Amaleq13

My mistake. The inspiration for an interpolator would be the tradition referred to by Hegesippus.

TedM

That's much closer. Which is more likely--the tradition inspired the interpolator or the writing by Hegesippus inspired the interpolator? Is it likely that an interpolator wouldn't refer to other details we find in Hegesippus's account--like the differences in circumstances that led to the stoning--especially in the testimony to Jesus by James, or a reference to the monument to James that Hegesippus says was still present at the place of death--in order to fill in the Josphus story to be more like the tradition. Does such restraint by an interpolator seem likely?

ted

Amaleq13

I have no idea nor any idea how one might establish one as more likely than the other.

Sure. He is only adding what he considered important (ie an explicit connection to Jesus).

TedM

I would think he would consider it important to correct Josephus on the reason for the stoning, if he knew of a different reason. This IMO either argues against interpolation or for an interpolator who didn't know much--just of a tradition that Jesus was called Christ and had a brother named James who was stoned by the preists. Seems like there was plenty of time between 62AD and the time of Hegesippus for such a tradition to have developed.

ted

Amaleq13

I think that confuses interpolation of a reference to Jesus and proofreading Josephus for accuracy though I'm not sure we can discount the second possibility you mentioned (ie limited knowledge). I don't see making such a correction important at all. In addition, the interpolation could also result from subsequent incorporation of a margin note rather than an intentional modification.

spin

It would be nice if someone could find an example of a context talking of person X without having talked of Y, yet uses the form ton adelfon Y(gen), X onoma autwi, rather than X ton adelfon Y(gen) -- yes, I have looked, but I don't possess a copy of Niese, and Perseus is quite awkward for the search.

In 20.9.1 itself there is an example of twi de ananou paidi kai autwi ananwi legomenwi "the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus". Ananus father has been mentioned five times in the previous two books.

Parenthesis: Note how this is made the one noun phrase grammatically:

twi .. paidi .. autwi ananwi legomenwi (all masc. dat.).

I've already said that I'm not up with Greek, but I would expect, in the phrase ton adelfon ihsou [..] iakwbos onoma autwi, that it should be iakwbon, ie accusative to match ton adelfon. And note,

autou adelphwi homopatriwi onti eliakeimwi tounoma

"a brother of his by the father's side, whose name was Eliakim"

Again we find a coherent grammatical linkage (again the datives) to hold the complex phrase together. I don't understand why this is not the case with the phrase in question, ie that James should match the case of "the brother", especially when the "others" tinas with him is also accusative.

The important notion to note in what I have attempted to say in previous posts is the fact that the syntax is ordered so as to feature Y, in this case Jesus, as though he had been introduced usually in the recent text. That's what the inversion in familial reference is almost invariably used for in Josephus, exception being of the type "a certain [person/etc], son of Joe, called Moe".

The interpolator, aware of the problem of simply inserting this previously unspecified Jesus, nominates him "the one called christ" and resolves the simple problem of which particular Jesus, though this opens another can of worms, putting the phrase on the pen of Josephus.

Syntactically, an expectation is created by the inversion, which is not met by the context.


spin

TedM

All are possible. I have to question the likelihood however of their being a prominent James stoned by priests in Christian tradition and a different and apparantly also prominent James stoned by preists in Josephus' works, and within a relatively close timeframe. Even though the name James was common, the fact that Christian tradition (I think) has no other James in Christian tradition being stoned by priests around 60AD and Josephus (I think) has no other James being stoned by priests around 60AD seems to me to make the probability that the two are not independant events about different people. So, even if the Josephus account mention of Jesus is an interpolation, it would appear to be discussing the Christian James. Does anyone deny that?

If so, does this raise expectations for Josephus to have mentioned a familial reference, and perhaps to Jesus?

ted

TedM

I thought I'd try again with these questions. Any related thoughts?

ted

Toto

I have heard it proposed that James was a Jewish priest who was stoned to death for reasons not related to Christianity, and later Christians assimilated him into their history, identifying him with the brother of Jesus.

spin

This is analogous to what happened with John the baptist. (But then it's not novel: the Hasmonean family also misappropriated Judas Maccabaeus.)


spin