FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-30-2005, 03:01 PM   #1
andrewcriddle
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default Machaerus Josephus and John the Baptist

It has been suggested in previous threads that the passage in 'Antiquities' book 18 about John the Baptist is possibly an interpolation because its account of John being sent by Herod to the fortress of Machaerus and executed, conflicts with the slightly earlier claim by Josephus that Machaerus was under the authority of King Aretas, rather than Herod.

There is however a textual problem.

Referring to Herod's wife/Aretas's daughter Josephus in most English translations says
Quote:
now she had sent a good while before to Machaerus, which was subject to her father, and so all things necessary for her journey were made ready for her by the general of Aretas's army
'which was subject to her father' translates TOTE PATRI AUTHS hUPOTELEI. This is not what the manuscripts have but is an emendation accepted by most edirors. The manuscripts read TW(I) TE PATRI AUTHS hUPOTELH which is clumsy but should probably be translated 'and to the one subject to her Father.'

Hence the actual text of the manuscripts should probably be translated
Quote:
now she had sent a good while before to Machaerus, and to her father's vassal, and so all things necessary for her journey were made ready for her by the general of Aretas's army
Hence we lack good evidence that Josephus claimed that Machaerus was subject to Aretas hence there is no discrepancy with the account about John the Baptist.

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
Old 08-30-2005, 03:16 PM   #2
Peter Kirby
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor
Posts: 4,035
Default

Who would have thought to check the Greek? Thank you for this. We have to be alert to the presence of errors and assumptions in the translation.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby
Peter Kirby is online now   Edit/Delete Message
Old 08-30-2005, 11:00 PM   #3
andrewcriddle
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle
'which was subject to her father' translates TOTE PATRI AUTHS hUPOTELEI. This is not what the manuscripts have but is an emendation accepted by most edirors. The manuscripts read TW(I) TE PATRI AUTHS hUPOTELH which is clumsy but should probably be translated 'and to the one subject to her Father.'
I made a mistake here although the main point is not affected. It should be:

'which was subject to her father' translates TOTE PATRI AUTHS hUPOTELH. This is not what the manuscripts have but is an emendation accepted by most edirors. The manuscripts read TW(I) TE PATRI AUTHS hUPOTELEI which is clumsy but should probably be translated 'and to the one subject to her Father.'

Sorr.y about that.

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
Old 08-30-2005, 11:01 PM   #4
Vorkosigan
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
Default

Why are the two texts different? Is the "vassal" comment an interpolation?
Vorkosigan is offline  
Old 08-30-2005, 11:15 PM   #5
andrewcriddle
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorkosigan
Why are the two texts different? Is the "vassal" comment an interpolation?
The point is that TOTE (in the printed editions) means 'then' giving a translation in which the clause refers to Machaerus as being at that time subject to her father.

TW(I) TE means 'and to' giving a translation in which as well as sending to Machaerus she also sends to the 'one subject to her Father' I paraphrased 'the one subject to her Father' as 'her Father's vassal'.

I must emphasis that the reading with TW(I) TE is clumsy that is why most printed Greek editions correct it.

(NOTE: I'm using (I) in TW(I) to represent iota subscript in the dative.)

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
Old 08-31-2005, 06:58 AM   #6
S.C.Carlson
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 1,307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle
(NOTE: I'm using (I) in TW(I) to represent iota subscript in the dative.)
The approach developed on the B-Greek list is to use a lower-case i, e.g. TWi. It is a little less typing.

P.S. Have you considered publishing this idea?
S.C.Carlson is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:04 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.