Bernard Muller

Spin:
There are "brother of" as a defining phrase in Josephus' works:
As in Wars:
"Ptolemy, the brother of Nicolaus, who seemed
one of great weight"
"Alexander, who was the brother of Archelaus,"
"After this Caesar sent Felix, the brother of Pallas"
As in Antiquities:
"He was the son of Simon, who was called The Just: which Simon was the brother of Eleazar,"
"But as Antiochus, the brother of Demetrius who
was called Soter"
"But when Antiochus, the son of Cyzicenus, was king of Syria, Antiochus, the brother of Seleucus, made war upon him"
"Phalion also, the brother of Antipater"
"this Herod, the brother of Agrippa, married Mariamne, the daughter of Olympias, who was the daughter of Herod the king, and of Joseph, the son of Joseph, who was brother to Herod the king,"

"called Christ" would also be used by the ones who would not acknowledged Jesus as the Christ, but knew he was believed by some as such. Furthermore, the Greek words are not exactly the same: 'tou legomenou christou' in Jos' Ant. and 'ho legomenos christos' in Mt1:16 & Jn4:25.
Josephus never called Vespasian "Christ". In the particular passage, Josephus was making a point against the messianic expectation of the Jews, rather than glorify Vespasian as the Savior.

Ant. 6, 6 "But now, what did the most elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how, "about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth." The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination. Now this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judea."

You were talking about "qualifier" (relative to another person I assumed). a maid servant of Julia is a qualifier, as much as "a daughter of Julia"

That what I had in view, and therefore another clause, like "a man of Gishala", preceding the qualifier, is unexistent in the quotes I presented.

Or are you saying that Josephus would have a set of rules for blood relations or another on for other relations? When everything in Josephus' works point he did not have any rule on specifying human relationship.

Best regard, Bernard

spin

Yes, OF COURSE, Bernard. But they are not defining, they are in apposition to the names.

With regard to naming someone for the first time, look:

1) Bill the son of Joe.
2) a man from Sco, the son of Joe, named Bill.
3) Bill the brother of Moe.
4) a man from Sco, the brother of Moe, named Bill.
5) (no antecedent for either of the following names) the son of Joe, named Bill
6) (no antecedent for either of the following names) the brother of Moe, named Bill
7) (no antecedent for either of the following names) the son of Joe called Shmoe, named Bill
8) (no antecedent for either of the following names) the brother of Moe called Shmoe, named Bill

There are probably more.

In the sequence the vast majority are of type #1, a minority are #2, a miniscule minority are type #3.

But there is no parallel example of

the brother of Jesus called Christ named James

Now remember:

1) we are dealing only with names of people
2) we are dealing only with names of people introduced for the first time
3) we are dealing only with family relationships regarding these people
4) we are dealing only with examples of these in which the family relationship comes before the newly to be named person is mentioned
5) we are dealing only with examples from #4 in which the family relationship is one of brother
6) we are dealing only with the brother relationship which has no antecedent, either by prior reference to the brother or by a defining phrase for the man to be named

THERE IS SIMPLY NO OTHER EXAMPLE OF THIS DEFINING BROTHER RELATIONSHIP, UNATTACHED TO AN ANTECEDENT, TO BE FOUND IN JOSEPHUS.

Oh, except for TF.

I see. A devout Jew would blandly state that someone was called Christ without any qualification whatsoever, especially when this Jew had not used this significant noun elsewhere.

Umm, it's called grammar, Bernard. You can't put a genitive where there should be a nominative. You know: "what's he name?"

That's right, he doesn't call Vespasian "Christ". So, you want him to call some unknown, (accepting the TF for a moment) inappropriately described person as "Christ"? To a Jew of the period the term had a very distinct meaning and it related to domination, as shown by the mention of Vespasian here regarding "one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth".

Simple descriptions: "a man from Gischala", "one of the priests", "a maid-servant", "a certain old soldier" . . . Do you get the idea? These are descriptive, given about the person to be mentioned.

Family genealogy was important to Jews of the period. Giving a father was like us giving a family name. This was not the case with a brother. That's why you find the vast majority of family in Josephus relations are filial. When a brother is given, it is because the brother is known, either directly to the Roman reader or (usually recently) mentioned.


spin

spin

Just one extra thing. I have just been reminded of the significance of "xristos" outside the realm of xianity.

Some time ago I wrote here, #32:

I just had a quick look for the usage of christos in Greek literature and beside the xian usage of the term it is hardly in use at all. Where it can be found it is related strictly to its original significance, related to "rubbing on", as in ointment, so one can see the relation with the Hebrew which comes from the idea of "to pour on" as in oil. Translators chose the nearest Greek term they could find.

(And the translators were biblical translators.)

Here is the reminder:

With a well-deserved :notworthy

Josephus didn't use xristos for Vespasian for a good reason: the term wouldn't have meant anything meaningful to his audience, or perhaps, if it did, it would have been taken as some veiled insult.

Outside the 40 examples of xristos used in the LXX, can you give just one pre-xian example of it meaning "messiah"? Do you think Josephus's audience was well versed in the LXX? Many of those 40 examples were in the historical books which Josephus claims to have translated himself directly into his AJ (see his introduction), yet he only uses the noun twice: 18.3.3 and 20.9.1 -- the very same suspiscious passages we are investigating. Because of this and beside every other problem, these passages are dead in the water. It is damning to the defence of both passages.


spin

Vorkosigan

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

Vorkosigan

GakuseiDon

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If Jesus was the only one called "the Christ", why would you expect others to have that name? It doesn't make any sense. Josephus also uses the word "Christian", and shows that the root of the word is "Christ". Yet that is the only time Josephus refers to the word "Christian". Maybe that means it is an interpolation as well - except that there were Christians at that time. I think the two passages stand together, or fall together.

How many people in Josephus's time proclaimed themselves the Messiah?

spin

I can tell, Gak, that you haven't been following the Josephus testimony threads too closely.

In the TF every scholar rejects the bald statement "he was the Christ", o xristos outos hn. Yet, without the forementioning of xristos, there is nothing to hang the phrase "Christians, so named from him", twn xristianwn apo toude wnomasmenon, named after whom, Jesus? No, it must be the now eliminated Christ. (Besides, in the same sentence the use of "tribe", fulon, does not reflect Josephus's usage.)

So, no, Josephus doesn't use the word "Christian".

In the TF xristos is not used as a name, but as a description which carries a definite article. Hence, if it were original to the text, the common understanding of the phrase would be "he was the ointment".

The TF has already fallen. There are just too many counts against it. I posted the information about the common significance of xristos as it was a sure fire end to the rumblings about the James passage. Being such a small part of the text, there isn't too much to go on to establish its veracity. People like Bernard are prepared to complain about phrase structures that are clearly not from Josephus, but it dealing with the real significance of xristos terminates the discussion. It simply doesn't mean to the audience of Josephus's text what xians would like it to mean. (To see this, just refer to the entry for xristos in Liddell and Scott.) The only people to whom the term xristos would have significance are Greek speaking xians (and Jews) who knew and used the term in their religious context. This means that the references to xristos were not written by Josephus, but probably by a xian, as he alone would appreciate the significance of the term. We have to wait twenty years for Pliny the Younger to talk about xians to Trajan.

I don't know. Do you? What are your historical sources? Did they say it in Greek or some other language?


spin

Bernard Muller

Spin:
Can you find an antecedant of that:
Antiquities:
"a young son, who was called Onias, Simon's brother Eleazar, of whom we are speaking". I am quite sure that other odd expressions (relating to family connection) exists, which do not have a very close parallel with anything else Josephus wrote.

Antiquities: "But as Antiochus, the brother of Demetrius who was called Soter"
The bolded words duplicate:
the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ
Soter is a surname. So is Christ, as in 'Jesus Christ'.
Note: yes, I noticed Antiochus is in front, not in the back. But I gave already examples of the opposite, such as:
"the son of Thebuthus, whose name was Jesus ..." (Wars, VI, VIII, 3)
(Thebuthus is previously unnamed)
(And does "one of the priests" in front of that make so much difference? I'll get back into that, at the end of this post.)
That's very similar of "the brother of Jesus ..., whose name was James"
(next, I'll go into "who was called Christ")

I also found many "who was called" in Josephus' works:

In Antiquities:
"Joseph, who was called Cabi"
"Quintus Metellus, who was called Metellus of Crete"
"Ptolemy, who was called Menneus"
"Antiochus, who was called Dionysus"
"the son of Cyzicenus, who was called Pius"
"Zeno, who was called Cotylas"
"Alexander, who was called Balas"
"Ptolemy, who was called Philometor"
"He had five sons; John, who was called Gaddis, and Simon, who was called Matthes, and Judas, who was called Maccabeus, and Eleazar, who was called Auran, and Jonathan, who was called Apphus"
"his brother Antiochus, who was called Epiphanes"
Question: did Josephus believe that late king to be "God made manifest" (= Epiphanes)?. Certainly not, because he considered that king to be evil for the Jews. In other words, Josephus acknowledged the sobriquet, but not as a real title/description.
More on that: in the quote above, it is the first time Antiochus IV is named, and surprise, he is referenced through his brother, not his father (even if he was very famous, Antiochus the Great).

In Wars:
"Ptolemy, who was called Lathyrus"
"Demetrius, who was called Eucerus"
"Herod who was called Antipas"

That would explain why Josephus considered 'Christ' as a surname (nickname), not the real thing.

You missed my point. 'Maid-servant' is the qualifier (relative to Julia), the same as 'daughter' would be, relative to the same Julia. In that case there is no clause analog to "one of the priests". "one of the priests" does not establish a restricted (or unique) relationship with somebody else, but "maid-servant of Julia" does.
I agree that: "the vast majority of family in Josephus relations are filial"
but there are cases when it is through brother, more so when that brother is a lot more famous than the father. As in "Felix, the brother of Pallas". And according to Pliny the Younger and Tacitus, Romans knew about a certain 'Christus' (Latin), associated with Christians.

As my conclusion, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name is James", might be unique, but it is a combination of what Josephus used, relating to human relationship, and it falls well into the historian's (meandering) style.

Best regards, Bernard

spin

There is nothing strange about it when you read it in context, Bernard -- which you might think of supplying next time. You've just ripped it out, that's all. Look:

When he (Simon the Just) was dead, and had left a young son, who was called Onias, Simon's brother Eleazar, of whom we are speaking, took the high priesthood

Simon left a young son named Onias, too young to take office so Simon's brother Eleazar took the office. Do you need it explained any more? It does fit normal standards when understood.

Sadly the full expression doesn't duplicate the one under analysis, as you are aware. You are wasting both our time.

(Yes, it is. It gives the familial relationship something to hang on to.)

If you are prepared to forget things I guess you could say that.

Well done.

Actually, no, not at all. If the term meant anything cultic to him, you know, messiah, saviour of the Jews, bringer of peace and the new age, a devoiut Jew like Josephus would not have used it as it is used here. It would be like someone to a xian nicknamed Saviour or God.

No, you still miss the point. "maid-servant" cannot be construed as a familial relationship. It is like any antecedent we have already come across.

It is a descriptive antecedent, like the others (but with the trivial difference that instead of "a certain priest", you have "one of the priests"). You are right that a "maid-servant of Julia" is more restrictive, though this doesn't reflect on the question at hand.

This is type #3 in the category list I gave.

(Understand parenthetically, that I am agnostic over the value of the Trajan/Pliny letters, given that forgeries of letters are well noted in church history: Abgar/Jesus, Seneca/Paul, and an array of others, mainly involving famous people including emperors. Christ in Tacitus is a simple xian insertion, which first appeared in the 4th or 5th century when early church fathers knew and used Tacitus.)

You're right that it is unique. You haven't shown an example of a simple familial relationship fronted and not attached to an antecedent. Such a manifestation is not part of Josephus's style. The use of the unqualified xristos is unexplainable from a devout Jew and unintelligible for his audience. While Josephus does have a meandering style, these characteristics do not reflective his style, though a mention of xristos by a xian interpolator is quite understandable, much more understandable than it being the work of Josephus. We can even see how it might have been done if someone had read Origen's musings on the passage and went to find it only to be disappointed. The phrase Iesous tou legomenou xristou is a known xian phrase straight out of Mt 1:16 which has been attached to its present context in a way previously unknown in Josephus. The use of "Jesus called ointment" could only have raised a laugh before the diffusion of xianity.


spin

Mathetes

I think Spin hit the most powerful argument for interpolation, much stronger than style analysis, that can be somewhat subjective.

Agreed.

I have often wondered what a Greek reader would have undertood out of the name "Jesus the Christ". My current feeling is either "Jesus the oily" or "Jesus the perfume" or "the perfumed".

Johann_Kaspar

One more point. Josephus wrote in Hebrew. How could he write in Hebrew that the "christians" were named after "christ"? As a far as I know, in Hebrew, it was never "messianists" derived from messiah, but a word derived from NTSR...