Peter Kirby

Vinnie writes: It is clear that "special pleading" is a mantra and not a real argument. My statements concerning the dubiousness of the Ant. 20.9.1 text proceed from general principles that I apply fairly to all documents. If the caretakers of a text belonged to a certain group, and if it is known that these caretakers interpolated material favorable to that group, and if there is a passage favorable to that group in the work known to have been reworked, then there is reasonable doubt concerning that passage. Moreover, if the author is known to have explained certain terms to his audience, and if he is known to avoid using a particular term, and if a passage contains this avoided term without explanation, then it is reasonable to think that it is not the author writing but a subsequent scribe, particularly when there is already grounds for reasonable doubt. Finally, if there is grounds for suspecting the Ant. 18.3.3 passage, and if Meier and others are correct that the reference to JC in Ant. 20.9.1 requires an earlier description, then there is grounds for suspecting the Ant. 20.9.1 passage.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

Why do you accuse me of "special pleading" without explaining why?

If you think that the first argument was for a presumption of interpolation, then you have misunderstood the argument, probably on account of the doctrine that all texts not proven undeniably to be interpolated must be authentic. The first argument was a case of "reasonable doubt," that we cannot trust Jesus material to be authentic simply because it is in the manuscripts of the Antiquities on account of the fact that the Antiquities has been interpolated with Jesus material. The time at which the interpolation was made is not exactly relevant; if Christian scribes could have interpolated Josephus in the late third century, why not in the late second?

You can claim that the manuscript evidence for Josephus in Ant. 20.200 is greater than for Ant. 18.3.3 because Origen refers to the former and not to the latter. I will discuss Origen below.

I said nothing about "gut feelings"; you just made that up.

Josephus was an educated Jew who would not have known of "Christ" as being simply a proper name associated with only one individual, Jesus Christ. The evidence that Josephus doesn't use the word "Christ" here is that (a) Josephus is careful to explain Jewish terms to his audience and (b) Josephus avoids the term "Christ" even when speaking of messianic pretenders who put on the diadem and the fulfillment of the messianic oracles by Vespasian.

But the "entity" of James the brother of Jesus is right there in the text, and his identification as the son of Damneus instead of the son of Joseph would explain (a) why he was killed and (b) why his brother was appointed high priest.

It was your argument that there was not enough time; I was just pointing out that such an argument fails.

I have explained a few reasons to doubt the Ant. 20.200 passage.

I am not so sure that Origen is an irrefutable textual witness to the text of Ant. 20.200. Here is what Origen says.

Origen, Commentary on Matthew 10.17. "And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the 'Antiquities of the Jews' in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James."

Origen, Against Celsus 1.47. "Now this writer [Josephus], although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless-being, although against his will, not far from the truth-that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus called Christ,--the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine. If, then, he says that it was on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason to say that it happened on account (of the death) of Jesus Christ, of whose divinity so many Churches are witnesses, composed of those who have been convened from a flood of sins, and who have joined themselves to the Creator, and who refer all their actions to His good pleasure."

Origen, Against Celsus 2.13. "But at that time there were no armies around Jerusalem, encompassing and enclosing and besieging it; for the siege began in the reign of Nero, and lasted till the government of Vespasian, whose son Titus destroyed Jerusalem, on account, as Josephus says, of James the Just, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, but in reality, as the truth makes clear, on account of Jesus Christ the Son of God."

So Origen is attesting to something not found in the manuscripts of Josephus, that the destruction of Jerusalem was due to the execution of James the Just, which is the main point of his response to "Josephus." It is probable that Origen had confused the Hegesippan tradition of the death of James with Josephus.

Here is what Ken Olson says:

Further, Olson argues:

Is it possible that the phrase "the brother of Jesus called Christ" belongs to Origen? Ken Olson says:

So, consider Origen's witness refuted.

To say that the reference to "the brother of Jesus called Christ" is "entirely explicable in Josephus's work" depends on the assumption that Josephus wrote Ant. 18.3.3, because without an earlier passage it becomes much less explicable.

Also, although the authenticity of the phrase reasonably leads to the conclusion that Josephus is expecting us to remember a figure described earlier, Steven Carr explains that such a cross-reference as it is in the text as it stands would be unusual:

Finally, the use of the word "Christ" in application to Jesus, without explanation and when avoiding description of others with the same word, has not been explained in a satisfactory way.

The facts are that Origen says that Josephus attributes the fall of Jerusalem to the death of James and that 9th century or later manuscripts, that also contain Christian interpolations at least in Ant. 18.3.3, contain the passage. The idea that this is makes for an "open and shut" case for authenticity is simply tendentious.

best,
Peter Kirby

Bede

Well we must agree to disagree. I do not find your arguments convincing and Olsen's reconstruction is just fantastical. You have presented no good reason for thinking the passage is an interpolation but clearly you think you have. No matter, it isn't the least we disagree on. But I do wish I could share your scepticism about passages I don't like as it would make life so much easier.

I am intrigued that you previously said you thought Origen reading too much into Josephus required no more explanation than Origen reading too much into Josephus. And you have yet to explain why on earth a Christian interpolater would write the previously unattested 'called the Christ' instead of Brother of the Lord. Or else where Origen got it from if not from Josephus. Your thinking on this appears backwards to say the least. Perhaps its another useful methodology to remember: if A quotes B this shows that B was later changed to follow A. Can't see that cutting much ice on the Philo and Passion thread though.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Peter Kirby

I am not committed to disagreeing with you. I would have hoped rather to learn something from this exchange.

Please explain why Olson's hypothesis is fantastical. I'd like to know a way to refute it if there is one.

And I have explained what my reasoning is.

And I wish I could believe that everyone who disagrees with me does so out of bias. My personal preference has no relevance to the facts of the matter but is in fact biased towards authenticity, as I am not a Jesus Myther. I just don't think it is honest to use a problematic passage as if it has no problems.

Actually, I suggested that Origen could have read too much into Josephus if he knew of a Christian tradition according to which the destruction of Jerusalem was due to the death of James. Olson pointed out that, if this is so, why rely on an anonymous tradition when we know that the story is in Hegesippus and that Origen's account corresponds to it on several details?

The phrase "called the Christ" is not previously unattested. That phrase is found in the New Testament (Matthew 1:16; Matthew 27:17, 22; John 4:25).

Here again is Olson's considerations as to whether Origen could be the originator of the phrase: "Besides the three references to James and the three quotations of Mt. 27.22, there are two quotations of Jn. 4.25, which has 'who is called Christ' without the name 'Jesus'. We also have 'Jesus, by a certain traditional usage in the Bible, is said to be the Christ of God' (XRISTOJ EINAI LEGOMENOJ TOU QEOU) in Contra Celsum 4.28. There's also Contra Celsum 1.66 and Philokalia 18.13 has hO KALOUMENOJ XRISTOJ ('who is called Christ') which have KALOUMENOJ instead of LEGOMENOJ. Also, of course, we have the three references in Origen to 'the brothers of Jesus.' On this basis, I don't think it's at all far-fetched to suggest that the 'the brother of Jesus who was called Christ' was Origen's choice of words when reporting in indirect speech what he had read some time in
the past."

Finally, Olson's theory is plausible but it is not the only interpolation theory. There is also the one where the original reference is to "the brother of Jesus, James by name." So, even if the identification of James as "the brother of Jesus called Christ" would be a difficulty, it is not a difficulty for such a hypothesis.

You forgot to mention an important thing, that Origen never quotes Josephus on Jesus and that Origen is in fact referring to the story of Hegesippus according to Olson. If Origen is referring to Hegesippus and not to Josephus, then of course we can't assume that the words in Origen are found in the manuscripts of Josephus. And, in fact, most of the stuff that Origen says about what Josephus says is not found in the manuscripts of Josephus, including the very point at which Origen takes exception, that the death of James was a cause of the destruction of Jerusalem, and the very point on account of which Origen praises Josephus, that the "righteousness" of James was known to the "people," both of which are prominent in the story of Hegesippus.

Bede, I hope you stick around and respond to the considerations in this post and the one previous, as any information or arguments that you could add to the discussion would help me in deciding what my views are and how to revise my Testimonium article.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vinnie

The phrase is too non-comital to be attributed to a Christian interpolater. This where the charge of special pleading comes in. I do not care whether you apply these principles to all passages or not. You can question Antiquities One, four, seven, eleven or any other passage of Josephus to your hearts content. i would applaud you for going the extra mile and digging into the authenticity of various passages but the fact remains that you have the burden of proof on this one. That someone interpolated Josephus (either whole cloth or partially) is not sufficient grounds to doubt this non-comittal description of Jesus. I know of no positive reason on why I should deny this?


Further, you say that: "Finally, if there is grounds for suspecting the Ant. 18.3.3 passage, and if Meier and others are correct that the reference to JC in Ant. 20.9.1 requires an earlier description, then there is grounds for suspecting the Ant. 20.9.1 passage"

You dismissed this in your article (well the last version I read at least). I never agreed with your dismissal. I am not sure if you responded to Trafford on X-Talk yet (been a few days since i been back) but he responded to the list of names you brought up and I agree with his assessment and that of other scholars like Meier. I believe the 20 reference does strongly suggest an earlier description. Requie is too strong as we are dealing with a human writer as opposed to say the force of gravity. But this non-commital phrase of which there is no good reason to doubt and which extremely few have doubted is one of the primary reasons I accept a partially reconstructed TF.

If you are going to build anything off of these the only leg you would have to stand on is the Matthew 1:16 reference?. The term comes from Pilate in 27:17 (Christian interpolation? yeah right!) and the John 4:25 reference comes in the context of a woman expecting the coming of the Christ, not from the perspective of a Christian stating Jesus is the Christ. Matthew1:16 hardly attests common Christian usage of the term.

Maybe listing how James is described in relation to Jesus in all the earliest texts (up to the third or foruth century?) that we have would be beneficial as well? This was Meier's third significan point discussed on p. 58 of V 1 of his Marginal series. "The point of all this is that Josephus' designation of James as "the brother of Jesus" squares neither with the NT nor with early patristic usage, and so, does not likely come from the hand of a Christian interpolator."

Vinnie

Peter Kirby

The interpolation hypotheses that I have been considering are not vulnerable to this objection.

If the original reference were to "the brother of Jesus, whose name was James," then an owner of the Antiquities scribbled in the margin that this Jesus was "the one called Christ" (tou legomenou xristou). A later scribe incorporated this brief gloss into the text. For those who think that a Christian scribe would be likely to write "the brother of the Lord" or somesuch in the margin, this marginal note hypothesis preserves the piety of the person who made the note, who may have objected to calling him merely "Jesus" and wanted to make it clear that he should be called Christ.

If Olson is correct that Origen is confusing Hegesippus for Josephus, then we must countenance the idea that the phrase "the brother of Jesus called Christ" is Origen's. Origen would not have written this with the intention of interpolating it into the Antiquities. So there is no motive to make up christological sentiments to place on the lips of Josephus. Eusebius, who had read Josephus, used Origen's identification of James in Josephus in the only quote that could be understood as referring to James the Just. A later scribe then assimilated the text of Josephus to the quote of Eusebius.

I would like to have a solid argument showing that these hypotheses are not the case, but so far I have not found one.

But the fact that Josephus has been interpolated with Jesus material means that we cannot assume Jesus material to be authentic just because it is found in our manuscripts of Josephus. This is the kind of material that Christian scribes would be most likely to add to the texts. It's a matter of motive and opportunity.

There is one argument to which I have not found a successful defeater. Josephus is not likely to have referred to Jesus as "one called Christ" because (a) Josephus is careful to explain Jewish terms to his audience and (b) Josephus avoids using the term when speaking about apparently messianic pretenders that put on the diadem and when saying that the messianic oracles applied to Vespasian. Aside from Ant. 18.3.3 and Ant. 20.9.1, the term "Christ" or "Messiah" is entirely missing in Josephus.

First, Trafford made an incorrect statement when he said, "it was not typical of Josephus to use a name without some kind of other reference to help his readers understand who is being spoken of here." I presented several examples of where Josephus used a name without some kind of other reference to help his readers understand who is being spoken of. Trafford replied only to some of those examples. Trafford's reply consisted not in showing that an identifier was used--the best he did on that score was to say that two people are identified as centurions--but to say that there was reason for Josephus not to use an identifier, such as that the person was known to the audience, the person was identified later on, and the person's name is only a patronymic. I agree that there are reasons for Josephus to use names without identification; that is why I prefaced my list of examples with "for whatever reason." I suggest that the reason that Josephus would have written "the brother of Jesus, whose name was James" is that (a) the name of Jesus is used only as an adelphonymic and (b) the identity of Jesus is indicated in the very same passage. There is at least one other occasion in which Josephus identies an individual by identifying his brother and in which this brother is not mentioned earlier
in the text, in Wars of the Jews 2.247, which refers to "Felix, the brother of Pallas," but the passage of 20.200 is even more undertandable, as the identity of "Jesus" is clarified shortly.

Second, I am coming around to the idea that the 20.9.1 passage suggests an earlier reference. But I would use the Moore shift. Meier uses this argument:

1. Ant. 20.9.1 is completely authentic.
2. If Ant. 20.9.1 is completely authentic, then Josephus wrote about Jesus in Ant. 18.3.3.
3. Therefore, Josephus wrote about Jesus in Ant. 18.3.3.

The argument I now favor would be structured this way:

1. Josephus did not write about Jesus in Ant. 18.3.3.
2. If Ant. 20.9.1 is completely authentic, then Josephus wrote about Jesus in Ant. 18.3.3.
3. Therefore, Ant. 20.9.1 is not completely authentic.

The question comes down to this, then: is there more evidence that Josephus did not write about Jesus in Ant. 18.3.3, or is there more evidence that Ant. 20.9.1 is completely authentic? As to this question, I am not aware of any evidence for thinking Ant. 20.9.1 to be completely authentic, other than the presumption of authenticity. So it is quite easy for the weight of evidence to be on the side of the inauthenticity of Ant. 18.3.3.

But Vinnie, do you think that the conversation between Jesus and a woman at the well is accurately recorded in the Gospel of John? Or that Matthew had a transcription of Pilate's speech? What this would attest is the way in which Christians imagined non-Christians to speak of Jesus Christ. If, as some have supposed, this is a deliberate interpolation into Josephus, then this is not unexpected. But, please note, that is not the route that I or Ken Olson have taken.

I have suggested that the original reference was to "the brother of Jesus, James by name." I am now forced to repeat myself; please feel free to respond at only one of the locations in which this section has been typed. If this is so, "an owner of the Antiquities scribbled in the margin that this Jesus was "the one called Christ" (tou legomenou xristou). A later scribe incorporated this brief gloss into the text. For those who think that a Christian scribe would be likely to write 'the brother of the Lord' or somesuch in the margin, this marginal note hypothesis preserves the piety of the person who made the note, who may have objected to calling him merely 'Jesus' and wanted to make it clear that he should be called Christ."

Ken Olson has suggested that the phrase may be due to Origen. Olson writes: "Besides the three references to James and the three quotations of Mt. 27.22, there are two quotations of Jn. 4.25, which has 'who is called Christ' without the name 'Jesus'. We also have 'Jesus, by a certain traditional usage in the Bible, is said to be the Christ of God' (XRISTOJ EINAI LEGOMENOJ TOU QEOU) in Contra Celsum 4.28. There's also Contra Celsum 1.66 and Philokalia 18.13 has hO KALOUMENOJ XRISTOJ ('who is called Christ') which have KALOUMENOJ instead of LEGOMENOJ." That, and yes the example of Matthew 1:16, shows that there is precedent for a Christian saying that Jesus is called Christ.

First, Olson has pointed out on XTalk that there is at least one example in Origen of referring to "brothers of Jesus." Commentary on Matthew 10.17: "But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or 'The Book of James,' that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary."

Second, once again, this fails to take into consideration the hypothesis according to which only the words "the one called Christ" were interpolated.

best,
Peter Kirby

Bede

Peter,

Two points:

The fact that Origin both mentions the name of Josephus and quotes a phrase from Josephus means there is a strong presupposition that the phrase comes from Josephus. While it is possible he is conflating what he has read in Hegesippus, this doesn't mean Josephus is wrongly cited. It only means that Origen has quoted two sources and given one reference as frequently happens (both in Gospel OT references and modern students). It is not necessary or justified to claim he HAD to be refering to only one author.

Josephus uses Christ only to refer to Jesus. This strongly suggests that when Joesphus writes the Antiquities at the end of the first century, Christ is a title used only of Jesus. Why does he not explain it? Let me take another random example - Venerable Bede. I have never seen anyone explain why Bede is always called Venerable - certainly even text books full of explanations of strange terms don't bother. But if you had a good few Bedes around an excellent way to distinguish the monk of Jarrow would be to call him Bede known as the Venerable. Christ is a word with a meaning in the same language in which Josephus is writing, just as Venerable means old in English. The fact that Josephus does not use Christ about anyone else is strong evidence he saw it as a unique identifier for Jesus of Nazereth - it is a name and no more.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Vinnie

I seemed to have missed where you've justified this view? I'd be interested in seeing what evidence you have for this view. If you or someone else simply created this as an alternative possibility then I am not interested in seeing it. There is no moving reason for me to doubt the text as is and I do not think you have stated any. We seem to disagree on this.

The original reference could be whatever you like it to be but you still have to provide positive evidence that the text as we have it now was not in the original version.

You have stated:

Josephus does not use the term Messiah or Christ.
The TF was interpolated.
The reference indicates an earlier reference to Jesus.

Did I miss anything thus far?

It is up to you to provide evidence for the interpolation of this passage.

Summary of Meier's Five points:

First, unlike the text about Jesus from the Slavonic Josephus, this narrative is found in the main Greek-manuscript tradition of The Antiquities without any notable variation. Eusebius the early 4th century Church historian quotes this passage.

Second, here we have only a passing blase and non-comittal reference to someone called James who Joseph considers a minor character. But since James is so common in Jewish usage and in Joesphus' writings he needs some designation to specify whom he is talking about. He identifies him by his better known brother Jesus who also has a common name and is in turn specified as that particular Jesus "who is called Messiah".

Third, Neither the NT nor early Chruistian writers commonly spoke of James as "the brother of Jesus". See Paul, Eusebius, Hegesippus.

Fourth, Jo's account of Jame's martyrdom differs in time and manner from that of hegesippus. Jo has james stoned to death by order of Ananus before the Jewish war breaks out (therefore early in 62 ad). According to Hegesippus, the scribes and Pharisees cast James down from the battlement of the jerusalmen temple. They began to stone him but are constrained by a priest; finally a laundryman clubs james to deathg. James martydom,, says heg, was followed immediately by Vespasians's siege of Jerusalem (ad 70). Eusebius stresses that Heg's account agrees basically with that of the church father Clement of Alexandria; hence it was apparently the standard Christian story.

Fifth, Heg's edifying account of James differs significantly from Jo's. Jo never says why James is the object of Ananus' wrath. Praise of James is lacking as he is one victim among several, not a glorius martyr dying alone in the spotlight.

I still don't see how you get over the text's presumption of authenticity when this doesn't look much like a Christian gloss. You have to stretch, twist and wiggle it in order to make it one. I'll spare you from reading my mantra again though.

Vinnie

Evangelion

Dr James Tabor accepts that the reference to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" is a valid piece of the text.

I see no reason to doubt that he is correct.

Peter Kirby

I think that we are all intelligent and informed enough to reach our own conclusions without reference to various authorities.

best,
Peter Kirby