Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

Dear Peter,

Your reinvention of Josephus isn't very helpful in the discussion,
insinuating Greek into his words where he says "dialects of many nations",
then go on to argue that there was a class distinction that favours the
lower classes knowing languages but not the upper classes. (Have you got
any sociolinguistic precedents for your hypothesis of such a phenomenon?
There are many for the contrary.) 

Whereas the Jewish "nation" discourages the learning of languages in the
Josephus passage, you have suddenly manipulated the stuff about "common"
and "slave" to insinuate a class distinction into Josephus's meaning. As I
said, you have stretched too little too far.

You wrote:

>I have a serious point, which we can 
>understand from the type of hypothetical court case which we used to 
>discuss. You are making a case for your hypothesis that bilingualism 
>was rare, 

I am not very interested in bilingualism, Peter. This is only you
obfuscating a discussion about the Ezra traditions in literature.
Nevertheless, I have seen very little to indicate bilingualism, and the
text on which you have based your analysis, the Jewish condemnation of
learning of the dialects of many nations, doesn't reflect on the sort of
bilingualism you were trying to argue for -- hence your reinvention,
insinuating Greek.

Bilingualism is a side-issue you have introduced. Neither its relevance nor
even its veracity has been sustained.

>and the other side has brought forward this witness Josephus 
>with evidence contrary to your hypothesis. 

As I have said, Peter, you are stretching Josephus too far, making too many
assumptions, on the one text that you can still attempt to apply.

>As an impartial observer, I 
>can say that your best hope to rescue your hypothesis is to cast doubt 
>on the reliability of the witness Josephus, 

This last idea is absurd. You bend over backwards to avoid everything
Josephus says about Ezra and then recommend that he be abandoned. I can
understand you recommending that.

>especially as you have 
>shown yourself an expert at casting such doubt in your contributions 
>on various Hebrew Bible passages, most recently Ezra.

Josephus is a relatively reliable witness who shows that he used 1 Esdras
as his main source for the Ezra story. He also says in his introduction
that to his knowledge only the torah had been translated into Greek (LXX),
so he was rendering all the other material in the sacred books available
for the Greek speaking world (remember you musing about his having Greek
versions?). Obviously he had no canonical Ezra: he had to use the Greek
text available to him. And he makes himself out to know the sacred books.
This seems to be born out with his 22 books (rather than 24 -- and he
probably doesn't include 1 Esdras as a sacred book: after all he has it in
Greek).

You find nothing strange about the notion that Ezra is unheard of for the
six hundred years from his reputed period until he is first mentioned in
Josephus, and that the first mention is based on 1 Esdras.

You find nothing strange in Garbini's arguments that the Ezra Aramaic is
*fake* and in no direct way related to the period it ostensibly refers to.

I have offered to send you a brief paper that analyses the theophoric
references in the two works Ezra and 1 Esdras which hopefully indicates it
makes more sense to move from a Hebrew original of 1 Esdras to Ezra rather
than the more difficult other way around.

In response you have claimed for some reason to draw a parallel between the
"lack of attestation" of Josephus's existence as justifying the lack of
attestation of Ezra and as you are sure that Josephus lived, thus you are
sure that Ezra lived. I'm not too interested in the person, for I am
working on texts, but you cannot be serious with this apologetic. 

You had nothing to say about the claims the works of Josephus have for
trustworthiness. Here are a few:

* Josephus's work claims outright to be historical and contains a clear
historiographical philosophy. This is still not the case with the text you
are on this occasion defending. 

* You won't accept any archaeological evidence that information contained
in Josephus's works has abundantly been shown to reflect reality, even
supplying indications before archaeologists have found the information --
in such abundance that your quibbling seems unreasonable. One of the
indications I gave long ago about the use of literary sources in historical
pursuits is that they have to be shown through archaeological and/or
epigraphic means to be reliable. Is this not the case with Josephus? Is it
the case with Ezra?

* The works of Josephus are known a hundred years after his death down to
the book in which something appeared such as John the Baptist in bk18 of
AntJud in Origen (Contra Celsus).

The consistent correctness of the archaeological indications in his works
your comparison can only be seen as lacking serious foundation.

What you have on the side of Ezra is: mistakes in the few historical
references, mistakes in the Persian Aramaic grammar and *600 years of total
silence* from the tradition. (One would expect works such as Ben Sira, 2
Maccabees and even the Enochic Animal Apocalypse (89:72ff) to know Ezra,
especially when all know Nehemiah.) In combination these point to a late
writing of the Ezra traditions. This is consistent with the evidence from
Josephus on the matter.


Cheers,


Ian