|
|
Post by alon on Oct 28, 2013 19:19:27 GMT -8
I just finished reading "The Life of Flavius Josephus, by Flavius Josephus" Translator: William Whiston. In all honesty, I skimmed parts of it. Talk about dry! But the main thing I took away from it was my disappointment that he was basically a petty beaurocrat and quisling for Rome, a traitor to his people and not the "great historian" he is said to be. He was pretty full of himself, though, and described with great pride how almost all his successes were dependent on the treachery of others on his behalf against better men.
I say better men, although he makes them out to be cowards or incompetent while building himself up as a great heroic figure. I somehow doubt this was the case. Based on what I see in this script, I'd have to question his authority as a creditable historian. I'd also have to question the credibility of those historians who hold him in high regard as a source for their opinions on history.
Just my thoughts on a most uninteresting (though blessedly short) read.
Dan C
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2013 2:26:26 GMT -8
Read: Josephus - Thrones of Blood 37BC to 70AD (Published by Barbour, Ohio) which is a paraphrased extract from Whiston's Josephus- Antiquities of The Jews and The Jewish War. It has been isolated from the rest simply because it shows how bad the Romans really were, according to Josephus' words.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yedidyah on Oct 29, 2013 8:51:17 GMT -8
Read: Josephus - Thrones of Blood 37BC to 70AD (Published by Barbour, Ohio) which is a paraphrased extract from Whiston's Josephus- Antiquities of The Jews and The Jewish War. It has been isolated from the rest simply because it shows how bad the Romans really were, according to Josephus' words. Shalom! If one wishes to read Josephus's writings then I always recommend starting with "Antiquities of the Jews" along with the "War of the Jews" I have always found it to be an interesting read. You can find the complete books together in one just about anywhere. Josephus played politics just like most everyone else in that time. I find it interesting to study and see the parallels to scripture. Bless and Keep, Yedidyah |
|
|
|
Post by Yedidyah on Oct 29, 2013 8:54:14 GMT -8
I just finished reading "The Life of Flavius Josephus, by Flavius Josephus" Translator: William Whiston. In all honesty, I skimmed parts of it. Talk about dry! But the main thing I took away from it was my disappointment that he was basically a petty beaurocrat and quisling for Rome, a traitor to his people and not the "great historian" he is said to be. He was pretty full of himself, though, and described with great pride how almost all his successes were dependent on the treachery of others on his behalf against better men. I say better men, although he makes them out to be cowards or incompetent while building himself up as a great heroic figure. I somehow doubt this was the case. Based on what I see in this script, I'd have to question his authority as a creditable historian. I'd also have to question the credibility of those historians who hold him in high regard as a source for their opinions on history. Just my thoughts on a most uninteresting (though blessedly short) read. Dan C I also have a copy from William Whiston and I must say his footnotes are some of the most anti-Semitic I have ever seen before. |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Oct 30, 2013 23:15:38 GMT -8
I also have a copy from William Whiston and I must say his footnotes are some of the most anti-Semitic I have ever seen before. Not too surprising. You'd have to be anti-Semitic in order to undertake a translation of Josephus works! I talked to the Rabbi this evening, and told him very vehemently the same things I said here. He laughed and said he was not surprised. Many Jews then and now think Josephus was a traitor and a coward. He got many thousands of Jews killed; many of them in very brutal ways. Rabbi also made the point that he was writing for his Roman captors, and if he'd said anything against them he' have been killed. However he'd also always been very pro-Roman and anti-Jewish revolt. At a time when the revolutionaries needed all the help they could get, Josephus convinced many not to oppose Rome. Josephus was certainly a major factor in the Jewish loss in their efforts to rid themselves of Roman domination. He cost them the revolution, the loss of who knows how many thousand fighting men, and the lives of many thousands of innocents who did not take up arms. This includes women and children, entire towns. The value of Josephus as a historian is far overrated, in my opinion. If it can be corroborated by other sources then OK, it just lends credence to those sources. The problem is that some things he witnessed and there is little if any corroborating testimony. Examples are the destruction of Jerusalem (some other) and Masada (his is the only known account). Nature and historians abhor a vacuum, and so ol' Jo is given a lot more credence than he shud so men with doct'rats can sound all nollejable and sell books with their pi'ture on the back. May be stating the obviuse at this point, but I just don't like th' guy! Dan (putting my Associates against their Doctorates and at least givin' 'em a good run) C |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2013 0:00:57 GMT -8
I just finished reading "The Life of Flavius Josephus, by Flavius Josephus" Translator: William Whiston. In all honesty, I skimmed parts of it. Talk about dry! But the main thing I took away from it was my disappointment that he was basically a petty beaurocrat and quisling for Rome, a traitor to his people and not the "great historian" he is said to be. He was pretty full of himself, though, and described with great pride how almost all his successes were dependent on the treachery of others on his behalf against better men. I say better men, although he makes them out to be cowards or incompetent while building himself up as a great heroic figure. I somehow doubt this was the case. Based on what I see in this script, I'd have to question his authority as a creditable historian. I'd also have to question the credibility of those historians who hold him in high regard as a source for their opinions on history. Just my thoughts on a most uninteresting (though blessedly short) read. Dan C I also have a copy from William Whiston and I must say his footnotes are some of the most anti-Semitic I have ever seen before. Whose footnotes are they - Whiston's or Josephus'? Can we blame Josephus for what Whiston says by way of footnotes? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2013 0:17:30 GMT -8
I also have a copy from William Whiston and I must say his footnotes are some of the most anti-Semitic I have ever seen before. Not too surprising. You'd have to be anti-Semitic in order to undertake a translation of Josephus works! I talked to the Rabbi this evening, and told him very vehemently the same things I said here. He laughed and said he was not surprised. Many Jews then and now think Josephus was a traitor and a coward. He got many thousands of Jews killed; many of them in very brutal ways. Rabbi also made the point that he was writing for his Roman captors, and if he'd said anything against them he' have been killed. However he'd also always been very pro-Roman and anti-Jewish revolt. At a time when the revolutionaries needed all the help they could get, Josephus convinced many not to oppose Rome. Josephus was certainly a major factor in the Jewish loss in their efforts to rid themselves of Roman domination. He cost them the revolution, the loss of who knows how many thousand fighting men, and the lives of many thousands of innocents who did not take up arms. This includes women and children, entire towns. The value of Josephus as a historian is far overrated, in my opinion. If it can be corroborated by other sources then OK, it just lends credence to those sources. The problem is that some things he witnessed and there is little if any corroborating testimony. Examples are the destruction of Jerusalem (some other) and Masada (his is the only known account). Nature and historians abhor a vacuum, and so ol' Jo is given a lot more credence than he shud so men with doct'rats can sound all nollejable and sell books with their pi'ture on the back. May be stating the obviuse at this point, but I just don't like th' guy! Dan (putting my Associates against their Doctorates and at least givin' 'em a good run) C Would it be fair to say that you are neither a sociologist or an historian? |
|
|
|
Post by Yedidyah on Oct 31, 2013 8:06:38 GMT -8
I also have a copy from William Whiston and I must say his footnotes are some of the most anti-Semitic I have ever seen before. Whose footnotes are they - Whiston's or Josephus'? Can we blame Josephus for what Whiston says by way of footnotes? I was speaking of Whinston's footnotes. The collection of Josephus's writings are good but it would have been better without Whinston's comments. |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Oct 31, 2013 17:41:59 GMT -8
Would it be fair to say that you are neither a sociologist or an historian? Entirely fair and accurate! I like and have studied history, but in no way describe myself as a historian. I am simply able to recognize the green patties in the cow pen for what they are. Jo-boy is green, flat, consisting of irregularly shaped concentric ridges radiating out in a splatter pattern. And he smells.  Dan C |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Oct 31, 2013 17:57:00 GMT -8
Sociology, you say? Therein hangs a tale. I took a Soc class (Humanities requirement and all that). I somehow managed to get through the semester without any problems, but I disagreed with every word the prof. said. Final test was 200 questions, True-False and multiple-guess. I simply picked the answers I most disagreed with- 2nd person to finish and 2nd highest grade in the class!
However, instead of turning in my test and going out to enjoy the spring day, I turned the test over and wrote a 4 page essay on the back about what all I disagreed with and why; as well as why Sociology was NOT a science. Since I was taking Logic the next year I didn't really care for the credit, but still could have played havoc with my GPA. He was fair and I got a 4.0 out of the class. Never heard what he thought of my essay- or if he even cared ...
Dan (not too offle opinionated) C
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2013 23:31:20 GMT -8
Sociology, you say? Therein hangs a tale. I took a Soc class (Humanities requirement and all that). I somehow managed to get through the semester without any problems, but I disagreed with every word the prof. said. Final test was 200 questions, True-False and multiple-guess. I simply picked the answers I most disagreed with- 2nd person to finish and 2nd highest grade in the class! However, instead of turning in my test and going out to enjoy the spring day, I turned the test over and wrote a 4 page essay on the back about what all I disagreed with and why; as well as why Sociology was NOT a science. Since I was taking Logic the next year I didn't really care for the credit, but still could have played havoc with my GPA. He was fair and I got a 4.0 out of the class. Never heard what he thought of my essay- or if he even cared ... Dan (not too offle opinionated) C OK - I have a degree in sociology of religion - so we've both struggled with the discipline I take it you know what etic & emic mean? If so, which do you think applies to the writings of Josephus (ignoring Whiston entirely, at the moment)? |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Nov 1, 2013 1:28:05 GMT -8
OK - I have a degree in sociology of religion - so we've both struggled with the discipline I take it you know what etic & emic mean? If so, which do you think applies to the writings of Josephus (ignoring Whiston entirely, at the moment)? Emic- he only commented on what was important to him. However I don't think this is entirely accurate as it supposes him to be a somewhat detached observer, which he was not. He was not only very involved but had an agenda both politically (counter-revolution) and personally (self aggrandizement). And just so you don't think I have an agenda of self-aggrandizement ... I had to look up the terms. Long time ago and my interests were somewhat narrower back then- wimminz and engineering technology. And in that order, to the cost of my educational processes. I'm guessing you have a reason for asking ... ? Dan C |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2013 2:03:32 GMT -8
OK - I have a degree in sociology of religion - so we've both struggled with the discipline I take it you know what etic & emic mean? If so, which do you think applies to the writings of Josephus (ignoring Whiston entirely, at the moment)? Emic- he only commented on what was important to him. However I don't think this is entirely accurate as it supposes him to be a somewhat detached observer, which he was not. He was not only very involved but had an agenda both politically (counter-revolution) and personally (self aggrandizement). And just so you don't think I have an agenda of self-aggrandizement ... I had to look up the terms. Long time ago and my interests were somewhat narrower back then- wimminz and engineering technology. And in that order, to the cost of my educational processes. I'm guessing you have a reason for asking ... ? Dan C No great deal about education levels, but I didn't want to launch into a sociological / historical debate if that would have left you wondering what you had got yourself into . Emic - means someone writing from within a group or entity, so that his writing is mostly subjective. Etic is someone writing from outside a group or entity and so his writing is largely objective. Given your comments on Josephus' writings, I wondered if you thought he was too far outside Judaism to be writing about these things? Are you saying that, in essence, he was too far into the Roman way of things so that this affected everything he wrote, and what we actually have is Josephus, a secular Jew, who is unable to look at matters from within what was his own religion, thus switching him, in a religious context, from emic to etic? |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Nov 1, 2013 6:55:53 GMT -8
Emic- he only commented on what was important to him. However I don't think this is entirely accurate as it supposes him to be a somewhat detached observer, which he was not. He was not only very involved but had an agenda both politically (counter-revolution) and personally (self aggrandizement). And just so you don't think I have an agenda of self-aggrandizement ... I had to look up the terms. Long time ago and my interests were somewhat narrower back then- wimminz and engineering technology. And in that order, to the cost of my educational processes. I'm guessing you have a reason for asking ... ? Dan C No great deal about education levels, but I didn't want to launch into a sociological / historical debate if that would have left you wondering what you had got yourself into . Emic - means someone writing from within a group or entity, so that his writing is mostly subjective. Etic is someone writing from outside a group or entity and so his writing is largely objective. Given your comments on Josephus' writings, I wondered if you thought he was too far outside Judaism to be writing about these things? Are you saying that, in essence, he was too far into the Roman way of things so that this affected everything he wrote, and what we actually have is Josephus, a secular Jew, who is unable to look at matters from within what was his own religion, thus switching him, in a religious context, from emic to etic? No, he was actually very proud of his Sacerdotal heritage. I think he had a foot in both camps from the beginning, and this was almost his undoing. It was also another problem with his objectivity- it is difficult to clearly asses either camp when drawn between them like that. But he was mostly in the Roman camp, and his solution to this dilemma was to drag his own people into that sewer with him, by any means necessary. Dan C |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 3, 2013 8:00:48 GMT -8
No great deal about education levels, but I didn't want to launch into a sociological / historical debate if that would have left you wondering what you had got yourself into . Emic - means someone writing from within a group or entity, so that his writing is mostly subjective. Etic is someone writing from outside a group or entity and so his writing is largely objective. Given your comments on Josephus' writings, I wondered if you thought he was too far outside Judaism to be writing about these things? Are you saying that, in essence, he was too far into the Roman way of things so that this affected everything he wrote, and what we actually have is Josephus, a secular Jew, who is unable to look at matters from within what was his own religion, thus switching him, in a religious context, from emic to etic? No, he was actually very proud of his Sacerdotal heritage. I think he had a foot in both camps from the beginning, and this was almost his undoing. It was also another problem with his objectivity- it is difficult to clearly asses either camp when drawn between them like that. But he was mostly in the Roman camp, and his solution to this dilemma was to drag his own people into that sewer with him, by any means necessary. Dan C The value of an historian is not simplya case of whether the person writes from an etic or emic position- though those two are very important, obviously. It also depends on what they tell us, and every historian will write having seen the events before their eyes in very different ways. Take the gospels for example - if someone set out to write a convincing historical account of the birth, life, death and resurrection of Yeshua with the aim that people would believe it, they would not write with warts and all as the gospel writers did, now would they? Such a work would have to be very polished to convince people and, that style of writing that would immediately discount many of the writings from Genesis to Revelation, which are warts and all accounts in many places. We accept the gospels precisely because they are NOT polished works, written by people who simply wanted to 'sell' a new religion or, in the case of Genesis to Malachi,to improve the street cred of what had happened in the past few thousand years. No, they are true historrians because they wrote what they saw and what they heard - btw few parts of The Book are written by nice people (excluding G_d's input for the moment); Paul, for a start, was aiding and abetting murders and stood totally against Yeshua and his teaching, initially. So, we know historians, as people, do not have to be perfect, nor do they have to write perfectly good historical facts, but what they do write tells us much, between the lines, about the society in which they lived, about the major events that they witnessed etc., and, with Josephus, some of the stories and gossip that was going around in his circles (did you read the story of the princess who thought she had been making a love to a god in a temple, only to find out it was a trick and the guy was just a stalker?). A lot of Jospehus' writings can be corroborated by other writers, or he offers a deeper insight to the writings of others, both in The Book and in some secular written works; remember - we do find errors or parts we do not understand properly, even in The Book! Because the guy was not entirely straight -forward in your eyes, it does not mean he was incapable of writing down what he saw and keeping a notebook or something to scribble bits down (so to speak). I think you do him a dis-service to throw out his words because he was a rogue, it seems. Feel free to moan about him as a person, but do not let that colour his writings - if he wanted to give you a slanted history to make himself look perfect, are you saying you would accept that un-critically? |
|
- there are 70 faces to 
