Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TedM · 08-30-2005, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Note that this thread was resurrected from 2002.

From what I can tell I've added new information not in this thread previously.

ted

Peter Kirby · 08-30-2005, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

As for Ananus' motive, this is speculative, but since he was a Saducee (sp?) and they didn't believe in the resurrection, one could wonder if the accusation was a cover for claims in favor of a resurrection--which of course is what the Christians later said James did. Its not supported by this text, though.

James's death can be best explained for the reason that James had a claim to the high priesthood. Hegesippus as quoted by Eusebius says that James the Just entered the sanctuary, which is what the high priest does. Epiphanius says that James entered the holy of holies and wore the priestly diadem. The 2nd Apocalypse of James implies that James was a relative of a priest. In the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Lord appears to James just after he "had given the linen cloth to the servant of the priest." Recognitions I:66-70 says that a debate on the temple stairs between Caiphas and James resulted in a tumult among the people. The account in Ant. 20.9.1 says that the execution of James caused such public pressure that the high priest Ananus was deposed and Jesus son of Damneus put in his place. All of this points to some historical James who had a claim to the high priesthood and was knocked off to eliminate a rival when the Romans had their backs turned.

The question is, why was this James claimed as a brother of Jesus, the one called Christ, in the Christian writings and the manuscripts of Josephus? Could that be true, and was it? If not, why was the connection made?

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

spin · 08-30-2005, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Ok, but such a desciption is possible, but not probable for Josephus. In other words, the odds don't favor a name without a description, so any alleged interpretation based on this alleged 'original' is also not favored by the odds.

And you hope to reclaim a description, knowing that the text has been interfered with and that there is nothing remaining for you to reclaim such a description.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Does it really make sense for an interpolator to simply see the name James and decide that either 1. it is referring to James, the leader of the Jewish Christians or 2. it is a good place to put in a reference to Jesus, called Christ, and then not even exalt either one of them?

The interpolator has a lot more information than you credit: the man was blameless, he was stoned, etc. There is enough to fit this James into an interpretative framework.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

giving him a relationship does increase the expectation of a discussion of that relationship further given the context, but no such discussion appears.

Crap.

spin

TedM · 08-30-2005, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

And you hope to reclaim a description, knowing that the text has been interfered with and that there is nothing remaining for you to reclaim such a description.

I"m not sure what you are responding to here. I just said that the odds don't favor the simple identification you gave to support an interpolation. I then asked for reasons one might have taken advantage of such a simple identification.

Quote:

Originally Posted by me

Does it really make sense for an interpolator to simply see the name James and decide that either 1. it is referring to James, the leader of the Jewish Christians or 2. it is a good place to put in a reference to Jesus, called Christ, and then not even exalt either one of them?

Quote:

The interpolator has a lot more information than you credit: the man was blameless, he was stoned, etc. There is enough to fit this James into an interpretative framework.

Who suggested the Christian James was stoned? IF he was, this increases the likelihood of non-interpolation. If he wasn't this argues for a dishonest interpolator.

It isn't clear to me that 'Josephus' says James was blameless: Here's the passage again:

Quote:

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

The first bolded part may be explained by the second, as opposed to any suggestion of James' innocence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by me

giving him a relationship does increase the expectation of a discussion of that relationship further given the context, but no such discussion appears.

Quote:

Crap.

Why? The passage already gives an explanation for James' death and Jesus' appointment, without need for a relationship. If the relationship somehow changes the reason for James' death and for Jesus' appointment shouldn't we expect some mention by Josephus of motives which differs from the ones that have nothing to do with a relationship?

ted

TedM · 08-30-2005, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

James's death can be best explained for the reason that James had a claim to the high priesthood....

That seems reasonable, yet Josephus doesn't mention this claim. What does this suggest to you?

Quote:

The question is, why was this James claimed as a brother of Jesus, the one called Christ, in the Christian writings and the manuscripts of Josephus? Could that be true, and was it? If not, why was the connection made?

Seems like both the claim to the high priesthood and the brother of Jesus claim could be true given James' exalted status in Galations, and description as "the Lord's brother".

If "the Lord's brother" was an interpolation, we still have a brother names James in the Gospels, so an early tradition. But, why choose this passage in Josephus to interpolate, and to interpolate as we see it--with little exaltation of either James or Jesus? I'm asking the same questions. What is the motivation of the alleged interpolator?

ted

spin · 08-30-2005, 01:15 PM

I merely supplied what was reclaimable from the passage after we removed the damage. Everything else seems to me untinged conjecture.

As to James, no indication of any crime is supplied, just that there was an accusation formulated. This suggests that the accusation was baseless. But I'm not wedded to the necessity of this.

It was crap to me because it seemed to be eisegesis, ie nothing from the particular text, but your will to make sense of it filled in the gulf.

spin

Peter Kirby · 08-30-2005, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

That seems reasonable, yet Josephus doesn't mention this claim. What does this suggest to you?

There is the bare possibility that such a claim was described in Ant. 18.3.3.

If not, I don't know. Josephus in Ant. 20.9.1 gives no explicit explanation for the death of James.

If James had priestly status and Jesus son of Damneus was appointed high priest after the execution of James, what was the relationship if any between James and Jesus son of Damneus?

Quote:

Seems like both the claim to the high priesthood and the brother of Jesus claim could be true given James' exalted status in Galations, and description as "the Lord's brother".

Was Jesus then from a priestly family?

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

TedM · 08-30-2005, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I merely supplied what was reclaimable from the passage after we removed the damage. Everything else seems to me untinged conjecture.

Ok, but would you agree that it is much more likely that Josephus said "James, the son of X" than just "James"? Do these probabilities not seem relevant to a discussion about what the original reading most probably was?

ted

spin · 08-30-2005, 01:34 PM

It could as easily have been "a just man whose name was James".

And I think you waste time conjecturing on what is simply not there.

spin

TedM · 08-30-2005, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

It could as easily have been "a just man whose name was James".

And I think you waste time conjecturing on what is simply not there.
spin

I don't see how you are answering my questions:

Quote:

Ok, but would you agree that it is much more likely that Josephus said "James, the son of X" than just "James"? Do these probabilities not seem relevant to a discussion about what the original reading most probably was?

Earlier you said the damage is least if you just keep James. How is the damage any more if you also keep the name Jesus? And, doesn't Josephus' style of referencing people increase the probability that the name Jesus was there originally? If so, shouldn't that be a factor in defining 'damage'?

ted

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

08-30-2005, 01:15 PM	#46
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	I merely supplied what was reclaimable from the passage after we removed the damage. Everything else seems to me untinged conjecture. As to James, no indication of any crime is supplied, just that there was an accusation formulated. This suggests that the accusation was baseless. But I'm not wedded to the necessity of this. It was crap to me because it seemed to be eisegesis, ie nothing from the particular text, but your will to make sense of it filled in the gulf. spin

08-30-2005, 01:34 PM	#49
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	It could as easily have been "a just man whose name was James". And I think you waste time conjecturing on what is simply not there. spin

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.