TedM

Hi Jay. Interesting possibility. Let's take a look:

I can see some of the similarities to the passion story here. You have the unlawful Sanhedran activity and a man named Jesus sentenced to stoning for being a 'breaker of the law". This man had supporters, who then had him made into a high priest. Not bad as an original blueprint. As it reads, I have one problem: I think that without the last mention of Jesus, the passage reads as though Jesus was stoned. It seems like originally it would have had some clarification other than his mention in the very last verse. Since the interpolator deliberately changed information, there is no reason he couldn't have changed a reference to a reversal of the stoning also.

Very good. Of course Josephus didn't make it up--he just would have liked the story, correct?

This is what presents quite a few difficulties from my standpoint:

1. NT accounts of a Jesus who was crucified, and never was an earthly high priest could not have been written before AD62, the date the "real" Jesus became high priest. Therefore, all of Paul's writings would have to be frauds, or would have to have been written sometime later.

2. The gospel accounts, which say nothing of Jesus having a brother who was high priest, and mention his father Joseph, not Simon, and of course mention a very different outcome in the passion account, would have to all have been written long enough after AD62 for the myth to have evolved so differently.

3. At the time Josephus wrote this, he likely was not aware of a passion story development from the actual events which he mentioned occurred 31 years later. Otherwise he would have mentioned it. Either the development was kept under wraps, or was very insignicant after 31 years.

4. The history behind this account inspired the passion story. I don't find it to be particularly inspiring at all, though it is interesting. However, I just don't see how you can go from your inspired leader being an actual high priest to him never becoming one, but being crucified and then resurrected without stronger hints or clues of the 'real' Jesus or of his high priest brother Joseph, than what this passage presents.

5. The interpolator would have recognized this as referring to the Jesus Christians worshipped, after 93AD. This seems very unlikely if the interpolator believed the gospel accounts of Jesus. It also seems unlikely if he was at all aware of the difference in chronology between the gospel Jesus and the Josephus Jesus.

6. The interpolator would have been aware of a James considered by Christians to have been Jesus' biological brother, and would have been comfortable saying that this James was stoned, implying to death. Either he was repeating a tradition of James being stoned, or he was creating the tradition. How "James" was created and high priest "Joseph" was dropped is anyone's guess.

Either these assumptions are greatly lacking in evidence or they just don't make much sense to me. But, maybe that's just me.

ted

aa5874

The word "Christ" appears to be the problem. Josephus does not appear to know about any "Christ" that was expected before the Jewish War. He wrote about the prophecies of Daniel in Wars of the Jews and Antiquities of the Jews, and even claimed many of Daniel's prophecies came true, yet nowhere is the Jesus of the NT mentioned in the passages of Daniel's fulfilled prophecies.

In Antiquities of the Jews book 10.11.7, "And it came to pass that our nation suffered these things under Antiochus Epiphanes, according to Daniel's vision, and what he wrote many years before they came to pass. In the very same manner Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government that our country should be made desolate by them."

So there is a major discrepancy, in Wars of the Jews 6.5, Josephus declared the Jews thought the Messiah or Christ would rule the habitable earth sometime around 70CE, yet in Antiquities of the Jews, written sometime around 90CE, the Christ is already dead sometime around 30CE, without ruling the world and he is unknown to the Jews.

This "Christ" in AJ 20.9.1 appears to be an interpolation.

But, what is completely overlooked is the person called "James." This "James" is a major problem.
For what reason is this James singled out in the passage?
What are the specifics of the accusations against him?

There is no information about James, except he is the brother of Christ, but the Christ has not come as yet, he is expected sometime around 70CE by the Jews.

Without the phrase "who was called Christ, whose name was James" the passage does not lose its flow.
"....so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus.......and some others, [or, some of his companions]...."

Based on Josephus, James could not have a brother called Christ who lived up to and around 30CE and was dead. It appears that the words "James and Christ" are interpolations.

Toto

To Mythra on the Syriac Josephus:

I think he is referring to a 10th c. Arabic version of the "testimonium" which is presumed to have been translated from a Syriac source. This is sometimes offered up as based on the original version, before it was adulterated by Christians, as evidence that Josephus did mention Jesus. But this seems a little unlikely. The source is very late, and appears to have been modified for Muslim sensibilities.

Peter Kirby on the TestimoniumThere is more about that Syriac version in Flavius Josephus and His Testimony Concerning the Historical Jesus by Marian Hillar(pdf format)

Mythra

Thanks for that, Toto. But that's not it. I posted this with him:

Third, there is a Syriac version of the TF that is referenced in the 12th century work, compiled by the Patriarch of Antioch, Michael the Syrian, which lends even more support to Jerome's version of the TF. While tracking our current TF more or less, the Syriac version departs from it by stating that "he was believed to be the Christ" rather than "he was the Christ." And as Whealey notes, "Latin and Syriac writers did not read each others' works in late antiquity. Both, however, had access to Greek works. The only plausible conclusion is that Jerome and some Syriac Christian (probably the seventh century James of Edessa) both had access to a Greek version of the Testimonium containing the passage 'he was believed to be the Christ' rather than 'he was the Christ.'" (Whealey, op. cit. at 10, n. 9).

And he denies that's what he's talking about. He keeps making claims about some separate Josephus reference in the isolated syriac.

He's not a nut-case. (or doesn't appear to be) he claims a PhD in Semitic Philology from Harvard, and is quite knowledgable about the Ugarit and Hebrew alphabet and usages.

I just don't know what to make of this Josephus thing. But I will look further at those links you posted, Toto.

Mythra

Here's some more of what he has posted:

Josephus went further and began his final great project, "The Wars of the Jews" in which he revisited the Roman-Jewish War from 66-72 a.d. in its entirety. Once again he has been found to be incredibly accurate in detiail, despite the vastness of his written works and his use of amenuenses to fill in the gaps, where he apparently dictated, as Paul did, but gave them some leeway over the final product.

Again, James the Just and his role comes up. The whole history of the Kathros family, of Ananus who bought the high priesthood, of his sons and son-in-law, all four of whom took over the high priesthood after him, and of the final son Ananus who murdered James during a brief three-month absence of a Roman procurator, are told in detail.

And as scholar Alice Whealey has shown, the famous "Testimonium" of Josephus to the Christ is of course false. But the Syriac (as well as the Old Latin) contain parallel wording where Josephus writes of Jesus the Christ: "Jesus Himself was a good man, who did many marvelous works. At length, however, Pilate took Him and crucified Him. Some say He was 'the Christ'. The idea of a crucified Christ is the sort of thing that minds that tend toward the fabulous or absurd tend to."

By noting what Josephus actually said, we find several things out. In fact, he says in "Antiquities" in explaining the death of James the Just that "James was the brother of Jesus who is called 'the Christ'" in order that his Roman audience might understand better what the motivation of Ananus was in murdering James.

That is, Josephus takes it as a given that his literate Roman readers would know about "the Christ". And further that the common title "the Christ" was readily understood to refer to Jesus of Nazareth. He also makes it clear beyond argument that both James and Jesus were very real persons, and names their times, the rulers they inter-acted with, and so forth.

Further, his wonderful slam against Christians that anyone who could believe that a crucified man was the Christ had a mind that tended to the fabulous and the absurd does us a real favor: his mocking of the idea makes his attestation to Jesus as known as "the Christ," a man who did many wonderful works, is incredibly powerful!

Toto

This is no scholar speaking here.

I have never seen that last sentence as a quote from Josephus. I have seen the idea expressed in comment on the passage, usually in the form of "No Jew could accept the idea of a crucified Christ." I wonder if he has picked up a bit of comment and added it to the quote, which has happened before.

Ask him for an exact cite.

Does he go by the handle "REQVIVM?" The only place I can find that quote on the net is at this message board where it is presented as a quote from Whealey. But that quote is not in Whealey's paper online

Mythra

Yup. You found him. He's got a little following to whom he's teaching exegesis. I've tried to get his name (learned that from Jeffrey Gibson)
but the guy won't give it up.

Some of them call him Dr. J.

Mythra

Here is what I posted to him, prior to coming here looking for help:

"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".

Okay. So you're making a claim here. That you have something (presumably by Josephus) that's not purported to be from Antiquities 18?

Then show it. Show exactly what it says. Where you found it. Give the references. If it's not part of a larger work of Josephus, then present what you've got.

Because I think you're trying to pull a fast one. Show me you're not.

I'm quite familiar with the references to Jesus contained within Josephus' works.

And, what you're talking about is in NOTHING that I have ever read.

Bottom line: I don't believe you.

TedM

Wouldn't mention in the TF indicate a knowledge of someone "called" Christ. Just because some called him Christ doesn't mean that he was expected by the vast majority of Jews at that time, nor that Josephus himself considered him to have been the Christ. I think it is entirely possible that there was some kind of TF passage originally, in which Josephus made it clear that he did not believe this was the true Christ prophecied in Daniel, and that this passage is now lost to us, replaced all or in part with the TF. I do not see how that scenario is in any was problematic with the rest of Josephus.

Another thing to consider is that Josephus was writing after the fact, and the reason he considered 70AD to be the expected time was because of the Temple Destruction, similar to words in Daniel. That does NOT mean a Christ was not expected prior to that event, and we know from his other writings that there was such an expectation prior (Judas the Galilean, the Egyptian) to 70AD.

This takes care of the mention in the "James" passage also, and is consistent with references by Origen (I think) indicating that Josephus didn't believe Jesus was the Christ.

Don't you agree there is a difference between a person SOME considered to be Christ but the majority and Josephus did not, and a person Josephus considered to have been the true expected Christ?

ted

PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

I just wanted to correct the impression I gave that Simon might be Simon bar Gioras. Josephus describes him as a young man in Wars, so it is highly unlikely that he could have had a son who became high priest in 62.

It appears evidently that this Jesus, if he is the brother of Joseph and the son of a high priest named Simon, must be the son of Simon Cantatheras ben Boethus (high priest from 41 -43).

In 19:6.4 Josephus tells us:
king Agrippa took the [high] priesthood away from Simon Cantatheras, and put Jonathan, the son of Ananus, into it again {actually Jonathan abdicates in favor of his brother Matias]

This is part of a motif that we see in 20:9 of King Agrippa switching the high priesthood between the family of Ananus and the family of Cantatheras.

Later Ananus and Jesus Damneus/Simon will get into a stone throwing fight as described by Jospehus:

And now Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, became the successor of Jesus, the son of Damneus, in the high priesthood, which the king had taken from the other; on which account a sedition arose between the high
priests, with regard to one another; for they got together bodies of the boldest sort of the people, and frequently came, from reproaches, to throwing of stones at each other. But Ananias was too hard for the rest, by his riches,
which enabled him to gain those that were most ready to receive.

We can be reasonably certain that the substitution of Damneus for Simon/Cantathera has taken place because it not only breaks the sense of the passage, but breaks the motif that Josephus has previously explicated and later will explicate of tensions between the Cantathera and Ananus families.

The second question that I am thinking about is if the phrase "who was called Christ" or "the so-called Christ". I find it a strange passage to add. I think it could have been in the original text of the passage. I tend to doubt that Joseph would have been known as a Christ, but his father, Simon Cantatheras might have been.

This idea entails that the phrase he gave the high priesthood to Joseph, who was called Cabi, the son of Simon, formerly high priest would have originally been he gave the high priesthood to Joseph, the son of Simon, who was called Christ, formerly high priest. The reference of "who was called Cabi" which is now Joseph, instead of Simon, could just be a minor translator's error.

So here is the reconstruction:

..he gave the high priesthood to Joseph, the son of Simon, who was called Christ, 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, the son of Simon who was called Christ, 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]

Now note, according to this theory the interpolator has made exactly five small changes:
1) changed the name Christ to Cabi
2) changed the name Joseph to Jesus
3) taken out the appositive Son of Simon
4) changed the name Jesus to James
5) changed the name Simon to Damneus

We can see his modus operati. He wishes to keep the text as intact as possible. He only changes names and the minimal number necessary to keep us from understanding it in a way he does not want us to understand it.

Incidentally, five years ago, I did several textual analyses on the gospels which led me to believe that the original name of the man in the passion story was Simon and he was the son of a high priest. It is in Evolution of Christs and Christianities. This analysis should be added to the analysis in there. If there was an historical basis for the passion story, I believe, it was the high priest Simon Cantatheras.

I'm a bit tired now, I'll reply to objections tomorrow.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin