Minor agreements against gMark

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
davidmartin
Posts: 733
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Minor agreements against gMark

Post by davidmartin » Thu Oct 22, 2020 7:29 am

thanks Ben in return i trade you this link. don't know if it could be useful. i sensed scholarly goodness
i'm gonna duck out of this debate i think i feel other avenues await,
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/4gos ... ter-11.pdf

ps i posted in another thread if there was a list of textual variants on the shepherd of hermas, don't want to sully this one with off-topic but just wondered if you know of a list of these

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8615
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Minor agreements against gMark

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Oct 22, 2020 7:57 am

davidmartin wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 7:29 am
thanks Ben in return i trade you this link. don't know if it could be useful. i sensed scholarly goodness
i'm gonna duck out of this debate i think i feel other avenues await,
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/4gos ... ter-11.pdf
That is the classic treatment by Streeter. Most of my initial venture into studying the gospels, after a period of concentrating on Paul, had to do with the synoptic problem. I absorbed Streeter and Hawkins. I produced Greek synopses, which I kept in a binder, and took both them and a set of multicolored highlighters with me wherever I went, color coding the agreements between passages one word or phrase at a time. (I got interesting glances and comments in waiting areas, lounges, and other public venues.) Wherever Matthew and Luke agreed against Mark, I consulted Streeter to see whether he dealt with that particular problem with the Two-Source theory, and to evaluate whether his solution convinced me. Probably about half of the time it did; the other half I kept track of for later reference. I was pretty optimistic about solving the synoptic problem back then. I flirted with Farrer for a bit. (Never really understood the appeal of the Augustinian approach, though, or that of Greisbach.) And then I realized that there are just too many variables with not enough data to make everything fit. Every theory out there has gaps and holes and issues.
ps i posted in another thread if there was a list of textual variants on the shepherd of hermas, don't want to sully this one with off-topic but just wondered if you know of a list of these
I had started to reply to you on that point in the other thread, but then I noticed that you specified "in English," so I did not go through with it. Ehrman gives the most significant variants (in Greek, though) in his edition of the Apostolic Fathers. But one of the most comprehensive and accessible sources online would be Gebhardt and Harnack. Again, though, not in English, sorry. I am not aware of a simple list of variants in English like that, though perhaps one could be laboriously culled from a commentary like that of Carolyn Osiek for the Hermeneia series.

Ken Olson
Posts: 369
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Minor agreements against gMark

Post by Ken Olson » Thu Oct 22, 2020 8:03 am

Ben,

I realize you were citing BeDuhn on the possibility of multiple recensions of the gospels circulating in antiquity, but I'd like to point out a weakness in BeDuhn's own position.

As you probably remember, I called Klinghardt's outline of his solution to the synoptic problem a methodological nightmare some years ago, as his Marcion-based solution postulates that canonical Luke is dependent on Matthew, which contradicts the premises he uses to postulate his Marcion-based solution in the first place

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2159&p=48235&#p48234

BeDuhn, as far as I remember, avoids the pitfalls that Klinghardt fell into by not stating the premises that would lead us to infer the existence of Q. He presents himself as giving an additional source Luke used (Marcion) and postulates that this would solve the Minor Agreement problem for the 2DH. He hasn't really examined how it would impact other parts of the 2DH. What is in the new Q and what is it's relation to Marcion? (This is actually very common with the synoptic problem - people think they have a solution which solves a particular problem they consider important without looking at whether their proposed solutions might face new problems).

I do not think BeDuhn has yet given a detailed outline of his solution the synoptic problem.

Best,

Ken

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8615
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Minor agreements against gMark

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Oct 22, 2020 8:35 am

Ken Olson wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 8:03 am
Ben,

I realize you were citing BeDuhn on the possibility of multiple recensions of the gospels circulating in antiquity, but I'd like to point out a weakness in BeDuhn's own position.

As you probably remember, I called Klinghardt's outline of his solution to the synoptic problem a methodological nightmare some years ago, as his Marcion-based solution postulates that canonical Luke is dependent on Matthew, which contradicts the premises he uses to postulate his Marcion-based solution in the first place

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2159&p=48235&#p48234
And I agree with you. Klinghardt contradicts himself. I had a very similar reaction to reading his article before you posted about it, though you pinpointed the reason for my discomfort with it in a more articulate way than I might have.
BeDuhn, as far as I remember, avoids the pitfalls that Klinghardt fell into by not stating the premises that would lead us to infer the existence of Q. He presents himself as giving an additional source Luke used (Marcion) and postulates that this would solve the Minor Agreement problem for the 2DH.
Yes, I think we agree that BeDuhn is stronger than Klinghardt in this regard.
He hasn't really examined how it would impact other parts of the 2DH. What is in the new Q and what is it's relation to Marcion? (This is actually very common with the synoptic problem - people think they have a solution which solves a particular problem they consider important without looking at whether their proposed solutions might face new problems).
Very much agree that this is a common problem with new solutions.
I do not think BeDuhn has yet given a detailed outline of his solution the synoptic problem.
It sounds to me like he is mainly suggesting new avenues for exploration, based on his conclusion that Luke does not cleanly predate the Marcionite gospel (a supposition which, if true, necessarily brings the Marcionite gospel into the synoptic problem, whether we want it there or not). I would be very interesting in reading his developing thoughts on the matter, but I am not going to vouch for them in advance. :D

Also, I stand by what I said before about introducing Marcion into the mix:
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Thu Feb 25, 2016 8:02 am
The thing is, once the Marcionite gospel gets thrown into the mix, a whole truckload of unknowns gets backed up and dumped all over the synoptic problem's front lawn.
This is not an argument against introducing Marcion into the mix; it is more of a signpost pointing to tangled paths, unexpected intersections, and heavy traffic ahead.

But yes, I was not citing BeDuhn for the entirety of his thought process on this particular point; it was more about the compatibility of parts of his approach with that of Parker.

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3724
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Minor agreements against gMark

Post by Bernard Muller » Thu Oct 22, 2020 9:24 am

to MrMacSon,

About "Luke" not knowing Josephus' Antiquities:

Did "Luke" know about Josephus' Antiquities (published 93C.E.)?
Likely NOT: if "Luke" had 'Antiquities' when writing the gospel, most of the historical mistakes (and different spellings) would have been avoided, including:

A) In 'Antiquities' Caiaphas is clearly identified as the only high priest during most of Pilate's rule as prefect (up to the Passover of 36C.E; Caiaphas was replaced then).
Ant., XVIII, II, 2 "This man [Gratus the prefect] deprived Ananus of the high priesthood, and appointed Ismael, the son of Phabi, to be high priest. He also deprived him in a little time, and ordained Eleazar, the son of Ananus, who had been high priest before, to be high priest; which office, when he had held for a year, Gratus deprived him of it, and gave the high priesthood to Simon, the son of Camithus; and when he had possessed that dignity no longer than a year, Joseph Caiaphas was made his successor. When Gratus had done those things, he went back to Rome, after he had tarried in Judea eleven years, when Pontius Pilate came as his successor."
Ant., XVIII, IV, 3 "But Vitellius came into Judea, and went up to Jerusalem; it was at the time of that festival which is called the Passover ... Besides which, he [Vitellius] also deprived Joseph, who was also called Caiaphas, of the high priesthood, and appointed Jonathan the son of Ananus, the former high priest, to succeed him. After which, he took his journey back to Antioch."
In conclusion, no error could had been made if "Luke" had 'Antiquities': here one high priest (not two) is assigned!

Notes:
1) From where "Luke" might have got the idea of dual high priests? Likely from Josephus' Wars:
"both Jonathan and Ananias, the high priests" (II, XII, 6)
In 'Wars', Josephus invoked often the "high priests" as the high priest of the time, plus one, some or all of the (living) ex-ones:
II, XX, 4 "Jesus, the son of Sapphias, one of the high priests; and Eleazar, the son of Ananias, the high priest ..."
II, XXI, 9 "The best esteemed also of the high priests, Jesus the son of Gamalas, and Ananus the son of Ananus ..."
VI, II, 2"Some also there were who, watching a proper opportunity when they might quietly get away, fled to the Romans, of whom were the high priests Joseph and Jesus ..."

But in 'Antiquities', Josephus was very meticulous about the high priesthood and clearly recorded the succession of high priests, one by one, as we saw already.

B) In 'Acts' (23:3,24:1), the high priest during Paul's last visit to Jerusalem is "Ananias". At this time, the governor of Judea is Felix, two years before he was replaced (Ac24:27). But according to Josephus' Ant., XX, VIII, 5 & 8, it is very clear that during Felix' years as governor (52-60), there were only two successive high priests, "Jonathan", then "Ismael". "Ananias" is also recorded in 'Antiquities', but his tenure ended during the rule of Cumanus, the predecessor of Felix (Ant., XX, VI, 2). Once again, if "Luke" had 'Antiquities', this mistake would not have occurred.

Note: but how did "Luke" get "Ananias"?
Most likely from Josephus' Wars:
As previously quoted, we have: "both Jonathan and Ananias, the high priests" (Wars, II, XII, 6). This is during the rule of Cumanus. Here, it would seem to "Luke" there were two high priests then. But later in the same book, we learn that, after Felix became governor (II, XIII, 2), "the first man who was slain by them [sicarii] was Jonathan the high priest"(II, XIII, 3).
Nobody is mentioned in 'Wars' as the replacement for Jonathan. Then who is left as a high priest? Ananias, of course!
This is a very strong piece of evidence advocating "Luke" knew about 'Wars' and did not read 'Antiquities'.

C) In 'Antiquities' Cyrenius is mentioned (and also again Ananus) in his chronological "niche" and a direct reference is indicated for the dating of his census/taxation:
Ant., XVIII, II, 1 "When Cyrenius had now disposed of Archelaus's money, and when the taxings were come to a conclusion, which were made in the thirty-seventh year of Caesar's victory over Antony at Actium,[/color]
[September 2, 31B.C.E. In the corresponding section of 'Wars' (II, IX, 1), no dating is given]
` he deprived Joazar of the high priesthood, which dignity had been conferred on him by the multitude, and he appointed Ananus, the son of Seth, to be high priest; while Herod and Philip had each of them received their own tetrarchy, and settled the affairs thereof."
Again, with 'Antiquities', it would have been impossible for "Luke" to set Jesus' birth during the census (with, as discussed before, Jesus about thirty around 30C.E., and Mary pregnant before, or soon after, Herod the Great's death (4B.C.E.)).
Also, let's notice the spelling is different for "Cyrenius": Kurhnios in GLuke and Kurinios in Josephus' works: it does not look "Luke" read "Cyrenius in either 'Wars' (at least seven chapters after his normal chronological niche, at the start of the Jewish war (66-73)) or 'Antiquities' (in his chronological niche, right after Archelaus' rule on Judea).

D) Archelaus' nine years rule over Judea is described in no less than a whole section in 'Antiquities' (XVII, XIII, 1), and not in a few words as in 'Wars'. A whole section would be hard to skip!

E) Theudas and Judas reversed in 'Acts':
Richard Carrier wrote: "When Luke brings up Theudas and Judas in the same speech [Ac5:36-37], he reverses the correct order [agreed], having Theudas appear first, even though that does not fit what Josephus reports--indeed, Josephus places Theudas as much as fifteen years after the dramatic time in which Luke even has him mentioned. That Luke should be forced to use a rebel leader before his time is best explained by the fact that he needed someone to mention, and Josephus, his likely source, only details three distinct movements (though he goes into the rebel relatives of Judas, they are all associated with Judas). And when Josephus mentions Theudas, he immediately follows with a description of the fate of the sons of Judas (JA 20.97-102) and uses the occasion to recap the actions of Judas himself (associating him with the census, as Acts does). Thus, that Luke should repeat this very same incorrect sequence, which makes sense in Josephus but not in Acts, is a signature of borrowing. Further evidence is afforded here by similar vocabulary: both use the words aphistêmi "incited" and laos "the people.""
The passage referred by Carrier is Ant., XX, V, 1-2a:
"NOW it came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain magician, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan; for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it; and many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them; who, falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them, and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem. This was what befell the Jews in the time of Cuspius Fadus's government. Then came Tiberius Alexander as successor to Fadus; ... [about 90 words here not quoted]. And besides this, the sons of Judas of Galilee were now slain; I mean of that Judas who caused the people to revolt, when Cyrenius came to take an account of the estates of the Jews, as we have showed in a foregoing book [Ant., XVIII, I, 1]. The names of those sons were James and Simon, whom Alexander commanded to be crucified."
If "Luke" ever read that, how could this Theudas' incident be NOT noticed as happening during Fadus' rule (44-46C.E.)?
Furthermore, its narration appears within the proper chronological "niche" and two books after the initial description of Judas' revolt & the summary of Pilate's government. And "Luke" knew Judas rebelled during the census (Ac5:37) (likely from Josephus' Wars, II, VIII, 1), which the author placed around the time of Jesus' birth, several decades before Fadus.
And "Luke" would have missed the next paragraph being about Judas' sons (with a flash back on Judas' story) and the mention of Alexander's tenure (46-48C.E.)! For any browser, that's a lot of tunnel vision on selected words ('Theudas, 'Judas'), and without seeing their immediate textual context!
Let's also note "Luke" described the Theudas' episode with significant differences as compared with Josephus' account in 'Antiquities':
Ac5:36 Darby "for before these days Theudas rose up, alleging himself to be somebody, to whom a number of men, about four hundred, were joined; who was slain, and all, as many as obeyed him, were dispersed and came to nothing."
Therefore I find Carrier's argument rather preposterous. And mainly considering the very clear location in time of Theudas' story in Josephus' Antiquities (hard to miss!), Luke's knowledge of the Judas' revolt happening much earlier and the dissimilar accounts, it is most likely "Luke" never knew about Ant., XX, V, 1-2a. Actually, if the author had just browsed through it, one more mistake would have been avoided (Judas, then Theudas).

What about 'aphistêmi' "incited" and 'laos' "the people"?
It happens these two words were very much used in Luke's works:
'aphistemi': GMark=20, GMatthew=6, GJohn=8, GLuke=27, 'Acts'=43
'laos': GMark=2, GMatthew=15, GJohn=3, GLuke=36, 'Acts'=47

Note: because Theudas does not appear in 'Wars', so again "Luke" must have got the name from another source. And it is undeniable "Luke" had other (sometimes dubious) historical accounts. For example:
- Iturea, an area in the northern mountains of Lebanon, was not part of Philip's tetrarchy. As I explained earlier, "Luke" probably did not browse over the whole or parts of Chapters VI & VII of Book II in Josephus' Wars where it is written "... but Batanea, and Trachonitis, and Auranitis, ... were made subject to Philip"
- "Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene", during Pilate's rule over Judea.
These do not appear in Josephus' works.

F) Miscellaneous notes:

a) Luke's account of the death of Agrippa I (Ac12:19a-23) shows marked differences, even conflicts, with Josephus' only narration of it in Ant., XIX, VIII, 2. "Luke" must have drawn from a different source.

b) Drusilla, the wife of Felix, is not mentioned in 'Wars', only in 'Antiquities' (XX, VII, 2). But she is featured along Felix (governor of Judea, 52-60C.E.) in Ac24:24. So from where "Luke" might have known about her? Possibly from one of the "we". The "we" passages are very detailed in 'Acts' and likely (for most of them) benefited from testimonies of Paul's traveling companions (more explanations later). And the second "we" trip ends in Jerusalem (Ac21:17, in 57C.E.), while the third one starts from Cesarea (Ac27:1), the residence of Felix. Gossips about Drusilla & Felix could have been heard then, including immoral behavior of the twosome, as suggested in Ac24:25-26.
Remark: Bernice (Ac25:23), Agrippa II's sister, is mentioned prominently in Wars, II, XV, 1.

c) The famine under Claudius, mentioned in Ant. XX, II, 5 and Ac11:28 "... a severe famine would spread over the entire Roman world." This famine, caused by a crop failure in Egypt (the bread basket of the Roman empire then), made the price of food too expensive for the poor all over the empire. Consequently, "Luke" did not need 'Antiquities' to know about it. Furthermore, in Josephus' book, the famine is presented as local, that is affecting Jerusalem only.

d) It seems "Luke" was very much confused about the "Egyptian":
Ac21:38 "... the Egyptian who started a revolt and led four thousand terrorists [sicarii] out into the desert ..."
Wars, II, XIII, 5 "But there was an Egyptian false prophet that did the Jews more mischief than the former; for he was a cheat, and pretended to be a prophet also, and got together thirty thousand men that were deluded by him; these he led round about from the wilderness to the mount which was called the Mount of Olives [across Jerusalem] ..."
(there is no mention of journey about the "Egyptian" in Ant., XX, VIII, 6 )
In view of these discrepancies, some questions may be asked:
- Did "Luke" know about the "Egyptian" from another source (as for Theudas)?
- Did "Luke" misread 'Wars' when writing?
- Did "Luke" read parts of 'Wars' and then later wrote GLuke & 'Acts', without the book?
The later is my preferred option, looking back at my previous findings (including 'kurhnios' <=> 'kurinios', Annas <=> Ananus).
Also, because Theudas did bring his people towards the desert (that is the lower Jordan river valley), "Luke" might have assigned by mistake to the "Egyptian" something which was known about Theudas.
Last edited by Bernard Muller on Thu Oct 22, 2020 9:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3724
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Minor agreements against gMark

Post by Bernard Muller » Thu Oct 22, 2020 9:47 am

to MrMacSon,
I dunno what you're getting at with your comment, "the interview failed to talk about the huge differences in 'these' stories".
"these stories" refers to the narrations of Jesus' nativity and reappearances in GLuke & GMatthew, which show huge differences, even conflict between themselves.

I was not questioning that the L & M material (material not in GMark or Q) were not mentioned in the interview. But I do not remember the main argument against "Luke" knew GMatthew (apparent ignorance of "Luke" about what is unique to GMatthew), being addressed. If you know where it is addressed, give the time reference and I'll check it out.

Cordially, Bernard

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8615
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Minor agreements against gMark

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Oct 22, 2020 10:50 am

Bernard Muller wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 9:24 am
to MrMacSon,

About "Luke" not knowing Josephus' Antiquities:

Did "Luke" know about Josephus' Antiquities (published 93C.E.)?
Likely NOT: if "Luke" had 'Antiquities' when writing the gospel, most of the historical mistakes (and different spellings) would have been avoided, including:

A) In 'Antiquities' Caiaphas is clearly identified as the only high priest during most of Pilate's rule as prefect (up to the Passover of 36C.E; Caiaphas was replaced then).
Ant., XVIII, II, 2 "This man [Gratus the prefect] deprived Ananus of the high priesthood, and appointed Ismael, the son of Phabi, to be high priest. He also deprived him in a little time, and ordained Eleazar, the son of Ananus, who had been high priest before, to be high priest; which office, when he had held for a year, Gratus deprived him of it, and gave the high priesthood to Simon, the son of Camithus; and when he had possessed that dignity no longer than a year, Joseph Caiaphas was made his successor. When Gratus had done those things, he went back to Rome, after he had tarried in Judea eleven years, when Pontius Pilate came as his successor."
Ant., XVIII, IV, 3 "But Vitellius came into Judea, and went up to Jerusalem; it was at the time of that festival which is called the Passover ... Besides which, he [Vitellius] also deprived Joseph, who was also called Caiaphas, of the high priesthood, and appointed Jonathan the son of Ananus, the former high priest, to succeed him. After which, he took his journey back to Antioch."
In conclusion, no error could had been made if "Luke" had 'Antiquities': here one high priest (not two) is assigned!
To the contrary, you have pointed to exactly the passage in Antiquities which could perhaps most immediately have led Luke into the error.

First, it is not only the Wars which might give the impression of a plurality of high priests:

Josephus, Antiquities 20.1.1 §6: 6 Ὃς δὴ καὶ τότε μεταπεμψάμενος τοὺς ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ τοὺς πρώτους τῶν Ἱεροσολυμιτῶν παρῄνεσεν αὐτοῖς τὸν ποδήρη χιτῶνα καὶ τὴν ἱερὰν στολήν, ἣν φορεῖν μόνος ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς ἔθος ἔχει, εἰς τὴν Ἀντωνίαν, ἥπερ ἐστὶ φρούριον, καταθέσθαι κεισομένην ὑπὸ τῇ Ῥωμαίων ἐξουσίᾳ, καθὰ δὴ καὶ πρότερον ἦν. / [Feldman:] 6 He also at this time sent for the high priests and the principal citizens of Jerusalem, and this at the command of the emperor, and admonished them that they should lay up the long garment and the sacred vestment, which it is customary for nobody but the high priest to wear, in the tower of Antonia, that it might be under the power of the Romans, as it had been formerly.

Josephus, Antiquities 20.8.8 §179-181: 179 Κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν καιρὸν ὁ βασιλεὺς Ἀγρίππας δίδωσιν τὴν ἀρχιερωσύνην Ἰσμαήλῳ: Φαβεῖ παῖς οὗτος ἦν. 180 ἐξάπτεται δὲ καὶ τοῖς ἀρχιερεῦσι στάσις πρὸς τοὺς ἱερεῖς καὶ τοὺς πρώτους τοῦ πλήθους τῶν Ἱεροσολυμιτῶν, ἕκαστός τε αὐτῶν στῖφος ἀνθρώπων τῶν θρασυτάτων καὶ νεωτεριστῶν ἑαυτῷ ποιήσας ἡγεμὼν ἦν, καὶ συρράσσοντες ἐκακολόγουν τε ἀλλήλους καὶ λίθοις ἔβαλλον. ὁ δ᾽ ἐπιπλήξων ἦν οὐδὲ εἷς, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἐν ἀπροστατήτῳ πόλει ταῦτ᾽ ἐπράσσετο μετ᾽ ἐξουσίας. 181 τοσαύτη δὲ τοὺς ἀρχιερεῖς κατέλαβεν ἀναίδεια καὶ τόλμα, ὥστε καὶ πέμπειν δούλους ἐτόλμων ἐπὶ τὰς ἅλωνας τοὺς ληψομένους τὰς τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν ὀφειλομένας δεκάτας, καὶ συνέβαινεν τοὺς ἀπορουμένους τῶν ἱερέων ὑπ᾽ ἐνδείας τελευτᾶν. οὕτως ἐκράτει τοῦ δικαίου παντὸς ἡ τῶν στασιαζόντων βία. / [Feldman:] 179 At this time King Agrippa conferred the high priesthood upon Ishmael, the son of Phabi. 180 There now was enkindled mutual enmity and class warfare between the high priests, on the one hand, and the priests and the leaders of the populace of Jerusalem, on the other. Each of the factions formed and collected for itself a band of the most reckless revolutionaries and acted as their leader. And when they clashed, they used abusive language and pelted each other with stones. And there was not even one person to rebuke them. No, it was as if there was no one in charge of the city, so that they acted as they did with full licence. 181 Such was the shamelessness and effrontery which possessed the high priests that they actually were so brazen as to send slaves to the threshing floors to receive the tithes that were due to the priests, with the result that the poorer priests starved to death. Thus did the violence of the contending factions suppress all justice.

Second, and more to the point, the word "former" with respect to Ananus is not represented in the Greek in the passage you have adduced; Whiston added it for the sake of clarity. I will use Feldman instead, and of course include the Greek itself:

Luke 3.1-2: 1 Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene, 2 in the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas [ἐπὶ ἀρχιερέως Ἄννα καὶ Καϊάφα], the word of God came to John, the son of Zacharias, in the wilderness.

Josephus, Antiquities 18.4.3 §95: 95 Οὐιτέλλιος δὲ ἐπὶ τῷ ἡμετέρῳ πατρίῳ ποιεῖται τὴν στολήν, ᾗ τε κείσοιτο μὴ πολυπραγμονεῖν ἐπισκήψας τῷ φρουράρχῳ καὶ ὁπότε δέοι χρῆσθαι. καὶ ταῦτα πράξας ἐπὶ εὐεργεσίᾳ τοῦ ἔθνους, καὶ τὸν ἀρχιερέα Ἰώσηπον τὸν Καϊάφαν ἐπικαλούμενον ἀπαλλάξας τῆς ἱερωσύνης Ἰωνάθην καθίστησιν Ἀνάνου τοῦ ἀρχιερέως υἱόν. ἐπ᾽ Ἀντιοχείας δ᾽ αὖθις ἐποιεῖτο τὴν ὁδόν. / [Feldman:] 95 Vitellius was guided by our law in dealing with the vestments, and instructed the warden not to meddle with the question where they were to be stored or when they should be used. After he had bestowed these benefits upon the nation, he removed from his sacred office the high priest Joseph surnamed Caïaphas, and appointed in his stead Jonathan, son of Ananus the high priest. Then he set out on the journey back to Antioch.

This passage has Jonathan, the son of the high priest Ananus, replacing Caiaphas the high priest, making it sound as if Ananus and Caiaphas were both high priests until this moment, and now Ananus and Jonathan are. Luke 3.1-2 would be, in this light, dating the ministry of John the Baptist to a period of time before Jonathan took over from Joseph Caiaphas.

ETA: Even in the other passage you adduce, Ananus is called high priest even after having just been removed from office:

Josephus, Antiquities 20.8.8 §33-34: 33 Διαδέχεται δὲ τῷ Καίσαρι τὴν ἡγεμονίαν Τιβέριος Νέρων γυναικὸς αὐτοῦ Ἰουλίας υἱὸς ὤν, τρίτος ἤδη οὗτος αὐτοκράτωρ, καὶ πεμπτὸς ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ παρῆν Ἰουδαίοις ἔπαρχος διάδοχος Ἀννίῳ Ῥούφῳ Οὐαλέριος Γρᾶτος· 34 ὃς παύσας ἱερᾶσθαι Ἄνανον Ἰσμάηλον ἀρχιερέα ἀποφαίνει τὸν τοῦ Φαβί, καὶ τοῦτον δὲ μετ᾽ οὐ πολὺ μεταστήσας Ἐλεάζαρον τὸν Ἀνάνου τοῦ ἀρχιερέως υἱὸν ἀποδείκνυσιν ἀρχιερέα. ἐνιαυτοῦ δὲ διαγενομένου καὶ τόνδε παύσας Σίμωνι τῷ Καμίθου τὴν ἀρχιερωσύνην παραδίδωσιν. / [Feldman:] 33 Caesar’s successor in authority was the third emperor, Tiberius Nero, the son of his wife Julia. He dispatched Valerius Gratus to succeed Annius Rufus as procurator over the Jews. 34 Gratus deposed Ananus from his sacred office, and proclaimed Ishmael, the son of Phabi, high priest. Not long afterwards he removed him also and appointed in his stead Eleazar, the son of the high priest Ananus. A year later he deposed him also and entrusted the office of high priest to Simon, the son of Camith.

That line you boldfaced, "who had been high priest before," is Whiston trying to clarify again, I suppose. The Greek is simply "the high priest."

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3724
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Minor agreements against gMark

Post by Bernard Muller » Thu Oct 22, 2020 1:48 pm

to Ben,
(bolding mine)
Ant., XVIII, IV, 3 "But Vitellius came into Judea, and went up to Jerusalem; it was at the time of that festival which is called the Passover ... Besides which, he [Vitellius] also deprived Joseph, who was also called Caiaphas, of the high priesthood, and appointed Jonathan the son of Ananus, the former high priest, to succeed him. After which, he took his journey back to Antioch."
In conclusion, no error could had been made if "Luke" had 'Antiquities': here one high priest (not two) is assigned!
To the contrary, you have pointed to exactly the passage in Antiquities which could perhaps most immediately have led Luke into the error.
This passage has Jonathan, the son of the high priest Ananus, replacing Caiaphas the high priest, making it sound as if Ananus and Caiaphas were both high priests until this moment, and now Ananus and Jonathan are. Luke 3.1-2 would be, in this light, dating the ministry of John the Baptist to a period of time before Jonathan took over from Joseph Caiaphas.
Even, with "former" removed, it is very clear in that passage that Jonathan did not succeed Ananus; instead he succeeded Caiaphas. And that's not even considering Ant., XVIII, II, 2 which lists a succession of four high priests between Ananus and Jonathan. And Ananus is said to be "who had been high priest before".
I don't buy "Luke" would have missed all that if she had Antiquities.
Josephus, Antiquities 20.1.1 §6: 6 Ὃς δὴ καὶ τότε μεταπεμψάμενος τοὺς ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ τοὺς πρώτους τῶν Ἱεροσολυμιτῶν παρῄνεσεν αὐτοῖς τὸν ποδήρη χιτῶνα καὶ τὴν ἱερὰν στολήν, ἣν φορεῖν μόνος ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς ἔθος ἔχει, εἰς τὴν Ἀντωνίαν, ἥπερ ἐστὶ φρούριον, καταθέσθαι κεισομένην ὑπὸ τῇ Ῥωμαίων ἐξουσίᾳ, καθὰ δὴ καὶ πρότερον ἦν. / [Feldman:] 6 He also at this time sent for the high priests and the principal citizens of Jerusalem, and this at the command of the emperor, and admonished them that they should lay up the long garment and the sacred vestment, which it is customary for nobody but the high priest to wear, in the tower of Antonia, that it might be under the power of the Romans, as it had been formerly.

Josephus, Antiquities 20.8.8 §179-181: 179 Κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν καιρὸν ὁ βασιλεὺς Ἀγρίππας δίδωσιν τὴν ἀρχιερωσύνην Ἰσμαήλῳ: Φαβεῖ παῖς οὗτος ἦν. 180 ἐξάπτεται δὲ καὶ τοῖς ἀρχιερεῦσι στάσις πρὸς τοὺς ἱερεῖς καὶ τοὺς πρώτους τοῦ πλήθους τῶν Ἱεροσολυμιτῶν, ἕκαστός τε αὐτῶν στῖφος ἀνθρώπων τῶν θρασυτάτων καὶ νεωτεριστῶν ἑαυτῷ ποιήσας ἡγεμὼν ἦν, καὶ συρράσσοντες ἐκακολόγουν τε ἀλλήλους καὶ λίθοις ἔβαλλον. ὁ δ᾽ ἐπιπλήξων ἦν οὐδὲ εἷς, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἐν ἀπροστατήτῳ πόλει ταῦτ᾽ ἐπράσσετο μετ᾽ ἐξουσίας. 181 τοσαύτη δὲ τοὺς ἀρχιερεῖς κατέλαβεν ἀναίδεια καὶ τόλμα, ὥστε καὶ πέμπειν δούλους ἐτόλμων ἐπὶ τὰς ἅλωνας τοὺς ληψομένους τὰς τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν ὀφειλομένας δεκάτας, καὶ συνέβαινεν τοὺς ἀπορουμένους τῶν ἱερέων ὑπ᾽ ἐνδείας τελευτᾶν. οὕτως ἐκράτει τοῦ δικαίου παντὸς ἡ τῶν στασιαζόντων βία. / [Feldman:] 179 At this time King Agrippa conferred the high priesthood upon Ishmael, the son of Phabi. 180 There now was enkindled mutual enmity and class warfare between the high priests, on the one hand, and the priests and the leaders of the populace of Jerusalem, on the other. Each of the factions formed and collected for itself a band of the most reckless revolutionaries and acted as their leader. And when they clashed, they used abusive language and pelted each other with stones. And there was not even one person to rebuke them. No, it was as if there was no one in charge of the city, so that they acted as they did with full licence. 181 Such was the shamelessness and effrontery which possessed the high priests that they actually were so brazen as to send slaves to the threshing floors to receive the tithes that were due to the priests, with the result that the poorer priests starved to death. Thus did the violence of the contending factions suppress all justice.

I agree that in Antiquities Josephus, at times, call the ex-high priests still alive and the current high priest: "high priests".
But "Luke" could not have missed that, in Antiquities, Josephus had the high priests succession one by one.

In your second quote, you did not include:
About this time king Agrippa gave the high priesthood to Ismael, who was the son of Fabi.
which precedes immediately:
And now arose a sedition between the high priests
"Luke" could not have missed that.

For your first quote, certainly "the high priest" suggests only one high priest in office at any time.

I think you are asking "Luke" to have tunnel vision on certain passages and total blindness for surrounding text, and even to imagine that "high priests" means several high priests being in office at the same time.
Just like Carrier and many others, pretending that "Luke" saw only "Theudas" and a few lines later "Judas of Galilee", but was blind on "the sons of Judas of Galilee" (Ant. XX, 5, 2).

Cordially, Bernard

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8615
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Minor agreements against gMark

Post by Ben C. Smith » Thu Oct 22, 2020 2:18 pm

Bernard Muller wrote:
Thu Oct 22, 2020 1:48 pm
to Ben,
(bolding mine)
Ant., XVIII, IV, 3 "But Vitellius came into Judea, and went up to Jerusalem; it was at the time of that festival which is called the Passover ... Besides which, he [Vitellius] also deprived Joseph, who was also called Caiaphas, of the high priesthood, and appointed Jonathan the son of Ananus, the former high priest, to succeed him. After which, he took his journey back to Antioch."
In conclusion, no error could had been made if "Luke" had 'Antiquities': here one high priest (not two) is assigned!
To the contrary, you have pointed to exactly the passage in Antiquities which could perhaps most immediately have led Luke into the error.
This passage has Jonathan, the son of the high priest Ananus, replacing Caiaphas the high priest, making it sound as if Ananus and Caiaphas were both high priests until this moment, and now Ananus and Jonathan are. Luke 3.1-2 would be, in this light, dating the ministry of John the Baptist to a period of time before Jonathan took over from Joseph Caiaphas.
Even, with "former" removed, it is very clear in that passage that Jonathan did not succeed Ananus; instead he succeeded Caiaphas.
Correct! That is the point:

Caiaphas & Ananus.png
Caiaphas & Ananus.png (33.4 KiB) Viewed 5378 times

Jonathan succeeded Caiaphas as High Priest; but he did not succeed Ananus, who is also called High Priest here; the simplest reading is that there are at least two high priests at the same time here. (That is, it can easily be read in the same basic manner of one US Senator succeeding another in office: there is a replacement, one for one, but there are still other Senators out there who did not get replaced. To make the analogy even more perfect, each US State seats exactly two Senators; it happens all the time that one of the two will be replaced while the other retains office.)
And that's not even considering Ant., XVIII, II, 2 which lists a succession of four high priests between Ananus and Jonathan. And Ananus is said to be "who had been high priest before".
Not true:

Josephus, Antiquities 20.8.8 §33-34: 33 Διαδέχεται δὲ τῷ Καίσαρι τὴν ἡγεμονίαν Τιβέριος Νέρων γυναικὸς αὐτοῦ Ἰουλίας υἱὸς ὤν, τρίτος ἤδη οὗτος αὐτοκράτωρ, καὶ πεμπτὸς ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ παρῆν Ἰουδαίοις ἔπαρχος διάδοχος Ἀννίῳ Ῥούφῳ Οὐαλέριος Γρᾶτος· 34 ὃς παύσας ἱερᾶσθαι Ἄνανον Ἰσμάηλον ἀρχιερέα ἀποφαίνει τὸν τοῦ Φαβί, καὶ τοῦτον δὲ μετ᾽ οὐ πολὺ μεταστήσας Ἐλεάζαρον τὸν Ἀνάνου τοῦ ἀρχιερέως υἱὸν ἀποδείκνυσιν ἀρχιερέα. ἐνιαυτοῦ δὲ διαγενομένου καὶ τόνδε παύσας Σίμωνι τῷ Καμίθου τὴν ἀρχιερωσύνην παραδίδωσιν. / [Feldman:] 33 Caesar’s successor in authority was the third emperor, Tiberius Nero, the son of his wife Julia. He dispatched Valerius Gratus to succeed Annius Rufus as procurator over the Jews. 34 Gratus deposed Ananus from his sacred office, and proclaimed Ishmael, the son of Phabi, high priest. Not long afterwards he removed him also and appointed in his stead Eleazar, the son of the high priest Ananus. A year later he deposed him also and entrusted the office of high priest to Simon, the son of Camith.

That line you boldfaced, "who had been high priest before," is Whiston trying to clarify again, I suppose. The Greek is simply "the high priest."
I don't buy "Luke" would have missed all that if she had Antiquities.
I am not asking you to buy it. I am asking you to notice that, once the Greek has been consulted, your passage, if anything, argues in the opposite direction of what you intended for it. Luke 3.2 names two high priests as if they served as such at the same time; Antiquities 18.4.3 §95 mentions two high priests as if they served as such at the same time. And they are the same two high priests.

You are jumping to the end of the process, thinking that, well, perhaps this particular point is compromised, but the argument overall remains intact. And you may be right. One of your other arguments from your page looks pretty good to me so far. But I am not jumping with you to the end. I am taking things one step at a time.
I agree that in Antiquities Josephus, at times, call the ex-high priests still alive and the current high priest: "high priests".
Then why can that not be exactly what Luke is doing? There is no word for "high priesthood" in Luke 3.2. The word is literally "high priest." A literalistic translation of ἐπὶ ἀρχιερέως Ἄννα καὶ Καϊάφα would be: "in the time of the high priest Annas and Caiaphas...." Why can this not mean that these events happened in the time of Annas and Caiaphas, and that both of these men were high priests (Annas by honor, Caiaphas by office), in the same basic way that Josephus classes former high priests with current ones?
In your second quote, you did not include:
About this time king Agrippa gave the high priesthood to Ismael, who was the son of Fabi.
which precedes immediately:
And now arose a sedition between the high priests
"Luke" could not have missed that.
How does that help your case? If Ismael is now a high priest, how does that prove that there are not other high priests, as well, which is exactly what the very next two sections suggest?
I think you are asking "Luke" to have tunnel vision on certain passages and total blindness for surrounding text....
No, what I am doing is identifying those spots at which the English translation has misled you. I do not have a very firm overall opinion of what is going on between Luke and Josephus. I think that Luke probably knew Josephus' works, but there may be a pattern to that knowledge which I have not picked up on yet. (You yourself argue for such a pattern: one of knowing the Wars but not the Antiquities.) You seem far more sure of your conclusions than I am of mine.

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3724
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Minor agreements against gMark

Post by Bernard Muller » Thu Oct 22, 2020 3:15 pm

to Ben,
Jonathan succeeded Caiaphas as High Priest; but he did not succeed Ananus, who is also called High Priest here; the simplest reading is that there are at least two high priests at the same time here. (That is, it can easily be read in the same basic manner of one US Senator succeeding another in office: there is a replacement, one for one, but there are still other Senators out there who did not get replaced. To make the analogy even more perfect, each US State seats exactly two Senators; it happens all the time that one of the two will be replaced while the other retains office.)
But Ant., XVIII, II, 2 "This man [Gratus the prefect] deprived Ananus of the high priesthood
How could Ananus be a high priest with Caiaphas at the same time. And that would be missed by "Luke".
Antiquities 18.4.3 §95 mentions two high priests as if they served as such at the same time. And they are the same two high priests.
I did not see anything here about that? Where are these two high priests?
Annas by honor
Josephus never wrote that, just that the elder Ananus had sons who became high priests (one at the time).
How does that help your case? If Ismael is now a high priest, how does that prove that there are not other high priests, as well, which is exactly what the very next two sections suggest?
As I wrote before "I agree that in Antiquities Josephus, at times, call the ex-high priests still alive and the current high priest: "high priests".

Cordially, Bernard

Post Reply