Post by rakovsky on May 14, 2019 23:37:01 GMT -8
Here are links to the Antiquities:
Book VIII: archive.org/details/josephuswithengl05joseuoft
Books IX-XI: archive.org/details/josephuswithengl06joseuoft
Books XII-XIV: archive.org/details/josephuswithengl07joseuoft
Books XV-XVII: archive.org/details/josephuswithengl08joseuoft/page/n5
I found this diagram of Israel's kings to be helpful:
(Question 1: Solved) What were God's appearances to prophets to give them messages like, such as God's appearance to the prophet Achias, below? Would it have been a direct meeting with a being who looked like a normal man, or vision of the uncreated light?
Josephus repeatedly describes God "appearing" to prophets to give them messages, like this time when Jeroboam sends his wife to get a prediction from the prophet Achias about their son's health in Book VIII:
Josephus records in the story of Daniel another time when God appeared to a person in a dream:
(Question 2: SOLVED) Did (A) Elijah's chariot deliver ELijah to heaven for ages, or did (B) the chariot just transport him via heaven to another location and that Elijah show up as still alive on earth within his normal lifespan in a later passage?
Josephus appears to have in mind the story of Elijah's chariot of fire when he talks about Elijah's death:
In 2 Kings 2:12, the claim that Elisha saw Elijah "no more" tends to suggest to me that (A) Elisha never saw Elijah again because Elijah had been taken up to stay in heaven, and not just that (B) Elisha saw didn't see him after the chariot took him up and transported him to another earthly region.
On the other hand, the Russian Orthodox Synod's translation of the Masoretic text of 2 Kings 2 says (my translation from Russian):
In Russian, it doesn't say heaven (nebesa) in the sense of God's heaven (nebesa) like in "Our Father Who art in heaven (nebeseh)", but rather it uses the word "heaven" that means "sky" (nebo). But I suppose that Elijah could be transported into the sky and then up into the divine heavens even if the Bible doesn't specify the latter.
The Orthodox Outlet for Dogmatic Enquiries article on the question proposes that Elijah didn't go up to the supernatural, divine heaven, in part because in 2 Chronicles 21:10-12, Elijah sent a writing to the King of Judah. ("And there came a writing to him from Elijah the prophet, saying, Thus saith the LORD God of David thy father...") The article claims that "Elijah had sent this ‘writing’ AFTER his 'ascent towards Heaven'. This undoubtedly verifies that Elijah remained on earth, from whence he sent the letter."
(Question 3: SOLVED) What do you think about Josephus' explanation for the Samaritans' presence? Do you think that they may include many members of the lost tribes?
In Book IX, Josephus apparently explains the origins of Samaritans whom he says are called in Hebrew the "Cuthim", meaning the "Chuthaioi". He describes the actions of the Assyrian King in bringing settlers from Chuthos in Persia into northern Israel after conquering the latter. Josephus writes that the king sent the Samaritans priests from the conquered northern Israelite tribes, and that depending on whether current circumstances suit them, the Samaritans may claim to be descended from the Israelite Tribe of Joseph:
(Question 4: Solved) Could the Assyrian king's warning to King Hezekiah cryptically allude to the Crucifixion?
When the Assyrian king advanced on Judah and asked King Hezekiah if Hezekiah is relying on Egypt to defeat Assyria. The Assyrian king says that if Egypt's assistance "was what he expected, they should, he said, make clear to him that he was very foolish and like a man who leans upon a broken reed and not only falls but also has his hand pierced, and feels the hurt."
This warning reminds me of the crucifixion, where Christ put his weight on the cross (the cut wood being like a broken reed?) and his hands/arms were pierced by that on which he relied. In addition, Hezekiah experienced a three-day recovery from a deadly illness, which is another possible prophetic allusion to the Messiah's death and resurrection.
(Question 5: Solved) If Hezekiah had known Moses' laws all along, then why was he surprised when they were read out and he concluded that his kingdom would suffer for his fathers' infidelity and "lawlessness"? Maybe the Temple priests had kept Moses' books, but then forgot or ignored them in the period leading up to Hezekiah's reign, and Hezekiah and Eliakias rediscovered the ancient books?
The story of King Hezekiah's priest Eliakias discovering the in the Temple is curious for me. It sounds in the text as if Hezekiah was pious in following ancient Israel's religious laws, presumably coming from the . But then it sounds as if his priest Eliakias discovered the books of Moses by chance in the Temple. Here is Josephus' account in Book X:
(Question 6: Solved) Does the Babylonian king's praise of God suggest (at least to Josephus) that this king believed in God or was talking about the one ultimate true God?
Josephus has the Babylonian king say to King Zedekiah: "But great is God who in His abhorrence of your conduct has made you fall into our hands."
It sounds strange to hear the Babylonian king praising God unless the king acknowledged Him.
(Question 7: Solved) Did the Seleucid king Antiochus secretly kill the leader Hyrcanus ben Joseph? Was Hyrcanus overly fearful of Antiochus in killing himself?
I wonder if King Antiochus or his supporters arranged for Hyrcanus' death, because Hyrcanus' death was very convenient for Antiochus. Plus, Antiochus seemed capable of using Machiavellian tactics, because Antiochus killed his own sympathizer, Menelaus. Antiochus killed Menelaus in order to blame him for the Jews' complaints over the temple's desecration when Antiochus may have really been in part to blame himself.
The killings occurred in the 2nd century BC during the rivalry between two Hellenistic dynasties: the Middle Eastern Seleucids and the Egyptian Ptolemies. Hyrcanus, son of the Jewish leader Joseph ben Tobiah, paid tribute to the Ptolemies. But Hyrcanus' Tobiad brothers allied with the Seleucids, who appointed Onias (AKA Menelaus) to officiate in the Temple, which Antiochus desecrated. Hyrcanus left Jerusalem, built fortresses on the eastern side of the Jordan, and fought the Arabs there.
In Book XII, Josephus narrates a surprising turn of events leading to the death of Hyrcanus:
I understand that Antiochus' power threatened Hyrcanus, but it seems premature that Hyrcanus would have killed himself before Antiochus even tried to capture him, since Hyrcanus could have tried to negotiate, escape to Egypt, or go down fighting. Maybe Hyrcanus was secretly killed or was overly afraid? Or maybe he underwent a real risk of capture even without Antiochus having warred on him yet, justifying his fear?
Wikipedia's "Hasmonean Dynasty" article refers to accusations of cloak and dagger tactics by Judean political groups in this era:
(Question 8: Solved) How was the land of Judah a terror to Egypt in the 2nd to 1st century BC? Alternately, if the land of Judah wasn't a terror to Egypt, then did the prophecy of Isaiah 19 about a temple being built in Egypt not really apply to that period? And what Egyptian city does the prophecy refer to that would be called the "city of destruction"?
In Chapter 13, Josephus relates that Onias, the son of the high priest Onias, had fled to Alexandria in Egypt and
In Josephus' narrative, Onias requested to build the new temple on the ruins of the temple to Bubastis, and Ptolemy the Egyptian ruler replied to Onias:
Below is the prophecy from Isaiah 19 that encouraged Onias ben Onias to build the temple in Egypt.
The NIV notes "Some manuscripts of the Masoretic Text, Dead Sea Scrolls, Symmachus and Vulgate" say "City of the Sun".
Although Thackeray notes that most commentators think that verses 18-25 are Hasmonean interpolations into Isaiah, I don't know why the verses would need to be interpolations. On the other hand, I don't know how one could disprove the hypothesis that they were inserted- after all, we don't have definite pre-Hasmonean copies of Isaiah. But all our copies of Isaiah do have those verses, including the Dead Sea Scrolls of c.300-100 BC., which were discovered in 1947 after Thackeray wrote his footnote. So it seems an unlikely theory that the verses are Hasmonean interpolations.
I do see how Onias' temple would count as "an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt", and I can also see how Christ who was a child in Egypt and became known to Egyptians would fulfill the verses spiritually wherein "they shall cry unto the Lord because of the oppressors, and he shall send them a saviour, and a great one, and he shall deliver them."
But it says "In that day...", so if the events described apply to the ancient period when Onias set up his temple, then one would have to look for conflicts in that period where Egypt was on one side and the Judeans were on another side (eg. allied with the Romans or Greeks).
(Question 9: Solved) Did the Macedonians have some kind of uneasy arrangement with the Judean rebels whereby the rebels allowed them to stay?
In Book XIII, the Seleucid general Apollonius attacks Jonathan, Jonathan defeats Apollonius, and the Hellenic King Alexander pretends to be pleased with Jonathan's victory and rewards him. Thackeray writes that actually Alexander's award to Jonathan was sincere because general Appollonius served Alexander's rival, Demetrius II:
This suggests at least a kind of detente between the Judean forces and the Macedonians, to whom the Seleucids belonged.
Additionally, Josephus had recorded that the Jewish rebels captured Jerusalem, yet the Macedonians retained a garrison in a citadel in the middle of the city. It seems though that the Macedonians kept the hostile garrison there for a long time, even through successive Judean rulers, who changed allegiances between Hellenic rulers in Antioch, such as Demetrius and Antiochus (there were more than one Hellenic ruler by that name in Syria), and even after the Judeans supposedly took control of Judea and its cities. It's strange. It seems that the normal thing to do would be to arrange with their allied hellenic ruler for the Macedonians to leave Jerusalem, since it was inside the city that the Judeans controlled. So it seems that the Macedonians had some kind of uneasy arrangement with the Judean rebels whereby the rebels allowed them to stay.
For an example of their detente, note that in Book XII, Josephus describes King Antiochus putting the guards in Jerusalem and building the city's citadel or "Acra":
Then in Volume 13, Jonathan advised the citizens of Jerusalem
So even after the successful Judean revolt and capture of Jerusalem, the citadel remained with a Macedonian garrison.
(Question 10: Solved) Do you think that King Herod might have secretly slaughtered the Gadarens?
In Chapter 10 of Book XV, Josephus tells how people of Gadara publicly objected to Caesar about Herod's rule, and then that night they supposedly killed themselves for fear of Herod:
I am wondering whether in fact Herod secretly killed them, since I also wonder why the Gadarens couldn't try to escape. Reading the passage, the slaughter seems to me like it could have been retribution by Herod's forces.
(Question 11: Solved) Supposing that God's Word and Wisdom are Spirits (or a Spirit), is Fate or God's Providence also a Spirit?
Yes, God's Providence (ie. Foresight) is a "spirit" in that a "spirit" can refer to an attribute or power, and God's foresight is one of His attributes or powers. In Christianity, fate on the other hand is the phenomenon of destiny or outcome of events, and so it is not a "spirit", ie. not an attribute or power.
In John's Gospel, God's Word/Logos is a Divine Being. And the book of the "Old Testament Apocrypha" called "Wisdom of Solomon" says that "Wisdom is a Spirit".
In Antiquities XVI.3, Josephus says about King Herod,
Then in Antiquities XVI.11.8, Josephus asks who was responsible for the "unreasonable" or "absurd" tragedy of King Herod killing his two sons: the sons, Herod, or Fate:
Loeb translates the part about Fate as:
Josephus goes on to compare the doctrine of Fate with the doctrine
In other words, Josephus distinguishes the doctrine on Fate from the philosophy of the to be that individuals themselves are not unaccountable for their behavior. He then goes on to say that "anybody may lay the blame on the young men... yet cannot their father be thought worthy excuse... and especially Alexander, who was the eldest" son and promoted his younger brothers' killing.
Later, in Book XVIII, Josephus says about the pharisees' beliefs, that "when they determine that all things are done by fate, they do not take away the freedom from men of acting as they think fit; since their notion is, that it hath pleased God to make a temperament, whereby what he wills is done, but so that the will of man can act virtuously or viciously."
The WIkipedia article on the Moirai (often known in English as "the Fates") says:
The Encyclopedia Britannica article on Providence says:
In Ode 36 Odes of Solomon, which are Christian hymns from the First to Second Century AD, but whose theology (ie. orthodox or gnostic) is unclear, the narrator describes the experience of the Lord establishing him in the Spirit of Providence:
I rested on the Spirit of the Lord, and She lifted me up to heaven;
And caused me to stand on my feet in the Lord's high place, before His perfection and His glory, where I continued glorifying Him by the composition of His Odes.
...
And my approach was in peace, and I was established in the Spirit of Providence.
(Question 12: Solved) What do you think about Josephus' claim that defendants' calling on God in court to prove their innocence is a sign that they are guilty? Why wouldn't an innocent person say an open loud prayer before a court asking the Lord to prove his innocence?
Josephus makes this comment in telling the story of Antipater's trial before his father Herod for planning to kill Herod:
Josephus' claim about a defendant praying in court is really doubtful for me. I guess that such an open, dramatic prayer could be considered an outburst disrupting the court; but otherwise I don't know why the issue of whether a defendant prays depends on one's guilt as Josephus supposes. Besides that, I am inclined to think that Antipater really was innocent. Herod had accused enough innocent people before, and the evidence of Antipater's guilt was based on torture or otherwise doubtful enough for me.
(Question 13: Solved) Do you think that Matthias' idea below is correct? Should one's devotion to piety whereby death walks with them because of the piety cause one to endure death with pleasure?
Matthias son of Margalothus was a teacher of the to his students in Jerusalem and he ordered them to pull down the eagle that Herod had put over the temple gate because it was an abomination as a graven image. Herod's soldiers caught Matthias, who made a speech to Herod, including the words,
"...And with pleasure we will endure death or whatever punishment you may inflict on us because we shall be conscious that death walks with us not because of any wrongdoing on our part but because of our devotion to piety." Afterwards, Matthias was burned alive.
In Whiston's translation, Matthias says to Herod: "...it ought not to be wondered at, if we esteem those laws which Moses had suggested to him, and were taught him by God, and which he wrote and left behind him, more worthy of observation than thy commands. Accordingly we will undergo death, and all sorts of punishments which thou canst inflict upon us, with pleasure, since we are conscious to ourselves that we shall die, not for any unrighteous actions, but for our love to religion."
Josephus narrates the same event in Wars of the Jews I.653, writing, "Herod first asked them whether they had dared to cut down the golden eagle; and they admitted it. 'Who ordered you to do so?' he continued. 'The law of our fathers.' 'And why so exultant, when you will shortly be put to death?' 'Because, after our death, we shall enjoy greater felicity.'"
(Question 14) What do you think about Josephus' prophetic or ominous story about Glaphyra's dream? Do you believe that the dead can actually visit the living in their sleep?
Josephus tells a remarkable story about Glaphyra's dream in which her first husband, King Herod's son Alexander, visited her and said that she will belong to him again, soon after which she died:
Let me give you an example that puts the phenomenon of dead relatives' visits in doubt for me. Let's say that a person has dreams about their relatives when they are alive, and they feel realistic to the dreamer while he/she is dreaming. But the relatives deny having any experience (imagined, dreamt, or otherwise) of meeting the dreamer during the evening. Years later, the dreamer has the same kinds of dreams after the relatives pass away. It seems that the relatives in the latter dreams are not necessarily any more likely to be the real souls of the relatives than in the former.
Book VIII: archive.org/details/josephuswithengl05joseuoft
Books IX-XI: archive.org/details/josephuswithengl06joseuoft
Books XII-XIV: archive.org/details/josephuswithengl07joseuoft
Books XV-XVII: archive.org/details/josephuswithengl08joseuoft/page/n5
I found this diagram of Israel's kings to be helpful:
(Question 1: Solved) What were God's appearances to prophets to give them messages like, such as God's appearance to the prophet Achias, below? Would it have been a direct meeting with a being who looked like a normal man, or vision of the uncreated light?
Josephus repeatedly describes God "appearing" to prophets to give them messages, like this time when Jeroboam sends his wife to get a prediction from the prophet Achias about their son's health in Book VIII:
And as she was about to enter the house of the prophet, whose eyes were dim from age, God appeared to him and told him both that Jeroboam's wife had come to him and how he was to answer what she had come there to ask.
Josephus records in the story of Daniel another time when God appeared to a person in a dream:
In particular Daniel, who had already acquired sufficient skill in wisdom, devoted himself to the interpretation of dreams, and the Deity manifested Himself to him.
(Question 2: SOLVED) Did (A) Elijah's chariot deliver ELijah to heaven for ages, or did (B) the chariot just transport him via heaven to another location and that Elijah show up as still alive on earth within his normal lifespan in a later passage?
Josephus appears to have in mind the story of Elijah's chariot of fire when he talks about Elijah's death:
Now about that time Elijah disappeared (2 Kings ii. 1.) from among men, and to this day no one knows his end.'' He left behind him a disciple EUsha, as we have already related.** However, concerning Elijah and Enoch,* who lived before the Flood, it is WTitten in the sacred books that they became invisible, and no one knows of their death.
In 2 Kings 2:12, the claim that Elisha saw Elijah "no more" tends to suggest to me that (A) Elisha never saw Elijah again because Elijah had been taken up to stay in heaven, and not just that (B) Elisha saw didn't see him after the chariot took him up and transported him to another earthly region.
On the other hand, the Russian Orthodox Synod's translation of the Masoretic text of 2 Kings 2 says (my translation from Russian):
2. At that time when the Lord wanted to carry up Elijah on a wind to heaven...
11. ...suddenly a chariot fiery and horses fiery appeared and seprated them and carries Elijah on a wind onto heaven.
11. ...suddenly a chariot fiery and horses fiery appeared and seprated them and carries Elijah on a wind onto heaven.
In Russian, it doesn't say heaven (nebesa) in the sense of God's heaven (nebesa) like in "Our Father Who art in heaven (nebeseh)", but rather it uses the word "heaven" that means "sky" (nebo). But I suppose that Elijah could be transported into the sky and then up into the divine heavens even if the Bible doesn't specify the latter.
The Orthodox Outlet for Dogmatic Enquiries article on the question proposes that Elijah didn't go up to the supernatural, divine heaven, in part because in 2 Chronicles 21:10-12, Elijah sent a writing to the King of Judah. ("And there came a writing to him from Elijah the prophet, saying, Thus saith the LORD God of David thy father...") The article claims that "Elijah had sent this ‘writing’ AFTER his 'ascent towards Heaven'. This undoubtedly verifies that Elijah remained on earth, from whence he sent the letter."
(Question 3: SOLVED) What do you think about Josephus' explanation for the Samaritans' presence? Do you think that they may include many members of the lost tribes?
In Book IX, Josephus apparently explains the origins of Samaritans whom he says are called in Hebrew the "Cuthim", meaning the "Chuthaioi". He describes the actions of the Assyrian King in bringing settlers from Chuthos in Persia into northern Israel after conquering the latter. Josephus writes that the king sent the Samaritans priests from the conquered northern Israelite tribes, and that depending on whether current circumstances suit them, the Samaritans may claim to be descended from the Israelite Tribe of Joseph:
And, after removing other nations from a region called Chuthos —there is a river by this name in Persia, he [the Assyrian king] settled them [ie. those nations] in Samaria and in the country of the Israelites. So the ten tribes of Israel emigrated from Judaea nine hundred and forty-seven years after their forefathers went out of Egypt...
As for the Chuthaioi who were transported to Samaria—this is the name by which they have been called to this day because of having been brought over from the region called Chutha, which is in Persia, as is a river by the same name—, each of their tribes—there were five —brought along its own god, and, as they reverenced them in accordance with the custom of their country, they provoked the Most High God to anger and wrath. For He visited upon them a pestilence " by which they were destroyed ; and, as they could devise no remedy for their sufferings, they learned from an oracle that they should worship the Most High God, for this would bring them deliverance.'* And so they sent envoys to the king of Assyria, asking him to send them some priests from the captives he had taken in his war with the Israelites. Accordingly, he sent some priests,* and they,^ after being instructed in the ordinances and rehgion of this God, worshipped Him with great zeal, and were at once freed of the pestilence. These same rites have continued in use even to this day among those who are called Chuthaioi (Cuthim) in the Hebrew tongue, and Samareitai (Samaritans) by the Greeks; but they alter their attitude according to circumstance and, when they see the Jews prospering, call them their kinsmen, on the ground that they are descended from Joseph and are related to them through their origin from him, but, when they see the Jews in trouble, they say that they have nothing whatever in common with them nor do these have any claim of friendship or race, and they declare themselves to be aliens of another race.
As for the Chuthaioi who were transported to Samaria—this is the name by which they have been called to this day because of having been brought over from the region called Chutha, which is in Persia, as is a river by the same name—, each of their tribes—there were five —brought along its own god, and, as they reverenced them in accordance with the custom of their country, they provoked the Most High God to anger and wrath. For He visited upon them a pestilence " by which they were destroyed ; and, as they could devise no remedy for their sufferings, they learned from an oracle that they should worship the Most High God, for this would bring them deliverance.'* And so they sent envoys to the king of Assyria, asking him to send them some priests from the captives he had taken in his war with the Israelites. Accordingly, he sent some priests,* and they,^ after being instructed in the ordinances and rehgion of this God, worshipped Him with great zeal, and were at once freed of the pestilence. These same rites have continued in use even to this day among those who are called Chuthaioi (Cuthim) in the Hebrew tongue, and Samareitai (Samaritans) by the Greeks; but they alter their attitude according to circumstance and, when they see the Jews prospering, call them their kinsmen, on the ground that they are descended from Joseph and are related to them through their origin from him, but, when they see the Jews in trouble, they say that they have nothing whatever in common with them nor do these have any claim of friendship or race, and they declare themselves to be aliens of another race.
(Question 4: Solved) Could the Assyrian king's warning to King Hezekiah cryptically allude to the Crucifixion?
When the Assyrian king advanced on Judah and asked King Hezekiah if Hezekiah is relying on Egypt to defeat Assyria. The Assyrian king says that if Egypt's assistance "was what he expected, they should, he said, make clear to him that he was very foolish and like a man who leans upon a broken reed and not only falls but also has his hand pierced, and feels the hurt."
This warning reminds me of the crucifixion, where Christ put his weight on the cross (the cut wood being like a broken reed?) and his hands/arms were pierced by that on which he relied. In addition, Hezekiah experienced a three-day recovery from a deadly illness, which is another possible prophetic allusion to the Messiah's death and resurrection.
(Question 5: Solved) If Hezekiah had known Moses' laws all along, then why was he surprised when they were read out and he concluded that his kingdom would suffer for his fathers' infidelity and "lawlessness"? Maybe the Temple priests had kept Moses' books, but then forgot or ignored them in the period leading up to Hezekiah's reign, and Hezekiah and Eliakias rediscovered the ancient books?
The story of King Hezekiah's priest Eliakias discovering the in the Temple is curious for me. It sounds in the text as if Hezekiah was pious in following ancient Israel's religious laws, presumably coming from the . But then it sounds as if his priest Eliakias discovered the books of Moses by chance in the Temple. Here is Josephus' account in Book X:
These [pious] things he[Hezekiah] did by using his natural wisdom and discernment and being guided by the counsel and traditions of the elders ^ ; for it was by following the laws that he succeeded so well in the ordering of his government ' and in piety toward the Deity, and also because the lawlessness of the former (kings) no longer existed but had been rooted out.
...
But, in bringing out the gold, the high priest Ehakias came upon the sacred books ** of Moses, which had been placed in the temple, and he brought them out and gave them to Sapha, the scribe. And, when he had read them, he came to the king and informed him that everything which he had ordered to be done had been brought to completion. Then he also read the books aloud to him. When the king had heard them read, he rent his garments and, calling the high priest Eliakias, sent him and the scribe himself* and some of his closest friends to the prophetess Oolda,^ the wife of Sallumos," a man of high repute and illustrious family," commanding them to go to her and tell her to appease God and attempt to win His favour, for, he said, there was reason to fear that, since their forefathers had transgressed against the laws of Moses, they themselves might be in danger of being driven away, and, after being cast out of their own country into a foreign land where they would be destitute of all things, might there miserably end their lives.
FOOTNOTE
Most modern scholars, however, assume that the book of Deuteronomy is here meant, and that in substantially, its present form it was written not long before the reign of Josiah, as the religious reforms prescribed in Deuteronomy seem to have been accepted by Josiah as a program of action.
...
But, in bringing out the gold, the high priest Ehakias came upon the sacred books ** of Moses, which had been placed in the temple, and he brought them out and gave them to Sapha, the scribe. And, when he had read them, he came to the king and informed him that everything which he had ordered to be done had been brought to completion. Then he also read the books aloud to him. When the king had heard them read, he rent his garments and, calling the high priest Eliakias, sent him and the scribe himself* and some of his closest friends to the prophetess Oolda,^ the wife of Sallumos," a man of high repute and illustrious family," commanding them to go to her and tell her to appease God and attempt to win His favour, for, he said, there was reason to fear that, since their forefathers had transgressed against the laws of Moses, they themselves might be in danger of being driven away, and, after being cast out of their own country into a foreign land where they would be destitute of all things, might there miserably end their lives.
FOOTNOTE
Most modern scholars, however, assume that the book of Deuteronomy is here meant, and that in substantially, its present form it was written not long before the reign of Josiah, as the religious reforms prescribed in Deuteronomy seem to have been accepted by Josiah as a program of action.
(Question 6: Solved) Does the Babylonian king's praise of God suggest (at least to Josephus) that this king believed in God or was talking about the one ultimate true God?
Josephus has the Babylonian king say to King Zedekiah: "But great is God who in His abhorrence of your conduct has made you fall into our hands."
It sounds strange to hear the Babylonian king praising God unless the king acknowledged Him.
(Question 7: Solved) Did the Seleucid king Antiochus secretly kill the leader Hyrcanus ben Joseph? Was Hyrcanus overly fearful of Antiochus in killing himself?
I wonder if King Antiochus or his supporters arranged for Hyrcanus' death, because Hyrcanus' death was very convenient for Antiochus. Plus, Antiochus seemed capable of using Machiavellian tactics, because Antiochus killed his own sympathizer, Menelaus. Antiochus killed Menelaus in order to blame him for the Jews' complaints over the temple's desecration when Antiochus may have really been in part to blame himself.
The killings occurred in the 2nd century BC during the rivalry between two Hellenistic dynasties: the Middle Eastern Seleucids and the Egyptian Ptolemies. Hyrcanus, son of the Jewish leader Joseph ben Tobiah, paid tribute to the Ptolemies. But Hyrcanus' Tobiad brothers allied with the Seleucids, who appointed Onias (AKA Menelaus) to officiate in the Temple, which Antiochus desecrated. Hyrcanus left Jerusalem, built fortresses on the eastern side of the Jordan, and fought the Arabs there.
In Book XII, Josephus narrates a surprising turn of events leading to the death of Hyrcanus:
And he [Hyrcanus] ruled over those parts for seven years, during all the time that Seleucus reigned over Asia. Now when this king died, his brother Antiochus, surnamed Epiphanes, Occupied the throne after him... As for Hyrcanus, seeing how great was the power which Antiochus had, and fearing that he might be captured by him and punished for what he had done to the Arabs, he ended his life by his own hand. And all his property was seized by Antiochus.
I understand that Antiochus' power threatened Hyrcanus, but it seems premature that Hyrcanus would have killed himself before Antiochus even tried to capture him, since Hyrcanus could have tried to negotiate, escape to Egypt, or go down fighting. Maybe Hyrcanus was secretly killed or was overly afraid? Or maybe he underwent a real risk of capture even without Antiochus having warred on him yet, justifying his fear?
Wikipedia's "Hasmonean Dynasty" article refers to accusations of cloak and dagger tactics by Judean political groups in this era:
In 175 BCE, conflict broke out between High Priest Onias III (who opposed Hellenization and favoured the Ptolemies) and his son Jason (who favoured Hellenization and the Seleucids). A period of political intrigue followed, with both Jason and Menelaus bribing the king to win the High Priesthood, and accusations of murder of competing contenders for the title. The result was a brief civil war. The Tobiads, a philo-Hellenistic party, succeeded in placing Jason into the powerful position of High Priest.
(Question 8: Solved) How was the land of Judah a terror to Egypt in the 2nd to 1st century BC? Alternately, if the land of Judah wasn't a terror to Egypt, then did the prophecy of Isaiah 19 about a temple being built in Egypt not really apply to that period? And what Egyptian city does the prophecy refer to that would be called the "city of destruction"?
In Chapter 13, Josephus relates that Onias, the son of the high priest Onias, had fled to Alexandria in Egypt and
determined to send to King Ptolemy and Queen Cleopatra and request of them authority to build a temple in Egypt similar to that at Jerusalem, and to appoint Levites and priests of his own race. In this desire he was encouraged chiefly by the words of the prophet Isaiah, who had lived more than six hundred years before and had foretold that a temple to the Most High God was surely to be built in Egypt by a Jew.'
Thackeray's Footnote:
Is. xix. 19, " In that day shall there be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to the Lord." Many commentators suspect vss. 18-25 of this chapter of having been interpolated by a writer of the Hasmonaean period ; in vs. 18 some scholars emend "ir hn-heres " city of destruction " to "ir hu-heres " city of the sun," supposing this to be an allusion to the name Heliopolis " city of the sun."
Thackeray's Footnote:
Is. xix. 19, " In that day shall there be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to the Lord." Many commentators suspect vss. 18-25 of this chapter of having been interpolated by a writer of the Hasmonaean period ; in vs. 18 some scholars emend "ir hn-heres " city of destruction " to "ir hu-heres " city of the sun," supposing this to be an allusion to the name Heliopolis " city of the sun."
In Josephus' narrative, Onias requested to build the new temple on the ruins of the temple to Bubastis, and Ptolemy the Egyptian ruler replied to Onias:
We wonder, therefore, whether it \nll be pleasing to God that a temple be built in a place so wild and full of sacred animals. But since vou say that the prophet Isaiah foretold this long ago, we grant your request if this is to be in accordance with the Law...
Below is the prophecy from Isaiah 19 that encouraged Onias ben Onias to build the temple in Egypt.
17. And the land of Judah shall be a terror unto Egypt, every one that maketh mention thereof shall be afraid in himself, because of the counsel of the Lord of hosts, which he hath determined against it.
18. In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of Canaan, and swear to the Lord of hosts; one shall be called, The city of destruction.
19. In that day shall there be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to the Lord.
20. And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto the Lord of hosts in the land of Egypt: for they shall cry unto the Lord because of the oppressors, and he shall send them a saviour, and a great one, and he shall deliver them.
21. And the Lord shall be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians shall know the Lord in that day, and shall do sacrifice and oblation; yea, they shall vow a vow unto the Lord, and perform it.
18. In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of Canaan, and swear to the Lord of hosts; one shall be called, The city of destruction.
19. In that day shall there be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to the Lord.
20. And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto the Lord of hosts in the land of Egypt: for they shall cry unto the Lord because of the oppressors, and he shall send them a saviour, and a great one, and he shall deliver them.
21. And the Lord shall be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians shall know the Lord in that day, and shall do sacrifice and oblation; yea, they shall vow a vow unto the Lord, and perform it.
Although Thackeray notes that most commentators think that verses 18-25 are Hasmonean interpolations into Isaiah, I don't know why the verses would need to be interpolations. On the other hand, I don't know how one could disprove the hypothesis that they were inserted- after all, we don't have definite pre-Hasmonean copies of Isaiah. But all our copies of Isaiah do have those verses, including the Dead Sea Scrolls of c.300-100 BC., which were discovered in 1947 after Thackeray wrote his footnote. So it seems an unlikely theory that the verses are Hasmonean interpolations.
I do see how Onias' temple would count as "an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt", and I can also see how Christ who was a child in Egypt and became known to Egyptians would fulfill the verses spiritually wherein "they shall cry unto the Lord because of the oppressors, and he shall send them a saviour, and a great one, and he shall deliver them."
But it says "In that day...", so if the events described apply to the ancient period when Onias set up his temple, then one would have to look for conflicts in that period where Egypt was on one side and the Judeans were on another side (eg. allied with the Romans or Greeks).
(Question 9: Solved) Did the Macedonians have some kind of uneasy arrangement with the Judean rebels whereby the rebels allowed them to stay?
In Book XIII, the Seleucid general Apollonius attacks Jonathan, Jonathan defeats Apollonius, and the Hellenic King Alexander pretends to be pleased with Jonathan's victory and rewards him. Thackeray writes that actually Alexander's award to Jonathan was sincere because general Appollonius served Alexander's rival, Demetrius II:
Now when Alexander heard that his general ApoUonius had been defeated, he pretended to be pleased, as if it had been against his will that Apllonius fought Jonathan who was his friend and ally, and he wrote to Jonathan, testifying to his worth bv giving him rewards and honours, including a gold brooch, such as are customarily given to kinsmen of kings, and he turned over to him Akkaron and its district as land for settlement.
Thackeray notes:
As was remarked above, § 88 note d, Apollonius was fighting for Demetrius II, not for Alexander Balas. The followins section is therefore a distortion of 1 Mace. x. 88-89, which tells how Alexander honoured Jonathan for his victory over ApoUonius. Josephus' phrase irpoae-TToidTo x^ipetv " pretended to be pleased " is in direct contradiction to the phrase in 1 Mace, irpoaeOeTo ert ho^d^eiv tov 'liovddrjv " he continued still further to honour Jonathan."
Thackeray notes:
As was remarked above, § 88 note d, Apollonius was fighting for Demetrius II, not for Alexander Balas. The followins section is therefore a distortion of 1 Mace. x. 88-89, which tells how Alexander honoured Jonathan for his victory over ApoUonius. Josephus' phrase irpoae-TToidTo x^ipetv " pretended to be pleased " is in direct contradiction to the phrase in 1 Mace, irpoaeOeTo ert ho^d^eiv tov 'liovddrjv " he continued still further to honour Jonathan."
This suggests at least a kind of detente between the Judean forces and the Macedonians, to whom the Seleucids belonged.
Additionally, Josephus had recorded that the Jewish rebels captured Jerusalem, yet the Macedonians retained a garrison in a citadel in the middle of the city. It seems though that the Macedonians kept the hostile garrison there for a long time, even through successive Judean rulers, who changed allegiances between Hellenic rulers in Antioch, such as Demetrius and Antiochus (there were more than one Hellenic ruler by that name in Syria), and even after the Judeans supposedly took control of Judea and its cities. It's strange. It seems that the normal thing to do would be to arrange with their allied hellenic ruler for the Macedonians to leave Jerusalem, since it was inside the city that the Judeans controlled. So it seems that the Macedonians had some kind of uneasy arrangement with the Judean rebels whereby the rebels allowed them to stay.
For an example of their detente, note that in Book XII, Josephus describes King Antiochus putting the guards in Jerusalem and building the city's citadel or "Acra":
"And he burnt the finest parts of the city, and pulling down the walls, built the Akra (citadel) in the Lower City; for it was high enough to overlook the temple, and it was for this reason that he fortified it with high walls and towers, and stationed a Macedonian garrison therein."
Then in Volume 13, Jonathan advised the citizens of Jerusalem
"to set up again the part of the wall round the temple which had been thrown down, and to fortify the temple precincts by high towers, and, in addition, to build still another wall in the midst of the city to keep the garrison in the citadel from reaching the city, and in this way cut off their large supply of provisions".
So even after the successful Judean revolt and capture of Jerusalem, the citadel remained with a Macedonian garrison.
(Question 10: Solved) Do you think that King Herod might have secretly slaughtered the Gadarens?
In Chapter 10 of Book XV, Josephus tells how people of Gadara publicly objected to Caesar about Herod's rule, and then that night they supposedly killed themselves for fear of Herod:
... as the Gadarens saw the inclination of Caesar and of his assessors, and expected, as they had reason to do, that they should be delivered up to the king, some of them, out of a dread of the torments they might undergo, cut their own throats in the night time, and some of them threw themselves down precipices, and others of them cast themselves into the river, and destroyed themselves of their own accord; which accidents seemed a sufficient condemnation of the rashness and crimes they had been guilty of; whereupon Caesar made no longer delay, but cleared Herod from the crimes he was accused of.
I am wondering whether in fact Herod secretly killed them, since I also wonder why the Gadarens couldn't try to escape. Reading the passage, the slaughter seems to me like it could have been retribution by Herod's forces.
(Question 11: Solved) Supposing that God's Word and Wisdom are Spirits (or a Spirit), is Fate or God's Providence also a Spirit?
Yes, God's Providence (ie. Foresight) is a "spirit" in that a "spirit" can refer to an attribute or power, and God's foresight is one of His attributes or powers. In Christianity, fate on the other hand is the phenomenon of destiny or outcome of events, and so it is not a "spirit", ie. not an attribute or power.
In John's Gospel, God's Word/Logos is a Divine Being. And the book of the "Old Testament Apocrypha" called "Wisdom of Solomon" says that "Wisdom is a Spirit".
In Antiquities XVI.3, Josephus says about King Herod,
Divine Providence had in reality conferred upon him a great many outward advantages for his happiness, even beyond his hopes; but the troubles he had at home were such as he never expected to have met with, and rendered him unfortunate;
(Whiston's translation)
In truth, a divine power had given him a great many instances of good fortune, even more than he had hoped for, in external affairs...
(Loeb's translation)
(Whiston's translation)
In truth, a divine power had given him a great many instances of good fortune, even more than he had hoped for, in external affairs...
(Loeb's translation)
Then in Antiquities XVI.11.8, Josephus asks who was responsible for the "unreasonable" or "absurd" tragedy of King Herod killing his two sons: the sons, Herod, or Fate:
And now perhaps it may not seem unreasonable to some, that such an inveterate hatred might increase so much [on both sides], as to proceed further, and overcome nature;
but it may justly deserve consideration, whether it be to be laid to the charge of the young men, that they gave such an occasion to their father's anger, and led him to do what he did, and by going on long in the same way put things past remedy, and brought him to use them so unmercifully;
or whether it be to be laid to the father's charge, that he was so hard-hearted, and so very tender in the desire of government, and of other things that would tend to his glory, that he would take no one into a partnership with him, that so whatsoever he would have done himself might continue immovable;
or, indeed, whether fortune have not greater power than all prudent reasonings;
whence we are persuaded that human actions are thereby determined beforehand by an inevitable necessity, and we call her Fate, because there is nothing which is not done by her;
but it may justly deserve consideration, whether it be to be laid to the charge of the young men, that they gave such an occasion to their father's anger, and led him to do what he did, and by going on long in the same way put things past remedy, and brought him to use them so unmercifully;
or whether it be to be laid to the father's charge, that he was so hard-hearted, and so very tender in the desire of government, and of other things that would tend to his glory, that he would take no one into a partnership with him, that so whatsoever he would have done himself might continue immovable;
or, indeed, whether fortune have not greater power than all prudent reasonings;
whence we are persuaded that human actions are thereby determined beforehand by an inevitable necessity, and we call her Fate, because there is nothing which is not done by her;
Loeb translates the part about Fate as:
But one might reasonably hesitate to decide whether the blame for this should be laid... upon Fortune, who has a power greater than all prudent reflection. For which reason we are persuaded that human actions are dedicated by her beforehand to the necessity of taking place inevitably, and we call her Fate on the ground that there is nothing that is not brought about by her.
Josephus goes on to compare the doctrine of Fate with the doctrine
according to which we attribute some part of the cause to ourselves and hold ourselves not unaccountable for the differences in our behavior, as has been philosophically discussed before our time in the Law.(D)
FOOTNOTE D: On the Pharisees cf. Ant. xviii 12-15
FOOTNOTE D: On the Pharisees cf. Ant. xviii 12-15
In other words, Josephus distinguishes the doctrine on Fate from the philosophy of the to be that individuals themselves are not unaccountable for their behavior. He then goes on to say that "anybody may lay the blame on the young men... yet cannot their father be thought worthy excuse... and especially Alexander, who was the eldest" son and promoted his younger brothers' killing.
Later, in Book XVIII, Josephus says about the pharisees' beliefs, that "when they determine that all things are done by fate, they do not take away the freedom from men of acting as they think fit; since their notion is, that it hath pleased God to make a temperament, whereby what he wills is done, but so that the will of man can act virtuously or viciously."
The WIkipedia article on the Moirai (often known in English as "the Fates") says:
In ancient Greek religion and mythology, the Moirai or Moerae (/ˈmɔɪraɪ, -ri/;[1][2] Ancient Greek: Μοῖραι, "apportioners"), often known in English as the Fates (Latin: Fata), were the white-robed incarnations of destiny; their Roman equivalent was the Parcae (euphemistically the "sparing ones"), there are other equivalents in cultures that descend from the proto-Indo-European culture. Their number became fixed at three: Clotho (spinner), Lachesis (allotter) and Atropos ('unturnable', a metaphor for death).
The ancient Greek word moira (μοῖρα) means a portion or lot of the whole, and is related to meros, "part, lot" and moros, "fate, doom",[9] Latin meritum, "reward", English merit, derived from the PIE root *(s)mer, "to allot, assign".
The ancient Greek word moira (μοῖρα) means a portion or lot of the whole, and is related to meros, "part, lot" and moros, "fate, doom",[9] Latin meritum, "reward", English merit, derived from the PIE root *(s)mer, "to allot, assign".
The Encyclopedia Britannica article on Providence says:
It is clear that the concept of providence by its central position in many religions is connected with numerous other aspects of religion. In monotheistic religions providence is a quality of the one divinity; in polytheistic religions it may be either a quality of one or more gods or an impersonal world order on which the gods too more or less depend.
In Ode 36 Odes of Solomon, which are Christian hymns from the First to Second Century AD, but whose theology (ie. orthodox or gnostic) is unclear, the narrator describes the experience of the Lord establishing him in the Spirit of Providence:
I rested on the Spirit of the Lord, and She lifted me up to heaven;
And caused me to stand on my feet in the Lord's high place, before His perfection and His glory, where I continued glorifying Him by the composition of His Odes.
...
And my approach was in peace, and I was established in the Spirit of Providence.
(Question 12: Solved) What do you think about Josephus' claim that defendants' calling on God in court to prove their innocence is a sign that they are guilty? Why wouldn't an innocent person say an open loud prayer before a court asking the Lord to prove his innocence?
Josephus makes this comment in telling the story of Antipater's trial before his father Herod for planning to kill Herod:
When Nicolaus had left off speaking, and had produced the evidence, Varus bid Antipater to betake himself to the making his defense, if he had prepared any thing whereby it might appear that he was not guilty of the crimes he was accused of; for that, as he was himself desirous, so did he know that his father was in like manner desirous also, to have him found entirely innocent.
But Antipater fell down on his face, and appealed to God and to all men for testimonials of his innocency, desiring that God would declare, by some evident signals, that he had not laid any plot against his father. This being the usual method of all men destitute of virtue, that when they set about any wicked undertakings, they fall to work according to their own inclinations, as if they believed that God was unconcerned in human affairs; but when once they are found out, and are in danger of undergoing the punishment due to their crimes, they endeavor to overthrow all the evidence against them by appealing to God; which was the very thing which Antipater now did; for whereas he had done everything as if there were no God in the world, when he was on all sides distressed by justice, and when he had no other advantage to expect from any legal proofs, by which he might disprove the accusations laid against him, he impudently abused the majesty of God, and ascribed it to his power that he had been preserved hitherto; and produced before them all what difficulties he had ever undergone in his bold acting for his father's preservation.
But Antipater fell down on his face, and appealed to God and to all men for testimonials of his innocency, desiring that God would declare, by some evident signals, that he had not laid any plot against his father. This being the usual method of all men destitute of virtue, that when they set about any wicked undertakings, they fall to work according to their own inclinations, as if they believed that God was unconcerned in human affairs; but when once they are found out, and are in danger of undergoing the punishment due to their crimes, they endeavor to overthrow all the evidence against them by appealing to God; which was the very thing which Antipater now did; for whereas he had done everything as if there were no God in the world, when he was on all sides distressed by justice, and when he had no other advantage to expect from any legal proofs, by which he might disprove the accusations laid against him, he impudently abused the majesty of God, and ascribed it to his power that he had been preserved hitherto; and produced before them all what difficulties he had ever undergone in his bold acting for his father's preservation.
Josephus' claim about a defendant praying in court is really doubtful for me. I guess that such an open, dramatic prayer could be considered an outburst disrupting the court; but otherwise I don't know why the issue of whether a defendant prays depends on one's guilt as Josephus supposes. Besides that, I am inclined to think that Antipater really was innocent. Herod had accused enough innocent people before, and the evidence of Antipater's guilt was based on torture or otherwise doubtful enough for me.
(Question 13: Solved) Do you think that Matthias' idea below is correct? Should one's devotion to piety whereby death walks with them because of the piety cause one to endure death with pleasure?
Matthias son of Margalothus was a teacher of the to his students in Jerusalem and he ordered them to pull down the eagle that Herod had put over the temple gate because it was an abomination as a graven image. Herod's soldiers caught Matthias, who made a speech to Herod, including the words,
"...And with pleasure we will endure death or whatever punishment you may inflict on us because we shall be conscious that death walks with us not because of any wrongdoing on our part but because of our devotion to piety." Afterwards, Matthias was burned alive.
In Whiston's translation, Matthias says to Herod: "...it ought not to be wondered at, if we esteem those laws which Moses had suggested to him, and were taught him by God, and which he wrote and left behind him, more worthy of observation than thy commands. Accordingly we will undergo death, and all sorts of punishments which thou canst inflict upon us, with pleasure, since we are conscious to ourselves that we shall die, not for any unrighteous actions, but for our love to religion."
Josephus narrates the same event in Wars of the Jews I.653, writing, "Herod first asked them whether they had dared to cut down the golden eagle; and they admitted it. 'Who ordered you to do so?' he continued. 'The law of our fathers.' 'And why so exultant, when you will shortly be put to death?' 'Because, after our death, we shall enjoy greater felicity.'"
(Question 14) What do you think about Josephus' prophetic or ominous story about Glaphyra's dream? Do you believe that the dead can actually visit the living in their sleep?
Josephus tells a remarkable story about Glaphyra's dream in which her first husband, King Herod's son Alexander, visited her and said that she will belong to him again, soon after which she died:
(S)ince it fell out so that Alexander was slain by his father, she [Glaphyra] was married to Juba, the king of Lybia; and when he was dead, and she lived in widowhood in Cappadocia with her father, Archclaus divorced his former wife Mariamne, and married her, so great was his affection for this Glphyra; who, during her marriage to him, saw the following dream: She thought she saw Alexander standing by her, at which she rejoiced, and embraced him with great affection; but that he complained o her, and said, O Glaphyra! thou provest that saying to be true, which assures us that women are not to be trusted. Didst not thou pledge thy faith to me? and wast not thou married to me when thou wast a virgin? and had we not children between us? Yet hast thou forgotten the affection I bare to thee, out of a desire of a second husband. Nor hast thou been satisfied with that injury thou didst me, but thou hast been so bold as to procure thee a third husband to lie by thee, and in an indecent and imprudent manner hast entered into my house, and hast been married to Archelaus, thy husband and my brother. However, I will not forget thy former kind affection for me, but will set thee free from every such reproachful action, and cause thee to be mine again, as thou once wast. When she had related this to her female companions, in a few days' time she departed this life.
Let me give you an example that puts the phenomenon of dead relatives' visits in doubt for me. Let's say that a person has dreams about their relatives when they are alive, and they feel realistic to the dreamer while he/she is dreaming. But the relatives deny having any experience (imagined, dreamt, or otherwise) of meeting the dreamer during the evening. Years later, the dreamer has the same kinds of dreams after the relatives pass away. It seems that the relatives in the latter dreams are not necessarily any more likely to be the real souls of the relatives than in the former.