spin

As a summary of the case against the presence of the phrase "Jesus called Christ" in Josephus AJ 20.9.1, here are the arguments I have put forward:

1. It is syntactically strange
   the Jewish familial relationship always has some grammatical antecedent, either a) name or b) description.
   a) Jesus, son of Damneus
   b) a man of Gischala, the son of Levi, whose name was John
   The original is: Ananus "assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others". What is "the brother of Jesus . . ." attached to? Nothing as you can see.
   (The use of "brother" as the relationship is strange (though not unknown) in Josephus.)
   .
2. It is unexpected from a devout Jew
   the use of the Greek term for messiah here from a devout Jew is unaccoutantable for.
   .
3. It is unexpected for a Greek audience
   Jesus the "ointment" would be farcical to a Greek audence before the spread of xianity.
   .
4. It is not supported by Origen, the first known xian writer on the text
   Origen doesn't cite from the text, yet tells us despite the present phrase that Josephus didn't believe "in Jesus as the Christ".
   .
5. It is expected from a xian
   the phrase "Jesus called Christ" is straight out of Mt 1:16 and a prime suspect for a xian addition to the text.

The word order suggests that what is important to the writer is the name of Jesus, for what we would expect is "James, the brother of Jesus" or "a certain man, the brother of Jesus called Christ, named James".

How the phrase got into the text could easily have been a case of what I call "creeping marginalia": a note made in the margin of a text, in this case, referring to James, someone having read Origen for example, adds "the brother of Jesus called Christ", and a subsequent scribe, copying the text, inserts the marginal note, perhaps thinking it had been omitted from the text and then corrected.

(Arguments based the opinions of the majority of scholars are not arguments. We have to deal with the raw unadulterated evidence or forget it.)

I don't think people can rest of the assumption the phrase is acceptible until proven otherwise is justifiable when one considers that forgery and less than optimal scribal practices are quite common in the xian tradition.


spin

[Ananas is Italian for "pineapple"]

Xeno

There is nothing inherent in the fimilial descriptor per se that requires a grammatical antecedent, it is simply the tendancy in Josepheus to attach a descriptor prior to a relational connection, but this rule itself is violated at other times in Josepheus (as BMiller pointed out, with the maid-servent example), so this is not a particularly strong argument. There are "special cases" of other "grammatical tendancies" being broken in other parts of Josepheus (placing familial relations in different locations), so by itself that a descriptor is missing for this particular relational connection is not damning of the passage.

Wasn't the original text written in Hebrew (or Aramic)? Couldn't this be a transliteration error?

Even in the face that it was not a transliteration error, nicknames don't necessarily have to "make sense" to an audience in the traditional sense. Even then the use of the word ointment might have a suitable context in the Greek, that may be lost on the direct english context of the word.

Then the Jesus reference in valid in Josepheus, the only error is in the possible redaction of "Christ"?

I'd say that maybe in the transliteration of the text to Greek, a Christian may have added the word "Christ" over some other descriptor Josepheus had, so at best it might be a replacement. Other then that I don't see a strong enough argument to completely damn the passage into a total invention of Christian authors.

[polemic]

That JMers are so desparate to find a flaw in the almost universally accepted Josepheus passage that they resort to syntactical annomilies (common in Josepheus anyway) and the surprise in the use of a nickname (xristos) should show how weak the arguments really are. It is possible Josepheus described Jesus by some other nick name, then was edited by Christian scribes. And it is possible the Testimonium said a lot more about Jesus that the Christians didn't like, so was heavily edited. And even one of the arguements Spin uses admits the Jesus passage is there, but Origen read something different then what we see, which supports the hypothesis that the nickname or descriptor used may not have necessarily been "christ" but the reference itself to Jesus remains valid.

[/polemic]

spin

The example of "a servant girl" proves Muller wrong. We have no familial relationship at all. We simply have a description of the person who is then named. Muller tried everything he could, scouring all Josephus's texts several times trying to get around this.

No. That was the Jewish War.

How about citing another nonsensical surname in Josephus.

No. The James reference in valid in Josephus, the only error is "Jesus called Christ". This is Origen's evidence.

You can say whatever you like. By admitting that the text has been tampered with, you cannot be arbitrary and keep the bits you like.

I am not a JMer, but you wouldn't know that: you haven't read my other statements.

Your views on possibilities and your misconceptions about what I admit are irrelevant to the problem under discussion.

Your views on the TF are just as arbitrary as they are for the James passage. I have already pointed out the indication that the whole TF was an insertion interrupting the discourse indicated at the beginning of 18.3.4 which claims to be connected to 18.3.2.


spin

Xeno

It does not "prove Miller wrong", it shows a relational connection before a descriptor, which you required. That you add that it has to be familial is beyond me. That there is no other familial connection with this form says it is more of an anomaly in Josepheus then a strong argument against the passage itself.


My mistake.

I don't see how thats relevent. Josepheus wanted a one name descriptor for Jesus, something along the lines of what Christian's commonly called him is not "strange" enough for me, especially consdering the audience might have heard of a similiar man with a similiar nick name.

Also, that he was called "Christ" does not mean Josepheus himself believed it. Many middle east historians say something along the lines of Muhammad called prophet, which does not imply that every middle east historian believes Muhammand was the one true prophet.

Actually, the only error is "Christ". As below.

The only thing I concede is that the word "Christ" might have been a possible change in the passage.

spin

Here's a task for anyone with bible software:

search the whole Hebrew bible for the phrase "brother of" and see how many of them have no antecedent (which is invarianbly a name here)

The only examples I found using the KJV are:

2Sa 21:19 in which a translator had inventively inserted "brother of" before the name Goliath, and

1Ch 24:25, "The brother of Michah was Isshah", as Michal had been mentioned in the verse before.


spin

spin

It is part of the topic: reference by familial relationship.

And please the name is Josephus in English.


These are merely assumptions. You cannot read Josephus's mind, so stop b*llsh*tting. If you want to claim that Josephus would use a nonsensical surname for his Greek audience without explanation, just give another example to justify your claim.

They are basically forced by the religious culture to make the concession. This would be contrary to Josephus's situation.

That's kind of you but you are not explaining the evidence. The form "brother of Y . . . named X" is unattested in Josephus as well as in the Hebrew bible.


spin

Xeno

OK so my question to you is why put such an importance on descriptors preceded familial relationships when we have evidence of the lack of descriptors before other relational connectives?

Why familial? I'm sure there's a lack of attestation among maid-servent connectives lacking qualifiers, are we to suspect that the Julia reference was tampered with and that Julia now lacks a historical basis?

spin

This makes little sense. "A maid-servant" is a descriptor, not a familial relationship even if her patron is given, therefore it is irrelevant.

As to familial descriptions, it was the done think when people didn't have surnames of the type we have to identify us. Look at where Josephus was coming from in the Hebrew bible. That should help you understand the use of familial relationships.

Thank you Xeno for your display of debating skills. I await your return with some evidence on the matters we are dealing with to contribute to the thread.


spin

rlogan

hey Spinmeister-

There is absolutely nothing in the JW section that would correspond to the AJ passage.

It should be in JW 2.271. Josephus blasts through Felix, Festus, Albinus and Florus. I don't understand this. It's as if sections of text that should be there are missing.

Nothing about Ananus. This should be in 62 CE. Festus dies. Ananus supposedly executes James.

While this may not pertain to JW, I still find it odd that so little is said.

I have been looking for a descriptive passage about ananus that is supposedly in JW that contrasts sharply with the description in the AJ passage you are discussing. Still looking.


By the way, isn't a Jesus appointed to the very position that ananus is deposed of? And did he have a brother named James?

Xeno

Well sorry for the confusion, but I suspect you are rather avoiding the issue rather then dealing with the argument. That "maid-servant" is a descriptor is obvious, but a descriptor of what? Julia. Julia is what? A maid-servent of Acme. Whereas Acme has no "hanging qualifier" before the Julia relational connective. To say that only familial relationships require one is plain special pleading.

Could you site your evidence that familial relathionships are special among relational connectives?