spin

However a comment was made on the subject about the proposed royal plural. Josephus specifically talks of "our history", not "my history", ie "our" refers to the Jews he speaks for. He repeats the term "our history" again in the following clause and he is, after all, discussing the logic behind the production of AJ.

Josephus says in the same prologue:

I found, therefore, that the second of the Ptolemies was a king who was extraordinarily diligent in what concerned learning, and the collection of books; that he was also peculiarly ambitious to procure a translation of our law, and of the constitution of our government therein contained, into the Greek tongue. Now Eleazar the high priest, one not inferior to any other of that dignity among us, did not envy the forenamed king the participation of that advantage, which otherwise he would for certain have denied him, but that he knew the custom of our nation was, to hinder nothing of what we esteemed ourselves from being communicated to others. Accordingly, I thought it became me both to imitate the generosity of our high priest, and to suppose there might even now be many lovers of learning like the king; for he did not obtain all our writings at that time; but those who were sent to Alexandria as interpreters, gave him only the books of the law, while there were a vast number of other matters in our sacred books.

Josephus clarifies what he understands the scope of the translations attributed to the time on Ptolemy II, "only the books of the law". He also says that he "thought it became [him] both to imitate the generosity of our high priest", imitating him of course by translating works into Greek, as he mentioned above, works of the Jews not included in the "books of the law" already supplied he intimates by Eleazar, who he wishes to emulate.

In the context of describing how he came to write AJ, Josephus states that he took it upon himself to translate Jewish texts. He also mentions that he intended, when he wrote the Jewish War, to explain who the Jews were, but gave up on that idea, producing a more limited work, then at the insistence of people such as Epaphroditus, he succumbed to doing what he intended to do, ie "to translate our history into a foreign, and to us unaccustomed language".


spin

Steven Avery

Josephus explained Jewish history to the Greeks through Jewish Wars and later through Antiquities. Here is the Antiquities Preface, the later work.

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, (Jewish Wars 75AD) 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 (Antiquities 93 AD) 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.

It sounds like Josephus is talking about the difficulties in the endeavor to write the Jewish social/legal/communal history of Antiquities, having to take the concepts and words and life of the Hebrew scriptures and stories and relate them to the style and laborious work of a Greek book. This problem could exist if Josephus had all, much, little or none of the Tanach in Greek.

However, some persons there were who desired to know our history, and so exhorted me to go on with it;

To go on with the project of writing the history (Antiquities), not the project of translating scripture.

and, above all the rest, Epaphroditus, (4) 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.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Chris Weimer

The Torah, whether in Greek or in Hebrew, was quite substantial compared to the rest. It's only natural.

I'll comment on canonization in a bit.

Notsri

I'm away from home for the time being, but happen to have a copy of Philo along with me. I thought it worth mentioning in connection to the above, that Philo was apparently already familiar with Greek translations of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings (as well as 1 Chronicles).

He seems, for instance, to quote Joshua 1:5 in De Confusione Linguarum §166. In the same work (§128) he mentions the "book which is entitled the Book of Judgment," then going on (§129) to cite Judges 8:9. Kings is also mentioned by name, along with a citation of 1 Kings 17:10, in Quod Deus Immutabilis Sit §136. And so on.

It appears fairly certain to me, then, that by Philo's lifetime at least the Alexandrian Jews could access Greek translations of most, if not all, of the historical books. No?

As a sidelight to the this, spin, I wanted to ask you about your comment above regarding the disparities between Josephus' versions of Samuel and Kings, and the now-current form of each book. I have not studied the issue much at all, but nevertheless have noted in several recent readings reference to Josephus' "midrashic" treatment of some of the biblical texts. My question is, then, how much of Josephus' unique, divergent material can one legitimately attribute to alternate textual traditions over against mere midrashic recasting of the now-current biblical text? (Or is this issue irrelevant to those specific texts which you have in mind?)

spin

To clarify the confusion which Praxeus finds himself...

Josephus started with the idea of writing something that would encompass what eventually became two separate works, but realised he bit off a bit too much at one time. Hopefully this division will clarify Josephus's paragraph:

His current intention:
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.

Background
1. his initial intention
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:

2. initial plan changed, reason given
but because this work [ie his initial conception], would take up a great compass, I separated it into a set treatise by itself [ie BJ], with a beginning of its own, and its own conclusion; [%] 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. ([%] Whiston inserts a but which is not in the Greek.)

So here we have BJ produced instead of his initial great work.

3. need to deal with unfinished business
However, some persons there were who desired to know our history [left untranslated in #2], and so exhorted me to go on with it [ie translating our history]; 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.

4. new motivation
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.

With the urging of others he returned to his orginal plan and picked up what he left off when he finished BJ in order to write a history of the Jews based on his translation of "our history". There was no intention to translate Jewish works per se, so there was no third task which he never took up. There were just the two parts of his initial concept, now spread over two books, the second of which needed "our history" translated.


spin

spin

I would ask any reader, not just Praxeus, who disagrees with my understanding of Josephus, immediately above, to please explain where you consider I've gone wrong. Thanks.


spin

spin

Do you think that there are enough random instances of knowledge of other Jewish documents to demonstrate that Philo had all those works available to him in Greek?

By Alexandrian Jews, I guess you mean Philo and while it's plain that he had sources in Greek, it's hard to claim that a few acknowledgments to works other other than the Torah mean that he had most if not everything available to him in translation.

In the few examinations of the subject I've taken on, I chose passages that were as close as possible to each other in Kings, Chronicles and Josephus, putting aside passages of material not found in the others. That didn't leave much scope for noticing any "midrashic" treatment. I was trying to use three texts in an effort to reproduce a synoptic situation, ie to see if a chronological relationship between some of the texts could be established. But I wasn't able to.

The nearest solution I came up with was the possibility that a Vorlage was to be seen behind both Sam/Kings and Chronicles, which Josephus may have had access to. This Vorlage then, because it wasn't considered a sacred book at the time, obviously didn't have the stability of sacred books.

The problem is exacerbated because Josephus was not writing a simple translation, though I think the relationship between Josephus and his sources was something like that between the Matthean writer and his sources. They both seemed to me to rewrite, epitemize and augment their sources.

All this as an indirect means to say I can't answer your question. :blush:


spin

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Spin, actually I have no confusion. I will place my understanding here, with a little commentary on how I see Josephus thinking, and leave yours. If you can demonstrate your view I will be happy, but I do not see it. Let's go to the videotape.

We agree.

His current intention:

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.

Background
1. his initial intention

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:

2. initial plan changed, reason given
but because this work [ie his initial conception], would take up a great compass, I separated it into a set treatise by itself [ie BJ

Josephus separated Antiquities into a work of its own. (What he has
finally finished, 18 years later, and is ready to present to the reader.)
Our interpretative differences have begun.

with a beginning of its own, and its own conclusion; [%] 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.

He grew weary, so the project (Antiquities) went on for year after year unfinished. The history became an incredible project. I was getting writer's block. And I was enjoying the good life in Rome on my pension.

([%] Whiston inserts a but which is not in the Greek.)

So here we have BJ produced instead of his initial great work.

3. need to deal with unfinished business
However, some persons there were who desired to know our history

Maybe I won't have done it all, but those Greek historians were curious to learn about the Jews and were nicely pestering me to get it done.

[left untranslated in #2], and so exhorted me to go on with it [ie translating our history]; 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.

4. new motivation
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.

So I got into action and decided this should be done. I wasn't getting any younger, it was almost two decades from when I started the project, the Antiquities of the Jews. My good friends were imploring me so I finished the history of the laws, customs and social milieu of the Jews, including their ancient Bible history, for the Greeks, for any others, and for you dear readers, and now its finally done and I offer to you "Antiquites".

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



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.

With the urging of others he returned to his orginal plan and picked up what he left off when he finished BJ in order to write a history of the Jews based on his translation of "our history". There was no intention to translate Jewish works per se, so there was no third task which he never took up. There were just the two parts of his initial concept, now spread over two books, the second of which needed "our history" translated.


spin[/QUOTE]

spin

This mess is as confused and confusing as it appears to the eye. I did take the trouble to go back and edit the paragraph Josephus from scratch so as to alleviate the unreadable stuff you've thrown back. No wonder you're in a state of confusion over this. What you are doing is derailing the thread by presenting your comment incomprehensibly. There is no way to actually comment on what you've done because any comment will simply be lost in your mess.

At the same time, you simply did not critique the presentation I put forward, but merely gave another of your different interpretations.

I had hoped, by presenting a clear case, to elicit other critiques so that it didn't fall into a simple slinging match between us.

I'll try to pick up your pieces in a separate post.

spin

Praxeus,

You ignored the words of Josephus where he says:

And indeed I did formerly intend, when I wrote of the war, to explain who the Jews originally were

While he indicates that his intention was to write a text which included all the material which is now in BJ and AJ, he states that a text on the war was his intention at that time, but his conception was so great he gave it up and concentrated on a smaller effort, which was obviously still on the war:

I separated it into a set treatise by itself

Obviously this "it" refers to the text about the war, just mentioned. After all that is the last reference for the "it" to refer back to. You need to follow the grammatical hints. He elucidates the point by continuing:

with a beginning of its own, and its own conclusion;

After he decided not to translate "our history", his work, ie the limited text on the war, needed its own beginning and end.

You then go on to miss the relevance of the repeated "our history" in the text -- even though I'd underlined it to make sure you'd consider it. You also did not supply an alternate significance of "our history" from that which I gave, ie the Jewish historical texts available to him and which he intended to translate. The repetition points the reader to the task he still has to do, ie translate "our history", which was what his friends were prodding him to do.

Josephus here claims to have at least started translating the Jewish historical texts. Of course, had he had a translation of the Jewish historical texts, there would have been no need to translate them at all and there was nothing to hold him from fullfulling his initial task, for there was no need to translate anything.

I don't think you have considered the grammatical dynamics of the passage.

When he talks of "this work" being too big for him to accomplish, we should read "this" to refer back to his original intention, to write a great work on the war. He then separates it into a treatise in itself, but what does "it" refer back to but what was left of his original intention to write about the war, but now without his intended historical setting? He explicitly refers to the necessities brought about by not including the full history in his text on the war: he had to give it "a beginning of its own, and its own conclusion".

We apparently agree about his initial intention to write a work that included the material of the war, but with the antiquities as a preface to the war so that the Romans could better understand the war. When he found that his task was too big for him, he decided to do something less demanding. Now for some reason you overlook BJ completely, though he plainly does talk about it:

I did formerly intend, when I wrote of the war, to explain who the Jews originally were

Why didn't he explain who the Jews originally were at this time, Praxeus? Wasn't it because he found that translating "our history" was too big a job then? Isn't this material, which proved to be too much at that time, precisely the history from which he constructed AJ?


spin