spin

I thought it was obvious.

This was gratuitous explanation.

I pointed out that the syntax verges on the questionable and doesn't fit any of Josephus's other formulae. As I've already said, the text has clearly been compromised, as the phrase "called christ" indicates. The un-Josephus-like syntax as further disturbance seems extremely likely given that it is clear that the passage has been tampered with.

Only if you insist on the necessity that there was a familial relationship and there is no necessity, and that the disturbed syntax preserves the original information.

The form of the syntax indicates a name just mentioned, otherwise one might expect something like "James, the brother of Jesus", but this is not the case, suggesting that the whole phrase "the brother of Jesus called christ..." was an addition and therefore of no help for the original text.


spin

TedM

I don't insist on the necessity of anything here. You are the one insisting on the necessity of a post-interpolated text that resembles the pre-interpolated text in structure. Why require such a thing? It seems to me that structure, context, content, and who knows what else ALL need to be considered in order to determine the probability of something having been done to the text, but since we can't go back and see the original we can't say that any single one of them necessarily didn't change. That's why it seems to me that your focus is too narrow, and ignores important probabilities like the probability that Josephus DID indicate a familial relationship.

It also seems to me that when one reclaims a text based on a syntax evaluation, it might be of value to look at the probability that such original was then subsequently changed to what we now see. To me, ALL of this is conjecture--including arguments about syntax structure, so why not include arguments for and against different subsequent interpolation theories?

ted

Amaleq13

How did you figure these odds? Don't you need to know how often Josephus mentions a name without a description?

spin

Umm, whatever, TedM. We are talking past each other I guess. You want the text to be a certain way without any evidence whatsoever, and I want to remove the dead wood, ie material whose relationship to the original text cannot be in any sense shown, and use what's left.

Josephus often supplies titles and no familial connections as well. He supplies various factors and you are preoccupied with one, yet of familial connections, Josephus predominantly uses "son of", which is understandable with his Semitic background. Yet you are hanging out for the vastly minor form with brother. Obviously, the brother connection is rather rare in Josephus, yet you champion it. Try and find examples of "brother of" connections in passages where the brother isn't mentioned elsewhere in the wider context. Thrill us all with your finds.

I have looked, TedM. When you are in a position to make comments about the syntax, let me know.


spin

Peter Kirby

What do you say, Ted? Anyone have a response?

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

TedM

Yes, I am basing it on the original list of 28 high priest descriptions I posted earlier today, which shows a name without a description to in only 4 or 5 (I forget now) of the cases. Of course as I also mentioned in another post the presence of a name with no description may in and of itself increase the odds of interpolation--especially 'innocent interpolation'. But then you have to ask what is it in the rest of the context that might lend one to interpolate..

ted

TedM

You continue to argue against the current text as the original, and I continue to question the likelihood of the process of going from a proposed original to the current, so yes we are talking past each other. I agree with your objections, but suggested that the passage may have had a different original structure with much if not all of the same content as we see now..

ted

spin

This is not correct. I have already discounted the current text. I am arguing the lack of merit in your wishful approach to what is not there but might have been.

You have unsuccessfully sidestepped the issue of the improbability of Josephus using "brother of Y, whose name was X", but I gather that you will now also disavow the brother stuff, given that you are into probability in your analysis and the use of "brother" as the familial description is so rare and limited to specific conditions, which don't apply here. There is no recent prior reference to a Jesus. (In fact, the passage as it stands is attempting to justify Jesus by qualifying him "called christ", suggesting that the person responsible knew that it was necessary to qualify Jesus as there was no prior reference, hence Jesus wasn't in the original.)

No doubt the passage had a different original structure, but you have no opportunity to reconstruct it for yourself, having no textual handles to grab onto, no recent prior mention of Jesus, lack of commonality of the use of "brother of" by Josephus. As the passage had a different original structure, you simply cannot reclaim what you don't know and that is what was prior.


spin

TedM

This is some related material from Bernard Muller's site, on the Nazarenes, led by James. Muller doesn't go so far as to say that James was in line to become a high priest though. Sorry for the poor formatting. To better appreciate his points, which are emphasized through coloring, and bolding, etc.., you can find these passages at http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/hjes2x.html:

He also quotes some passages in James that seem to show a James whose message would upset some of the high priests of his day:




ted

TedM

You have argued that the current wording includes an interpolation that can be identified by its structure. I suggested in an earlier post that while we might be able to identify a questionable part by its unorthodox structure, that doesn't mean that the content of that part didn't exist with a different structure in the original. I suggested that a Christian interpolator might prefer to list Jesus's name before James, and so may have re-arranged an original that had much the same content. It may have, for example, originally said "and brought before them a just man named James, who had a brother named Jesus who some called Christ."

Why assume that the interpolator retained the original structure?

Why is your suggestion of an original "James and his companions" and "a just man whose name was James" more probable than "James, the son of Damneus" or "James, the brother of one called Christ"?

ted