Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Berlitz should learn from the people who taught him his high level Greek.

I would love to find out why scholars resist the proposition that what survives was revised many times by many different hands. Is it seen as a "betrayal" of our field, our sources? Mark, Matthew, Luke and John started the ball rolling, Ignatius, the Clementine Literature, Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian. I find the conclusion irresistable.

The same response "in the style of Morton Smith":

It's remarkable how much resistance there is to the idea that our surviving texts underwent multiple revisions by different hands. Is this reluctance rooted in some misplaced loyalty to our sources, or perhaps a fear of undermining the foundation of our field? From Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John to Ignatius, the Clementine Literature, Justin, Irenaeus, and Tertullian, the evidence points to a continuous evolution. The conclusion that these texts were rewritten—shaped, molded, and remolded by countless scribes—is not only plausible but, I’d argue, unavoidable. Yet, some cling to the notion of a singular, untouched transmission as if admitting otherwise would somehow taint the purity of our discipline.

In the style of Kendrick Lamar:

Aight, listen up, I'm tryna understand, why these scholars actin’ like the truth ain’t fluid, like revisions ain’t the rhythm we dance to in this life, ya feel? They scared to see the ink run, scared to admit these pages been touched, flipped, altered by countless minds and hands, generations reworkin' the plan. Is it betrayal, man? They clutchin' to this fantasy of purity, actin' like Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John wrote in gold that don’t tarnish. But we know the game – Ignatius came through, the Clementine squad put in work, Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian too – they all scribbled on that canvas, left fingerprints on the truth. This ain't betrayal; it’s evolution, it’s survival. The conclusion ain't just logical, it’s like a beat that just won’t quit. Irresistible.

Cookie Monster:

Om nom nom! Me want to know, why scholars act like ancient texts not like big cookie dough—mixed, kneaded, rolled out again and again by many hands! Om, is it because they afraid? Afraid maybe texts not pure, not crispy original recipe? Me think maybe they feel like if Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John pass the dough, then Ignatius, Clementine, Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian all take turns shaping cookie too, then me say, why resist? It not betrayal, it just the way cookies crumble! Mmmm, me find this idea irresistible, just like cookie fresh out of oven!

"the Clementine squad put in work ..."

The highlight of that experiment. I think even Cookie Monster sounds more convincing than Kendrick Lamar.

This paper provides more evidence for the 100 CE date of the death of Agrippa II:

https://www.academia.edu/27206623/Justu ... _his_Coins

It also clarifies a mistaken assumption that I had not verified before I posted the OP. The Antiquities doesn't refer clearly to the death of Agrippa II. The Life of Josephus does, and that's the same text that very explicitly was written in response to Justus of Tiberias, who wrote in or shortly after the death of Agrippa II in 100 CE. So the extant remains of Josephus are more or less what you'd expect if the Antiquities were finished (or originally finished on a multiple-edition hypothesis) in 93/94 CE and the Life were written shortly post-100 CE, in reply to Justus.

The hypothesis of a revision to the Antiquities is viable. Certainly Josephus also had literary assistants.

Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 10:50 am https://www.livius.org/articles/person/ ... grippa-ii/

An inscribed lead weight found in the neighborhood of Tiberias mentions his forty-third regnal year (i.e., 97/98) and the Byzantine scholar Photius informs us that he has read that Agrippa died in the third year of the Roman emperor Trajan (100).

Photius mentions this with reference to Justus of Tiberias.

Justus thus probably wrote this edition of his history on or shortly after 100 CE.

Josephus engages with Justus in his Life, and Ant book 20 in the copies we know refer forward to writing the Life (about his family, etc).

But Josephus also puts a date on finishing the Antiquities that corresponds to 93/94.

So why does Josephus write of Agrippa II as already dead?

Do you think that Josephus kept revising the Antiquities down to 100 CE, failing to update the 93/94 notice of an earlier edition? Or do you have another explanation?

Very curious. I hadn't noticed this issue before. Unless I'm missing a reference to Agrippa's death in the Antiquities, my guess is that Josephus finished the Antiquities in 93/94 CE when Agrippa was still alive, but finished his Life after Agrippa had died in 100 CE, hence the reference to Agrippa's death there. Then no one would be wrong. Josephus, Justus (via Photius) and the 97/98 CE lead weight would be right. And there wouldn't need to have been any updates to the Antiquities. It reflected reality down to 93/94 CE, when Agrippa was alive, and then Life reflected reality down to c. 100 CE, when Agrippa was dead.

One thing this would change for me is that I had always assumed Josephus had died during Domitian's persecution c. 95 CE, but maybe he lived longer than that and after Agrippa died.

Oh, I just saw Peter's last post, which confirms that the Antiquities doesn't refer to Agrippa's death.