it is now a small step, I believe, to connect this sage also to the alleged ‘first user of the word philosophy’, Pythagoras – thought, however, to have been born at Samos in c. 570 BC.
As in the first part of the name Tha-les, so here again in the case of the name Pyth-agoras, the Egyptian divine name “Ptah”
has, I think, been Grecised.
Also once again, as with Thales, we appear to have the problem of a lack of first-hand written evidence [W. Guthrie, “Pythagoras and Pythagoreanism”, Ency. of Phil., Vol. 7, (Collier Macmillan, London, 1972), p. 39]: “The obstacles to an appraisal of classical Pythagoreanism are formidable. There exists no Pythagorean literature before Plato, and it was said that little had been written, owing to a rule of secrecy”.
Consistently though, Pythagoras, like Thales, was much influenced by Egypt.
I have suggested that, in fact, the great ‘Pythagorean’ contribution to mathematics (numbers, geometry, triangles) may also have been bound up with Egypt and with pyramid measuring and other activities of the architects.
Now consider the pattern of the life of Pythagoras and his descendants in relation to Joseph and the family of Israel (the Hebrews).
Pythagoras, like Joseph,
left his home country and settled in a foreign land, founding a society with religious and political, as well as philosophical aims. Compare the Hebrews settling in the eastern Delta of Egypt (Genesis 46:33).
The society gained power there and considerably extended its influence. Compare this with the growth of Israel in Egypt, and its spreading all over the country (Exodus 1:9, 12). After Pythagoras’ death,
a serious persecution took place. Likewise, about 65 years after Joseph’s death, the “new king” of Exodus 1:8, became concerned about the amount of Hebrews in Egypt and resolved upon a cruel plan.
Moses was born into this very era – the pyramid-building 4th dynasty era – at the approximate time that the founder-pharaoh Khufu (Greek Cheops)/ Amenemes I had resolved to do something about the increase of Asiatics (including Hebrews) in Egypt. The Prophecies of Neferti, “All good things have passed away, the land being cast away through trouble by means of that food of the Asiatics who pervade the land” (www.touregypt.net/propheciesofneferti.htm). The pharaoh thus ordered for all the male Hebrew babies to be slain (Exodus 1:10, 15-16).
(d) The (Pythagorean) survivors of the persecution scattered. This may equate with the Exodus of Israel out of Egypt (Exodus 12).
“Both Tadmor and Cogan mention Ahiqar, the Aramean adviser who served in the court
of Esarhaddon, Sennacherib’s son. …. Machinist, in his article on Rabshakeh, writes of “Hayim Tadmor’s now celebrated view,” … and they all cite the Babylonian Talmud
tractate b. Sanh. 60a, which suggests that “Rabshakeh was an apostate Israelite”.”
Yigal Levin
Sennacherib’s Rabshakeh, who verbally taunted king Hezekiah’s chief officials and those Jews manning the walls of Jerusalem during Assyria’s invasion of Judah, was indeed the historical and biblical Ahiqar (Ahikar). And, at that particular point in time, Ahiqar was apparently also, as according to the Babylonian Talmud, “an apostate Israelite”:
For this Ahiqar was the nephew of a northern Israelite, the pious Tobit, who, unlike his Naphtalian brethren, had remained faithful to Yahwism.
Sennacherib may well have chosen Ahiqar for his western (Judah) campaign because of the fact that the latter, as an Israelite, spoke, not only Aramaïc, but also Yehudit, which was akin to Hebrew, the spoken language of the Jews in Jerusalem.
The high officials, led by Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, who had now replaced Shebna as high priest (“over the Tabernacle”), also – unlike the mass of people – spoke Aramaïc, which Ahiqar, as an exile in Nineveh, obviously knew.
King Hezekiah’s officials almost certainly knew of the Rabshakeh and knew that he spoke a form of Hebrew.
Yigal Levin has discussed the various view about Rabshakeh in his useful article (2015):
Though it is not apparent from the Gospels that a War
was raging during the Infancy of Jesus Christ
(the Holy Family was safely hidden in Egypt),
I would expect that there was.
The first version,found in Antiquities Book XII, is basically recognisable from what we read about the Jewish Revolt against the Macedonian Seleucids in I-II Maccabees.
The second version -Roman era presumably – found early in Antiquities Book XVII, provides us with an account of the Revolt against King Herod, late in life, by the Jewish pair, Matthias and Judas.
Compare Mattathias and his son, Judas Maccabeus.
This continues over in to the time of Herod’s son, Archelaus, whom Saint Joseph feared on the Family’s return from Egypt (Matthew 2:19-21).
This is what Gamaliel was talking about, “Judas the Galilean at the time of the Census”.
The Census, the one that greets us at the beginning of Luke 2 (:1-3):
Judas the Galilean vitally links Maccabean era to Daniel 2’s “rock cut out of a mountain”
In conventional terms, about 170 years separate these incidents, Mattathias and Judas Maccabeus, on the one hand, and Matthias and Judas the Galilean, on the other.
In my scheme, they pertain to precisely the same events.
This is only some several decades before the estimated birth of Josephus (c. 37 AD).
How come, then, that he has it all so badly tangled up?
Though it is not apparent from the Gospels that a War was raging during the Infancy of Jesus Christ (the Holy Family was safely hidden in Egypt), I would expect that there was:
Religious war raging in Judah during the Infancy of Jesus
The third version,found later in Antiquities Book XVII.
Athronges, Josephus’s new name for Judas (without his realising it).
Again, it was the time of Archelaus, son of Herod.
….
7. But because Athronges, a person neither eminent by the dignity of his progenitors; nor for any great wealth he was possessed of; but one that had in all respects been a shepherd only [were he and his 4 brothers shepherd priests at the time of the Nativity?] , and was not known by any body: yet because he was a tall man [Maccabees likens Judas to “a giant”], and excelled others in the strength of his hands, he was so bold as to set up for King. This man thought it so sweet a thing to do more than ordinary injuries to others, that although he should be killed, he did not much care if he lost his life in so great a design. He had also four brethren,20 who were tall men themselves, and were believed to be superior to others in the strength of their hands; and thereby were encouraged to aim at great things, and thought that strength of theirs would support them in retaining the Kingdom. Each of these ruled over a band of men of their own. For those that got together to them were very numerous. They were every one of them also commanders. But when they came to fight, they were subordinate to him, and fought for him. While he put a diadem about his head, and assembled a council to debate about what things should be done, and all things were done according to his pleasure. And this man retained his power a great while: he was also called King; and had nothing to hinder him from doing what he pleased. He also, as well as his brethren, slew a great many both of the Romans [???], and of the King’s forces; and managed matters with the like hatred to each of them. The King’s forces they fell upon, because of the licentious conduct they had been allowed under Herod’s government: and they fell upon the Romans, because of the injuries they had so lately received from them. But in process of time they grew more cruel to all sorts of men. Nor could any one escape from one or other of these seditions. Since they slew some out of the hopes of gain; and others from a mere custom of slaying men. They once attacked a company of Romans at Emmaus; who were bringing corn and weapons to the army: and fell upon Arius, the centurion, who commanded the company, and shot forty of the best of his foot soldiers. But the rest of them were affrighted at their slaughter, and left their dead behind them, but saved themselves by the means of Gratus; who came with the King’s troops that were about him to their assistance. Now these four brethren continued the war a long while, by such sort of expeditions: and much grieved the Romans; but did their own nation also a great deal of mischief. Yet were they afterwards subdued. ….
It sure beats Gamaliel’s miserable account of Judas the Galilean at least (Acts 5:37).
The fourth version,also found in Antiquities Book XVII, seems to be simply a duplication of Judas the Galilean at the time of the Census.
Certain scholars, at least, identify the two as one (see next):
Leader of a popular revolt against the Romans at the time when the first census was taken in Judea, in which revolt he perished and his followers were dispersed (Acts v. 37); born at Gamala in Gaulonitis (Josephus, “Ant.” xviii. 1, § 1). In the year 6 or 7 C.E., when Quirinus came into Judea to take an account of the substance of the Jews, Judas, together with Zadok, a Pharisee, headed a large number of Zealots and offered strenuous resistance (ib. xviii. 1, § 6; xx. 5, § 2; idem, “B. J.” ii. 8, § 1). Judas proclaimed the Jewish state as a republic recognizing God alone as king and ruler and His laws as supreme. The revolt continued to spread, and in some places serious conflicts ensued. Even after Judas had perished, his spirit continued to animate his followers.
Two of his sons, Jacob and Simon, were crucified by Tiberius Alexander (“Ant.” xx. 5, § 2); another son, Menahem, became the leader of the Sicarii and for a time had much power; he was finally slain by the high-priestly party (“B. J.” ii. 17, §§ 8-9).
Grätz (“Gesch.” iii. 251) and Schürer (“Gesch.” i. 486) identify Judas the Galilean with Judas, son of Hezekiah the Zealot, who, according to Josephus (“Ant.” xvii. 10, § 5; “B. J.” ii. 4, § 1), led a revolt in the time of Quintilius Varus. He took possession of the arsenal of Sepphoris, armed his followers, who were in great numbers, and soon became the terror of the Romans.
When did the Romans come to Judah?
This present article has arisen from a discussion I have recently had with a colleague in which we were trying to determine when the Greek (Seleucid) hold over Judah ceased, and the Romans took over – presuming that this is what actually happened.
That I have trouble with the conventional view of the Romans for this period will be apparent to readers of my article:
To my suggestion that Josephus, a political animal, had a political agenda, my colleague replied (26/04/2024):
Everyone has biases and agendas. That much can be tolerated by the discerning reader. I mean whether he is reliable witness to basic historical events. For instance I could read a newspaper columnist with whom I vehemently disagree but he is going to be working from the same basic historical backdrop – that Anthony Albanese is the prime minister etc. So, if Josephus is a witnesses to 1st century events and he says the Romans destroyed the Temple – then biases and agendas aside – I’d say that’s how it went down. ….
This led me to summarise some of my reasons for my minimilisation of the Romans:
….
Sounds reasonable.
But when do the Romans come into the Judean picture?
….
Augustus writes a decree to the whole Roman world.
Except, the word Roman is not there.
The Romans in Maccabees are allies of the Jews, not invaders. They promise the world, but Judas, then Jonathan, then Simon, all die violently.
What happened to the Roman promise of intervention?
There are Roman centurions in the Bible.
Except, the word Roman is not there.
And a Greek word (hekatóntarkhos), not centurion (centurio), is used.
We know from history that there was a Jewish centurion in the pagan army. May have been others.
My tip is that the centurion (?) Jesus praised was Jewish. No Faith like this in Israel, a builder of a synagogue. Would a Roman centurion build a synagogue?
Pilate writes in Hebrew, Greek, Latin (at least Fr. Brian Harrison reckons that that is the proper order).
Why Greek, before Latin?
Both Pontius and Pilate can also be Greek words.
Caiaphas (from memory) warns that the Romans might come – the only solitary mention of them I have found (except for Maccabees) before Paul.
If they might come, then does that mean that they are not actually there?
Revelation does not name Greek or Roman invaders by those words.
Gog and Magog get a look in late.
In Ezekiel 38, 39, Gog and Magog refer to the Macedonian Seleucids and their array – and, specifically, to the showdown between Judas and Nicanor.
Hence why I have remained non-commital thus far.
(That is not to say that the Jewish Revolt ending in 70 AD was not against Rome. I don’t know). ….
Name “Athronges”
As I noted in my “Religious war …” article (above):
We can even connect the name, Athronges, thought to mean a “citron” (etrog), to the Maccabees, once it is appreciated that the wrongly-named Second Jewish Revolt was actually that of the Maccabees. See e.g. my article:
An academic exchange regarding Hadrian and the Bar Kochba revolt
In 132–135 [sic], the last Jewish leader, Simon bar Kokhba, attempted a final uprising in the hope of restoring Judea’s independence. On his coins, he minted the facade of the temple destroyed sixty years earlier [sic]. We also see a bouquet (lulab) and a citron (etrog), symbols of the traditional cult that Simon intended to restore. We can also read the slogan of the revolt, written in Hebrew: “For the freedom of Jerusalem.” ….
Parallel Lives, Also BC Afterglows In AD 