Sam, Chr & Josephus

Stephen C. Carlson scarlson at
Sun Mar 11 23:57:13 EST 2001

At 01:49 AM 3/11/01 +0100, Ian Hutchesson wrote:
>>At 10:49 PM 3/11/01 +0100, Ian Hutchesson wrote:
>The grits are here:

As far as I was concerned, the grits were earlier, showing that your
statement (and I quote again) --

>>>This won't explain, except with massive conditions, why Josephus almost always
>>>agrees with either one or the other and when not, it is usually a matter of
>>>epitomising. We don't have three texts of the same tradition drifting apart. We
>>>have clear redactional activity.

-- permits as an inference both yours and Peter's position.  In fact,
it is an application of the Lachmann fallacy to conclude that your
position is the only or even the best explanation, based on the fact
that "Josephus almost always agrees with either one or the other."

>>If we adopt reasonable
>>datings for the materials, i.e. Sam. and Chr. earlier than
>>Jos., then Peter's solution is preferable.
>As you have no relevant criteria to say what the "reasonable datings for the
>materials, i.e. Sam. and Chr." are, nor whether those "reasonable datings" are
>earlier than Josephus, this is worth your two cents I suppose.

I don't really want to get into this topic, but it is prima facie
reasonable when it is found in a current, standard, reference work
such as the Anchor Bible Dictionary.  If you have a problem with
its datings, then tell us why it is wrong.  Just don't ask everyone
to reinvent the wheel every time you come up with an idiosyncratic
(though intriguing as always) notion.

Stephen Carlson
Stephen C. Carlson                        mailto:scarlson at
Synoptic Problem Home Page
"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words."  Shujing 2.35

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list