And I said, "Sure, it does." Ananus (during Felix' tenure), then Jonathan (also during Felix' tenure), then Ismael (during and after Felix' tenure). What is the issue?
Antiquities does not have Ananus being a high priest during Felix' tenure. Jonathan had replaced Ananus as the high priest prior to Felix' tenure.
That is not the issue. You are the one who argued that Luke would assume that, because Jonathan came back as high priest, so did Ananus under Felix. That is not my argument; that is yours. The only question, on the merits of your own argument, is when Luke might have thought Ananus became high priest again under Felix. You seem to be assuming that Luke would think it was after Jonathan, but you have not given any arguments to back up that assumption.
You gave me a piece of the purest speculation:
Gospel authors were not in a vacuum. Some in "Luke" community found that having two high priests at the same time was rather odd (GMark has only one (unnamed) high priest: 14:47,53,54,60,61,63,66), and looked for information, and got confirmation there were only one high priest at any time (before 70 CE).
None of this amounts to an argument, much less the same argument you started with.
"... when Luke might have thought Ananus became high priest again under Felix. ..."
Yes "Luke" might have thought that when looking at Wars, but could not think that if she had Antiquities.
Why, if Luke had both Wars and Antiquities, could Luke not think that? Be specific. What in Antiquities prevents it?
It seems like you are deciding between only two options: (A) Luke knew the Wars and (B) Luke knew the Antiquities. But neither of those is the option I have presented in response: (C) Luke knew both the Wars and the Antiquities.
Why, if Luke had both Wars and Antiquities, could Luke not think that? Be specific. What in Antiquities prevents it?
I already answered that:
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.
In Ant. XX, VIII, 5 "Felix also bore an ill-will to Jonathan, the high priest"
Only one high priest here, Jonathan.
Why, if Luke had both Wars and Antiquities, could Luke not think that? Be specific. What in Antiquities prevents it?
I already answered that:
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.
In Ant. XX, VIII, 5 "Felix also bore an ill-will to Jonathan, the high priest"
Only one high priest here, Jonathan.
Oh, my goodness, Bernard. Focus!
Let us assume that Jonathan, because of the direct article "the" for some reason, is the only high priest here. Fine. Let that be established for the sake of argument.
Now, why can Luke not have thought that Ananus/Ananias had come back from Rome and served as (the only) high priest before Jonathan took over the office?
I wrote...:
Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 10:19 amYou are the one who argued that Luke would assume that, because Jonathan came back as high priest, so did Ananus under Felix. That is not my argument; that is yours. The only question, on the merits of your own argument, is when Luke might have thought Ananus became high priest again under Felix. You seem to be assuming that Luke would think it was after Jonathan, but you have not given any arguments to back up that assumption.
In other words:
Cumanus sends Jonathan and Ananus off to Rome (Wars 2.12.6 §243).
Felix replaces Ananus (Wars 2.12.8 §247; Antiquities 20.7.1 §137).
Somebody else becomes high priest (not narrated by Josephus, but necessary unless there was a gap without any high priest at all).
Ananus becomes high priest (not narrated by Josephus, but assumed by Luke according to your argument).
Jonathan becomes high priest (not narrated by Josephus).
Jonathan is slain (Wars 2.13.3 §256; Antiquities 20.8.5 §164).
Ismael becomes high priest (Antiquities 20.8.8 §179).
What prevents Luke from having thought this?
Here was your argument about Luke assuming that Ananus would be priest again under Felix:
Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 11:46 amJonathan did come back because he was murdered in Judea. If Jonathan is implied to have come back from Rome, "Luke" would have thought the same for Ananus.
Cumanus sends Jonathan and Ananus off to Rome (Wars 2.12.6 §243).
Felix replaces Ananus (Wars 2.12.8 §247; Antiquities 20.7.1 §137).
There is nothing relevant in Ant.20.7.1. Jonathan is already a high priest under Cumanus in Wars.2.12.6. Ananus is also considered a high priest, but likely as the former high priest. Ant. does not say when Jonathan became the high priest.
Jonathan becomes high priest (not narrated by Josephus).
Jonathan becomes high priest under Cumanus (Wars.2.12.6).
If Luke knew Antiquities she would have put Jonathan or Ismael as the high priest 2 years before the end of Felix's tenure.
Cumanus sends Jonathan and Ananus off to Rome (Wars 2.12.6 §243).
Felix replaces Ananus (Wars 2.12.8 §247; Antiquities 20.7.1 §137).
There is nothing relevant in Ant.20.7.1.
Yes, but the supposition under consideration is that Luke knew both the Warsand the Antiquities. How are you not understanding this? It is so clear. It is so easy.
Ant. does not say when Jonathan became the high priest.
Nor the Wars.
Jonathan becomes high priest (not narrated by Josephus).
Jonathan becomes high priest under Cumanus (Wars.2.12.6).
Quote the text. Show me. That section says that Jonathan is sent to Rome; it does not say that anybody makes him a high priest under Cumanus.
If I say, "Explain to me how someone who knows both the Wars and the Antiquities would treat such and such a topic," the following is not an apt response:
Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 5:05 pmThere is nothing relevant in Ant.20.7.1.
The question is whether there is something relevant either in Warsor in Antiquities (or in both).
Your response is like suggesting that a person who knows the gospels both of Matthew and of Luke cannot know about the shepherds visiting the baby Jesus in Luke because Matthew says nothing about shepherds. Well, duh. But the premise was that the person knows Luke, too.
But Quadratus put both parties off for that time, and told them, that when he should come to those places, he would make a diligent inquiry after every circumstance. After which he went to Cesarea, and crucified all those whom Cumanus had taken alive; and when from thence he was come to the city Lydda, he heard the affair of the Samaritans, and sent for eighteen of the Jews, whom he had learned to have been concerned in that fight, and beheaded them; but he sent two others of those that were of the greatest power among them, and both Jonathan and Ananias, the high priests, ...
But Quadratus put both parties off for that time, and told them, that when he should come to those places, he would make a diligent inquiry after every circumstance. After which he went to Cesarea, and crucified all those whom Cumanus had taken alive; and when from thence he was come to the city Lydda, he heard the affair of the Samaritans, and sent for eighteen of the Jews, whom he had learned to have been concerned in that fight, and beheaded them; but he sent two others of those that were of the greatest power among them, and both Jonathan and Ananias, the high priests, [Ben: adding the rest:] as also Artanus the son of this Ananias, and certain others that were eminent among the Jews, to Caesar....
Cordially, Bernard
I repeat: that section says that Cumanus sends Jonathan to Rome; it does not say that Cumanus or anybody else makes him a high priest. Jonathan's appointment to the high priesthood for this tenure is not related.
I do not know what kind of game you are playing here, openly quoting a passage that you know does not show what you are claiming it shows (and omitting the "to Caesar" part, to boot), but I am done playing it with you.
