dog-on

If you have to write it out by hand, you still need to fit it on one manuscript page (so you don't have to rework the following pages so as not to leave gaps, etc...). The shorter the better, I say!

Just joking....

A marginal gloss, inserted by a scribe, would be an innocent enough explanation for me...

TedM

But that conflicts with the interpolation you suggest--where it is OBVIOUS that James and Jesus aren't the Christian characters. I don't buy an obvious deceit without saying more to further one's cause.

ted

dog-on

While being named as the high priest.

TedM

Sorry to jump in, but "brother of" is not common to Josephus. I wouldn't expect that in the original. It makes more sense to me that it is there due to either interpolation or because he had previously referred to Jesus as the Christ than because he momentarily forgot James' name and then remembered it after having already written "brother of".

ted

dog-on

Maybe the scribe disagreed with Josephus...

I was being nice, 'tis the season. I actually am inclined to think that the people involved in these shenanigans were probably not the most trust-worthy of characters. They were too busy locking-in their own religious dogma and dealing with all those heretical contenders to worry about a little thing like intellectual honesty.

Ben C Smith

I disagree with this. In Wars 3.7.21 §229 Josephus writes about the child of Sameas, called Eleazar, whose fatherland was Saab of Galilee. Neither this Eleazar nor his father Sameas appears earlier in the Wars.

The patronymic (or adelphonymic, or even the nickname) can be used as if it were a surname, without necessitating any previous mention of the father (or brother, or nickname).

(I say this even as I am often inclined to think that some part of the Testimonium is genuine; I just cannot allow myself to use this particular argument for it.)

If the choice is between authenticity and intentional interpolation, I agree. But there is also the possibility of the accidental (marginal gloss) interpolation; in that case, however, we are far more limited in what we imagine the actual addition to be. None of this Simon or Joseph or Cabi stuff.

What you identify here is one downfall of most of the intentional interpolation hypotheses, IMHO. What is the payoff? If some form of the Testimonium is original to the text, perhaps the payoff for our intrepid scribe is simply the back-link; but that is a lot to concede if the idea is to rid Josephus of any mention of Jesus Christ. But, if there is no Testimonium in the text, then the payoff for adding Jesus called Christ seems minimal, even trivial.

Ben.

dog-on

But isn't James, in fact, just a side note here. Josephus is really telling us how Jesus, Son of Damneus became the High Priest. So here is another version:

[Ananus] assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them (crap, who was that again?), the brother of Jesus son of Damneus, (oh yea!) James was his name(!!! ), and some others.

Ben C Smith

I am having an awfully hard time interpreting your fragments. I have no idea what this one means. Would you mind writing in complete thought? (Complete sentences would also be nice.) Thanks.

Ben.

TedM

Good point dog-on. If the whole purpose is to explain how Jesus son of Damneus became high priest, then mentioning James as the brother does make some sense. I might have expected a commentary however linking the action against James with the action of Jesus being appointed high priest, if that is the case. That may be Doherty-style overexpectation about what the author "should have" written, but that's how I see it.

ted

dog-on

Maybe to keep him from being confused with another High Priest, Jesus, the son of Gamaliel.