DCHindley

Ben.

I looked into the name "Jesus" in Whiston's translation of the works of Josephus (via Bibleworks), and come up with the list that will follow. Generally, at least with this name, he identifies the party by family relationship first, but with a couple exceptions. In War 4.238 and Ant 20.200. In War, I think the person being referred to is Jesus son of Gamala (previously mentioned in 4.160), the "friend" who, along with the younger Ananus, agreed with Josephus' enemies to send a party from Jerusalem to arrest (and presumably execute) him (Life 1.193, 204). If the Jesus of 20.200 be this same Jesus son of Gamalas, the lack of a patronym might be understood as a sign of disfavor on the part of Josephus, as this "friend" had sold him out. He might not have been aware of this when he wrote the War, but pobably knew of his trechery by the time of the writing of Antiquities.

David Trobisch, either in Paul's Letter Collection (or via: amazon.co.uk) or First Edition of the New Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk), draws attention to cases of writers obscuring references to disfavored individuals in their self-published letters.

Just a thought ...

DCH

War
2:566 Jesus, son of Sapphias – Governor of Tiberias.
2:599 Jesus, son of Sapphias – Governor of Tiberias.
3:450 Jesus, son of Shapat – Principal head of a band of robbers controlling Tiberias.
3:452 Jesus, [son of Shapat]
3:457 Jesus, [son of Shapat] – Departs Tiberius to Taricheae
3:467 Jesus, [son of Shapat]
3:498 Jesus, [son of Shapat]
4:160 Jesus, son of Gamala – Best esteemed, with Ananus ben Ananus, of High priests.
4:238 Jesus, no patronym – Eldest high priest after Ananus.
4:270 Jesus, no patronym – [Eldest high priest after Ananus].
4:283 Jesus, no patronym – [Eldest high priest after Ananus].
4:316 Jesus, no patronym – [Eldest high priest after Ananus].
4:322 Jesus, no patronym – [Eldest high priest after Ananus].
4:325 Jesus, no patronym – [Eldest high priest after Ananus].
4:459 Jesus [Joshua] son of Nun.
6:114 Jesus, no patronym – High priest, deserts to Vespasian.
6:300 Jesus, son of Ananus – Common man prophesied destruction of the temple.
6:387 Jesus, son of Thebuthus – One of the priests, deserts to Titus.

Ant.
03:049 (numerous) Jesus [Joshua] son of Nun.
11:298 Jesus, (son of Eliashib), brother of John – friend of governor Bagoses.
11:299 Jesus, [son of Eliashib] – slain by brother John, the High priest.
11:300 Jesus, [son of Eliashib]
11:301 Jesus, [son of Eliashib] – slain by brother John, the High priest.
12:237 Jesus, brother of Onias III – High priest.
12:238 Jesus, brother of Onias III – Deposed as High priest in favor of Onias = Menelaus
12:239 Jesus, younger brother of Onias = Menelaus – High priest.
12:239 Jesus, brother of Onias III – Renamed Jason. Revolts against Onias = Menelaus.
15:041 Jesus, (brother of Onias III)
15:322 Jesus, son of Phabes – High priest.
17:341 Jesus, the son of Sie – High priest.
18:063 Jesus, no patronym – Condemned to cross by Pilate. He was [the] Christ.
20:200 Jesus, no patronym – Brother of Jacob, called the Christ.
20:203 Jesus, son of Damneus – High priest.
20:205 Jesus, [son of Damneus] – High priest.
20:213 Jesus, son of Gamaliel – High priest.
20.213 Jesus, son of Damneus – Deposed as High priest.
20:223 Jesus, son of Gamaliel – High priest.
20:234 Jesus, son of Josadek – High priest.

Life
1:066 Jesus, son of Sapphias – Governor of Tiberias.
1:067 Jesus, son of Sapphias – [Governor of Tiberias.]
1:105 Jesus, no patronym – Captain of those robbers in the confines of Ptolemais.
1:108 Jesus, no patronym – [Captain of those robbers in the confines of Ptolemais.]
1:109 Jesus, no patronym – [Captain of those robbers in the confines of Ptolemais.]
1:110 Jesus, no patronym – [Captain of those robbers in the confines of Ptolemais.]
1:134 Jesus, son of Sapphias – Governor of Tiberias.
1:178 Jesus, no patronym – Brother of Justus of Tiberias.
1:186 Jesus, no patronym – Brother of Justus of Tiberias.
1:193 Jesus, son of Gamala – High priest & Josephus’ friend.
1:200 Jesus, no patronym – Galilean at head of a band of 600, sent to depose Josephus.
1:204 Jesus, son of Gamala – High priest & Josephus’ friend.
1:246 Jesus, no patronym – Owned a house big as a castle. Governor of Tiberias?
1:271 Jesus, no patronym – Governor of Tiberias.
1:278 Jesus, no patronym – [Governor of Tiberias.]
1:294 Jesus, no patronym – [Governor of Tiberias.]
1:295 Jesus, no patronym – [Governor of Tiberias.]
1:300 Jesus, no patronym – [Governor of Tiberias.]
1:301 Jesus, no patronym – [Governor of Tiberias.]

DCHindley

Ben.

The only actual case where Josephus introduces a character "Jesus" but introduces him later is the case of Jesus, the Governor of Tiberias, who is mentioned as owner of a house (without identiyfing him as the Governor of the city) in Life 1.246, but is later identified as the Governor of the city of Tiberias. I suppose this could be due to the man not yet coming into control of Tiberias (he is said to have been "then governor" in 1.271.

DCH

Life
1:246 Jesus, no patronym – Owned a house big as a castle. Governor of Tiberias?
1:271 Jesus, no patronym – Governor of Tiberias.
1:278 Jesus, no patronym – [Governor of Tiberias.]
1:294 Jesus, no patronym – [Governor of Tiberias.]
1:295 Jesus, no patronym – [Governor of Tiberias.]
1:300 Jesus, no patronym – [Governor of Tiberias.]
1:301 Jesus, no patronym – [Governor of Tiberias.]

Roger Pearse

I'm not sure that I have conveyed my meaning as well as I might, since I don't quite see why this simple principle should raise all these queries.

Any of us can assert -- without cost to themselves -- that any passage in any text whatsoever is 'interpolated'. It's free, it's easy, and it allows those who do so to ignore difficulties in the text before them.

The trouble is that it is too easy, too cheap. Because it takes place ad hoc, it can happen anywhere. Since there are few constraints, and most of us are human, it will naturally happen that people choose to treat as interpolations material because it is inconvenient to their thesis; "as an experienced scholar all my instincts tell me... blah blah".

In the circumstances surely we must refuse to go down that route, unless there is some definite piece of evidence (using words normally) that suggests interpolation? If we don't, every scholar will treat each text as suggestions, omitting whichever bits are inconvenient. In short scholarship vanishes, and we are left only with prejudices.

I am thinking here of the letters and some of the treatises of Cyprian. These exist in two recensions in the medieval mss, one markedly more 'papalist' than the other. In the 19th century controversy raged. Which was authentic? Protestant scholars asserted that the long text had plainly been interpolated, perhaps by the Jesuits. Catholics argued that the shorter text was an epitome, or had been interfered with by heretics.

Controversies over the standing of the Bishop of Rome are no longer a political issue today, and feelings have quieted. It is today believed that both recensions are genuine, and that the shorter version is the first edition, and that Cyprian himself reedited a selection of texts and the collection of his letters following news of the Novatianist schism in Rome, in order to bolster the position of the legitimate pope.

Awareness of the excesses of subjectivity of 19th century scholarship is not confined to myself. The Vienna edition of the works of Tertullian was carried out by the brilliant Emil Kroymann. But it is today considered that he made changes to the transmitted text in far too arbitrary a fashion, and modern texts have returned to something much closer to the manuscripts.

I feel that we must continually strive to descope ourselves from our investigations. It is not the text before us that will make us talk nonsense, so surely as the biases and prejudices and blinkers that we carry as men of the early 21st century. We can avoid imposing these on the text most effectively by refusing to reject bits of the text without solid grounds to do so.

One would hope so. But it need not. Unfortunately the history of real, critical scholarship (e.g. for Lucian) includes episodes that demonstrate beyond question that, on matters of controversy, scholars tend to write mainly as men of their class and generation.

We cannot rely on people having letters after their names. We need *principles* that will prevent the worse excesses of subjectivity. After all, if we have solid grounds to suppose interpolation, surely we should be able to demonstrate this?

I'm not sure how this comes into it -- I have no special views on the specific subject; only on the general issue of whether we can just cry 'interpolation' whenever it suits us.

I do know that the authenticity of this passage has been almost universally accepted by scholars (Emil Schurer is a lonely exception) even at the high watermark of scepticism, and isn't really in doubt. Those who want to disagree should direct their disagreement to the academy.

I cannot sensibly deal with these sweeping, unreferenced assertions other than by writing an essay, and candidly I don't believe that you would read it anyway. I'm sure that you are aware that I am familiar with all the primary data relating to the period. I do not find this in it. Nor do I have any interest in arguing with someone who can assert this.

The idea that Christians, then and now, displayed no interest in whether the NT was forged is mildly funny, considering their surviving literary output. Is this what Irenaeus says -- that he doesn't care? Is it what Tertullian says? Is it what Origen -- blessed, martyred Origen with his life of textual scholarship -- says? On the contrary; and I do think you know this.

But this has little to do with the subject. We can always find reasons to suppose interpolation. That's why we must not do it.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Doug Shaver

That depends on the counterclaim. If your opponent says something did not happen and you want to prove him wrong, you have to argue that it did happen. But if he says it could not have happened, all you have to prove is that its occurrence was possible.

Toto

But isn't your solution equally cheap and easy - just accept the text as it is and raise an impossibly high burden of proof of any interpolation?

This is what a lot of Christian apologetics looks like to non-believers.

Surely one can become aware of one's own biases, along with the biases of previous editors and writers? By refusing to entertain the possibility of interpolations, or by requiring extraordinarily clear evidence, you are accepting the biases of the latest editor/interpolator/forger. If you are a conservative Christian, these are, conveniently, your own biases.

There is a well known phenomenon of people, when confronted with evidence that does not agree with their preconceptions, suddenly becoming very skeptical and raising a high burden of proof against the new evidence. I think that is what you are caught in here.

I keep referring to William O. Walker's work (here), which can now be previewed extensively on google books. He argues cogently for the existence of interpolations and a reasonable set of standards for identifying them.

aa5874

No, Roger. If there are reasons to assume interpolation, then one must view the passage suspiciously. One must act with reason.

Roger Pearse

Actually I don't see why it is 'impossibly high' -- surely it is not unreasonable to say that there must be *something* other than just speculation as a reason for anything?

For instance the original critique of the Donation of Constantine passed this test. Lorenzo Valla didn't just sit there and dress up "I don't like this" (although he was actually being paid by the king of Aragon to rubbish it, so that the king could seize the papal states). He came up with some sound reasons, although some of these sound strange today.

It is, as you say, an easy solution. It has the great merit, however, that it removes the problem of *our* subjectivity. (Other problems will, of course, arise and have to be dealt with, and there is no way to avoid subjectivity entirely, or to avoid circular logic sometimes).

It would be nice to think so. Sadly an elementary knowledge of human nature casts doubt on this. The biases which we share from our environment are the ones that neither you or I can tell we have. Fish find it hard to notice water.

This is not my position, you know -- where did this come from?

Interpolation (generally, the arrival of foreign matter in the texts) is endemic in certain kinds of texts, and must always be considered as a possibility. Minor glosses probably are present somewhere in the manuscript tradition of most Latin texts. The comparison of manuscripts from different families is a simple test for it, for instance.

Material written in the margin in Old Irish saying "It's cold here today, isn't it?" "Yes, and wasn't that meat rubbish" is probably inauthentic in an ancient Latin text (this is a real case, incidentally).

But surely what we must NOT do is simply assert it when convenient? I feel that this happens an awful lot among some people online. No, there must be some kind of real evidence for it. I don't mean this in a daft way; just in a real way.

By default a suggestion of interpolation is far too easy. It must always be treated with suspicion -- a sign of someone trying to get away from data; and particularly when it relates to some passage which addresses some contemporary political or religious controversy.

Of course we are in the humanities, and subjectivism is inevitable. But we need to find ways to minimise it where possible.

Indeed so. What else, indeed, is the tendency to cry 'interpolation' without evidence? This is why I want a general standard that some objections are simply too easy.

I think that we should all hold a general position on texts of all kinds, which is that they are transmitted to us, unless we have positive evidence to the contrary. Any other position seems in practise indistinguishable from obscurantism.

I have not seen the book, although I looked at your summary which contained many sensible things and one or two which seemed a little curious.

But may I observe that, were you or I to write a book on interpolations, glosses and the like, would we choose as our subject a text which was controversial to the highest possible degree? Would we choose a text which was likely to ensure that there was a substantial number of people who would mistake our academic discussion for an attack on their religion, and shut their minds accordingly? On the contrary, wouldn't we write about ancient legal texts or such, and steer well clear of this irrelevant source of bias and antipathy? We would, after all, want our work to be heard, not embroiled in irrelevant religious controversy.

A charitable soul might suppose that Dr William wrote about the book with which he was most familiar. A cynic might infer that Dr. Williams had higher (or lower) ends in mind than the scholarship of glosses and interpolations, given the antipathy he would surely invoke.

Give me studies which don't stir my many political or religious hatreds.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Toto

Dr. WALKER's vita is here. He is M.Div. as well as Ph.D. and has a career of teaching and writing about Biblical subjects. The idea that he picked on the Pauline letters to enrage political or religious sensibilities is just ludicrous.

Toto

Adddendum to the above:

Corpus Paul list - an interesting exchange between David Hindley and Professor John Hurd on this very issue, with some support for all sides.

Also this reply

Roger Pearse

You certainly don't have to address my arguments if you don't wish to.

All the best,

Roger Pearse