Having stepped back to discuss more basic issues of method, I will now return to the evaluation of the first proposed parallel I selected. But first I wish to address gilius’ accusation that I am a “cop out” who has chosen to “dismiss the whole thing.” This was his strange response to my fundamental point that the argument for Atwill’s hypothesis needs to proceed in stages. He expresses his agreement with this and still turns around to charge me with bad faith. This is completely ludicrous and unnecessary. He offered this particular passage after I had laid down the challenge that the best examples be presented. This is a parallel that he selected. And now, as it appears to me, there is some back-pedaling: he now describes this one as having “minimal matching elements.” So, which is it? Is this a key piece of the puzzle or one that only might have some cachet if it is supported by weightier examples?
Despite what gilius may be implying, I am not trying to hide from other suggestions. I am happy to move on to other proposed parallels at some point. But, as I have said before, I am only evaluating one at a time and this for several reasons. First, I don’t have the time to seriously engage multiple proposals at once. Second, the conversation will start to revolve in circles (if it hasn’t already) without clear-sighted, step-by-step focus. Third, as I said in the previous post, a series of weak parallels makes a weak argument. If this one is evaluated as weak it can be at least bracketed, if not even evaluated as a net negative for the Atwill hypothesis (as I think ultimately it is). Fourth, if Atwill and supporters are shown to have misread or argued poorly here, this offers a suggestive case that the entire method is flawed. Finally, should other purported parallels prove stronger, if this one is intrinsically weak it remains so despite the other existing parallels. It might be determined as a “maybe” parallel but not one that should be used to demonstrate the hypothesis.
Utilizing Intertextuality Criteria
I am now going to employ criteria derived from the scholars mentioned in my previous post. I’m going to condense these down to two broad categories. I will also leave aside, for the sake of argument and brevity, the criteria having to do with factors external to the texts (i.e., analogy, accessibility, density). I will return to the evaluation of the selected passages according to this basic rubric:
1. Linguistic and conceptual parallels
2. Literary/narrative features (plot, order, theme)
I subsume accounting for differences as a sub-criterion that fits under each.
Purported Linguistic and Conceptual Parallels
In my initial discussion of the texts in question, I noted the minimal overlap of shared vocabulary. In essence, both passages have “two” and GLuke has “three” while Josephus has “threefold/tripartite.” This is a very modest overlap. Intertextuality is more probable with denser and more exact parallels of vocabulary. In Beavis’ article comparing Judges and Mark, for example, she notes several common terms including a shared verb that is fairly distinctive and significant for the plot. Gilius’ initial presentation of the texts has the word “divided” in both texts in English. The problem, as I noted, is that while the cognates divide/divided/division in Greek all appear in Luke, none appear in Josephus. This is a significant point against intertextuality. Gilius insists that there must be a Greek word present that has been variously translated “divided” or “split.” All I have to ask is: really? Show me. I’ve already explained that divided (and I should add in the same manner, split) is an interpretative addition in the English translation and does not correspond with a particular Greek term. Again, translating line 105 very literally, it reads: “Indeed truly the standing/position/setting [Greek word: stasis] which was tripartite beforehand was rounded into two.” I’m actually reading the Greek text of Josephus and there is no “divided” there. Gilius' response was to find another English translation and insist there must be something where there is nothing. “Divided” is added as a translator’s interpretive choice, period. And not a good one, either, as it implies the threefoldness as a dynamic unfolding rather than the original stasis (the standing, the status quo) in line 105.
This exposes a deep flaw in Atwill and supporters that I named early on. One has no business arguing for intertextuality without substantial engagement with the original language(s). Scanning Caesar’s Messiah (original edition), I found Atwill’s work with the Greek to be superficial, and only on two occasions when he compared Gospel and Josephus passages did he bother with any analysis of the Greek.
Moreover, with this parallel having been exposed as no such parallel, if gilius continues to use the same color-coding graphic highlighting “divided” in the two texts, he will be wilfully misleading the public.
The other big issue in this category is the question of whether father and son relate to John and Simon, thus justifying the claim of a parallel here. Gilius and I agree this is an auxiliary hypothesis that should be discussed separately. Needless to say, having read Atwill’s argument in this regard, I am far, far from impressed. I don’t think he’s describing a reality outside of his fertile imagination.
Literary/Narrative Features
I previously noted some key differences between the narrative structure of the Lucan and the Josephus texts, which gilius dismissed as “granular” and a “red herring.” Despite his handwaving, scholarship is clear that intertextuality is rendered more probable as the compared texts demonstrate thicker coherence in the development of their plots. This will especially be the case for the Atwill hypothesis, because in that scheme Jesus is equivalent to Titus and the course of his ministry is equivalent to the Roman general’s campaign.
Reviewing the Josephus text, the Jewish historian describes infighting among three Jewish factions. The Jewish rebels were never a united, cohesive government and fighting force and various militia leaders came and went. For a brief period in the year 69 CE, three factions fought for control of Jerusalem. The text from Josephus describes the successful subjugation of one faction by another, resulting in two left standing. Beyond this immediate text, Josephus narrates what happens after Titus begins his siege of Jerusalem. The remaining factions under Simon and John cease the civil war to cooperate in the defense of the city. Once Jerusalem falls, the rebels are of course defeated.
Compare this with the narrative structure of Jesus’ mini-parable. He describes a single household of five members that falls into conflict with one another. This conflict is narrated not as a temporary, one-time event, but as an ongoing experience of division occasioned by his presence and his mission. There are five parties to this conflict and the number does not change.
Note the different trajectories of the stories. In Josephus, the fractious rebels fight with one another and then unite. In Luke, a unitary collective breaks down into fighting. In Josephus, the conflict lasted a matter of months. In Luke, the conflict is described as a permanent feature.
Moreover, how does the mini-parable in Luke map onto the Josephan history, if Jesus is Titus? Titus did nothing to create the division between the Jewish factions, and this intense fighting between the three principal groups in this text happened while the Romans were at a distance. In fact, his arrival at the walls of Jerusalem ended the civil war. So Titus brought unity, while his literary doppelganger in the Gospel of Luke ends unity?
As the scholarly criteria indicate, one must be able to explain the differences between the texts. It simply won’t do for gilius to accuse me of being granular or to resort to the defense that the Flavians were just that clever or using satire. To use such claims to defend the parallels in the presence of extensive differences is to commit circular reasoning, smuggling one’s conclusion into the premise. Gilius needs to provide independent justifications for addressing the differences that are not simply products of the theory. How does he evaluate when a difference is explained by satire, and when it isn’t? What literature does he draw upon to make these determinations about ancient texts? What does it mean to define the relationship between Josephus and Luke as a “typological system?” What scholarship helps gilius define that that is? As I’ve explained already, this would be a completely unique version of typology, stretching if not breaking the definition of the term.
It gets worse from here. Has anyone else realized that gilius’ comparison of Josephus and Luke 12 cuts off the majority of verse 53 and consequently the remainder of the mini-parable? The passage in full reads:
49 “I came to cast fire on the earth, and would that it were already kindled!50 I have a baptism to be baptized with, and howgreat is my distress until it is accomplished!51 Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth?No, I tell you, but rather division.52 For from now on in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three.53 They will be divided,father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”
Jesus identifies different types of family members in the household. Instead of just father and son, he speaks of mother and daughter and the mother-in-law as well. Are father and son meaningful referents to Josephus, and these individuals are not? Why? Just because it is convenient to equate father and son to John and Simon in Atwill’s scheme? This is the height of selectivity. The Flavian proponent must account for these distinctive elements (after all, how often is the family role of mother-in-law identified in an ancient text?). Is there any justification beyond the Flavians simply being creative to throw off the scent, or psychotic, or whatever?
The more you compare the texts to each other, and the more you consider what the Lucan passage is supposed to represent in the Josephan narrative, the weaker the Atwill hypothesis looks. I conclude that the similarities between these texts are superficial and the supposed parallels only appear significant when one does not reflect seriously on the negative structures or bother to read from the Greek. There is no support for the Atwill scheme here.