Josephus' Portrait of Michal

[arnoldo]

Interesting article by Michael Avioz which addresses the following questions.

Josephus' Portrait of Michal
1. What is Josephus’ attitude towards Michal?
2. Was Josephus’ influenced by the current and general attitude towards women?
3. What are the exegetical problems that Josephus solved when rewriting Michal’s story? Our assumption is that he made efforts to make the biblical narratives more accessible to his readers.
4. Can Hellenistic elements be traced in his writings?
5. Was Josephus’ text identical to the Masoretic Text?
6. Who is the intended audience for this rewriting?

However, is the quest to answer the questions raised by Michael Avioz simply attempting to clairvoyantly read Josephus' mind?

[neilgodfrey]

However, is the quest to answer the questions raised by Michael Avioz simply attempting to clairvoyantly read Josephus' mind?

Now that should be easy to answer. Does Avoiz provide evidence from the text to support his claims or does he make claims about Josephus's intentions without evidence? Can the evidence he provides be better or equally well explained in other ways?

[arnoldo]

I’m actually reading a philosophy book to attempt to answer that question. Mortimer J Adler writes,

Both philosophy and history are reflexive in a way that empirical science is not. . . What is the scope of the philosophical enterprise? What is it’s method? How does philosophy relate to and differ from other intellectual disciple? This may come as a shock to many readers who have adopted the euphoric use of the word “Scientific” as if it were the mark of excellence in all intellectual work. If a piece of work is scientific, it is good; if it is not scientific, it is defective in one way or another.

So, my clairvoyant guess is that you will judge this article of Josephus to fall into the latter bolded category. This is based on my non scientific observation of your previous comments in another thread. Perhaps Avioz makes similar erroneous, non empirical judgement concerning Josephus’ portrait of Michal ( based on the ridiculous assumption that understanding human nature is valid form of understand ancient literary works). For example, this Taliban like statement is found in 1 Samuel 18:25. However, in Josephus accounts he changes Micah’s dowry price to 600 heads. Why? Avoiz claims that Josephus didn’t want to offend his Roman audience which were presumably uncircumcised or his ambivalence towards circumcision per se. As you point out there may be other reasons why Josephus changed the narrative in 1 Samuel 18:25 so Avoiz’s claim is probably bogus, non-empirical and basically not even worth arguing about.

[neilgodfrey]

I’m actually reading a philosophy book to attempt to answer that question. Mortimer J Adler writes,

Both philosophy and history are reflexive in a way that empirical science is not. . . What is the scope of the philosophical enterprise? What is it’s method? How does philosophy relate to and differ from other intellectual disciple? This may come as a shock to many readers who have adopted the euphoric use of the word “Scientific” as if it were the mark of excellence in all intellectual work. If a piece of work is scientific, it is good; if it is not scientific, it is defective in one way or another.

So, my clairvoyant guess is that you will judge this article of Josephus to fall into the latter bolded category. This is based on my non scientific observation of your previous comments in another thread. Perhaps Avioz makes similar erroneous, non empirical judgement concerning Josephus’ portrait of Michal ( based on the ridiculous assumption that understanding human nature is valid form of understand ancient literary works). For example, this Taliban like statement is found in 1 Samuel 18:25. However, in Josephus accounts he changes Micah’s dowry price to 600 heads. Why? Avoiz claims that Josephus didn’t want to offend his Roman audience which were presumably uncircumcised or his ambivalence towards circumcision per se. As you point out there may be other reasons why Josephus changed the narrative in 1 Samuel 18:25 so Avoiz’s claim is probably bogus, non-empirical and basically not even worth arguing about.

There appears to have been a misunderstanding.

I fully agree that your explanation for Josephus's motives for not mentioning messianism explicitly was consistent with human nature. It certainly was. But I think you will likewise have to agree that the explanation I offered for the absence of explicit messianism in his works was just as consistent with human nature. Yes?

As for ascertaining which motive is most consistent with the evidence, I prefer to think of historical inquiry like a detective mystery. That's much more interesting and easier to grasp than philosophical discussions, and seems to me to be more practical.

Is not that a good way to approach historical inquiry? Like a detective investigation? Looking for evidence to support this or that hypothesis?

And is not part of a good detective investigation to gather evidence that will stand up in court and withstand cross-examination and testing for alternative explanations?

My point here is that if we want to judge between different possible motivations of Josephus then we need to gather evidence about the sort of man Josephus was and what were his chief interests and values, both loves and hates. We don't just surmise, but we gather evidence from his writings that will stand up in court.

Surely you agree that that is a very sound way to do historical inquiry, no?

[neilgodfrey]

For example, this Taliban like statement is found in 1 Samuel 18:25.

No, no, no, that's nothing at all like a Taliban text. That's a romantic heroic type text. The motif of having to perform some heroic but highly dangerous deed to win the hand of the princess is found throughout folk and fairy tales throughout all times and places -- but was a particular feature of pre-Islamic Arab or bedouin stories of legendary heroes.

What Makes a Good Bible Story?

[iskander]

I’m actually reading a philosophy book to attempt to answer that question. Mortimer J Adler writes,

Both philosophy and history are reflexive in a way that empirical science is not. . . What is the scope of the philosophical enterprise? What is it’s method? How does philosophy relate to and differ from other intellectual disciple? This may come as a shock to many readers who have adopted the euphoric use of the word “Scientific” as if it were the mark of excellence in all intellectual work. If a piece of work is scientific, it is good; if it is not scientific, it is defective in one way or another.

So, my clairvoyant guess is that you will judge this article of Josephus to fall into the latter bolded category. This is based on my non scientific observation of your previous comments in another thread. Perhaps Avioz makes similar erroneous, non empirical judgement concerning Josephus’ portrait of Michal ( based on the ridiculous assumption that understanding human nature is valid form of understand ancient literary works). For example, this Taliban like statement is found in 1 Samuel 18:25. However, in Josephus accounts he changes Micah’s dowry price to 600 heads. Why? Avoiz claims that Josephus didn’t want to offend his Roman audience which were presumably uncircumcised or his ambivalence towards circumcision per se. As you point out there may be other reasons why Josephus changed the narrative in 1 Samuel 18:25 so Avoiz’s claim is probably bogus, non-empirical and basically not even worth arguing about.

For example, this Taliban like statement is found in 1 Samuel 18:25.

King David murderer , messiah and serial killer,

" In Genesis 34, prince Shechem seeks to marry into Jacob’s family; as a result, he, his father Hamor, and all the men of their city are slaughtered by Jacob’s sons – Shechem’s potential in-laws. David marries into Saul’s royal house in 1 Samuel 18 but exterminates what is left of his in-laws in 2 Samuel 21:1-14.[7]

Amazingly, in both cases circumcision plays a major role. Jacob’s sons pretend to welcome Shechem into their family on the condition that he and all his subjects undergo the incapacitating procedure (Gen 34:13-17), which leaves the city without able-bodied defenders (v. 25). David wins the hand of Saul’s daughter Michal by not only meeting the bizarre bride-price set by the king – a hundred Philistine foreskins – but also doubling it (1 Sam 18:24-27).

[7] Not to mention that he may have had a hand in earlier deaths of Saul, Jonathan, Abner, and Ishbosheth – as suggested, for example, in Stefan Heym’s exquisite novel The King David Report (Northwestern University Press, 1973)

as well as in chapter 4 of Baruch Halperin, David’s Secret Demons: Murderer, Messiah, Traitor, King (Bible in its World; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), titled, “King David, Serial Killer.”"

http://thetorah.com/a-murderous-bridegroom/

[arnoldo]

I’m actually reading a philosophy book to attempt to answer that question. Mortimer J Adler writes,

Both philosophy and history are reflexive in a way that empirical science is not. . . What is the scope of the philosophical enterprise? What is it’s method? How does philosophy relate to and differ from other intellectual disciple? This may come as a shock to many readers who have adopted the euphoric use of the word “Scientific” as if it were the mark of excellence in all intellectual work. If a piece of work is scientific, it is good; if it is not scientific, it is defective in one way or another.

So, my clairvoyant guess is that you will judge this article of Josephus to fall into the latter bolded category. This is based on my non scientific observation of your previous comments in another thread. Perhaps Avioz makes similar erroneous, non empirical judgements concerning Josephus’ portrait of Michal ( based on the ridiculous assumption that understanding human nature is a valid form of understand ancient literary works). For example, this Taliban like statement is found in 1 Samuel 18:25. However, in Josephus account of this incident he changes Micah’s dowry price to 600 heads. Why? Avoiz claims that Josephus didn’t want to offend his Roman audience which were presumably uncircumcised or his ambivalence towards circumcision per se. As you pointed out (telepathically) there may be other reasons why Josephus changed the narrative in 1 Samuel 18:25 so Avoiz’s claim is probably bogus, non-empirical and basically not even worth arguing about.

There appears to have been a misunderstanding.

I fully agree that your explanation for Josephus's motives for not mentioning messianism explicitly was consistent with human nature. It certainly was. But I think you will likewise have to agree that the explanation I offered for the absence of explicit messianism in his works was just as consistent with human nature. Yes?

As for ascertaining which motive is most consistent with the evidence, I prefer to think of historical inquiry like a detective mystery. That's much more interesting and easier to grasp than philosophical discussions, and seems to me to be more practical.

Is not that a good way to approach historical inquiry? Like a detective investigation? Looking for evidence to support this or that hypothesis?

And is not part of a good detective investigation to gather evidence that will stand up in court and withstand cross-examination and testing for alternative explanations?

My point here is that if we want to judge between different possible motivations of Josephus then we need to gather evidence about the sort of man Josephus was and what were his chief interests and values, both loves and hates. We don't just surmise, but we gather evidence from his writings that will stand up in court.

Surely you agree that that is a very sound way to do historical inquiry, no?

First, don't call me Shirley. Second, yes I agree that is a very sound way to do historical inquiry. And in the following case Avoiz appears to have surmised correctly why Josephus altered 2 Samuel 6:16. Allegedly, Josephus omits the part where Michal watched from a window due to the negative connotations of prostitution. This arcane knowledge, if true, may prove useful if one finds oneself on a gameshow consisting of bible trivia. . ." Alex, I’ll take “Mind Reading Josephus” for $400". However, if we find a pattern of Josephus altering his narratives across his entire magnum opus this may prove worth further investigation.

[DCHindley]

First, don't call me Shirley.

As you wish, Leslie.

DCH

[arnoldo]

For example, this Taliban like statement is found in 1 Samuel 18:25.

No, no, no, that's nothing at all like a Taliban text. That's a romantic heroic type text. The motif of having to perform some heroic but highly dangerous deed to win the hand of the princess is found throughout folk and fairy tales throughout all times and places -- but was a particular feature of pre-Islamic Arab or bedouin stories of legendary heroes.

What Makes a Good Bible Story?

Except, when I basically said the same thing you dismissed it.

According to Feldman, Josephus deliberately points out these acts that David engaged in in an effort to parallel similar deeds documented in Homer and Virgil.

Correct. It is all assumption. Not enough to fight to the death over. Always healthy to distinguish between assumptions, hypotheses, evidence and data. That way we don't have to get agro or defensive when challenged but even be willing to discuss, demonstrate, revise.

[neilgodfrey]

For example, this Taliban like statement is found in 1 Samuel 18:25.

No, no, no, that's nothing at all like a Taliban text. That's a romantic heroic type text. The motif of having to perform some heroic but highly dangerous deed to win the hand of the princess is found throughout folk and fairy tales throughout all times and places -- but was a particular feature of pre-Islamic Arab or bedouin stories of legendary heroes.

What Makes a Good Bible Story?

Except, when I basically said the same thing you dismissed it.

According to Feldman, Josephus deliberately points out these acts that David engaged in in an effort to parallel similar deeds documented in Homer and Virgil.

Correct. It is all assumption. Not enough to fight to the death over. Always healthy to distinguish between assumptions, hypotheses, evidence and data. That way we don't have to get agro or defensive when challenged but even be willing to discuss, demonstrate, revise.

I was agreeing with the point about Homer and Virgil --- that's why I began my response with "Correct" to your point that Feldman was emulating Homer and Virgil. My disagreement was with the way we interpret Josephus following on from that point.