Post by rakovsky on May 7, 2019 16:25:22 GMT -8
Moderator Note: this post is very long, and there is a rule against overly long posts here. However due to the nature of the material and the way he structures it I am making an exception and allowing it.
I think it is good for us to get outside our own narrow focus and look at things from a different viewpoint. These posts force me for one to look at a totally alien view while giving answers from the Messianic (or at least my Messianic) perspective. Dan
Antiquities of the Jews is Josephus' most famous work, covering history from the time of Adam to Josephus' own time, with a special focus on Jewish history. Books I-VIII cover the period from Adam to Solomon, and largely retell the Biblical stories.
I think it is good for us to get outside our own narrow focus and look at things from a different viewpoint. These posts force me for one to look at a totally alien view while giving answers from the Messianic (or at least my Messianic) perspective. Dan
Antiquities of the Jews is Josephus' most famous work, covering history from the time of Adam to Josephus' own time, with a special focus on Jewish history. Books I-VIII cover the period from Adam to Solomon, and largely retell the Biblical stories.
Books I-IV are here: archive.org/details/josephuswithengl04joseuoft/
Books V-VIII are here: archive.org/details/josephuswithengl05joseuoft/
(Question 1: SOLVED) Does Josephus see Daniel 9's passage on the ruination of the Temple as predicting both Antiochus' 2nd century BC desecration of the Temple, as well as the Romans' c.70 destruction of it? If so, how could he legitimately interpret the same prophecy to refer to both events?
The Jewish Apocalyptic Heritage in Early Christianity says that Jewish thinkers gave different applications of Daniel 9:
It explains:
As it turned out, Alexander's reign extended much longer than the expected seven years (103-76 BC). But the failure of the prophecy to be realized did not dampen efforts by others to reapply the chronology to the subsequent history of the Hasmonean priesthood. As will be seen below, Eusebius later reprises two Jewish traditions that saw both in the death of the high priest Alexander Jannaeus and Herod's murder of Hyranus the 'cutting off of the anointed one' and the fulfillment of the 69 year weeks of Daniel's vision.
If we may judge from Josephus' unwtitting incorporation of these earlier chronological schemes associated with Daniel 9, the long and developed interpretative history of the apocalypse of 70 weeks represented for him little more than literary relics of a previous tradition.
If we may judge from Josephus' unwtitting incorporation of these earlier chronological schemes associated with Daniel 9, the long and developed interpretative history of the apocalypse of 70 weeks represented for him little more than literary relics of a previous tradition.
In How early Judaism read Daniel 9:24-27, Dean R. Ulrich writes:
According to Josephus, Antiochus IV built "an idol altar on God's altar . . . and slew swine on it." Ant. 12.5.4 §253.
...
Similar to 1 Macc 1:54, Josephus understood Daniel's abomination of desolation with reference to the desecrating action of Antiochus IV at the Jerusalem temple.35 Nevertheless, Josephus also perceived application for his day. He says, "In the very same manner Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government, and that our country should be made desolate by them." ... The original meaning of Daniel's prophecies pertained to the former, but the passage of time allowed Josephus to recognise recapitulation in the latter.
...
Similar to 1 Macc 1:54, Josephus understood Daniel's abomination of desolation with reference to the desecrating action of Antiochus IV at the Jerusalem temple.35 Nevertheless, Josephus also perceived application for his day. He says, "In the very same manner Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government, and that our country should be made desolate by them." ... The original meaning of Daniel's prophecies pertained to the former, but the passage of time allowed Josephus to recognise recapitulation in the latter.
In the passage in Antiquities Book X underlined below, Josephus openly relates the Book of Daniel to events during both Antiochus' rule (2nd c. BC) and the Romans' rule (1st c. AD):
Daniel wrote that he saw these visions in the Plain of Susa; and he hath informed us that God interpreted the appearance of this vision after the following manner: He said that the ram signified the kingdoms of the Medes and Persians, and the horns those kings that were to reign in them; and that the last horn signified the last king, and that he should exceed all the kings in riches and glory: that the he-goat signified that one should come and reign from the Greeks, who should twice fight with the Persian, and overcome him in battle, and should receive his entire dominion: that by the great horn which sprang out of the forehead of the he-goat was meant the first king; and that the springing up of four horns upon its falling off, and the conversion of every one of them to the four quarters of the earth, signified the successors that should arise after the death of the first king, and the partition of the kingdom among them, and that they should be neither his children, nor of his kindred, that should reign over the habitable earth for many years; and that from among them there should arise a certain king that should overcome our nation and their laws, and should take away their political government, and should spoil the temple, and forbid the sacrifices to be offered for three years' time.
And indeed it so came to pass, that our nation suffered these things under Antiochus Epiphanes, according to Daniel's vision, and what he wrote many years before they came to pass. In the very same manner Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government, and that our country should be made desolate by them. All these things did this man leave in writing, as God had showed them to him, insomuch that such as read his prophecies, and see how they have been fulfilled, would wonder at the honor wherewith God honored Daniel
And indeed it so came to pass, that our nation suffered these things under Antiochus Epiphanes, according to Daniel's vision, and what he wrote many years before they came to pass. In the very same manner Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government, and that our country should be made desolate by them. All these things did this man leave in writing, as God had showed them to him, insomuch that such as read his prophecies, and see how they have been fulfilled, would wonder at the honor wherewith God honored Daniel
Is Josephus taking the same passage in Daniel to refer to the Greeks' attacks and another passage to refer to the Romans' conquest?
In The Antichrist and the Second Coming: A Preterist Examination, Duncan W. McKenzie theorizes that Josephus relates two different sets of passages in Daniel to refer to two different periods (the 2nd c. BC and 1st c. AD):
Josephus is attributing the transgression of desolation of Daniel 8 (and presumably 11:31) to Antiochus IV. If the 2300 evening-mornings of Daniel 8:14 are taken as 1,150 days it equals the 3 years that Josephus references in regards to Antiochus' abomination (as opposed to the 3 1/2 years of the 1290 days of Daniel 12). In contrast, Josephus is attributing the abomination of desolation of Daniel 9 and 12:11 to the Roman desolation of the Jewish nation in AD 70.
First, let me review Josephus' potential connections between Daniel 9 and the events of Antiochus' rule. Josephus' Wars of the Jews, Book 1 Chapter 1:1, narrates Antiochus spoiling the Temple and stopping the sacrifice in the Temple for 3 1/2 years. Next, whereas Daniel 9 says, "The people of the ruler will destroy the city and the sanctuary. ... he will set up an abomination that causes desolation...", Josephus writes in Ant., XII, V, 4 about Antiochus causing major destruction in the city, setting up an idol altar in the Temple, and sacrificing pigs there in violation of the
.In telling the story of the festival of Lights in Antiquities of the Jews, Book XII (Lines 319-326), Josephus says that Antiochus made the Temple desolate for 3 years, "And this desolation came to pass according to the prophecy of Daniel, which was given four hundred and eight years before; for he declared that the Macedonians would stop that worship [for some time]."
A modern writer theorizes about how Josephus comes up with the 3 year period in Antiochus' time:
Regarding the prohibition of sacrifices, Josephus appears to waver between a three and a half year period (as in Wars of the Jews, cited above) and a three year period. For example, in Antiquities of the Jews, he writes that Daniel prophesied that Antiochus “should spoil the temple, and forbid the sacrifices to be offered for three years’ time” (Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book X, chapter 11, paragraph 7). The inconsistency is likely due to the fact that 1 Maccabees reports that the Statue of Jupiter had defiled the temple for exactly three years to the day (1 Maccabees 1:54, 4:52-54). Yet the way 1 Maccabees 1:41-53 describes the prohibition of sacrifices, the actual decree to prohibit the sacrifices is described as a separate event prior to the erection of the idol, apparently taking place earlier the same year. Thus in Wars, Josephus seems to identify a three and a half year period during which sacrifices were prohibited by decree, and within that period, three years during which sacrifices were impossible due to the presence of the abomination on the altar. He confirms this reading later in Antiquities (Book XII, chapter 7, paragraph 6).
www.whitehorseblog.com/2015/09/13/the-seventieth-week-of-daniel-9
www.whitehorseblog.com/2015/09/13/the-seventieth-week-of-daniel-9
Now let me review Josephus' connections between Daniel 9 and the Roman destruction of 70 AD. In Antiquities 10.11.7, it looks like he takes Daniel 9 to refer to the Roman assault, and also In Wars of the Jews, he relates the prophecy to the Roman wars in Judea. Josephus says in Wars of the Jews, Book VI.2.1, that the sacrifice failed in the Temple during the Roman war, and gives a date which Whiston relates to Daniel 9 as follows:
This was a remarkable day indeed, the 17th of Panemus [Tamuz] A.D. 70, when, according to Daniel’s prediction, 606 years before, the Romans In half a week caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease: Daniel 9:27. For from the month of February, A.D. 66, about which time Vespasian entred on this war; to this very time was just 3½ years. See Bp. Lloyd’s Tables of Chronology, published by Mr. Marshal, on this year. Nor is it to be omitted, what very nearly confirms this duration of the war, that 4 years before the war begun, was somewhat above 7 years 5 months before the destruction of Jerusalem, Chap. 5. § 3.
Gerald Sigal in The 70 Weeks of Daniel: (9:24-27) connects Josephus' discussion on the killing of the High Priest Ananus and the purging of the sanctuary by fire in Wars of the Jews Book IV with Daniel 9's prophecy on the cutting off of the Anointed One. Sigal concludes: "His is a non-messianic interpretation of the anointed one who he regards as the high priest Ananus."
(Question 2: SOLVED) Does Magog refer to southern Russia, when Josephus writes in Book 1:
Japheth, son of Noah, had seven sons. ... Magog founded the Magogians, thus named after him, but who by the Greeks are called Scythians.
Here are two modern maps:
Ezekiel 38:2 refers to "Gog of the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal".
According to Wikipedia's entry on Meshech, Meshech refers to the Mosocheni in Cappadocia in central modern Turkey. ("Meshech is named with Tubal (and Rosh, in certain translations) as principalities of 'Gog, prince of Magog' in Ezekiel 38:2 and 39:1, and is considered a Japhetite tribe, identified by Flavius Josephus with the Cappadocian "Mosocheni" (Mushki, also associated with Phrygians or Bryges) and their capital Mazaca.")
The Wikipedia entry on Tubal associates Tubal with modern Turkey, especially its southern part ("Modern scholarship has identified the biblical Tubal with Tabal, an Anatolian state and region mentioned in Assyrian sources. Tabal was a post-Hittite Luwian state in Asia Minor in the 1st millennium BC. Its neighbours, the Mushki, are traditionally associated with Meshech.[3] Some historians[who?] further connect Tabal and Tubal with the tribe on the Black Sea coast later known to the Greeks as Tibareni, though this identification is uncertain. The Tibareni and other related tribes, the Chalybes (Khalib/Khaldi) and the Mossynoeci (Mossynoikoi in Greek), were sometimes considered the founders of metallurgy. Most reference books, following Flavius Josephus, identify Tubal in Ezekiel's time as an area that is now in Turkey.")
Citing the Encyclopedia Biblica, Wikipedia's article on Magog mentions that it could be located between Cappadocia in central Turkey and Media in Northwestern Iran: "An alternate identification derived from an examination of the order in which tribal names are listed in Ezekiel 38, 'would place Magog between Cappadocia and Media.'[3]"
The Wikipedia article on Gog and Magog lists Gog's allies in their war against Israel in Ezekiel 38-39 with their respective locations, distinguishing them from Gomer (the Cimmerians) who live north of the Black Sea:
Of Gog's allies, Meshech and Tubal were 7th-century kingdoms in central Anatolia north of Israel, Persia towards east, Cush (Ethiopia) and Put (Libya) to the south; Gomer is the Cimmerians, a nomadic people north of the Black Sea, and Beth Togarmah was on the border of Tubal. The confederation thus represents a multinational alliance surrounding Israel.
...
The 1st-century Jewish historian Josephus identified the Gog and Magog people as Scythians, horse-riding barbarians from around the Don and the Sea of Azov. Josephus recounts the tradition that Gog and Magog were locked up by Alexander the Great behind iron gates in the "Caspian Mountains", generally identified with the Caucasus Mountains.
...
The 1st-century Jewish historian Josephus identified the Gog and Magog people as Scythians, horse-riding barbarians from around the Don and the Sea of Azov. Josephus recounts the tradition that Gog and Magog were locked up by Alexander the Great behind iron gates in the "Caspian Mountains", generally identified with the Caucasus Mountains.
The online "Orthodox Encyclopedia" (Православная Энциклопедия) article for Gog and Magog says:
The widespread hypothesis in modern literature that Gog is the Median king Gig (Akkadian: Gugu , c. 676 BC) and the land of Magog is accordingly Lidiya comes from F. Delitzsch. Some researchers, paying attention to the same dating, relate Gog to the dynasty of Gag in Northern Assyria, which is mentioned in the texts of Ashshurbanipala. A number of scholars associate the Biblical Gog with the territory of Gag mentioned in the Amarna letters, which according to the context (where Khanigalbat and Ugarit are also named), were located in northern Syria, possibly in the environs of Karkhemisha.
(Question 3: SOLVED) Does Abraham's wife Sarah's laughing "inside herself" cryptically prefigure the process of the Messiah's virgin birth? Or is laughing inside oneself a Hebrew expression equivalent to "laughing quietly to oneself" in modern English?
Book 1, Chapter 11:2 of the Antiquities says:
Thereat the woman smiled[e] and said that child-bearing was impossible, seeing that she was ninety years old and her husband an hundred; whereupon they could maintain dissimulation no longer but confessed themselves messengers of God, of whom one had been sent to announce the news of the child and the other two to destroy the Sodomites.
LOEB'S FOOTNOTE
[E] Gen. "Laughed within herself."
LOEB'S FOOTNOTE
[E] Gen. "Laughed within herself."
Hearing Josephus' summary of the story of Isaac, I can see how Isaac can be a prefigurement of Christ. Isaac was born of a mother in a birth that was not naturally expectable. Sarra was such an old woman that she did not think she could give birth. It was a miracle that the three divine beings told her about. Hearing that she would give birth made her "laugh inside her", which in turn made her name the child after the word "laughter".
The Hebrew of Genesis 18:12 says that "Sarah laughed within herself."
In his lecture "Typology of Abraham, Sarah, and Isaac, Gen. 12-22" for the Association of Hebrew Catholics, Dr. Lawrence Feingold sees Sarah's birth of Isaac as prefiguring Mary's birth of Christ:
Isaac’s miraculous birth according to God’s promise from a woman both barren and greatly advanced in age is clearly a type of Christ’s birth from a Virgin. As Isaac is a type of Christ, so Sarah is a type of Mary and her virginal conception.
A not infrequent theme of the Old Testament is pairs of women, one infertile and the other fertile: Sarah and Hagar, Leah and Rachel, Hannah and Peninnah. In each case the promise is given to the infertile woman. ...
God prefers to use the weak things of the world to show that the power is His. St. Paul expresses this beautifully in 1 Corinthians 1:27–29... Sarah was chosen precisely because she was weak and despised in her barrenness and old age... And for the same reason, but even more so, He chose a virgin bound by a vow of virginity to become the mother of the Mes-siah. Mary, through her voluntary virginity, put herself in the category of the barren and lowly of Israel. And indeed, the state of consecrated virginity in the Church that immediately followed on this example of Mary is the fulfillment of the figure of the barren woman who gives birth to a child through the power of God. ...
Sarah’s supernatural maternity that brought forth Isaac is thus a beautiful figure of an even greater miracle, indeed, an immeasurably greater miracle: the virginal concep-tion of the Son of God. Similarly, the faith of Sarah and Abraham is a figure of the still more heroic faith of Mary. ...
Isaac’s very name is connected to his being a type of Christ. “Isaac” means “laughter,” for Sara laughed incredu-lously when the angel told her that she would conceive. Isaac is appropriately named for laughter, for he brought the supernatural joy of the fulfillment of God’s promise against all appearances. The Fathers see Isaac’s name as a type of the supernatural joy brought into the world by Christ and the Gospel, promised so many centuries before.[7]
FOOTNOTE 7: See Clement of Alexandria, Pedagogue 1.5 (in ANF 2:296): “And he laughed mystically, prophesying that the Lord should fill us with joy, who have been redeemed from corruption by the blood of the Lord.”
A not infrequent theme of the Old Testament is pairs of women, one infertile and the other fertile: Sarah and Hagar, Leah and Rachel, Hannah and Peninnah. In each case the promise is given to the infertile woman. ...
God prefers to use the weak things of the world to show that the power is His. St. Paul expresses this beautifully in 1 Corinthians 1:27–29... Sarah was chosen precisely because she was weak and despised in her barrenness and old age... And for the same reason, but even more so, He chose a virgin bound by a vow of virginity to become the mother of the Mes-siah. Mary, through her voluntary virginity, put herself in the category of the barren and lowly of Israel. And indeed, the state of consecrated virginity in the Church that immediately followed on this example of Mary is the fulfillment of the figure of the barren woman who gives birth to a child through the power of God. ...
Sarah’s supernatural maternity that brought forth Isaac is thus a beautiful figure of an even greater miracle, indeed, an immeasurably greater miracle: the virginal concep-tion of the Son of God. Similarly, the faith of Sarah and Abraham is a figure of the still more heroic faith of Mary. ...
Isaac’s very name is connected to his being a type of Christ. “Isaac” means “laughter,” for Sara laughed incredu-lously when the angel told her that she would conceive. Isaac is appropriately named for laughter, for he brought the supernatural joy of the fulfillment of God’s promise against all appearances. The Fathers see Isaac’s name as a type of the supernatural joy brought into the world by Christ and the Gospel, promised so many centuries before.[7]
FOOTNOTE 7: See Clement of Alexandria, Pedagogue 1.5 (in ANF 2:296): “And he laughed mystically, prophesying that the Lord should fill us with joy, who have been redeemed from corruption by the blood of the Lord.”
The Pulpit commentary on Gen. 21:6 says:
Differing from Mary s magnificat in having been uttered after, and not before, the birth of the promised seed, the anthem of Sarah was obviously designed as a prelude to that loftier song of the Virgin (cf. Luke 1:46).
The St Paul Center for Biblical Theology's article "The Bible and the Virgin Mary" cites Luke's story of the Annunciation to the Virgin Mary and comments "An angel spoke almost those exact same words to Sarah, Abraham's wife, when she laughed at the idea that she could bear as on in her old age. ... By using those words, Luke shows us that Mary,like Sarah, is being called to bear the son of God‟s covenant promise." The article cites Genesis 18:14 ("Is any thing too hard for the Lord? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son.").
So I found numerous articles seeing Isaac's birth by Sarah as a prefigurement of Christ's birth, but not any seeing her internal laughter as referring to the virgin birth. Instead, Dr. Rabbi Samuel Z. Glaser in "Isaac’s Divine Conception?" suggests that Sarah may have conceived due to the Lord's direct intervention during their meeting with Abraham.
Dr. Glaser writes:
Did Someone Go in the Tent?
In the MT of v. 9, the word אליו has dots called punctia extraordinaria, which, according to the rabbis, communicate some sort of hesitation about the whether the word(s) or letter(s) really belong in the biblical text.[3] Genesis Rabbah (48:9, Theodor-Albeck) interprets:
“And they said to him: ‘Where is your wife Sarah’” (Gen 18:9) – The letters aleph, yod, vav have dots, the lamed has no dots. …R. Azariah says: “Just as they said to Abraham ‘where is she (איה),’ thus they said to Sarah ‘where is he’ [5](איו).”
R. Azariah here assumes that the dots communicate a missing scene, namely that the angels entered the tent and spoke with Sarah directly. The change of verb tense from the plural “they said” (וַיֹּאמְרוּ) in verse 9 to the singular “he said” (וַיֹּאמֶר) in v. 10 implies a change of scene.[6] In the first scene, all three angels are speaking with Abraham, and the next scene, only one announces Sarah’s pregnancy and the future birth of Isaac. In between these two speeches, the angels entered the tent to be with Sarah.
Dr. Glaser gives more arguments for his theory in the rest of his article.
Why does the text imply a scene with Sarah secluded with angels? Is it possible that this visit was not merely to announce that Sarah would become pregnant but is also explaining how Sarah, a menopausal woman, becomes miraculously pregnant?
In the MT of v. 9, the word אליו has dots called punctia extraordinaria, which, according to the rabbis, communicate some sort of hesitation about the whether the word(s) or letter(s) really belong in the biblical text.[3] Genesis Rabbah (48:9, Theodor-Albeck) interprets:
“And they said to him: ‘Where is your wife Sarah’” (Gen 18:9) – The letters aleph, yod, vav have dots, the lamed has no dots. …R. Azariah says: “Just as they said to Abraham ‘where is she (איה),’ thus they said to Sarah ‘where is he’ [5](איו).”
R. Azariah here assumes that the dots communicate a missing scene, namely that the angels entered the tent and spoke with Sarah directly. The change of verb tense from the plural “they said” (וַיֹּאמְרוּ) in verse 9 to the singular “he said” (וַיֹּאמֶר) in v. 10 implies a change of scene.[6] In the first scene, all three angels are speaking with Abraham, and the next scene, only one announces Sarah’s pregnancy and the future birth of Isaac. In between these two speeches, the angels entered the tent to be with Sarah.
Dr. Glaser gives more arguments for his theory in the rest of his article.
Why does the text imply a scene with Sarah secluded with angels? Is it possible that this visit was not merely to announce that Sarah would become pregnant but is also explaining how Sarah, a menopausal woman, becomes miraculously pregnant?
(Question 4: SOLVED) Was the angel whom Jacob wrestled a good angel or a bad one (eg. a demon)?
Here is Josephus' telling of Jacob wrestling with the angel:
when they had crossed a torrent called Jabacchos, Jacob, being left behind, encountered a phantom, wrestled with it and overcame it. The struggle had been begun by the spectre, which now found a tongue and addressed him, bidding him rejoice in his achievement and not to imagine that it was a puny adversary whom he had mastered : he had defeated an angel of God and should deem this victory an omen of great blessings to come and an assurance that his race would never be extinguished and that no mortal man would surpass him in strength. He moreover bade him take the name of Israel, which in the Hebrew tongue denotes the opponent of an angel of God. ...
The apparition, having thus spoken, vanished ; and Jacob, delighted with the vision, named the place Phanuel," that is to say, " the face of God." And because in the contest he had suffered injury near the broad sinew,^ he himself abstained from eating that sinew, and for his sake we too are forbidden to eat of it.
The apparition, having thus spoken, vanished ; and Jacob, delighted with the vision, named the place Phanuel," that is to say, " the face of God." And because in the contest he had suffered injury near the broad sinew,^ he himself abstained from eating that sinew, and for his sake we too are forbidden to eat of it.
If the angel was good, then why did it attack Jacob violently, why was it good for Jacob to conquer a good angel, and does the injury to the broad sinew in the back of the leg resemble the story of the serpeant's biting of the heel in the Garden of Eden?
On the other hand, if the angel was bad, then why was Jacob given the name "Israel", which means "fights with El/God", and why was the place of Jacob's fight named "face of God"?
(Question 5: Solved) Supposing that Josephus deliberately includes cryptic allusions to Jesus in the Antiquities, does he do so in the story of Joseph and Pharaoh's cupbearer and baker? Aside from Josephus' own retelling, does the Biblical story allude to the Eucharist or to Christ's Passion and resurrection? And why should bread or the baker's profession be associated with a tragic fate in the story?
In Christian interpretations of the story of Melchisedek, Melchisedek and his wine and bread are sometimes seen as a reference to Christ and the Eucharist. Further, the theologians sometimes see the reoccuring theme of three days in the TaNaKh as a prediction of the third day resurrection.
Let me give an example of what I see as a possible cryptic allusion in Josephus' writings to the Jesus' story: Some writers have sensed a connection in Josephus' autobiography between Josephus Bar Matthiyu's request that the Romans take down his three Jewish friends who were crucified during the Jewish revolt and the Biblical story of Joseph of Arimathea requesting the body of Jesus who had been crucified between two criminals, one being a rebel.
Here is the passage in Josephus' Life:
And when I was sent by Titus Caesar with Cerealins, and a thousand horsemen, to a certain village called Thecoa, in order to know whether it were a place fit for a camp, as I came back, I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician’s hands, while the third recovered.
Richard J. Gibbs theorizes in his book Hebrew Christians V Jesus of Rome (p.144):
Another major problem, if Josephus is Ach Mathiah, is that Josephus witnessed a crucifixion of three friends and asked for their bodies to be taken down, remarking that one 'recovered' (Life, 75). This other account in Josephus raises some important questions. Obviously Joseph(us) ari Mathiah is reported as being the one who took the body of Christ in the bible. Was it Jesus who Josephus says recovered after the crucifixion? If so, what did he mean by 'recovered'
Joseph Atwill writes about numerous connections that he sees between Josephus' writing and the Gospel stories in his book "Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus". He includes a table listing coincidences and common themes like:
In Jesus' Ministry: At Jerusalem, the 'Son of Mary' offers his flesh to be eaten'; in Titus' Campaign: At Jerusalem, describes a son of Mary whose flesh is eaten.
Atwil writes:
Jesus foresees a martyr's death for Simon at Rome but spares John at conclusion of ministry; Titus sends Simon to a martyr's death at Rome but spares John at conclusion of campaign.
The Gospels' stories concerning fishing for men, a legion of demons coming out of one man to infect many, a human Passover lamb, three crucified one survivies, and a conclusion where Simon is condemned and John spared, can be seen as satirizing very few works of literature. It is, therefore, quite implausible that the New Testament describes, by chance, so many episodes that can be seen as satirizing the events in a single book. ...
Further, a 'Joseph of Arimathea' arranged for both survivors to be taken down from the cross. This is to say that the last names of the two Josephs- 'Josephus Bar Matthias' and 'Joseph of Arimathea' are homophonically similar. 'Arimathea' is an obvious play on Josephus' last name, 'Bar Matthias,' which is quite similar to the 'Iscariot/Sicarii' pun noted [earlier in Atwil's book]. THe Gospel of Barnabas, a noncanonical Gospel from the middle ages, dows not even bother with this word play and states that the name of the individual who took Jesus down from the cross was 'Joseph of Barimathea.' 'Joseph of Arimathea' is also identified as the 'type' of Josephus bar Matthias by his job description-counsellor. (Luke 23:50)
The Gospels' stories concerning fishing for men, a legion of demons coming out of one man to infect many, a human Passover lamb, three crucified one survivies, and a conclusion where Simon is condemned and John spared, can be seen as satirizing very few works of literature. It is, therefore, quite implausible that the New Testament describes, by chance, so many episodes that can be seen as satirizing the events in a single book. ...
Further, a 'Joseph of Arimathea' arranged for both survivors to be taken down from the cross. This is to say that the last names of the two Josephs- 'Josephus Bar Matthias' and 'Joseph of Arimathea' are homophonically similar. 'Arimathea' is an obvious play on Josephus' last name, 'Bar Matthias,' which is quite similar to the 'Iscariot/Sicarii' pun noted [earlier in Atwil's book]. THe Gospel of Barnabas, a noncanonical Gospel from the middle ages, dows not even bother with this word play and states that the name of the individual who took Jesus down from the cross was 'Joseph of Barimathea.' 'Joseph of Arimathea' is also identified as the 'type' of Josephus bar Matthias by his job description-counsellor. (Luke 23:50)
Atwil also sees Josephus' story of saving his friend from crucifixion as having a chronological placement in Josephus' narrative analogous to the placement of Jesus being taken down from the cross in the Gospels.
Although I don't agree with Atwil's theory that the Romans invented Jesus, I do think that Josephus occasionally deliberately included Christian images and themes in his writings.
Turning to the story of Joseph interpreting the wine cupbearer's and bread baker's dreams, I see elements common to the Eucharist and three day death and resurrection theme. This is because (A) their dreams and professions involve wine and bread, (B) Josephus changed the baker's death from the Biblical one of decapitation and impalement into one of crucifixion, and (C) the dreams meant that in three days the servants would receive either freedom or death.
The cupbearer's dream goes that he crushed three grapes and gave the juice with the must(yeast) to the king, and Josephus saw this as freedom in three days, since wine makes men joyful. In contrast, the bread baker's dream goes that one of the three baskets on his head had meats and the birds took them instead, and Joseph saw this as predicting death in three days. But if the cupbearer's profession should bring him freedom since wine makes men happy, why should the baker receive death?
In Josephus' narrative, the baker tells Joseph:
"that I was carrying three baskets upon my head, two filled with loaves, and the third with dainties and divers meats such as are prepared for kings, when birds flew down and devoured them all, heedless of my efforts to scare them away."
He was expecting a prediction similar to that made to the butler ; but Joseph, grasping on reflexion the import of the dream, after assuring him that he could have wished to have good news to interpret to him and not such as the dream disclosed to his mind, told him that he had in all but two days yet to live (the baskets indicated that), and that on the third day he would be crucified and become food for the fowls, utterly powerless to defend himself.
He was expecting a prediction similar to that made to the butler ; but Joseph, grasping on reflexion the import of the dream, after assuring him that he could have wished to have good news to interpret to him and not such as the dream disclosed to his mind, told him that he had in all but two days yet to live (the baskets indicated that), and that on the third day he would be crucified and become food for the fowls, utterly powerless to defend himself.
If the wine and bread allude to the Eucharist, which in turn has meanings of blood and body, could the two servants' opposite fates be a Dualistic allusion to the teaching that "the life is in the blood" (Lev 17:11), whereas there are ancient teachings about the body restricting the soul or the body being associated with suffering?
(Question 6: Solved) Why does the meaning of the Hebrew name that Josephus says that Pharaoh gave Joseph differ so much from the meaning of the Biblical Egyptian version, which Josephus himself seems to recognize?
In Genesis 41, Pharaoh remarks favorably about Joseph's success in dream interpretation:
38. And Pharaoh said to his servants, “Can we find such a one as this, a man in whom is the Spirit of God?”
39. Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, “Inasmuch as God has shown you all this, there is no one as discerning and wise as you.
39. Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, “Inasmuch as God has shown you all this, there is no one as discerning and wise as you.
44. ...“I am Pharaoh, and without your consent no man may lift his hand or foot in all the land of Egypt.”
45. And Pharaoh called Joseph’s name Zaphnath-Paaneah. And he gave him as a wife Asenath, the daughter of Poti-Pherah priest of On.
45. And Pharaoh called Joseph’s name Zaphnath-Paaneah. And he gave him as a wife Asenath, the daughter of Poti-Pherah priest of On.
Pharaoh's repeated characterization of Joseph as blessed by God suggests to me that later when Pharaoh gives him a name it could incorporate a reference to God.
The NKJV footnote on Joseph's name says: "Probably Egyptian for 'God Speaks and He Lives"'.
The Wikipedia entry on Joseph's Egyptian name says that Jewish traditions in Targum Onkelos, Targuhum Pseudo-Jonathan, and Josephus interpret the name to mean the revealer/finder of mysteries, or one to whom mysteries are revealed.
The entry continues:
After the decipherment of hieroglyphics, Egyptologists have interpreted the final element of the name (-ʿnêaḫ, -anêkh) as containing the Egyptian word ˁnḫ "life"; notably, Georg Steindorff in 1889 offered a full reconstruction of ḏd pꜣ nṯr iw.f ꜥnḫ "the god speaks [and] he lives" (Middle Egyptian pronunciation: ṣa pīr nata yuVf[n 1] anaḫ)
Here is how Josephus tells the story of Joseph's Egyptian name:
He [ie. Joseph] had now completed his thirtieth year and Joseph's was in the enjoyment of every honour at the hand of the king, who called him Psonthomphanech(os), in view of his amazing intelligence, that name signifying " Discoverer of Secrets."
Thackeray's Note:
Heb. Zaphenath-paneah. The interpretation here given of the Hebrew form of the name (the first half of which was connected with Heb. zdphan, " to hide ") recurs in the Syriac version and in the Targum of Onkelos. The meaning of the underlying Egyptian name is uncertain.
Thackeray's Note:
Heb. Zaphenath-paneah. The interpretation here given of the Hebrew form of the name (the first half of which was connected with Heb. zdphan, " to hide ") recurs in the Syriac version and in the Targum of Onkelos. The meaning of the underlying Egyptian name is uncertain.
" Discoverer of Secrets" reminds me of Pharaoh's earlier characterization of Joseph as someone to whom God showed things.
Later, Joseph's brother Judah makes a speech to Joseph and appears to say that Joseph shares God's name:
Bear, then, these considerations in mind, and, however much our wrong-doing provokes thee now, graciously give up to our father that retribution which justice demands, and let pity for him outweigh our crime : respect the old age of one who must live and die in solitude in losing us, and grant this boon in the name of fatherhood. For in this name thou wilt alike be doing honour to thy sire and granting a favour to thyself, seeing that thou already rejoicest in that title and wilt be preserved in unimpaired possession of it by God, who is the Father of all ; since, in virtue of that name that thou thyself sharest with Him, it will be deemed an act of piety towards Him to take pity on our father and the sufferings that he will endure if bereaved of his children.
This seems to me to imply that Joseph's Egyptian name did incorporate a reference to God's name.
(Question 7: Solved) Was the extermination of Canaanites God's order or just something that Moses decided on in accordance with God's more general command to conquer the area? Could the Israelites, in fulfilling their instructions, spare the Canaanites who surrendered and gave up their idolatry and political independence? How could Josephus say that there were no Canaanites left after the Israelite conquests, but then talk about the Canaanites as still existing later? Can one reconcile Moses' instructions on killing Israel's enemies with Christian principles of mercy towards one's enemies?
Josephus says that Moses instructed Israel to destroy her enemies fully, giving Moses' speech as:
Wherefore, if ye would have those laws remain to you, ye will leave not one of your enemies alive after defeating them,['b] but will deem it expedient to destroy them all, lest, should they live, ye having had but a taste of any of their ways should corrupt the constitution of your fathers.
It sounds like Moses ordered his followers to kill all the enemies' persons, not just to subjugate them.
In telling the story of the conquest of Canaan, Josephus keeps repeating about how Moses announced that all Canaanites would get killed and that Joshua implemented this with different cities. It sounds brutal, eg.:
Advancing very far in pursuit, Joshua destroyed the whole of the enemy's army, save for a few, —the kings all fell—in such wise that, when there were no more men to be killed, he slew their horses and burnt the chariots. He then overran the country unmolested, none daring to come out to give him battle ; the cities too he captured by siege and massacred every creature that he caught.
A fifth year had now passed away and there was no longer any Canaanite left, save for such as had escaped through the solidity of their walls.
(Book V of the Antiquities)
A fifth year had now passed away and there was no longer any Canaanite left, save for such as had escaped through the solidity of their walls.
(Book V of the Antiquities)
Could he mean that there was no longer any Canaanite left in the particular conquered Canaanite region, since Josephus later says some Canaanite regions remained unconquered? How about Rahab, the Canaanite woman who helped Joshua?
Later in Book V, Josephus describes God being angry with the Benjamites for having spared Canaanites, like the Canaanite city of Jerusalem:
The Benjamites, within whose lot lay Jerusalem, permitted its inhabitants to pay them tribute ; and thus all reposing, these from slaughter and those Canaamtes from peril, were at leisure to till the soil. The other tribes, imitating that of Benjamin, did the same and, contenting themselves with the tributes paid to them, suffered the Canaanites to live in peace.
...as their riches increased, under the mastery of luxury and voluptuousness, they recked little of the order of their constitution and no longer hearkened diligently to its laws. Incensed thereat, the Deity warned them by oracle, first that they had acted contrary to His will in sparing the Canaanites, and next that those foes, seizing their occasion, would treat them with great ruthlessness.
...as their riches increased, under the mastery of luxury and voluptuousness, they recked little of the order of their constitution and no longer hearkened diligently to its laws. Incensed thereat, the Deity warned them by oracle, first that they had acted contrary to His will in sparing the Canaanites, and next that those foes, seizing their occasion, would treat them with great ruthlessness.
And still later, in Book VI. 2:3, in narrating the era of the prophet Samuel, Josephus mentions Canaanites who still existed ("the remains of the Canaanites were at this time in friendship with the Israelites.").
(Question 8: SOLVED) What do you make of the word Elohim in Exodus 22:28, "Thou shalt not revile Elohim (the gods/God/the judges), nor curse the ruler of thy people."?
The King James Bible interprets it to mean "the gods".
Josephus paraphrases Exodus 22:25 as saying:
"Let none blaspheme the gods which other Foreign cities revere".
Thackeray's footnote says:
Ex. I.e. " Thou shalt not revile Elohim,"' meaning, according to Palestinian tradition, " the judges." Here Josephus follows Alexandrian exegesis : the i.xx translated the plural Elohim by (hot's, and so Philo ( Vita Mos. ii. 26, § 205, De spec. leg. i. 7, § 53). C/. Ap. ii. 237, where the same reason for the injunction is given as in Philo, viz. the hallowing of the word " God."
The 20th century Russian Synodal version interprets it as "the judges".
(Question 9: SOLVED) Does the Biblical story of Yael killing the Canaanite commander Sisera in Book V have an allegorical meaning, particularly one referring to the Passion?
The details are curious enough to consider the story's possible allegorical meaning like the stories of the Binding of Isaac and Joseph's capture in the pit. Here is Josephus' narration:
But Sisares, having leapt from his chariot when he saw that the rout was come, fled till he reached the abode of a woman of the Kenites " named Iale; she, at his request to conceal him, took him in, and, when he asked for drink, gave him milk that had turned sour." And he, having drunk thereof immoderately, fell asleep. Then, as he slumbered, lale took an iron nail and drove it with a hammer through his mouth and jaw, piercing the ground; and when Barak's company •* arrived soon after she showed him to them nailed to the earth. Thus did this victory redound, as Dabora had foretold, to a woman's glory. But Barak, marching upon Asor, slew Jabin ^ who encountered him and, the general having fallen, razed the city to the ground ; he then held command of the Israelites for forty years.
FOOTNOTE
[Iale refers to:] Bibl. Jael.
FOOTNOTE
[Iale refers to:] Bibl. Jael.
Here is what I mean about the curious, unusual details:
First, why would Yael give Sisera sour milk on his request? It doesn't seem normal for her to do that, but it reminds me of the Psalm and of the Passion, where the narrator and Christ are given vinegar, respectively.
Second, Yael is a combination of Ya (a reference to Jehovah's Biblical abbreviation 'Yah'?) and El (God).
Third, the Biblical story actually says that Yael pierced Sisera through the temples with the nail, not the mouth as Josephus wrote. The choice of weapon is curious, raising a question about the significance of using a hammer and nail, instead of Yael just cracking him with the hammer? In Psalm 40:6, David says that God opened (a literal translation being "gouged") ears in him. This Hebrew word for gouging (karah) commonly refers to using large nails to gouge wells and holes in the earth. And in the story, Yael even drives the nail through and into the earth.
If it's seen as Christological, the sour milk would refer to the vinegar, the falling asleep to the death, and the piercing with a nail to the crucifixion. The fact that a pagan general was used can refer to the inspired words in the Psalm that God opened ears in the narrator to hear God's word, which could make Sisera's being pierced as he slept a prefigurement of the pagan world being asleep and then hearing God's word.
(Question 10: SOLVED) Does a Christological prophecy appear in Book V, when Josephus tells how the ruler, Gideon died, and Gideon's youngest son killed his own brothers, with only his brother Jotham escaping? Is the parable that Jotham gave to the people a prophetic reference to the crown of thorns?
Here is Jotham's parable, below:
"...the trees, once gifted wth a human voice, held a meeting and besought a fig-tree to rule over them. And when she refused, because she enjoyed the esteem which her fruits brought her, an esteem that was all her own and not conferred from without by others, the trees did not renounce their intention of having a ruler, but thought good to offer this dignity to the vine. And the vine, when so elected, on the same grounds as those of the fig-tree, declined the sovereignty. The olive-trees having done the like, a bramble—since the trees requested it to accept the kingship, and it is good in giving wood for tinder—promised to undertake the office and to act strenuously. However it behoved them all to sit down beneath her shadow, and should they plot her ruin they would be destroyed by the fire within her."
"I tell this fable," said Jotham, " not for your merriment, but because notwithstanding the manifold benefits that ye have received from Gedeon ye suffer Abimelech to hold sovereign sway, after aiding him to slay my brethren. Ye will find him in no wise different from a fire."
"I tell this fable," said Jotham, " not for your merriment, but because notwithstanding the manifold benefits that ye have received from Gedeon ye suffer Abimelech to hold sovereign sway, after aiding him to slay my brethren. Ye will find him in no wise different from a fire."
By comparison, in the gospels, ancient Israel is compared to a fig tree, Jesus is compared to a vine, then in Romans 9-11 the assembly of the righteous is compared to an olive tree. The crown of thorns was a set of brambles that were placed over Christ.
(Question 11: SOLVED) Was the angel who foretold Samson's birth to his mother the Lord, and if so, how can one explain His appearance in light of the Biblical verse that no man can see God and live? Maybe the angel kept his face covered?
First, the angel makes the prediction to Samson's mother. Then he appears to Samson's father Manoah and says that the prediction is only to be said by the angel to the mother. The mother seems to conclude that this angel, who had refused to give his own name, was God Himself:
Manoah thereat fearing that some mischief might befall them from this vision of God, his wife bade him take heart, since it was for their good that it had been given them to see God.
The same is said by the husband about the angel, in Judges 13:
22. And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God.
It raises the question of whether this angel was in fact God, and if so, how to explain the incident in light of Exodus 33, saying that no man can see God and live. Maybe the angel kept his face covered?
20. But He said, “You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live.” ... 22. “So it shall be, while My glory passes by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock, and will cover you with My hand while I pass by. 23. “Then I will take away My hand, and you shall see My back; but My face shall not be seen.”
Note also John 1:18: “No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him”.
NOTE:
I did cleanup because there were so many questions and replies and made a new thread for the questions numbered 12-24, from David to Solomon.
theloveofgod.proboards.com/thread/4774/josephus-antiquities-books-david-solomon
