Josephus and Dating Pilate

[The Crow]

This maybe a stupid question but how do we know that parts of Josephus have not been redacted?

[Blood]

You have to accept Josephus at face value- he is our only source on most things.

If you challenge Josephus, you have to be on VERY solid ground.

I'm not sure why being our only source on events privileges a certain historian. It's apparently based on the assumption that ancient historians thought and wrote like modern historians, and wouldn't simply invent things, repeat rumors as if fact, model a real event on mythical literature (and vice versa), etc. Josephus is our only source for the woman cooking and eating her baby in JW. Do I really need some "solid" counter evidence to dismiss that story as an invention of the author? I do not.

[steve43]

Josephus in his writings comments on his view of history and how he views his role as a historian. It was very much like the attitude of modern historians.

Certainly the cannibalism that he noted in wars can be question, but I doubt that any among us have undergone an ordeal such as the Jews did who were under seige.

I still think that Josephus mixing up the 10 year tenures of Gratus and Pilate, when he was born the very year that Pilate was removed from office, is a preposterous assumption.

[MrMacSon]

You have to accept Josephus at face value - he is our only source on most things.

If you challenge Josephus, you have to be on VERY solid ground.

Sure; but his writings ought to be taken in context;

• of other writings of the times;
• his role initially as an interpreter for Vespasian;
• his role as advisor and friend of Vespasian's son Titus; and
• that Antiquities of the Jews recounts the history for an ostensibly Roman audience.

[MrMacSon]

An ineresting point of note is Josephus's claim of having had a divine revelation at Yodfat (Jotapata; where he was the sole survivor of collective suicide before surrendering to Vespasian), that later led to him giving a speech predicting Vespasian would become emperor. After the prediction came true, he was released by Vespasian, who considered his gift of prophecy to be divine. Josephus wrote that his revelation had taught him three things: that God, the creator of the Jewish people, had decided to "punish" them; that "fortune" had been given to the Romans; and, that God had chosen him "to announce the things that are to come".

Rebecca Gray, Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine: The Evidence from Josephus, pp 35–38 (Oxford University Press, 1993).

• ISBN 0-19-507615-X

David Edward Aune, Prophecy In Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World, p. 140 (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1991;

• first published 1983). ISBN 0-8028-0635-X

Robert Karl Gnuse, Dreams & Dream Reports in the Writings of Josephus: A Traditio-Historical Analysis, pp 136-142 (E. J. Brill, 1996).

• ISBN 90-04-10616-2

[neilgodfrey]

We need to be able to justify any reading of a source document. If we choose to accept something at face value we need a justification for that as much as we do for being critical of the document.

And just because a particular source is all we have for a particular period it does not follow (validly) that we must accept it. If rejection means we have no sources at all and we have a valid justification for that rejection then so be it.

I don't know of any scholarship that makes "illogical and critically specious assumptions to downplay the importance" of Josephus's writings. But I do know of logical and critically valid justifications for not taking everything he or any other ancient historian says at face value.

Josephus had his own ideological interests that shaped and filtered what he wrote; he was as capable as Thucydides of manufacturing historical scenes for their ideological and entertainment value; he could blend myth and history into a single narrative as skilfully as any of his contemporaries.

It is easy to read his declarations of his admirable intentions and methods as a historian at face value and fail to notice what he does not say and how his ideals compare with the evidence of his practice.

[maryhelena]

An ineresting point of note is Josephus's claim of having had a divine revelation at Yodfat (Jotapata; where he was the sole survivor of collective suicide before surrendering to Vespasian), that later led to him giving a speech predicting Vespasian would become emperor. After the prediction came true, he was released by Vespasian, who considered his gift of prophecy to be divine. Josephus wrote that his revelation had taught him three things: that God, the creator of the Jewish people, had decided to "punish" them; that "fortune" had been given to the Romans; and, that God had chosen him "to announce the things that are to come".

Rebecca Gray, Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine: The Evidence from Josephus, pp 35–38 (Oxford University Press, 1993).

• ISBN 0-19-507615-X

David Edward Aune, Prophecy In Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World, p. 140 (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1991;

• first published 1983). ISBN 0-8028-0635-X

Robert Karl Gnuse, Dreams & Dream Reports in the Writings of Josephus: A Traditio-Historical Analysis, pp 136-142 (E. J. Brill, 1996).

• ISBN 90-04-10616-2

Thanks for the reference to the David Edward Aune book. I'll have a look on google books for it.....

Here is part of the conclusion from Robert Kark Gnuse' book. Unfortunately, google books view runs out too soon....

Page 269

Conclusion

In the writings of Flavius Josephus there are more than fifty texts which merit consideration as dream reports or dream references. Our investigation of these texts hopefully has unveiled some significant and interesting insights for understanding the thought, writing style, and intellectual background of Josephus.

Perhaps, the most important observations are those which connect Josephus’ own ability to receive and interpret dreams with some form of prophetic identity. Josephus views a true prophet in the full sense as one who receives revelation from God, predicts the future on the basis of this experience of inspiration, and writes a “history” which interprets the events of human experience. The biblical prophets would meet these criteria for him most effectively.........But his definition of the prophet as an inspired speaker/predictor and a historian who creates a literary testimony generates an image of the prophet to which he can aspire. Obviously Josephus creates literature, and in particular, a history quite reminiscent of the Deuteronomistic History. It becomes necessary for him to convince his audience that he was inspired by God also and could predict the future. This is exactly what he tells the audience throughout his writings indirectly, and his dream experiences are the most important motif in this regard. For his dreams are portrayed as revelations, and they predict the future, once they are correctly interpreted by him (as in War 3.351-354). The circle is complete. Josephus is inspired, he predicts, and he writes an interpretive history. He is a prophet.

Josephus writes "an interpretive history". History plus interpretation of that history. History plus pseudo-history. Myth and reality.

Page 23/24

Robert Hall observes that in Ap 1.37-42 Josephus seems to distinguish between two types of prophetic history. There are ‘inspired prophetic histories,” accounts of the distant past in which the memory of earlier events and interpretation must come to prophets by divine inspiration or revelation. This describes biblical literature. There are also “interpretive prophetic ‘histories,” which relate events experiences by the historian but which he interprets by the aid of divine inspiration. Josephus writes this form of historiography. For Josephus both types are authentic prophetic histories, but the best historians were the prophets who interpreted events under divine inspiration, and only the Jews could claim such historians. Greek historians, by way of contrast, wrote their personal opinions according to their own free will. The broken succession of the prophets does not imply that inspired histories could no longer be written; Jewish historians still could generate such literature. The Jewish War fulfils the mandate of Josephus’ prophetic calling at Jotapata. Hence, the canonical prophets were inspired to write literature which was itself revelation; Josephus was inspired to write literature which was not revelation, but rather the product of a revelatory experience. Josephus had inspired insight into the past enabling him to write an “interpretative history.” Jewish War was prophetic because it was based on the experience of inspiration, but it was not revelation in itself. Thus, inspiration for Josephus has not ceased, but inspired canonical literature is no longer produced, and that is why the succession of the prophets has been broke.

Regardless of how various scholars understand Josephus’ referenced to the broken prophetic succession, they all agree that Josephus attributes prophetic skill to himself and contemporaries.

<snip>

In conclusion, the self-attribution of inspiration, scripture learning, and dream interpretation all imply that Josephus views himself as a prophet.

A Jewish prophet writing within the same time frame as the gospel writers.....A Jewish prophet writing an "interpretative history". And there is no connection between these writers???

[maryhelena]

A quick look at google books view.

Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World

By David E. Aune

Page 139

Josephus, the Jewish historian upon whom we have been so dependent for our knowledge of prophetic phenomena during the late Second Temple period, apparently regarded himself as a prophet (though he never uses the term prophetes as a self-designation) and saw a close correlation between his prophetic gifts and his priestly status.

<snip>

Josephus regards himself as an inspired interpreter of dreams and an inspired interpreter of biblical prophecies.

<snip>

Page 143

Although Josephus nowhere claims to be a “prophet,” he does claim to have the divine inspiration requisite for interpreting dreams and for understanding the true meaning and time of fulfilment of various OT prophecies, particularly those which concern the sovereignty of Vespasian and Titus and the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. Josephus consciously identified his role with that of Daniel, Jeremiah, and possible Ezekiel.

[neilgodfrey]

A Jewish prophet writing within the same time frame as the gospel writers.....A Jewish prophet writing an "interpretative history". And there is no connection between these writers???

There is no comparison between Josephus and the Gospels at all. Josephus would have hated the gospels had he known of them: What Josephus Might Have Said About the Gospels.

The Gospels draw upon Old Testament and other literature to creatively manufacture narratives about Jesus; they are writing to inculcate faith; they are anonymous and write unlike any historian with respect to boasting of their sources.

[maryhelena]

A Jewish prophet writing within the same time frame as the gospel writers.....A Jewish prophet writing an "interpretative history". And there is no connection between these writers???

There is no comparison between Josephus and the Gospels at all. Josephus would have hated the gospels had he known of them: What Josephus Might Have Said About the Gospels.

The Gospels draw upon Old Testament and other literature to creatively manufacture narratives about Jesus; they are writing to inculcate faith; they are anonymous and write unlike any historian with respect to boasting of their sources.

Now now, Neil...mind reading Josephus here...

As to Josephus drawing upon the OT for stories for his "interpretative history":

Page 34

Moreover, there are several reminiscences which make it certain that VAgr was written mimetically, with Joseph in mind:

1. When Agrippa was in prison, a German fellow-prisoner is said to have seen a bird over his head and explained that it was an omen of Agrippa’s coming release. The German asked Agrippa to remember him upon his release and to try to arrange for his own liberation as well. (Ant.18.195-202). All this, of course, is a reflection of Joseph’s exchange with Pharaoh’s butler. (Genesis 40:12-15) and the bird over the baker’s head (ibid.vv 17-19)

2. According to Ant. 18.237, when Gaius released Agrippa from prison he sent for Agrippa to come to his house, and he attended to cutting his hair and changing his clothes” (trans. Feldman). The only reason these pretty details are mentioned, seems obvious, is that Genesis 41:14 reports exactly the same regarding Pharaoh’s liberation of Josephus.

3. After Agrippa became angry with Silas, his commander-in-chief, and had him imprisoned, he relented and ordered him returned to the royal table. This royal pardon came on the king’s birthday (Ant.19.321) – just as the butler’s pardon in the Joseph story (Genesis 40:20)

4. According to VAgr, Agrippa’s prison conditions were quite mild, and he got along wonderfully with the prison’s director (Ant. 18.203-204). This flatly contradicts Antip (BJ2.180) and might be considered somewhat unlikely on general principles as well. However, it does conform to what we read of Joseph’s imprisonment (Genesis 39:21-23; Ant. 2.61)

Daniel Schwartz: Agrippa I. The Last King of Judea.

‘VAgr’ is the Josephan source for Agrippa I re Schwartz