by Rotherham » Wed Apr 23, 2014 2:03 pm
Hello Heber,
Just as an aide, I am familiar with Mr. Barclay's criticism of the WT, but as you mention, that is certainly not related to this discussion. I think the fewer sidebars that are inserted the better.
Now, let's return to your response. My comments will be inserted between the #############.
You started:
[quote="hperez"]Your comment “Since there is no doubt that Josephus once believed that the entire "desertion" of the land was 70 years, with the considerations above, there is no reason to think that he is changing this without any warning or word to the wise to correct his earlier belief”
I appreciate your response. It is to be noted that in Josephus other corrections he did not give any warning or word to the wise, so I don’t see the need to apply a different rule here. It is us that is demanding an explanation, but he was a Historian and was concerned about the accuracy not about what the learned wanted to hear.
###############################
That of course is an opinion. It is just as likely as I will explain, that Josephus did not think he was actually changing anything from 70 to 50. Plus, can it be said that the changes he made in the other places were just two short chapters apart? That, in my opinion, increases the likelihood that he wasn't really changing anything but speaking about a different aspect of the same time period.
###############################
In regards to the following statement that you quoted from Josephus:
"And when he was relating the acts of this king, he describes to us how he sent his son Nabuchodonosor against Egypt,( I don’t think Josephus wanted to list 18 years of history between these two events, he was giving a sequence of events not exact timeline, but you chose to ignore the real timeline he quotes from Berosus) and against our land, with a great army, upon his being informed that they had revolted from him; and how, by that means, he subdued them all, and set our temple that was at Jerusalem on fire; nay, and removed our people entirely out of their own country, and transferred them to Babylon; when it so happened that our city was desolate during the interval of seventy years, until the days of Cyrus king of Persia”.
Your comments simply ignore paragraph 20 as if it did not exist. In your mind you are imposing upon the text what you want to see and then ignore real facts(numbers) the ones that Berosus gave. Josephus comments were not in a vacuum as you want to make them he was quoting another historian and one with greater weight then he was. But, I think Josephus says "UPON HIS BEIGN INFORMED THAT THEY HAD REVOLTED", uhg was that right after he destroyed Egypt? Nope, so why confuse the matter? Josephus do give a qualitative statement as to the When the Temple was destroyed, a statement that separates it from the war against Egypt. He does not say both happen at the same time, you read that into the text to justify the unjustifiable.
##############################################
I believe it is you who are reading into the text what you want to see here. Berossus' account is not accurate because even commentators have noted this problem:
Notice what Barclay states about this issue: (interspersed between the words of Josephus in the section under current scrutiny.) My words are also interspersed. I will label each section to keep it all straight.
Josephus
131Then, listing Noah’s descendants and adding their dates,434 he comes to Naboupolassaros,435 the king of Babylon and the Chaldeans,436
Barclay
A-434 This suggests that Josephus knew Berosus’ dating scheme, which we know from elsewhere ( FGH 680, frag. 5a) as including 86 kings between the flood and the Medes’ capture of Babylonia, all named and with reign-dates totalling 33,091 years. Josephus knew Berosus’ age-figures were enormous ( Ant. 1.106-7) and may have considered them too incredible to cite. The result is that he gives no indication of where to place the following historical events in a wider chronological framework; it is only later that he will connect Babylonian history to a widely known figure, Cyrus. For the moment, by simply juxtaposing Nabopalasaros with Noah, he leaves the impression of great antiquity. Following his own reckoning ( Ant. 1.82-88), he is jumping here about 1,600 years.
Rotherham
This proves that Josephus was not in harmony with the figures of Berossus and was merely using Berossus as a corroboration of EVENTS, not the TIMING of these events. Otherwise, you would have a huge problem with the timeline of Berossus.
Josephus
132and while relating his exploits he describes how he sent his own son Naboukodrosorus [Nebuchadnezzar]437 with a large army against Egypt and against our land, when he learned that they had rebelled;438 he defeated them all and burned the sanctuary in Hierosolyma,439 and utterly uprooted all our people, and transferred them to Babylon,440 with the result that the city was deserted for seventy years until Cyrus, the first king of the Persians.441
Barclay
440 Josephus highlights the Judean captives from among those Berosus will list in 1.137, and compresses the different phases of captivity (cf. Ant. 10.98, 101, 149) into a single event, to match Berosus’ account.
Rotherham
This shows that even Barclay recognized that Josephus was attempting to match up with Berossus account which condensed all the captivities into a single event. This once again proves that Josephus was more interested in the corroboration of events, not the corroboration of the numbers involved because the captives were not taken in a single event, which is evidently how Berossus presented it. Another mismatch with true history when it comes to Berossus according to Barclay's commentary.
Josephus:
133He says that the Babylonian442 conquered Egypt, Syria, Phoenicia and Arabia, surpassing in his exploits all who had previously ruled over the Chaldeans and Babylonians.443
134444 I shall present Berosus’ own words, which go like this:445
135When his father Naboupolassaros446 heard that the satrap appointed over Egypt and the regions of Coele-Syria and Phoenicia had rebelled,447 since he was no longer able to endure the hardships himself, he appointed his son Naboukodrosoros, who was still in his prime,448 over some parts of his army, and sent him out against him.449
Barclay:
447 In fact there was no “satrap” (a Persian term) over these territories, which were ruled independently by Necho II of Egypt (609 – 594 BCE). Berosus presents a clash between two rival powers as a rebellion by an appointed subordinate. It is curious that the names of key people and battle-sites (1.136) are not mentioned: it is possible that they were omitted in Polyhistor’s abbreviation of this source, or that Josephus has strategically cut them out. On what Berosus might have meant by Coele-Syria (including Judea?), see Stern 1.14; Labow 2005: 138, n.54.
Rotherham
This demonstrates that Brossus words have been filtered through Polyhistor and may not contain everything, Josephus strategically leaving out things. It shows the possibility of corruption in other places.
Josephus:
136Naboukodrosoros engaged the rebel, overpowered him in a pitched battle,450 and brought the district again under their rule.451 And it happened that at this time his father, Naboupolassaros, fell ill in the city of the Babylonians and died, having reigned for twenty-one years.452
137When, not long after, Naboukodrosoros heard of his father’s death, after he had settled affairs in Egypt and the rest of the district,453 and appointed some of the Friends454 to take charge of the captives – Judeans,455 Phoenicians, Syrians, peoples bordering Egypt456– and to convey them to Babylon, together with the heavily-armed troops457 and the rest of the spoils, he himself rushed ahead with a small escort and got to Babylon across the desert.
Barclay:
453 The Greek ( τὰ κατὰ τὴν Αἴγυπτον πράγματα) could be translated “the affairs concerning Egypt”; if Berosus suggests that Nebuchadnezzar got to control Egypt, the claim is wholly unhistorical. The context here, the brief interval after Carchemish and before Nebucahdnezzar’s enthronement, suggests that Berosus is referring only to events in 605 BCE (see Gutschmid 496-97). If so, the captives mentioned in this section, including the Judeans, would be prisoners captured from Necho’s army at Carchemish or other garrisons (cf. Begg and Spilsbury 2005: 291, n.956), not the result of the extensive, but rather later, campaigns in Syria and Phoenicia. It is uncertain whether Berosus returned at a later point in his narrative (after his account of the rebuilding of Babylon) to the eastern campaigns of Nebuchadnezzar, including his eventual sack of Jerusalem (587 BCE). But if so, Josephus does not know that part of his work, and he has to make do with the one, passing, reference to “Judeans” to which he has access. Although he knows that the destruction of the temple did not take place until the 18th year of Nebucahdnezzar’s reign (1.154), his reference to that event both before (1.132) and after (1.145) this citation encourages readers to hear in this reference to Judeans and their settlement in Babylon (1.137-38) an allusion to the Babylonian conquest of Judea and Jerusalem. He had related the successive stages of subjugation of Judea in Ant. 10.84-150, closely following the biblical account. He cannot find in Berosus the justification to repeat any of that narrative here.
455 The relative insignificance of these captives is indicated by their mention in a subordinate clause (the main verb comes only at the end of the section). For Josephus, this whole segment of his work hinges on the mention of Judeans in this list of captives within this subordinate clause. Since Judea is not explicitly mentioned in the list of territories in 1.135, and since the presence of “Judeans” here is essential for Josephus’ whole argument, it has been suggested (e.g., by J. Lewy) that Josephus himself has introduced the name into Berosus’ text. Reinach’s counter-arguments (27, n.3) are not very strong, and we have reason to suspect that Josephus does sometimes tamper with his sources (see, e.g., at 1.82, 84). Eusebius’ inclusion of this reference ( Chron. 22.18) is not independent of Josephus ( pace Reinach), and the slightly clumsy Greek ( τε καὶ ... καὶ ...) might betray the hand of Josephus. The question must remain open, but even if we trust Josephus at this point, the contrast between his perspective and the political interests of his source is striking.
Rotherham
This shows that Josephus or at least SOMEONE was willing to alter the text which calls into question the validity of many things here stated. It also shows that Josephus was very selective in his references to avoid conflict between the accounts.
This statement here:
(When, not long after, Naboukodrosoros heard of his father’s death, after he had settled affairs in Egypt and the rest of the district,)
shows another condensing of events by Berossus because the "settling" of the rest of the district would have included Judea and it was said to have happened NOT LONG after the death of Neb's father. Again, an historical inaccuracy. See Barclay’s agreement below.
Josephus
147His regime was lawless and debauched,488 and when a plot was laid by his sister’s husband, Neriglisaros,489 he was assassinated, having reigned for 2 years.490 After his assassination, Neriglisaros, who plotted against him, succeeded to the throne and reigned for 4 years.491
Barclay:
488Berosus’ moral tone justifies the change of regime; his pride in the Babylonian kingdom does not mean whitewashing all its rulers. In Ant. 10.229-31 Josephus had followed the biblical story (2 Kgs 25:27-30 = Jer 52:31-34) in recording this king’s kindness to “Jechonias”; he also attributed to him there an 18-year reign (see Begg and Spilsbury 2005: 294, n.987). Here Josephus seems unable, or at least unwilling, to reconcile Berosus’ account with that of his scriptures.
Rotherham
To claim Josephus was somehow in lockstep agreement with Berossus is most certainly flawed. Again, this stresses the fact that Josephus was more interested in corroborating EVENTS rather than actual timelines and that Berossus timing was skewed.
Josephus:
154These words contain the truth in agreement with our books;504 for it is written there that Naboukodrosoros devastated our sanctuary in the eighteenth year of his reign505 and it was left without trace for 50 years,506 and in the second year of the reign of Cyrus the foundations were laid,507 and, again, in the second year of the reign of Darius it was completed.508
Barclay:
505 Josephus has to find this in “our books,” since the event goes unmentioned in what he knows of Berosus. Although he had found something close to what he wanted in the reference to Judean captives (1.137), he knew that Berosus placed this at the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, not in its 18th year. Josephus thus relies on a (slightly inexact) memory of the biblical account: 2 Kgs 25:8 = Jer 52:12 says the temple was burned in Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year; Jer 52:29 talks of captives in the 18th year (cf. Ant 10.146). The surviving Babylonian Chronicle refers to Nebuchadnezzar’s campaign in Judea, but is missing for the years in which the temple was destroyed (Wiseman 1956: 32-38).
Rotherham
This demonstrtaes that even Barclay recognized the fact that Berossus had the timing of this event as wrong. He specifically claims that Berossus' words put this event at the BEGINNING of Neb's reign, and that is simply not correct. Josephus couldn’t possibly be agreeing with the timeline.
Therefore, this demonstrates my point beyond any reasonable doubt that Josephus was NOT relying on the numbers of Berossus but was relying on his corroboration of events. Berossus' timing was completely off.
###################################################
In regards to Josephus words that you quoted “"And when he was relating the acts of this king, he describes to us how he sent his son Nabuchodonosor against Egypt, and against our land, with a great army, upon his being informed that they had revolted from him; and how, by that means, he subdued them all, and set our temple that was at Jerusalem on fire; nay, and removed our people entirely out of their own country, and transferred them to Babylon; when it so happened that our city was desolate during the interval of seventy years, until the days of Cyrus king of Persia."
As far as I understand according to the Insight of the Scriptures the Watchtower puts the battle of Carquemis in the year 625 BCE, so are you implying that Josephus and Berossus are saying that Jerusalem was destroyed on 625 BCE right after the battle of Carquemis? I am sure you don’t agree with that, because not even the Watchtower believes that notion. And When we look at the timeline Berossus gives us which Josephus could read we find that the destruction of Jerusalem in the 18 years of Nabuchonosor's reign he destroyed the Temple which was 587/586 BCE. I don't think I Josephus was that Stupid and we are that much smarter or for that matter smarter then Berossus.
#######################################
I have already demonstrated that Barclay was convinced that Berossus' timeline was skewed. If you take the words at face value, that's exactly what it sounds like and Barclay was convinced of it himself. Josephus was not looking for timeline corroboration, if so, he would have to agree with Berossus about the years between the flood and Babylonian conquest being highly inflated and he would have to agree that Jerusalm was depopulated in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar.
And once again, this is confirmed by Josephus own words just two paragraphs prior that the city was DESERTED FOR SEVENTY YEARS. Therefore, the 50 year reference is most likely not a correction but refers to something else, its obscurity for 50 years.
###################################
I don’t see the previous statement as solid as the timeline that Josephus quotes from Berossus on paragraph 20, but even then it does not say what you are implying. I will put more weight on a sequence of numbers, because numbers cannot be twisted. Josephus is not contradicting Berossus timeline, the king of Babylon did sent his son Against Egypt, he also send him against Jerusalem but when did this happened? This was after they REVOLTED FROM HIM. Did both things happened at the same time? No, Egypt was destroyed first and years later after Jerusalem did not want to continue in servitude of Babylon and after not listening to the Prophect of Jehovah’s warning not to REVOLT they were destroyed. The two happened in sequence, but not at the same time . The bigger question is does Josephus says it happened right after the other? NO, NO, NO, All the Watchtower has in their arsenal is planting the seed of doubt, but not solid fact is behind their strategy.
#########################################
Barclay begs to differ. Berossus did not separate the two events and Josephus let it slide.
#########################################
In reality that argument is NULL AND VOID it is just grasping for air, not even the Watchtower believes that Jerusalem was destroyed right after the battle of Carquemis( they have the battle of Carquemis on 625 BCE and the destruction of Jerusalem 607 BCE), so I don’t see any contradiction. Such interpretation actually contradicts the Watchtower timeline of events. Either way, Berossus is a much more reliable source then Josephus and his timeline is clear the 18 year of rule by Nabuchonosor was 587/586 BCE in which year the Temple was destroyed. I believe Josephus knew what he was saying there is no contradiction.
#############################################
You mistakenly think that I am agreeing with Berossus. That's not my point at all. The point is that Berosus assigned the fall of Jerusalem to Neb' first year as Barclay confirms. Funny though, if that is true then Berossus gave the destruction period closer to 70 years instead of 50, according to secular chronology and Berossus' timeline, it would have been circa 605 BCE to circa 539 BCE.
#############################################
You also said the following “This says that this FULL removal of the Israelites from the land happened when Nebuchadnezzar also came against Egypt, which isn't the way history relates it at all. It was not at the same time that he came against Egypt that he also set the Jerusalem temple on fire and made a complete removal of the people from the land,” I agree with you it was not at the same time. Again, if that is what Josephus meant then it would contradict the Watchtower own timeline and what I believe and history, but he did not say that at all. Egypt was destroyed first and then Jerusalem WHEN JERUSALEM REVOLTED not before not right after the battle of Carquemis. The only contradiction is only with your view, but not in context of what he said after or what he quoted Berosus as saying.
###############################
I am not talking about the WT, I am talking about Josephus and Berossus and Barclay's view of what was written and how we should understand it. The way Barclay understands it, Josephus allowed the Berossus account that puts the destruction of Jerusalem at the first year of Neb. This demonstrates my real point that Josephus was not trying to add up years and come to a new figure because he knew that Berossus' timeline was skewed, sometimes drastically.
###############################
In all his words in the Book "Against Apion" you cannot find a contradiction. On the other side , Your view (that paragraph 21 does not mean 50 years from the destruction of the Temple through the destruction of Babylon) does contradicts not only the comments made by Josephus on paragraph 21 in light of the text, but the comments from a much greater source Berossus and a lot more sources. So, when you say "This says" no it does not at all again you have to impose the Watchtower(planting of doubt, since you have no other recourse) view on what he said and then ignore paragraph 20 like is does not exist. So, now the Watchtower has more validity then Berossu's timeline?
##########################################
You can't possibly believe that Berossus' timelines would be correct unless you want assign over 30,000 years between the flood and Babylon's fall and if you want to believe that Jerusalem was destroyed in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar. Josephus had to know that the timeline of Berossus had to be unreliable. All the more reason not to overturn the view expressed in chapter nineteen just two paragraphs later from 70 to 50. Why would he suddenly trust Berossus for these figures when he knew he couldn't trust him for others. It would be a classic example of cherry-picking to say the least. If Jospehus was wanting to stick with Berossus as strictly as you say then he would have assigned the destruction to about 70 years instead of 50, from 605 BCE to 539 BCE. You can't have it both ways. Either Josephus was not trying to change anything to line up with a supposedly correct Berossus timeline, or he was wanting to agree with Berossus and messed up the math, because 50 years would not have been correct either because Berossus believed it would have been closer to 70 if Neb destroyed Jerusalem in his first year.
#########################################
You also commented “The way this reads the desolation would have begun sometime circa 605 BCE when he went against Egypt at the command of his father Nabopolassar. How can that be in complete agreement with their books? Or ours?”. It cannot, because that is not what he is saying that is what you are implying that he is saying. Berossus timeline is clear as I have listed before and it is in agreements with History, Archeology, the Bible, Astronomy data. Can you proof the timeline exposed by Berossus is wrong? Lets, put words aside. Now, the Watchtower timelines matches with NONE, not with their books or our books, not with History, nor Arqueology, nor with Astronomical data, Nor with any facts. Actually, neither with the parallel history of the Egyptians kings.
############################################
Like I said, you cant possibly believe that Berossus' timeline is accurate unless you are willing to believe what I mentioned above. We will get to the other stuff later once this topic has been concluded and closed.
###########################################
One final comment you said " This adds more weight to what I am saying and increases the mystery as to why he would change to fifty without any explanation as to why. I believe he was clearly referring to the "obscure" condition lasting fifty years, not the entire deserted state of seventy years as attested throughout the rest of his writings"
Are you really serious mystery? He just finished quoting Berossus timeline which shows 50 years from Nabochonosor 18 years of reign through the Destruction of Babylon why in the world would he meant anything different. Was he retarded to quote a timeline like the one Berossus shows and say it is accurate and then contradict it in the next paragraph? You call been consistent with the context a mystery? I call a mystery why the Watchtower chooses to give a blindside to all the facts instead of doing the honorable thing that even a man like Josephus was able to do, when he found he was wrong he did not make excuses, but accepted his mistakes and corrected them.
######################################
You've made an error. Berossus did not say that Nebuchadnezzar conquered Jerusalem in his 18th year, that was Josephus stating that. All Berossus says is that Neb ruled for 43 years and again, he puts the destruction of Jerusalem in Neb's first year, giving the desolation closer to 70 years, according to secular numbers. If Josephus wanted to agree with Berossus he would have used 70 instead of 50 for the complete desolation. The fifty could have been nothing more than an aside mentioning the fact that the temple could not be seen for 50 years with no intention of correcting the timeline.
I think it odd that Josephus would claim agreement with their records with Berossus when he would have had to know that Berossus put the destruction of Jerusalem around the first year of Neb’s reign. There is no way that they could be said to be in agreement UNLESS he was just referring to events rather than years.
Even though it looks like Josephus could have been refiguring the desolation to 50 instead of 70, I have to think because of all the discrepancies that this is not what he was doing at all. He couldn’t agree with Berossus on many things, sometimes just cherry-picking what would fit and glossing over that which would not. So thusfar, I do not see any compelling reason to think that Josephus was making a correction but rather an aside observation about obscurity.
And I suppose as a bottom line, if Josephus truly did change his mind, the WT simply committed an oversight when they did not mention the fifty year reference. It's certainly not the easiest thing to figure out, all things considered. Now, our enemies, such as yourself, love to claim corruption and deception, but we all know that things like this are possibly just overlooked. You can feign shock and surprise at such a thing but then that is just grand-standing. I can assure you, we do not need Josephus to prove our point about 607 BCE.
I never did get that reference from you as to when and where the WT referred to Josephus for corroboration so I really can’t comment too much on that until I see it. It would be interesting to see when that comment was made because there has been some detailed information written on that topic in the last few years and I did not find it there, indicating that if they DID become aware of the problem, they aren’t using that any longer for corroboration. So please, tell me where that’s at.
Regards,
Rotherham