Tuesday, May 05, 2015

Josephus on portents and prodigies


We have comparable examples even within the very same century that saw the development of the Gospels. Josephus wrote the Jewish War between 75 and 79 CE, in which he relates the following obvious legends, which "occurred" only ten to fifteen years previous (in or around 66 CE): it was a bright as midday for half an hour around the Altar and Sanctuary of the Jerusalem Temple–at three in the morning!; during the usual sacrifices a cow gave birth to a lamb "in the middle of the Temple courts"; a bronze gate, requiring twenty men to move, unbolted, unlocked, and opened itself at midnight–right in front of the temple guards!" and last but not least, chariots and armies were seen marching through the skies and encircling all the towns of Judaea. Josephus finally remarks, "I would have dismissed it as an invention, had it not be vouched for by eyewitnesses, and followed by disasters that bore out the signs." R. Carrier, "The Spiritual Body of Christ and the Legend of the Empty Tomb," R. Price & J. Lowder, eds. The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave (Prometheus 2005), 173-174.

For Carrier, this is proof positive that Josephus was a credulous and superstitious man. And since he moved in the same thought-world as the Gospel writers, we should lend their accounts no greater credence. There are, however, some basic problems with Carrier's comparison:

i) To begin with, the logic is circular. He presumes that since the miraculous portents in Josephus are incredible, then by parity of argument, so are the Gospels. 

However, I, for one, don't automatically discount miracle reports outside the Bible. The fall of Jerusalem was a turning point in Jewish history. It wouldn't surprise me if there were some authentic marvels that portended that fateful event.

That doesn't mean I give equal weight to every item on his list. Assuming this is actually based on independent information, there's no reason to think that if one report is true, all are true; if one report is false, all are false. These come from different sources. Different reporters. 

ii) But I'd also like to consider a different approach. Ironically, it may not be Josephus, but Carrier's who's gullible. Carrier takes it for granted that Josephus believes what he's saying in this regard. But surely that's naive.

To begin with, accounts of portents and prodigies were a stock feature of Roman historiography. This was typically associated with major events and major political figures in Roman history. So Josephus, in writing to and for a Roman audience, may be adapting himself to that contrivance.

That consideration is reinforced by the fact that Josephus is writing as a Jewish apologist to his Roman overlords. As such, he's motivated to wow them with his own account of portents and prodigies. In other words, it's highly possible that he's regaling them with tall tales to impress his pagan Roman patrons regarding the reality of Yahweh–the one true God. 

Indeed, his ingenuous profession that "I would have dismissed it as an invention, had it not be vouched for by eyewitnesses, and followed by disasters that bore out the signs," is the kind of calculated protestation that you'd expect from an author who's endeavoring to pull the wool over the eyes of the reader. "I'd scarcely believe it myself, were it not for the fact that…"

That's a familiar rhetorical gambit to win the confidence of the audience. "See, I'm just as skeptical as you are! I believe this against my will!"

I'm not saying that interpretation is necessarily correct. But I think it's quite plausible that Josephus is pandering to Roman sensibilities at this juncture. And he may well have hoodwinked an unsuspecting atheist in the process! 

8 comments:

  1. "That's a familiar rhetorical gambit to win the confidence of the audience. 'See, I'm just as skeptical as you are! I believe this against my will!'"

    Which is why you heartily reject the doubting Thomas story as just such an obvious contrivance, right? :p

    "However, I, for one, don't automatically discount miracle reports outside the Bible."

    And if Carrier had any instances of such fantastic claims in his own background experience he'd be right there with you. But we don't all go to the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, now do we?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. WOE:

      

"Which is why you heartily reject the doubting Thomas story as just such an obvious contrivance, right? :p"

      So you're still Richard's waterboy after all these years. It's a full-time job. Does he dispatch you to scout out new groupies for his one-night stands?

      Shouldn't he give you a pay raise?

      Your reply artificially isolates my statement from the larger argument. The purpose of John's Gospel and audience for John's Gospel is very different from the Jewish Wars.

      "And if Carrier had any instances of such fantastic claims in his own background experience he'd be right there with you."

      You mean, like his experience with Old Hag syndrome?

      "But we don't all go to the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, now do we?"

      Jason Engwer and I have produced copious documentation of extrabiblical miracles and paranormal phenomena right up to modernity.

      Delete
    2. BTW, Richard Carrier is looking for a date for the middle of May and he's sending out a "bat signal" on his blog. Another famous atheist (whose name I won't mention) has got a bottle of Jack Daniels attached to his utility belt to seduce potential Batichicas.

      Delete
  2. Hey Steve.

    "Does he dispatch you to scout out new groupies for his one-night stands?"

    No, he doesn't. I didn't realize you'd be interested.

    And unfortunately Yahweh is doling out brides and concubines these days for being a good follower. So Carrier'll just have to settle for the humanistic approach of asking consenting adults to participate in responsible fun.

    "Shouldn't he give you a pay raise?"

    It's not like I didn't ask.

    "Your reply artificially isolates my statement from the larger argument. The purpose of John's Gospel and audience for John's Gospel is very different from the Jewish Wars."

    Oh, it's *different*. See, I didn't see that. I only saw the relevant commonalities of fantastic claims being shorn up with feigned skepticism. My bad.

    "You mean, like his experience with Old Hag syndrome?"

    Oh dear. I had a just such an experience with an army of gnomes marching around my me and pinning me to the bed (with their magic powers, I'd guess). I'm not kidding. I guess I have to start criticizing Christianity from the standpoint of gnomism now. Because sleep parallysis hallucinations are just too far-fetched.

    "Jason Engwer and I have produced copious documentation of extrabiblical miracles and paranormal phenomena right up to modernity."

    And you are right to do that. It's weird how that doesn't factor in to anything you say here. Like you *still* don't think prior probability *really* matters in assessing the historical evidence. There's literally NO point to this post of yours if you have the evidence of modern miraculous claims on your side. Because if you could win those battles, Carrier would be on your side. And then he'd be looking at history through the eyes of supernaturalism just like you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bore in Error said:

      "And unfortunately Yahweh is doling out brides and concubines these days for being a good follower."

      God "dol[es] out...concubines...these days"? What's Ben Schuldt (WOE) even talking about?

      Given this statement and other statements on his weblog, it's obvious Ben doesn't know the first thing about the Bible or Christianity (e.g. the difference between the God of the Bible and Allah).

      No wonder Ben became an apostate. Many if not most apostates who left Christianity were quite biblically illiterate even when they were professing Christians. Worse, Ben apparently hasn't bothered to remedy his biblical illiteracy over the subsequent years since he departed Christianity.

      In other words, people should keep in mind when Ben talks about Christianity, he's speaking out of ignorance.

      "So Carrier'll just have to settle for the humanistic approach of asking consenting adults to participate in responsible fun."

      Translation: Richard Carrier is creepy:

      https://theyetisroar.wordpress.com/2015/02/23/dr-richard-carrier-phd-a-creepy-dishonest-hypocrite/

      "I had a just such an experience with an army of gnomes marching around my me and pinning me to the bed (with their magic powers, I'd guess). I'm not kidding."

      1. Ben admits to having experienced Old Hag syndrome. I notice over on his weblog he elaborates by saying at the time he interpreted his sleep paralysis experience to have been demonic. Ben may no longer think so now, but it doesn't change the fact that he did at one time have "instances of such fantastic claims" himself, even though he now dismisses his experience as a figment of his imagination.

      2. As such, his experience with these gnomes was a veridical experience, but his interpretation of what the experience meant has changed. It's gone from "demonic" to "hallucination."

      a. For one thing, his changed interpretation isn't because the experience itself changed. Rather, it's because Ben changed his worldview from Christianity to atheism. Hence, Ben's worldview is interpreting his experience, rather than Ben attempting to explain his experience on its own terms. Ben's approach is unscientific, to say the least.

      b. Moreover, the issue from his perspective as an atheist and so forth is this could arguably portend there's something amiss about his brain/mind. Is Ben's brain/mind deficient in some way that he has had such an experience in the first place? That he can't always distinguish reality from fantasy? If so, then exactly how reliable or unreliable is Ben's brain/mind? It sounds like he may need to get some testing for his brain/mind. Maybe he should consult a neurologist and/or psychiatrist.

      "Like you *still* don't think prior probability *really* matters in assessing the historical evidence."

      I bet Ben says this because he's relying on Richard Carrier's use of Bayes (e.g. such as to "prove" Jesus didn't exist). However, Carrier is not so bright with numbers. He demonstrates little knowledge of mathematician and statistics. In any case, Tim and Lydia McGrew have taken Carrier to task.

      Delete
    2. WOE

"Oh, it's *different*. See, I didn't see that. I only saw the relevant commonalities of fantastic claims being shorn up with feigned skepticism. My bad."

      Your comment does nothing to refute what I said. John's Gospel is written by and for Christians. There's no reason to think the Christian narrator doesn't believe what he quotes other characters say in support of his theological strategy. The deity of Christ runs all through the Gospel.

      By contrast, Josephus is trying to ingratiate himself with the enemy. Win a hearing. If you can't draw these elementary distinctions, that's your problem, not mine.

      "Because sleep parallysis hallucinations are just too far-fetched."

      Several problems:

      i) You fail to distinguish between sleep paralysis and sleep paralysis with awareness (ASP). Sleep paralysis is universal. A natural mechanism to protect the body when we dream.

      But ASP or old-hag syndrome is not universal. For that reason alone, merely appealing to sleep paralysis fails to explain old-hag syndrome.

      ii) You disregard the connection between Carrier's experience and the fact that he was a Taoist at the time.

      iii) David Hufford is the world authority on old-hag syndrome. And he distinguishes sleep paralysis from old-hag syndrome:

      https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL893F2DA8DCBDCFA5

      "Like you *still* don't think prior probability *really* matters in assessing the historical evidence."

      i) Carrier is a proven hack on Bayesian probability theory. But because he's shameless, and his fans are so gullible, he just keeps promoting his ineptitude.

      ii) I think the prior/posterior distribution artificially compartmentalizes beliefs and evidence.

      iii) In addition, that abstract distinction doesn't make miracle improbable. As I said to a friend: To take a comparison, what's the probability of a royal flush? Assuming the deck is randomly shuffled, that's a straightforward mathematical calculation.

      But what's the probability of a royal flush if the deck is stacked? Well, assuming the card sharp is good at his job, it's inevitable.

      So that becomes a question of how probable it is that the deck is stacked, which in turn, becomes a question of how probable it is that the dealer is a card sharp.

      I don't see how treating probability statistically enables us to lay odds on whether or not the deck is stacked. That's a question of what would motivate a dealer to stack the deck.

      In my illustration, the uniformity of nature is analogous to randomly shuffled decks, while a miracle is analogous to a stacked deck. 

      I don't mind defining a miracle as  an action that inhibits the world from continuing in the way it would if left to itself.

      But since a miracle involves personal agency or personal intention, overriding how the world would continue if left to itself, the question is how to assign a probability value to God's will to perform (or not perform) a miracle. I don't see how statistics or background knowledge regarding the general uniformity of nature is germane to how we anticipate or estimate God's intention to perform a miracle. 

      "There's literally NO point to this post of yours if you have the evidence of modern miraculous claims on your side."

      It's germane to point out that Carrier's objection fails on multiple counts.

      "Because if you could win those battles, Carrier would be on your side."

      Carrier is a hardened apostate. That's his identity. That's what makes him feel special. An internet celebrity in the stagnant little pond of atheism.

      Carrier will never be on my side because he can't stand to be ordinary. To be a Christian would be such a comedown. He can only achieve the semblance of distinction by pandering to the lunatic fringe. Otherwise, he's just another third-tier, dime-a-dozen PhD. The kind you find driving taxicabs in Manhattan because they don't have marketable skills.

      Delete
    3. By the way, physicist Luke Barnes has likewise done a series critiquing Carrier on Bayes. I think Barnes devastates Carrier in the very first post.

      Delete
    4. Appealing to sleep paralysis fails explain why some people experience old-hag syndrome but others don't. LIkewise, it fails to explain why some people experience it at one point in life, but not another.

      Delete