Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by godfry n. glad:
[QB]Vorkosigan:

It's not just that he didn't use the term before; it's that he used this particular term ("christos") _at all_, without defining it.
To the average reader of AotJ (Graecophonic Romans), the term would have had little or no meaning beyond a term for ointment or linament for external application to the body. I would postulate that the Roman reader, coming across the singular usage (since it's agreed that the "christos" reference in the TF most probably was NOT present and it's not found _anywhere_ else in his works) would have read it as "called the ointment" and wondered why he was referred to in that fashion, who referred to him in that fashion, and why the author thought it important to describe this otherwise unknown James as being related to this Jesus character that was called "ointment", rather than his usual "son of" format.

Then, if you assume that Josephus' readers _did_ know the meaning of the term (as Ed Tyler will vociferously argue), you still run into problems. The Roman reader would still have to wonder why it was used here to describe an otherwise unknown person; why Josephus never supplied a fuller explication of the "ambiguous oracle" of "one who would become governor of the habitable world" (JW 6.5.4, which follows fast upon the description of the madman Jesus, son of Ananus, prophet of the destruction of Jerusalem in JW 6.5.3)and relate it to the term "christos"; why it was not used when Josephus described Vespasian as the true subject of that same messianic oracle; who would have claimed that this otherwise unknown personage was on par with the Emperor Vespasian; and...why Josephus did not explain any of this.

All this leads me to give credence the hypothesis that suggests that the reference replaced another reference; that it is the result of excision and replacement by an interpolator with an agenda to provide supportive evidence for the corporeal existence of Jesus.


godfry n. glad

P.S.- Here's a question: Is the Jesus, son of Ananus, the scouraged madman who prophesizes the imminent destruction of Jerusalem in JW 6.5.4, the son of the same Ananus who is responsible for the arrest and condemnation of James, brother of Jesus, "called the Christ" in AotJ 20.9.1?[/B]

I can pretty much agree with your analysis of the "christ" question. Where people have different names, or their father is famous in his own right, Joseph sometimes describes them. However, your argument cuts both ways. It could well mean that the reference in 20.200 means that Josephus really did refer to Jesus earler, although in an entirely pejorative manner.

DO you have access of one of Ed's arguments about why we should believe "Christ" to be a phrase known to educated Romans at large?

I'm certain at least that the "so-called Christ" is an interpolation. Is it in the Slavonic Josephus? None of the online sources clearly say.

Vorkosigan

Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan writes: I'm certain at least that the "so-called Christ" is an interpolation.

So far, you seem to have offered conjecture, waiting for it to be shot down, without constructing a positive argument for the conjecutre as far as I've seen. So whence comes this certainty?

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

1. Take it out, see it as a link to Jesus Damneus in the same section below, the story works even better. In other words, it is aesthetically pleasing this way (aesthetic arguments are used to support a partial interpolation for the TF).

2. It explains why Josephus atypically put "the brother of" first rather than his more typical style of putting the identifier after the name. He does not always do this, but he does it enought that the passage is atypical.

If James were really the focus of the identification, why isn't he listed first followed by "...brother of Jesus, the one called Christ,..." as Josephus usually does. As far as anyone knows, Josephus did not revere JC as the messiah, so there is no reason to give any importance to the identification of "Christ" before that of "James." The only reason that "brother of" comes first is because James is important here for being the brother of Somebody. Based on the promixity in the passage, it is either JC or Jesus Damneus. JC makes no sense coming first, Jesus Damneus does.....

Other reasons lie outside the scope of this discussion.

Vorkosigan

[ August 02, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

joedad

Could someone who knows ancient Greek indulge my curiosity? Specifically, how do the words a, an and the get translated from the Greek to English? The usage of those three tiny words certainly could affect a translation. To what degree it it subjective?

Thanks,

joe

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: joedad ]</p>

Peter Kirby

joedad writes: Could someone who knows ancient Greek indulge my curiosity? Specifically, how do the words a, an and the get translated from the Greek to English? The usage of those three tiny words certainly could affect a translation. To what degree it it subjective?

There is no exact correlation between the use of articles in Greek and in English. The Greek article translated "the" is often omitted in English, and translations from Greek sometimes have to supply an article such as "a" or "an." Sometimes an article is used reflexively as a possessive, so that what appears to be "I lost the keys" would actually mean "I lost my keys." It would therefore be misleading for me to tell you that a certain word in Greek translates to "the," "a," or "an."

On the assumption that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, especially when translating, I suggest the use of a Greek grammar to find out more. My textbook was From Alpha to Omega by Anne Groton, but you can also find some <a href="http://perswww.kuleuven.ac.be/~p3481184/greekg/grammars.htm" target="_blank">grammars online</a> such as that by Herbert Weir Smyth. I myself still have a lot to learn about Greek.

best,
Peter Kirby

Layman

Excuse me for butting in on an insignficant item, but I'm just glad to see someone finally bested my record of THREE edit lines in a single post!

Bravo


<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

godfry n. glad

Oh...I understand that. But, if the term were introduced in a "perjorative" TF, then, in my estimation, it would still have required some kind of explanation for the Grecophonic readers as to the nature of "christos". None of the proposed reconstructed TFs includes such, so the problem still remains.

Nope. Sorry, Vork, but I went back to the long running set of threads in the JesusMysteries archives and failed to dredge it up. Several posters were involved in the discussion, but all of the posts by Ed Tyler are missing. I tried to glean Ed's commentary on the topic by extracting it from the posts of others that included his responses (a la Celsus embedded in Origen), to no avail. Some of his responses are there, but his assertion about "christos" is missing.

If you want to read the commentary of the various participants, it starts with post #2741 and continues through several minor thread title changes at #2762, #2772, #2818 and #2841. You might be particularly interested in Ken Olson's comment at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JesusM...s/message/2824

As I remember it, Ed was adamant that the entire Greco-Roman world would have been familiar with the granting of authority associated with the anointing of oil and thus the term "christos" would have been easily understood by readers of the Antiquities of the Jews. When pressed, he never produced evidence to support his assertion, however, he just continued to assert.

I hope this helps, but you might have to track him down and ask him point blank. He's hanging out at XTalk2 last I saw evidence of him.

godfry n. glad

Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan, have you come up with any ideas for who the "certain others" were and what laws they were accused of breaking (and why they were given an illegal trial) under your hypothesis?

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

There's no other information in the text given about them, other than them being "companions" or "others" of the James mentioned there. All we know is that Ananus accused them of law-breaking and sent them off to be stoned, and Josephus says others thought this was high-handed. He does not even say the sentence was carried out.

Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan writes: There's no other information in the text given about them, other than them being "companions" or "others" of the James mentioned there. All we know is that Ananus accused them of law-breaking and sent them off to be stoned, and Josephus says others thought this was high-handed.

I know what Josephus said, but I am not asking you to back up any possible speculation with the text of Josephus or other evidence. I am asking for a merely possible explanation that would bring completeness to the hypothesis that you've suggested.

Vorkosigan writes: He does not even say the sentence was carried out.

My opinion is that it would have been most natural for Josephus to mention that the sentence of Ananus was frustrated if it was in fact.

best,
Peter Kirby