The Greek Outline to Antiquities 18

[Peter Kirby]

There is a helpful table comparing "The Summary of Antiquities 18" (divided into 28 sense units in the table of contents, including the note regarding the number of years covered, and 18 sense units not in the table of contents) both to War 2 and Ant. 18 found in Etienne Nodet, "Josephus and Discrepant Sources," in Josephus, Interpretation and History, pp. 266-269. There also we find the ranges of sections referenced by the notes, as well as the range of the sections omitted by the notes. The section numbers according to the Niese edition are useful in this regard because they are more consistent as to the length of the material than other divisions (such as Whiston's chapter divisions).

With all this information, we can test a hypothesis regarding the omissions of the table of contents, which is that the omissions are also likely to be omissions from the text of the War, while that which is present in the table of contents is also more likely to be present in the War.

In the Text of the Antiquities, Mentioned in the Table, and in the War (105 sections)
In the Text of the Antiquities, Mentioned in the Table, and not in the War (111 sections)
In the Text of the Antiquities, Not Mentioned in the Table, and in the War (41 sections)
In the Text of the Antiquities, Not Mentioned in the Table, and not in the War (122 sections)
Total: 379 sections according to the divisions of the Niese text of the Greek for Antiquities 18

And we can create a table.

	Sections of Antiquities Mentioned in the Table	Sections of Antiquities Not Mentioned in the Table
Also Mentioned in the War	105	41
Not Also Mentioned in the War	111	122

Chi-square value: 21.5846
degrees of freedom: 1
p-value: < 0.0001

The above, however, isn't necessarily valid, because using smaller sections will create more "points of data," which will tend to cause the p-value to be small but without necessarily providing a secure basis for further reasoning, if the unit size of what is being counted is arbitrarily small. We need to use units of data collection that are not arbitrary or overly small, as the Niese sections could be considered in this context. So we will do this one more time using the unit of "four sections" (instead of just one), which corresponds to the median length (in sections) of a Nodet sense unit. This results in an evaluation along roughly the same level of granularity as the table of contents itself, as this would tend to provide a more robust result.

	"4x Sections" of Antiquities Mentioned in the Table	"4x Sections" of Antiquities Not Mentioned in the Table
Also Mentioned in the War	26	10
Not Also Mentioned in the War	28	31

Chi-square value: 5.5894
degrees of freedom: 1
p-value: 0.0181

The groups are significantly different at the p-value < 5% significance level.

What does this mean? It means that the null hypothesis, that the parts of the Antiquities not mentioned in the table are just like those which are, in respect to this other quality of being also mentioned (or not) in War 2, is more or less falsified.

Instead, there seems to be a relationship between material that is not mentioned in the table and material that is not mentioned in War 2 (as the majority, about 75%, of the material not in the table is also not in War 2 but only 25% of the material not in the table is in War 2, which is considerably different than the roughly 50-50 ratio that we see for material that is mentioned in the table).

This can be said to go some way towards establishing the likelihood of Nodet's hypothesis:

"Sometimes, the order of the titles does not match the narrative flow of Ant. 18 ... Several titles of the summary are not elaborated in Ant. 18 ... Conversely, some titles correspond to large sections ... Moreover, the summary ignores many portions of Ant. 18, almost one third of the book. ... Now if we hypothesize that this summary is not a table of contents written after the book but a preliminary sketch, composed before its final redaction, all the previous difficulties disappear. A comparison of the summary with War 2 shows no discrepancy in the order of the topics, but the previous narrative is interlarded with new pieces of documentation." (Etienne Nodet, "Josephus and Discrepant Sources," in Josephus, Interpretation and History, p. 269)

Lastly, there is the brute fact that 43% of the material, counted by sections, of Antiquities 18 is not covered by the outline (the table of contents), which means that there is very little cogency in an argument from the lack of mention in the table to the absence of a section from the text, in general terms. Combined with the impression of several scholars that the original compilation of the Greek summaries appears to have been performed by a Jewish person** and plausibly even Josephus or one of his assistants, the argument from the omission from the Greek table of contents (of Jesus or John) cannot be sustained without fresh arguments that the table of contents is primarily of Christian origin.

** I have a blog post coming shortly, partly on this.

[Peter Kirby]

And here is that blog post:

http://peterkirby.com/table-of-contents-josephus.html

On the question of the origin of the summaries found at the beginning of the books in Josephus’ Antiquities, some circumspect notes are offered by Joseph Sievers (“The Ancient Lists of Contents of Josephus’ Antiquities” in Studies in Josephus and the Varieties of Ancient Judaism, pp. 290-291).

1. “The author of the argumenta is ‘ostensibly’ Jewish, as Thackeray remarked. Abraham is called ‘our’ forefather (Ant. 1 #vii; cf. Ant. 1.158); ‘our’ people served the Moabites (Ant. 5 #v); Demetrius presented gifts to ‘our’ people (Ant. 13 #iv).”
2. “Christians took great interest in the Antiquities and were early on, from the third century at the latest, involved in their textual transmission. The fact that the argumenta show no Christian influence suggests an early date.”
3. “A terminus ante quem for the argumenta of the Antiquities is their Latin translation commissioned by Cassiodorus (c. 490–c. 583 C.E.), for the Latin argumenta, attested in relatively early manuscripts, agree on the whole with the Greek ones.”
4. “Nodet’s suggestion that the argumenta constituted Josephus’ outline before he wrote the Antiquities seems to be a brilliant solution to the striking inconsistencies between argumenta and text of the work. In support of his hypothesis one may adduce that they are at times closer to the content and wording of the War than of the Antiquities, and sometimes mix elements from both works.”
5. “Yet, there are other indicators that suggest that, as in the case of other ancient authors, the argumenta were provided for the benefit of the reader and are not fortuitous remains of the author’s outline. (see Ant. 1 #vii; 13 #i).”
6. “In some instances, the argumenta reflect use of a text of the Antiquities similar to the one known to us (see especially Ant. 14 #xxxvii and 15# 1; 15 #2). It does not appear feasible to assign just these sections to a later redactor.”
7. “Thus, the author of the argumenta seems to have known different (but not all) sources and stages of composition of the Antiquities, had a fair acquaintance with Jerusalem topography (Ant. 14 ##i, xii), and had a less than perfect knowledge of the geography of Greece and/or Roman history (Ant. 14 #xxii). Whether he knew the Histories of Nicolaus of Damascus (a principal source for both the War and the Antiquities) seems an intriguing but hard-to-verify possibility.”
8. “If it is hard to see the argumenta as Josephus’ own composition, Gutschmid’s suggestion of a ‘servus litteratus’ (or Thackeray’s ‘assistant’) does not seem as farfetched as it had appeared to me when I began my research for this paper.”

“[T]he concluding formula for the argumentum of Ant. 1 attested only in ms. O: ‘The book covers a period of 3008 years according to Josephus, of 1872 according to the Hebrews, of 3459 according to Eusebius.’ Nodet’s … thesis that the reference to Eusebius is a gloss and cannot be taken as a terminus post quem for the argumenta as a whole is basically sound.” (Joseph Sievers, “The Ancient Lists of Contents of Josephus’ Antiquities” in Studies in Josephus and the Varieties of Ancient Judaism, p. 282 n. 41)

“The book covers a period of 35 years not 32 as indicated in the summary (#28 below); the error may have come from a correction after the Chronicon, where Eusebius squeezed the sources in order to reconcile the datings of Jesus’ birth given by Matthew and Luke.” (Etienne Nodet, “Josephus and Discrepant Sources,” in Josephus, Interpretation and History, p. 266)

The first important result here is that an omission of a section or a few sections from the Greek table of contents in book 18 of the Antiquities is hardly a reliable criterion for authenticity, unless and until there are better, fresh arguments that the table of contents is primarily Christian in origin. Most scholars who have considered the question in any detail, since Thackeray anyway, have decided that the table of contents is likely to be Jewish in origin and thus relatively close to the original composition in time (first or second century AD), if not actually created by Josephus or one of his assistants. If the data of the table of contents are considered in a general way, a full 43% of the sections of Antiquities book 18 are not referenced by the table of contents, while a full 75% of the sections omitted from reference by the table of contents are also omitted from reference in Wars book 2. Such statistics do not inspire confidence that passages such as these (the two sections on Jesus or the four sections on John), which are also not referenced in Wars book 2, should be expected to have references in the Greek outline. (Naturally, such comments apply only to some kind of expurgated and reconstructed passage on Jesus.)

The second important result here, based on the notes above from Nodet and Sievers, is that the entire Greek manuscript tradition that has preserved Antiquities book 18 (i.e., merely three late manuscripts, A M W, and the first printed edition) appears to have passed through redaction either by Eusebius or those influenced by Eusebius. This is important in two ways. Firstly, it suggests that the extant manuscripts for Ant. 18 depend on a thread of the copying of the text of Josephus that was gossamer thin at one point. This reduces our confidence that any variants or original readings that existed in the first three centuries AD would necessarily have survived in the manuscript witnesses, and thus it weakens any argument (based on the manuscript witness) that the pre-Christian manuscripts of Josephus could not have been touched up by Christian scribes early on (by the fourth century AD). Secondly, it provides a sort of ‘confirmation’ of the ‘testable predictions’ of a hypothesis (which might otherwise perhaps have been proven incorrect), one which is advanced by Ken Olson (among others), that Eusebius and the library at Caesarea may have specifically had a role to play in the origin of the Testimonium Flavianum, due to the fact that all the extant manuscripts of Antiquities 18 show an indication of alteration or addition by Eusebius-influenced Christian scribes.

[Secret Alias]

It might be interesting to consider this in relation to Eusebius's much earlier identification of the governing of Judea of Pilate (and indirectly the crucifixion in 21 CE).

[Secret Alias]

Yes, I think this is significant - and its significance goes beyond the Testamonium Flavianum. In our Josephus Pilate is sent to Rome and when he gets there Tiberius is dead so the date is probably 37 CE according to Schwartz

https://books.google.com/books?id=rd5OB ... is&f=false

Unless I am wrong a cursory look at evidence sees to show that Ardabanus II flourished around 21 CE - http://parthia.com/artabanus2_letter.htm

[Secret Alias]

I strongly suspect that the chapter heading betray the original text was ONLY about Jewish uprisings in the lead up to the Jewish War. It wasn't originally a 'history of the Jewish people.' One of the narratives basically ended in 21 CE when Pilate was sent to Rome because of a Samaritan uprising.

[Roger Pearse]

Interesting analysis, Peter.

May I add a note of caution? This analysis also presumes that the table of contents / summaries to Antiquities are authorial, rather than later compositions for unknown purposes. For all we know they were summaries produced by booksellers; possibly highlighting items of interest to one reader, for instance. The tables of contents / summaries for Livy ... there are at least two sets of these, and neither is likely to be authorial.

They may indeed be authorial: authorial tables of contents were being composed by Pliny the Elder a little earlier, and this seems to cause a rise in their composition. But we do not know that Josephus' are.

[Roger Pearse]

NB: these are not at all likely to be chapter headings. Pliny the Elder did not insert chapter headings into his work, as we can see from the 5th century Mone palimpsest which indicates chapter divisions, but contains no headings.

[Peter Kirby]

(One note of clarification: the OP was posted here mostly so I could get a table formatted for my blog. The larger context is all in the blog post.)

Yep. All we really know is that they came into being before the Latin translation of Cassiodorus.

Although I thought Nodet made some decent points in favor of lifting the 'authorial' view above just 'presumption', and perhaps that I added to that in a small way.

But, yes, we do not know it. There are other possibilities, like the ones you mention.

And yes, they are not chapter headings.

I ultimately come down in favor of seeing the summaries (and any 'omissions') as useless to establishing anything about the absence of anything in the Antiquties' text, and I think that does hold... unless and until someone could show that they are not authorial and also not Jewish but rather Christian in origin, in which case there might be some reasonable presumption at work that some things would be mentioned.

Thank you for the comments. Much appreciated, as always.

[DCHindley]

I ultimately come down in favor of seeing the summaries (and any 'omissions') as useless to establishing anything about the absence of anything in the Antiquties' text, and I think that does hold... unless and until someone could show that they are not authorial and also not Jewish but rather Christian in origin, in which case there might be some reasonable presumption at work that some things would be mentioned.

I also had noticed that the chapter headings sometimes contained subjects not covered in the text. If they were not original to Josephus, but created by others for their own purposes, then why do they say that specific chapters deal with things that it does not mention? The only answer that makes sense to me is to assume that whoever created those chapter summaries at very least thought they were relevant to the issues the summary mentions.

I am not sure I have even seen the summaries translated, as the chapter summaries in some printed translations may be the free compositions of the translators/editors rather than what the actual summaries say (given they do not tie in very well). Then again, I think one of the online editions of Josephus' works might give free translations of them.

DCH

[DCHindley]

Here is an example I pulled from Bibleworks and an online site at http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/ ... ties-jews/ :

JOS Antiquities of the Jews 1	Book 1:
.	From The Creation To The Death Of Isaac (3,833 Years)
Προοίμιον περὶ τῆς ὅλης πραγματείας	.
Τάδε ἔνεστιν ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ τῶν Ἰωσήπου ἱστοριῶν τῆς Ἰουδαϊκῆς ἀρχαιολογίας	.
α ἡ τοῦ κόσμου σύστασις καὶ διάταξις τῶν στοιχείων	Chapter 1 the constitution of the world and the disposition of the elements
β περὶ τοῦ γένους Ἀδάμου καὶ τῶν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ δέκα γενεῶν τῶν μέχρι τοῦ κατακλυσμοῦ	Chapter 2 concerning the posterity of adam, and the ten generations from him to the deluge
γ ὡς ὁ κατακλυσμὸς ἐγένετο καὶ ὃν τρόπον Νῶχος σωθεὶς ἐν λάρνακι μετὰ τῶν συγγενῶν κατῴκησεν ἐν τῷ Σινάρῳ πεδίῳ	Chapter 3 concerning the flood; and after what manner noah was saved in an ark, with his kindred, and afterwards dwelt in the plain of shinar
δ ὡς πύργος ὃν οἱ παῖδες αὐτοῦ ἐφ᾽ ὕβρει τοῦ θεοῦ ᾠκοδόμησαν καὶ ὡς τὰς φωνὰς αὐτός μετέβαλε καὶ ὁ τόπος ἐν ᾧ τοῦτο γέγονε Βαβυλὼν ἐκλήθη	Chapter 4 concerning the tower of babylon, and the confusion of tongues
ε ὡς οἱ Νώχου ἔγγονοι πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην ἐπῴκησαν	Chapter 5 after what manner the posterity of noah sent out colonies, and inhabited the whole earth
[ς] ὅτι τῶν ἐθνῶν ἕκαστον ἀπὸ τῶν οἰκισάντων προσηγορεύθη	Chapter 6 how every nation was denominated from their first inhabitants
ζ ὅπως Ἅβραμος ὁ πρόγονος ἡμῶν ἐξελθὼν ἐκ τῆς Χαλδαίων γῆς κατέσχε τὴν τότε μὲν Χαναναίαν νῦν δὲ Ἰουδαίαν λεγομένην	Chapter 7 how abram our forefather went out of the land of the chaldeans, and lived in the land then called canaan but now judea
η ὅτι λιμοῦ τὴν Χαναναίαν καταλαβόντος εἰς Αἴγυπτον ἀπῆρε καὶ διατρίψας ἐν αὐτῇ τινα χρόνον ὑπέστρεψεν ὀπίσω	Chapter 8 that when there was a famine in canaan, abram went thence into egypt; and after he had continued there a while he returned back again
θ ἧττα Σοδομιτῶν Ἀσσυρίων αὐτοῖς ἐπιστρατευσάντων	Chapter 9 the destruction of the sodomites by the assyrian wall
ι ὡς Ἅβραμος ἐπὶ τοὺς Ἀσσυρίους ἐκστρατεύσας ἐνίκησε καὶ τοὺς αἰχμαλώτους τῶν Σοδομιτῶν ἔσωσε καὶ τὴν λείαν ἣν ἔλαβον ἀφείλετο	Chapter 10 how abram fought with the assyrians, and overcame them, and saved the sodomite prisoners, and took from the assyrians the prey they had gotten
ια πῶς τὸ Σοδομιτῶν ἔθνος θεὸς κατεστρέψατο χολωθεὶς αὐτοῖς ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἡμάρτανον	Chapter 11 how god overthrew the nation of the sodomites, out of his wrath against them for their sins
ιβ περὶ Ἰσμαήλου τοῦ Ἁβράμου καὶ τῶν ἐγγόνων αὐτοῦ Ἀράβων	Chapter 12 concerning abimelech; and concerning ismael the son of abraham; and concerning the arabians, who were his posterity
ιγ περὶ Ἰσάκου ὃς ἦν γνήσιος παῖς Ἁβράμου	Chapter 13 concerning isaac the legitimate son of abraham
ιδ περὶ Σάρρας τῆς Ἁβράμου γυναικός καὶ πῶς τὸν βίον κατέστρεψεν	Chapter 14 concerning sarah abraham's wife; and how she ended her days
ιε ὡς ἐκ Κατούρης Ἁβράμῳ γαμηθείσης τὸ τῶν Τρωγλοδυτῶν Ἀράβων ἔθνος ἐγεννήθη	Chapter 15 how the nation of the troglodytes were derived from abraham by keturah
.	Chapter 16 how isaac took rebeka to wife
ι[ς] περὶ τῆς Ἁβράμῳ τελευτῆς	Chapter 17 concerning the death of abraham
ιζ περὶ τῆς Ἰσάκου παίδων Ἡσαῦ καὶ Ἰακώβου γενέσεως καὶ διατροφῆς	Chapter 18 concerning the sons of isaac, esau and jacob; of their nativity and education
ιη Ἰακώβου φυγὴ εἰς τὴν Μεσοποταμίαν καὶ τὸν ἐκ τἀδελφοῦ φόβον καὶ ὡς γήμας ἐκεῖ καὶ δώδεκα γεννήσας παῖδας πάλιν εἰς τὴν Χαναναίαν ἐπανῆλθεν	Chapter 19 concerning jacob's flight into mesopotamia, by reason of the fear he was in of his brother
.	Chapter 20 concerning the meeting of jacob and esau
.	Chapter 21 concerning the violation of dina's chastity
ιθ ὡς Ἴσακος τελευτήσας ἐτάφη ἐν Νεβρῶνι περιέχει	Chapter 22 how isaac died, and was buried in hebron
ἡ βίβλος χρόνον ἐτῶν ὡς Ἰώσηπος Ἑβραῖοι Εὐσέβιος
πῤ Τοῖς τὰς ἱστορίας συγγράφειν βουλομένοις οὐ μίαν οὐδὲ τὴν αὐτὴν ὁρῶ τῆς σπουδῆς γινομένην αἰτίαν ἀλλὰ πολλὰς καὶ πλεῖστον ἀλλήλων διαφερούσας	1 Those who undertake to write histories, do not, I perceive, take that trouble on one and the same account, but for many reasons, and those such as are very different one from another;

Sigh ...

DCH