spin

I apologize to the forum. I realize that should have read "pronoun challenged". Mea culpa.


spin

Steven Avery

Yes, a nice PC move.

Now again, spin has requested, and I have seconded, the request for
others to read the Prologue of Antiquities and gave their view of what
"it" is. Hmmm.. I hope this does not sound Clintonesque.

The key phrase is :

"but because this work would take up a great compass,
I separated it into a set treatise by itself"

And the prologue is here.

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/t...phus/ant1.html
Antiquities of the Jews -- Preface

Those who spend a lot of effort on this may be able to apply
for the disabilities credit on their taxes this year, or get some
sort of help from the Americans Disability Act.

In addition, this relates to spin's claim that Josephus actually,
for some reason, translated the scripture historical books into
Greek as part of the Antiquities project. This is a rather unusual
claim, making little sense, and somehow he spins the claim around
the pronoun above. Anybody who wants to give their view on
that claim of spin (and if I have stated his claim accurately he
can give a spin statement) is welcome to do so on this thread.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

andrewcriddle

My guess FWIW is that Josephus originally intended to write a precis of the historical books as an introduction and background to the Jewish Wars, this work was too long to fit into the Jewish Wars but was originally intended to be much shorter than the later Antiquities ended up.

He gave up on this project in its original form but later used his draft of this work as a basis for the eventual stand-alone Antiquities.

Andrew Criddle

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Andrews statement is one with which I agree 100%. He doesn't directly
addess the "translate historical Tanach to Greek" aspect so a reasonable
conclusion is that Andrew, as myself, sees no real basis for that theory,
at least not in the Antiquities Prologue.
(An evidence from Andrewian silence.)

One other point.

Thus, may I perchance conclude that you view that :

-"I separated it into a set treatise by itself"

Refers to Antiquities itself. (That would seem to fit everything your say above to a "T").
And that you express that view even if it makes you an honorary member of the PCA -

Pronoun Challenged Assocation

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

jgibson000

So that I understand you, is this what you are asserting -- that according to Josephus the antecedent of the pronoun "it" is the Antiquities?

JG

Steven Avery

The material that later morphed into Antiquities (omitted from Wars) seems to be a very reasonable usage of the pronoun. What seems unreasonable is that 'it' is Wars, the spin idea. And what is nonsensical is to build a theory of the translation into Greek of the historical sections of Tanach by Josephus upon the latter pronoun interpretation.

Even the PCA executive committee might find that too erratic and bizarre and reject spin's membership application.

Shalom,
Steven

PS.
Yes, I do realize my post to Andrew was imprecise so I will
take this opportunity to rectify, in harmony with the whole thread.

spin

While waiting for Praxeus to learn how pronouns work, let me try to get back to the reason why we are talking about Josephus's preface to AJ. My reading of him finds him claiming to have intended to translate a lot of Jewish history into Greek when he conceived his grandiose scheme to write about the war and that some time after he gave up that specific intention of translating the history until people gave him incentive to finish. For some reason people were horrified with the notion of Josephus translating Jewish history into Greek.

Here is the passage once again:

2. Now I have undertaken the present work, as thinking it will appear to all the Greeks worthy of their study; for it will contain all our antiquities, and the constitution of our government, as interpreted out of the Hebrew Scriptures. 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 also they had made in remote ages, till they were unwillingly engaged in this last with the Romans: but because this work would take up a great compass, I separated it into a set treatise by itself, with a beginning of its own, and its own conclusion; but in process of time, as usually happens to such as undertake great things, I grew weary and went on slowly, it being a large subject, and a difficult thing to translate our history into a foreign, and to us unaccustomed language. However, some persons there were who desired to know our history, and so exhorted me to go on with it; and, above all the rest, Epaphroditus, a man who is a lover of all kind of learning, but is principally delighted with the knowledge of history, and this on account of his having been himself concerned in great affairs, and many turns of fortune, and having shown a wonderful rigor of an excellent nature, and an immovable virtuous resolution in them all. I yielded to this man's persuasions, who always excites such as have abilities in what is useful and acceptable, to join their endeavors with his. I was also ashamed myself to permit any laziness of disposition to have a greater influence upon me, than the delight of taking pains in such studies as were very useful: I thereupon stirred up myself, and went on with my work more cheerfully. Besides the foregoing motives, I had others which I greatly reflected on; and these were, that our forefathers were willing to communicate such things to others; and that some of the Greeks took considerable pains to know the affairs of our nation.

First thing to deal with is the pronoun "our" underlined in the passage. It should be clear from "our government" and "our nation" that Josephus is talking about the Jews' government and the Jews' nation, so when he talks of "our history" he is obviously talking about the Jews' history (unless of course one suffers from dissociative pronoun syndrome, DPS).

Josephus "grew weary" because it was "a difficult thing to translate our history into a foreign, and to us unaccustomed language." Here is is specifically talking of translating Jewish history into Greek. This work was too much for him at the time, "However, some persons there were who desired to know our history, and so exhorted me to go on with it;" Again (for persons with DPS) we need to deal with "it". It was something Josephus could go on with. It was related to "our history" and Josephus says that he was translating "our history" into Greek but had stopped, so it seems that "it" was to "go on with" translating "our history", Jewish history, into Greek.

Josephus claims that he translated Jewish history into Greek. Is this a controversial interpretation of Josephus's words here? I should hope not. (But it was to avoid this conclusion that Praxeus took to demonstrating that he was pronoun challenged, ie suffered from DPS.)


spin

jgibson000

Not in the light of AJ 10.218 it's not.

For further information on this, have a look at the extended foot note on 1.5 on pp. 3-5 in Loius Feldmam's commentary on JA 1-4.

Jeffrey Gibson

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

This is an incredible thread, not only because spin clearly struggles with the simple sense of English, he actually used his own difficulties and confusions (!) to start talking about being "Pronoun Handicapped", "Pronoun Challenged" and "dissociative pronoun syndrome, DPS)".

spin's main thesis is very weak, as well. To be expected, since he can't even understand English. Look at how spin mangles Josephus, spin struggles on even the simplest point. .

"it" is the critical pronoun where spin actually accuses (!). Clearly 'it' refers to the parts that morph into Antiquities, the current work. Not to spin, though, for whom this is "Wars". Anybody should be able to see the simple sense of this, except when spin-blinded.

The fact that few on this forum will tell spin when he is simply wrong is interesting to note.

The rest is secondary. If spin can't even get something so simple right, error will beget error.

as usually happens to such as undertake great things, I grew weary and went on slowly, it being a large subject, and a difficult thing to translate our history into a foreign, and to us unaccustomed language.

Which was shared to the Greeks in the Josephus writing of Antiquities.

So here spin is verb-challenged. Clearly the "translation" involved in writing Antiquities includes good elements of (1) below, since Josephus was using Tanach as a major source, it also included elements of (2,3,4).

trans·late www.dictionary.com
1. to turn from one language into another or from a foreign language into one's own: to translate Spanish.
2. to change the form, condition, nature, etc., of; transform; convert: to translate wishes into deeds.
3. to explain in terms that can be more easily understood; interpret.
4. to bear, carry, or move from one place, position, etc., to another; transfer.

What cannot be supported is that the translation was an actual "translation" of the Hebrew historical Tanach books into Greek.

spin's basic thesis, that Josephus actually translated the history books themselves from Hebrew to Greek, falls. It is unreasonable, there is no real affirmative evidence that he did so, and there was no compelling reason for him to do so. (He could likely understand the books better in Hebrew anyway.)

And reading that 'historical books of scripture translation' into the Antiquities Prologue (for whatever reason) is a futile exercise only demonstrating scholastic bumbling and incompetence.

The exercise itself being based on a rather startling and alarming inability to comprehend English, at least for someone with scholarship pretensions.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

spin

Dissociative Pronoun Syndrome strikes again.


spin