Josephus' Portrait of David

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Josephus' Portrait of David

Post by Ben C. Smith »

DCHindley wrote:The gist of it, IMHO, is that they all believed that what they saw was almost identical to what happened in "biblical" times, and constructed historical explanations that reflected that. This happens in the construction of all narratives: facts from the past are interpreted in the context of the present. But it seems that is a hard assumption to swallow. Unchanged culture after 1,900-2,000 years? I just don't buy it.
What I am saying is that I do not see where Deissmann did any such thing.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Josephus' Portrait of David

Post by neilgodfrey »

arnoldo wrote:
neilgodfrey wrote:
I really don't know why you made a particular section large font and red. What is it you are wanting us to infer from that section?

Josephus is telling the Romans about the prophetic character and reliability of the Jewish sacred scriptures. That's all part of his agenda. I don't see any reason to assume he somehow knew of things that he was too fearful to relate? What exactly was he frightened to explain here -- and why -- if that is what you are suggesting? And what evidence do you have for this particular state of mind of his and particular interpretations of things he does not express -- if that's what you are suggesting?
I guess my confirmation bias/cognitive dissonance discounted the following statement you made earlier.
neilgodfrey wrote: I can point to other research that indicates that the stone was understood to be the Maccabean kingdom destroying the fourth kingdom which was in fact the Seleucid, not Roman.
And when placed in context, Josephus' statement that the stone referred to a future event further backs up your claim.
Ah, I see. Thank you for explaining.

I fear, though, that you misread my original comment. Feldman cited Marcus as his authority and I pointed out that Marcus merely expressed an opinion about "the Jewish interpretation" of the stone without supplying any supporting reference at all.

My quotation (if you have another look) is addressing the fault with Marcus's opinion. Marcus spoke of a "Jewish interpretation" and I was pointing out that there was very likely no such thing as "a Jewish opinion" of the stone in the sense of their being a uniformly agreed interpretation.

My point, if you read it, was to demonstrate that Feldman had no evidence on which to base his assertion -- and his appeal to Marcus was doubly problematic. Marcus merely expressed an unsupported opinion, indeed an opinion that scholars believe is contrary to the belief that there was a uniform understanding of Daniel's meaning.

As for Josephus's own view, yes, I addressed that point and I would like to see you respond to that. Josephus is quite happy to discuss the books and entice his audience to read them for themselves by speaking of the unexplained prophecies they contain.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 969
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Re: Josephus' Portrait of David

Post by arnoldo »

I was being sarcastic. . .the stone is a symbol of a davidic warrior king/messiah/leader destroying the roman empire.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Josephus' Portrait of David

Post by neilgodfrey »

arnoldo wrote:the stone is a symbol of a davidic warrior king/messiah/leader destroying the roman empire.
Says who? (I know that's a common late Christian interpretation.)
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 969
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Re: Josephus' Portrait of David

Post by arnoldo »

Josephus writes;
Thou seemedst to see a great image standing before thee, the head of which proved to be of gold, the shoulders and arms of silver, and the belly and the thighs of brass, but the legs and the feet of iron; after which thou sawest a stone broken off from a mountain, which fell upon the image, and threw it down, and brake it to pieces, and did not permit any part of it to remain whole; but the gold, the silver, the brass, and the iron, became smaller than meal, which, upon the blast of a violent wind, was by force carried away, and scattered abroad, but the stone did increase to such a degree, that the whole earth beneath it seemed to be filled therewith. This is the dream which thou sawest, and its interpretation is as follows: The head of gold denotes thee, and the kings of Babylon that have been before thee; but the two hands and arms signify this, that your government shall be dissolved by two kings; but another king that shall come from the west, armed with brass, shall destroy that government; and another government, that shall be like unto iron, shall put an end to the power of the former, and shall have dominion over all the earth, on account of the nature of iron, which is stronger than that of gold, of silver, and of brass." Daniel did also declare the meaning of the stone to the king (19) but I do not think proper to relate it, since I have only undertaken to describe things past or things present, but not things that are future; yet if any one be so very desirous of knowing truth, as not to wave such points of curiosity, and cannot curb his inclination for understanding the uncertainties of futurity, and whether they will happen or not, let him be diligent in reading the book of Daniel, which he will find among the sacred writings.
http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... ant10.html

Josephus relates the stone to "things that are future."

And Daniel writes the following concerning the stone.
2:34 Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon its feet that were of iron and clay, and broke them to pieces.

2:35 Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken in pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing-floors; and the wind carried them away, so that no place was found for them; and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.

2:44 And in the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed; nor shall the kingdom be left to another people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, but it shall stand for ever.

2:45 Forasmuch as thou sawest that a stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter; and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.'
http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/daniel-jps.html

What other interpretation would Josephus have concerning the significance of the stone? Keep in mind Josephus relates the stone to a future event.
User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 969
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Re: Josephus' Portrait of David

Post by arnoldo »

Josephus also wrote the following concerning the First Book of Maccabees
And this desolation came to pass according to the prophecy of Daniel, which was given four hundred and eight years before; for he declared that the Macedonians would dissolve that worship [for some time].

7. Now Judas celebrated the festival of the restoration of the sacrifices of the temple for eight days, and omitted no sort of pleasures thereon; but he feasted them upon very rich and splendid sacrifices; and he honored God, and delighted them by hymns and psalms. Nay, they were so very glad at the revival of their customs, when, after a long time of intermission, they unexpectedly had regained the freedom of their worship, that they made it a law for their posterity, that they should keep a festival, on account of the restoration of their temple worship, for eight days. And from that time to this we celebrate this festival, and call it Lights. I suppose the reason was, because this liberty beyond our hopes appeared to us; and that thence was the name given to that festival. Judas also rebuilt the walls round about the city, and reared towers of great height against the incursions of enemies, and set guards therein. He also fortified the city Bethsura, that it might serve as a citadel against any distresses that might come from our enemies.
http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... ant12.html

However, he omits the following messianic passage found in First Book of Maccabees.
[38] And when they saw the sanctuary desolate, and the altar profaned, and the gates burned up, and shrubs growing in the courts as in a forest, or in one of the mountains, yea, and the priests' chambers pulled down;
[39] They rent their clothes, and made great lamentation, and cast ashes upon their heads,
[40] And fell down flat to the ground upon their faces, and blew an alarm with the trumpets, and cried toward heaven.
[41] Then Judas appointed certain men to fight against those that were in the fortress, until he had cleansed the sanctuary.
[42] So he chose priests of blameless conversation, such as had pleasure in the law:
[43] Who cleansed the sanctuary, and bare out the defiled stones into an unclean place.
[44] And when as they consulted what to do with the altar of burnt offerings, which was profaned;
[45] They thought it best to pull it down, lest it should be a reproach to them, because the heathen had defiled it: wherefore they pulled it down,
[46] And laid up the stones in the mountain of the temple in a convenient place, until there should come a prophet to shew what should be done with them.
http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/1maccabees.html

User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Josephus' Portrait of David

Post by neilgodfrey »

arnoldo wrote:Josephus writes;
Thou seemedst to see a great image standing before thee, the head of which proved to be of gold, the shoulders and arms of silver, and the belly and the thighs of brass, but the legs and the feet of iron; after which thou sawest a stone broken off from a mountain, which fell upon the image, and threw it down, and brake it to pieces, and did not permit any part of it to remain whole; but the gold, the silver, the brass, and the iron, became smaller than meal, which, upon the blast of a violent wind, was by force carried away, and scattered abroad, but the stone did increase to such a degree, that the whole earth beneath it seemed to be filled therewith. This is the dream which thou sawest, and its interpretation is as follows: The head of gold denotes thee, and the kings of Babylon that have been before thee; but the two hands and arms signify this, that your government shall be dissolved by two kings; but another king that shall come from the west, armed with brass, shall destroy that government; and another government, that shall be like unto iron, shall put an end to the power of the former, and shall have dominion over all the earth, on account of the nature of iron, which is stronger than that of gold, of silver, and of brass." Daniel did also declare the meaning of the stone to the king (19) but I do not think proper to relate it, since I have only undertaken to describe things past or things present, but not things that are future; yet if any one be so very desirous of knowing truth, as not to wave such points of curiosity, and cannot curb his inclination for understanding the uncertainties of futurity, and whether they will happen or not, let him be diligent in reading the book of Daniel, which he will find among the sacred writings.
http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... ant10.html

Josephus relates the stone to "things that are future."

And Daniel writes the following concerning the stone.
2:34 Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon its feet that were of iron and clay, and broke them to pieces.

2:35 Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken in pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing-floors; and the wind carried them away, so that no place was found for them; and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.

2:44 And in the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed; nor shall the kingdom be left to another people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, but it shall stand for ever.

2:45 Forasmuch as thou sawest that a stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter; and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.'
http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/daniel-jps.html

What other interpretation would Josephus have concerning the significance of the stone? Keep in mind Josephus relates the stone to a future event.
I thought this was a forum for discussion. Doesn't discussion mean each side has to read what the other says and engage with each other's arguments?

You already said the above and I responded to it with an analysis that I believed demonstrated Josephus had a different perspective from the one you were imputing to him.

I don't know why you are responding to me again if you choose to ignore what I say in return.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Josephus' Portrait of David

Post by neilgodfrey »

arnoldo wrote:
However, he omits the following messianic passage found in First Book of Maccabees.
[38] And when they saw the sanctuary desolate, and the altar profaned, and the gates burned up, and shrubs growing in the courts as in a forest, or in one of the mountains, yea, and the priests' chambers pulled down;
[39] They rent their clothes, and made great lamentation, and cast ashes upon their heads,
[40] And fell down flat to the ground upon their faces, and blew an alarm with the trumpets, and cried toward heaven.
[41] Then Judas appointed certain men to fight against those that were in the fortress, until he had cleansed the sanctuary.
[42] So he chose priests of blameless conversation, such as had pleasure in the law:
[43] Who cleansed the sanctuary, and bare out the defiled stones into an unclean place.
[44] And when as they consulted what to do with the altar of burnt offerings, which was profaned;
[45] They thought it best to pull it down, lest it should be a reproach to them, because the heathen had defiled it: wherefore they pulled it down,
[46] And laid up the stones in the mountain of the temple in a convenient place, until there should come a prophet to shew what should be done with them.
http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/1maccabees.html

Why do you interpret that as a messianic passage?

What are the range of possible reasons Josephus might have had for omitting that passage. Providing supporting evidence for any opinion will help, too.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Josephus' Portrait of David

Post by iskander »

" Outstanding political abilities together with these religio-ethical qualities made David the authentic prototype of the redeemer and the founder of that ruling family one of whose descendants the Messiah must be. Not only did the name "son of David" become a standing title of the King-Messiah, but also the name "David" itself. The prophet Hosea says, concerning the Messianic age, "Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the LORD their God, and David their king" (Hos. 3:5).
Meanwhile, prophecy was developing in Israel, and in the kingdoms of Ephraim and Judah arose prophets who broadened and deepened the conceptions of the tribes of Israel. In this process the Messianic expectation received an almost entirely new form.
In fact, the Messianic expectation is the positive element in the message of the prophets "


THE MESSIANIC IDEA IN ISRAEL
From Its Beginning to the Completion of the Mishnah
by JOSEPH KLAUSNER, PM).
pg 41
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Josephus' Portrait of David

Post by neilgodfrey »

iskander wrote:
arnoldo wrote:
iskander wrote:David meant nothing to Imperial Rome, but that David was a vile murderer and a foreskin trader, that would have been distasteful to the Romans.
Actually, Josephus boasted about this to the Romans who would've admired this quality (who would find parallels in the writings of Homer and Virgil). 21st century sophomoric musings on sensibilities in the first century doesn't necessarily apply.
Both David and Bathsheva should have been put to death (Lev.20:10) for adultery.
10And a man who commits adultery with [another] man's wife, committing adultery with the wife of his fellow the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo ... rashi=true
Spoken like a true Taliban.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Post Reply