Ben C Smith

Starting a new thread here so as not to derail the one on NT dates....

Here is the text as it stands rendered literally into English so as to preserve as much of the Greek grammar as possible. Antiquities 20.9.1 §200b:

Καθιζει συνεδριον κριτων και παραγαγων εις αυτο τον αδελφον Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου, Ιακωβος ονομα αυτω, και τινας ετερους....

[Ananus] assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, James was his name, and some others.

Removing the part you have identified above as an interpolation (brother of the so-called Christ), we get:

[Ananus] assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them [...] of Jesus [...] James was his name, and some others.

That does not work grammatically. So you need to finesse your interpolation. How do you think it worked? What was there to begin with, and what was added?

Also, if the Jesus at this point is the son of Damneus, why is he identified as the son of Damneus only a couple of paragraphs later? Where else does Josephus suspend the patronymic like this?

Ben.

Huon

Iakobou instead of Iakobos ?

Ben C Smith

That would not work in the text as it stands. What other changes are you imagining?

Ben.

aa5874

Who exactly is this Jesus who was called Christ? There is no other reference in the the writings of Josephus except for the possible forgery or interpolation of the TF.

Up to the writing of "War of the Jews," after 72 CE, Josephus appear not be aware that a Jesus was called the Messiah or Christ and that this Christ had already come. Josephus thought that a Messiah or Christ would be a Roman, and in particular Vespasian.

Wars of the Jews 6.5.4, "But now,what did the most elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how, about that time, one from their country should become govenor of the habitable earth........Now, this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian, who was appointed emperor of Judea."

This passage clearly indicates that not only is Josephus not aware of Jesus who is called Christ, but this Christ of the NT would have come at the wrong time.

Pataphysician

how about

"[Ananus] assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them his brother Jesus, who was called "the warning oracle" (chresantos ?), and some others."

"James was his name", is an interopulation.

Jesus son of Ananus, mentioned in the Jewish War as one of the most important oracles on the coming destruction of Jerusalem, who was first punished by the most eminent of Jerusalem's citizen's, and then taken to the Procurator Albinus to be dealt with.

There is nothing in the Antiquities story, that says this person taken before the Sanhedrin actually died, just that the Sanhedrin sentenced them to death by stoning, nothing about the sentence actually being carried out is mentioned. It's strange that Josephus fails to mention the Jesus son of Ananus story even briefly in Antiquities, even though it is so important in the Jewish War, and took place during Albinus's procuratorship.

The two accounts don't exactly match, but then I believe Josephus was in Rome during this year and so would not have direct knowledge of the events. So it's possible he gained additional info between writing Jewish War and Antiquities.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Ben,

Thanks. This is great. I really had to put my thinking cap on for this one.

First we have to keep a few rules in mind.

1. In reconstructing the original text in interpolations, we have to look for the least amount of changes that will make the text make sense. Anything that does not absolutely need to be changed should not be changed.
2. Interpolations tend to disrupt narratives. Eliminating the interpolation and replacing it with the original terms should help clarify the narrative.

In putting forward a hypothetical original text, we have to look at the original 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, (23) 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 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. (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.

It has been suggested that the character at the end of this passage, Jesus, the son of Damneus, is the Jesus mentioned in the middle of the passage. This is an excellent solution as the narrative now makes more sense with the high priesthood going to someone who was wronged, the brother of James, Jesus

However, just substituting "Jesus, son of Damneus" for "Jesus who was called Christ," does not get rid another objection that is important. This is that the passage does not tell us who Jesus, son of Damneus is, and talking about the brother of someone we do not know does not make sense. This objection is sometimes used as a point in favor of the passage being genuine, that the Jesus name must refer back to the Jesus of the Testimonium Flavianum.

Both of these points are good ones. Jesus, son of Damneus makes the narrative more sensible. The priesthood is taken away from the man innocently killed and it is given to his brother. On the other hand, we still need a prior reference for the Jesus name.

The solution appears when we look at the end of the passage prior to this one:

And when Nero had heard what they had to say, he not only forgave (22) them what they had already done, but also gave them leave to let the wall they had built stand. This was granted them in order to gratify Poppea, Nero's wife, who was a religious woman, and had requested these favors of Nero, and who gave order to the ten ambassadors to go their way home; but retained Helcias and Ismael as hostages with herself. As soon as the king heard this news, he gave the high priesthood to Joseph, who was called Cabi, the son of Simon, formerly high priest.

What if Jesus was the brother of Joseph the high priest, whom Ananus replaced? Let us try the substitution.

...he gave the high priesthood to Joseph, who was called Cabi,[/B] the son of Simon, formerly high priest.

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, (23) 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 sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Joseph, who was called Cabi, whose name was Jesus, 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 informedhim that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim 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 punishmentfor 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 Simon, high priest. [/I]

Under this solution, the narrative makes more sense. Ananus takes the priesthood from Joseph, son of Simon. He tries to have Joseph's brother, Jesus, executed. Jesus ends up being saved and replaces Ananus in the priesthood.
This is now a marvelous story which illustrates Josephus' basic principle of God working justice on Earth. At the same time it gets rid of the objection that Jesus has no prior reference. The prior reference is to Jesus' brother Joseph.

An additional bonus is that we can see why a Christian editor would want to change an historical text that shows Jesus, the brother of Joseph, being rescued from execution after being condemned by the Jewish Sanhedrim of judges and the high priest Ananus. It does not exactly vouch for the accuracy of the gospel tale of Jesus, brother of Joseph, being executed by the Sanhedrim and Ananus.

Note that this solution may point to an historical Jesus as the basis for the gospel passion tales.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Pataphysician

Jay, interesting ideas

One interesting possibility, is Damneus is also a greek name given to one of the Euboean Corybantes, who are inspired rustic people(spirits) who go into terror inducing Bacchic frenzy, that cause war. This fits well with describing the character of Jesus son of Ananus, as told in the Jewish War, who cannot be stopped from repeating his terrible ditty of destruction no matter how he is tortured. The name Damneus makes sense, because it essentially means "one who is overpowered" (in reference to a frenzy).

Edit - seems that possibly Damneus can mean hammer

DCHindley

You know, I am inclined to just bracket "του λεγομενου Χριστου" [the being-said christ] as a marginal gloss that was incorporated into the text.

Who the "Jesus" was that this Jacob was brother of is not clear. I think I have, at some time or another, suggested Jesus son of Damneus. As for suspension of the patronym here, all one can say is that Josephus was quirky, and worked from a variety of sources, presenting the details out of context.

Ther reason I'd suggest this is that elsewhere Josephus says of Ananus: "I should not be mistaken if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city, and that from this very day [i.e., when he and his companion Jesus (also not specifically identified by a patronym) were killed by the rebels during the waning days of Jewish war] may be dated the overthrow of her wall, and the ruin of her affairs, whereon they saw their high priest, and the procurer of their preservation, slain in the midst of their city." [Wars of the Jews 4:318]

I could easily see, in the margin by Ant. 20:200, some comment in response to the passage "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 ..." [Antiquities of the Jews 20:199], a sarcastic comment such as "This is [really] the [same] man [i.e., Ananus] on whose account the city was destroyed?"

Somebody, maybe a copyist, saw this and took it as a direct statement rather than a rhetorical question (there being, after all, no punctuation mark corresponding to a question mark in Josephus' era), identified this James brother of Jesus to be James the Just, brother of Jesus Christ, and added the words "the being-said christ" after Jesus' name so everyone would be clear to all who Josephus must "really" have been referring to.

DCH

PhilosopherJay

Hi Pataphysician,

Very interesting. Thanks.

Perhaps Simon in "Jesus, son of Simon" is Simon, son of Gioras. The Damneus appellation would fit there too. Since this Simon seems to have been a messianic figure, the phrase "so-called Christ" may have been in the original as in "the brother of Joseph, the son of Simon who was called Christ, whose name was Jesus,"

The only problem is that Josephus does not mention Simon Gioras as having been a high priest.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Mythra

I hope no one minds a minor intrusion into the discussion. But, it's concerning Josephus, so I guess it's not really off-topic. I NEED HELP. I'm in another forum, talking with a guy who is a bible believer, but also has a PhD from Harvard (supposedly.) Whenever the subject of Josephus comes up, he makes this claim:

The reading in the Syriac (not found in the wiki) is NOT a "testimonium" so any reference to the alleged testimony of Flavius Josephus is beside the point. That is a clumsy and obvious forgery.

What I said is that something that cannot be described as a version of the Testimonium exists in the isolated Syriac, where, in fact, Josephus without any question (just as with his other references) makes note of the historical Jesus but finds the idea of a crucified Christ "absurd".

Yet, I'm having no luck cornering him to try and find out what he's talking about. Does this sound familiar to any of you? Or is the guy just jerking my chain?

Because the only Josephus references I've ever seen are in Antiquities 18 and 20.