[B-Greek] Josephus Jewish War

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Sun Jul 13 07:58:37 EDT 2003


At 12:45 AM -0400 7/13/03, Annie Luk wrote:
>In William Whiston edition, Josephus Jewish War 2.247 is translated as
>follows:
>"After this Caesar sent Felix, the brother of Pallas, to be procurator of
>Galilee, and Samaria, and Perea,".
>The translation is slightly different in Loeb edition as follows:
>"After this Caesar sent Felix, the brother of Pallas, out as procurator of
>Judea, Samaria, Galilee, and Perea".
>
>The major difference is that Judea was omitted in the William Whiston
>edition but included in the Loeb edition.
>
>The Greek text is as follows:
>META TAUTA IOUDAIAS MEN EPITROPON FHLIKA PALLANTOS ADELFON EKPEMPEI THS TE
>SAMAREIAS KAI GALILAIAS KAI PERAIAS, EK DE THS CALKIDOS AGRIPPAN...

[I've altered your transliteration to conform to our standard BG scheme
which has F for Phi, Q for Theta, N for Nu (you've used both N and V); you
might want to check the BG Faq for a full account of the transliteration
scheme (http://ibiblio.org/bgreek/faq.txt); a handy diagram of matching
plain-text Ascii characters and Greek is on the main page of the list's
home page (http://ibiblio.org/bgreek)]
>
>IOUDAIAS is in genitive, and so as SAMAREIAS, GALILAIAS, and PERAIAS.
>EKPEMPEI is active indicative in 3rd person, the implied subject of this
>verb is Caesar.
>EPITROPON and FHLIKA are in accusative, which are apparently the direct
>object of the verb EKPEMPEI.
>
>My questions are as follows:
>What would be the probable reason that IOUDAIAS was omitted in the William
>Whiston edition?
>
>While Judea did appear in the Loeb edition, why was it put together with
>Samaria, Galilee, and Perea in the translation? IOUDAIAS is at the
>beginning of the sentence whereas SAMAREIAS, GALILAIAS, and PERAIAS are at
>the end of the sentence.
>
>Would it be reasonable to construe that Felix was already the procurator
>of Judea before he was sent to Galilee, Samaria, and Perea also?

I think that it is the position of IOUDAIAS in relation to THS TE SAMAREIAS
KAI GALILAIAS KAI PERAIAS that may account for any apparent difficulty in
the text in question. Why Whiston should have omitted Judea from the realm
over which Felix was sent as EPITROPOS--IF it was in the Greek text he was
translating--I don't know. I think, however, that the construction here
involves the positioning of IOUDAIAS prominently with a MEN following it
and subsequent addition of the gentive indicators of the other nearby areas
subject to Felix's control as EPITROPOS. The combination of MEN with TE,
says Denniston in _Greek Particles_, p. 374-5, is "a good deal commoner
than MEN ...KAI, but often needlessly altered by editors."  If the
word-order of the Greek seems awkward, a bit of punctuation might make it
appear less "unnatural": "Thereafter as caretaker of Judea in particular
['in particular' = MEN] Felix, Pallas' brother, he dispatches--and also [TE
... KAI ... KAI)  of Samaria and Galilee and Perea, ..." As for your other
suggestion, namely that Felix was already procurator of Judea and was now
having the other areas added to his sphere of supervision, this seems to me
very unlikely; these little areas had previously been, as had Judea until
the death of Archelaus in 6 (AD), divided into tetrarchies subject
individually to sons of Herod the Great; Pilate was sent as procurator of
Judea after the ruinous mismanagement of Archelaus led to his exile in
Gaul; later the other areas were added to the supervision of the Judean
procurator.
-- 

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Emeritus)
1989 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(828) 675-4243
cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
WWW: http://www.ioa.com/~cwconrad/



More information about the B-Greek mailing list