Sam, Chr & Josephus (Stephen)

Ian Hutchesson mc2499 at
Mon Mar 12 01:53:14 EST 2001

>>The grits are here:
>As far as I was concerned, the grits were earlier,

I did realise what was concerning you, Stephen. I however, chose to get to the
substantive claim you made in your post, rather than the rhetorical part.

>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."

It may be that you have a handle for the expression that I made, but that doesn't
make the handle of any worth per se.

>>>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,

I can see this.

>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.

I have.

>Just don't ask everyone to reinvent the wheel
>every time you come up with an idiosyncratic
>(though intriguing as always) notion.

I don't (just) ask that. I ask you to read what I have said on the matter in other
posts, as dating pointers. One doesn't seriously respond to arguments such as those
I gave relating the texts of the Ezra tradition to Josephus's indications, by
ignoring them. One doesn't brush aside the fact that Josephus, who shows a vast
access to Hebrew literature, doesn't use either of the two recognizable sources that
you would claim available to him at the time.

I wouldn't ask you to reinvent the wheel, but I would ask you to go beyond the sty
of contentment.


More information about the b-hebrew mailing list