dongiovanni1976x

What is the original Greek in the Codex Regius Parisinus and the Codex Oxoniensis for Antiquities 9:285?

Some versions (in the English that I have read) say,
while others say,
The reason I ask is that if the latter translation is correct then it seems that Old Tyre on the mainland was a completely separate entitiy from Tyre the island, further supporting the Usu/Uzu/Ushu theory, whereas if the former is correct then it sounds like this passage is saying that the Tyrians (on Old Tyre, the mainland) revolted against the king of Assyria, not Tyre the island. Does anyone know how these translations became so different?

Please help...

Phlox Pyros

Here is the Greek of Josephus from the Perseus Digital Classics Library. I'm not sure what manuscript(s) this follows, though it may tell up front in the introduction.

If anyone has the Loeb Library edition of Josephus, that would probably give the readings of these manuscripts. I have some of them, but unfortunately I don't have this one. I'll have to correct that in the near future.

dongiovanni1976x

Thank you! That is a great site. It uses the Whiston translation which seems to be omnipresent on the internet and is the one I have a hard copy of at home. I am waiting on an email back from Paul Maier of WMU who did commentary on that translation as well as a professor I had who knows Greek very well. Problem is I am beginning to wonder if the source I got the second translation from is incorrect because I cannot corroborate it with any other source(s).

Anyone have any other translations of Josephus, other than Whiston's?

dongiovanni1976x

I take it back. The second translation seems more correct. According to my professor the Greek literally reads:

"Sidon, Arke, Tyre of old and many other cities that had placed themselves under the Assyrian king moved away from Tyre [most likely in the sense of 'revolted from Tyre']. Because Tyre would not obey, the king once again turned back on it [Tyre] after/since the Phoenician supplied him with 60 boats and 800 rowers."

He adds that, "In the first sentence, 'Sidon', 'Arke', 'Tyre of old' and the 'many other cities' are all in the nominative case; only Tyre is the genitive. Since aphistemi seems to take the genitive as its compliment, the sense should be something like these cities revolted from Tyre. In the second sentence, the clause involving the Phonecians is a participial phrase and so can be taken either as causative, and so 'since', or temporal, and so 'after'."

This supports the idea that Old Tyre revolted against Tyre and that they are two seperate cities.

Phlox Pyros

What is the Usu/Uzu/Ushu theory? What is the significance of there being two Tyres, one on the Island, one on the mainland?

I agree with your second post on the Greek and translation.

dongiovanni1976x

The theory is that the mainland Tyre (Old Tyre or Palaetyrus) was originally a city called Ushu/Usu/Uzu (1) and only later became a suburb of Tyre (the fortified island). due to the island city’s wealth from maritime trade and the mainland city’s source of timber, water and burial grounds they often interacted but as the latter translation of Antiquities 9:285 points out Palaetyrus allied with Assyria against King Luli/Eleulus of Tyre.

The significance is that many Biblical inerrantists cite Ezekiel's prophecy regarding Tyre as fulfilled because it said Nebuchadnezzr would "break down your towers with his axes", "enter your gates" and "trample all of your streets". The objection to this is that the Seige agaisnt Tyre failed so how could he have destroyed Tyre's towers, entered its gates and trample its streets if he was unsuccessful? Well the answer you get from a fundamentalist is that this prophecy was made against the mainland and not the island.
By separating the two and showing that the prediction Ezekiel made was directed aginst Tyre the island and not Palaetyrus ("the daughter-towns," 28:6) this prophecy is shown to have failed. The only prophecy Ezekiel made against mainland Tyre (Palaetyrus) was that it would be "killed by the sword" (28:6) but all the second person possessive pronouns refer back to the owner of those "daughter-towns", i.e. the renkown Tyre, the fortified island. Inerrantists like to either say that the Island wasn't inhabited until after Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the mainland and everyone fled -or- that it was inhabited but that any reference to Tyre prior to verse 12 in chapter 26 refers to the city on the mainland and any verse after 12 refers to the island.

(1) Schrader, Eberhard. Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek: Sammlung Von Assyrischen Und Babylonische Texten, 1970 (vol. ii. 229) (accessed from: source: http://7.1911encyclopedia.org/P/PH/PHOENICIA.htm) & Online Encyclopedia, Originally appearing in Volume V27, Page 549 of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. source: http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/TUM_VA...ck_Assyr_.html

dongiovanni1976x

My professor also added that, "Since I only have checked the Greek you provided and I have no idea whether it is the authoritative edition be careful with my translation. I'll try to check Josephus Opera Omnia and see if TuriOn is in it. If it is, there is a way to see how Whiston might have gotten his translation. Instead of taking TuriOn as the complement of the verb, as I did, which I think is correct, he is taking it as the partative genitive. Thus if Turion, "Tyrians" is in the MSS, Whiston should have translated the text something like, "Among the Tyrians, Sidon, Arke, Tyre of Old and many other cities that surrendered to the king of Assyrian revolted." Still, in that case I would have expected a perfect participle in the relative clause instead of the aorist participle that in fact is in the text, particularly since the finite verb is in the aorist. In other words, I would have expected something like, "the cities that HAD surrendered (perfect), revoltED (aorist)". The different aspects would then show that the initial surrendering had taken place before the revolt. I hope that makes sense. (BTW, there is two small slips in my translation. I translated TuriOn in both cases as Tyre, but it should be Tyrians.)
There is a second little oddity I just noted in the second sentence of the Greek, which I glossed over (as did both of the translations you have consulted), namely, there is a feminie, singular accusive article ha after dia, 'because'. Here the translation should probably run something like, "Because it [Tyre?] among the Tyrians did not obey, ...". Now the article in Greek can frequently act like a pronoun and like a pronoun it must agree in number and gender with the referent. Again, ha is feminine singular and thus most obvioulsy either refers to Tyre itself or to a single city, but I don't think it can refer back to plural cities.
In other words, it seems that a single city among the Tyrian cities did not obey, whereas, if I am not mistaken, Whiston would need to
understand the Assyrian king as having turned back on all of the mentioned cities. Again, that reading just seems textually problematic. Unless there is good independent historical reasons for reading it Whiston's way, I would be leary."

Phlox Pyros

Thanks for your explanation.

Phlox Pyros

I agree with your professor. Perseus is pretty reliable and should probably have their sources listed somewhere, I just haven't taken the time to find them.

However, I would also check the "Loeb Library" for the Josephus editions. These are well-respected versions with critical apparatus that mentions manuscript variations. Here is the link to the Loeb Library and to the Joesphus editions (link to "J" section, just scroll down a little to see Josephus' works), but you should be able to find these texts in your school's library. If you don't know about these books, then check them out! They are an incredible resource!

If you find out about another critical editon of the Greek of Josephus, could you please share it here? I would love to know about it. Thanks!

Roger Pearse

Benedikt NIESE, Flavius Josephus: Flavii Iosephi Opera, Berolini : Apud Weidmannos, 1885-95. 7v. ; 23 cm. Greek Text with Latin notes. Contents: V.1-3. Libri antiquitatum iudaicarum.--v.4. Libri antiquitatum iudaicarum et vita.--v. 5 De iudeorum vetustate.-- v. 6 De bello iudaico.--v.7 Index

I think this is the standard edition.

All the best,

Roger Pearse