Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Posted: **Mon Jul 08, 2024 5:38 am**

AdamKvanta wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2024 4:11 am
maryhelena wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2024 1:07 am ''Old Russian scribe' as the author of Philip's dream? Methinks someone living under Roman domination would have a far greater interest in Roman actions than a Russian scribe living hundreds of years later.
I think the Old Russian scribe had some motivation to talk about Roman actions:
8. Further on, at the beginning of chp. XXXI of Book I, there is an insertion about the Latins. In the Greek text, there is mention only of the fact that Antipater, while living in Rome, forged letters against his brothers and induced his friends to do the same, spending large sums of money to bribe informers. In the Old Russian translation, the people whom Antipater bribes, are referred to as "Italians, called Latins," and there then follows a negative description of the Latins who "rush to take their reward and transgress their oaths for the sake of gifts; in slander they see no sin." In the next part of the chapter, the insertion continues with the revelation that Antipater's unveiling companions (on his return to his homeland) and the Romans "with flattery" took from him 300 talents; after which there is an angry description of the greed of the Romans, who are compared to Solomon's leeches. It concludes with the words: "but we shall describe their activities later and now we shall tell of the present [theme]". The last words clearly indicate that the insertion came from the translator himself. Josephus Flavius, of course, could not describe the Romans in such negative terms. We are well acquainted with his servile attitude towards them. In the mouth of the translator, a Russian from the 11-12th centuries, i.e. at the time when the Western Church had made a decisive break with the Eastern Church and the polemic against the Latins was on everyone's lips, such a negative description is quite explainable.

Note that the Romans are called Latins: Josephus never uses that name. It could only have appeared as a designation of the Western Romans in the Byzantine period, when representatives of the Eastern Roman empire began to call themselves "Romaioi."

Untypical of Josephus is his direct reference to the Bible: "they are Solomon's leeches" (Proverbs, 30,15-16). But for the Old Russian author it is quite natural, all the more so, because, apart from the immediate biblical source, there were also numerous commentaries on this passage from the Bible at his disposal. Thus in the Izbornik Svjatoslava of 1073 we read of "the leeches, the three daughters" (folio 156). In the translation of one of the homilies of Methodius Patarskij, which dates back to the 11th century but does not survive in the original Greek, we read of the "leeches of the Proverbs."

Berendts and Eisler believed that this insertion was Josephus' own work and one of the pieces of evidence that the Old Russian translation derived from the original 'Aramaic' version of the Jewish War, which was not written for the Romans. However, as has already been noted, the description of the Latins in this insertion has exceedingly close parallels in the works of Byzantine writers of the 11-12th centuries, first and foremost in the chronicle of Anna Comnena.

It is curious to note that in the abundant polemical literature against the Latins, which was very widespread in ancient Russia, what is usually described is their corruption of Church ritual and their various unnatural practices, but no mention is made of their cupidity or greed.
Josephus' Jewish War and its Slavonic Version, p. 32

Josephus was a fighter, General of the Jewish forces in Galilee, against Rome prior to his capture and defection, surrender, at Jotapata. To claim that he would not speak of the Romans in negative terms - prior to his capture and surrender, hardly deserves a response.

That the Russian translator made word changes to whatever text/source he had before him, is of course possible. But to misrepresent Josephus as Roman friendly prior to his capture and surrender, must surely list as incongruent.

Posted: **Mon Jul 08, 2024 5:41 am**

But Josephus wrote afterwards.

Posted: **Mon Jul 08, 2024 8:28 am**

I am pretty sure that this was the premise of my only published book. I have amnesia when it comes to remembering things I've done that embarrass myself so I am not sure. Or maybe it was 37 CE. One of the arguments I think I developed was regarding the dating of Samaritan sabbatical years and Jubilees. In hindsight, I thought to myself "why was it so important to prove this?" To be honest I have no clue. But there it was. I think I referenced Kokkinos. Looking at it now, the Acts of Pilate need Pilate to be brought to Rome and tried for killing Jesus. This could only have happened at the latest possible date for his rule over the region.

Posted: **Thu Jul 11, 2024 3:05 am**

I enjoyed the Kokkinos article, but I don't think that Antiquities supports dating John the Baptist's death in 35.

Herodias was married to Herod “Philip” (not Philip the Tetrarch) – both were brothers or half-brothers of Herod Antipas and all were sons of Herod the Great. Herodias was married to “Herod Philip” at the direction of Herod the Great, so that would be before the year -4 or so. (Wars 1.28). Josephus has Herodias divorcing Herod Philip while he was still alive. (Antiquities 18.5.4). Josephus has Herod Agrippa with Flaccus, governor of Syria, while Herodias was already married to Herod Antipas. (Antiquities 18.6.2) From Tacitus, Flaccus appears to have died in the year 33. (Tacitus 6.27).

So, the marriage likely happened before the year 33. If the marriage was related to the execution of John the Baptist, John could have been angry with Herod Antipas sometime before the year 33 and been executed before then. I don't think it is possible to date Herodias' marriage to Herod Antipas with any great accuracy from Josephus.

Also, Josephus notes that Aretas' daughter asked Herod Antipas to send her to the fortress of Macherus, which was “subject to her father.” (Antiquities 18.5.1). However, Macherus seems to be firmly under the control of Herod Antipas when he imprisons John there. I suppose this could go either way, but if the border changed, it was likely after Aretas started the war, so the imprisonment of John probably was sometime before Aretas' daughter made her move to Macherus. Josephus does not connect the imprisonment or execution of John to the marriage at all.

The Roman expedition against Aretas would have been very close to the end of the reign of Tiberius, since Tiberius died before its conclusion. The war of Aretas against Herod Antipas, though, could have been a few years earlier. It's not entirely clear, but Josephus appears to place the invasion of Aretas after the death of Philip the Tetrarch (33-34), but how far after is not certain. Also, while Josephus tells the story of Herodias and Antipas after the death of Philip the Tetrach, it seems to me that this story is told as background leading up to the conflict between Antipas and Aretas, rather than the divorce\marriage happening after the death of Philip the Tetrach. Also, Salome, daughter of Herodias, was married to Philip the Tetrarch, so would she have been dancing for Antipas after being married to Antipas' brother and already a royal wife? That does not seem likely, so that would place the infamous dance (if it happened) prior to the death of Philip the Tetrarch in 33 or 34.

Posted: **Thu Jul 11, 2024 10:47 am**

Mrvegas wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 3:05 amFrom Tacitus, Flaccus appears to have died in the year 33. (Tacitus 6.27).

Yes, it prima facie appears that Flaccus died in the year 33 according to Tacitus but I think, on closer inspection, it's more probable that Flaccus died in 35 CE. I agree with Schürer that "Tacitus associated the report concerning Lamia with that of Flaccus on practical grounds, and that the death of Flaccus did not take place until later, perhaps in A.D. 35".

Here is the text of Tacitus 6.27:

At the close of the year, the death of Aelius Lamia was marked by a censorian funeral. His release, belatedly, from a token governorship of Syria, had been followed by his appointment as Urban Prefect [AD32]. He was of noble birth, and vigorous in old age; and had gained an added dignity from the withholding of his provincial role. Yet, on the death of Pomponius Flaccus, the next governor of Syria, a letter from Tiberius was read, complaining that every illustrious individual fit to command an army refused to undertake his proper duty, and such was his need he was reduced to entreaty, in the hope that some ex-consul or other might be driven to accept the province, forgetting Arruntius, who was now detained in Rome for a further year, to avoid him taking up his post in Spain.

In this same year, Manius Lepidus died, of whose temperance and wisdom I have spoken enough in the previous books. Nor does his nobility require much proof: indeed, the Aemilian House has been prolific of men of civic virtue, and even those of the family of wayward character acted their part with brilliance.

During the consulate of Paulus Fabius and Lucius Vitellius [AD34] ...
https://topostext.org/work/200#urn:cts: ... hi005:6.27

Here are the Schürer's arguments for AD 35:

In favour of this is (1) the observation by Tacitus that at the time of the death of Flaccus, Arruntius had already been prevented for ten years from setting out for Spain, his province, i.e. Tarraconensis, governed by a consular legate. An earlier governor of this province appears to be mentioned in A.D. 25 (Tac. Ann. iv 45. But Syme, JRS 56 (1956), pp. 20-1, has shown that this should refer to a praetorian legate serving there). (2) Agrippa I arrived in Rome in the spring of A.D. 36, [...] Jos. Ant. xviii 5, 3 (126), having visited Flaccus in Syria not long before Jos. Ant. xviii 6, 2-3 (147-60). If a whole year is allowed for Agrippa's journey — which was certainly attended by difficulties — from the time of his visit to Flaccus to that of his arrival in Rome, then Flaccus must still have been in Syria in A.D. 35. Finally, in favour of 35 as the year of the death of Flaccus is the fact that his successor Vitellius, who arrived in Syria in A.D. 35, followed him immediately, whereas otherwise there would be an interval.

There are coins of Flaccus of the year 82 of the Caesarian era11 = A.D. 33-4; see Mionnet V, p. 167; BMC Syria, p. 170, no. 161; Dieudonné, RN, Ser. 4, 30 (1927), p. 36, no. 4. See PIR1 P 538
Schürer, The history of the Jewish People, Vol I., 1973, p. 262

Mrvegas wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 3:05 am Also, Josephus notes that Aretas' daughter asked Herod Antipas to send her to the fortress of Macherus, which was “subject to her father.”

There is a manuscript reading "and to him who was subject to her father." Josephus probably meant that Aretas' daughter sent messengers to Macherus and specifically to one governor (residing there) who was the subject of Aretas. This governor is actually mentioned at the end of the sentence. So I think, Macherus was still under the control of Herod Antipas when Aretas' daughter came there. Source: https://archive.org/details/Jewish-Anti ... 8/mode/2up

Mrvegas wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 3:05 amAlso, Salome, daughter of Herodias, was married to Philip the Tetrarch, so would she have been dancing for Antipas after being married to Antipas' brother and already a royal wife?

I think it wasn't Salome but another daughter of Herodias, having the same name as her, Herodias. This is supported by some manuscripts. Check this article for more information about this: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27638363?seq=12 (p. 332)

Posted: **Thu Jul 11, 2024 2:50 pm**

AdamKvanta wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 10:47 am
Mrvegas wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 3:05 amFrom Tacitus, Flaccus appears to have died in the year 33. (Tacitus 6.27).
Yes, it prima facie appears that Flaccus died in the year 33 according to Tacitus but I think, on closer inspection, it's more probable that Flaccus died in 35 CE. I agree with Schürer that "Tacitus associated the report concerning Lamia with that of Flaccus on practical grounds, and that the death of Flaccus did not take place until later, perhaps in A.D. 35".

Here is the text of Tacitus 6.27:
At the close of the year, the death of Aelius Lamia was marked by a censorian funeral. His release, belatedly, from a token governorship of Syria, had been followed by his appointment as Urban Prefect [AD32]. He was of noble birth, and vigorous in old age; and had gained an added dignity from the withholding of his provincial role. Yet, on the death of Pomponius Flaccus, the next governor of Syria, a letter from Tiberius was read, complaining that every illustrious individual fit to command an army refused to undertake his proper duty, and such was his need he was reduced to entreaty, in the hope that some ex-consul or other might be driven to accept the province, forgetting Arruntius, who was now detained in Rome for a further year, to avoid him taking up his post in Spain.

In this same year, Manius Lepidus died, of whose temperance and wisdom I have spoken enough in the previous books. Nor does his nobility require much proof: indeed, the Aemilian House has been prolific of men of civic virtue, and even those of the family of wayward character acted their part with brilliance.

During the consulate of Paulus Fabius and Lucius Vitellius [AD34] ...
https://topostext.org/work/200#urn:cts: ... hi005:6.27

Here are the Schürer's arguments for AD 35:
In favour of this is (1) the observation by Tacitus that at the time of the death of Flaccus, Arruntius had already been prevented for ten years from setting out for Spain, his province, i.e. Tarraconensis, governed by a consular legate. An earlier governor of this province appears to be mentioned in A.D. 25 (Tac. Ann. iv 45. But Syme, JRS 56 (1956), pp. 20-1, has shown that this should refer to a praetorian legate serving there). (2) Agrippa I arrived in Rome in the spring of A.D. 36, [...] Jos. Ant. xviii 5, 3 (126), having visited Flaccus in Syria not long before Jos. Ant. xviii 6, 2-3 (147-60). If a whole year is allowed for Agrippa's journey — which was certainly attended by difficulties — from the time of his visit to Flaccus to that of his arrival in Rome, then Flaccus must still have been in Syria in A.D. 35. Finally, in favour of 35 as the year of the death of Flaccus is the fact that his successor Vitellius, who arrived in Syria in A.D. 35, followed him immediately, whereas otherwise there would be an interval.

There are coins of Flaccus of the year 82 of the Caesarian era11 = A.D. 33-4; see Mionnet V, p. 167; BMC Syria, p. 170, no. 161; Dieudonné, RN, Ser. 4, 30 (1927), p. 36, no. 4. See PIR1 P 538
Schürer, The history of the Jewish People, Vol I., 1973, p. 262

Governors Dying in Syria Author(s): Ronald Syme

Source: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik , 1981, Bd. 41 (1981), pp. 125-144 Published by: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20186008

At this juncture supervenes the notorious problem concerning Tarraconensis as well as of Syria. It emerges in the Annales at the end of 33, with the public funeral of Aelius Lamia, the Prefect of the City succeeding Piso the Pontifex who died the year before. When acceding to that post, Lamia was 'administratione Suriae imagine tandem exsolutus'. The passage goes on to report the decease of the next legate of Syria, namely Pomponius Flaccus, with remarks of Tiberius subjouned about the difficulty of procuring consular governors. The Emperor, so Tacitus insidiously adds, had forgotten a plain fact - Arruntius kept from going to Spain 'decimum iam annum' . The figure of a decade can take the appointment of L. Arruntius (cos. 6) back from 33 to 23.23)

The reasons behind the ruler's decision to keep both legates at Rome have been variously canvassed. He had no reason to distrust either of them, although Arruntius concentrated in his person Pompeian and Sullan claims to primacy. By this time the historian had presumably revised the incautious notion that Tiberius detained Arruntius 'ob metum' (Hist. 11. 65.2).

The extinction of Drusus enhanced all manner of apprehensions. Both Arruntius and Lamia may have been designated to their commands shortly before September of the year 23. If a further hypothesis be acceptable, the decease of Sentius Saturninus produced a vacancy in Syria. As for Tarraconensis, nothing is known about the legate succeeding M. Lepidus. Attested in 14, Lepidus probably came back in 18 or 19.

So far Aelius Lamia. The same passage in Tacitus allows Pomponius Flaccus his successor not much more than a year's tenure (from 32 to 33). Rather three years, so it has been proposed. Two reasons are adduced. First, indications in Flavius Josephus about the movements of Herod Agrippa. He was in the company of Flaccus not long before embarking on his journey to Italy, apparently; he arrived at Rome in the spring of 36. The delay seems inordinate. Therefore the death of Flaccus should be postponed to 35. The historian Tacitus, so it is argued, chose to bring Lamia and Flaccus together in the same year, for convenience and unity of theme.

Cavalier treatment of the historian is to be deprecated. Better, assume a mistake on his part - if necessary. Yet it is not clear that the narration of Josephus is good enough to rebut Tacitus.

Second, an interval of two years before the next governor arrived, namely L. Vitellius, the consul of 34. The objection is not valid. Syria had recently managed without a consular, perhaps for a whole decade until 32. Pacuvius, attested as a legionary legate in 19 (11. 79.2) went on in charge of the province for much if not all of Lamia's absentee tenure.

Finally, no urgency to make an appointment. Tiberius Caesar, who complained about the dearth of willing consulars, may have been waiting until the trusty Vitellius became available after his consulship. Under unwonted provocation from the Parthian he had decided on vigorous action. The nomination of Vitellius is registered by Tacitus at the beginning of 35 (VI. 31.4).

Pomponius Flaccus was consul ordinarius in 17, the first novus homo to earn that distinction since Poppaeus Sabinus in 9. The story of a drinking party shows him a friend and confidant of Tiberius Caesar - or better, the warm testimonial from Velleius Paterculus. Flaccus had military experience in the Balkan lands both before and after his consulship. Added to that, talents of diplomacy and capacity for the mission that fell to Vitellius, had he survived. Flaccus may have been about sixty when he went to Syria.

''Cavalier treatment of the historian is to be deprecated. Better, assume a mistake on his part - if necessary. Yet it is not clear that the narration of Josephus is good enough to rebut Tacitus.''

Sir Ronald Syme, OM, FBA (11 March 1903 – 4 September 1989) was a New Zealand-born historian and classicist.[1][2] He was regarded as the greatest historian of ancient Rome since Theodor Mommsen and the most brilliant exponent of the history of the Roman Empire since Edward Gibbon.[2] His great work was The Roman Revolution (1939), a masterly and controversial analysis of Roman political life in the period following the assassination of Julius Caesar. here

Posted: **Thu Jul 11, 2024 8:39 pm**

maryhelena wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 2:50 pm The historian Tacitus, so it is argued, chose to bring Lamia and Flaccus together in the same year, for convenience and unity of theme.

Cavalier treatment of the historian is to be deprecated. Better, assume a mistake on his part - if necessary.

I think Tacitus had no problem combining two (or more) years for "convenience and unity of theme" (Tacitus 6.38):

I have combined the events of two summers in order to allow the mind some respite from domestic ills; ...
https://topostext.org/work/200#urn:cts: ... hi005:6.38

Posted: **Fri Jul 12, 2024 12:13 am**

AdamKvanta wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 8:39 pm
maryhelena wrote: ↑Thu Jul 11, 2024 2:50 pm The historian Tacitus, so it is argued, chose to bring Lamia and Flaccus together in the same year, for convenience and unity of theme.

Cavalier treatment of the historian is to be deprecated. Better, assume a mistake on his part - if necessary.
I think Tacitus had no problem combining two (or more) years for "convenience and unity of theme" (Tacitus 6.38):
I have combined the events of two summers in order to allow the mind some respite from domestic ills; ...
https://topostext.org/work/200#urn:cts: ... hi005:6.38

''Cavalier treatment of the historian is to be deprecated. Better, assume a mistake on his part - if necessary. Yet it is not clear that the narration of Josephus is good enough to rebut Tacitus.''

Tacitus verse Josephus.......

Publius Cornelius Tacitus,... known simply as Tacitus .......c. AD 56 – c. 120), was a Roman historian and politician. Tacitus is widely regarded as one of the greatest Roman historians by modern scholars.here

here The works of Josephus include useful material for historians about individuals, groups, customs, and geographical places. However, modern historians have been cautious of taking his writings at face value. For example, Carl Ritter, in his highly influential Erdkunde in the 1840s, wrote in a review of authorities on the ancient geography of the region:

Outside of the Scriptures, Josephus holds the first and the only place among the native authors of Judaea; for Philo of Alexandria, the later Talmud, and other authorities, are of little service in understanding the geography of the country. Josephus is, however, to be used with great care. As a Jewish scholar, as an officer of Galilee, as a military man, and a person of great experience in everything belonging to his own nation, he attained to that remarkable familiarity with his country in every part, which his antiquarian researches so abundantly evince. But he was controlled by political motives: his great purpose was to bring his people, the despised Jewish race, into honour with the Greeks and Romans; and this purpose underlay every sentence, and filled his history with distortions and exaggerations.

Tacitus states Flaccus died in 33 c.e. Josephus has written a narrative about Agrippa I meeting Flaccus. This narrative includes Herodias being married to Herod/Antipas prior to the meeting of Agrippa and Flaccus. Thereby, placing this marriage prior to 33 ce. While this marriage narrative scenario could be used with an interpretation of the gospel story and timeline - it does not fit with dating the death of the baptizer John in the Josephan narrative. A death dated later than the TF context dating of 19 c.e. (the death of Germanicus)

Keep in mind when considering dates; we have gospel dates and narratives, we have Josephan dates and narratives - and we have, as far as it can be established, historical dates. Our first stop in evaluating the gospel narratives - and Josephan narratives - is to set aside the narratives until we have a sure footing with historical dates.

Posted: **Fri Jul 12, 2024 1:43 am**

maryhelena wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 12:13 am Keep in mind when considering dates; we have gospel dates and narratives, we have Josephan dates and narratives - and we have, as far as it can be established, historical dates. Our first stop in evaluating the gospel narratives - and Josephan narratives - is to set aside the narratives until we have a sure footing with historical dates.

What is the historical date for the death of Herod Agrippa I (based on Tacitus 12.23)?

In the consulate of Gaius Pompeius and Quintus Veranius [49 CE] ...
...
Judaea, and Ituraea were attached to the province of Syria, on the deaths of their kings, Herod Agrippa I, and Sohaemus respectively.
...
In the consulate of Gaius Antistius and Marcus Suillius [50 CE] ...
https://topostext.org/work/200#urn:cts: ... i005:12.23

Posted: **Fri Jul 12, 2024 1:48 am**

AdamKvanta wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 1:43 am
maryhelena wrote: ↑Fri Jul 12, 2024 12:13 am Keep in mind when considering dates; we have gospel dates and narratives, we have Josephan dates and narratives - and we have, as far as it can be established, historical dates. Our first stop in evaluating the gospel narratives - and Josephan narratives - is to set aside the narratives until we have a sure footing with historical dates.
What is the historical date for the death of Herod Agrippa I (based on Tacitus 12.23)?
In the consulate of Gaius Pompeius and Quintus Veranius [49 CE] ...
...
Judaea, and Ituraea were attached to the province of Syria, on the deaths of their kings, Herod Agrippa I, and Sohaemus respectively.
...
In the consulate of Gaius Antistius and Marcus Suillius [50 CE] ...
https://topostext.org/work/200#urn:cts: ... i005:12.23

49 c.e.

Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Hypothesis: Jesus was born around 6 CE and crucified on March 30, 36 CE

Re: Hypothesis: Jesus was born around 6 CE and crucified on March 30, 36 CE

Re: Hypothesis: Jesus was born around 6 CE and crucified on March 30, 36 CE

Re: Hypothesis: Jesus was born around 6 CE and crucified on March 30, 36 CE

Re: Hypothesis: Jesus was born around 6 CE and crucified on March 30, 36 CE

Re: Hypothesis: Jesus was born around 6 CE and crucified on March 30, 36 CE

Re: Hypothesis: Jesus was born around 6 CE and crucified on March 30, 36 CE

Re: Hypothesis: Jesus was born around 6 CE and crucified on March 30, 36 CE

Re: Hypothesis: Jesus was born around 6 CE and crucified on March 30, 36 CE

Re: Hypothesis: Jesus was born around 6 CE and crucified on March 30, 36 CE

Re: Hypothesis: Jesus was born around 6 CE and crucified on March 30, 36 CE