yummyfur

sorry I didn't mean to be confusing, but I was unclear, I didn't mean to imply that Ananus Sr. passed sentence on James, that was clearly Ananus son of Ananus, I was only saying he was mentioned in that same paragraph as being highly thought of and having 5 sons who became high priests, a new record.

There is only one mention of Ananus son of Ananus in JW chapter 4, there are numerous mentions of plain Ananus before and after this. The first mentions of Ananus in Chapter 4 is clearly the Sr. as he is described as ancient. It's quite likely his son would also be in Jerusalem and part of his faction. The mention might have been to point this out. The word dokimus is better translated as lawfull, legal or genuine, instead of "best esteemed", in light of the context of the paragraph and the preceeding paragraph. In these paragraphs Josephus has describe the abomination of the zealots choosing a high priests by lot. So these were the other genuine high priests arrayed against the zealots false high priest.

He wants to mention all the genuine high priests who are against this, he has already mentioned Ananus Sr. so now he mentions the rest of Ananus Sr.'s faction, who being younger are running amongst various crowds exhorting them.

The next paragraph is Ananus's big speech, he is called just plain Ananus and again mentions he is very old.

Patrick Schoeb

Vorkosigan

Yes, that is how I like that passage as well. It makes for the smallest change, and ensures a smooth flow of words. All you'd have to do, basically, is delete "Damneus" and insert the Christ reference. Unfortunately, since Christians have worked over Josephus, there is no way to know what the original said. Scholars universally accept that passage as authentic despite knowing that Josephus has been worked over by Xtians -- Josephus is like a little touchstone that neatly exposes scholarly doublethink on the HJ/MJ issue. Yet another example of how mythicism is methodologically conservative but socially radical, while historicism is methodologically radical while being socially acceptable.

Zindler also notes that the Ananus reference there seems interpolated, for that Ananus occurs much later in time in Wars. Zindler also identified some other strange features -- Albinus is on his way to Jerusalem when the Jewish envoys meet him and then tell him that it is not lawful for the Sanhedrin to be assembled without his authority (echoes of Pilate & the Jews in John I might add: we have no authority to execute people) as if Albinus wouldn't know that and as if that weren't damned impertinent to boot. Albinus then gets off a letter to Ananus (why? Isn't he on his way to Jersalem, and how could it arrive so much faster anyway?). Zindler identifies the letter as a fairy-tale feature of the pericope. Finally, when Albinus arrives, there is no mention of Albinus doing a follow up (indeed, the passage never says, I have noted numerous times in the past, that James and Co were actually executed). Instead, Josephus has him out exterminating the Sicarii. Then the tranlsations refer to high priest Ananias, although three manuscripts read Ananus (go figure), and the high priest is rising in authority and influence daily.

Vorkosigan

rlogan

Thank you.

Dear, Dear - I see Vork has already brought in the other spelling


The wording of "Best esteemed" you disagree with on exact translation but you appear to agree that the term applies to the son (not just Jesus).

If this term applies to the son, then we compare it to AJ 20.9.1 Does insolent and mean square with "best esteemed"?

If he is a high priest too, how does that square with his purported removal by Agrippa? It seems to me there is more than one high priest running around here.

He obviously is talking about the father with the "ancient" passage. So we can't compare that specific passage to 20.9.1 Son of ananus.
______________________


Yeah Vork -

I also read quicky through Josephus' life story or whatever he calls it.

This Jesus son of Damneus, plays big there. Ananus is mentioned several times, but it appears to be the father at: 189, 195, 216.

Amaleq13

Unless you want to also suggest that the interpolator moved the reference to Jesus so that it came before naming James, you'll still have the problematic linguistic issues spin has pointed out.

Toto

I have (finally) located a previous thread on this question from last year. There is a previous one where Vork first proposed that the Jesus referred to was the son of Damneus, not "called the Christ."

Ant. 20.9.1 (for Bede) - in which Peter Kirby argues that "called the Christ" was interpolated. I don't know if that is his current position.

"called Christ" ONLY was added to Ant. 20.200. [Vork]

rlogan

Thanks for those links, Toto.

My summary view on the Ananus business is that 20.9.1 speaks to the Son whereas the bulk of the JW passages to the father - other than the one specific tangential reference to the son. So I have to retract any statements about JW describing the son in glowing terms.

So although this is offered without substantive support on some anti-Xian websites, it should be rejected.

That still leaves it very odd our "bad' Ananus would be appointed as "the" high priest, and take such an offensive action towards the Romans. Vork brought out other oddities.

sorompio

Sorry, I'm confused about the death of James. In the Josephus passage stoning is mentioned, but I think I heard it was different. Is there any other record about his death? Possibly in Acts?

andrewcriddle

Eusebius Ecclesistical History Book 2 quotes Clement of Alexandria as saying There is another longer account given by Eusebius from Hegesippus (There is an account in Acts 12 of the execution of James the brother of John but that is a different James.)

Andrew Criddle