. Vengenance a thousand times worse than we could wish them already has them by the throat. I shall give you my sincere advice:
First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn...
Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed....
It goes on to "seventh."
And, then, of course, he has to include his extraordinary preoccupation with flatulence:
quote:
Did I not tell you earlier that a Jew is such a noble, precious jewel that God and all the angels dance when he farts?
One history book I read said that Luther's actions as an older man were so bad that even his most favorable biographers have trouble justifying them.
Luther formed his own religion and claimed to have regular nighttime encounters with the devil that almost always included feces and flatulence. By Luther's description, his followers were a terrible example. By the description of Menno Simons, a contemporary, Luther's followers were more prone to drunkenness and immorality than non-Lutherans. Luther had to reject three books of the Bible to hold to his brand new doctrines. He said that James, a revered leader of the early church, wrote a letter with nothing of the nature of the Gospel about it.
I thought it was horrifying to compare Luther to Origen. Origen was a man of peace who died for the faith. Luther was a man of war, violence, self-will and extremely bizarre delusions. (Do you really believe that the devil attacked Luther by coming into his room at night and defecating on his rug.)
I'll conclude with another wonderful quote of Luther's. "The world is a giant anus, and I am a stool, about to be pressed out of it."
I'm sorry, I'm not backing up on Luther.
He was a great politician, who, like so many others, opposed the taxes of the Catholics, and he had the personality to rise to the occasion, unite the oppressed of Europe and be part of a major overthrow of Catholic governments. Of course, he then urged Lutheran governments to wipe out the peasants when they revolted, telling them that the blood of the peasants on their sword would earn them salvation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-11-2004 7:45 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6237 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 41 of 43 (88329)
02-24-2004 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Brian
02-17-2004 5:52 AM


I will have a look at it on Wednesday and let you know.
Brian?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Brian, posted 02-17-2004 5:52 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Brian, posted 02-25-2004 9:48 AM ConsequentAtheist has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4958 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 42 of 43 (88563)
02-25-2004 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by ConsequentAtheist
02-24-2004 7:27 AM


HI CA,
Finally found the time.
Here are what I believe to be the relevant parts os the text eading up to the quote in question:
I Maccabees, like II Maccabees, may be classified as contemporary history since its focus of concern is the Maccabaean struggles down to 134 BCE, probably near the book's date of composition. This work is more similar to the narrative style of Kings and Chronicles, that is to biblical historiography, than II Maccabees although the work is in some regards more pro-Hasmonaean than the latter.
One further work engendered by the Maccabaean struggles should be noted, namely the book of Daniel. While apocalyptic rather than purely historical in form, the book of Daniel does however reflect a concern widespread in Hellenistic historiography - the concern with universal history which has already been noted in the work of the Samaritan Pseudo-Eupolemus. Daniel utilized the concept of four world monarchies in discussing universal history, a concept widely and earlier employed by Greek and Hellenistic writers as well as later Roman authors (see Trieber and Swain). In Daniel one can discern a tripartite division in the author's treatment of world history (so Koch, 28): (1) the time before the capture of Jerusalem, known from the biblical historical works (more assumed than discussed by the author); (2) the era of the four world empires manifesting a great decline in civilization; and (3) the futuristic eternal kingdom about to dawn. This understanding and schema of history, later adopted and adapted by Christian historians, were to dominate historical treatments of Israelite and Judaean history until the post-Reformation period.
Four writers of Jewish history from the Graeco-Roman period deserve attention: Alexander Polyhistor (first century BCE), Nicolaus of Damascus (born about 64 BCE), Justus of Tiberias (first century CE), and Flavius Josephus (about 37-100 CE). Alexander was from Miletus although he wrote in Rome where he had been taken by Lentulus during Sulla's eastern campaign. The latter manumitted and appointed him a pedagogue. Among Alexander's more than twenty-five works, one was entitled Concerning the Jews, fragments of which have been preserved in Eusebius' Praeparatio Evangelica. Much of his writings apparently consisted of compilations. His writing on the Jews probably belongs to the period shortly after Pompey's conquest of the Seleucid Empire and reflects the Roman fascination with and curiosity about things Eastern. In the preserved fragments, Alexander, who was not Jewish, quotes Jewish and pro-Jewish as well as non-Jewish and anti-Jewish authors, seemingly adhering faithfully and indiscriminatingly to his sources. His account of Jewish history began with the pre-patriarchal ancestors and may have extended down to his own day. The order of the events narrated follows the sequence of the biblical books, beginning with Genesis and extending through Kings and Chronicles, which might suggest that he was familiar with the biblical books in translation. His quotations from some rather obscure writers would indicate his utilization of a significant Roman library. An important feature of Alexander's work is its reflection of the extensive chronological synchronization of Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek, and biblical history and data. For example, Alexander associated the biblical flood and Noah with Berossus' Babylonian flood story and Xisuthrus. Already in the second and first centuries BCE, numerous attempts had been made to produce a world chronology and an Alexandrian biblical chronological 'school' can perhaps be traced back to the Hellenistic Jewish writer Demetrius who wrote during the reign of Ptolemy IV Philopator (221-204 BCE) (Wacholder, 1974, 98-104). The Greek version of the pentateuch certainly reflects the activity of such a chronological school.
Nicolaus of Damascus, who had served as tutor to Cleopatra's children and written a biography of Augustus, became a court official and counsellor to Herod the Great some time before 14 BCE, probably as part of the latter's desire to turn Jerusalem into a major literary centre. Among his works were an autobiography and a world history composed in 144 books. Nicolaus' history, written in Jerusalem and under the patronage of Herod, to whose reign about one-fifth of the work was devoted, was a true universal history which integrated Jewish history into the larger context of world history which was traced back to the times of mythical origins. With the exception of Josephus, Jewish and Christian historians seem to have made little use of Nicolaus' work, although extensive portions were available to Photius, the ninth-century anthologist and patriarch of Constantinople.
Justus of Tiberias, a contemporary and antagonist of Josephus and like him apparently an unenthusiastic supporter of the revolt against Rome, produced not only a history of the Jewish war but also a chronicle of the Jewish kings extending from Moses to the time of Agrippa II. Justus seems to have made extensive use of Hellenistic universal chronicles, synchronizing the date of the exodus with the assumed contemporary Attic and Egyptian rulers. Justus' extensive chronological synchronization, through the work of Julius Africanus, exercised a significant influence upon Christian biblical chronography.
Pride of place among Graeco-Roman Jewish historians must be assigned to Flavius Josephus although this may be as much due to the accident of historical preservation as to the excellence of historical presentation in his works. In the last quarter of the first century BCE, Josephus produced four major writings: Bellum Judaicum, a history of the Jewish war in seven books; Antiquitates Judaicae, a history of the Jewish people from earliest times down to the outbreak of the Jewish-Roman war in 66 BCE in twenty books; Vita, an autobiographical work primarily describing Josephus' role in the war; and Contra Apionem, a treatise on the antiquity of the Jewish people in two books. All of Josephus' works were written for apologetic or polemical purposes, a factor which exercised significant influence and perhaps frequently produced distortions in his presentations. Whether Josephus was a traitor to his own people or a nationalist with loyalties that transcended the passion of Zealotism has been much debated, but that he was a sagacious opportunist has seldom been doubted.
In spite of Josephus' argument that 'the industrious writer is not one who merely remodels the scheme and arrangement of another's work, but one who uses fresh materials and makes the framework of the history his own' (War, I 15), much of his historical work relied heavily upon previous authors, a factor sometimes acknowledged, sometimes not (see *Schiirer, 43-63, on his sources). Josephus was consciously aware of his interest, apologetic concerns, and the need to justify his presentations, and he commented briefly on his historic-graphic method. The account of the Jewish war, his finest work, was written to demonstrate that the Jewish revolutionary party was the dominant factor in the Jewish-Roman strife and the cause of the destruction of the temple and to correct previously published non-Jewish versions of the conflict (War, I 1-18). As to the first purpose, Josephus informed his Greek and Roman readers that, in spite of his desire to 'recount faithfully the actions of both combatants' (War, I q), his own reflections and private sentiments held that his country 'owed its ruin to civil strife, and that it was the Jewish tyrants who drew down upon the holy temple the unwilling hands of the Romans' (War, I 10). As to the second purpose, Josephus felt that he had to correct the view that the Romans were 'the conquerors of a puny people' (War, I 8) and to combat ill-informed historians: 'As for the native Greeks, where personal profit or a lawsuit is concerned, their mouths are at once agape and their tongues loosed; but in the matter of history, where veracity and laborious collection of the facts are essential, they are mute, leaving to inferior and ill-informed writers the task of describing the exploits of their rulers. Let us at least hold historical truth in honour, since by the Greeks it is disregarded' (War, I 16).
In the War, Josephus' interpretation of the events of his day is presented, in Thucydidean fashion, in three speeches attributed to Agrippa (II 345-401), Josephus himself (V 362-419), and Eleazar, the leader of the Masada rebels (VII 323-36, 341-88) (see Lindner). The central elements in Josephus' interpretations were twofold, (i) As in Polybius, Roman dominance was understood as the work of providence or God. Josephus has Agrippa declare: 'Divine assistance ... is ranged on the side of the Romans, for, without God's aid, so vast an empire could never have been built up' (II 391). Josephus reports that in his speech to the defenders of Jerusalem, he, after surveying the history of Israel's suffering, sought to convince the Jews that 'the Deity has fled from the holy places and taken His stand on the side of those with whom you are now at war' (V 412). Thus, like the prophets of old, Josephus applied a theological rationalization to explain the conditions of history. (2) The decimation of the nation and the trauma of the temple's destruction were interpreted by Josephus as divine recompense (V 413-19). Josephus has Eleazar declare: 'We have been deprived, manifestly by God Himself, of all hope of deliverance', for God was expressing his wrath at the many wrongs which we madly dared to inflict upon our countrymen'. He even has Eleazar interpret the rebels' suicidal death as a form of payment to God: 'The penalty for those crimes let us pay not to our bitterest foes, the Romans, but to God through the act of our own hands' (VII 331-3). W7ith good Deuteronomistic theology, Josephus explained the calamity which befell the Jews as divine punishment for the sins of the people, though as the sins of a minor element in the population.
Josephus' other major historical work, his magnum opus, was entitled Jewish Antiquities or, literally translated, Jewish Archaeologies.
Involved in Josephus' presentation of the 'ancient history and political constitution' of the Jews to the Greek-speaking world (Ant. I 5) were two subsidiary influences, one clearly expressed and the second clearly deducible. In the first place, the translation of the pentateuch into Greek in Alexandria, as reported in the letter of Aristeas, and the assumed Graeco-Roman interest in this work on Jewish history led Josephus to hope that a widespread interest in Jewish history in its entirety existed among non-Jews (Ant. I 10-14).
The curiosity and encouragement of his patron, Epaphroditus, reinforced his hope. Josephus' model led him to approach the topic in terms of translating the Hebrew records (Ant. I 5) although his work can in no way be classified as a translation and even to designate it a paraphrase is misleading.
Secondly, in 7 BCE, Dionysius of Halicarnassus had published in twenty books a work on Roman archaeologies (Antiquitates Romanae), written in Greek, in which he utilized various types of source material in order to demonstrate the great antiquity of Rome in line with the general interest in antiquity reflected in Hellenistic writers who however stressed Babylonian, Greek, Egyptian, or Jewish antiquity rather than Roman. Josephus seems to have adopted consciously the pattern and interest of Dionysius in the general structure of his work in order to demonstrate that Jewish history was able to stand on an equal footing with that of any other culture in terms of both antiquity and intrinsic interest.
In the present discussions, only a few general characteristics of Josephus' history can be noted:
1 Although Josephus declares that his aim is to set forth 'the precise details of our Scripture records . . . neither adding nor omitting anything' (Ant. I 17), he did deliberately omit some traditions as well as supplement the biblical materials. Some of his conscious omissions were clearly calculated to avoid providing anti-Jewish protagonists with any material that might be used to support the scurrilous claims that the Jews worshipped God in animal form, specifically the ass. One of the prominent concerns in his Contra Apionem is the refutation of this accusation. Noteworthy in this regard is his omission of any reference to the story of the Israelite worship of the golden calf (Ex. 32) in his history. Numerous non-biblical legends, many with parallels in rabbinic and Hellenistic haggadah, were added to his presentation. Among these are the stories of Moses' command of the Egyptian army in expelling the Ethiopians (Ant. II 238-53; a similar but not identical version appears in the second century BCE writings of the Alexandrian Artapanus), the worship of Alexander the Great in the Jerusalem temple and his special favours to the Jews (Ant. XI 329-45; a very popular theme in later rabbinic tradition), and numerous less significant stories.
Josephus does not explicitly differentiate between the biblical and the haggadic non-biblical traditions; the two seem to stand on an equal footing in his work.
2. In his discussion of Abraham and Moses, Josephus glorifies both characters, but at the same time he stops short of portraying them as immortals. Abraham is depicted as the first monotheist whose mono theism was derived from his speculation on the irregularity of natural and astronomical phenomena and was responsible for his persecution in Mesopotamia and subsequent settlement in Canaan (Ant. I 154-7)- In Egypt, Abraham taught astronomy (already discovered by the antediluvian ancients; Ant. I 69-71) and arithemetic to the ignorant Egyptians, who subsequently passed along this learning to the Greeks (Ant. I 166-8; somewhat similarly Artapanus, see Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica, IX 1 8). Josephus presents Moses, whose birth and significance were revealed to Pharaoh and Amram (Ant. II 205-16), as a philosopher, lawgiver, statesman, and military hero (see especially Ant. I 18-26; II 238-53; III 179-87; IV 176-95). Josephus stresses not only Moses' death but Moses' authorship of the account of his death so that none could claim that, like Enoch (Ant. I 84), 'by reason of his surpassing virtue he had gone back to the Deity' (Ant. IV 326; see III 96; and compare Philo De Vita Mosis, II 288-91) and thus been granted special immortality, as seems to have been claimed in certain circles (see Origen, Contra Celsum, I 21).
3. Although Josephus declares that ‘some things the lawgiver Moses shrewdly veils in enigmas, others he sets forth in solemn allegory' (Ant. I 24) , his work is surprisingly free of allegorical interpretation, in strong contrast to the work of Philo (see, for example, Philo's De Migratione Abrahami .Josephus however sought to show the correlation between Moses' writing and natural philosophy, for example, in the depiction of the tabernacle and priestly garments as 'an imitation of universal nature' (Ant. Ill 123, 179-87).
A further noteworthy characteristic in Josephus' history is his recognition of many of the critical problems and difficulties in the biblical text, a characteristic shared by many of his Jewish contemporary and later rabbinic interpreters of the scriptures. His work demonstrates that the ancients perceived many of the issues which were to occupy scholarly investigations centuries later.
Working within a framework which accepted the inspiration and veracity of the scriptures and gave no thought to the possibility of diversity and development in the literary text, Josephus handled these problems through supplementation and harmonization. A few examples will suffice as illustrations. In discussing Cain, for example, Josephus is careful to point out that Adam and Eve had not only sons but daughters as well (Ant. I 52; cf. Jubilees 4.1-8) and that Cain feared that he would be a prey to wild beasts in his wanderings and thus needed a protective marking (Ant. I 59). In the discussion of the tribal allotments in the book of Joshua, one should logically conclude that since the distribution was an ad hoc operation by lot, then equality in tribal territories should be expected. Josephus knew that this had not been the case and this he explained in terms of land valuation and tribal population (Ant. V 76-80). In discussing the capture of Jerusalem, Josephus was aware of the contradictions in Joshua 15.63; Judges 1.8, 21; and II Samuel 5.1-10 and the need to harmonize such contradictions. Josephus accomplished this task by having two Jerusalems - a lower city captured as noted in Judges 1.8 and an upper city not taken until the time of David (Ant. V 124; VII 61-4). In the stories of David's first association with Saul, the biblical text has David entering Saul's service as a musician and armour bearer (I Sam. 16) whereas the subsequent story of David's combat with Goliath depicts Saul as unaware of David's identity. Josephus harmonizes the traditions by playing down the identity problem, omitting any reference to I Samuel 17.55-8 (perhaps due to his dependence upon the Greek text where these verses do not appear), and by suggesting that David had previously been placed on furlough by Saul (Ant. VI 175). II Samuel 21.19, where Elhanan is said to have killed Goliath, is harmonized with I Samuel 17 by Josephus' omission of the name of Goliath in the former.
5. Another notable feature of Josephus' historical treatment is his rationalization of miraculous and extraordinary events. Josephus was somewhat troubled by Old Testament miracles (as was apparently the author of Wisdom of Solomon 19.6-21), or at least wondered about the incredulity of Gentile readers. Josephus dealt with the miraculous by carefully guarding himself and his own opinion and/or by explaining the miraculous through rationalization. When speaking of accounts in which miracle played a significant role, Josephus frequently pointed out that he was merely recounting the story as he 'found it in the sacred books' (see Ant. II 347). At other times, he used a rather set formula suggesting that on these matters 'everyone should decide according to his fancy' or 'everyone is welcome to his own opinion' (see Ant. I 108, II 348 and frequently elsewhere). This tendency to point the reader to his own opinion was already used by Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Roman Antiquities, I 48), from whom Josephus may have borrowed it, and was later stated as a rule for historians by Lucian in his third-century CE work, How to Write History: Should any myth come into question, it should be related but not wholly credited: rather it should be left open for readers to conjecture about it as they will, but do you take no risks and incline neither to one opinion nor to the other (60).
On several occasions, Josephus offers a rationalistic or naturalistic explanation for the unusual. The great longevity of the antediluvians was due not only to their being 'beloved of God' but also to their use of astronomy and geometry and a diet 'conducive to longevity' (Ant. I 104-8). The Hebrew passage through the sea is paralleled by the retirement of the Pamphylian Sea before Alexander (Ant. II 347f.)-The purification of the bitter waters of Marah was due to the draining off of the contaminated part (Ant. Ill 8). Josephus pointed out that quail were abundant around the Arabian gulf and that manna was still a phenomenon in that region (Ant. Ill 25, 31). Even natural causes are offered as one solution to the plagues which beset the Philistines after their capture of the ark (Ant. VI 9). In explaining the rescue of Jerusalem and the slaughter of 185,000 Assyrians in a single night, Josephus drew upon the story of Herodotus which told of an invasion by mice of the Assyrian military camps (Ant. X 18-22).
Josephus, however, was no thoroughgoing rationalist who shied away from references to the miraculous. In his description of the fall of Jerusalem (War, VI 288-300), he refers to numerous miraculous portents which heralded the fall of the holy city. Whether he believed these to be actual occurrences or was merely seeking to 'emphasize for his audience the gravity of the occasion with rhetorical exaggeration is, of course, beyond the realm of solution.
6. A final characteristic of Josephus' account of Israelite and Judaean history is his lack of any sense of development in the people's institutions and religion. The orthodox practices, beliefs, and institutions of his day were assumed to have existed from the time of Moses (see the book of Jubilees where the patriarchs are depicted as exemplary practitioners of the Mosaic law). That the whole of Jewish law and the institutional structure of Judaism had been given on Mount Sinai was a firmly anchored concept in later rabbinic Judaism. Josephus certainly operated with a very similar assumption.
After Josephus, ancient Judaism produced no historian in any way comparable. Very few Jewish writings from the rabbinic and Talmudic periods can be called historical works. Three perhaps should be noted. The Megillat Taanit ('The Scroll of Fasts') is an Aramaic document probably written near the beginning of the second century CE (see below, ch. X i A vi). Containing a list of thirty-six days on which Jews were not to fast because of the joyous events which occurred on those days, the work provides some narrative material on events during the period of the second temple. However, in no way can it really be designated a real history. The Seder Olam Rabbah ('The Order of the World'), probably from the second century CE, is a chronological work generally ascribed to Rabbi Yose ben Halafta (for the chronological scheme, see Finegan, 123-30). The work established a chronology based on the calculation of dates from the creation of the world (libriath ha'olam or anno mundi). While it is primarily concerned with the dating of biblical events, a final chapter surveys the period from Alexander the Great to the revolt of Bar Kokhba in 132-5 CE. Meyer has summarized the value of this work in the following terms: The author's endeavour to establish a single consistent chronology, reconciling apparent variations in the biblical text, would place his work very much in the rabbinic tradition of seeking to resolve scriptural contradictions which might otherwise create some doubt about the accuracy of the text. Though he confined himself almost entirely to biblical history, mixed chronicle with midrash, and sometimes departed from chronological sequence, the author of Seder Olam did evince a desire to establish a sequential framework for Jewish history. His concern was unusual for that time (14).
Pseudo-Philo's Liber antiquitatum biblicarum was apparently produced in the first century CE as a Jewish handbook on biblical history (on the text, see Kisch and Harrington). The work is primarily a midrashic chronicle of biblical history from Adam to David characterized by extensive omissions, modifications, and additions to the biblical texts. Its exact purpose is unknown. Many of its additions have parallels in other Jewish haggadah. The work was translated into Greek and subsequently into Latin, perhaps in the process being turned into a Christian handbook.
The sudden cessation of the writing of historical works by the Jews has been explained in various ways. The causes of this phenomenon were probably multiple; among them were the Jewish loss of a national and cultic centre, the sense of a demise of sacred history with the destruction of the temple, the further scattering of the Jews in the diaspora which intensified the dissipation of any concept of continuing political history, the canonization of scripture which presented the Jews with a closed sacred past, the general disillusionment with historical processes attendant upon the failure of two major Jewish revolts against Rome, and the rabbinical orientation towards the law and its application and the rabbinical demands for total purity of life and separation from the world.
Jewish historians in the Hellenistic and Graeco-Roman world had borrowed the forms and interests of Hellenistic historiography and ethnography and utilized these for apologetic, propaganda, and polemical purposes. Josephus was a primary example. After the Bar Kokhba war, these purposes seem to have lost their appeal. Jewish apocalyptic, with its special historical concerns, was reduced to only a glowing ember in the Hadrianic fires.
Speak soon, I got a whale waiting
Brian.
PS, If you want the complete chapter, which is about 30 pages, if you drop me an email i can type it up and mail it to you.
[This message has been edited by Brian, 02-25-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 02-24-2004 7:27 AM ConsequentAtheist has not replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 43 (89446)
02-29-2004 6:55 PM


exegesis
If anyone is interested in how the early church viewed the Scripture here is a web resource. It is too extensive for me to condense in a single post:
http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/interpretation.html
Sincerely,
Ken
[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-29-2004]

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024