"called Christ" ONLY was added to Ant. 20.200.

[Vorkosigan]

I've started this thread to discuss another proposal on The Other Jesus Reference in Ant. 20.200. I placed both my comments here for easy reference.

Peter Kirby stimulated this with the following comment:
A search of the ante-Nicene Church Fathers, the extracanonical writings, and the New Testament will produce no instance in which James is identified as "the brother of Jesus" (let alone "the brother of Jesus called Christ"). It is thus not likely to be a phrase to come naturally from a Christian pen when identifying James.

I replied:


<shakes head>
<wipes eyes>
<sound of gears grinding in head>

Here's the whole passage:
1. AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But 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, 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 sanhedrin 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 sanhedrin 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.

Peter, I've always believed this to be a marginal gloss, and now you've gone and made me think about this again.

Josephus does not identify "James." He identifies "the brother of Jesus" whose name happens to be James. Further on in the passage, he refers to two other Jesus,' one the son of Damneus who was made high priest (outlined above) and a couple of sections on, Jesus son of Gamaliel who follows him in that position.

It seems to me that the marginal gloss must be the messiah comment, and not the entire "Jesus" comment. What if the original text read "The brother of Jesus, whose name was James.." -- in other words, an ordinary bloke named James -- and the Jesus reference is to Jesus Damneus. Although the reader would need to get to the end of the section to see the connection, what if James is the son of Damneus as well and the brother of that Jesus, and the High Priesthood goes to that family as compensation for the unfortunate death of James.

Just tossing out an idea. I'm sure it has been hashed out before -- what's the answer?

Later, I posted:

Actually, I realized while I was fighting the 5:00 traffic here in Taichung today that I hadn't followed my line of thought far enough. I was thinking the reference was awkward because the reference to Jesus occurs before the reference to Jesus son of Damneus. But of course, I speculated while eating fumes, the interpolator evicted the patronymic, and substituted "called messiah" and the rest was fiction...er...history. The original passage read:

...brother of Jesus son of Damneus, James by name....

which then neatly connects it to the reference further down in the same passage.

Vorkosigan.

[Peter Kirby]

Vorkosigan writes:

Actually, I realized while I was fighting the 5:00 traffic here in Taichung today that I hadn't followed my line of thought far enough. I was thinking the reference was awkward because the reference to Jesus occurs before the reference to Jesus son of Dameus. But of course, I speculated while eating fumes, the interpolator evicted the patronymic, and substituted "called messiah" and the rest was fiction...er...history. The original passage read:

...brother of Jesus son of Dameus, James by name....

which then neatly connects it to the reference further down in the same passage.

I liked your original hypothesis better.

The thing that I liked about your original hypothesis is that it could explain the strange way in which James is identified, unparalleled in ancient Christian literature. Not knowing that Josephus was referring to a Jesus later on, actually thinking that it was the Jesus of Christian fame, a scribe would have scribbled in the margin 'tou legomenou Christou'. Then, a later scribe would come along, thinking that the marginal note indicated a part that belonged in the text, and would insert the phrase into the body of the passage. No deliberate falsification required.

The thing that I don't like about the new hypothesis is that it requires a deliberate modification of the passage that is not fully explained. One thing that is not explained is why the scribe would think that this could be his Jesus - it explicitly said otherwise - while this is no problem for the original hypothesis. Another thing that is not explained is why the scribe would go for this odd way of referring to James when he was already altering the passage and could have used a more traditional idiom. Another thing that is not explained is that it is unclear what the interpolator gained from the modification, while on the original hypothesis it was just a mistake.

As to whether Josephus could have identified someone through a brother that was not identified earlier on, I have argued that this is plausible with reference to Pallas in Wars of the Jews 2.247.

So, King Arthur, do you know of any evidence that would discredit Vorkosigan's original hypothesis?

best,
Peter Kirby

[Vorkosigan]

Now that you've explained my original hypothesis to me, I like it better too! I introduced the deletion to cover the awkwardness problem by having the brother come first, but you've plausibly solved that problem.

Vorkosigan

[ July 27, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

[King Arthur]

There were lots of Jesuses. There are at least two more High Priests after the 'son of Damneus' who are named Jesus.

The proposal is interesting, however, to take out the "one who is called Christ", leaves us with an ambiguous Jesus. Josephus seems to usually identify whom he is talking about the first time, not the second. So, the reference would have probably been "brother of Jesus son of Damneus, whose name was James" if what you are saying is true.

This is an interesting proposal, for sure. This would mean that the brother of one (falsely?) accused of "breaking the law" was later made High Priest. Turn about is fair play, I suppose.

Your guess is as good as mine on this one.

[Peter Kirby]

I have sent Ed Tyler a copy of Vorkosigan's proposal, and he responded back.

Tyler writes: Josephus refers to a total of at least 12 men named Jesus, and he therefore uses some sort of tag to distinguish each. (See Paul Winter's "Excursus II: Josephus on Jesus and James" in The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, ed. Emil Schürer--revised edition Geza Vermes, 1987, p. 430ff.) So Vorkosigan's proposed reading is not in keeping with Josephus' practice. Neither, of course, is the proposal that Josephus wrote a very lengthy passage in which the various relationships of the men involved are not made explicit until the very end. Josephus characteristically establishes his identifications immediately. He certainly would not say "the brother of X, whose name was Y" and then skip a few pages before telling just you who "X" is. In short, Vorkosigan's proposal is special pleading almost from beginning to end.

Tyler quotes Van Voorst: "Thus Josephus distinguishes this Jesus from the many others he mentions who had this common name. Moreover, the very reason the identifying phrase 'the brother of Jesus called Christ' appears at all is for the further identification of James, whose name was also common." (Jesus Outside the New Testament, p. 84)

Tyler writes: So it appears that Vorkosigan's notion that Josephus does not actually identify "James" is incorrect. Looking over Smyth's and Goodwin & Gulick's Greek grammars, I see that Van Voorst is certainly correct regarding the "identifying phrase" part of that quote.

The word order in a sentence is not indicative of which thought is identifying the other; in English as in Greek, the appositive phrase can be the unknown that is being fleshed out with the phrase that comes before it: "The chairman of the board, one Scott Sidler, said..." I think that this is equivalent to "One Scott Sidler, the chairman of the board, said..." with regards to which phrase provides the distinguishing characteristic of the person, although the latter phrasing puts less emphasis on the relationship between Scott's office and his speaking. But, myself, I don't see how it matters that the brother phrase identifies the name of James or that the name of James identifies the brother phrase, or if this distinction is even meaningful. I would say that they work in tandem to point to a person; this is true whether or not the 'called Christ' part has been added. (I also don't buy into Doherty's idea that the so-called "pride of place" given to the brother phrase indicates interpolation.)

best,
Peter Kirby

[Vorkosigan]

Originally posted by peterkirby:
I have sent Ed Tyler a copy of Vorkosigan's proposal, and he responded back.

Tyler writes: Josephus refers to a total of at least 12 men named Jesus, and he therefore uses some sort of tag to distinguish each. (See Paul Winter's "Excursus II: Josephus on Jesus and James" in The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, ed. Emil Schürer--revised edition Geza Vermes, 1987, p. 430ff.) So Vorkosigan's proposed reading is not in keeping with Josephus' practice. Neither, of course, is the proposal that Josephus wrote a very lengthy passage in which the various relationships of the men involved are not made explicit until the very end. Josephus characteristically establishes his identifications immediately. He certainly would not say "the brother of X, whose name was Y" and then skip a few pages before telling just you who "X" is. In short, Vorkosigan's proposal is special pleading almost from beginning to end.

"Special pleading from beginning to end." I think that's unduly harsh. "Special pleading" is ridiculous; I was merely throwing out something think about.

Second, his characterization is incorrect. The "Jesus" I've pointed to is in the same passage, and connected to James by the sequence of events, not "a few pages" as if it were miles away.

Third, the connection I've posited explains why the position of High Priest went to Jesus Damneus.

Fourth, in his comments on introductions Tyler is actually providing support for my other, stronger suggestion, that somebody excised "Jesus Damneus."

Fifth, the most common identifier Josephus uses in his zillions of Jesus-s is "son of" or "brother of." For example, in that passage, Jesus is introduced as the "son of Damneus." It would hardly be out of character to introduce someone as 'the brother of Jesus, James by name' since that is his most common intro method!

Tyler quotes Van Voorst: "Thus Josephus distinguishes this Jesus from the many others he mentions who had this common name. Moreover, the very reason the identifying phrase 'the brother of Jesus called Christ' appears at all is for the further identification of James, whose name was also common." (Jesus Outside the New Testament, p. 84)

Of course, this reasoning works either way. The "brother of Jesus" works fine as an identifier if "Jesus" is indentified as well further on down! Further, I've postulated that "james" is in there to identify which brother of Jesus was arrested and condemned. In other words, Tyler has understood it backwards, and through Christian lenses. The important thing about that passage in my proposal is not "James" but "the brother of Jesus." By seeing everything in light of the "James" Tyler has allowed scholarly biases to overrule his critical faculty; he has unconciously assumed that Josephus is talking about James the Just and viewed everything from that angle.

I should add that I'm pretty sure Tyler is an atheist, but his presuppositions are still Christian.

Tyler writes: [b]So it appears that Vorkosigan's notion that Josephus does not actually identify "James" is incorrect.

Tyler must have misunderstood something. In fact I said Josephus DID identify James -- as the brother of Jesus Damneus!

The word order in a sentence is not indicative of which thought is identifying the other; in English as in Greek, the appositive phrase can be the unknown that is being fleshed out with the phrase that comes before it: "The chairman of the board, one Scott Sidler, said..." I think that this is equivalent to "One Scott Sidler, the chairman of the board, said..." with regards to which phrase provides the distinguishing characteristic of the person, although the latter phrasing puts less emphasis on the relationship between Scott's office and his speaking. But, myself, I don't see how it matters that the brother phrase identifies the name of James or that the name of James identifies the brother phrase, or if this distinction is even meaningful. I would say that they work in tandem to point to a person; this is true whether or not the 'called Christ' part has been added. (I also don't buy into Doherty's idea that the so-called "pride of place" given to the brother phrase indicates interpolation.)

I agree totally. The grammar is nuetral between the two phrases, the importance of either derives from context. The trick is locating the proper context. Scholarship prior has simply assumed that Josephus was talking about James the Just, and arguing whether anyone would have interpolated "brother of Jesus, the so-called messiah" in there. After seeing Tyler's misreadings and misunderstandings, it is clear that I've identified the proper context. James is merely an ordinary bloke of no distinction, whose importance is that he is a brother to Jesus Damneus, the next High Priest. The confusion of names is a coincidence, as Tyler's quote notes, "James" was a common name.

Vorkosigan

[Peter Kirby]

Vorkosigan writes: Fourth, in his comments on introductions Tyler is actually providing support for my other, stronger suggestion, that somebody excised "Jesus Damneus."

I did not send anything about the suggested excisement-replacement hypothesis, only about the original hypothesis of marginal addition. I thought that we had agreed that marginal gloss is the stronger hypothesis, but I guess that agreement was short-lived.

If you are back to arguing for an excisement hypothesis, I would like to know what you think of my comments on such a hypothesis and the superiority of the marginal note hypothesis.

I am starting to think this: the replacement hypothesis is discredited for the considerations that I adduce, while the marginal note hypothesis can be argued against on the grounds advanced by Tyler. But if both hypotheses have evidence against them, then we are left with the idea of authenticity.

Plus, after all, no evidence has been advanced against authenticity and in favor of a Jesus Damneus hypothesis - only the suggestion of an arguably plausible alternative. Although I also think that Tyler was unduly harsh with his 'special pleading' remark, I think that the idea behind it is that the normal procedure starts with the authenticity of a given text, which can be controverted only be evidence against it; starting with skepticism or an assumption of inauthenticity would be a 'special' approach.

Tyler said that he was in the process of moving in and that he would be away from his books for a while such that I should contact him again concerning this only after a couple weeks.

best,
Peter Kirby

[Peter Kirby]

Vorkosigan writes: Tyler must have misunderstood something. In fact I said Josephus DID identify James -- as the brother of Jesus Damneus!

The misunderstanding of Tyler is perhaps understandable. Tyler was reacting to this comment:

Josephus does not identify "James." He identifies "the brother of Jesus" whose name happens to be James.

It seems that you were drawing a distinction between identfying the brother of Jesus with the name of James and identifying a man named James with his brotherhood to Jesus, preferring the former as representing Josephus. What do you actually mean?

best,
Peter Kirby

[Vorkosigan]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by peterkirby:
[QB]Vorkosigan writes: Fourth, in his comments on introductions Tyler is actually providing support for my other, stronger suggestion, that somebody excised "Jesus Damneus."

I did not send anything about the suggested excisement-replacement hypothesis, only about the original hypothesis of marginal addition. I thought that we had agreed that marginal gloss is the stronger hypothesis, but I guess that agreement was short-lived.

No, but if Tyler is arguing that the whole name should have been given, my response would be that it was indeed, but then taken out....

If you are back to arguing for an excisement hypothesis, I would like to know what you think of my comments on such a hypothesis and the superiority of the marginal note hypothesis.

Dead on. I liked your analysis better. Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity. My response simply said: Oh yeah? well I've got one in my pocket for that objection too! As I said above.

I am starting to think this: the replacement hypothesis is discredited for the considerations that I adduce, while the marginal note hypothesis can be argued against on the grounds advanced by Tyler. But if both hypotheses have evidence against them, then we are left with the idea of authenticity.

I didn't think Tyler had any grounds, other than scholarly procedure -- strong grounds, but not insurmountable -- to knock it down. Otherwise, the only evidence for authenticity is procedure, and it stays in on a technicality.

The fact is that in the writings of the period before the gospels and Josephus, there is little evidence that James was actually the physical brother of the man executed for preaching or being a peasant nationalism, or because Pilate or Herod were feeling cranky. Why is this insufficient to challenge the authenticity of the passage?

Plus, after all, no evidence has been advanced against authenticity and in favor of a Jesus Damneus hypothesis - only the suggestion of an arguably plausible alternative. Although I also think that Tyler was unduly harsh with his 'special pleading' remark, I think that the idea behind it is that the normal procedure starts with the authenticity of a given text, which can be controverted only be evidence against it; starting with skepticism or an assumption of inauthenticity would be a 'special' approach.

I see. &lt;growl&gt;

Josephus does not identify "James." He identifies "the brother of Jesus" whose name happens to be James.

It seems that you were drawing a distinction between identfying the brother of Jesus with the name of James and identifying a man named James with his brotherhood to Jesus, preferring the former as representing Josephus. What do you actually mean?

I thought it was clear. The key point is that Josephus is explaining why Ananus lost the priesthood and Jesus Damneus got it, of all people. Ananus' error was, he arrested the brother of Jesus of Damneus, accused him of crimes, and then had him stoned in the most high-handed manner. In compensation for this outrage, Ananus takes the fall and Jesus of Damneus gets the High priesthood. Josephus is not identifying which James, he is identifying which brother(of Jesus Damneus). Really, fundamentally, he is just identifying a person, James. It's Joe Blow, who happens to be the brother of the future High Priest. His only role in history is to spur Agrippa to change High Priests.

Also, does the passage say that James was actually stoned to death? Or just bound over to be stoned?

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;

It seems to me that it is ambiguous, but I do not know Greek. Does the verb imply the sentence was completed?

Vorkosigan

[ July 28, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

[Peter Kirby]

Vorkosigan writes: No, but if Tyler is arguing that the whole name should have been given, my response would be that it was indeed, but then taken out....

... and my response would be that this excisement hypothesis does not make sense, and we come back full circle to the idea of authenticity.

In order for the hypothesis to retain its plausibility, someone would need to show that either the arguments against marginal gloss have no merit or that the arguments against replacement have no merit. I think that you suggest below that Tyler's arguments against marginal gloss are either easy to demolish or non-existent, so I will discuss that below.

Vorkosigan writes:

Dead on. I liked your analysis better. Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity. My response simply said: Oh yeah? well I've got one in my pocket for that objection too! As I said above.

Basically, you are saying that you have something in one of your pockets. Tyler is saying that you have nothing in your left pocket (marginal gloss), and I am saying that you have nothing in your right pocket (excisement and replacement). Now you could agree with me and say that you actually have something in your left pocket (marginal gloss), or you could agree with Tyler and say that you actually have something in your right pocket (excisement and replacement). But you cannot say that to both of us. If you did, Tyler and I will meet up later, find out what you said to each of us, and deduce correctly that you have absolutely nothing in those pockets of yours.

The above is a statement of the framework and general procedure; I will actually be peeking into these pockets below. Actually, I will look at the right pocket right now and the left pocket below. That is, here I will repeat my statement against the replacement hypothesis:

"The thing that I don't like about the new hypothesis is that it requires a deliberate modification of the passage that is not fully explained. One thing that is not explained is why the scribe would think that this could be his Jesus - it explicitly said otherwise - while this is no problem for the original hypothesis. Another thing that is not explained is why the scribe would go for this odd way of referring to James when he was already altering the passage and could have used a more traditional idiom. Another thing that is not explained is that it is unclear what the interpolator gained from the modification, while on the original hypothesis it was just a mistake."

Of course, even though the excisement hypothesis comes up empty in my estimate, the marginal gloss hypothesis may remain plausible - except if there is evidence against it.

Vorkosigan writes: I didn't think Tyler had any grounds, other than scholarly procedure -- strong grounds, but not insurmountable -- to knock it down. Otherwise, the only evidence for authenticity is procedure, and it stays in on a technicality.

Tyler did not rely only on presumption of authenticity or the burden of proof, if he did at all. It was my interpretation of his 'special pleading' comment that Tyler was referring to such a scholarly procedure, but I now think that I may have misunderstood that comment. As I read him now, Tyler made two arguments against the marginal gloss hypothesis concerning 'called Christ'. These are both basically inductive arguments concerning the way in which we would expect Josephus to write and indeed most persons to write. So I now think that the mention of 'special pleading' - which I agree was harshly worded, especially given that you initially just floated the idea for discussion - is a reference to the standard writing practices of Josephus, the violation of which would be 'special'. Let me attempt to explain the two arguments of Tyler as I understand them.

Tyler writes: "Tyler writes: Josephus refers to a total of at least 12 men named Jesus, and he therefore uses some sort of tag to distinguish each. (See Paul Winter's 'Excursus II: Josephus on Jesus and James' in The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, ed. Emil Schürer--revised edition Geza Vermes, 1987, p. 430ff.) So Vorkosigan's proposed reading is not in keeping with Josephus' practice."

I would have to go to the university library to look up Schürer, but Tyler's claim here can be evaluated through some search of Josephus. I will quote the identifying references that are most relevant: mentions of other people named 'Jesus' in the last five books of the Antiquities.

Ant. 17.13.1. "Nor did this Eleazar abide long in the high priesthood, Jesus, the son of Sie, being put in his room while he was still living."

Ant. 20.9.4. "And now Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, became the successor of Jesus, the son of Damneus, in the high priesthood, which the king had taken from the other; on which account a sedition arose between the high priests..."

Ant. 20.10.1 "...at which time Jesus, the son of Josadek, took the high priesthood over the captives when they were returned home."

I think that it could be said that Josephus took some care in distinguishing between the different persons named Jesus at the moment that each came up in the narrative, as 'Jesus' is a relatively common Jewish name of the era. Failure of Josephus to wrote 'son of Damneus' when first mentioning Jesus tends to go against the normal procedure of Josephus.

Tyler writes: "Neither, of course, is the proposal that Josephus wrote a very lengthy passage in which the various relationships of the men involved are not made explicit until the very end. Josephus characteristically establishes his identifications immediately. He certainly would not say 'the brother of X, whose name was Y' and then skip a few pages before telling just you who 'X' is."

I don't think that the 'pages' reference was meant literally; we think Josephus wrote on scrolls anyway. The main point is that it is unusual for Josephus to leave the relationships of the key figures undisclosed until the end of a passage. Now, I suppose that this claim can be tested. All we would need is a different location in which Josephus said "the brother of X, whose name was Y" and then informed us as to who X was later on. I would also accept "Y, son of X" where X is identified later on. Or you can see what you dig up, and we will see whether it is a good analogy for what you suggest that Josephus may have done here.

So, these are the two arguments that Tyler made as I understand them. They did not concern scholarly procedure of accepting authenticity, although of course that is an important point in this discussion as well.

Vorkosigan writes: The fact is that in the writings of the period before the gospels and Josephus, there is little evidence that James was actually the physical brother of the man executed for preaching or being a peasant nationalism, or because Pilate or Herod were feeling cranky. Why is this insufficient to challenge the authenticity of the passage?

I don't think that this takes sufficient account of all the conditions for a successful argument from silence: the extensiveness and variety of the authors supposed to be silent, the surety of actual silence in the authors, the surety that the authors would have mentioned the fact if the fact were known, and the surety that the fact would be known if it were true. I think the last condition holds up well, as I think that Paul for one would have known that James were the brother of Jesus if it were true. I think that the second-to-last condition is arguable, as it is difficult to presage the kinds of things that a person should write, but in any case I do not see an overwhelming reason for the authors in question to mention the fact. The extensiveness and variety criterion is not met; the only documents written before the Antiquities that mention James are Paul and the Epistle of James (and possibly the Gospel of Thomas depending on its date), which gives us a base of two or three authors, given that the existence of authors who do not refer to James at all count for little. For the matter of the surety of silence, I do not want to get bogged down in a debate over the meaning of Gal. 1:19 in this discussion. But certainly a plausible if not undeniable meaning of this reference is that James was the brother of Jesus. So I do not think that we can say with any certainty that Paul did not refer to James with the meaning that James was the actual brother of Jesus. All in all, this argument is weak.

Moreover, even if this silence could be taken as evidence that James was not the brother of Jesus, I have trouble accepting arguments that discount the value of evidence because of evidence in the opposite direction. It is my opinion that each piece of evidence should be considered on its own merits. It is possible that the reference in Ant. 20.200 constitutes some evidence that James was the brother of Jesus called Christ. It is possible that the Epistle of James constitutes some evidence that James was not the brother of Jesus. But we should not use one set of evidence to discredit the other; each set of evidence should be evaluated on its own terms for its strength, and then a comparison should be made after such individual evaluation.

Vorkosigan writes:

Also, does the passage say that James was actually stoned to death? Or just bound over to be stoned?

"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;"

It seems to me that it is ambiguous, but I do not know Greek. Does the verb imply the sentence was completed?

From Niese: ...ton adelphon Iêsou tou legomenou Christou, Iakôbos onoma autôi, kai tinas heterous, hôs paranomêsantôn katêgorian poiêsamenos paredôke leusthêsomenous.

paredôke is aorist active indicative 3rd singular, meaning "he handed over" or "he delivered up"

leusthêsomenous is future middle/passive participle masculine accusative plural. The root word is leuô ("I stone").

From the Smyth grammar at Perseus, one meaning of the (circumstantial) participle in the future tense is:

[quote]
Purpose or Object.--The future (sometimes the present) participle is used to denote purpose, especially after verbs denoting to come, go, send, summon, etc. Thus, propempsantes kêru_ka polemon proerounta having sent a herald in advance to proclaim war T. 1.29 , ho barbaros epi tên Hellada doulôsomenos êlthen the barbarians proceeded against Greece with the purpose of enslaving it 1. 18, sunekalesan apo tôn poleôn hapa_sôn akousomenous (2052 a) tês para basileôs epistolês they summoned from all the cities men to listen to the letter from the king [p. 459] X. H. 7.1.39. Present: epempon . . . legontas hoti ktl. they sent men to say that, etc. X. H. 2.4.37.
<hr></blockquote>

So I think that leusthêsomenous can be transalated here as "for them [masculine] to be stoned." The 'them' is the implied object of the accusative participle.

So, my crib is, "he handed over for them to be stoned" or perhaps "he delivered up in order to stone them." This would read more smoothly rendered as "he handed them over to be stoned" or perhaps "he handed them over for stoning" ... which basically just tells you that the Whiston is a good representation of the Greek here, with his "he delivered them to be stoned."

If I made a mistake above, I am sure King Arthur or one of our other Greek scholars can correct me. Foreign language is not my forte.

Basically, the passage says that Ananus made arrangements for the death of these men by means of stoning. The passage does not imply in any way that the plans of Ananus in this regard were frustrated, but neither does it explicitly mention the actual death of these men.

Was there any particular reason that you asked?

best,
Peter Kirby

[Bracer]

Pardon me a bit for chiming in from the peanut gallery, but I feel compelled to say, in perfect sincerity, that this is a fascinating and incredibly informative thread. I don’t believe I’ve ever come across a discussion of this passage before that approached it from this angle and I’m learning a lot just listening by in. You guys rock.

[godfry n. glad]

Greetings, Vorkosigan, Peter, et al...

This is a topic which received a fair amount of coverage on the JesusMysteries group back in May 2001.

Here's one quote, from Kelly Wellington:

[quote]Most revisions I have seen completely excise the "He was the Christ" line from the TF, which, of course, would make the idiosyncratic
translation using "aforementioned" totally nonsensical.

The problem here is that if we include this mention of "Christ", we still have the question of why the term is used only TWICE in all of
Josephus' works, both in relation to this one person and without any definition of any kind?

Keep in mind that _AofJ_ was written for a Graecophonic Roman audience, most of whom would have no idea to what the term referred. And what would they have thought of this "Christ," had the undefined term been included as it is in modern translations? Well, lacking as I am in proficiency with Koine Greek, I sought assistance from others in understanding how the term might have been understood by the gentile audiences that Paul and his competitors might have
addressed. Another poster was kind enough to send me this:

"The term meant "Ointment" or "linement". Outside the Jewish-Christian sources, it was never used for a person on whom ointment had been put, "an anointed one". As far as I have been able to tell, the following statement by C.F.D. Moule (The Origin of Christology, Cambridge University Press, 1977, p. 31-2) is correct: "The Septuagint seems, thus, to have introduced a new technical term ... when Biblical Greek uses _christos_, not for the ointment ('for
external application') but for an anointed person or thing, this is a new usage." (fn. 37): "in secular Greek _christos_ is applied to the
ointment, never, it seems, to the one anointed: it means 'for external application' or 'externally applied', as against something
that is drunk and used internally."

"Essentially the same view is expressed by Hess in Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 9, p.495: "Christos is never related to persons outside the LXX, the NT, and dependent writings." In other words, as far as we know it was not used as a title of any sort outside the Judaeo-Christian sphere of influence. To someone with some knowledge of Judaism or Christianity it meant "anointed person", i.e. person marked out for some special role by
anointing. I have found no evidence at all that it was used by other Graeco-Roman religious groups."

So, unless one were a member of the small minority group of the far-flung Jewish communities of the 1st century Mediterreanean, or the even smaller minority of the germinal Christian communities, the chances are that one might think that Josephus was referring to "Jesus, called the ointment"....or "called the linement."

I'd say that would distinctly call for an explanation, or at least a definition of what a Jewish speaker meant by using the phrase. Yet,
such seems to be entirely absent from _Antiquities of the Jews_ or any of Josephus' other works.<hr></blockquote>

The thread runs for some distance (starting at 2776 and ending somewhere near 2831) and in it, too, Ed Tyler has his say and basically pulls the rug out from underneath Kelly with commentary that the Greek construction of the phrase describing James wouldn't allow excision without leaving it nonsensical, in Greek, of course. Of course, Kelly didn't even think to mention that it might have replaced another descriptive phrase, like "brother of Jesus, son of Damneus".

In the discussion, someone (Kelly, again, I think) points out that Josephus is generally credited with naming Vespasian as the subject of the Hebrew superstition that foretold that a "ruler of the world" would arise from Judea. Josephus declines, even there, to use the term "messiah" or "christ" to decribe the "true Christ" (in his mind, at least). Why then would he use the term in passing to describe the brother of the ill-fortuned James?

Also, another poster in the midst of that discussion made the claim (which no one challenged) that Josephus describes _all_ the other Jesuses in his works with "son of..." descriptors. Thus the "called the Christ" descriptor is a glaring exception. Can anyone confirm this?

godfry n. glad

[Amen-Moses]

Sorry for butting in but couldn't the original have said "Jesus, son of Joseph, whose name was James" referring to the Joseph having just been deprived of the high preisthood?

Maybe James was only half brother to Jesus so that he couldn't say "James, son of Joseph" or some reason like that?

Then some scribe looking through this writes "The Christ?" in the margin an a later copyist decides that it would read better theologically by replacing the "Son of Joseph" with "Called the messiah".

Only a thought.

Amen-Moses

[Ted Hoffman]

I think Vorkosigans suggestion, which Ed Tyler relegated to "special pleading", was good but weak as Kirby pointed out "it requires a deliberate modification of the passage that is not fully explained". One thing that is not explained is why the scribe would think that this could be his Jesus - it explicitly said otherwise" - in a way its haphazard, but it also gets rid of the questions "called Christ by who", "what does Christ mean". In addition to that, it can resolve the incongruity that arises between Antiquities 20 and Origens' writings as I have explained below.

My take on this is: Antiquities 20 is about Ananas, and how he lost hos position. NOT about how James died or about Who Jesus was.
As Doherty says Crossan suggested "a man called James" would have been sufficient instead of the syntactically cumbersome "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James".

It is therefore important to explain why Josephus could have been compelled to put such a long, ambiguous expression just to say "a man called James". In the absence of such an explanation, the passage seems to have been tampered with.

Besides, Origen in Against Celsus 1.47 and in Commentary on Matthew 10.17 said that
Josephus believed the Calamities befell the Jews because they had killed James. Antiquities 20 has Josephus saying the Jews did NOT kill James, in the face of this conflict, Vorkosigans suggestion would provide a solution to this incongruity because it would mean the James in Antiquities 20 was another James, NOT James brother of Jesus. So maybe Vorkosigans idea just needs legitimacy and it will be right on!

Concerning
[quote]A search of the ante-Nicene Church Fathers, the extracanonical writings, and the New Testament will produce no instance in which James is identified as "the brother of Jesus" (let alone "the brother of Jesus called Christ"). It is thus not likely to be a phrase to come naturally from a Christian pen when identifying James.<hr></blockquote>
What about Galatians 1
19 But I did not see any other of the apostles except (1) James, the Lord's brother.

[Vorkosigan]

<a href="http://bible.crosswalk.com/History/BC/FlaviusJosephus/?book=War_6&chapter=1" target="_blank">Online searchable Josephus War and Ant., search form on bottom</a> (Whiston translation)

My apologies for the rambling repetitiveness of this post.

Now you could agree with me and say that you actually have something in your left pocket (marginal gloss), or you could agree with Tyler and say that you actually have something in your right pocket (excisement and replacement). But you cannot say that to both of us.

I disagree. Tyler's argument is that Jesus should be identified more obviously: "..Jesus, son of Damneus." I agree. That is a weak argument in favor of an excision rather than a marginal gloss; if Josephus always behaves in manner X, and suddenly in a highly suspicious place deviates from manner X, we are right to suspect a deletion/substitution. Unless we find an original manuscript, we will never get the truth, and this will remain speculation.

"The thing that I don't like about the new hypothesis is that it requires a deliberate modification of the passage that is not fully explained. One thing that is not explained is why the scribe would think that this could be his Jesus - it explicitly said otherwise - while this is no problem for the original hypothesis.

This is not a problem for the excision hypothesis, which, as you suspected, I actually favor. The scribe is reading Josephus and sees the reference to "the brother of Jesus son of Damneus, by the name of James" and then irritably corrects what he parses as an 'error': Josephus has carelessly misidentified the brother of Jesus, Christ.

In other words, excision makes psychological sense not as a malicious deletion, but as an innocent correct of error.

Another thing that is not explained is why the scribe would go for this odd way of referring to James when he was already altering the passage and could have used a more traditional idiom.

What odd rhythm? What could be more natural than to have Jesus the Christ come first? Besides, he is not indulging in malicious rewriting but in pious error correction.

Another thing that is not explained is that it is unclear what the interpolator gained from the modification, while on the original hypothesis it was just a mistake.

Context. The interpolator was correcting an error. Suppose it's the second or third century. You've got in front of you a manuscript of Josephus in greek which you know is a copy of a copy of a copy. Every scribe knows that errors are inevitable. So there you are, pious Bob the Monk, and you scowl and say to your Brother: "Look, some chowderhead has accidently put "Jesus of Damneus" in here instead of the right Jesus. You're putting it back to the correct version." Maybe the scribe is learned enough to know that other copies of Josephus have "Jesus Damneus" there. Maybe not. But think: you're in the librarian in Caesarea, and you get wind that another scroll of Josephus has "the so-called Christ" where yours has "Jesus son of Damneus." What are you going to do? Correct your scroll, of course.

Of course, I have no way to prove that it happened this way. But your objection on psychological grounds can be met on psychological grounds. Ed's are rather tougher, now that I have thought about them a little more.

Of course, even though the excisement hypothesis comes up empty in my estimate, the marginal gloss hypothesis may remain plausible - except if there is evidence against it.

Let's go look...

I would have to go to the university library to look up Schürer, but Tyler's claim here can be evaluated through some search of Josephus. I will quote the identifying references that are most relevant: mentions of other people named 'Jesus' in the last five books of the Antiquities

Ant. 17.13.1. "Nor did this Eleazar abide long in the high priesthood, Jesus, the son of Sie, being put in his room while he was still living."

Ant. 20.9.4. "And now Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, became the successor of Jesus, the son of Damneus, in the high priesthood, which the king had taken from the other; on which account a sedition arose between the high priests..."

Ant. 20.10.1 "...at which time Jesus, the son of Josadek, took the high priesthood over the captives when they were returned home."

I think that it could be said that Josephus took some care in distinguishing between the different persons named Jesus at the moment that each came up in the narrative, as 'Jesus' is a relatively common Jewish name of the era. Failure of Josephus to wrote 'son of Damneus' when first mentioning Jesus tends to go against the normal procedure of Josephus.

Yes, but Josephus isn't identifying Jesus, he's identifying JAMES. This argument is invalid because it focuses on the wrong aspect of the passage. It is incredibly common for Josephus to introduce people by reference to their relatives, who are then left unexplained -- Damneus is nowhere defined. He is simply a marker for Jesus. Is he defined somewhere else in Ant.? I couldn't find it. So the first reference is the usual Josephus reference form:

"...the brother of Jesus, James by name..."

Further, Joseph does not always identify his Jesus-s by such appellations. In War a Jesus makes a speech in Chap 4 of Book 4; he is identified as the second-eldest of the high priests and his name, Jesus, twice used in the same passage. Note that he is a high priest, like our Jesus Damneus. (He might even be Jesus Damneus but I'm having some trouble working out which ones are which).

Now, an argument against this is that Josephus either identifies people by their positions (jesus the high priest) or their father. He never identifies them by their brother unless the brother is already known.

However, the sequence of events here is not the normal one. Normally the brothers of famous people become important because the one got famous. But nowhere else that I can find does the opposite happen. The sequence of events here is out of kilter from all the other ones related by Josephus, at least in the way I have proposed it.

However, with all that said, after reading both War and Antiquities, I believe Ed is probably right even on the excision, because the most common identifier is "son of." Most commonly, James should be identified as "James, son of Damneus" or else "James son of Josephus" assuming him to be the son of the carpenter.

Unfortunately the reference continues to puzzle me, because "Christ" is refered to some time ago, and Josephus almost always reminds the reader when there is some gap in the narrative, as when he waits 4 chapters to reintroduce Onias the son of Onias.

Tyler writes: "Neither, of course, is the proposal that Josephus wrote a very lengthy passage in which the various relationships of the men involved are not made explicit until the very end. Josephus characteristically establishes his identifications immediately. He certainly would not say 'the brother of X, whose name was Y' and then skip a few pages before telling just you who 'X' is."

Yes, this is usually true; in fact is by far the more devastating the two arguments. Given what I am arguing, my reply would be; where else does Joseph identify action by insignificant brother A resulting in brother B ascending to historic post? I've been looking. I think this is the only passage in either Antiquities or War. In other places prominent brothers have problems with characters introduced as their brother after they appear. Here the action by the nobody brother causes the appearance of the somebody brother in history.

[postscript: have located possible parallel, where Simon son of Boethus' daughter is loved by Herod. Daughter triggers father's fame, but is not even named, whereas Simon is well described. Argument collapses in flames? Although not quite the same situation]

However, Tyler's argument here is much stronger, and may leave this idea in tatters.

All we would need is a different location in which Josephus said "the brother of X, whose name was Y" and then informed us as to who X was later on. I would also accept "Y, son of X" where X is identified later on. Or you can see what you dig up, and we will see whether it is a good analogy for what you suggest that Josephus may have done here.

I'm working on it. But I think this is the wrong approach; in all other cases people are famous in their own right. In this case, the first person introduced is merely the trigger of events, at least the way I read the passage.

I don't think that this takes sufficient account of all the conditions for a successful argument from silence: the extensiveness and variety of the authors supposed to be silent, the surety of actual silence in the authors, the surety that the authors would have mentioned the fact if the fact were known, and the surety that the fact would be known if it were true. I think the last condition holds up well, as I think that Paul for one would have known that James were the brother of Jesus if it were true. I think that the second-to-last condition is arguable, as it is difficult to presage the kinds of things that a person should write, but in any case I do not see an overwhelming reason for the authors in question to mention the fact.

So, the epistle of James and Jude, both of which would be brothers of Jesus if this relationship were true or commonly known, do not count here? Can you explain your position more fully?

The extensiveness and variety criterion is not met; the only documents written before the Antiquities that mention James are Paul and the Epistle of James (and possibly the Gospel of Thomas depending on its date), which gives us a base of two or three authors, given that the existence of authors who do not refer to James at all count for little.

Epistle of Jude does not identify James as a brother of Jesus.

BTW, I assume you mean "the only writings besides the gospels" or else you've revealed some unorthodox position of your own here... :)

But we should not use one set of evidence to discredit the other; each set of evidence should be evaluated on its own terms for its strength, and then a comparison should be made after such individual evaluation.

Ok. But the Ant 20.200 passage is one of the reasons for accepting that there was a James the brother of Jesus.

Basically, the passage says that Ananus made arrangements for the death of these men by means of stoning. The passage does not imply in any way that the plans of Ananus in this regard were frustrated, but neither does it explicitly mention the actual death of these men.

Hmmm......well, since no evidence either way, no argument either way.

One reason this particular passage involving Ananus sticks out is that it totally revises the picture of Ananus from the one given in War, where he is presented as a great and good man. The whole passage is strange -- yet another reason to suspect the reference.

Scratch everything....I think I may have found the reference sequence you'd consider a smoking gun, although this one just gives off puffs rather than fully smokes. Consider the Theophilus sequences in these chapters:

Antiquities: Book: 17 Chapter: 4.2

Matthias son of Theophilus is appointed high priest by Herod

Antiquities: Book: 18 Chapter: 5.3

A Theophilus shows up as Jonathon's brother under agrippa

Antiquities: Book: 19 Chapter: 6.2

Another theophilus, the son of ananus,

Antiquities: Book: 20 Chapter: 9.7

Another matthias the son of theophilus, but much too late to be related theophilus???

Are the first three theophilus-s (theophilii?) the same person? if so.....that would undercut Ed's argument

Vorkosigan

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

[godfry n. glad]

I would still like an explanation from those who argue for the authenticity of the 20.200 cite of James as the brother of "Jesus, called the Christ" as to why Josephus would use the term "christos" in reference to this character and not offer up a description to his readers as to what the term meant.

(Can't you see it?..."Jesus, called the greasy"..."Greasy"...hmmm...I wonder why he was called that? An athlete perhaps? Or, an olive press operator? Or, maybe he was good at "lubricating" deals with us Romans? Damn! I wish this windbag would tell us what these curious Hebrew nicknames were all about.)

If we assume that the reference to Christ in the TF was a later interpolation, then Josephus used this critical term, laden with incendiary meaning, once and only once in his entire corpus.
It's meaning would _not_ be clear to his Graecophonic readers, yet he fails to offer even the most rudimentary of descriptions. In fact, when it has been suggested that he _was_ making reference to the messianic prophecy, in reference to Vespasian, he does NOT use the term.

The phrase is also that which has been placed on the lips of known unbelievers in other Christian texts, why not on the pen of a known unbeliever who was reputed to have lived near that time and, if the gospels are anywhere near the truth of the matter, whose father may well have been a member of the Sanhedrin which condemned Jesus? What better witness? Thus, Josephus becomes the ideal post-facto witness to the historicity of Jesus...and...just about the time it was a bone of contention betwixt the gnostic types and those who would become the orthodoxy.

I cannot help but think of such circumstances as indicating a later interpolation, whether by marginal gloss or excision and replacement. It was a term placed there when the significant readership would make the expected connection _without_ a description or explanation of the term....after the mid-second century.

godfry

[Vorkosigan]

I would still like an explanation from those who argue for the authenticity of the 20.200 cite of James as the brother of "Jesus, called the Christ" as to why Josephus would use the term "christos" in reference to this character and not offer up a description to his readers as to what the term meant.

Yes, Josephus was generally in the habit of reminding his readers when he had referred to someone before. Also, when Josephus signaled someone, he generally put the appellation "son of..." after the name, and if the father had a descriptor, it fell after that. However, there are a few times when he does follow the order in this passage. I saw some the other day, I'll try and track them down.

Vorkosigan

[godfry n. glad]

Vorkosigan:

It's not just that he didn't use the term before; it's that he used this particular term ("christos") _at all_, without defining it.
To the average reader of AotJ (Graecophonic Romans), the term would have had little or no meaning beyond a term for ointment or linament for external application to the body. I would postulate that the Roman reader, coming across the singular usage (since it's agreed that the "christos" reference in the TF most probably was NOT present and it's not found _anywhere_ else in his works) would have read it as "called the ointment" and wondered why he was referred to in that fashion, who referred to him in that fashion, and why the author thought it important to describe this otherwise unknown James as being related to this Jesus character that was called "ointment", rather than his usual "son of" format.

Then, if you assume that Josephus' readers _did_ know the meaning of the term (as Ed Tyler will vociferously argue), you still run into problems. The Roman reader would still have to wonder why it was used here to describe an otherwise unknown person; why Josephus never supplied a fuller explication of the "ambiguous oracle" of "one who would become governor of the habitable world" (JW 6.5.4, which follows fast upon the description of the madman Jesus, son of Ananus, prophet of the destruction of Jerusalem in JW 6.5.3)and relate it to the term "christos"; why it was not used when Josephus described Vespasian as the true subject of that same messianic oracle; who would have claimed that this otherwise unknown personage was on par with the Emperor Vespasian; and...why Josephus did not explain any of this.

All this leads me to give credence the hypothesis that suggests that the reference replaced another reference; that it is the result of excision and replacement by an interpolator with an agenda to provide supportive evidence for the corporeal existence of Jesus.


godfry n. glad

P.S.- Here's a question: Is the Jesus, son of Ananus, the scouraged madman who prophesizes the imminent destruction of Jerusalem in JW 6.5.4, the son of the same Ananus who is responsible for the arrest and condemnation of James, brother of Jesus, "called the Christ" in AotJ 20.9.1?

[Peter Kirby]

I wrote: A search of the ante-Nicene Church Fathers, the extracanonical writings, and the New Testament will produce no instance in which James is identified as "the brother of Jesus" (let alone "the brother of Jesus called Christ"). It is thus not likely to be a phrase to come naturally from a Christian pen when identifying James.

IntenSity writes: What about Galatians 1
19 But I did not see any other of the apostles except (1) James, the Lord's brother

My statement concerned the phraseology used to identify James, and the phrase "the brother of Jesus" is not found here; here it is "the brother of the Lord."

If you had read my entire essay, you might have noticed that my comment was copied from the essay in its current revision. You would have known why Galatians 1:19 is not a counter-example but rather supporting evidence. And you would have seen this quote from J. P. Meier:

"...the way the text identifies James is not likely to have come from a Christian hand or even a Christian source. Neither the NT nor early Christian writers spoke of James of Jerusalem in a matter-of-fact way as 'the brother of Jesus' (ho adelphos Iesou), but rather -- with the reverence we would expect -- 'the brother of the Lord' (ho adelphos tou kyriou) or 'the brother of the Savior' (ho adelphos tou soteros). Paul, who was not overly fond of James, calls him 'the brother of the Lord' in Gal 1:19 and no doubt is thinking especially of him when he speaks of 'the brothers of the Lord' in 1Cor 9:5. Hegesippus, the 2d-century Church historian who was a Jewish convert and probably hailed from Palestine, likewise speaks of 'James, the brother of the Lord' (in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History 2.23.4); indeed, Hegesippus also speaks of certain other well-known Palestinian Christians as 'a cousin of the Lord' (4.22.4), the 'brothers of the Savior' (3.25.5), and 'his [the Lord's] brother according to the flesh' (3.20.1). The point of all this is that Josephus' designation of James as 'the brother of Jesus' squares neither with NT nor with early patristic usage, and so does not likely come from the hand of a Christian interpolator." (A Marginal Jew, v. 1, p. 58)

best,
Peter Kirby

[Vorkosigan]

The point of all this is that Josephus' designation of James as 'the brother of Jesus' squares neither with NT nor with early patristic usage, and so does not likely come from the hand of a Christian interpolator." (A Marginal Jew, v. 1, p. 58)

This is what I have claimed too, that the "brother of Jesus" is from Joseph, and "so-called Christ" is the only thing interpolated.

Vorkosigan

[Vorkosigan]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by godfry n. glad:
[QB]Vorkosigan:

It's not just that he didn't use the term before; it's that he used this particular term ("christos") _at all_, without defining it.
To the average reader of AotJ (Graecophonic Romans), the term would have had little or no meaning beyond a term for ointment or linament for external application to the body. I would postulate that the Roman reader, coming across the singular usage (since it's agreed that the "christos" reference in the TF most probably was NOT present and it's not found _anywhere_ else in his works) would have read it as "called the ointment" and wondered why he was referred to in that fashion, who referred to him in that fashion, and why the author thought it important to describe this otherwise unknown James as being related to this Jesus character that was called "ointment", rather than his usual "son of" format.

Then, if you assume that Josephus' readers _did_ know the meaning of the term (as Ed Tyler will vociferously argue), you still run into problems. The Roman reader would still have to wonder why it was used here to describe an otherwise unknown person; why Josephus never supplied a fuller explication of the "ambiguous oracle" of "one who would become governor of the habitable world" (JW 6.5.4, which follows fast upon the description of the madman Jesus, son of Ananus, prophet of the destruction of Jerusalem in JW 6.5.3)and relate it to the term "christos"; why it was not used when Josephus described Vespasian as the true subject of that same messianic oracle; who would have claimed that this otherwise unknown personage was on par with the Emperor Vespasian; and...why Josephus did not explain any of this.

All this leads me to give credence the hypothesis that suggests that the reference replaced another reference; that it is the result of excision and replacement by an interpolator with an agenda to provide supportive evidence for the corporeal existence of Jesus.


godfry n. glad

P.S.- Here's a question: Is the Jesus, son of Ananus, the scouraged madman who prophesizes the imminent destruction of Jerusalem in JW 6.5.4, the son of the same Ananus who is responsible for the arrest and condemnation of James, brother of Jesus, "called the Christ" in AotJ 20.9.1?[/B]

I can pretty much agree with your analysis of the "christ" question. Where people have different names, or their father is famous in his own right, Joseph sometimes describes them. However, your argument cuts both ways. It could well mean that the reference in 20.200 means that Josephus really did refer to Jesus earler, although in an entirely pejorative manner.

DO you have access of one of Ed's arguments about why we should believe "Christ" to be a phrase known to educated Romans at large?

I'm certain at least that the "so-called Christ" is an interpolation. Is it in the Slavonic Josephus? None of the online sources clearly say.

Vorkosigan

[Peter Kirby]

Vorkosigan writes: I'm certain at least that the "so-called Christ" is an interpolation.

So far, you seem to have offered conjecture, waiting for it to be shot down, without constructing a positive argument for the conjecutre as far as I've seen. So whence comes this certainty?

best,
Peter Kirby

[Vorkosigan]

[quote]Originally posted by peterkirby:
<strong>Vorkosigan writes: I'm certain at least that the "so-called Christ" is an interpolation.

So far, you seem to have offered conjecture, waiting for it to be shot down, without constructing a positive argument for the conjecutre as far as I've seen. So whence comes this certainty?

best,
Peter Kirby</strong><hr></blockquote>

1. Take it out, see it as a link to Jesus Damneus in the same section below, the story works even better. In other words, it is aesthetically pleasing this way (aesthetic arguments are used to support a partial interpolation for the TF).

2. It explains why Josephus atypically put "the brother of" first rather than his more typical style of putting the identifier after the name. He does not always do this, but he does it enought that the passage is atypical.

If James were really the focus of the identification, why isn't he listed first followed by "...brother of Jesus, the one called Christ,..." as Josephus usually does. As far as anyone knows, Josephus did not revere JC as the messiah, so there is no reason to give any importance to the identification of "Christ" before that of "James." The only reason that "brother of" comes first is because James is important here for being the brother of Somebody. Based on the promixity in the passage, it is either JC or Jesus Damneus. JC makes no sense coming first, Jesus Damneus does.....

Other reasons lie outside the scope of this discussion.

Vorkosigan

[ August 02, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

[joedad]

Could someone who knows ancient Greek indulge my curiosity? Specifically, how do the words a, an and the get translated from the Greek to English? The usage of those three tiny words certainly could affect a translation. To what degree it it subjective?

Thanks,

joe

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: joedad ]</p>

[Peter Kirby]

joedad writes: Could someone who knows ancient Greek indulge my curiosity? Specifically, how do the words a, an and the get translated from the Greek to English? The usage of those three tiny words certainly could affect a translation. To what degree it it subjective?

There is no exact correlation between the use of articles in Greek and in English. The Greek article translated "the" is often omitted in English, and translations from Greek sometimes have to supply an article such as "a" or "an." Sometimes an article is used reflexively as a possessive, so that what appears to be "I lost the keys" would actually mean "I lost my keys." It would therefore be misleading for me to tell you that a certain word in Greek translates to "the," "a," or "an."

On the assumption that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, especially when translating, I suggest the use of a Greek grammar to find out more. My textbook was From Alpha to Omega by Anne Groton, but you can also find some <a href="http://perswww.kuleuven.ac.be/~p3481184/greekg/grammars.htm" target="_blank">grammars online</a> such as that by Herbert Weir Smyth. I myself still have a lot to learn about Greek.

best,
Peter Kirby

[Layman]

[quote]Originally posted by Vorkosigan:

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]
<hr></blockquote>

Excuse me for butting in on an insignficant item, but I'm just glad to see someone finally bested my record of THREE edit lines in a single post!

Bravo


<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

[godfry n. glad]

I can pretty much agree with your analysis of the "christ" question. Where people have different names, or their father is famous in his own right, Joseph sometimes describes them. However, your argument cuts both ways. It could well mean that the reference in 20.200 means that Josephus really did refer to Jesus earler, although in an entirely pejorative manner.

- Vorkosigan

Oh...I understand that. But, if the term were introduced in a "perjorative" TF, then, in my estimation, it would still have required some kind of explanation for the Grecophonic readers as to the nature of "christos". None of the proposed reconstructed TFs includes such, so the problem still remains.

DO you have access of one of Ed's arguments about why we should believe "Christ" to be a phrase known to educated Romans at large?

- Vorkosigan

Nope. Sorry, Vork, but I went back to the long running set of threads in the JesusMysteries archives and failed to dredge it up. Several posters were involved in the discussion, but all of the posts by Ed Tyler are missing. I tried to glean Ed's commentary on the topic by extracting it from the posts of others that included his responses (a la Celsus embedded in Origen), to no avail. Some of his responses are there, but his assertion about "christos" is missing.

If you want to read the commentary of the various participants, it starts with post #2741 and continues through several minor thread title changes at #2762, #2772, #2818 and #2841. You might be particularly interested in Ken Olson's comment at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JesusMysteries/message/2824

As I remember it, Ed was adamant that the entire Greco-Roman world would have been familiar with the granting of authority associated with the anointing of oil and thus the term "christos" would have been easily understood by readers of the Antiquities of the Jews. When pressed, he never produced evidence to support his assertion, however, he just continued to assert.

I hope this helps, but you might have to track him down and ask him point blank. He's hanging out at XTalk2 last I saw evidence of him.

godfry n. glad

[Peter Kirby]

Vorkosigan, have you come up with any ideas for who the "certain others" were and what laws they were accused of breaking (and why they were given an illegal trial) under your hypothesis?

best,
Peter Kirby

[Vorkosigan]

[quote]Originally posted by Peter Kirby:
<strong>Vorkosigan, have you come up with any ideas for who the "certain others" were and what laws they were accused of breaking (and why they were given an illegal trial) under your hypothesis?

best,
Peter Kirby</strong><hr></blockquote>


There's no other information in the text given about them, other than them being "companions" or "others" of the James mentioned there. All we know is that Ananus accused them of law-breaking and sent them off to be stoned, and Josephus says others thought this was high-handed. He does not even say the sentence was carried out.

[Peter Kirby]

Vorkosigan writes: There's no other information in the text given about them, other than them being "companions" or "others" of the James mentioned there. All we know is that Ananus accused them of law-breaking and sent them off to be stoned, and Josephus says others thought this was high-handed.

I know what Josephus said, but I am not asking you to back up any possible speculation with the text of Josephus or other evidence. I am asking for a merely possible explanation that would bring completeness to the hypothesis that you've suggested.

Vorkosigan writes: He does not even say the sentence was carried out.

My opinion is that it would have been most natural for Josephus to mention that the sentence of Ananus was frustrated if it was in fact.

best,
Peter Kirby

[DE BERGERAC]

Admired members, admired Peter Kirby, this is my first post here and I must confine myself to little more than acknowlegde your achievement. :notworthy English, on the other hand is not my mother tongue, I apologise for my poor usage.

I have been reading a lot about Christian origins and I am also the possessor of Mr. Kirby's CD. I chose to delve into the affair as a teenager and I have been investigating since, and intend to go on doing so forever.

Some days ago I was reading a Wells book, in which he surveys the validity of every non-Christian source as to Jesus's historicity. I remembered that one of Harold Leidner's main arguments is that many Jesuses are recorded in Josephus's work. So I went in a hurry to fetch my Whiston Josephus with this thought in mind: "Maybe there are more Jesuses in the vicinity of the James passage, and the information relates to one of them". It certainly was the case, so I came to the net and lighted upon this forum.

I tend to agree with the initial thesis proposed. Could it be that the passage is authentic (Christ mention included!) and even so it refers, as it must do, to some of the two Jesuses who were high priests after Ananus? Does a Christ title necessarily refer to the Messiah figure or it can be understood to point to a person who had "anointed" for surname? :wave:

[TedM]

It seems to me that the marginal gloss must be the messiah comment, and not the entire "Jesus" comment. What if the original text read "The brother of Jesus, whose name was James.." -- in other words, an ordinary bloke named James -- and the Jesus reference is to Jesus Damneus. Although the reader would need to get to the end of the section to see the connection, what if James is the son of Damneus as well and the brother of that Jesus, and the High Priesthood goes to that family as compensation for the unfortunate death of James.

I decided to look at Josephus' last 6 books of Antiquities to see how he identifies people. I chose those books because they cover a time period contemporary to Josephus. I narrowed the focus to a comparison of 'son of' to 'brother of' references. I found that he used the term "son of" roughly 69 times, and "brother of" roughly 13 times. Here is a list of how he described 28 of the high priests, beginning with Ananelus, taken from the ccel website:

Ananelus.
Aristobulus.
Jesus, the son of Fabus.
Simon, the son of Boethus.
Marthias, the son of Theophiltu.
Joazar, the son of Boethus.
Eleazar, the son of Boethus.
Jesus, the son of Sic.
[Annas, or] Ananus, the son of Seth.
Ismael, the son of Fabus.
Eleazar, the son of Ananus.
Simon, the son of Camithus.
Josephus Caiaphas, the son-in-law to Ananus.
Jonathan, the son of Ananus.
Theophilus, his brother, and son of Ananus.
Simon, the son of Boethus.
Matthias, the brother of Jonathan, and son of Ananus.
Aljoneus.
Josephus, the son of Camydus.
Ananias, the son of Nebedeus.
Jonathas.
Ismael, the son of Fabi.
Joseph Cabi, the son of Simon.
Ananus, the son of Artanus.
Jesus, the son of Damnetas.
Jesus, the son of Gamaliel.
Matthias, the son of Theophilus.
Phannias, the son of Samuel.
As for Ananus and Joseph Caiaphas

4 are listed by name only, 25 with "son of", 1 with "son in law", and 2 with " brother of". Both of the 2 "brother of" also had a "son of".

Given these numbers, it is most likely that the original reference had only "son of". It is not likely that the original passage had "brother of Jesus, whose name was James" only, as Vorkosigan suggests.

If it was an unintentional interpolation, it surely would not have had "son of Damneus" either. In the unlikely event that it said "brother of Jesus, whose name was James" you have 2 further unlikelhoods: 1. Josephus didn't further identify James and Jesus when first mentioned though he could have if both were the son of Damneus and 2. the interpolator didn't make the connection between the first Jesus and the second one later in the paragraph.

If it was an intentional interpolation, it may have said "brother of Jesus, son of Damneus, whose name was James". We would then have someone intentionally changing the identification of James. Such an interpolator would have done so without describing the Christ in positive terms, and without even describing James in positive terms. This seems unlikely for a Christian to have done, though of course it is possible.

It appears to me that the reason given for Jesus Damneus' election was punishment for having a sanhedren without proper consent. There is no suggestion by Josephus that the new appointment reflected an ironic poetic justice. There is no indication of the relationship between Jesus' political aspirations and James' viewpoints, either at the time James is first mentioned, at the time of his death, or at the time of the appointment of Jesus. The context therefore is not strongly supportive of an original brother reference.

ted

[Amaleq13]

Ted,

Am I correct in thinking that there are no other examples in Josephus that follow this same structure of naming the brother before the person being discussed?

[spin]

We a re going over material long gone over yet I see not a jot of new information. Vork's "realisation" is old hat.

I have challenged anyone to cough up with a phrase analogous to an unprecedented

the brother of Jesus called Christ, whose name was James

ie a grammatically similarly contorted phrase which has the relationship and the relation before the subject of the passage and at the same time without any prior reference to the relation in the near context.

Normally we will find structures such as "James, son of Joseph", as the usual form, less frequently with "James, the brother of Jesus". Again even less frequently "... Jesus ..., the brother of his, James" or "... Jesus ..., the brother of Jesus, James" Never, just "the brother of Jesus, James". You may remember Bernard Muller going blue in the face trying to find an example that would fit this contorted paradigm and failing.

Obviously, there is a clear problem with the unqualified and nicely biblical form "called Christ". Our devout Jewish writer could not have made that statement. But at the same time its existence signals textual inteference, a textual interference also noted in the contorted syntax of "the brother of Jesus [..], James".

The whole phrase is an obvious crock and was seen as such in the past, but with new efforts to shave fish, the passage has been revisited and the damage has been pared back. Totally unconvincing if you look at the phrase in its general literary context.


spin

[TedM]

Ted,

Am I correct in thinking that there are no other examples in Josephus that follow this same structure of naming the brother before the person being discussed?

Sorry Amaleq, I just don't know. I only did a quick and very narrow search--I didn't even look at examples of "X's brother" or "Y's son".

ted

[spin]

Check out this thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=1557203) so that we don't rehash the same stuff. Yes, you'll find "brother" there.


spin

[TedM]

We a re going over material long gone over yet I see not a jot of new information. Vork's "realisation" is old hat.

I have challenged anyone to cough up with a phrase analogous to an unprecedented

the brother of Jesus called Christ, whose name was James


ie a grammatically similarly contorted phrase which has the relationship and the relation before the subject of the passage and at the same time without any prior reference to the relation in the near context.

I agree that it is highly unusual, and even if Josephus had introduced a novel description in "called Christ" I don't see a precedent for such a description coming before the person's name. Perhaps it originally read "James, the brother of Jesus, called Christ", and an interpolator preferred the listing of Jesus before James.

In any case, your response doesn't speak to the unlikelihood of the alternatives, which is what my post was about.

ted

[spin]

I agree that it is highly unusual, and even if Josephus had introduced a novel description in "called Christ" I don't see a precedent for such a description coming before the person's name. Perhaps it originally read "James, the brother of Jesus, called Christ", and an interpolator preferred the listing of Jesus before James.

In any case, your response doesn't speak to the unlikelihood of the alternatives, which is what my post was about.
First thing you do is remove the dead wood and you end up with

brought before them (one) called James and some companions,

Any problem there? Why not go with it? It makes sense in itself.

What the text simply doesn't make clear is what Ananus had against this James, but giving him some relationship doesn't change this.


spin

[TedM]

First thing you do is remove the dead wood and you end up with

brought before them (one) called James and some companions,

Any problem there? Why not go with it? It makes sense in itself.

What the text simply doesn't make clear is what Ananus had against this James, but giving him some relationship doesn't change this.

spin

Ok, but such a desciption is possible, but not probable for Josephus. In other words, the odds don't favor a name without a description, so any alleged interpretation based on this alleged 'original' is also not favored by the odds. Now, it may be that a name without a description increased the odds of an interpolation, but how or why might that have happened? Does it really make sense for an interpolator to simply see the name James and decide that either 1. it is referring to James, the leader of the Jewish Christians or 2. it is a good place to put in a reference to Jesus, called Christ, and then not even exalt either one of them?

What the text simply doesn't make clear is what Ananus had against this James, but giving him some relationship doesn't change this.

No, but giving him a relationship does increase the expectation of a discussion of that relationship further given the context, but no such discussion appears.

As for Ananus' motive, this is speculative, but since he was a Saducee (sp?) and they didn't believe in the resurrection, one could wonder if the accusation was a cover for claims in favor of a resurrection--which of course is what the Christians later said James did. Its not supported by this text, though.

ted

[Toto]

We are going over material long gone over yet I see not a jot of new information. Vork's "realisation" is old hat.

. . .

Note that this thread was resurrected from 2002.

[TedM]

Note that this thread was resurrected from 2002. From what I can tell I've added new information not in this thread previously.

ted

[Peter Kirby]

As for Ananus' motive, this is speculative, but since he was a Saducee (sp?) and they didn't believe in the resurrection, one could wonder if the accusation was a cover for claims in favor of a resurrection--which of course is what the Christians later said James did. Its not supported by this text, though.
James's death can be best explained for the reason that James had a claim to the high priesthood. Hegesippus as quoted by Eusebius says that James the Just entered the sanctuary, which is what the high priest does. Epiphanius says that James entered the holy of holies and wore the priestly diadem. The 2nd Apocalypse of James implies that James was a relative of a priest. In the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Lord appears to James just after he "had given the linen cloth to the servant of the priest." Recognitions I:66-70 says that a debate on the temple stairs between Caiphas and James resulted in a tumult among the people. The account in Ant. 20.9.1 says that the execution of James caused such public pressure that the high priest Ananus was deposed and Jesus son of Damneus put in his place. All of this points to some historical James who had a claim to the high priesthood and was knocked off to eliminate a rival when the Romans had their backs turned.

The question is, why was this James claimed as a brother of Jesus, the one called Christ, in the Christian writings and the manuscripts of Josephus? Could that be true, and was it? If not, why was the connection made?

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

[spin]

Ok, but such a desciption is possible, but not probable for Josephus. In other words, the odds don't favor a name without a description, so any alleged interpretation based on this alleged 'original' is also not favored by the odds.
And you hope to reclaim a description, knowing that the text has been interfered with and that there is nothing remaining for you to reclaim such a description.

Does it really make sense for an interpolator to simply see the name James and decide that either 1. it is referring to James, the leader of the Jewish Christians or 2. it is a good place to put in a reference to Jesus, called Christ, and then not even exalt either one of them?
The interpolator has a lot more information than you credit: the man was blameless, he was stoned, etc. There is enough to fit this James into an interpretative framework.

giving him a relationship does increase the expectation of a discussion of that relationship further given the context, but no such discussion appears.
Crap.


spin

[TedM]

And you hope to reclaim a description, knowing that the text has been interfered with and that there is nothing remaining for you to reclaim such a description.

I"m not sure what you are responding to here. I just said that the odds don't favor the simple identification you gave to support an interpolation. I then asked for reasons one might have taken advantage of such a simple identification.

Does it really make sense for an interpolator to simply see the name James and decide that either 1. it is referring to James, the leader of the Jewish Christians or 2. it is a good place to put in a reference to Jesus, called Christ, and then not even exalt either one of them?

The interpolator has a lot more information than you credit: the man was blameless, he was stoned, etc. There is enough to fit this James into an interpretative framework.

Who suggested the Christian James was stoned? IF he was, this increases the likelihood of non-interpolation. If he wasn't this argues for a dishonest interpolator.

It isn't clear to me that 'Josephus' says James was blameless: Here's the passage again:
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

The first bolded part may be explained by the second, as opposed to any suggestion of James' innocence.


giving him a relationship does increase the expectation of a discussion of that relationship further given the context, but no such discussion appears.

Crap.

Why? The passage already gives an explanation for James' death and Jesus' appointment, without need for a relationship. If the relationship somehow changes the reason for James' death and for Jesus' appointment shouldn't we expect some mention by Josephus of motives which differs from the ones that have nothing to do with a relationship?

ted

[TedM]

James's death can be best explained for the reason that James had a claim to the high priesthood....

That seems reasonable, yet Josephus doesn't mention this claim. What does this suggest to you?

The question is, why was this James claimed as a brother of Jesus, the one called Christ, in the Christian writings and the manuscripts of Josephus? Could that be true, and was it? If not, why was the connection made?

Seems like both the claim to the high priesthood and the brother of Jesus claim could be true given James' exalted status in Galations, and description as "the Lord's brother".

If "the Lord's brother" was an interpolation, we still have a brother names James in the Gospels, so an early tradition. But, why choose this passage in Josephus to interpolate, and to interpolate as we see it--with little exaltation of either James or Jesus? I'm asking the same questions. What is the motivation of the alleged interpolator?

ted

[spin]

I merely supplied what was reclaimable from the passage after we removed the damage. Everything else seems to me untinged conjecture.

As to James, no indication of any crime is supplied, just that there was an accusation formulated. This suggests that the accusation was baseless. But I'm not wedded to the necessity of this.

It was crap to me because it seemed to be eisegesis, ie nothing from the particular text, but your will to make sense of it filled in the gulf.


spin

[Peter Kirby]

That seems reasonable, yet Josephus doesn't mention this claim. What does this suggest to you?
There is the bare possibility that such a claim was described in Ant. 18.3.3.

If not, I don't know. Josephus in Ant. 20.9.1 gives no explicit explanation for the death of James.

If James had priestly status and Jesus son of Damneus was appointed high priest after the execution of James, what was the relationship if any between James and Jesus son of Damneus?

Seems like both the claim to the high priesthood and the brother of Jesus claim could be true given James' exalted status in Galations, and description as "the Lord's brother".
Was Jesus then from a priestly family?

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

[TedM]

I merely supplied what was reclaimable from the passage after we removed the damage. Everything else seems to me untinged conjecture.

Ok, but would you agree that it is much more likely that Josephus said "James, the son of X" than just "James"? Do these probabilities not seem relevant to a discussion about what the original reading most probably was?

ted

[spin]

It could as easily have been "a just man whose name was James".

And I think you waste time conjecturing on what is simply not there.


spin

[TedM]

It could as easily have been "a just man whose name was James".

And I think you waste time conjecturing on what is simply not there.
spin

I don't see how you are answering my questions:

Ok, but would you agree that it is much more likely that Josephus said "James, the son of X" than just "James"? Do these probabilities not seem relevant to a discussion about what the original reading most probably was?

Earlier you said the damage is least if you just keep James. How is the damage any more if you also keep the name Jesus? And, doesn't Josephus' style of referencing people increase the probability that the name Jesus was there originally? If so, shouldn't that be a factor in defining 'damage'?

ted

[spin]

Ok, but would you agree that it is much more likely that Josephus said "James, the son of X" than just "James"?
It could as easily have been "a just man whose name was James".
I don't see how you are answering my questions
I thought it was obvious.

And I think you waste time conjecturing on what is simply not there.
This was gratuitous explanation.

Earlier you said the damage is least if you just keep James. How is the damage any more if you also keep the name Jesus?
I pointed out that the syntax verges on the questionable and doesn't fit any of Josephus's other formulae. As I've already said, the text has clearly been compromised, as the phrase "called christ" indicates. The un-Josephus-like syntax as further disturbance seems extremely likely given that it is clear that the passage has been tampered with.

And, doesn't Josephus' style of referencing people increase the probability that the name Jesus was there originally? If so, shouldn't that be a factor in defining 'damage'?
Only if you insist on the necessity that there was a familial relationship and there is no necessity, and that the disturbed syntax preserves the original information.

The form of the syntax indicates a name just mentioned, otherwise one might expect something like "James, the brother of Jesus", but this is not the case, suggesting that the whole phrase "the brother of Jesus called christ..." was an addition and therefore of no help for the original text.


spin

[TedM]

And, doesn't Josephus' style of referencing people increase the probability that the name Jesus was there originally? If so, shouldn't that be a factor in defining 'damage'?

Only if you insist on the necessity that there was a familial relationship and there is no necessity, and that the disturbed syntax preserves the original information.

I don't insist on the necessity of anything here. You are the one insisting on the necessity of a post-interpolated text that resembles the pre-interpolated text in structure. Why require such a thing? It seems to me that structure, context, content, and who knows what else ALL need to be considered in order to determine the probability of something having been done to the text, but since we can't go back and see the original we can't say that any single one of them necessarily didn't change. That's why it seems to me that your focus is too narrow, and ignores important probabilities like the probability that Josephus DID indicate a familial relationship.

It also seems to me that when one reclaims a text based on a syntax evaluation, it might be of value to look at the probability that such original was then subsequently changed to what we now see. To me, ALL of this is conjecture--including arguments about syntax structure, so why not include arguments for and against different subsequent interpolation theories?

ted

[Amaleq13]

Ok, but such a desciption is possible, but not probable for Josephus. In other words, the odds don't favor a name without a description, so any alleged interpretation based on this alleged 'original' is also not favored by the odds.

How did you figure these odds? Don't you need to know how often Josephus mentions a name without a description?

[spin]

I don't insist on the necessity of anything here. You are the one insisting on the necessity of a post-interpolated text that resembles the pre-interpolated text in structure.
Umm, whatever, TedM. We are talking past each other I guess. You want the text to be a certain way without any evidence whatsoever, and I want to remove the dead wood, ie material whose relationship to the original text cannot be in any sense shown, and use what's left.

Why require such a thing? It seems to me that structure, context, content, and who knows what else ALL need to be considered in order to determine the probability of something having been done to the text, but since we can't go back and see the original we can't say that any single one of them necessarily didn't change. That's why it seems to me that your focus is too narrow, and ignores important probabilities like the probability that Josephus DID indicate a familial relationship.
Josephus often supplies titles and no familial connections as well. He supplies various factors and you are preoccupied with one, yet of familial connections, Josephus predominantly uses "son of", which is understandable with his Semitic background. Yet you are hanging out for the vastly minor form with brother. Obviously, the brother connection is rather rare in Josephus, yet you champion it. Try and find examples of "brother of" connections in passages where the brother isn't mentioned elsewhere in the wider context. Thrill us all with your finds.

It also seems to me that when one reclaims a text based on a syntax evaluation, it might be of value to look at the probability that such original was then subsequently changed to what we now see. To me, ALL of this is conjecture--including arguments about syntax structure, so why not include arguments for and against different subsequent interpolation theories?
I have looked, TedM. When you are in a position to make comments about the syntax, let me know.


spin

[Peter Kirby]

There is the bare possibility that such a claim was described in Ant. 18.3.3.

If not, I don't know. Josephus in Ant. 20.9.1 gives no explicit explanation for the death of James.

If James had priestly status and Jesus son of Damneus was appointed high priest after the execution of James, what was the relationship if any between James and Jesus son of Damneus?

Seems like both the claim to the high priesthood and the brother of Jesus claim could be true given James' exalted status in Galations, and description as "the Lord's brother".

Was Jesus then from a priestly family?

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

What do you say, Ted? Anyone have a response?

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

[TedM]

How did you figure these odds? Don't you need to know how often Josephus mentions a name without a description?

Yes, I am basing it on the original list of 28 high priest descriptions I posted earlier today, which shows a name without a description to in only 4 or 5 (I forget now) of the cases. Of course as I also mentioned in another post the presence of a name with no description may in and of itself increase the odds of interpolation--especially 'innocent interpolation'. But then you have to ask what is it in the rest of the context that might lend one to interpolate..

ted

[TedM]

Josephus often supplies titles and no familial connections as well. He supplies various factors and you are preoccupied with one, yet of familial connections, Josephus predominantly uses "son of", which is understandable with his Semitic background. Yet you are hanging out for the vastly minor form with brother. Obviously, the brother connection is rather rare in Josephus, yet you champion it. Try and find examples of "brother of" connections in passages where the brother isn't mentioned elsewhere in the wider context. Thrill us all with your finds.

You continue to argue against the current text as the original, and I continue to question the likelihood of the process of going from a proposed original to the current, so yes we are talking past each other. I agree with your objections, but suggested that the passage may have had a different original structure with much if not all of the same content as we see now..

ted

[spin]

You continue to argue against the current text as the original,
This is not correct. I have already discounted the current text. I am arguing the lack of merit in your wishful approach to what is not there but might have been.

You have unsuccessfully sidestepped the issue of the improbability of Josephus using "brother of Y, whose name was X", but I gather that you will now also disavow the brother stuff, given that you are into probability in your analysis and the use of "brother" as the familial description is so rare and limited to specific conditions, which don't apply here. There is no recent prior reference to a Jesus. (In fact, the passage as it stands is attempting to justify Jesus by qualifying him "called christ", suggesting that the person responsible knew that it was necessary to qualify Jesus as there was no prior reference, hence Jesus wasn't in the original.)

and I continue to question the likelihood of the process of going from a proposed original to the current, so yes we are talking past each other. I agree with your objections, but suggested that the passage may have had a different original structure with much if not all of the same content as we see now..
No doubt the passage had a different original structure, but you have no opportunity to reconstruct it for yourself, having no textual handles to grab onto, no recent prior mention of Jesus, lack of commonality of the use of "brother of" by Josephus. As the passage had a different original structure, you simply cannot reclaim what you don't know and that is what was prior.


spin

[TedM]

What do you say, Ted? Anyone have a response?

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

This is some related material from Bernard Muller's site, on the Nazarenes, led by James. Muller doesn't go so far as to say that James was in line to become a high priest though. Sorry for the poor formatting. To better appreciate his points, which are emphasized through coloring, and bolding, etc.., you can find these passages at http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/hjes2x.html:

A) The temple was their meeting place:
Ac2:46a "Every days they continued to meet together in the temple [of Jerusalem] courts"
not a room within a community building, where the Essenes met. Actually, the Essenes were not authorized to go in the temple: Josephus in Ant., XVIII, I, 5, wrote:
"They do not offer sacrifices ... On which account they are excluded from the common court of the temple"
This also implies the "Nazarenes" were offering animal sacrifice in the temple, or asking their guests to do so:
In Ac21:23-26, the "Nazarenes" asked Paul and four other men to take part in "purification rites" (all at Paul's expense, as a punishment & despite the very important donation!). Those rites included animal sacrifice at the end:
Ac21:26 "The next day [58C.E.], Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the purification would end and the offering would be made for all of them."

The "Nazarenes", unlike the Essenes, had high regard for the temple......

In the letter (of James), James appears to have been a responsible (and sympathetic) leader projecting authority and popular wisdom. He was concerned by the (spiritual and physical) welfare of his community (and possibly others). And he was not scheming about doctrine, theology (like Paul) and rituals.
Also, the general tone of the letter suggests that James considered himself the successor of Jesus, as corroborated in a "saying" in the uncanonical gospel of Thomas (12):
"The disciples said to Jesus, "We know that You will depart from us. Who is to be our leader?" Jesus said to them, "Wherever you are, you are to go to James the Righteous ...""

Finally, James' letter has so little Christianization added ( "Lord Jesus Christ" (1:1) and "glorious Lord Jesus Christ" (2:1): that's it), so much conservative (non-hellenistic) Judaism, and, on some points, conflicted with Christian doctrine, that it barely made it into the New Testament. And the imagery complementing unequivocally the plain language is very reminiscent of Jesus' sayings, even if James' homilies or/and messages appear more sophisticated (but no parable or cynicism here! And no "sacrifice" also).

He also quotes some passages in James that seem to show a James whose message would upset some of the high priests of his day:

Now, let's start by the passages the most likely to be authentic:

Jas1:9-11 "Let the lowly brother glory in his exaltation, but the rich in his humiliation, because as a flower of the field he will pass away. For no sooner has the sun risen with a burning heat than it withers the grass; its flower falls, and its beautiful appearance perishes. So the rich man also will fade away in his pursuits."

Jas2:2-6 "For if there should come into your assembly a man with gold rings, in fine apparel, and there should also come in a poor man in filthy clothes, and you pay attention to the one wearing the fine clothes and say to him, "You sit here in a good place," and say to the poor man, "You stand there," or, "Sit here at my footstool," have you not shown partiality among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts?
Listen, my beloved brethren: has God not chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?
[quintessential belief of Jesus and the "Nazarenes". Let's also notice the present tense in "love", in contrast of the past tense in "promised": the "Nazarenes" must have believed Jesus had been "the apostle" (Heb3:1) of God, revealing in his behalf, salvation (admission in the Kingdom) for the poor of his generation ("the door of Jesus": see later on). Let's also observe the Kingdom is to arrive when these poor (and also the wealthy ones, as shown later) are still alive. Also of interest: being poor is not enough to get in the Kingdom, you have to love God also (piety)]
` But you have dishonored the poor man. Do not the rich oppress you and drag you into the courts?"

Jas2:15-16 "If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?"

Jas5:1-5 "Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries that are coming upon you!
[allusion to the "negatives" to be administered when the Kingdom arrives]
` Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver are corroded, and their corrosion will be a witness against you and will eat your flesh like fire [see 3:6b]. You have heaped up treasure in the last days.
[it was thought the Kingdom would arrive very soon and before these wealthy ones die!]
` Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty.
[no mention of Jesus in heaven (here and in the whole letter!). However, as can be gathered in Eusebius' "the History of the Church" 2, 23, quoting Hegesippus (a Christian), James (described here as the ultimate holiest Jew) used often his brother's name in the simple expression: "the door of Jesus" (meaning salvation but without any elaboration). It is also clear, from the same passage, that "the Righteous One" was never referring to his brother as "Christ", "Lord", "Son of God", "Son of David" or being in heaven. See Appendix C]
` You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter.
[allusion to the "day of the Lord (God)" and his Judgment: see later]"

Note: such virulent attacks against wealthy ones were bound to infuriate the high priests, who were hoarding money. And their wrath happened: in 62C.E., one of them, Ananus, a Sadducee and the high priest then, "formed an accusation against them ["James, and some others"] as breakers of the law". As a result, "he delivered them to be stoned". See my "Appendix C" with Josephus' testimony, for more details.
This is what Josephus wrote about the high priests then:
Ant., XX, XVIII, 8 "About this time king Agrippa gave the high priesthood to Ismael [60C.E. at the latest], who was the son of Fabi. And now arose a sedition between the high priests and the principal men of the multitude of Jerusalem; each of which got them a company of the boldest sort of men, and of those that loved innovations about them, and became leaders to them; ... And such was the impudence and boldness that had seized on the high priests,
[that would include the aforementioned Ananus]
` that they had the hardiness to send their servants into the threshing-floors, to take away those tithes that were due to the priests, ..."
Ant., XX, IX, 2 "But as for the [former] high priest [48?-52?C.E.], Ananias [the son of Nebedeus], he 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 [Roman governor, 62-64?C.E.], and of the [new] high priest [Jesus (no relation!)], by making them presents; he also had servants who were very wicked, who joined themselves to the boldest sort of the people, and went to the thrashing-floors, and took away the tithes that belonged to the priests by violence, and did not refrain from beating such as would not give these tithes to them. So the other high priests
[again that would include the aforementioned Ananus]
` acted in the like manner, as did those his servants, without any one being able to prohibit them; so that [some of the] priests, that of old were wont [accustomed] to be supported with those tithes, died for want of food."




ted

[TedM]

This is not correct. I have already discounted the current text. I am arguing the lack of merit in your wishful approach to what is not there but might have been.

You have argued that the current wording includes an interpolation that can be identified by its structure. I suggested in an earlier post that while we might be able to identify a questionable part by its unorthodox structure, that doesn't mean that the content of that part didn't exist with a different structure in the original. I suggested that a Christian interpolator might prefer to list Jesus's name before James, and so may have re-arranged an original that had much the same content. It may have, for example, originally said "and brought before them a just man named James, who had a brother named Jesus who some called Christ."

Why assume that the interpolator retained the original structure?

Why is your suggestion of an original "James and his companions" and "a just man whose name was James" more probable than "James, the son of Damneus" or "James, the brother of one called Christ"?

ted

[spin]

I think we've been here I think we've been I think we've been here before.

You have argued that the current wording includes an interpolation that can be identified by its structure. I suggested in an earlier post that while we might be able to identify a questionable part by its unorthodox structure, that doesn't mean that the content of that part didn't exist with a different structure in the original. I suggested that a Christian interpolator might prefer to list Jesus's name before James, and so may have re-arranged an original that had much the same content. It may have, for example, originally said "and brought before them a just man named James, who had a brother named Jesus who some called Christ."
Rubbish, TedM. By the form we have now, you should know that this last suggestion is silly. There would basically be no need to modify the text at all for all the information is there, yet the syntax in the current form of the text is quite unusual compared to this last suggestion of yours. It's plain that the text has been modified to include extra or different information. Simply buggering the syntax wouldn't be thought of, if all the information was there, strongly suggesting that it wasn't.

Why assume that the interpolator retained the original structure?
I assume nothing of the kind. I have been saying, and let me say it yet again, we don't know what was there before the text got modified, so it is a waste of time to reconstruct what you cannot know anything about.

As the passage had a different original structure, you simply cannot reclaim what you don't know and that is what was prior.

And I think you waste time conjecturing on what is simply not there.

Etc.

Why