Tuesday, June 28, 2016

Archaeological Evidence for the Jews Rejection of the Law - The Migdal Stone

The Migdal Stone (Found in a Synagogue in Magdala, Gallilee)

The tradition of burning incense away from the temple has its origin in the reign of Antiochus. Antiochus wanted to unify worship across his dominions so that everyone should only offer sacrifice of animals.  This was in agreement with his friends, the Jewish priests who were at loggerheads with the prophets. Antiochus's command to Mattathias was to not offer burning of incense.  "Worship of God" (Ant.12.6.2) was what the prophets did in the sanctuary at the altar of incense. This altar was removed by Antiochus with the co-operation of the priests.  The prophets having lost their altar in the sanctuary, resorted to burning incense in every town of Judea on temporary altars - they refused to give up the "worship of God". The propaganda of 1 Maccabees 1.54 calls them idol altars which were supposedly established by Antiochus's forces. They were altars of incense, not idol altars.

In Mac. 1:54, who was offering incense at the doors of houses, throughout the towns of Judea, if it wasn't Jews? Isn't this like the Jews watching the burning of incense at the opening of the sanctuary, during a festival.  They were also offering incense in the streets.  You have to credit these people with an advanced sense of God's presence everywhere.

There were supposed to be no Jews living in Magdala until the end of the second century BCE. Antiochus's persecution began in approximately 167 BCE. This led to many Jews being scattered. The current migrant crisis is a reminder of what persecuted communities do.   There is every possibility that a Jewish community established itself in Magdala shortly after 167 BCE. Mattathias taught his people to defend themselves, whereas they had been reluctant to do so.

The stone was easily transportable. A rough estimate from drawings is that the stone has dimensions of about 50 x 50 cm at the top and a height of 40 cm. Such a stone could have been made well before the synagogue was built and brought from elsewhere.  Also it could have been hidden easily from Antiochus's troops. They had, in effect, a portable sanctuary - an altar with all the markings that represented the sanctuary.

The Magdala stone was all about the sanctuary, not the Temple as a whole. The symbols on the stone show no connection with animal sacrifices.  Animals were sacrificed outsite the sanctuary.  The relation between the symbols and the sanctuary proper is very strong.  Some scholars
think that the stone was an altar of incense. Was it one of the "idol" altars of 1 Maccabees?

At the top are two palm trees.  The side views represent the curtains of the sanctuary,
They divide the sanctuary into its two compartments, the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies. The two circular objects which I take are at one end of the Holy Place. If they are at one end of the Holy Place (it is difficult to tell from drawings at which end of the stone these circular shapes are) then I have to assume they were something to do with the sanctuary worship. Given the serious symbolism on the stone I doubt that the two circles were symbolic of the more mundane rings for transportation.

1 Mac. 1:56 following on has: "All scrolls of the law which were found were torn up and burnt." This further propaganda would have us believe that Antiochus's forces did this. I suggest that Antiochus's forces were not responsible for tearing up the books of the law.  Mattathias's community were the culprits. This was a final break-up of the Jewish nation into two parties, essentially the priests and the prophets. The priests mocked and scorned the prophets greatly in their peshers of the Scrolls. Mattathias's community reacted, came to reject the law, and tore up the scrolls of
the law, basically the Pentateuch.

The priests had approached Antiochus for his help in putting down the prophetic community who they regarded as "seekers of smooth things". The priests with Antiochus's troops put to death women their babies and their families. The propaganda has it for fulfilling the law.  They welcomed death. Does this remind you of Josephus's "Essenes".  Essenes do not exist anywhere in the Scrolls. In Josephus they have been interpolated artificially back in time.

Sunday, May 15, 2016

What did Antiochus Profane?

Antiochus was Defeated when He Attacked Alexandria in Egypt

Antiochus Epihanes wanted to be king of Egypt as well as Syria.  1 Mac. 1.17-19: "He assembled a powerful force of chariots, elephants, and cavalry, and a great fleet, and invaded Egypt.  When battle was joined, Ptolemy king of Egypt was seized with panic and took to flight, leaving many dead.  The fortified towns were captured and the land pillaged." Then there seems to be no consolidation of his apparent victory.  

1 Mac.20,21 continues: "On his return from the conquest of Egypt, in the year 143, Antiochus marched with a strong force against Israel and Jerusalem.  In his arrogance, he entered the temple (actually the sanctuary) and carried off the golden altar, the the lamp-stand with all its equipment, the table for the Bread of the Presence, the sacred cups and bowls, the golden censers, the curtain and the crowns.  He stripped off all the gold plating from the temple front.  He seized the silver, gold, and precious vessels, and whatever secret treasures he found, and took them all with him when he left for his own country.  He had caused much bloodshed, and he gloated over all he had done."   

The writer of 1 Mac. does not give a reason for Antiochus's attack, nor details of those he had killed.  The reader is left to assume that Antiochus's motive was purely greed.  But was it?  Was there something else going on?     

Antiochus Turns on the Prophets in Jerusalem

According to the protestant Old Testament text, Daniel 11.31 has: "His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation."  

The Scrolls version of Daniel 11.31 has: "Forces from him shall appear and profane the temple and fortress, and and shall do away with the continual burnt offering; and they shall set up the abomination that makes desolate." 

The Scrolls version makes no mention of sacrifice, but does refer to continual burnt offering. The continual burnt offering was the burning of incense by the prophets on the altar of incense in the sanctuary.  This was not a daily sacrifice but a continual 24 hour offering. The smoke that came up from the fire was thought of as God's constant presence.  Here the Scrolls version is closer to original Daniel, and the protestant Old Testament text has been tampered with.  Antiochus abolished the altar of incense. He tried to abolish the prophets but did not succeed. 

The Septuagint version of Daniel 11:31 is revealing.  It has: "And seeds shall spring up out of him, and they shall profane the sanctuary, and they shall remove the perpetual sacrifice, and make the abomination desolate."

Here Antiochus's target of profanation is not the temple fortress nor the temple and fortress, but the location of the altar of incense, the sanctuary.  But we have the perpetual "sacrifice".  According to Josephus, the 'Essenes', really the prophets, had their own 'sacrifices'.  Well we know what they were.  They were sacrifices or offerings on the altar of incense.        

Judas restored the Altar of Incense

The Account in Josephus (12.7.6)

"When therefore, he had carefully purged it, and had brought in new vessels, the candlestick, the table [of shrew-bread,] and the altar [of incense,] which were made of gold, he hung up the veils at the gates, and added doors to them.  He also took down the altar [of burnt offering,] and built a new one of stones that he gathered together, and not of such as hewn with iron tools." 

The square brackets are not mine; they are in Josephus. 

The Account in I Maccabees (4:41-50)

"He selected priests without blemish, devoted to the law, and they purified the temple, removing to an unclean place the stones which defiled it.  They discussed what to do with the altar of burnt-offering, which was profaned, and rightly decided to demolish it, for fear it might become a standing reproach to them because it had been defiled by the Gentiles. They therefore pulled down the altar, and stored away the stones in a fitting place on the temple hill, until a prophet should arise who could be consulted about them. They took unhewn stones, as the law commands, and built a new altar on the model of the previous one. They rebuilt the temple and restored its interior, and consecrated the temple courts. They renewed the sacred vessels and the lamp-stand, and brought the altar of incense and the table into the temple. They burnt incense on the altar and lit the lamps on the lamp-stand to shine within the Temple. When they had put the Bread of Presence on the table and hung the curtains, all their work was completed."

Judas is is supposed to have detailed his troops to engage those in the citadel adjoining the temple.  This is a fiction.  Any Syrian soldiers and priests would have fled before Judas's arrival.  Judas would have detailed his soldiers to remove the altar upon which animals had been sacrificed.  This would have been done first as in 1 Maccabees. (In Josephus's shorter account, the altar for sacrifice of animals is removed second, after the new altar of incense has been brought into the sanctuary.)  Thus there were no priests to remove the altar used for sacrifice of animals.  The unhewn stones would have been simply thrown away and not kept until a prophet arose.  Talk of a prophet arising later is pure subliminal propaganda.   Judas and co. were prophets.  And why would a prophet want to consult the unhewn stones which were considered impure.  I suggest that the “stones” alluded to were the ones from the high priests breastplate which the prophets wanted to preserve in safety for a prophet to “consult”. The prophets were alive and kicking and not dying out. 

I Maccabees 4.46 has: “They therefore pulled down the altar, and stored away the stones in a fitting place on the temple hill, until a prophet should arise who could be consulted about them.”  Why should they have "stored away" the stones of the altar for the future when they were supposed to be polluting?  Why should the writer expect that a prophet might "arise" later and “be consulted” about the stones?  A prophet would have had no interest in these rejected impure “stones” of the altar.  The stones were 'impure' because the priests had burned sacrificed animals on them.  


Daniel is written as though it predicts the events it describes.  Of course we know in reality that it didn't.  According to page 482 of the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible by Abegg, Flint and Ulrich, Daniel was written in about 165 BCE, which was after those events.  And the eight scrolls of Daniel found in the Judean desert at Qumran were copies made in times from 125 BCE to 50 CE.  These scrolls are written partially in Hebrew and partially in Aramaic, attesting (according to Abegg et al) to the lateness of the writing. 

I suggest that scriptures were being written by prophets after the date of approximately 165 BCE, the exact time of the rise of the Maccabeans.  At this time, the prophets were considered by the priests (in the Scrolls) as "seekers of smooth things".  The situation between priests and prophets had rapidly deteriorated. The priests were thrown out of the temple by Judas a supporter of the prophets.  Animal sacrifice was abolished by Judas.  The priests were living in towns and villages away from Jerusalem and the temple.  They thought of themselves as being outcasts and were akin to the modern day Taliban believing in violence. The priests would have naturally rejected any scripture originated by the prophets. The prophets were then occupying the temple, worshipping God at the altar of incense, and "in" with their Hasmonean rulers.  They would have continued writing scripture in opposition to the priests, just as the priests opposed the prophets in the Scrolls originated in Jerusalem and found in the Judean desert and at Qumran.  

So, why at the precise time of Judas did prophecy apparently cease so that no scriptures were produced?  It was all to do with later Roman and Jewish propaganda produced later between 70 CE and 200 CE approximately.  

During the first century the prophets were hunted down by Vespasian.  800 or so prophets were taken to Rome for his triumph.  The rest were pursued mercilessly.  The killing was later attributed to Nero who was supposed to have persecuted 'christians'.  It was the Flavians who persecuted the CHRISTIANOS - latin for the anointed ones, or the prophets, many of whom had moved to Italy. The scriptures the prophets had written were taken by Vespasian's forces under Titus from the temple.  The prophets had defended the temple.  It was overcome by Titus who stripped it of all its gold to establish the Flavian dynasty.  Attacking temples was unknown among the Romans up to that time.

I Maccabees is biased against prophets.  Chapter 9:27 has: "It was a time of great affliction for Israel, worse than any since the day when prophets ceased to appear among them." Prophets are mentioned deliberately in Maccabees as though they ceased to exist around the time of 165 BC.

I Maccabees 9.54-56 has: "In the second month of the year 153, Alcimus gave orders for the wall of the inner court of the temple to be demolished, thereby destroying the work of the prophets. But at the moment when he began the demolition, Alcimus had a stroke, which put a stop to his activities.  Paralysed, and with his speech impaired, he could not utter a word or give final instructions about his property.  Thus he died in great torment."  

Here the prophets are in existence, but the editor creates a possible cause for their decline, when really this was a clash between the pro Syrian high priest Alcimus (with his fellow priests and troops), and the prophets. The prophets had built a wall to keep Alcimus and his troops, and Bacchides and his troops, out of Jerusalem.  Alcimus's 'stroke' at the 'moment he began the demolition' was more than likely wounds he received from the prophets as a result of the battle. Alcimus's intention was to "destroy the work of the prophets".  But Alcimus had his 'stroke' when he began his demolition of the wall, so he didn't succeed in destroying the wall.  The prophets had the victory.  9.57 has "On learning that Alcimus was dead, Bacchides returned to the king, and for two years Judea had peace."  Bacchides was Antiochus's general who retreated to Syria presumably with his troops, proof that the prophets had won the day.  The battle over the wall was a much bigger affair than portrayed. 

The prophets hated animal sacrifice.  It was Alcimus's intention to destroy the prophets with Antiochus's help.  Antiochus was pro animal sacrifice.  He intended to help the priests by keeping the altar for burnt offerings of animals and to seek vengeance on the prophets by taking the golden altar of incense used by the prophets out of the temple.  This altar was kept alight all the time.  It was the later removal of the altar of incense (the altar of the presence of God) that became the Abomination of Desolation to the original author of Daniel, a prophet.  

With sacrifice of animals abolished, Judas could purge the temple. The altar for burnt offerings was demolished and throw away on a rubbish tip. This was all blamed by later Jewish and Roman writers post 70 CE on Antiochus's persecution of the Jews.  Judas, according to the priests who wrote the Scrolls found in the Judean desert, was a wicked priest .   Later writers (1 Maccabees and Josephus) changed him to a national hero. The post 70 CE priests (Josephus being one of them) in conjunction with their then Roman friends wanted to remove all trace of prophets after 165 BCE from their history.  Judas as a betrayer of Jewish priests was preserved in another story as the one who betrayed Jesus.  


Monday, March 28, 2016

Messages for Larry Hurtado

The Retreating Claim of an Early NT Textual Recension (2016/04/07)


Larry you wrote: “We know that Roman-era writers typically drew upon other writings loosely, and often deliberately did so. That was a feature of rhetorical and writing practices of that time. But it is not indicative of how copyists treated the task of transmitting texts in manuscripts.”

But Larry you are assuming that the earliest writers were copyists as you defined them, and not editors rewriting the text. There was a stage or stages when the text was being created. Gregory Sterling the Dean of Yale Divinity School wrote (see page 104 of Understanding Josephus edited by Steve Mason) some comments on how ancient historians went about their business. Sterling (taking aim at his foot) says:

1. The practice of rewriting texts and offering the retelling as an authorial composition was common in antiquity. Historians of events situated in the distant past often made a virtue out of necessity by rewriting existing literary sources. (Were the historians fabricating or were they telling downright lies? Did they quote supposed authors who had no sources?)

2. Imitations of a past author’s style or spirit was acceptable: slavish reproductions were open to the charge of plagiarism. (So imitating a past author’s style or spirit was acceptable; really!! And if you could get away with it so were slavish reproductions or plagiarism)

3. Eastern peoples also rewrote texts although not always for the same reasons as their counterparts in the West. (And even westerners were not innocent! Well!! Well!!)

4. These traditions converge in the Jewish Antiquities of Josephus. (This is academic speak for its all there in Josephus. Apparently, Josephus calls his retellings a “translation from the Hebrew”, would you believe).

Such was the approach taken by writers during the first century. Did those very same traditions apply when the New Testament writings were first produced? I happen to think those writings were not produced through “tradition” (an academic get out of jail free term) but were calculated and deliberate.

The normality of 'Christianity' in the Roman world (2016/03/31)

Larry is promoting his books again. He must suffer from a need to write. He writes: " I’ve just had word that my forthcoming book, Destroyer of the Gods: Early Christian Distinctiveness in the Roman World (Baylor University Press, Sept 2016) is available for pre-order." (See https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2016/03/31/forthcoming-book/)

But, Larry I've got news you. Your early Christianity was NOT distinctive in a Roman world. It was created like any other religion accepted by Rome with a god Jesus and a sacrifice which was repeated in the communion of Rome - this is my body and my blood. The original sacrifice-rejecting religion came from the prophets of Judea who had their 'own sacrifices', at the altar of incense where they worshipped God in Spirit. These were the CHRISTIANOS (anointed ones) of the Pompeii grafitii and Acts. They had given up on sacrifice from the time of Judas Maccabeus.

Caiaphus and Eleazar (2016/03/21)

Sounding the praises of his former PhD student, Larry writes: " I’m pleased to note a newly published book by a former PhD student: Derek R. Brown, The God of This Age: Satan in the Churches and Letters of the Apostle Paul (WUNT 2.409; Tuebingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015). This is a lightly revised form of Brown’s PhD thesis submitted here in 2011." (See

Is it just another book where the mistakes of past scholars are repeated, as they have been down the years? I guess it will gather dust and be read by few.

Larry, just as Jesus (and John the baptist) were substitutes for Caiaphus, so Paul (and Barabbas) were substitutes for Caiaphus’s son Eleazar. Caiaphus and Eleazar, rebel priests, made an agreement with the king Aristobulus not to cause trouble in Judea – Caiaphus and Eleazar had persecuted the prophets. History was rewritten to have Paul persecuting the Christians. Then Paul was supposedly converted and forgiven by Ananias, but the ‘disciples’ were still afraid of Paul. The reality was that Caiaphus and Eleazar were forgiven by Aristobulus and released from prison (as Barabbas was), but Aristobulus remained afraid of them. The pair travelled around the diaspora synagogues (as supposedly Paul and Luke did) preaching a messianic message to initiate an uprising. They kept away from Jerusalem and Rome (just as Paul and presumably Luke did).  Caiaphus and his son Eleazar belonged to the priests who wrote the Scrolls found in the Judean desert.

Failing to convince the Jews they visited (just as Paul failed to convince the Jews of his supposed message), the two came back to Judea and gathered an army, largely of priests, that attacked the fortress of Machaerus. This while Aristobulus had gone to Rome to report the increasing trouble. The attack was not a surprise to Aristobulus’s general in Machaerus. The rebels were beaten back and Caiaphus and Eleazar were imprisoned. Caiaphus was beheaded.

Larry thinks I am off the wall. He wrote in an email:


Really, with great reluctance, I have to say that your latest comment (and pretty much all preceding ones too) is sooo off the wall, and so entirely off the subject, that it's breathtaking. So, as so often, I won't bother posting it. I guess you must enjoy your own private world, but it's not the universe that scholars in the realia of ancient history, early Christianity, Roman history, etc., live in.

No need to try to "reason" with me, Geoff. I'm beyond hope I guess from your standpoint (wherever you derive it from).


L. W. Hurtado (Emeritus Professor of New Testament Language, Literature & Theology)
School of Divinity (New College)
University of Edinburgh
Edinburgh, EH1 2LX
Office Phone: (0044) (0)131 650 8920

Monday, February 01, 2016

[Paul's] {Seneca's} Letter to [Titus] {James}

Chapter 1

1.[Paul] {Seneca}, a servant

[of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ for the faith]

of God’s {elect} {spirit}

[and the knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness—
2.a faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life, which God who does not lie,]

promised before the beginning of time,

3.and at his appointed season he brought his [word] {spirit} to light

[through the preaching entrusted to me by the command of God our Savior],

4.To [Titus] {James}, my true [son] {brother}

[in our common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.]

5.The reason I left you in [Crete] {Rome} was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders [in every town], as I directed you.

6.An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children [believe] {obey} and are not open to the charge of being [wild and] disobedient.

7.Since an overseer is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain.

8.Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined.

9.He must hold firmly to the [trustworthy message] {spirit} as it has been [taught], {proclaimed} so that he can encourage others [by sound doctrine] and refute those who oppose it.

10.For there are many [rebellious people, mere talkers and deceivers] {spirits of deceit}, especially those [of the circumcision group] {who were priests}.

11.They must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain.

12.Even one of their own [prophets] {kings} has said,
“[Cretans] {All men} are [always] liars [evil brutes, lazy gluttons] .” (PS.116:11)

13.This testimony is true. Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be [sound] {pure} in the [faith] {spirit}

14.and will pay no attention to Jewish [myths] {laws}

[or to the commands of those who reject the truth].

15.To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted [and do not believe] , nothing is pure.  In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted.

16.They claim to [know] {understand} God, but by their actions they deny him.
They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.

Wednesday, January 13, 2016

[Paul's] {James's} Letter to [2 Timothy] {Seneca}


It is obvious that 'Christ Jesus' is an interpolation or insertion.    

That there had been an outburst of persecution among the believers in Rome is also obvious. The religion of these folk had nothing to do with an imaginary Jesus.  It had a Jewish origin among the prophets.  It was routed in the spirit of God indwelling each individual from birth.  I am convinced that the person being addressed was indeed Seneca who went into exile.  

The spirit was thought to have passed down through mothers.  I don't know who Seneca's grand mother and mother were but Seneca certainly wrote about them. The spirit sustained life.  It could be fanned into 'flame'. 

James's theology is heavily coloured by stoic ideas which would undoubtedly have appealed to Seneca.  I think it went further than merely 'appealing', to believing what James taught about the spirit.  The deaths of a number of people were linked to that persecution.  I include the deaths of Nero, his wife Poppea, his mother Agrippina, Seneca, Burrus and Epaphroditus.  I can only think that they were murdered by those opposed to the introduction of a Jewish prophetic religion with its indwelling of the spirit of God.   The historians gave unbelievable, fabricated accounts of their deaths.  This was a persecution of CHRISTIANOS, a latin name found at Pompeii visited by the elite Roman rulers.  

Chapter 1

1. [Paul} {James}, an apostle [of Christ Jesus] by the will of God, according to the promise of [life] {glory} that is in [Christ Jesus] {the spirit}. 

2.To [Timothy] {Seneca}, my dear [son] {brother}: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus] our Lord.  

3. I thank God, whom I serve, as my forefathers did, with a [clear conscience] {spirit of truth}, as night and day I constantly remember you in my prayers. 

4. Recalling your tears, I long to see you, so that I may be filled with joy. 

5. I have been reminded of your [sincere faith] {spirit of truth}, which first lived in your grandmother Lois and in your mother Eunice and, I am persuaded, now lives in you also. 

6. For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you [through the laying on of my hands]. 

7. For God did not give us a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power, of love and of self-discipline.

8. So do not be ashamed to testify about our Lord, or ashamed of [me] his [prisoner] {spirit}. 

But join with me in suffering for the [gospel] {spirit}, [by] the power of God 

9. who has [saved] {purified} us and called us to a holy life 
[-- not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace].

This [grace} {spirit} was given us [in Christ Jesus] before the beginning of time,

10. but it has now been revealed

[through the appearing of our Saviour, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel}. 

11. And of [the gospel] {the spirit} I was appointed a herald and an apostle and a teacher. 

12. That is why I am suffering as I am.  Yet I am not ashamed, because I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him for that day.

13. What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, [with faith and love in Christ Jesus]. 

14. Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you [-- guard it] with the help of the holy spirit who lives in us.

15. You know that everyone in [Asia] {Rome} has deserted {me}
[, including Phygelus and Hermogenes]. 

16. May the Lord show mercy to [the] {your} household [of Onesiphorus], because [he] {you} [often refreshed me and was] {were} not ashamed of [my chains] {the spirit}. 

17. On the contrary, when [I] {you} [was] {were} in Rome, [he] {you} [searched] {worked} hard for [me] {the Lord}
[ until he found me] .

18. May the Lord grant that [he] {you} will find mercy [from the Lord] on that day! 

 [You know very well in how many ways he helped me in Rome.]

Thursday, January 07, 2016

The Prophets were called by the Latin CHRISTIANOS in Rome (and anywhere else in Italy)


11.26.[and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch.] 

So for a whole year [Barnabas and Saul met with the church and] {I} taught great numbers of [people] {Jews}.  The disciples were called Christians (CHRISTIANOS) [first] at [Antioch] {Rome} .

11.27.During this time some prophets came [down] from Jerusalem to [Antioch] {Rome}.

11.28.One of them, named Agabus stood up, and through the Spirit, warned [them] {us} that a severe [famine] {persecution} would spread over [the entire Roman world] {Judea}.

[This happened during the reign of Claudius].

11.29.The disciples, each according to his ability, decided to provide help for the brothers living in Judea

11.30.This they did, sending their gift to [the elders] {Jerusalem} [by] {with} [Barnabas and Saul]  {Agabus}.

The above passage is from Acts 11.  Some prophets, quite clearly friends of the writer, had come from Jerusalem.  The word 'down' has been added to match with Antioch which was north of Jerusalem.  I say they had come to Rome, and that Antioch was false.  The prophets had come to warn their fellow prophets (then junior prophets or disciples) that persecution would spread over the whole of Judea, the editor's subliminal 'entire Roman world' (Jewish prophets would hardly know what was going to happen in the 'entire Roman world'). The persecution would, of course, come from the priests (who were later flee Jerusalem to dump their scrolls in the Judean desert).  The prophet Agabus stood up and gave the warning through the Spirit (as prophets stood and spoke in a normal meeting). The prophets were trying to drum up support for their fellow prophets in Judea. It was perfectly natural for the prophets of Rome to send money to help fellow prophets in Jerusalem.  The money would have been taken by Agabus and the prophets who had come with him.  

The editor knew full well that a food shortage in Rome occured during the reign of Claudius around the time the prophets had come from Jerusalem.  Hence he inserted the note "this happened during the reign of Claudius".  Of course this coincidence was also well known by Tacitus, Suetonius and Dio, the state sponsored historians of the Flavians.      


The inscription CHRISTIANOS was among the graffiti discovered at Pompeii in 1862 by the German archaeologist Alfred Keisling.   

Thursday, December 24, 2015

Larry's multiple "bad guy" reports of Nero

Larry, don’t you think that the historians mockery of Nero had its origins in the jealousy of later emperors who of course could influence others with a heavy hand?

How could later emperors be jealous of Nero?? He hardly had a good reputation to be jealous of! When you have multiple “bad-guy” reports, it’s hard simply to write them off.

Geoff (Not published by Larry)
Larry, but the multiple “bad guy” reports were written by the employees of the Flavian emperors shortly after Nero’s death. Was it 14 years Nero was emperor? Yet I cannot recall one sign of any assassination attempt, so the populace at least must have been satisfied with him. And anyone who takes part in chariot racing on a circuit must be extremely brave, to be admired, and no mean athlete, don’t you agree? Just the sort of person to lead an army!  Given his passion for the arts and music it seems as though he was a very well balanced fellow indeed. The reputation of the Flavians is badly tarnished by what they did with the spoils from the temple, and that with no reprimand from any historian of the time.  Do you believe the history handed down to us by such people?

Tuesday, November 17, 2015

How the Writings Attributed to Josephus Were Produced (Mason's interpretation is totally wrong)

Gregory Sterling the Dean of Yale Divinity School wrote (see page 104 of Understanding Josephus edited by Steve Mason) some comments on how ancient historians went about their business.  Sterling (taking aim at his foot) says:

1. The practice of rewriting texts and offering the retelling as an authorial composition was common in antiquity.  Historians of events situated in the distant past often made a virtue out of necessity by rewriting existing literary sources. (Were the historians fabricating or were they telling downright lies?  Did they quote supposed authors who had no sources?)

2. Imitations of a past author's style or spirit was acceptable: slavish reproductions were open to the charge of plagiarism.  (So imitating a past author's style or spirit was acceptable; really!!  And if you could get away with it so were slavish reproductions or plagiarism)

3. Eastern peoples also rewrote texts although not always for the same reasons as their counterparts in the West.  (And even westerners were not innocent! Well!! Well!!)  

4. These traditions converge in the Jewish Antiquities of Josephus. (This is academic speak for its all there in Josephus.  Apparently, Josephus calls his retellings a "translation from the Hebrew", would you believe, i.e. Antiquities was not originally written in Greek. Josephus was not the original writer of Antiquities.  Antiquities was in existence before Josephus came on the scene in Rome.  It did finish up in Greek after Josephus had translated and edited it making numerous interpolations.  It was more than likely originally written in Latin which our priest Josephus would laboriously have had to learn, he being familiar with Greek.  Whereas War was written (conjured up) on a blank sheet from scratch in Greek. 

So now you know how the writings attributed to Josephus were produced.  The Christian Gregory Sterling has educated us.  And Steve Mason, another Christian, has given his blessing to what Gregory wrote.  May be they are not blinded by their faith after all.  But it has a modern day ring.  For isn't that how much theological stuff is produced, by professors and their Ph.D students alike, building packs of cards citing one another?  

But is the explanation of the lies in Josephus so simple as that?

Mason Has Done a Runner 

He has been appointed to the Chair in Ancient Mediterranean Religions and Cultures at the University of Groningen. He says "My move to Groningen is bringing me back to my main career trajectory". The Chair was established by the Dean of the Faculty, Prof. Kocku von Stuckrad, and Prof. Mladen Popović, Chair of the Department of Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Origins and Director of the Qumran Institute, which Mason became a member of. Mladen Popović says: “Steve is a great addition to the Faculty. He is an international authority and senior scholar in Jewish and Early Christian religion and culture in Judaea and the Roman Empire. With the leading commentary series on Flavius Josephus he makes a fundamental contribution to the unlocking of this uniquely important Jewish historian for the wider study of classical antiquity. Mason builds bridges between different disciplines that are concerned with the ancient Mediterranean, and he is capable of making connections to modern issues of, for instance, politics and international relations. Building bridges around the ancient Mediterranean can be seen as the common thread that runs through Mason’s career; bridges between disciplines and between ancient and modern times. He studied Judaism and Early Christianity at McMaster University (Hamilton, Canada). After his Ph.D. (University of St. Michael's College, 1986, by way of the universities of Jerusalem and Tübingen) he worked at The Pennsylvania State University, as Head of Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies, and at Toronto’s York University, most recently as Canada Research Chair in Greco-Roman Cultural Interaction. Since 2011 he has held the Kirby Laing Chair in New Testament at the University of Aberdeen. Mason was the first Dirk Smilde Fellow at the Qumran Institute in Groningen from January through May 2014. Mason explains that his appointment in Groningen is bringing him back to his main career trajectory: the integration of ancient Mediterranean studies: “My recent Chair in New Testament, an accommodation to established disciplinary boundaries, was a departure from my main career trajectory. The move to Groningen is bringing me back to the interdisciplinary study of ancient history, texts, and cultures. I believe that a critical understanding of our shared past, recent and ancient, throws light on our modern identities, including the sources and potential resolutions of conflict. This is a vision that I know I share with my colleagues in Groningen.”  I am sorry, but you are going to be stuck with your original image of a Josephus expert for a long time.  It's an uncomfortable status to have.

Mason's 'Critical Understanding'

So long as it doesn't contradict his Christian beliefs!  Typically, his beliefs get in the way of truth, as with most Christian scholars.  He has not picked-up on the many fabrications and interpolations in the writings attributed to Josephus presented as history.  Like most other commentators with a faith background he takes events in that literature literally.  He joins Martin Goodman, Barbara Levick and many others.  Mason believes what Josephus wrote.  

When was Antiquities Written? Was there an Earlier Version?   

On page 64 of Understanding Josephus, Mason asks a number of questions, which he rather arrogantly claims he is asking for the first time: "For whom did Josephus write, and what did he mean to tell them?  How can we match what is in his works to the particular social situations in which he wrote? How did his first hearers and readers in Rome understand his lengthy treatise?"

It didn't occur to Mason to ask when Antiquities was written?  Given Gregory Sterling's comments about the way historians rewrote ancient texts, this is a fair question for such a large work.  According to Note 3 to the Preface of Antiquities, it was published in CE 93 about 18 years after War. Mason believes this.  He writes in Josephus and the New Testament (page 102): "We can decide the matter for Josephus only by asking whether there were Gentiles in Rome at the end of the first century who were eager to learn about Judaism."  He assumes with other scholars that Antiquities was written at the end of the first century.  You don't have to be a Mason to recognise that Antiquities is replete with interpolations (many obvious with no context) and editorial.  These are sure signs of a document that has been written originally and then tampered with.  The 'matter' of Gentiles being interested in Judaism had surfaced in the court of the emperor Claudius, and probably a long time before that. 

Greeks had been in Rome for a long time.  Greek although despised by the Roman elite, was well understood by them.  So had a request been made by someone in the Roman elite for a history of the Jews, written in Greek, before Josephus produced his version?  Did Josephus do what many ancient writers did, and edit or rewrite someone else's Antiquities? And was the purpose of an original Antiquities similar to the version produced by Josephus, but different in some way, not only in its content, but in its language?  Was Antiquities written in Greek, as most think?  Because of the length of time it would have taken to write, an earlier version (the original) would have been written well before any 'war' with the Romans. 

Mason admits (page 103): "Among the Roman elite this basic worldview (of moral deterioration) became ever more concrete in the face of a perceived rise in corruption, crime, social dislocation, violence, and political upheaval."  Paul Berry writes extensively in the Christian Inscription at Pompeii, that the Romans regarded the Greek people and language as beneath them.  Berry actually devotes 6 pages of his book  (p.40-45) to the subject.  He says they did not consider fluency in Greek in keeping with the Roman character.  In one of his citations, he quotes the Roman poet Juvenal, who describes the clatter of the back streets: "All that Greek!  When it should be so much the greater shame not to fully command our Latin.  They simply tremble in that lingo -- their ire, their gaiety, their woe -- all poured forth from the inmost soul.  How else?  In that baby-talk Greek.  Permissible maybe in girls, yet even those eighty-six years old still vibrating in Greek?  A deplorable speech for the mature."   So given this low opinion of Greek by the Roman elite, why did Josephus write his classical works in Greek and not Latin?  He was supposed to be writing for the Flavians.  Could it have been because he did not have a good understanding of Latin?       

In the Preface to Antiquities, Josephus says it was "a large subject", and very strangely , "it was "difficult to translate", so the "work went slowly".  Translate into Greek from which language?  Greek was supposed to have been well understood by priests and Jews in general, and they had the Jewish bible in Greek.  And why a translation at all if Josephus was the original writer?   The answer must be that Antiquities was originally written in Latin by a different Jew who had lived in Rome for a long time and had mixed with the Roman elite from whom he had learned the language.  Josephus found the translation of that original Antiquities difficult because it was written in Latin, and he was having trouble learning it. 

Josephus continues in the Preface to Antiquities: "since I was myself interested in that war which we Jews had with the Romans, and knew myself its particular actions, and what conclusion it had, I was forced to give the history of it, because I saw others perverted the truth of those actions in their writings."  Josephus speaks of "we Jews" as though he was speaking for all Jews.  We know that certain groups of Jews have argued for centuries.  He cannot be speaking for all Jews. The "others" obviously had a different opinion of what happened.  So who were the "others"?  Josephus doesn't say.  The main extant written evidence for the war is apparently from Josephus.  Was Josephus's War fabricated while under duress?  He admits that he was "forced" to write War.  Was Josephus writing under pressure yet secretly telling the reader that he was not being truthful?  One has to suspect that the "others" who were perverting the truth were the Flavians, and that Josephus was forced to write falsely by them.  Josephus was in effect a captured priest, and a slave.  Was his writing a survival strategy?  There is no archaeological evidence of any war in Galilee.  The only place where there is archaeological evidence is Judea.  Yet Josephus claims he knew of "its particular actions" mostly in Galilee where he supposedly organised defences.   So was he writing what he had been told to write by his Flavian masters?  Did the Romans want to conceal what really happened?  Did Vespasian misclaim a great victory over the Jews?  He had form.  He apparently arranged a misclaimed victory for Claudius in Britain.   Who were the 800 or so Jewish prisoners that Vespasian took to Rome for his triumph?  Why so few Jewish prisoners?  I say they were prophets who had defended the temple and tried to prevent its destruction.  Why didn't Josephus write about the wealth and power that Vespasian gained after his destruction of the temple?  It is very hard to believe that a priest would have written as he did, if he had a choice.  There must have been a mutual agreement that was convenient for the Flavians and the priest Josephus?  The Romans would surely not have allowed the Jews develop their religion completely independently.  The aim of both parties was to eliminate the prophets from history.  The prophets were an embarrassment to Vespasian because they knew the truth about the fake war, and they were bitter enemies of the priests.  So what did happen to the prophets?   

The Preface to Antiquities continues: "And indeed I did formerly intend, when I wrote of the war, to explain who the Jews originally were, what fortunes they had been subject to, and by what legislature they had been instructed in piety, and the exercise of other virtues, what wars they also had in remote ages, until they were unwillingly engaged in this last with the Romans." 
In the short space of the two pages of the Preface, the words law, or lawgiver or legislator occur 12 times.  Josephus's aim is clear.  He sees the legislator Moses as the dispenser of Gods' laws which if a person obeys he will have "perfect virtue".  But Moses was not of the tribe of Aaron and therefore not a high priest or priest which Josephus supports.   Moses not only legislated for priests but prophets also.  In his books Understanding Josephus, and Josephus, Judea and Christian Origins, Mason doesn't mention prophets once.  What did happen to the prophets?  Moses said,  "I wish that all the Lord's people were prophets and that the Lord would put his Spirit on them" (Num.11.29).   And "he (Moses) took the Spirit that was on him and put the Spirit on the seventy elders.  When the Spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, but they did not do so again" (Num.11.25).  The footnote has: or, "they prophesied and continued to do so".  "Moses placed the gold altar in the Tent of Meeting in front of the curtain and then burned incense on it." (Ex.40.26).  I suggest that the prophets have been written out of history, and hence out of Antiquities, by Josephus with the mutual agreement of the Romans. Josephus favoured the priests and hated the prophets.  The prophets knew that the war had been on a much smaller scale with Nero's army defeating the priests at Qumran, Machaerus and Masada in 66 CE.  The Flavians hated the prophets because they had resisted the destruction of the temple five years after Nero had left Judea for his Greek holiday.  The prophets knew that Vespasian's war was misclaimed.  Vespasian didn't like the idea of prophets giving away his secret.   

In writing his version of Antiquities, Josephus says in the Preface that he was "imitating the generosity of the high priest Eleazar" who supposedly shared the Jewish laws with the Egyptian king Ptolemy II.  But Eleazar didn't appear that generous, because Josephus says the interpreters that Eleazar supposedly sent to Alexandria gave Ptolemy "only the books of the law" ("while there were a number of other matters in our sacred books").  So this was how Josephus was going to imitate the generosity of "our high priest".  This is inconsistent with the actual story in Antiquities.  It is also clear that Josephus is a supporter of  high priests.  The whole story is a pack of lies.  There were tens of thousand Jews living in Egypt at the time.  Many would have understood Hebrew and Greek, and be able to translate from one language to the other.  Also there was a temple at Leontopolis in Egypt which presumably was different in some way from that in Jerusalem.  It probably did not have animal sacrifice.  There would have been Jews there who were capable translators.  In the text of Josephus, it is quite clear that the Jews of Egypt (supporters of prophets) and the Jews of Judea (supporters of priests)  were enemies.  Josephus probably didn't like to think that the Jews of Egypt were capable of translating the Jewish bible.  Again we have the all inclusive  "the Jews".  But was it a particular group of Jews who really were looking for a fight with the Romans?   In War, Josephus has several groups including zealots and sicarrii (a latin word) only too willing to do so, especially those who defended Jerusalem.  Yet here there is no evidence of any siege activity by Roman forces.  In fact the only archaeological evidence of Roman attacks anywhere is at Qumran, Masada and Machaerus.  

Josephus has it that Epaphroditus encouraged him to get on with his Antiquities as he and other Greeks were keen to know the history of "our nation".  I only know one such Epaphroditus. He was Nero's secretary, Tiberias Claudius Epaphroditus.  But that Epaphroditus was earlier than the time Josephus was supposed to have written Antiquities.  And do you think that the secretary to Nero would have known Latin?  You bet he did.  Epaphroditus was keen for Claudius and the rest of the Roman elite to know about the form of Judaism practiced by this original writer of Antiquities, but it would have to be in Latin. 

Does this all sound somewhat suspicious?  Do you think Josephus was a fraudster? 

Larry Loves to Cut and Run 

I wrote to his blog https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2016/01/26/christians-and-the-codex-encore/#comments:
Of course the codex was the principal method of transmitting propaganda. The editing of Antiquities and the writing of War are two prime examples. Never mind that the historians of the day used the codex also to write their histories at the behest of their masters, the Flavians. How else would Josephus have interpolated 13.5.9 to the time of Antiochus (about Essenes, Pharisees and Sadducees) into Antiquities. So many witnesses you say to Nero being bad, that they must be believed! Well, I would remind you of a number of a number deaths at the time: Nero, Agrippina, Poppea, Burrus, Epaphroditus and Seneca. I find it much more difficult to accept that these were not murdered by the same elite who mocked Nero. Dirty business and the creation of the codex went together.  

Larry replied:
"I presume that you have some basis for your wild claim about “the codex was the principal method of transmitting propaganda”: Some actual manuscripts, for example? Some textual references to that effect? Or (as I suspect) your own imagination?  
Ancient writers used wooden-frame tablets (wax writing surface) often for making notes, drafting preliminary thoughts, etc., to be sure. But the published version of literary texts was a bookroll. Which we can establish if you care to consult the 14,000 plus items on the LDAB database.  As for your final comments, I have no idea what you mean, “dirty business and the creation of the codex went together,” but, Geoff, it all sounds rather raving loony."

Well Larry, you knew what you were asking for when you wrote "some actual manuscripts, for example?"  It appears that only one fragment of a parchment manuscript from the time of Josephus does exist (See below).  

Then I wrote to a latin Scholar
I wrote to a Latin scholar (a professor) the following email dated  22/02/2016: "I am interested in the earliest codices used in Rome.  What I am interested in is the possibility that the codex was used by the elite for communicating propaganda. I believe Martial had some of his poems produced in codex form and sold in a shop. It seems to me that the contemporary elite would have spotted an opportunity before the technology was available in a shop."  
The reply came back on the same day: "That is certainly a possibility. The whole history of the transition from roll to codex is more complicated than people often imagine." 

My replies to Larry's Blog which he refused to publish

Larry loves to take the mick but won't allow a response - I wrote several replies to his blog but he refused to publish them.  I wrote:  

1. "Larry, I don’t think my comment about Ant.13.5.9 being an interpolation was raving loony. This text sticks out like a veritable sore thumb as an interpolation. I repeat, how else would Josephus or another writer have incorporated that text without having a codex available to edit a page. Remember there were no word processors to rapidly produce large quantities of text. And similar considerations apply to other small areas of the writings attributed to Josephus which must have been in codex form. These writings were the propaganda of Josephus and the Roman elite, acting together, with purpose. Do you have any evidence of a section of text being sewn into one of your 14000 bookrolls? That is the only other explanation."

2. “Larry, I found this extract in The History of Information.com. It speaks of the development of the codex using parchment at the critical time when Josephus would have been writing.  The papyrus or parchment codex was a Roman innovation. The earliest certain reference to a parchment notebook appears in the Institutio Oratoria of Quintilian composed in the last years of the reign of the Emperor Domitian, the final decade of the first century CE. 2.C.5 About 85 CE, the poet Martial left the first surviving mention of literary works published in parchment codices, emphasizing their compactness, their handiness for the traveller, and providing the name of the shop where such novelties could be bought. From this early period only a single leaf fragment of a parchment codex has survived, with writing on both sides of the parchment–a fragment of an anonymous work entitled De bellis Macedonicis found at Oxyrthynchus (elephantnose fish), Egypt, and acquired by the British Museum in 1900.”

3."Larry, it appears that small codices could be purchased in a shop as a novelty at the time of Martial who refers to them as compact and handy for the traveller. The parchment would have been written on each side. The traveller would no longer have had to carry a bundle of bookrolls written single-sided on papyrus which wore out the text as they were rolled and unrolled. Apparently papyrus from Egypt was in short supply in Rome. Animal skins were easily available.  This suggests to me that the technology of codex production using parchment had filtered down from elite circles to have become common-place in shops. The lesson would not have been lost on the elite who would have recognised the advantages of the codex for spreading information. Of course the climate in Europe didn’t exactly encourage the survival of what must have been a large quantity of Roman manuscripts written in Latin, especially if they had been carried around, and not left in libraries. And Rome had more than its fair share of fires."

4. "Larry, looking at the LDAB database one might easily conclude that most ancient manuscripts were written in Greek, and that Romans must have been illiterate.  Never mind that Egypt where most of the LDAB database originates had a dry climate in sharp contrast to the European climate.

So you see Larry, the Roman elite were ahead of the game."  The codex was in use at the time Josephus was writing.  The fragment of the De bellis Macedonicis codex found in Egypt was written in Latin on both sides and is of the same period at which Josephus was writing. 

Larry's rant about me being ignorant (showing that he read my posts but did not have the grace to publish them)

"The Codex and Ignorance February 5, 2016
One persistent commenter in response to my earlier posting about Christian preference for the codex has confidently posited things that only illustrate his ignorance of the data about ancient manuscripts. I shall, therefore, neither post his comments nor name him. Instead, I take this opportunity to correct his ignorance. There’s nothing wrong with being ignorant of some specialized subject–we’re all in that situation on this or that one. But it’s passing strange for someone so obviously inadequately informed then to make confident (even arrogant) claims based on his ignorance. That is not acceptable. But now to the corrections."
We are all learning Larry. The ignorance seems to be coming from you.
"First, he incorrectly claimed that people must have used the codex much more regularly than the MSS data indicate, for otherwise how would they have made insertions of material into texts? Several errors here. For one thing, the way ancient texts were altered (by omissions, additions, other changes) wasn’t mechanically by physically adding or cutting out bits. Instead, it was in the copying process. Each time a given text was copied, there was the opportunity of making changes, either accidentally or deliberately. Texts on rolls could be changed just as easily as those on codices."
So Larry reckons that the way documents were changed or edited was by copying them, a process which would have been necessary in the case of a bookroll, but not in the case of a codex, as I show in the section on Turner below.
"The physical book-form had nothing to do with it. Furthermore, as to codices, the earliest form seems to have been “single gathering” construction, a number of sheets laid on top of one another and then folded and stitched together. You couldn’t remove individual leaves, as each leaf was one half of a folded sheet. And on all the sheets, except the most inside one, one leaf had material from the early part of the text, and the other leaf had material from another, later part of the text. So, if you removed one sheet, you made two deletions, not one. And if you added a sheet or removed one, you would have to take the whole codex apart and then re-sew it together again. As for multiple-gathering codices, there also removing or adding leaves wasn’t an easy task. You see? One really needs to study the physical items closely before making claims."
The physical book form had everything to do with it. A codex could be taken apart easily by a skilled craftsman or scribe, as I show in the section on Turner. Leaves could then be exchanged for edited new leaves, whether it was in single gatherings (four pages, double-sided) or multiple gatherings. This would have involved far less work than a rewrite.
"Second, he claimed that, because the data on the Leuven Database of Ancient Books was heavily based on papyri from Egypt (where conditions more readily made for the survival of papyri), we can’t apply these data (particularly the obvious preponderance of the bookroll for literary texts all through the first three centuries AD) generally. In Rome (he claimed), things could be different, and he proposed that there the codex was more heavily used. Well, again, ignorance is the mother of the claim. For we do have data about preferred bookforms in Rome and the West from the early centuries. For example, there is the library found in Herculaneum, which comprised a few hundred papyrus bookrolls of literary texts that were carbonized in the eruption of Mt. Visuvius in 79 AD. So, wrong again. All actual data confirm that the bookroll was the preferred bookform for literary texts in this early period, East or West, Greek or Latin. Martial’s famous Epigrams include mention of what he describes as an experiment of a local bookseller in preparing small, portable leather codices of his poetry for travellers. But it’s clear that this was a rather isolated experiment, and not indicative of any larger pattern. I’ve actually gone through the LDAB listing of all second-century non-Christian codices (there aren’t that many), and confirmed that they largely are workaday collections of recipes, astronomical tables, magical formulas, etc., with a few examples of copies of literary texts."
The manuscripts found at Herculaneum were the charred remains of papyrus bookrolls. They could have been any age. And Herculaneum was not Rome where the development of the codex was taking place. It certainly is not clear that Martial's use of the codex was an isolated experiment. What I am saying is that the codex was being used by the elite (the Flavians) for propaganda purposes. Larry's argument about the LDAB database is misleading. He interprets the data from one place in Egypt as being generally applicable, including in Rome from where no parchment codices have survived from the period. This is unscientific to say the least, particularly, as I have said, that the dry climate of Egypt lent itself to the preservation of manuscripts. The codex was a Roman invention, double-sided on Parchment. The earliest parchment fragment in Latin, probably from Rome, only survived because it was taken to Egypt.
"My illinformed commenter could do well to take the time to do such work before making further claims. So, bottom line: The bookroll was overwhelmingly the preferred book form for literary texts all through antiquity till sometime in the 4th century AD, and continued to be used heavily even after that. E.g., per the LDAB, about 98% of second-century nonChristian copies of literary texts are bookrolls. By contrast, Christians overwhelmingly preferred the codex, with particular fervency for those literary texts that they treated as scripture."

Now I will correct what Larry should have said, if he was being honest. The bookroll was the overwhelmingly preferred bookform till sometime in the 4th century, for manuscripts produced in Egypt.  Ignorance is bliss for Larry.

The Typology of the Early Codex by Eric G Turner

This was one of the books recommended by Larry.   Turner writes on page 2: "The story of the codex in the Latin west of the Empire will not be my concern."  Thus Turner forms general conclusions about codices from his studies of papyrus codices found largely in Egypt.  (See  page 32).  This was Turner's big assumption and a big mistake.                   

Turner almost contradicts himself in a Chapter on The Priority of Parchment or Papyrus. On page 40 he writes: "Points in favor of  the priority of parchment are no doubt the Latin term "membranae" applied to parchment notebooks used for business purposes, as C H Roberts has shown, and then perhaps extended; and the references in Martial to what seem to be early parchment codices (such as the "Livius in membranis").  A stronger argument than any of these may be the consideration that in Egyptian book technique (Turner is back to Egypt) the papyrus roll was so firmly entrenched that a major shock was needed to prompt the experiments that resulted in its eventually being supplanted by the codex. ....There must have been a powerful motive for using the codex form."  The desire to publicize Christianity is often advanced as this motive.  But what was the shock? 

Could a Codex be Changed Easily without Re-writing the Text Completely?
In codex terminology, a sheet is a folded piece of parchment that makes four sides or pages of a manuscript.  A gathering is a number of these sheets sewn together along the folds.  Thus a sheet would have the first two pages as right and left pages written on two sides.  But the next two pages would be out of sequence with the first two.  Then a number of these gatherings would be sewn together to form a codex.  On page 73 at the start of the chapter: The Codex and the Scribe, Turner poses the question: "Did the scribe make up his codex and fasten it together before he copied his text into it?"  Turner says: "We may proceed some way toward an answer by first considering what is implied in the procedure of copying a codex. Palaeographers have assumed in the past that the great vellum codices were written sheet by sheet; that is, in order to be written, the sheets were separated from the gathering into which they had been assembled (and through the whole body of which gatherings they were pricked).  Each sheet was laid by itself in its turn on the scribe's knee or writing desk.  Only when writing was completed were they reassembled and then stitched."  Turner then says: "That this was the procedure is mainly a matter of inference, but it is in itself eminently sensible."

Thus according to Turner, this was the normal way a scribe wrote a codex.  So what might the scribe do if he wanted to change or edit a manuscript?  Using his normal skills, it would be little trouble to remove the stitching and change the text of the sheets that he wished to edit or introduce changes to.  And this could be done without the necessity of re-writing the complete manuscript as he would have to do in the case of a papyrus bookroll, Larry.  This argument is important as it will be used to illustrate the "shock" referred to previously.  It involves what Gregory Sterling referred to: "The practice of rewriting texts and offering the retelling as an authorial composition."  In particular, it involves the re-writing or editing the sheets and pages of an existing Antiquities parchment codex by Josephus. Sterling almost implies Antiquities was treated so.  Thus he wrote: "These traditions (re-writing or editing) converge in the Jewish Antiquities of Josephus."     

The Children and Grandchildren of Herod were Educated at Rome 
This was particularly important for my argument.   It meant that the elite of Judea would have known Latin extremely well in both its spoken and written forms.  They would have communicated with their Roman equivalents using the Roman language, not Greek which the Romans regarded as inferior.  The young Jewish students would have shared their history and beliefs with their Roman counterparts.  They would have explained that there were two kinds of priestliness established by Moses, prophets and priests between whom there was great rivalry.  This had boiled over into outright war at the time of Antiochus who supported the priests, and Judas Maccabeus who supported the prophets.  

A few of the children said that they followed the priests.  These had been exiled from the temple since the time of Judas when animal sacrifices were banned.  The priests had continued their work as priests working in the towns and cities, relying on the people for their livelihood.  The majority of the children said that they preferred the prophets with their traditions of bravery, as their ancestors the Hasmoneans had done.  The prophets were hard working in many practical jobs like farming, construction and leather working.   They were basically peaceful but were fearless while under persecution by the priests, bearing all sorts of punishments stoically.  They would give much of their spare time to the study of the bible, and officiating in the temple at the altar of incense.  Now this chatter did not go unnoticed by the Roman tutors and parents of the elite class. 

Claudius was Emperor with a Wife Agrippina and an Adopted Son Nero (See https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=14512636#editor/target=post;postID=8511344089794594531;onPublishedMenu=allposts;onClosedMenu=allposts;postNum=5;src=postname)
At this time Agrippa I had become king of Judea, having inherited the kingdom from his father Aristobulus.  (Josephus has two Aristobulus's existing at the same time).  Claudius and Agrippa were great friends.  Agrippa had been a pupil in Rome and had lived with Claudius.   

Ant.20.2 is really about the great friendship between Agrippa I, Nero, his mother the empress Agrippina, and the emperor Claudius.  When Nero was about sixteen, Agrippa invited Nero to stay in Judea.   Agrippa I gave him some lands that included Ein Gedi.  While Nero was at Ein Gedi, a prophet, James, employed by the king, came and taught him to worship God in the Spirit. There was opportunity for Nero to visit the king and his son in Masada.  Nero was familiar with Masada and its surrounding lands.  The Dead Sea is a fertile place being rich in ammonium salts. His father Claudius requested that Nero went home on different occasions.  James travelled with him.  James met and taught Agrippina to obey the Spirit and join the prophets. That the following text from Ant.20.2 was reconstructed from text that was about Nero, a simpleton could recognise, but apparently some professors do not.   

"About this time it was that [Helena] {Agrippina}, [queen of Adiabene] {the empress}, and her son [Izates] {Nero}, changed their course of life, and embraced the [Jewish customs] {Spirit of God}, and this on the occasion following: [Monobazus] {Claudius} [, the king of Adiabene] {Caesar}, who had also the name of [Bazeus] {Nero}, fell in love with his [sister] {brother’s daughter} [Helena] {Agrippina}, and took her to be his wife, and [begat] {adopted} her [with] child. ...And when his son was [born] {adopted}, he called him [Izates] {Nero}. He had indeed [Monobazus] {Britannicus}, his [elder brother] {son}, by [Helena] {Messalina} also, as he had [other sons] {a daughter Octavia} by [other wives] {her} besides. Yet did he openly place all his affections on this his [only begotten] {adopted} son [Izates] {Nero}, which was the origin of that envy which his other brethren, [by the same father,] bore to him; [while on this account they hated him more and more, and were all under great affliction that their father should prefer Izates before them]. Now although their father was very sensible of these their passions, yet did he forgive them, as not indulging those passions out of an ill disposition, but out of a desire each of them had to be beloved by their father. However, he sent [Izates] {Nero}, with many presents, to [Abennerig] {Agrippa}, the king of [Charax-Spasini] {Judea}, [and that out of the great dread he was in about him, lest he should come to some misfortune by the hatred his brethren bore him]; and he committed his son's preservation to him. Upon which [Abennerig] {Agrippa} gladly received the young man, and had a great affection for him, and... embraced him after the most affectionate manner, and bestowed on him the country called [Carra] {Ein Gedi}; it was a soil that bare amomum in great plenty: there are also [in it] the remains of that [ark] {pillar of salt}, wherein it is related that [Noah escaped the deluge] {Lot’s wife was buried} [, and where they are still shown to such as are desirous to see them.] Accordingly, [Izates] {Nero} abode in [that country] {Ein Gedi} [until his father's death].   ...3.Now, during the time [Izates] {Nero} abode at [Charax-Spasini] {Ein Gedi}, a [certain Jewish merchant] {prophet}, whose name was [Ananias] {James}, [got among the women] that belonged to the king, [and] taught [them] {him} to worship God [according to the Jewish religion] {in the Spirit}...He also, at the earnest entreaty of [Izates] {Nero}, accompanied him when he was sent for by his father to come to [Adiabene] {Rome}; ....and he said that he might worship God without {being circumcised] {sacrifice}; which worship of God was of a superior nature to [circumcision] {sacrifice}.  He added that God would forgive him, though he did not [perform the operation] {sacrifice}....5.But as to [Helena] {Agrippina}, the [king's] {emperor’s} [mother] {wife}, when she saw that [the affairs of Izates's kingdom were in peace, and that] her son was a happy man, and admired among all men, and even among foreigners, by the means of God's [providence] {Spirit} over him, she had a mind to go to the city of Jerusalem, in order to worship at that temple of God which was so very famous among all men, and to offer her thank-offerings there.  So she desired her [son] {HUSBAND} to give her leave to go thither; upon which he gave his consent to what she desired very willingly, and made great preparations for her dismission, and gave her a great deal of money, and she went down to the city Jerusalem[, her son conducting her on her journey a great way].  Now her coming was of very great advantage to the [people] {prophets} of Jerusalem; for whereas [a famine] {the priests} did oppress them at that time, and many [people] {prophets} died for want of what was necessary to procure food withal, [queen Helena] {Agrippina} sent some of her servants to Alexandria with money to buy a great quantity of corn, and others of them to Cyprus, to bring a cargo of dried figs. And as soon as they were come back, and had brought those provisions, which was done very quickly, she distributed food to those that were in want of it, and left a most excellent [memorial] {remembrance} behind her of this benefaction [, which she bestowed on our whole nation]. And when her [son Izates] {husband Claudius} was informed of this [famine] {persecution}, he sent great sums of money to the principal [men] {prophets} in Jerusalem."