JOSEPHUS' ANTIQUITIES (Books XVI-XX) 4 Questions

Are you learning Koine Greek, the Greek of the New Testament and most other post-classical Greek texts? Whatever your level, use this forum to discuss all things Koine, Biblical or otherwise, including grammar, textbook talk, difficult passages, and more.
Post Reply
User avatar
halibot
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat May 18, 2019 6:32 pm

JOSEPHUS' ANTIQUITIES (Books XVI-XX) 4 Questions

Post by halibot » Mon May 20, 2019 1:23 pm

The Greek text of Josephus' Antiquities can be found here: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... ection%3D1

(Question 1) Did the Eunuchs have intimate relations or criminal conversation with King Herod's son Alexander in Antiquities, Book XVI, Chp. 8?
The passage says in Greek:
καί τις ἀγγέλλει τῷ βασιλεῖ διαφθαρῆναι τούτους ὑπὸ Ἀλεξάνδρου τοῦ παιδὸς ἐπὶ πολλοῖς χρήμασιν. ἀνακρίναντι δὲ περὶ μὲν τῆς γεγενημένης πρὸς αὐτὸν κοινωνίας καὶ μίξεως ὡμολόγουν, ἄλλο δὲ οὐδὲν δυσχερὲς εἰς τὸν πατέρα συνειδέναι. [232] βασανιζόμενοι δὲ μᾶλλον κἀν ταῖς ἀνάγκαις ὄντες ἐπιτεινόντων ἀεὶ τῶν ὑπηρετῶν καὶ χαριζομένων τῷ Ἀντιπάτρῳ τὸ τοιοῦτον, ἔλεγον ὡς εἴη δυσμένεια πρὸς τὸν πατέρα καὶ μῖσος ἔμφυτον Ἀλεξάνδρῳ.
Whiston's 18th century translation says: "there was one told the king that these eunuchs were corrupted by Alexander the king's son with great sums of money. And when they were asked whether Alexander had had criminal conversation with them, they confessed it, but said they knew of no further mischief of his against his father".
In Loeb's 1920 translation, the Eunuchs confess to "intimate relations" with Alexander: "When Herod asked whether they had had intimate relations with Alexander, they confessed to this but said that they were not aware of any other offence on his part against his father."
In her book Jewish Slavery in Antiquity, Catherine Hezser takes this quote from Loeb's edition to refer to sexual relations.

And "intimate relations" apparently can mean a sexual relationship, because in Loeb's edition, because in the story of Ida getting Munda to have a relationship with Paulina (Ant. VIII.66-70), Loeb's translation uses this term:
She went to him, used argument to rouse him, and bu plausibly undertaking to find a way, held out hope that he might succeed in enjoying intimate relations with Paulina.
However, perhaps there could be be ambiguity in the Greek terms. By comparison, the word "intercourse" in English can mean either sex or conversation.

(Question 2) Did Josephus say that God appeared to the Pharisees or that He inspired them?
Whiston's translation says that Pheroras' wife paid a fine that was laid on the pharisees, and in return they gave her a favorable prophecy with divine inspiration:
In order to requite which kindness of hers, since they were believed to have the foreknowledge of things to come by Divine inspiration, they foretold how God had decreed that Herod's government should cease, and his posterity should be deprived of it; but that the kingdom should come to her and Pheroras, and to their children.
Loeb's translation however says: "In return for her friendliness they foretold - for they were believed to have foreknowledge of things through God's appearances to them - that by God's decree Herod's throne would be taken from him...."
I think that this is the sentence in the Greek: "οἱ δὲ ἀμειβόμενοι τὴν εὔνοιαν αὐτῆς, πρόγνωσιν δὲ ἐπεπίστευντο ἐπιφοιτήσει τοῦ θεοῦ, προύλεγον, ὡς Ἡρώδῃ μὲν καταπαύσεως ἀρχῆς ὑπὸ θεοῦ ἐψηφισμένης αὐτῷ τε καὶ γένει τῷ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ, τῆς δὲ βασιλείας εἴς τε ἐκείνην περιηξούσης καὶ Φερώραν παῖδάς τε οἳ εἶεν αὐτοῖς. "
If God was still making appearances to the pharisees in Herod's time, it makes me wonder what those appearances or theophanies were like.

(Question 3) Can you make sense of the ending of the Greek sentence below?
Josephus writes about Antipater's detention: "And after putting him in chains, Herod sent out a letter about him to Caesar in Rome and also sent some men to inform him by word of mouth about the villainy of Antipater." According to the translator Ralph Marcus, the Greek here has an additional, unintelligble part, underlined and beginning with "kai Koponiou" below:
δήσας δὲ αὐτὸν εἰς Ῥώμην ὡς Καίσαρα ἐκπέμπει γράμματα περὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ τοὺς ἀπὸ γλώσσης διδάξοντας τὸν Καίσαρα τὴν κακίαν τοῦ Ἀντιπάτρου καὶ Κωπωνίου γνώμη τὴν Καίσαρος.

(Question 4) What does the Greek name "Damneion" mean? I guess that the name means "The Condemned". What 1st century Jew would be named "The Condemned", especially with a name in Greek, rather than in Aramaic or Hebrew?
Here is how Josephus tells the story of James' killing, leading to the appointment of Jesus Ben Damneus as High Priest:
...this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, (23) who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. (24) Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.
The figure of the high priest Jesus son of Damnaeus, who replaced Ananus, is a mystery for me.
I don't know if this was a fictional character, but he shows up a few places later in real circumstances. For example, in the next chapter, Josephus writes: "the high priest, Ananias... increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money: he therefore cultivated the friendship of Albinus, and of the high priest [Jesus], by making them presents".
Josephus talks about Jesus ben Damnaeus again here:
And now Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, became the successor of Jesus, the son of Damneus, in the high priesthood, which the king [Agrippa] had taken from the other; on which account a sedition arose between the high priests, with regard to one another; for they got together bodies of the boldest sort of the people, and frequently came, from reproaches, to throwing of stones at each other. But Ananias was too hard for the rest, by his riches, which enabled him to gain those that were most ready to receive.

User avatar
BrianB
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2019 2:14 pm

Re: JOSEPHUS' ANTIQUITIES (Books XVI-XX) 4 Questions

Post by BrianB » Mon May 20, 2019 6:15 pm

Tentative answers to two of your four questions.

(1) In Whiston’s eighteenth-century English, “criminal conversation” is a euphemism equivalent to “illicit intercourse”. So, yes, Herod’s son was paying for gay sex.

(4) Greek names were not unusual in Judea at that time. The Twelve Apostles included an Andrew and a Philip, and one of Herod the Great’s high priests was called Boethus. Δαμναιος is not, I think, connected with Latin damno but with the verb δαμάζω, which is usually translated as something like “overpower”, “subdue”, “break”, or “crush”. In the NT it occurs, for example, in the Gadarene Swine passage (Mark 5:4):

4 διὰ τὸ αὐτὸν πολλάκις πέδαις καὶ ἁλύσεσιν δεδέσθαι καὶ διεσπάσθαι ὑπ' αὐτοῦ τὰς ἁλύσεις καὶ τὰς πέδας συντετρῖφθαι, καὶ οὐδεὶς ἴσχυεν αὐτὸν δαμάσαι,

Knox translates this verse as “He had been bound with fetters and chains often before, but had torn the chains apart and broken the fetters, and nobody had the strength to control him,” where his choice of “control” for δαμάζειν suggests he may be indulging his British taste for understatement.
http://newadvent.com/bible/mar005.htm

User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
Posts: 3263
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: JOSEPHUS' ANTIQUITIES (Books XVI-XX) 4 Questions

Post by jeidsath » Mon May 20, 2019 6:45 pm

BrianB wrote:
Mon May 20, 2019 6:15 pm
Tentative answers to two of your four questions.

(1) In Whiston’s eighteenth-century English, “criminal conversation” is a euphemism equivalent to “illicit intercourse”. So, yes, Herod’s son was paying for gay sex.
Whiston's translation of this or what Whiston meant hardly matters. This was written in Greek, and the the Greek says "κοινωνίας καὶ μίξεως." To me, this is suggestive, but not explicit, and in a non-sexual context (ie., speaking about conspiracies) may not have a sexual meaning.
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

User avatar
seneca2008
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 794
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:48 pm
Location: Londinium

Re: JOSEPHUS' ANTIQUITIES (Books XVI-XX) 4 Questions

Post by seneca2008 » Mon May 20, 2019 11:46 pm

I think the context here makes it clear that sexual relations are being described. Line 230 is “ἦσαν εὐνοῦχοι τῷ βασιλεῖ διὰ κάλλος οὐ μετρίως ἐσπουδασμένοι.” The king had eunuchs of whom he was immoderately fond on account of their beauty.

Whether the sexual relations are a metaphor for a political conspiracy is an interesting question and seems entirely credible. At a later date certainly accusations of immorality were frequent in Rome as a means of political aggression. See Catherine Edwards “The Politics of Immorality in Ancient Rome” 1993.

Whether an accusation that Alexander’s sexual relations with Eunuchs could be described as “gay sex” seems to me wrongheaded. I wonder in what Sexual category BrianB would put the Eunuchs. If “gay” is to mean sexual attraction for the same sex in what way is the unsexed eunuch the same sex as the King’s son.

User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
Posts: 3263
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: JOSEPHUS' ANTIQUITIES (Books XVI-XX) 4 Questions

Post by jeidsath » Tue May 21, 2019 12:24 am

If that's the context, then it would be extremely suggestive, yes.
Whether an accusation that Alexander’s sexual relations with Eunuchs could be described as “gay sex” seems to me wrongheaded. I wonder in what Sexual category BrianB would put the Eunuchs. If “gay” is to mean sexual attraction for the same sex in what way is the unsexed eunuch the same sex as the King’s son.
Burton's notes to his translation of the 1001 Nights have some extended discussions on the sexual capabilities of eunuchs, which apparently varied depending on the extent of the mutilation. This, however, is the first time that I've ever heard someone suggest that crude mechanical mutilation could affect someone's gender. Most people have some experience with neutered or castrated animals, or have at least eaten them, but I've never heard of them talking about steers or castrated dogs as genderless. The animals tend to be behaviorally different, but still keep a good deal of their sexual characteristics. Perhaps there is some religious literature (Skoptsy, Heaven's Gate, etc.?) that refers to castrates as genderless.
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

User avatar
seneca2008
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 794
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:48 pm
Location: Londinium

Re: JOSEPHUS' ANTIQUITIES (Books XVI-XX) 4 Questions

Post by seneca2008 » Tue May 21, 2019 10:37 am

This, however, is the first time that I've ever heard someone suggest that crude mechanical mutilation could affect someone's gender
I was simply trying to introduce a more nuanced discussion. Those who undergo gender reassignment are subject to a “mechanical” process. Eunuchs are in a kind of halfway house. I think that current academic discussions of gender seem to regard sex as not coterminous with Gender although there are people who wish to change their sex organs to line up with their view of their Gender.

To make the assumption that a eunuch, who by force has had his sexual organs altered or removed, suddenly also changes his sexual orientation seems to me to be eliding several arguments. What I objected to in BrianB’s post was the term “gay sex”. If a man rapes another man it is rape not ”gay sex”. If a man pays another man for sex it is prostitution. We know nothing of the sexual feelings of the Eunuchs in this passage. Clearly though they were little more than objects to their powerful masters.

The binary distinctions man/woman gay/straight don’t seem very helpful and I was just urging some caution in using them.

User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
Posts: 3263
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: JOSEPHUS' ANTIQUITIES (Books XVI-XX) 4 Questions

Post by jeidsath » Tue May 21, 2019 11:57 am

It doesn't feel right lumping gender reassignment surgery in with the ancient practice of (usually child) castration. People with gender dysphoria deserve enormous sympathy, having a mental condition that very frequently leads to disastrous outcomes (50% or higher risk of suicide or violence against others). There are perhaps various arguments about the ultimate effectiveness of the hormone treatments and plastic surgeries used as a treatment method for a minority of these individuals, but is it right to include such treatment strategies in the same breath as the gross genital mutilation practiced by the ancients?
We know nothing of the sexual feelings of the Eunuchs in this passage. Clearly though they were little more than objects to their powerful masters.
We know a few things about eunuch politics from ancient (and later) accounts, and "little more than objects to their powerful masters" is not a description that I have seen anywhere. Besides, in this passage, "κοινωνίας καὶ μίξεως" would preclude it. And "ἐπὶ πολλοῖς χρήμασιν".
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

User avatar
seneca2008
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 794
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:48 pm
Location: Londinium

Re: JOSEPHUS' ANTIQUITIES (Books XVI-XX) 4 Questions

Post by seneca2008 » Thu May 30, 2019 1:40 pm

It doesn't feel right lumping gender reassignment surgery in with the ancient practice of (usually child) castration.
I agree and I didn't. I was simply offering and example (a fairly obvious one) where "crude mechanical mutilation could affect someone's gender". There are examples in ancient literature where castration was an attempt to reassign gender, for example Nero's castration of Sporus prior to a "marriage".
We know a few things about eunuch politics from ancient (and later) accounts, and "little more than objects to their powerful masters" is not a description that I have seen anywhere. Besides, in this passage, "κοινωνίας καὶ μίξεως" would preclude it. And "ἐπὶ πολλοῖς χρήμασιν".
I was simply making an observation on this passage and not making generalisations about Eunuchs. But as slaves they were in fact objects as far as their masters were concerned. I do not understand how "κοινωνίας καὶ μίξεως" or "ἐπὶ πολλοῖς χρήμασιν" precludes them being objects. They were paid for sex.

User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
Posts: 3263
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: JOSEPHUS' ANTIQUITIES (Books XVI-XX) 4 Questions

Post by jeidsath » Sat Jun 01, 2019 11:45 pm

There are examples in ancient literature where castration was an attempt to reassign gender, for example Nero's castration of Sporus prior to a "marriage".
Puerum Sporum exsectis testibus etiam in muliebrem naturam transfigurare conatus cum dote et flammeo per sollemnia nuptiarum celeberrimo officio deductum ad se pro uxore habuit
Whether this was a true or untrue event, Suetonius only wrote it down to persuade us that Nero was hopelessly insane. Citing it as an example of anybody's opinion in antiquity is not convincing.
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

User avatar
seneca2008
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 794
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:48 pm
Location: Londinium

Re: JOSEPHUS' ANTIQUITIES (Books XVI-XX) 4 Questions

Post by seneca2008 » Sun Jun 02, 2019 4:39 pm

Whether this was a true or untrue event
It is precisely for this reason I wrote “There are examples in ancient literature”. Whether it happened or not is beside the point! The idea of using castration to change gender exists whether Nero did it or not.

User avatar
halibot
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat May 18, 2019 6:32 pm

Re: JOSEPHUS' ANTIQUITIES (Books XVI-XX) 4 Questions

Post by halibot » Sat Oct 26, 2019 6:15 am

For Question 1, I think that the answer is that it must mean sexual relations. It says "And when they were asked whether Alexander had had criminal conversation with them, they confessed it, but said they knew of no further mischief of his against his father".
Having sexual relations could count as "mischief" against his father, the eunuchs' master. What would the "criminal conversation" or "illicit relations" be, other than sexual relations? The only thing that comes to mind is conspiring against their father criminally to overthrow him, but that possibility seems ruled out by the way that the eunuchs portray the son in the underlined part as generally innocent of danger to their father.

In some earlier follow up messages, I think that some people were skeptical that the passage could mean sexual relations because eunuchs were considered castrated. However, after researching the issue, it turns out that "eunuchs" primarily referred to chamberlains at court, and were not necessarily castrated. For example, Josephus in the Antiqiuities describes Pharaoh's eunuch Potiphar as having a wife and children.

Brian B made a good point about the meaning of "Criminal Conversation" in Whiston's time.
Wikipedia says:
At common law, criminal conversation, often abbreviated as crim. con., is a tort arising from adultery. "Conversation" is an old euphemism for sexual intercourse that is obsolete except as part of this term.[1]

It is similar to breach of promise, a tort involving a broken engagement against the betrothed, and alienation of affections, a tort action brought by a spouse against a third party, who interfered with the marriage relationship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_conversation
Last edited by halibot on Sat Oct 26, 2019 7:15 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
halibot
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat May 18, 2019 6:32 pm

Re: JOSEPHUS' ANTIQUITIES (Books XVI-XX) 4 Questions

Post by halibot » Sat Oct 26, 2019 7:07 am

For Question 2, my impression is that the keyword is ἐπιφοιτήσει and that it means that the pharisees had comings, manifestations, visitations, appearances or arrivals of God to them that gave them foreknowledge.

I find it curious though because it sounds as if Josephus could be implying that the appearances were still continuing in the time of the pharisees, and that the appearances supposedly came to the pharisees. Wikipedia says that the pharisees' sect started after 152 BC. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisees ... _Pharisees)

User avatar
halibot
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat May 18, 2019 6:32 pm

Re: JOSEPHUS' ANTIQUITIES (Books XVI-XX) 4 Questions

Post by halibot » Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:46 pm

For Question 3 (Can you make sense of the ending of the Greek sentence from Book XVII, Chapter V.7 below?), the question is the meaning of the underlined part. Josephus writes about Antipater's detention:
δήσας δὲ αὐτὸν εἰς Ῥώμην ὡς Καίσαρα ἐκπέμπει γράμματα περὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ τοὺς ἀπὸ γλώσσης διδάξοντας τὸν Καίσαρα τὴν κακίαν τοῦ Ἀντιπάτρου καὶ Κωπωνίου γνώμη τὴν Καίσαρος.

In Loeb's edition, Ralph Marcus translates it as:
"And after putting him in chains, Herod sent out a letter about him to Caesar in Rome and also sent some men to inform him by word of mouth about the villainy of Antipater."
According to Marcus, the underlined Greek text is unintelligble and comes after the sentence above. Marcus notes about this addition: "codd.: om. PE Lat. : secl. edd."

Whiston also translates the sentence without the final part:
"But when Herod had bound his son, he sent letters to Rome, to Cesar about him: and such messengers withal as should, by word of mouth, inform Cesar of Antipater’s wickedness."
Dovgyalo's Russian translation also leaves out the ending part about Coponius.

Κωπωνίου refers to Coponius. Earlier in Book XIV, Chapter 8, Josephus refers to Lucius Coponius in the context of a decree that the Roman Senate made favoring the Jews, which followed a speech by Antipater and Caesar giving Antipater the procuratorship over Judea:
The decree of the senate was this that follows: (13) "Lucius Valerius, the son of Lucius the praetor, referred this to the senate, upon the Ides of December, in the temple of Concord. There were present at the writing of this decree Lucius Coponius, the son of Lucius of the Colline tribe, and Papirius of the Quirine tribe, concerning the affairs which Alexander, the son of Jason, and Numenius, the son of Antiochus, and Alexander, the son of Dositheus, ambassadors of the Jews, good and worthy men, proposed, who came to renew that league of goodwill and friendship with the Romans which was in being before.
Later, in Book XVIII, Chapters 1 and 2, Josephus describes Coponius being given supreme power over the Jews when Cyrenius was sent to be their procurator:
"Coponius also, a man of the equestrian order, was sent together with him (Cyrenius), to have the supreme power over the Jews. .... As Coponius, who we told you was sent along with Cyrenius, was exercising his office of procurator, and governing Judea, the following accidents happened."
Wikipedia's article on Coponius says:
Coponius was the first governor (Prefect[1]) of Judaea province, from 6–9 AD.

He was, like the Prefects who succeeded him, of knightly rank, and "had the power of life and death".[2] During his administration occurred the revolt of Judas the Galilean,[3] the cause of which was not so much the personality of Coponius as the introduction of Roman soldiers.
γνώμη is a Greek noun meaning judgment, opinion, decision. (https://biblehub.com/greek/1106.htm)

τὴν is the Greek article "the".

Καίσαρος means Caesar.

So is Josephus saying that Herod sent messengers to inform Caesar of "the wickedness of Antipater and Coponius of the judgment of Caesar"?

That would make sense conceptually. The main problem historically with that construction is that Coponius is commonly considered to have been made procurator of Judea after Herod's death, in 6 AD. John Rhoads gets into this issue in his essay where he suggests that Josephus was not writing in a precise clear chronological way:
https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs ... Rhoads.pdf
So conceivably Coponius could have been made procurator earlier, even during Herod's life.

User avatar
halibot
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat May 18, 2019 6:32 pm

Re: JOSEPHUS' ANTIQUITIES (Books XVI-XX) 4 Questions

Post by halibot » Sat Oct 26, 2019 9:55 pm

BrianB wrote:
Mon May 20, 2019 6:15 pm
(4) Greek names were not unusual in Judea at that time. The Twelve Apostles included an Andrew and a Philip, and one of Herod the Great’s high priests was called Boethus. Δαμναιος is not, I think, connected with Latin damno but with the verb δαμάζω, which is usually translated as something like “overpower”, “subdue”, “break”, or “crush”. In the NT it occurs, for example, in the Gadarene Swine passage (Mark 5:4):

4 διὰ τὸ αὐτὸν πολλάκις πέδαις καὶ ἁλύσεσιν δεδέσθαι καὶ διεσπάσθαι ὑπ' αὐτοῦ τὰς ἁλύσεις καὶ τὰς πέδας συντετρῖφθαι, καὶ οὐδεὶς ἴσχυεν αὐτὸν δαμάσαι,
Brian B,

It sounds like you are saying that there is no direct explicit Greek meaning for "Damnaios".
I can see that Damnaios has a resemblance to the Greek "Damaso", but doesn't the letter "n" in Damnaios suggest that they are significantly different?
One thing that suggested the Latin "Damno" to me is that Romans had a practice of considering a person like Caligula who became "non grata" to have a name that was "Damnatio".
So Josephus I think could have been exchanging the priest's patronymic for this kind of name, perhaps as a pun or as literary license.
Outside of the Antiquities, I think that "Δαμναιος " is never recorded in Greek as a real name. At least, I can't find it and on the "Early Christian Writings" Forum, someone else told me it isn't elsewhere used like one.

But in Latin, Damnaio is a real term referring to "damnaio memoriae" as I mentioned earlier.

In Book XX, Josephus records that Ananus was removed from the priesthood by the Romans for killing James. Conceivably Jesus ben Damnaios was actually the son of the "non grata" disgraced and removed priest "Ananus".

But you made a good point that some Jews like Andrew had Greek names.

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3303
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: JOSEPHUS' ANTIQUITIES (Books XVI-XX) 4 Questions

Post by mwh » Sat Oct 26, 2019 11:26 pm

Sorry, but this is crazy talk. Whatever the name actually was (I see there’s much manuscript variation), it’s far more likely to be related to δαμάζω or more precisely δαμνάω/δάμνημι, which mean the same thing. And even so, it’s unlikely to have functioned as a redende Name, a “speaking name"; and Latin damno and damnatio memoriae (not damnaio) can’t possibly be relevant. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

User avatar
halibot
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat May 18, 2019 6:32 pm

Re: JOSEPHUS' ANTIQUITIES (Books XVI-XX) 4 Questions

Post by halibot » Sat Oct 26, 2019 11:42 pm

That is a well thought out reply, MWH. What do you think of Questions 2-3?

I think that the statement in Question 3 helps confirm the theory that Coponius and Quirinus were ruling Judea already in Herod's reign.

User avatar
halibot
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat May 18, 2019 6:32 pm

Re: JOSEPHUS' ANTIQUITIES (Books XVI-XX) 4 Questions

Post by halibot » Tue Oct 29, 2019 10:40 pm

Let me make Question 4 simpler:
If Damneion is a variation of Damni-, in Greek "to subdue", then would it mean Subduer or Subdued?

User avatar
halibot
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat May 18, 2019 6:32 pm

Re: JOSEPHUS' ANTIQUITIES (Books XVI-XX) 4 Questions

Post by halibot » Wed Oct 30, 2019 10:11 pm

For Question 2:
ἐπιφοιτήσεϊ , ἐπιφοίτησις
a coming upon
fem dat sg (epic)
https://morphological_el.enacademic.com/791165/%E1%BC%90%CF%80%CE%B9%CF%86%CE%BF%CE%B9%CF%84%E1%BD%B5%CF%83%CE%B5%CE%B9

In The Appropriation of Divine Life in Cyril of Alexandria, Daniel A. Keating writes:
Cyril maintains that Jesus, in contrast to the kings and priests anointed symbolically of old, 'was anointed by the actual visitation of the Spirit' (αὐτη τη του πνεύματος ἐπιφοιτήσει ἐχρίσθη) at the Jordan.

User avatar
halibot
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat May 18, 2019 6:32 pm

Re: JOSEPHUS' ANTIQUITIES (Books XVI-XX) 4 Questions

Post by halibot » Mon Nov 04, 2019 9:30 pm

For Question 3, do you think that the last part could mean "to Caesar"? Isn't Καίσαρος genitive, making this "Coponius'
(possessive tense) opinion of Caesar (genitive case)"?

...λώσσης διδάξοντας τὸν Καίσαρα τὴν κακίαν τοῦ Ἀντιπάτρου καὶ Κωπωνίου γνώμη τὴν Καίσαρος.

Or do you think that this could somehow be dative (to Caesar) like in Mark 12:17, αὐτοῖς Τὰ Καίσαρος ἀπόδοτε Καίσαρι (Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's)

User avatar
Barry Hofstetter
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1091
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:22 pm

Re: JOSEPHUS' ANTIQUITIES (Books XVI-XX) 4 Questions

Post by Barry Hofstetter » Mon Nov 04, 2019 10:56 pm

halibot wrote:
Mon Nov 04, 2019 9:30 pm
For Question 3, do you think that the last part could mean "to Caesar"? Isn't Καίσαρος genitive, making this "Coponius'
(possessive tense) opinion of Caesar (genitive case)"?

...λώσσης διδάξοντας τὸν Καίσαρα τὴν κακίαν τοῦ Ἀντιπάτρου καὶ Κωπωνίου γνώμη τὴν Καίσαρος.

Or do you think that this could somehow be dative (to Caesar) like in Mark 12:17, αὐτοῖς Τὰ Καίσαρος ἀπόδοτε Καίσαρι (Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's)
1. There is no such thing as a "possessive tense."

2. How can it be dative when the form is genitive?

3. The text is obviously corrupt and is best ignored here (as suggested above).
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
The Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.

User avatar
halibot
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat May 18, 2019 6:32 pm

Re: JOSEPHUS' ANTIQUITIES (Books XVI-XX) 4 Questions

Post by halibot » Mon Nov 04, 2019 11:39 pm

Barry Hofstetter wrote:
Mon Nov 04, 2019 10:56 pm
1. There is no such thing as a "possessive tense."

2. How can it be dative when the form is genitive?

3. The text is obviously corrupt and is best ignored here (as suggested above).
To address what you said (And your discussion us helpful):
1. Could a genitive noun take possession of a noun after it, as in "of Coponius opinion" becoming "Coponius' opinion"?

2. I was thinking of Mark 12:17, αὐτοῖς Τὰ Καίσαρος ἀπόδοτε Καίσαρι (Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's)

3. ...λώσσης διδάξοντας τὸν Καίσαρα τὴν κακίαν τοῦ Ἀντιπάτρου καὶ Κωπωνίου γνώμη τὴν Καίσαρος.
Is this literally:
They told Caesar "about the villainy of Antipater and of Coponius judgment of Caesar."?

Options are:
A) They told Caesar "about the villainy of Antipater and Coponius' opinion of Caesar." or "the opinion of Coponius of Caesar."
But you are saying that this doesn't work because there is no possessive, and that Κωπωνίου γνώμη cannot mean the opinion of Coponius.

B)They told Caesar "about the villainy of Antipater and (they told) Coponius the opinion of Caesar."
But I think this can't work because Κωπωνίου is genitive, and if it meant that they told Coponius, then it would be dative, correct?

C) They told Caesar "about the villainy of Antipater and (the villainy) of Coponius [for the] judgment of Caesar." But in that case, "judgment" wouldn't be in the nominative like the text has it, γνώμη, right?

The context is that I think Caesar had made Antipater procurator, but now Caesar was either deciding to make Coponius the new procurator of Judea, or else was making a decision about Antipater that the procurator Coponius could be informed about. Or Herod could be informing Caesar that Coponius was engaging in villainy like Antipater was.

Hylander
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1816
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: JOSEPHUS' ANTIQUITIES (Books XVI-XX) 4 Questions

Post by Hylander » Thu Nov 07, 2019 2:44 am

Question 1. κοινωνίας καὶ μίξεως -- definitely sexual. μείγνυμι and its derivatives, when used of people, connote sex from Homer on. Sex is also a meaning of κοινωνία, and here it's unmistakable, especially when joined with μίξις. See LSJ.

Question 2. This is like other oracles in the ancient Mediterranean world. Someone submitted a question and paid money, and the priests would go into their chamber and concoct a response claiming divine inspiration.

Question 3. It's nonsense.

Question 4. I have no idea.

User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
Posts: 3263
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: JOSEPHUS' ANTIQUITIES (Books XVI-XX) 4 Questions

Post by jeidsath » Thu Nov 07, 2019 3:21 am

Maybe something like this:

διδάξοντας τὸν Καίσαρα τὴν κακίαν τοῦ Ἀντιπάτρου καὶ [πευσομένους] Κωπωνίου [τὴν] γνώμη[ν] τὴν Καίσαρος

Or

διδάξοντας τὸν Καίσαρα τὴν κακίαν τοῦ Ἀντιπάτρου καὶ [πευσομένους τὴν] γνώμη[ν] τὴν Καίσαρος

The second would be neat if there were an obvious participle (probably not πευσομένους τὴν) that Κωπωνίου could have been derived from.
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

Post Reply