Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 08-28-2013, 12:58 PM

It may be worth noting that if Eisler is correct and the TF originally contained the phrase ἀρχὴ νέων θορύβων a source of new disturbances then one of Norden's main arguments would be substantially weakened.

Andrew Criddle

spin · 08-28-2013, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ficino

On the other hand, Grog rightly shows examples where δέ shifts the Topic from that of the immediately preceding sentence to a new one. I agree with him that a causal connection can often be inferred, as in the shift in 115 from Herod writing to Tiberius to Tiberius being angry.

The inference would come merely by placing the sentences in sequence. That is not a function of δε.

Consider,

1. the whole of Herod's army was destroyed when some refugees... played him false.

2. Herod sent an account of these events to Tiberius.

You can infer that because Herod's army was destroyed he wrote to bleat to Tiberius. And that's why Whiston inserted a "so" to mark the inferred connection, but there is no δε. It is purely the sequence of clauses.

Grog · 08-28-2013, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ficino

The range of contexts in which δέ is used is so broad that I don't think its appearance at AJ 18.120 ("Vitellius δέ") supports an argument either way about the authenticity of the JtB story in 18.116-119.

This isn't my position. My position is that the fact that the flow of the story about Herod and Aretas is interrupted by the JtB story. That 18.115 flows directly and cleanly into 18.120 and that this observation is prima facie warrant for raising the issue

Quote:

Spin is right that δέ often appears when the flow of the account goes back after a digression to a previously-mentioned item. Another example is 18.89-90, where Josephus has been describing the Samaritans' charges against Pilate made to Vitellius. He says that Vitellius ordered Pilate to go back to Rome to see the emperor about the Samaritans' accusations. "And (καί) Pilate... " etc. After a sentence about Pilate returning and a sentence about Tiberius' death, Josephus resumes his account of the activities of Vitellius: "Vitellius δέ..." This is like the examples offered by Spin.

However, spin's argument was that the presence of δέ could only occur in such cases. My argument against spin was that he was wrong about that. I provided examples (big mistake, one does not question the authority of spin).

Quote:

On the other hand, Grog rightly shows examples where δέ shifts the Topic from that of the immediately preceding sentence to a new one. I agree with him that a causal connection can often be inferred, as in the shift in 115 from Herod writing to Tiberius to Tiberius being angry. I stand by what I have written about the meaning of δέ. In connection with uses of δέ, causality is implicit in context – there, implicit in Tiberius’ reception of Herod’s message. To show causality is not part of the work of δέ itself. Its work is to shift Topic from Herod to Tiberius. But I agree that Josephus' account reads smoothly if one excises the whole JtB passage and goes from “And Tiberius sent to the general over Syria to do these things” at the end of 115 directly to “And Vitellius…” at the beg. of 120.

Thank you for finally allowing my position a little daylight.

Quote:

I see less reason to excise the JtB passage than to excise the TF, but I don’t think I can offer a proof.

I said from the beginning that the evidence against the JtB was less secure than the TF. My only point was that the clean break raises an issue of possibility.

-----------

Quote:

Wait, Vitellius and the "στρατηγός over Syria" to whom Tiberius writes at the end of AJ 18.115 are the same man, are they not? After more reflection, I suggest that δέ in "Vitellius δέ" at 120 does add a bit of weight to the thesis that the JtB passage is genuine. Here's why.

I think you said it yourself. Josephus refers to Vitellius as the governor of Syria, so to be clear about the topic, he names in 120. I don't think your observation warrants the level of confidence that you accord it.

Quote:

If the JtB passage (116-119) were not by Josephus, one might expect 18.120 to begin ὁ δέ and not "Vitellius δέ." That's because when a prior sentence refers to someone in an oblique case, and the next sentence makes that same person the subject, the switch in Topic tends to be signalled by δέ following the old demonstrative ὁ, ἡ, τό. That's because the reader doesn't need a clue about the identity of someone just mentioned but, rather, about that person's role in the discourse; that person in the new sentence is now the Topic about which some further information will be given. We see this in the example Grog cited above, where "the person," τὴν ἄνθρωπον, is the same individual as "she" in the next sentence. So the Greek only needs the phrase ἡ δέ to clue the reader that this woman, having just been presented as the object of Herod's actions, is now the Topic of a new utterance, in which something new is said about HER. This ὁ δέ / ἡ δέ usage is what one expects when the same person switches roles in the discourse structure. To say "Tiberius sent an order to the στρατηγός over Syria. And Vitellius..." introduces potential confusion, as though Vitellius is not the στρατηγός in question.

But Josephus might have felt that the reader would need a clue after the confusion caused by 115 in which he names Herod, Aretas, Tiberius, and Vitellius, then refers to Vitellius not by name but by office. This is slightly different than the cases you mention where the proper name topic leads directly into the next sentence.

Quote:

So in balance, I incline after all to think that δέ at beginning of 120 does the work of restoring Vitellius to Topic status after a digression. It does not always do that work, as Grog has demonstrated.

But I haven't done a study of δέ in Josephus, so I can't press this point too far. I do think the issue of translating δέ as "and" or as "so" or "and so" is not really the relevant one.

I'm not sure what you mean by the last sentence here. I certainly agree, the only point I have made is that there is a causal connection between these sentence that seems to me indicated by δέ. Whiston chose to translate that as "so," and spin had a problem with that.

There is another point that spin made a mistake on, but I didn't have time to address. I mentioned the article on vridar that coincidentally was posted around the time we stared this discussion. In Godrey's blog, the point is made that while in paragraph 1 Josephus says that Macherus is a holding of Aretas, the JtB paragraph has Herod taking JtB to Macherus where he is executed. spin responded to this saying that actually Macherus was in the borderlands between Aretas and Herod. Yes, Josephus does say that, but spin must have missed this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by josephus

now she had sent a good while before to Macherus, 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; and by that means she soon came into Arabia, under the conduct of the several generals, who carried her from one to another successively; and she soon came to her father, and told him of Herod's intentions.

spin referred to this prior statement:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Josephus

Macherus, which is a place in the borders of the dominions of Aretas and Herod

Again, I am far from arguing that this is a clincher here. It is just another anomaly that causes one to say hmmmm....
Now, see how much easier and productive it is to have a discussion without jumping on spin's coattails and scolding others for "pretending" to know what they are talking about?

spin · 08-28-2013, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Quote:

Originally Posted by ficino

The range of contexts in which δέ is used is so broad that I don't think its appearance at AJ 18.120 ("Vitellius δέ") supports an argument either way about the authenticity of the JtB story in 18.116-119.

This isn't my position. My position is that the fact that the flow of the story about Herod and Aretas is interrupted by the JtB story. That 18.115 flows directly and cleanly into 18.120 and that this observation is prima facie warrant for raising the issue

Quote:

Spin is right that δέ often appears when the flow of the account goes back after a digression to a previously-mentioned item. Another example is 18.89-90, where Josephus has been describing the Samaritans' charges against Pilate made to Vitellius. He says that Vitellius ordered Pilate to go back to Rome to see the emperor about the Samaritans' accusations. "And (καί) Pilate... " etc. After a sentence about Pilate returning and a sentence about Tiberius' death, Josephus resumes his account of the activities of Vitellius: "Vitellius δέ..." This is like the examples offered by Spin.

However, spin's argument was that the presence of δέ could only occur in such cases. My argument against spin was that he was wrong about that. I provided examples (big mistake, one does not question the authority of spin).

This of course is not my position. As I pointed out earlier Grog is simply wrong in his presentation of my views.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Quote:

On the other hand, Grog rightly shows examples where δέ shifts the Topic from that of the immediately preceding sentence to a new one. I agree with him that a causal connection can often be inferred, as in the shift in 115 from Herod writing to Tiberius to Tiberius being angry. I stand by what I have written about the meaning of δέ. In connection with uses of δέ, causality is implicit in context – there, implicit in Tiberius’ reception of Herod’s message. To show causality is not part of the work of δέ itself. Its work is to shift Topic from Herod to Tiberius. But I agree that Josephus' account reads smoothly if one excises the whole JtB passage and goes from “And Tiberius sent to the general over Syria to do these things” at the end of 115 directly to “And Vitellius…” at the beg. of 120.

Thank you for finally allowing my position a little daylight.

Little is quite an allowance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

There is another point that spin made a mistake on, but I didn't have time to address. I mentioned the article on vridar that coincidentally was posted around the time we stared this discussion. In Godrey's blog, the point is made that while in paragraph 1 Josephus says that Macherus is a holding of Aretas, the JtB paragraph has Herod taking JtB to Macherus where he is executed. spin responded to this saying that actually Macherus was in the borderlands between Aretas and Herod. Yes, Josephus does say that, but spin must have missed this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by josephus

now she had sent a good while before to Macherus, 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; and by that means she soon came into Arabia, under the conduct of the several generals, who carried her from one to another successively; and she soon came to her father, and told him of Herod's intentions.

We note that commentators have had problems with this passage, so some have suggested changing the text as shown above. Not one single manuscript contains what is claimed. As I said in an earlier response:

Neither Neil or Zindler is here to respond. It makes little sense that Herod should send her out of his kingdom, if he needed to keep control of her (such marriages were treaties of sorts). Machaerus as Josephus indicates was on the border with Aretas. At Machaerus there was an agent of Aretas ("him who was subject to her father"), who was informed and who prepared for her onward journey, so she went forth (from Machaerus) into Arabia (καὶ ἀφωρμᾶτο εἰς τὴν Ἀραβίαν), ie out of Herod's territory. Machaerus was not under the control of Aretas.

The wife sends messengers to Machaerus where there was an agent of Aretas. The text certainly does not say that Machaerus was in the hands of Aretas. So Grog's argument falls apart.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

spin referred to this prior statement:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Josephus

Macherus, which is a place in the borders of the dominions of Aretas and Herod

Again, I am far from arguing that this is a clincher here. It is just another anomaly that causes one to say hmmmm....

If one consulted the original texts they'd see that they don't have this anomaly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Now, see how much easier and productive it is to have a discussion without jumping on spin's coattails and scolding others for "pretending" to know what they are talking about?

Jump on Grog's banana skin instead, eh?

Grog · 08-28-2013, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

It may be worth noting that if Eisler is correct and the TF originally contained the phrase ἀρχὴ νέων θορύβων a source of new disturbances then one of Norden's main arguments would be substantially weakened.

Andrew Criddle

Maybe, but why wouldn't we be more likely to accept Viklund's observation?

Quote:

Originally Posted by viklund

That kind of reconstruction is therefore not built on a scientific ground, and appears to be an unproven hypothesis brought forward only in order to save the Testimonium Flavianum.

Grog · 08-28-2013, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Grog, you had the opportunity to stop, but you couldn't stop yourself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

The bolded part was my point from the very beginning of this discussion.
My point was never about δέ.

Without dealing with it you can have no point at all...

...for had you understood the significance of δε, you would see that you have oversimplified the issue.

That only shows that you haven't taken notice of what was being talked about.

You are talking about a causal relationship because you got it out of the L&S entry I pointed you to in the first place, an entry you did not read properly, for you ignored the reference to γαρ in the section you latched onto. In what way is δε similar to γαρ in the passage you want to indicate a "causal relationship"? You need to establish that instead of assuming your conclusion based on your desired outcome.

ficino, referencing scholarly works specifically on linguistic understandings of δε, pointed to a linguistic understanding of the word as it is used across the board, a usage that indicated a change in focus of interest by the writer. This is manifested in a change of topic or perspective....

Had you taken notice of the discussion pointed to by ficino, you'd know that at this point Josephus stops talking about Herod and what happened to his army and turns to the Romans and their reaction. That's consistent with a change of interest, or topic.

While we are here, note the change in focus here to an earlier moment when the wife sent messengers to Machaerus. Two out of two examples fit the descriptive use of δε as an indicator of a change in topic.

I guess the only way you can proceed here is to misrepresent what you are arguing against.

Whiston has the excuse of not having the field of linguistics available to him.

ὁ δὲ is not a "construction" of any special sort. It is two words that happen to stand alongside each other, composed of an article used as a pronoun and the particle δε which consistently operates outside the scope of the clause it is used in as a discourse marker. In fact, what does the ὁ signify here??

Bingo! Here is the misrepresentation. What a silly thing for you to say. The dictionary has several pragmatic uses of the word, yet here you are claiming that I said it has only one pragmatic usage. That's just obviously so wrong. I don't know why you bothered to make such a preposterous claim.

Now continuing to avoid any contact with the Greek, you continue...

Josephus changes focus from Aretas's daughter's actions to Aretas.

Josephus changes focus from Herod and his debacle to the Romans and their actions.

Still on this strawman. Read the dictionary entry again and see that there are several pragmatic uses of δε. One is plainly "to resume after an interruption". It's certainly not strange that you will find the other uses listed in the entry, otherwise they wouldn't be there.

What's clear, is that you've forgotten about the dictionary entry and the fact that there are several pragmatic uses of the word, which includes a disjunctive use (~ "but") and as I quoted in the first place "to resume after an interruption or parenthesis".

You've ignored the evidence I've provided here that shows that Josephus does in fact sometimes use δε to indicate a return to a topic after an interruption. This is a special case of the discourse analysis of the use of δε, which indicates that it marks a change of focus, in this case back to something previously talked about.

If the JtB material is kosher--and the onus on you is to show it is not, not assume it to create circular reasoning for the meaning of δε--, then we have a nice indicator of the interruption in the following δε. (The circular reasoning: the JtB material is an interpolation because it interrupts the narrative and δε doesn't indicate a return to the narrative after the JtB interruption, but must mean "so" because if you remove the JtB interpolation you get a causal connection.)

I wish you had taken an anti-ego pill and read it for what it said.

When you start insulting people by referring to them as fanboys, you don't need to wonder why some people stop talking to you. It's not because of the prowess of your towering intellect, but because you have demeaned them and yourself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

The examples I provide demonstrate against his point.

At least you'll buy tickets to that performance.

Ah, spin. give it up. You are trying far too hard to salvage your dead point. Ficino, by the way, seems to have decided to engage in productive discussion rather following your path of self-elevated conceit. You might want to try it sometime.

As far as egos go, I don't like bullies--less so their sycophants.

Grog · 08-28-2013, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by ficino

On the other hand, Grog rightly shows examples where δέ shifts the Topic from that of the immediately preceding sentence to a new one. I agree with him that a causal connection can often be inferred, as in the shift in 115 from Herod writing to Tiberius to Tiberius being angry.

The inference would come merely by placing the sentences in sequence. That is not a function of δε.

Consider,

1. the whole of Herod's army was destroyed when some refugees... played him false.

2. Herod sent an account of these events to Tiberius.

You can infer that because Herod's army was destroyed he wrote to bleat to Tiberius. And that's why Whiston inserted a "so" to mark the inferred connection, but there is no δε. It is purely the sequence of clauses.

You raised the issue of δε in the first place. It was my point that the "so" inferred connection. There is a δε, however, it just isn't where Whiston put it.

My point in the very beginning was that 18.1.120 is causally connected to 18.1.115. It is, just as this one is. Whiston inserted "so" to demonstrate that causal connection. You raised the issue of δε to say that there had to be an interruption there. My point is that, no, there doesn't--Josephus doesn't always use δε that way, there is no need to infer an interruption. I also suggested that there are other connotation of δε that could apply. That challenge apparently sent you off your rocking chair, though.

Grog · 08-28-2013, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

This of course is not my position. As I pointed out earlier Grog is simply wrong in his presentation of my views.

yes, I did not word that correctly. Your position was that there would be no δέ in 18.1.120 unless there had been an interruption. I showed that that was not necessarily the case. I suggested that was [ed: NOT] only one possible use of δέ there and that there were other connotations. I gave exact references demonstrating instances where Josephus uses δέ directly, not after an interruption. Woo boy.

Here is what you said (note the bold):

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

There is no "so" in the Greek text. In fact, looking into the Greek we find a different indicator, that is often left untranslated, δε.
Vitellius δε got himself ready for war...
The normal place for δε is the second element in the clause. It has a number of conjunctive uses, but one seems most relevant here according to L&S, see II.2
to resume after an interruption or parenthesis
which is what is to be expected if the narrative is interrupted by the John detail. There would be no need for the δε had there been no interruption.

That is what I responded to which has since caused spin to heap derision on me.

Quote:

Jump on Grog's banana skin instead, eh?

He can play Robin to your Batman, if he wants.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

We note that commentators have had problems with this passage, so some have suggested changing the text as shown above. Not one single manuscript contains what is claimed. As I said in an earlier response:

Neither Neil or Zindler is here to respond. It makes little sense that Herod should send her out of his kingdom, if he needed to keep control of her (such marriages were treaties of sorts). Machaerus as Josephus indicates was on the border with Aretas. At Machaerus there was an agent of Aretas ("him who was subject to her father"), who was informed and who prepared for her onward journey, so she went forth (from Machaerus) into Arabia (καὶ ἀφωρμᾶτο εἰς τὴν Ἀραβίαν), ie out of Herod's territory. Machaerus was not under the control of Aretas.

The wife sends messengers to Machaerus where there was an agent of Aretas. The text certainly does not say that Machaerus was in the hands of Aretas. So Grog's argument falls apart.

Once again, we have to rely on spin's own preference of translation, and based on that, spin will feel himself superior. Good for you. EDIT: And once again, spin's case is weaker than he will initially have you believe. It seems he wants to turn ὑποτελεῖ into "agent" when a more appropriate term would be "vassal" one who holds lands and pays tribute to a lord. At any rate, it's a case of a disputed translation, yet spin will insist that I don't know what I am talking about because I don't agree with him. Think of the cordiality that would reign if I just agreed with him!

You seem to have missed reading the whole story though:

his wife having discovered the agreement he had made with Herodias, and having learned it before he had notice of her knowledge of the whole design, she desired him to send her to Macherus, which is a place in the borders of the dominions of Aretas and Herod, without informing him of any of her intentions. Accordingly Herod sent her thither, as thinking his wife had not perceived any thing;

You need this spelled out? Herod sent her to her father's vassal because he did not yet know. He did not have a reason to not send her. She deceived him into allowing her to go. Why would it matter otherwise?

You could tone down your condescension. I have asked for that since nearly the beginning of this conversation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

. It makes little sense that Herod should send her out of his kingdom, if he needed to keep control of her (such marriages were treaties of sorts).

oh spin. You are grasping at any straw you can in your attempts to belittle and ridicule. He wants to divorce her. That is his plan. You get that, right?

Once again, though, you can't mess with spin on these boards.

DCHindley · 08-28-2013, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

It may be worth noting that if Eisler is correct and the TF originally contained the phrase ἀρχὴ νέων θορύβων a source of new disturbances then one of Norden's main arguments would be substantially weakened.

Andrew Criddle

I was able to find a public domain copy (in the USA) at Haithi Trust. It is in German, about 39 pages.

DCH

ficino · 08-28-2013, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by ficino

On the other hand, Grog rightly shows examples where δέ shifts the Topic from that of the immediately preceding sentence to a new one. I agree with him that a causal connection can often be inferred, as in the shift in 115 from Herod writing to Tiberius to Tiberius being angry.

The inference would come merely by placing the sentences in sequence. That is not a function of δε.

Consider,

1. the whole of Herod's army was destroyed when some refugees... played him false.

2. Herod sent an account of these events to Tiberius.

You can infer that because Herod's army was destroyed he wrote to bleat to Tiberius. And that's why Whiston inserted a "so" to mark the inferred connection, but there is no δε. It is purely the sequence of clauses.

Agreed. I'm talking here about causal inferences we might make in connection with ὁ δὲ ὀργῇ φέρων, not about Ἡρώδης γράφει.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-28-2013, 12:58 PM	#41
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	It may be worth noting that if Eisler is correct and the TF originally contained the phrase ἀρχὴ νέων θορύβων a source of new disturbances then one of Norden's main arguments would be substantially weakened. Andrew Criddle

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.