To sum up so far:
Bernard Muller wrote: ↑
Thu Oct 22, 2020 9:24 amDid "Luke" know about Josephus' Antiquities
Likely NOT: if "Luke" had 'Antiquities' when writing the gospel, most of the historical mistakes (and different spellings) would have been avoided, including:
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!
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.
On the one hand, I have demonstrated that Josephus is not
meticulous in the Antiquities
about recording the succession in a way that rules out multiple high priests. On more than one occasion in the Antiquities
he refers to "the high priests" (plural) as a group; indeed, with respect specifically to Caiaphas and Ananus, he writes of the lapse of tenure of the former in a way which still labels the latter as a high priest, which could easily be read on its own as implying that the two were high priests at the same time. This is a consequence of Josephus using the term "high priest" to mean either the current
high priest or any former
high priest. Several of the instances in Whiston's translation which actually specify that the high priest in question is a former
high priest are actually instances of Whiston clarifying matters; the Greek is ambiguous.
On the other hand, there are spots in the Wars
which give the clue that there was only one high priest at a time. For example, in 0.[1.]10 §26 he writes of "the garments of the priests and of the high priest" (τὰς ἐσθῆτας τῶν ἱερέων καὶ τοῦ ἀρχιερέως, singular), implying a multiplicity of the former and a singularity of the latter. In 1.7.6 §152 he writes about the sanctuary that "it was allowed for the high priest alone to enter" (μόνῳ θεμιτὸν ἦν παριέναι τῷ ἀρχιερεῖ, singular), implying that there is only one, and he must be alone in the sanctuary.
Therefore, it is simply not the case that the Wars
would give the clean impression of there being a multiplicity of high priests at once but the Antiquities
would give the clean impression of there being a singularity. If Luke interpreted either or both of these works as saying one or the other, then he was ignoring other evidence from the same work.
Furthermore, the hypothesis to beat is that Luke 3.2 is simply calling Annas a high priest in the same way that Josephus sometimes/often uses the term, as meaning a former
high priest. I am not saying that this is necessarily the correct interpretation of Luke 3.2, but it is one that an opposing argument would have to exceed in quality, and there is no way that Bernard's current argument is there yet.
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'.
For this example, Bernard keeps coming back to a reliance on his notion that the Wars
might imply a plurality of high priests while the Antiquities
might imply a singularity. If, as I have demonstrated, that notion is not as clean as Bernard originally represented it to be (see above, argument A), then this argument at hand fails.
The truth is that Josephus does not tell us when or how Jonathan became high priest (again?) under Felix. Nor is he clear that it is even the same Jonathan as the one whom Cumanus had sent to Rome. Nor is he clear that Jonathan was even the current
high priest when he went to Rome. (In at least some of the standard reconstructions of the priestly succession, in fact, Jonathan is a former
high priest when he is sent to Rome, the current
high priest being Ananias son of Nebedeu, Antiquities
20.5.2 §103, who held the post from the end of Fadus' tenure to toward the end of Felix' tenure, thus making the Ananias of Acts 23.5; 24.1 this Ananias of Nebedeu, not the same man as the Annas in Luke 3.2. I mean, the two names are not even spelled the same, though spelling is not always to be relied upon in antiquity: it is Ἄννας in Luke and Ἄνανίας in Acts.)
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.)).
This one is a valid point. I am not saying it is necessarily correct, but it is an argument which even Steve Mason feels the force of:
Steve Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, page 277: 277 If Luke knew Josephus’s accounts, admittedly, it is difficult to see how he could have imagined a worldwide census requiring the return to one’s ancestral home, or why he would date the census under Quirinius also to the time before Herod’s death in 4 B.C.E. Given what we have just said, however, these changes might best be explained if Luke knew some highlights of Josephus’s narrative but did not recall, or was not concerned with, the details.
Any hypothesis that Luke knew the Antiquities
has to contend with this issue.
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!
I do not know what this argument is trying to say.
Argument E, about Theudas and Judas the Galilean, I will skip for now. It is a complicated issue, and one that has been examined before both on this forum and on the IIDB/FRDB.