Iosephiana

[Ben C. Smith]

If you start citing the evidence of variant editions of Josephus's history they can be broadly defined as follows:

1. a hypomnema of some kind that is the basis to Life and War.
2. a theoretical 'first edition' Antiquities that ended at the 20th book (no Life) - a view I do not subscribe to
3. a theoretical 'second edition' Antiquities that secretly incorporated the hypomnema to lengthen the pre-existent Antiquities some time after 100 CE. It would be the hypomnema mentioned in the preface responding to Justus's Chronicle. In Life he mentions Justus writing his Chronicle twenty years earlier (in the form of a hypomnema undoubtedly) which as I have outlined makes clear that the hypomnema was post 100 CE.
4. Clement of Alexandria's 'Flavius Josephus the Jew' text which was written 147 CE. Whiston says that this can't be Suidas's text but I think it is. Notice the title 'hypomnemata' is the same as the 'hypomnemata' of 'Hegesippus' and the overt reference to Christian themes. I strongly suspect that the original edition of Antiquities was strongly Christian-oriented and the material was gradually removed.
5. Origen and Eusebius's text of 'Antiquities' with the death of James being responsible for the destruction of the temple. I strongly suspect again that between Clement and Origen the text originally called 'hypomnemata' became transformed into 'Jewish Antiquities' in 20 books. This might have happened earlier and then manuscripts of this edition made their way to Alexandria or Jerusalem. But this edition closely resembled ours but may not have had the Life material 'isolated' to an appendix.
6. Our edition of Antiquities.

Thanks for this. This helps me get my bearings so far as what you are saying is concerned. Just as a matter of interest, here is where I stand on each of these so far:

1. a hypomnema of some kind that is the basis to Life and War. Likely. It explains the overlap between the two, as well as other things.
2. a theoretical 'first edition' Antiquities that ended at the 20th book (no Life) - a view I do not subscribe to Likely. It explains the two endings.
3. a theoretical 'second edition' Antiquities that secretly incorporated the hypomnema to lengthen the pre-existent Antiquities some time after 100 CE. It would be the hypomnema mentioned in the preface responding to Justus's Chronicle. In Life he mentions Justus writing his Chronicle twenty years earlier (in the form of a hypomnema undoubtedly) which as I have outlined makes clear that the hypomnema was post 100 CE. Not sure.
4. Clement of Alexandria's 'Flavius Josephus the Jew' text which was written 147 CE. Whiston says that this can't be Suidas's text but I think it is. Notice the title 'hypomnemata' is the same as the 'hypomnemata' of 'Hegesippus' and the overt reference to Christian themes. I strongly suspect that the original edition of Antiquities was strongly Christian-oriented and the material was gradually removed. Not likely. I still agree with Peter and many others that Hegesippus and Josephus were simply confused with each other.
5. Origen and Eusebius's text of 'Antiquities' with the death of James being responsible for the destruction of the temple. I strongly suspect again that between Clement and Origen the text originally called 'hypomnemata' became transformed into 'Jewish Antiquities' in 20 books. This might have happened earlier and then manuscripts of this edition made their way to Alexandria or Jerusalem. But this edition closely resembled ours but may not have had the Life material 'isolated' to an appendix. Not likely. Origen suffered the same confusion as Clement between Josephus and Hegesippus, and Eusebius simply took the Josephus reference on Origen's authority.
6. Our edition of Antiquities. Definitely.

[Secret Alias]

As I go through the Suda I notice that Jewish Antiquities is cited rarely and inaccurately:

Ἀντέσχε: γενναίως ἔφερε. καὶ πρότερον ληφθείς τις ἀπὸ τῶν Ἰουδαίων πρὸς πᾶσαν αἰκίαν βασάνων ἀντέσχεν. Josephus, Jewish War 3.321 (quoted approximately: see web address 1 below).
Ἀξινάριον: ἡ ἀξίνη. καὶ Ἀξινίδιον ὑποκοριστικῶς. Both of the neuter nouns lemmatized here, in fact, are diminutives. This second one occurs otherwise only in Josephus, Jewish War 2.148, from where it is surely quoted; so it is likely that the first one comes from the same work (2.137).
Ἀπερείδομαι τὸν πόκον: ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀποτίθημι, ἀκουμβίζω. καὶ Ἀπερείσασθαι, ἐκβαλεῖν, ἐκκενῶσαι. ὥσπερ εἰς ἐκείνους βουλόμενοι ἀπερείσασθαι τὸν θυμόν. καὶ Ἰώσηπος: πρὸς τὸν αἴτιον ἀπερείδεσθαι ἔλεγε τὴν ὀργήν. Ἀπερείσασθαι οὖν ἐκκενῶσαι, καταθαρρῆσαι, ἐπιβῆναι. πρὸς ἕνα καιρὸν ἀπερείσασθαι τὰς ἐλπίδας οὐδαμῶς ἔκρινε συμφέρειν. Josephus, Jewish Wars 2.64
Ἀποδέον: τὸ ἀπαρέσκον. καὶ Ἀποδεόντων, λειπόντων, ἀπολειπομένων. καὶ Ἀποδεῖν, τὸ ἀπολείπεσθαι. Ἰώσηπος: ὡς ὀλίγον ἀποδεῖν τῶν ἀχθοφορούντων ζῴων, ἤτοι ὀρέων, τὸν πεζὸν ἄνδρα. τόσον δὲ ἀποδεῖν τοῦ τὴν πεπορισμένην ἤδη αὐτῷ καὶ ἀπὸ γένους προσήκουσαν βασιλείαν ἀφελέσθαι. Josephus, Jewish War 3.95
Ἀπολαβόντες: ἐναποκλείσαντες. οἱ δὲ τὴν στρατιὰν αὐλῶσι στενοῖς καὶ δυσεμβόλοις ἀπολαβόντες ἐς διαλλαγὰς ἐλθεῖν αἰσχρὰς ἠνάγκασαν. καὶ Ἰώσηπος: διώξαντες ἀπολαμβάνουσι τοὺς πολεμίους ἐν κοίλῳ χωρίῳ καὶ πάντας κτείνουσι. καὶ αὖθις: τὸ γὰρ χωρίον ἀμφοτέροις ἤρεσε, τῷ μὲν ὅτι ἀπολαβόντες ἐς αὐτὸ τοὺς Ῥωμαίους ὑποσπόνδους ἀφῆκαν, πρὸς ἔνδειξιν ὧν εὐεργέτηντο. Adler queried this attribution, but C. Theodoridis in his Photius edition (vol.II p.LXXXVIII) identifies the passage in question as an approximation of Antiquities of the Jews 5.227.
Ἀποσκευαζόμενος: ἀποβαλλόμενος, ἀπορριπτῶν, ἀπογυμνῶν. ὁ δὲ γράφει παντὶ τρόπῳ τὸν Ἀλκιβιάδην ἀποσκευάσασθαι. καὶ Ἀποσκευαζόμενοι, ἀποτιθέμενοι βάρος καὶ ἀποβάλλοντες. ἐκ μεταφορᾶς τῶν διὰ τὴν ζάλην τῆς θαλάσσης ναυτῶν τὰ σκεύη νηὸς ἀπορριπτούντων. καὶ αὖθις: ἀποσκευάζονταί τε τὸν κίνδυνον, εἶναι Ῥωμαῖοι βεβαιωσάμενοι. The source of the Suda's ἀποσκευαζόμενοι here is uncertain, but perhaps Josephus, Jewish War 1.196.
Ἀποστυγοῦντες: μισοῦντες. Ἰώσηπος: Ἀντίοχος ἀποστυγήσας. Φαβρίκιος ἡγεμὼν καθίσταται τοῦ πρὸς τὸν Πύρρον πολέμου. ἀντικαθεζομένων γὰρ ἀλλήλοις τῶν στρατοπέδων, νύκτωρ φυλάξας τις ὡς τὸν Φαβρίκιον ἀφικνεῖται δηλητηρίῳ φαρμάκῳ ἀνελεῖν τὸν Πύρρον ὑφιστάμενος, ἤν τις δοθείη πρὸς αὐτοῦ χρημάτων ὠφέλεια. ὃν ὁ Φαβρίκιος ἀποστυγήσας τῆς ἐπιχειρήσεως ἀποπέμπει τῷ Πύρρῳ δέσμιον. ἀγασθεὶς δὴ τὸ πραχθὲν ὁ Πύρρος ἀναβοῆσαι λέγεται: οὗτός ἐστι καὶ οὐκ ἄλλος Φαβρίκιος, ὃν δυσχερέστερον ἄν τις παρατρέψοι τῆς οἰκείας ἀρετῆς ἢ τῆς συνήθους πορείας τὸν ἥλιον. No such phrase is attested in Josephus (or indeed anywhere else).
Ἀργὸν ἔτος: κατὰ ἑπταετίαν ἤγετο παρὰ Ἰουδαίοις ὁμοίως ταῖς ἑβδομάσιν ἡμέραις. καὶ Ἀργός, ἐπὶ θηλυκοῦ. Ἀριστοφάνης Νεφέλαις: οὐ μὴν ἐρῶ γ' ὡς ἀργὸς ἦν, ἀλλ' ἐσπάθα. From Josephus, Jewish War 1.60
Ἀρετή: Ἀνδοκίδης καὶ Θουκυδίδης ἀντὶ τοῦ εὐδοξία. ὅτι ἀποβλητὴ ἡ ἀρετὴ διὰ μέθην ἢ μελαγχολίαν, ἀναπόβλητος δὲ διὰ βεβαίαν κατάληψιν: καὶ αὐτάρκη δὲ αὐτήν φασιν εἶναι. οἱ δὲ οὐκ αὐτάρκη εἶναι, ἀλλὰ χρεία ἐστὶν ἰσχύος καὶ ὑγείας καὶ χορηγίας. ὅτι ἡ ἀρετὴ τῶν ἀντικειμένων ἐστίν: ἀντικείμενα δέ εἰσιν, ὅσα τῇ ἀναιρέσει τῶν ἐναντίων συνίσταται: τυφλότης, ὄψις, κατάφασις, ἀπόφασις καὶ τὰ ὅμοια. ζήτει ἐν τῷ ὑπερήφανος. ὅτι ἀρετῆς κτῆμα, ὅταν ἀπίδοι τις εἰς τὴν Ῥωμαίων εὐταξίαν, ἐπιγνώσεται εἶναι ἀρετῆς κτῆμα, οὐ τύχης δῶρον. This addendum cites (very summarily) a passage of Josephus (Jewish War 3.71-72), where the author points out that if one pays attention to the organization, discipline or "good order" of the Roman army, it will be recognized that the Roman power is like a prize or acquisition of virtue, not like a gift of fortune.
Ἀσωχαῖος: ὄνομα κύριον. καὶ θηλυκὸν Ἀσωχή, ὄνομα πόλεως. καὶ Ἀσωχίς, ὄνομα κύριον. καὶ Ἄσωχιν, ὄνομα πόλεως, αἰτιατικῇ. A king of Egypt, mentioned in Josephus, Jewish War 6.436, for his capture of Jerusalem.
Ἀφετηρία: ἀρχὴ, θύρα τοῦ ἱπποδρομίου. Ἀφετήρια δὲ ὄργανα, τὰ πολιορκητικά. τὰ δὲ ἀφετήρια ὄργανα διί̈στησιν ἐπὶ τοῦ τείχους. Quotation not identified by Adler but identifiable via the TLG as Josephus, Jewish War 5.267. See on this Theodoridis' Photius edition, vol.II p.LXXXIII.

Again anyone who thinks that Josephus's Greek vocabulary could have drawn this extensively from so many obscure words (I have ignored most of these words because I am only interested in material from Jewish Wars where mostly obscure names are cited) needs to question their judgement.

[Ben C. Smith]

Again anyone who thinks that Josephus's Greek vocabulary could have drawn this extensively from so many obscure words ... needs to question their judgement.

Has anyone on this thread argued that?

[DCHindley]

It's odd that in a Chronicle Josephus suddenly writes in the first person....

Why do you keep calling it a Chronicle? Did some author call it that?

Hmmm,

I think that a chronicle is a sub type of history. These terms were also loosely applied in antiquity, IIRC. They (the technical terms related to forms of historical information), as understood today, seem to resist really tight classification.

My feeble stab at it would go like this.

"History" (accounts of past events) is expressed in the forms of:
*Annals ... simple lists of events by year, no attempt to add narratives
*Chronicles ... annotated annals, such as diaries, so any narratives added are short but provide context.
*Narratives:
- folk stories & rumors (oral narrative)
- formal (usually written) attempts to explain (give form to) the bare facts of annals, chronicles, other sources such as gov't tax and/or fiscal archives, and "common knowledge" about events (folk/rumors).

The narrative ingredient weaves a mess of sources into a story comprehensible to the intended readers/listeners.

DCH

[Secret Alias]

Yes Ben but those who said that about Clement's "mistake" weren't aware of the Suda's testimony regarding a book by Josephus entitled the hupomnemata with strong Christian interests. I think that's decisive. Similarly those who have commented on Origen and Eusebius haven't seen this progression. That's the problem with the micromanaging of details in humanities scholarship you miss the big picture.

[Ben C. Smith]

Ben, there are editions of Antiquities that had no Life immediately following them.

Do you mean extant? Which manuscripts?

The story which begins Life if left in its original place betrays the entire book is a fiction written by someone other than Josephus (the Suda makes that explicit too). That's why Life was carved out as an appendix later - after Eusebius. Eusebius's reference too works if we assume that book 20 ended the way it does now but Life was 'folded in' just before it.

But then what becomes of your "the end must be the very end" argument?

[DCHindley]

Again anyone who thinks that Josephus's Greek vocabulary could have drawn this extensively from so many obscure words ... needs to question their judgement.

Has anyone on this thread argued that?

Ben,

He is on a roll ...

DCH

[Secret Alias]

I think this research also has a place in the debate over the Testamonium Flavianum as I think it was original to the composition (and always have) only that the original composition was Clement's 147 CE text

[Secret Alias]

In all fairness I am rarely addressing people at the forum

[Secret Alias]

Do you mean extant? Which manuscripts?

You know I am doing this rapid fire but I have come across this statement in the literature on Antiquities - viz there are manuscripts with no Life