andrewcriddle

One possible explanation is that the correct title for the governor of a province such as Judea seems to have shifted during the reign of Claudius from prefect to procurator.

Hence Josephus would be using the correct title for someone at the time of writing who held similar office to Pilate, but not the correct title at the time when Pilate actually held office.

(The main problem with this is that Philo writing in CE 41 also calls Pilate epitropos the Greek equivalent of procurator. However Philo's terminology has real problems with accuracy, he calls the governor of Egypt a procurator despite this being simply wrong.)

Andrew Criddle

Vivisector

I certainly wouldn't counsel you or anyone else to hold their breath waiting for me to to find Josephus referring to Jesus as a "prophet" in his extant works, because it's not there - as we know. Still, we have Origen referring to currently non-existent material on some of the Jews attributing the Fall of Jerusalem and the razing of the temple to the death of James. In the same passage, Origen refers to Jesus uncharacteristically as a "prophet." I'm only suggesting that the use of "prophet" be given the same weight as the missing material on James. My view is that Josephus wrote both, but that both were subsequently removed.

If you're suggesting that an original TF would have differed greatly from the current one, then I agree. At this point, I'm almost of a mind to say that Christian interpolators have mangled the TF so badly that recovery of the original is impossible, but I still think Josephus wrote something about Jesus (primarily on the strength of Origen's testimony).

I find it strange that Origen would refer to Jesus as only a "prophet." And why should we assume that Origen made a mistake?

Here 'tis.

As always, a pleasure.

V.

Vivisector

I'm sorry - I should have asked specifically if you were referring to Hegesippus, since he's basically the only other ancient author we haven't discussed.

Not wanting to cause a derailment, but I do see a reason - the rehabilitation of James, whose flesh and blood relationship to Jesus was embarrassing enough, but who also headed a very Jewish movement with a legitimate claim to the authentic traditions of Jesus and who caused Paul considerable difficulty.

No disagreement on this point. I would find it strange that they didn't add a more Christian reference (e.g., "Jesus the Christ") and wonder how else Josephus would have referred to him if James was, indeed, the brother of Jesus who was called "Christ" by a Greek-speaking group who became relatively (to the Jerusalem group) prominent after the War.

In a word, yes. I think we can say that, based on Origen's treatment of Josephus with regard to James, that Christians removed material from Josephus. I also think I'd be on safe ground in hypothesizing that the Gospel authors tended to portray Jesus in a favorable light. If so, then we have two operating principles in support of the idea. However, I'm willing to let go the idea that Josephus mentioned a conspiracy, and I don't think Pilate was at all reluctant.

Not just the calamity, perhaps, but perhaps Jesus's teachings (or whatever caused him to be popular), perhaps the nature of the calamity, perhaps Jesus's conduct during the calamity, maybe all. Lots of "perhaps's" in there, I know, but that's all I'm going to have even in the end. You have a good point on the critics; in fact, it's this one that's prevented me from fleshing out my speculative speculations. I think a deleted calamity wouldn't necessarily have been embarrassing because it was particularly outrageous, but because of Jesus's teachings and/or his conduct during the disturbance (perhaps he fled, as did Simon the slave of Herod).

I'm with you on the tangent, and thanks for the link. I will hope to do a better job at familiarizing myself with the background discussions as new elements come to the forefront. Notwithstanding Spin's impressive scholarship on the issue (and that's genuine, not sarcastic), I'm not ready to accept his conclusion.

Agreed.

Cheers,

V.

spin

You misunderstand me. I'm saying that you cannot rationally say this because you are arguing on something that is not in the current text of Josephus at all. Origen's attribution of the term "prophet" regarding Jesus as I have pointed out is in Origen's explanatory information and cannot even be attributed to Josephus. You need to take your prophet problem up with Origen, not Josephus. (More below.)


No. I'm saying you can't really comment on what he wrote, as he may not have written, and I think didn't write, any of the TF. Once you have accepted that much of the TF was not original, I see no grounds for you being able to hold out with the rest. Your appeal to Origen is ultimately futile as you have no way of knowing how and where Origen got his data. (And see below on JB.)

That may be your mind, but you have no evidence to support it.

We simply don't know how Origen got the phrase. You merely postulate that he must have got it from some form of Josephus that doesn't exist today. Josephus simply wouldn't have used the equivalent of nebi for someone who was not strictly in the Jewish tradition of prophets. This was a closed group. The era of the prophets was over for the Jews of Josephus's time.

As to you previous statement:
Origen on JB lacks all those extra juicy information supplied directly by Origen himself as means of explanation. I don't consider the simple statement on JB as being control for what you want. I see it as just the opposite. You originally said, "And my point would be: Josephus seems, in this case, to have said everything that Origen said he did, substantially just as Origen reported, and then some." Origen's statement is simple as compared to the convoluted one he gives on James. The former reflects the original, the latter clearly doesn't.


spin

Amaleq13

Any embarrassment over alleged physical sibling relationship seems to me to be a late development (ie well after Hegesippus). I don't see any need for him to rehabilitate James nor any indication in his story that this is something he believes he is accomplishing.

Whether we are talking about the "lost reference" from Origen or the extant short reference, I see no need whatsoever for Josephus to refer to Jesus at all. The "lost reference" already identifies him as James the Just as though this was a well-known nickname. No need to drag in an executed brother to denigrate the reputation that is being highlighted and connected to the fall of Jerusalem. With regard to the extant passage, no reference to Jesus is necessary because establishing the identity of the murdered James is ultimately irrelevant to the point of the story (ie proper procedures were not followed). Nothing special is made of James and the other men condemned with him are not even named.

Notsri

Just thought I'd put this out there, as it may be of some interest:

(Eusebius') Ecclesiastical History 2.23.20: Lawlor & Oulton's note to the passage says:

Vivisector

The question of "prophet" seems pretty important here, and as I see it, the rationale I'm using to suggest that Origen found it in Josephus (i.e., it's insufficient as something Origen would have used to describe Jesus) is the same rationale we (I included) use to conclude that Josephus didn't write certain parts (at least) of the TF (Josephus wouldn't have said that). In both cases, we're dealing with something that's part of the present text but using information about the authors' beliefs to assess the likelihood that they wrote it - in Josephus's case, at all; in Origen's case, as a reflection of his own thoughts. In principle, how are the two cases different?

Out of curiosity, do you consider "called Christ" in Josephus's James passage to be a Christian insertion? (If you've answered elsewhere, a simple link would be much appreciated) And do you believe that Josephus wrote more about James than is presented - specifically, that he reported a belief that James's death was responsible for the FOJ?

My earlier brain eruptions aside, I see the discussion now as centering on whether he wrote the words "Jesus" and/or "Christ" at all, so I'll try to focus more on that. The barest facts seem that there is currently *something* in the text, located where it is, and (though this is a place you and I disagree) Origen's wording suggests that Josephus indeed wrote something about Jesus. I'm speaking here of "prophet" and not "brother of Jesus called Christ, because I'm holding out for your view on that.

Granted. When it comes to this subject, I'm at more of a disadvantage than even those who argue that the TF is genuine, because they at least have a preserved text in their favor.

If I gave the impression that Josephus would have considered Jesus a prophet, that was unintentional. In earlier discussions with Amaleq, I suggested Josephus may have referred to Jesus not as a prophet, but someone who said he was a prophet or was considered by others to be a prophet. Yes, I postulate that Origen got the phrase from a now-lost passage of Josephus, just as I postulate that Origen got his information on James as the cause of the FOJ from a lost passage (though the case for the latter is, I will concede, stronger than for the former).

Some - much - I can see as being reasonably considered Origen's explanatory information. But not "prophet."

I was trying to demonstrate Origen's use of Josephus. In the case of JB, we can clearly see that Josephus said what Origen reported, which says something about Origen the scholar. In the case of James (in spite of Origen's convoluted style), Origen attributes things to Josephus that we don't find in Josephus. Taken together, they indicate the principle that people (Christians get my vote) removed things they found unacceptable from Josephus. If this is a valid principle, then it seems we should be able to apply it to things that Origen says Josephus wrote about Jesus. At the moment, it seems you and I disagree on what thing(s) Origen says Josephus wrote about Jesus, myself holding to "prophet" at a minimum, and you holding to none (if I understand you correctly).

Cheers,

V.

Johann_Kaspar

Can you elaborate, please.

Vivisector

Would I be correct in assuming that you find nothing odd in Hegesippus's description of James as a Christian of Christians, confessing Jesus as the Son of Man and Savior - at the risk of martyrdom - when James is considered a contemporary with personal knowledge of Jesus the man? Or do you think James really said the things that Hegesippus reports? And what would indicate to you that Hegesippus believes he is rehabilitating James?

These are all very good points, and I'm not going to even try to refute them. If you were Josephus's editor, you could very well be justified in removing references to Jesus/Christ in the extant passage and the "lost passage" (assuming, of course, that there is such an animal). As far as that goes, I might remove them. But editorially valid points don't change the fact that the reference is there, and I can't see how these particular points - regardless of whom might support them in the present time - can be decisive in considering whether the reference is original.

Best regards,

V.

bfniii

of course, none of those devices nor investigative reporters are needed for people to study and propagate the original.

i'm not sure why that has to be the case. what if origen were mistaken? then we have an analysis of regression. before origen, what changes took place? the problem with this line of thinking is that it's speculative and not factual. why is it the case that it wasn't until origen that we see someone critcising the text? why don't we have any record of it happening before origen? this suggests that there was no reason to. people who had read the passage and perhaps even knew josephus were satisfied that it was authentic. i would imagine that josephus himself, not being a xenophobe, may have even admitted to it verbally.

in this case, until there is equal but opposite truth regarding the passage, there is no reason to think josephus didn't write the purported text.