reliability of the new testament.

[DavidPalm]

Here’s another interesting scholarly source related to literacy amongst the Jewish people in the first century:

Numerous laws were enacted and formulated so that ‘children…should be educated…so that they will be familiar with the commandments.’ . . . As early as the first century C. E. and perhaps even earlier, the majority of the children received education at school. A baraita from the end of the first century counted the school among the institutions which a town is obliged to maintain. . . . The regular upkeep of the schools was considered to be the secret of the existence and the strength of the nation as a whole and of every single settlement. (p. 946)

There were children who did not study at all during their childhood. . . . But as a rule children did attend school, learned to read the books of the Bible and acquired the basic knowledge which enabled them to participate in Jewish life.

The reading from the Torah in the synagogue was generally done by ordinary members of the congregation who were invited to do so. (The Jewish People in the First Century, eds. S. Safrai and M. Stern, vol. 2, p. 949; partially available on-line, so check it out.)

 

[DavidPalm]

High Priests, once removed from office, didn’t get reappointed.

It’s interesting to note that Steve’s statement above is incorrect. In fact, Josephus tells us that one Ananelus was deposed, Aristobulus was put in the office but then was killed, and Ananelus went back to being high priest:

And thus was Aristobulus murdered, having lived no more in all than eighteen years, and kept the high priesthood one year only; which high priesthood Ananelus now recovered again (Antiquities 15.3.3)

Again, I do not hold that there was any interim high priest between Ananias and Ismael and this is the scholarly consensus. Any other view presents numerous difficulties.

But even if a high priest had been appointed while Ananias was away in Rome–(Josephus does not say this, so it’s an argument from silence)–when he was killed (AD 56, as steve53 admits) it is perfectly reasonable that the high priesthood would devolve back on Ananias, who had returned from Rome vindicated and was still enormously influential. Then, as Josephus plainly says, he was not replaced by Ismael until c. A.D. 59 or 60, so he was indeed high priest when St. Paul was in Jerusalem in A.D. 58.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Again, this seems to be just more speculative retrojection of evidence. How would one ever tell for sure that a baraita is from the first century? What do they cite for evidence?

Here’s another interesting scholarly source related to literacy amongst the Jewish people in the first century:

Numerous laws were enacted and formulated so that ‘children…should be educated…so that they will be familiar with the commandments.’ . . . As early as the first century C. E. and perhaps even earlier, the majority of the children received education at school. A baraita from the end of the first century counted the school among the institutions which a town is obliged to maintain. . . . The regular upkeep of the schools was considered to be the secret of the existence and the strength of the nation as a whole and of every single settlement. (p. 946)

There were children who did not study at all during their childhood. . . . But as a rule children did attend school, learned to read the books of the Bible and acquired the basic knowledge which enabled them to participate in Jewish life.

The reading from the Torah in the synagogue was generally done by ordinary members of the congregation who were invited to do so. (The Jewish People in the First Century, eds. S. Safrai and M. Stern, vol. 2, p. 949; partially available on-line, so check it out.)

 

[steve53]

It’s interesting to note that Steve’s statement above is incorrect. In fact, Josephus tells us that one Ananelus was deposed, Aristobulus was put in the office but then was killed, and Ananelus went back to being high priest:

And thus was Aristobulus murdered, having lived no more in all than eighteen years, and kept the high priesthood one year only; which high priesthood Ananelus now recovered again (Antiquities 15.3.3)

Again, I do not hold that there was any interim high priest between Ananias and Ismael and this is the scholarly consensus. Any other view presents numerous difficulties.

But even if a high priest had been appointed while Ananias was away in Rome–(Josephus does not say this, so it’s an argument from silence)–when he was killed (AD 56, as steve53 admits) it is perfectly reasonable that the high priesthood would devolve back on Ananias, who had returned from Rome vindicated and was still enormously influential. Then, as Josephus plainly says, he was not replaced by Ismael until c. A.D. 59 or 60, so he was indeed high priest when St. Paul was in Jerusalem in A.D. 58.

That was a unique period. Aristobulos was a Herod the Great appointee, and Herod did it only grudging, removing his Ananelus appointee, who was a friend, I believe. Aristobulos was the brother of his wife, Mariamne, and Mariamne and Mariamne’s mother forced Herod to do it.
But Aristobulos proved to be so popular that Herod had him murdered at his Jericho palace. So hardly an argument that High Priests were routinely re-appointed.

Ananus was the real Temple power, and anyone potentially corrupt enough to be taken to Rome for examination, like Ananias, Ananus would not put back in power.

With Ismael, the son of Fabi, Josephus states “about that time” concerning his appointment, which is unfortunate, and he also doesn’t tell us who he succeeded. But he does talk about “Jonathan, the High Priest…” who was killed right beforehand, and that is good enough for me. I think you are working awfully hard to put Ananias back in the picture.

I think Hagan’s speculation has substance, and should not be discounted.

Let me throw something out at you, Dave.

Clearly, Josephus was meticulous about documenting his High Priests. They were touched by God, and he usually threw in the names of their fathers, too. But clearly he broke this tradition in the Ananias-Jonathan-Ismael period in the A.D. 50’s.

Why?

He lived through it and knew all the priests personally. It should be detailed and spot-on

Is it possible that the early Church recognized the incompatibility of Luke with Josephus, and so intentionally obfuscated that part of Josephus so Luke would not be contradicted? In other words, a seminal copy of Josephus had been tampered with. It is accepted that the TF in Josephus was embellished by Christians- why not other parts of Antiquities?

 

[DavidPalm]

That was a unique period. Aristobulos was a Herod the Great appointee, and Herod did it only grudging, removing his Ananelus appointee, who was a friend, I believe. Aristobulos was the brother of his wife, Mariamne, and Mariamne and Mariamne’s mother forced Herod to do it.

That this was a unique period is a gratuitous assertion. This is a pattern with you, my friend. If you face some difficulty you pretty often make a groundless and gratuitous assertion to try to cover it.

But Aristobulos proved to be so popular that Herod had him murdered at his Jericho palace. So hardly an argument that High Priests were routinely re-appointed.

I didn’t ever say they were routinely re-appointed. You said that they never were and I proved otherwise. But again, there is no need for Ananias to be re-appointed, because Josephus never says that he was un-appointed (until he is replaced by Ismael, c. A.D. 59).

Ananus was the real Temple power, and anyone potentially corrupt enough to be taken to Rome for examination, like Ananias, Ananus would not put back in power.

Another groundless and gratuitous assertion. I have said a couple of times here that Ananias was acquitted in Rome. He returned having been found innocent and his adversary, Cumanus, was banished. There was no reason to remove him from the high priesthood.

I think Hagan’s speculation has substance, and should not be discounted.

Hagan’s speculation (I’m glad you admit that’s what it is) is fraught with difficulties and has no significant support that I can find in the scholarly literature. And once again, just who is this guy? Pretty clearly an amateur historian, which is okay I guess, but when he makes such obvious goofs then it doesn’t inspire much confidence.

Let me throw something out at you, Dave.

Clearly, Josephus was meticulous about documenting his High Priests. They were touched by God, and he usually threw in the names of their fathers, too. But clearly he broke this tradition in the Ananias-Jonathan-Ismael period in the A.D. 50’s.

Why?

I have answered this several times. The most reasonable explanation for why he did not put in the father of Jonathan in Book 20 is that he had already introduced Jonathan (including his father’s name) in Book 19. So the reader already knows who he’s talking about. But once again, he does not say that Jonathan was appointed high priest in place of Ananias.

And what’s more, Steve, you objected earlier that:

In Josephus, note that he says “…Jonathan, the High Priest…”.

Now, it is customary for former US Presidents to still be called President. BUT…Jimmy Carter is referred to as “President Carter”, and NOT “Jimmy Carter the President” because he is not the current President.

Calling Simon Ananus “High Priest Ananus” is a lot different than saying “Ananus, the High Priest.” He is NOT the High Priest, but as an honor has assimilated the office appellation in his own name “High Priest Ananus”.

Notice that in War of the Jews Josephus explicitly calls Ananias “Ananias the high priest” several times. But this was just before the outbreak of the war (A.D. 66) and hence long after Ananias was actually in that office:

At the same time Eleazar, the son of Ananias the high priest, a very bold youth, who was at that time governor of the temple, persuaded those that officiated in the Divine service to receive no gift or sacrifice for any foreigner. (2.17.2)

The others then set fire to the house of Ananias the high priest, and to the palaces of Agrippa and Bernice; (2.17.6)

And when they had thus burnt down the nerves of the city, they fell upon their enemies; at which time some of the men of power, and of the high priests, went into the vaults under ground, and concealed themselves, while others fled with the king’s soldiers to the upper palace, and shut the gates immediately; among whom were Ananias the high priest, and the ambassadors that had been sent to Agrippa. (2.17.6)

So that fact that Josephus speaks of “Jonathan the high priest” in between Ananias and Ismael does nothing to establish that he was currently in the office. Rather, as F. F. Bruce rightly says, he was the ex-high priest and the entire manufactured “difficulty” goes away.

He lived through it and knew all the priests personally. It should be detailed and spot-on

It is. That’s why it’s really a stretch to say that this Jonathan was appointed (re-appointed) high priest in place of Ananias. Josephus simply does not say that. Your whole case is an argument from silence and then runs into all sorts of additional difficulties, not the least of which is that Jonathan was killed in A.D. 56 and Ismael was not appointed high priest until A.D. 59-60.

Is it possible that the early Church recognized the incompatibility of Luke with Josephus, and so intentionally obfuscated that part of Josephus so Luke would not be contradicted? In other words, a seminal copy of Josephus had been tampered with. It is accepted that the TF in Josephus was embellished by Christians- why not other parts of Antiquities?

Wait a minute…Are you now admitting that the fact that Josephus does not say that Jonathan was appointed high priest in place of Ananias really does torpedo your case, so now you’re going to try to claim that the text has been purposely tampered with? And you accuse me of twisting and turning?

 

[DavidPalm]

Again, this seems to be just more speculative retrojection of evidence. How would one ever tell for sure that a baraita is from the first century? What do they cite for evidence?

The passage I cited is available on-line, so the sources can be checked. My guess is that the source cites a particular rabbi who presumably lived in the first century. But that is just a guess, I have not looked into that.

 

[DavidPalm]

That was a unique period. Aristobulos was a Herod the Great appointee, and Herod did it only grudging, removing his Ananelus appointee, who was a friend, I believe. Aristobulos was the brother of his wife, Mariamne, and Mariamne and Mariamne’s mother forced Herod to do it.

Hmmm. This is a pattern with you, my friend. If you face some difficulty you pretty often make a groundless and gratuitous assertion to try to cover it. This is another one of those.

But Aristobulos proved to be so popular that Herod had him murdered at his Jericho palace. So hardly an argument that High Priests were routinely re-appointed.

I didn’t ever say they were routinely re-appointed. You said that they never were and I proved otherwise. But again, there is no need for Ananias to be re-appointed, because Josephus never says that he was un-appointed (until he is replaced by Ismael, c. A.D. 59).

Ananus was the real Temple power, and anyone potentially corrupt enough to be taken to Rome for examination, like Ananias, Ananus would not put back in power.

Another groundless and gratuitous assertion. I have said a couple of times here that Ananias was acquitted in Rome. He returned having been found innocent and his adversary, Cumanus, was banished. There was no reason to remove him from the high priesthood.

I think Hagan’s speculation has substance, and should not be discounted.

Hagan’s speculation (I’m glad you admit that’s what it is) is fraught with difficulties and has no significant support that I can find in the scholarly literature. And once again, just who is this guy? Pretty clearly an amateur historian, which is okay I guess, but when he makes such obvious goofs then it doesn’t inspire much confidence.

Let me throw something out at you, Dave.

Clearly, Josephus was meticulous about documenting his High Priests. They were touched by God, and he usually threw in the names of their fathers, too. But clearly he broke this tradition in the Ananias-Jonathan-Ismael period in the A.D. 50’s.

Why?

I have answered this several times. The most reasonable explanation for why he did not put in the father of Jonathan in Book 20 is that he had already introduced Jonathan (including his father’s name) in Book 19. So the reader already knows who he’s talking about. But once again, he does not say that Jonathan was appointed high priest in place of Ananias.

And what’s more, Steve, you objected earlier that:

In Josephus, note that he says “…Jonathan, the High Priest…”.

Now, it is customary for former US Presidents to still be called President. BUT…Jimmy Carter is referred to as “President Carter”, and NOT “Jimmy Carter the President” because he is not the current President.

Calling Simon Ananus “High Priest Ananus” is a lot different than saying “Ananus, the High Priest.” He is NOT the High Priest, but as an honor has assimilated the office appellation in his own name “High Priest Ananus”.

Notice that in War of the Jews Josephus explicitly calls Ananias “Ananias the high priest” several times. But this was just before the outbreak of the war (A.D. 66) and hence long after Ananias was actually in that office:

At the same time Eleazar, the son of Ananias the high priest, a very bold youth, who was at that time governor of the temple, persuaded those that officiated in the Divine service to receive no gift or sacrifice for any foreigner. (2.17.2)

The others then set fire to the house of Ananias the high priest, and to the palaces of Agrippa and Bernice; (2.17.6)

And when they had thus burnt down the nerves of the city, they fell upon their enemies; at which time some of the men of power, and of the high priests, went into the vaults under ground, and concealed themselves, while others fled with the king’s soldiers to the upper palace, and shut the gates immediately; among whom were Ananias the high priest, and the ambassadors that had been sent to Agrippa. (2.17.6)

So that fact that Josephus speaks of “Jonathan the high priest” in between Ananias and Ismael does nothing to establish that he was currently in the office. Rather, as F. F. Bruce rightly says, he was the ex-high priest and the entire manufactured “difficulty” goes away.

He lived through it and knew all the priests personally. It should be detailed and spot-on

It is. That’s why it’s really a stretch to say that this Jonathan was appointed (re-appointed) high priest in place of Ananias. Josephus simply does not say that. Your whole case is an argument from silence and then runs into all sorts of additional difficulties, not the least of which is that Jonathan was killed in A.D. 56 and Ismael was not appointed high priest until A.D. 59-60.

Is it possible that the early Church recognized the incompatibility of Luke with Josephus, and so intentionally obfuscated that part of Josephus so Luke would not be contradicted? In other words, a seminal copy of Josephus had been tampered with. It is accepted that the TF in Josephus was embellished by Christians- why not other parts of Antiquities?

Wait a minute…Are you now admitting that the fact that Josephus does not say that Jonathan was appointed high priest in place of Ananias really does torpedo your case, so now you’re going to try to claim that the text has been purposely tampered with? And you accuse me of twisting and turning?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

The passage I cited is available on-line, so the sources can be checked. My guess is that the source cites a particular rabbi who presumably lived in the first century. But that is just a guess, I have not looked into that.

Ok, their quote is from Sanhedrin 17b, which again, was not compiled until hundreds of years after the time they are referring to. Unless you ascribe some sort of divine revelatory status to the text of the Talmud, I don’t understand how one can even entertain this seriously as evidence.

 

[steve53]

Rolling on the floor laughing?

Sounds like the act of a desperate man.

Fact is, if Acts didn’t exist, using Josephus alone no one would think Ananias had any role at all after he went to Rome in A.D. 52.

The High Priests were appointed for life or until incapacitated, or they resigned. That changed with Herod the Great. His murder by drowning of High Priest Aristobulos after Aristobulos had been in office for a year got him in trouble with Marc Antony- he had a trial before him and Cleopatra and could have lost his domain. So the “reappointment” of Analeus is hardly from the official Temple codebook of High Priests- a definate one-off.

After the removal of Achelaus in A.D. 6, Ananus became High Priest. Now that Judea was province, the high Priesthood had to serve Rome first, and the Jews second. Ananus facilitated this, all the while making the Temple a very successful operation. The High Priest was a de facto agent of Rome. Ananus made sure he was, and if he didn’t the Romans in authority removed them.

Josephus was an insider, and what he writes should be considered authoritative. Acts as a source should be secondary. So the ball is in your court on this. I see your point that Ananias MIGHT have been the High Priest through to A.D. 59, but it is you who are making a lot of tenuous assumptions and it is far more likely that Luke was mistaken or Acts was altered in the transcription process.

I am not sure there is much to say on the subject.

I suppose you feel that Jesus taught the Temple scholars when he was a kid, too, right?

 

[DavidPalm]

Rolling on the floor laughing?

Sounds like the act of a desperate man. . . .

Your position would not be conclusive, but would at least hold some weight if you could show us where Josephus says that Ananias was deposed to make room for Jonathan or that Jonathan was appointed in his stead. That’s all you have to show us. Just cite the text of Josephus where he says either of those things. Otherwise, you are building a dream castle out of thin air.

And it comes back to the question I asked early in this thread: why are you so keen to impute error to the writers of sacred Scripture? (Then again, you do not tell us of your own belief system, so of course you may not consider it sacred Scripture. I acknowledge that.)

It also gets back to a very salient point that we should keep in mind. St. Luke was an immediate companion of St. Paul during this time. He was there in Jerusalem with St. Paul. If he was not literally there when St. Paul was before the high priest, he was there to talk to him in the immediate aftermath. But somehow he goofed up in recording who it was St. Paul spoke to (gee, was it Ananias or Ismael…I can’t remember)? The notion that St. Luke should not be treated as a reliable historical source on this and many other questions is simply unmitigated bias contrary to the evidence. It gets back to this. St. Luke and Josephus agree. Hagan is wrong. Just who is this Hagan anyway? You never have answered this question.

I suppose you feel that Jesus taught the Temple scholars when he was a kid, too, right?

No, I do not “feel” it. I believe it. I believe that being the God-man, the incarnate second person of the Trinity, and having a divine as well as human nature brings some, ah, benefits of insight to the equation.

If there was not something truly remarkable about Jesus Christ, then the impact He made on his generation (not to mention generations for 2000 years following!) is truly inexplicable. It’s interesting, but I’ll bet that you would not deny the existence of child prodigies on a purely human level. But you appear willing to deny this to a man who claimed to be God incarnate and rose from the dead to prove that He was exactly who He said He was. Very few things would surprise me coming from a man like that–certainly showing a wisdom well beyond his years is a trifle given that context.

 

[steve53]

Quick thought before I go off to work.

Certainly the early Christians somewhere along the line modified the Testamonium Flavianum- the works of Josephus were preserved by the Christians.

Now, to keep Luke from being erroneous in its reference to Ananias- who was, in fact, Ismael-an easy way that would make sense is to change Josephus’ references to to Ananias. What if it were Ananias who was murdered the in the Second Temple courtyard, and not Jonathan? And instead of saying Ismael was appoint in Ananias’ place, it was changed to “about that time”?

This narrative would fit in with Josephus’ style, and explain the lack of any references to being the son of Ananus.

 

[DavidPalm]

Quick thought before I go off to work.

Certainly the early Christians somewhere along the line modified the Testamonium Flavianum- the works of Josephus were preserved by the Christians.

Now, to keep Luke from being erroneous in its reference to Ananias- who was, in fact, Ismael-an easy way that would make sense is to change Josephus’ references to to Ananias. What if it were Ananias who was murdered the in the Second Temple courtyard, and not Jonathan? And instead of saying Ismael was appoint in Ananias’ place, it was changed to “about that time”?

This narrative would fit in with Josephus’ style, and explain the lack of any references to being the son of Ananus.

Well steve this seems to me to be just one more attempt to move the goalposts after the core of your position has been neutralized, so I’m content to leave the discussion where it’s at unless something really new comes up.

 

[steve53]

Well steve this seems to me to be just one more attempt to move the goalposts after the core of your position has been neutralized, so I’m content to leave the discussion where it’s at unless something really new comes up.

LOL. Core position?

Here is my core position. Josephus is the gold standard for Second Temple High Priests. Luke has to fit into with what Josephus writes.

Here is your core position: Luke is the gold standard, i.e. everything in Luke is true and correct. Josephus has to fit in with Luke or it is wrong.

So there is an impasse.

But I am curious as to your position on the TF. Was it written by Josephus, or were there later additions and alterations to it?

 

[DavidPalm]

LOL. Core position?

Here is my core position. Josephus is the gold standard for Second Temple High Priests. Luke has to fit into with what Josephus writes.

Here is your core position: Luke is the gold standard, i.e. everything in Luke is true and correct. Josephus has to fit in with Luke or it is wrong.

So there is an impasse.

But I am curious as to your position on the TF. Was it written by Josephus, or were there later additions and alterations to it?

That’s not quite an accurate statement of my core position, John, but regardless in this case there is no disagreement between St. Luke and Josephus. The fact that you’re now agitating to amend the text because it doesn’t say what you need it to say is sufficient proof of that. But the fact is that what the text does say fits perfectly well with Josephus’ mode of introducing ex-high priests as I’ve demonstrated. So yours is a “solution” in search of a problem. Amending texts is sometimes necessary if there is genuine evidence to support the amendation, but too often it’s the refuge of someone with an agenda.

What if it were Ananias who was murdered the in the Second Temple courtyard, and not Jonathan? And instead of saying Ismael was appoint in Ananias’ place, it was changed to “about that time”?

Yeah and the Christians went around and changed all the references to Jonathan and Ananias in the Mishnah and other Jewish literature too, right? You seem very desperate to vindicate this Hagan fellow and I see you’re pretty active on the Internet promoting it. It’s almost like you wrote the book yourself.

 

[steve53]

LOL!

I wish I were. Great books. (IMO) So thanks for the compliment, even if it wasn’t meant as one.

If you don’t want to bother with this guy, then read Josephus himself. Especially his autobiography. Everyone serious about their religion should read Josephus. He is the only source for solid history about Judaism in Christ’s time. Maybe there are other books out there that synthesis Josephus and early Christian history, but I haven’t come across them. Actually, I have, but there were erroneous on several facts in Josephus.

Luke is tough to defend, but, Dave, I admire your heart in all this. Most Luke defenders don’t go the extra mile like you. I still think your defense is a little weak and convoluted. But your posts has enlightened me to the extent that Josephus has probably been altered in that crucial section dealing with the A.D. 50’s, like the TF, which you refuse to go in to.

Does the Catholic Church officially endorse that every fact in Luke is correct? I thought they had gotten beyond that and now just concentrate on issues of faith. That’s why there is no official Catholic Bible- the Church doesn’t want to get bogged down in the minutia of translation

The blurb on Hagan, BTW, says he is a Minneapolis Physician. Yes, I did a google and nothing panned out. I couldn’t find a web site for him, either. But one has to be out there, and if there is, if you are a man of influence, he might send you free copies.

 

[DavidPalm]

LOL!

I wish I were. Great books. (IMO) So thanks for the compliment, even if it wasn’t meant as one.

If you don’t want to bother with this guy, then read Josephus himself. Especially his autobiography. Everyone serious about their religion should read Josephus. He is the only source for solid history about Judaism in Christ’s time. Maybe there are other books out there that synthesis Josephus and early Christian history, but I haven’t come across them. Actually, I have, but there were erroneous on several facts in Josephus.

Luke is tough to defend, but, Dave, I admire your heart in all this. Most Luke defenders don’t go the extra mile like you. I still think your defense is a little weak and convoluted. But your posts has enlightened me to the extent that Josephus has probably been altered in that crucial section dealing with the A.D. 50’s, like the TF, which you refuse to go in to.

Does the Catholic Church officially endorse that every fact in Luke is correct? I thought they had gotten beyond that and now just concentrate on issues of faith. That’s why there is no official Catholic Bible- the Church doesn’t want to get bogged down in the minutia of translation

The blurb on Hagan, BTW, says he is a Minneapolis Physician. Yes, I did a google and nothing panned out. I couldn’t find a web site for him, either. But one has to be out there, and if there is, if you are a man of influence, he might send you free copies.

OK, steve thanks for the info on Hagan. And thanks for your kind words to me as well. To answer you question, yes the Catholic Church does teach that by virtue of divine inspiration the text of Scripture is without error. In a few instances that poses some questions–by no means insuperable–but in this case, as I’ve hopefully demonstrated, it doesn’t present any difficulty at all.