Josephus' Portrait of David

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Josephus' Portrait of David

Post by iskander »

neilgodfrey wrote:
iskander wrote:...

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.
There is a Jewish perception of king David which is incompatible with Lev 20:10.
Since Josephus was Jewish I put forward Lev 20:10 for an explanation of why king David is considered by that religion to be the model for the Messiah when he broke the Law.
I was putting forward the Mosaic Law to be explained.
Taliban??????

Fake news?
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Josephus' Portrait of David

Post by DCHindley »

neilgodfrey wrote:
iskander wrote: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.
I don't think Iskander is advocating putting people to death in present days, only that David, who in many ways is still revered by many Jews, is in Rabbinic Judaism seen as a "bad boy" if judged by the standards of Torah. David (whether a historical one or the one depicted in Judean holy writings), who is depicted as, for the most part, doing what he did for the sake of his people, is also portrayed in the Psalms as remorseful for his faults, seeking forgiveness from God. If I am not mistaken, rabbinic Judaism sets aside the severe punishments called for in the Torah to be replaced by, where possible, more lenient ones, by applying technicalities developed in rabbinic literature.

It is difficult for me to identify Iskander's religious orientation. He is heavily influenced by rabbinic thought (at least he knows it rather well) but in other ways he seems to be a Christian or possibly a former "Jewish-Christian". This is baseless speculation on my part, and Iskander, who I think I know under another name on another board, is OK in my book. He has a sense of humor, and I think his response above was made in the spirit of ironic humor. Personally, I would love to see more humor on this board, where by "humor" I mean "funny humor," without apologetical "blame-sarcasm" or "blame-irony," and yes, even atheists and agnostics engage in this at times.

DCH
User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 969
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Re: Josephus' Portrait of David

Post by arnoldo »

neilgodfrey wrote:
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?
The expectation of a prophet to shew how to deal with desecrated altar would resonate with Josephus, i.e., the Romans desecrated/destroyed the Jewish temple before his very eyes. For Josephus, would it require nothing else but a prophet/messiah to restore the Jewish temple again?
neilgodfrey wrote: What are the range of possible reasons Josephus might have had for omitting that passage. Providing supporting evidence for any opinion will help, too.
Why did Josephus leave out that bit? I don't have a time machine handy so I can't go back in time and ask him however the following are some possible reasons.
  • A. Josephus felt it irrelevant that both Antiochus and Titus desecrated the temple

    B. It was originally included by Josephus but was later redacted by scribal copyists

    C. That bit wasn't in Josephus' copy of Maccabees hence he left it out.
    D. Josephus' account follows very closely that of the First Book of Maccabees; thus, the differences are all the more interesting, the most significant being two having to do with prophecy.

    As Marcus points out in the Loeb edition, Josephus omits the detail of 1 Macc 4:46 that the stones of the desecrated altar were put away "on the temple-hill in a fitting place until a prophet should come and give a decision about them." While Marcus associates this omission with Josephus' belief that Biblical prophecy has ceased, I suspect that more lies behind it, as prophecy was also expected to be re-initiated by a future "prophet like Moses", i.e., the Messiah. But it is a Messianic prophecy which Josephus ascribes as the cause that more than anything else incited his countrymen to war against the Romans. Thus, omitting the reference is probably deliberate censorship of this inflammatory idea at a time when Josephus is hoping to improve relations between Romans and Jews -- which was the only way the Temple could be rebuilt and a new dedication held.
    http://josephus.org/hanukkah.htm
E. Josephus hand got tired from writing so much so he stopped to take a break right before that part. He meant to include it however when he got back from his break he forgot to put it in.
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:
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?
The expectation of a prophet to shew how to deal with desecrated altar would resonate with Josephus, i.e., the Romans desecrated/destroyed the Jewish temple before his very eyes. For Josephus, would it require nothing else but a prophet/messiah to restore the Jewish temple again?
I don't see how you have answered my question. Why do you interpret that passage as messianic? It seems to me you are just assuming it is messianic and that assumption is your proof.

arnoldo wrote:
neilgodfrey wrote: What are the range of possible reasons Josephus might have had for omitting that passage. Providing supporting evidence for any opinion will help, too.
Why did Josephus leave out that bit? I don't have a time machine handy so I can't go back in time and ask him however the following are some possible reasons.
  • A. Josephus felt it irrelevant that both Antiochus and Titus desecrated the temple

    B. It was originally included by Josephus but was later redacted by scribal copyists

    C. That bit wasn't in Josephus' copy of Maccabees hence he left it out.
    D. Josephus' account follows very closely that of the First Book of Maccabees; thus, the differences are all the more interesting, the most significant being two having to do with prophecy.

    As Marcus points out in the Loeb edition, Josephus omits the detail of 1 Macc 4:46 that the stones of the desecrated altar were put away "on the temple-hill in a fitting place until a prophet should come and give a decision about them." While Marcus associates this omission with Josephus' belief that Biblical prophecy has ceased, I suspect that more lies behind it, as prophecy was also expected to be re-initiated by a future "prophet like Moses", i.e., the Messiah. But it is a Messianic prophecy which Josephus ascribes as the cause that more than anything else incited his countrymen to war against the Romans. Thus, omitting the reference is probably deliberate censorship of this inflammatory idea at a time when Josephus is hoping to improve relations between Romans and Jews -- which was the only way the Temple could be rebuilt and a new dedication held.
    http://josephus.org/hanukkah.htm
E. Josephus hand got tired from writing so much so he stopped to take a break right before that part. He meant to include it however when he got back from his break he forgot to put it in.
Your original argument was entirely based on your ability to read his mind. You offered no evidence to support your interpretation but asked us to trust your clairvoyance.
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 »

Should we trust your hyper minimalist pseudo intellectual interpretation of history? This may be fallacious appeal to authority but I'd rather take into more serious consideration Louis Harry Feldman's understanding of what Josephus wrote, or didnt' write.

Image
Feldman is a widely respected antiquities scholar.[3] Robert E. Van Voorst has referred to Feldman as "the dean of Josephan scholars".[1] Paul L. Maier has referred to Feldman as "the ranking Josephus authority".[2]

As a historian, Feldman has dealt primarily with the writings of Josephus and their role within the larger framework of Jewish civilization during the Second Temple Period. Feldmans' works on Josephus have ranged from discussions of historical accuracy to analysis of Josephus’ biblical interpretations. Overall, Feldman views Josephus’ work as key to understanding Jewish life and interactions with Hellenistic culture during the Greco-Roman era. In addition to his work on Josephus, Feldman has published numerous works on the writings of Philo as well as works dealing directly with the nature of Jewish life during antiquity.

Feldman’s works include Scholarship on Philo and Josephus, 1937-1962 (1963), Josephus and Modern Scholarship, 1937-1980 (1984), Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian (1993), Studies in Hellenistic Judaism (1998), and Josephus’ Interpretation of the Bible (1998). Feldman also translated several volumes of the critical edition of Jewish Antiquities. Feldman has contributed extensively to journals in his field, having published approximately 170 scholarly articles. He also served as departmental editor of Hellenistic literature for the first edition of Encyclopedia Judaica and as a contributor to the Encyclopædia Britannica.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Feldman
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Josephus' Portrait of David

Post by neilgodfrey »

arnoldo wrote:Should we trust your hyper minimalist pseudo intellectual interpretation of history? This may be fallacious appeal to authority but I'd rather take into more serious consideration Louis Harry Feldman's understanding of what Josephus wrote, or didnt' write.

Image
Feldman is a widely respected antiquities scholar.[3] Robert E. Van Voorst has referred to Feldman as "the dean of Josephan scholars".[1] Paul L. Maier has referred to Feldman as "the ranking Josephus authority".[2]

As a historian, Feldman has dealt primarily with the writings of Josephus and their role within the larger framework of Jewish civilization during the Second Temple Period. Feldmans' works on Josephus have ranged from discussions of historical accuracy to analysis of Josephus’ biblical interpretations. Overall, Feldman views Josephus’ work as key to understanding Jewish life and interactions with Hellenistic culture during the Greco-Roman era. In addition to his work on Josephus, Feldman has published numerous works on the writings of Philo as well as works dealing directly with the nature of Jewish life during antiquity.

Feldman’s works include Scholarship on Philo and Josephus, 1937-1962 (1963), Josephus and Modern Scholarship, 1937-1980 (1984), Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian (1993), Studies in Hellenistic Judaism (1998), and Josephus’ Interpretation of the Bible (1998). Feldman also translated several volumes of the critical edition of Jewish Antiquities. Feldman has contributed extensively to journals in his field, having published approximately 170 scholarly articles. He also served as departmental editor of Hellenistic literature for the first edition of Encyclopedia Judaica and as a contributor to the Encyclopædia Britannica.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Feldman
I learn a lot from Feldman, too. And Steve Mason, and heaps others.

Have you noticed how some scholars are open to changing their minds on some points of understanding as they learn more, as new understandings arise, . . . .

What do you do when scholars of Feldman's caliber and reputation disagree?
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:Should we trust your hyper minimalist pseudo intellectual interpretation of history? This may be fallacious appeal to authority but I'd rather take into more serious consideration Louis Harry Feldman's understanding of what Josephus wrote, or didnt' write.

Hoo boy, it's a hard life on this forum.

If I cite lots of scholars I am accused of arguing from authority and have no opinion of my own;

if I just write conversationally and focus on the arguments alone and leave aside the citations for times only when required I am accused of some idiosyncratic nonsense.

But arnoldo -- in your case I have been posing questions, challenging the grounds for your assertions and interpretations. When you fail to deliver you resort to authority and accuse me of idiosyncrasy.

You are free to tell us the arguments Feldman uses to justify your own viewpoints.

You are free to address the questions I pose, too.
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 »

neilgodfrey wrote:
arnoldo wrote:Should we trust your hyper minimalist pseudo intellectual interpretation of history? This may be fallacious appeal to authority but I'd rather take into more serious consideration Louis Harry Feldman's understanding of what Josephus wrote, or didnt' write.

Hoo boy, it's a hard life on this forum.

If I cite lots of scholars I am accused of arguing from authority and have no opinion of my own;

if I just write conversationally and focus on the arguments alone and leave aside the citations for times only when required I am accused of some idiosyncratic nonsense.

But arnoldo -- in your case I have been posing questions, challenging the grounds for your assertions and interpretations. When you fail to deliver you resort to authority and accuse me of idiosyncrasy.

You are free to tell us the arguments Feldman uses to justify your own viewpoints.

You are free to address the questions I pose, too.
Thanks, it just seems that when it suits you, you are willing to accept a scholar's (Professor James S McLaren) clairvoyant analysis of Josephus.
Conclusion: Josephus created Judas the Galilean as a foil to bear the responsibility for the humiliation of the Jewish defeat. I’m not saying that Judas did not exist (though he may not have) but that Josephus has been forced to modify his account with each retelling of his role in starting the rebellion. These variations indicate that Josephus is creatively rewriting history to deflect blame for the war from his own class of aristocratic priests.
http://vridar.org/2016/04/05/did-joseph ... inst-rome/
However, demand "evidence" to back Feldman's claim that Josephus minimized David's messianic qualities in his writings. BTW, Professor James S McLaren's understanding of Josephus may be absolutely right however there is no way of knowing for sure, epistemologically speaking.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Josephus' Portrait of David

Post by neilgodfrey »

arnoldo wrote: Thanks, it just seems that when it suits you, you are willing to accept a scholar's (Professor James S McLaren) clairvoyant analysis of Josephus.
Conclusion: Josephus created Judas the Galilean as a foil to bear the responsibility for the humiliation of the Jewish defeat. I’m not saying that Judas did not exist (though he may not have) but that Josephus has been forced to modify his account with each retelling of his role in starting the rebellion. These variations indicate that Josephus is creatively rewriting history to deflect blame for the war from his own class of aristocratic priests.
http://vridar.org/2016/04/05/did-joseph ... inst-rome/
However, demand "evidence" to back Feldman's claim that Josephus minimized David's messianic qualities in his writings. BTW, Professor James S McLaren's understanding of Josephus may be absolutely right however there is no way of knowing for sure, epistemologically speaking.
Arnolodo, there is a difference between "willing to accept" someone's view and "willing to understand the arguments and evidence for" a scholar's view. You will notice, for example, what I found attractive about M's analysis:
Further, he understands the necessity of evidence external to his source material for corroboration.
Who he was, what he did and what he advocated, if anything at all, need to be established afresh, outside the framework provided in War and Antiquities.
Evidence, sound historical method. That's what I look for. Not just mere assertion.

So when you say M is using mind-reading as the basis of his interpretation you are flat wrong and have obviously not bothered to read the post you are using against me. He uses evidence of the kind I believe is valid and we explain why.

My point is that there is so much assumption carried into even scholarly interpretations of the Bible and Josephus that it is difficult to recognize as mere assumption. Certain ideas and interpretations are so familiar to us because they stem from our religious convictions or cultural teachings.

I am attempting to point out that the assumptions that Josephus was somehow too nervous to write anything directly about messianic ideas is just one of these ad hoc assumptions that we have inherited. The simplest way of interpreting the evidence is that messianic issues were not particularly prominent upon Josephus's radar. Most of the texts used to "prove" the existence of "messianic hopes" do not ever mention "messiah" at all. The simplest interpretation is that they were not addressing messianism.

But we get tied up in knots at this point because we are so indoctrinated into believing that certain ideas are by definition messianic so that it doesn't matter if the word 'messiah' doesn't appear -- the ideas are there and that's all that matters.

Fair enough -- perhaps -- but what do we do with the scholarship (of some pretty respectable mainstream scholars, even Christians, too) that demonstrates from the evidence that the messianic definition or understanding of that constellation of ideas actually derives from well AFTER the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE.

What do we do when we find that the evidence from the relevant era (and not opinions retrospectively imputed into the evidence from centuries later) actually indicates that many of those ideas were held without any messianic connotations at all. For example, many actually believed that God would directly restore Israel and rule -- without any messiah as an intermediary. And some, as I have recently learned, believed that the Davidic promises were transferred to Israel as a nation. And there are a range of other views. I have covered some of these in other discussions, including an analysis of PsSol 17.
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: BTW, Professor James S McLaren's understanding of Josephus may be absolutely right however there is no way of knowing for sure, epistemologically speaking.
Perhaps, but if that's true doesn't it become a good idea to avoid dogmatic opinions and be open to other possibilities.

Actually, what M's method is based on is the principle of tentativeness. The evidence is selected on the basis of its immediate relevance and value and potential (not drawn from centuries later) and then put together and argued as the best explanation to date. The theory is open to challenge and new insights.

That's how scholarship is supposed to work.

Too much ideological / religious dogmatism plagues the field.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Post Reply