Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 05-17-2007, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverwind

Hey, spin, Logic is on your side, man! :notworthy:

Now would you like to try to deal with the issue?

Amaleq13 · 05-17-2007, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Do you think that was all that was there?

Like "the Just" or "the Righteous"?

Quote:

Does it seem more likely that Josephus (A) just named a certain man James (a rather common name) without any other identifier or that he (B) originally included some marker (place of origin, name of father or other relative, nickname) to distinguish this James from anybody else by that name? And, if the former, why single James out from the anonymous others in the first place?

IIRC, Josephus does refer to at least one other person as just "a certain man" but I can't recall where. I'll have to look it up when I get home tonight.

Is the specific identity of James important to what Josephus is trying to convey in this passage? It doesn't seem to be, IMO.

Ben C Smith · 05-17-2007, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

If there was much use to it, it would be a reasonable question, but we have a disturbed text with its strange syntax, using a word which is out of character for the writer and a phrasing not supported by Origen -- we only have his annotated paraphrase containing his thoughts and at least one error. Where dealing with the remains after the bull was in the china shop and you are expecting someone to be able to put the pieces back together for you.

With the Testimonium we are dealing with a disturbed text, and you have compared any and all who try to salvage any part of the pericope to somebody trying to pick flyspeck off of buttered bread. In this case we are, according to you, dealing with a disturbed text, yet all that you have excised is six words. What is the difference in situation here?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

You can answer these questions as well as I can.

I daresay better.

Ben.

Ben C Smith · 05-17-2007, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Like "the Just" or "the Righteous"?

I do not know; I was asking spin.

Quote:

IIRC, Josephus does refer to at least one other person as just "a certain man" but I can't recall where. I'll have to look it up when I get home tonight.

I think he several times refers to someone as a certain man or a man without naming the individual at all. This is not the case here, since spin opines that the name of James appeared here.

Do you know of any place in Josephus where a person is given only a relatively common name without any kind of identifier to more specifically identify the fellow? (I am genuinely asking; I am not certain of the answer.)

Quote:

Is the specific identity of James important to what Josephus is trying to convey in this passage? It doesn't seem to be, IMO.

No, not necessarily, but it does not have to be. Time after time Josephus still identifies even inconsequential characters in the narrative beyond their personal names; he names their father or other relative, gives their occupation, offers a nickname or a famous deed... something. (Somewhere in the Wars he mentions a certain Gallus without much else, but even there he calls him a centurion, I think.)

There may be plenty of times when he just settles on a certain man named Tom with no other real information; I do not know.

In this case the (non)identifiability of this James stands out a bit because of the certain anonymous others right at hand. What made this James stand out from the anonymous others in a way that prompted Josephus to name him? What is the use of giving such a common name, and nothing more, to somebody that you have marked out from an anonymous group? Maybe James was the only name Josephus knew or remembered from this group?

Ben.

jgibson000 · 05-17-2007, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

IIRC, Josephus does refer to at least one other person as just "a certain man" but I can't recall where. I'll have to look it up when I get home tonight.

How do you get "a certain man" from the construction εις αυτο ανθρωπον?

Jeffrey

andrewcriddle · 05-17-2007, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Here in BJ, Josephus has just attributed the fall of Jerusalem to the murder of Ananus. By the time he wrote the AJ account of the death of James his view of Ananus seems to have been a little more tempered. However, the notion that Josephus would suddenly, after having placed the fall of Jerusalem on Ananus, attribute it now to James seems incredible, especially when such a claim would require major surgery to the AJ passage.

It is much more reasonable to see that someone got their wires crossed when dealing with the reports by Josephus and shifted the claim we see in BJ from Ananus to James on seeing the James report in AJ, especially seeing as Ananus is mentioned here. Had Josephus really made the claim about James, one would expect a eulogy on James such as the one we see for Ananus in BJ. He didn't write one. The claim that Josephus said that the death of James was the cause of the ensuing troubles is painfully bogus.

Origen himself may have been responsible for the error, though whatever the case it was probably his comments which were the source of all the subsequent scribblings on the matter.

I have pointed out in the past that we should be able to see in Origen's references to the Josephus passage what exactly Josephus wrote and what Origen wrote.

Origen tells us plainly that Josephus didn't believe that Jesus was the messiah, yet the current version of the James passage has the syntactically awkward comment about Jesus, "(the brother of) Jesus called Christ". If this comment was originally in the passage what would make Origen think that Josephus didn't believe that Jesus was the messiah?

Let's look at the second reference to Josephus and James in CC:

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 dear, on account of Jesus Christ the Son of God.

What did Origen get from Josephus to deserve the latter's name being mentioned here? It's obviously the error I have already pointed out. The only other possibility is the reference to James as the brother of Jesus called christ. This however doesn't warrant the mention of Josephus. Besides this passage calls James "James the Just" (Iakwbou tou dikaiou) an epithet not found in today's Josephus passage and Origen doesn't use the contorted syntax found in the passage which places Jesus before James. It should be clear that the reason for Josephus's name being mentioned here is because of the mistaken belief that Josephus attributed the destruction of Jerusalem, not to Ananus, but to James.

Working from the current state of Josephus's passage, we come to the third reference by Origen in his Commentary on Matthew, 17, in which Origen writes:

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.

This was written before Origen started adding "the Just" to James's name. Note again, no use of the Josephan passage's convoluted syntax, no talk of "the brother of Jesus called christ, named James".

The last sentence is a wonder in itself. Josephus "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." The current Josephus passage says nothing of the sort. We are just getting another rehearsal of the encomium for Ananus in BJ displaced onto James.

Hi Spin

IIUC you are suggesting that Origen
a/ misremembered the enconium for Ananus in BJ as an enconium on James
b/ wrongly thought this enconium came in Antiquities not BJ (this seems at very least implied in the Commentary on Matthew even if not explicitly stated.)
These two errors together seem surprising.

Andrew Criddle

Amaleq13 · 05-17-2007, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Do you know of any place in Josephus where a person is given only a relatively common name without any kind of identifier to more specifically identify the fellow? (I am genuinely asking; I am not certain of the answer.)

I've never heard such a referenced mentioned.

Quote:

There may be plenty of times when he just settles on a certain man named Tom with no other real information; I do not know.

I think the reference I vaguely recall did not include a name.

Quote:

In this case the (non)identifiability of this James stands out a bit because of the certain anonymous others right at hand. What made this James stand out from the anonymous others in a way that prompted Josephus to name him?

The only explanation that comes to mind is that it was a specific detail he had, so he used it. I think the answer to your question above would help establish whether that is consistent with the rest of his writings, though.

Quote:

What is the use of giving such a common name, and nothing more, to somebody that you have marked out from an anonymous group? Maybe James was the only name Josephus knew or remembered from this group?

Added details do tend to lend an anecdote at least the semblance of veracity but a name, alone, is a pretty minimal example.

As an interpolation, I tend to think it more plausible that some text was replaced as opposed to a simple insertion.

But is it plausible for a Christian copyist to replace "the Just" with the extant phrase?

Amaleq13 · 05-17-2007, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000

How do you get "a certain man" from the construction εις αυτο ανθρωπον?

I didn't. I got it from Ben:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Do you think that was all that was there? Does it seem more likely that Josephus (A) just named a certain man James...

Ben C Smith · 05-17-2007, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

But is it plausible for a Christian copyist to replace "the Just" with the extant phrase?

I do not think so. Origen twice uses the extant phrase along with the title the just (and once without), and if an insertion was made it was pretty obviously based on Origen. I think if Josephus had originally said anything about James the just, and a Christian copyist wanted to slip in the part about his being the brother of Jesus, we would now find James the just, the brother of Jesus called Christ.

So I doubt the just originally had any place in Josephus.

The other options are (A) that this James went unidentified or (B) that he originally bore a different identifier that the Christian copyist had to get rid of in order to make way for James the brother of Jesus.

Here is a little coincidence to keep in mind if brother of Jesus called Christ is a wholesale Christian insertion. 1. Origen mistakenly thinks that Josephus wrote that James, the brother of Jesus, was stoned illegally by the Jews, a crime which was to blame for the fall of Jerusalem. 2. Hegesippus has a story about James, the brother of the Lord, being stoned illegally by the Jewish leadership (along with a lot of other, more colorful details), a crime which was to blame for the fall of Jerusalem (taking the last sentence of the fragment as post hoc ergo propter hoc). 3. Some Christian copyist decides to make good on what Origen (mistakenly) wrote about Josephus, and happens to find a man named James who was stoned illegally by the Jewish leadership (Ananus), a crime which was partially to blame for the fall of Jerusalem.

Ben.

jgibson000 · 05-17-2007, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

I didn't. I got it from Ben:

Hmm. But his translation of the construction was actually "[brought] before it a man", not "a certain man".

Jeffrey

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.