spin

This is not an occasion for you to continue to snipe. But by all means find your own way.

And do read ficino's post #16.

ficino

I can't prove whether δέ at the beginning of the JtB passage provides evidence that we are dealing with a later insertion. I agree with both of you that the TF reads like a jarring break in Josephus' account. δέ bothers me less in the JtB passage than it does at the beginning of the TF because Jesus is a new figure who needs to be introduced to the reader. It seems somewhat lame to me to try to do that with δέ. In 18.119, though, "some of the Jews" or whatever is given information, so δέ indicates a shift of Topic (see below on this term). I did a quick scan of γίνεται δέ in Josephus on the TLG and found some places where it looks as though perhaps he introduces new characters with δέ, so I'd need to do more research before taking a firm view on δέ in the TF.

As to the definition of δέ: particles in Greek are very tricky to translate, partly because there is still a lot of work to do on them, partly because some, like δέ, function primarily as pragmatic, not semantic, elements of discourse. Linguists tend to divide the functions of language into three big groups: semantic (having to do with meaning of words and phrases, what the words signify); syntactic (how you put words or phrases together to create propositions etc.); pragmatic (how flow of communication is managed, what emphasis things get, etc.). It's way off topic to go into this in much detail, but I bring up these distinctions because δέ has in the last few decades been classified as a pragmatic discourse marker. Its basic function is to segment discourse, as I tried to say earlier. Different connotations can arise from context. That's why older treatments talk about distinctions like "adversative δέ" and "copulative δέ." I was suggesting that it's more helpful to look at what sort of discourse break accompanies δέ than it is to try to pick a definition for it from a dictionary.

Recent studies suggest that δέ in an extended passage often signals a shift in Topic or Theme. I use Topic here in a technical sense, and I apologize for not making that more clear earlier. In Functional Grammar theory, Topic is what you're talking about, and when you say something new about it, the new thing is called the Focus. In other words, there's given information and new info. Many times, a historian will go back and resurrect someone from earlier in the account, using δέ to show that the Topic has shifted. Many of your examples, Grog, fit this pattern and I think are good ones to adduce.

In the Vitellius sentence, δέ shows the shift from Tiberius to Vitellius. The "so" part of the "and so" idea really isn't part of the value of δέ, although from the overall situation it's obvious that Vitellius went into action because of what Tiberius had ordered. I think a translator can infer that from context. But more recent treatments fault approaches like that taken by Liddell and Scott decades ago when they said that δέ is sometimes a weak causal connector.

We can continue this at greater length in another thread if anyone's interested, but I have already said too much stuff off the OP.

DCHindley

Are you suggesting that Martin has not rebutted Norden's claims that the TF is not original to the text of Josephus, or that you haven't read the article by Martin to allow you to accept his rebuttal as valid? Best as I can determine, "Martin" is C. Martin, “Le ‘Testimonium Flavianum.’ Vers une solution définitive?” Revue belge de philologie et d’histoire 20 [1941] 409-65. Not exactly recent. Meier also does not cite the article or monograph in which Norden states his position.

Here is what I can determine about Norden's position from Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz's The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide:

The specific article is: E. Norden, ‘Josephus und Tacitus uber Jesus Christus und eine messianische Prophetie’ (1913), [reproduced] in A. Schalit (ed)., Zur Josephusforschung, WdF 84, Darmstadt 1973, 27-69.

The context. E. Norden has demonstrated by a derailed analysis of the context that the Testimonium is an isolated block which disrupts a carefully structured whole. In accord with a favourite pattern of composition in annals, Josephus depicts Pilate’s time in office as a series of revolts; key compositional words which appear at the beginning and end of each of the sub-sections are θόρυβος (revolt) or the relevant verb θορυβεΐν and στάσις with the same meaning. Only in the section on Jesus are this topic and the corresponding key words missing.

Here is everything Meier has to say about Martin's position:

Was there an account of Jesus’ trial among the records? An interesting surmise, but impossible to verify. Martin prefers to think that Josephus recounts the common opinion he heard among the educated, “enlightened” Jews [68] of the partially Romanized world he inhabited. [p 67]

C. Martin (“Le ‘Testimonium Flavianum.’ Vers une solution définitive?” Revue belge de philologie et d’histoire 20 [1941] 409-65) is likewise of the opinion that scholars increasingly favor the judgment of partial interpolation (p. 415).

It is curious that Martin, though preferring to view eige andra auton legein chrē as an interpolation, remains hesitant (“Le ‘Testimonium Flavianum,’ ” 450- 52), especially since he interprets Josephus as saying that Jesus seduced both Jews and Gentiles and thus brought upon himself the condemnation due an agitator (pp. 445-46).

On this point [i.e., that "a glancing reference to the name Christ or Christians, without any detailed explanation, is exactly what we would expect from Josephus, who has no desire to highlight messianic figures or expectations among the Jews"], see Martin, “Le ‘Testimonium Flavianum,’ ” 452-55.

But, while Klausner hesitates over whether something else originally stood in the place of the three interpolations, I am convinced that the deletion of these three passages restores the Testimonium to its original form. Perhaps the scholar who comes closest to my own view is Martin (“Le ‘Testimonium Flavianum,’ ” 409-65), whose work was not available to me during the writing of the bulk of this chapter. I am encouraged by finding independent support for my own stance. At the same time, I find a number of Martin’s positions curious or improbable; I will note my disagreements at the appropriate places.

Martin (“Le ‘Testimonium Flavianum,’ ” 440) misses this point by making ēn gar paradoxen ergōn poiētēs merely a parenthetical explanation of sophos anēr, instead of seeing it as coequal with didaskalos anthrōpōn as the two-part definition of sophos anēr. He is quite correct, however, in emphasizing that in Josephus, as in many other Greek authors, sophos could convey the idea of a possessor of supernatural knowledge and power (pp. 442-44).

As Martin points out (“Le ‘Testimonium Flavianum,’ ” 446), the genitive absolute epitetimēkotos Pilatou has the force of a concessive clause: “Although Pilate condemned him to the cross, nevertheless those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so.”

Indeed, one could argue that the te in eis eti te nyn demands ouk epausanto hoi to proton agapēsantes just before it. It is almost impossible to make sense of the telltale te following upon the reference to the resurrection appearance and the OT prophecies; cf. Martin, “Le ‘Testimonium Flavianum,’ ”441.

Pelletier, citing Martin, mentions Origen as a possible author of the Christian interpolations (“Ce que Josèphe a dit,” 14-15)

In my opinion, it is unfortunate that Martin, in his otherwise fine article, tries to launch the hypothesis that Origen himself was the author of the interpolations (“Le ‘Testimonium Flavianum,’ ” 458-65). Any attempt to name the author of the three interpolations seems futile since we must take seriously the possibility that each of the three interpolations was scribbled into the margin by a different Christian at a different time.

I can provide page numbers if desired, but do not have the time to do so now.

I seem to recall that Josephus' "patchwork style" is quite real. He may tie it all together more or less well, but the "patchwork" part of his work relates mainly to his sources, which seem to have varied widely, and the differences between them Josephus does not always reconcile well or at all.

DCH

Grog

My point about "patchwork style" isn't that it isn't real. I acknowledged that it is. My point was that Josephus does indicate his diversions and digressions, he takes his readers into account and that the argument of Josephus' sloppiness is overplayed, in my opinion.

I'm still trying to get to Norden. I have read Theissen & Merz. I don't recall the "derailed analysis" quote. Mine is in English and maybe your's is not, but mine, if I recall, says "detailed analysis." Theissen & Merz do not answer Norden. There is a brief description of his position (again described as "demonstrating through a detailed anaylsis). They do not specifically respond to Norden.

No, I haven't read Martin, but would be willing. Do you have reference in English?

I'm not sure how the rest of your response really applies to what I said. I don't think there were three different interpolations, but just one.

Grog

The bolded part was my point from the very beginning of this discussion.

My point was never about δέ. That was spin's attempt to derail that observation. Paragraph 3 follows directly from Paragraph 1. δέ at the start of Paragraph 3 does not indicate what spin wants it to as demonstrated by the δέ in Paragraph 1 where there is no interruption. This is where spin was wrong but would not admit it. Whiston used "So" to indicate the causal chronological connection. I do think it is the δέ that provides the connection in this, although that was not my point. Since you seem to feel like you are an expert here, try for yourself to reconstruct what Josephus is saying without implying a causal connection. And if it is not the δέ that establishes that connotation, then what does?

I showed you the same thing here:

ὁ δὲ ἀρχὴν ἔχθρας ταύτην ποιησάμενος περί τε ὅρων ἐν γῇ τῇ Γαμαλικῇ, καὶ δυνάμεως ἑκατέρῳ συλλεγείσης εἰς πόλεμον καθίσταντο στρατηγοὺς ἀπεσταλκότες ἀνθ᾽ ἑαυτῶν.

spin says wrongly that this refers back to the very beginning of the passage. In fact, this refers back to very previous sentence:

καὶ ὁ Ἡρώδης ἐξέπεμψεν μηδὲν ᾐσθῆσθαι τὴν ἄνθρωπον προσδοκῶν. ἡ δέ, προαπεστάλκει γὰρ ἐκ πλείονος εἰς τὸν Μαχαιροῦντα τῷ τε πατρὶ αὐτῆς ὑποτελεῖ, πάντων εἰς τὴν ὁδοιπορίαν ἡτοιμασμένων ὑπὸ τοῦ στρατηγοῦ ἅμα τε παρῆν καὶ ἀφωρμᾶτο εἰς τὴν Ἀραβίαν κομιδῇ τῶν στρατηγῶν ἐκ διαδοχῆς παρῆν τε ὡς τὸν πατέρα ᾗ τάχος καὶ αὐτῷ τὴν Ἡρώδου διάνοιαν ἔφραζεν.

Time and again we see Josephus using δὲ in exactly the way that spin says Josephus doesn't, in fact, can't use it.

Accordingly Herod sent her thither, as thinking his wife had not perceived any thing; 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.

It is the telling of Herod's intentions to Aretas that causes the enmity/hatred. And again, we see the same construction of ὁ δὲ which Whiston translates again as "so."

spin's point, which you haven't addressed, is that the δέ is only used as a return from an interruption and I have shown, time and again, which you don't address, that this isn't the case.

So I have shown two immediately previous cases:

1a. Aretas learns of Herod's plans
1b. so, Aretas becomes angry with Herod

2a. Herod sends Tiberius a letter
2b. so, Tiberius charges Vitelluis to raise an army

There is no interruption in either of these and in both Josephus uses δὲ to transition from one event to the next causally linked event.

3a. Tiberus charges Vitellius to raise an army
(John the Baptist material)
3b. so, Vitellius raises an army.

It seems pretty clear to me.

Grog

I read it and provided him with examples that demonstrate your position that δὲ is only used after an interruption by Josephus is wrong. He has avoided discussing that point. The examples I provide demonstrate against his point.

DCHindley

Agreed.

T'was a case of OCR "bias."

Usually an honorary mention without any details means the author(s) agree with the positions expressed. Ahh, academic snarkiness: "If you don't know, we're not going to tell you! <snort, chuckle>." Translate the silence as "Look it up, mere mortal! Do you really dare challenge our super well informed and infallibly correct assumptions, you fool?"

Truth be told, I have not read them either. Both being in languages other than English pretty much limits me. Like you, I will make efforts, but it will have to be in due time.

Generally, I prefer to look up statements such as these. Just haven't done it yet.

By three, I assume the authors meant Ant 18, Ant 20 & possably the account about John the Baptist.

My personal opinion is that there are at least 2 (Ant 18:63-64 and Ant 20:200). But I also think that there are other interrelated texts to look at, particularly Jewish War 4, (the pro-Roman public speeches of the retired HP Ananus and the later one by his associate Jesus, the account of their death at the hands of the Zealots and the casting of their bodies into the valley to be left unburied, and the statement by Josephus that the destruction of the city should be traced to Ananus' ignoble death) and the opinions of Origen that Josephus had somewhere stated that the destruction of the city was due to the death of James the brother of Jesus, but that he should have attributed it to the death of Jesus, and finally Eusebius' quotation of Hegesippus expressing the idea that the death of James the Just removed the last obstacle to God justly punishing the Jews for their wickedness.

In short, I think all these statements by Origen and Hegesippus (as spun by Eusebius) about Josephus' alleged assertion that the destruction of the city was due to death of James and should have been on account of the death of Jesus derives in some way from War 4 accounts of the chief priests Ananus and Jesus.

One more quote from Meier:

One of the few authors to doubt the authenticity of the James passage in recent years is [Tessa] Rajak, Josephus [The Historian and His Society (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984)], 131 n. 73. Even she admits that “it has been unfashionable, of late, to doubt the James passage. . . .” Her main reason for rejecting the passage is that Josephus presents a positive picture of Ananus in J.W. 4.5.2 §319-25, as opposed to the negative picture in the Antiquities.

DCH

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. 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.

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.

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

-----------

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.

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.

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.

spin

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

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.

At least you'll buy tickets to that performance.

ficino

Viklund's discussion is very good.