Bernard Muller

Spin:
I took your challenge and looked only in the viscinity of the James passage (Ant., Bk 20, Ch 9)

(Ch 8) NOW Claudius Caesar died when he had reigned thirteen years, eight
months, and twenty days; and a report went about that he was poisoned by his wife Agrippina. Her father was Germanicus, the brother of Caesar.

According to you, Josephus should have written: "her father was the brother of Caesar, named Germanicus"

(Ch 8) And when Nero had heard what they had to say, he not only forgave
them what they had already done, but also gave them leave to let the wall
they had built stand. This was granted them in order to gratify Poppea, Nero's
wife, who was a religious woman,

According to you, Josephus should have written: "Nero's wife, named Poppea"

(Ch 9) deprived Onias, who was also called Menelaus, of the high priesthood, and slew him at Berea; and driving away the son [of Onias the third], put Jaeimus into the place of the high priest, one that was indeed of the stock of Aaron, but not of that family of Onias. On which account Onias, who was the nephew of Onias that was dead, and bore the same name with his father,

According to you, Josephus should have written: "The nephew of Onias who was dead, who bore the same name than his father, Onias ..."

Best regards, Bernard

Amaleq13

According to Hegesippus both Jews and Christians considered the destruction of Jerusalem to be due to the murder of James the Just. In fact, this opinion is attributed to Josephus in the "lost reference". To suggest that Josephus would identify James as the brother of a criminal makes no sense within that context.

Other than the disputed reference to Jesus, there is no reason to assume Josephus is talking about James the Just.

If we assume he is talking about James the Just, it makes no sense for Josephus to identify him by associating him with an executed criminal.

Bernard Muller

Amaleq13:
I do not see your point. What does Hegesippus and the spurious "lost reference" has to do with Josephus' thought? When the later did not know about the two former? Josephus was a Jew, Hegesippus was a Jewish Christian. The "lost reference" was from a Christian. Different perspectives.

PS: I do not think Hegesippus, a very biased Christian writing around 165, can be trusted not to embellish things about James. More so when that is not referenced in Josephus' authentic writings. Actually Heg rendition of James' death is forced and very legendary in nature.

Best regards, Bernard

spin

Perhaps we are not on the same wavelength, Bernard. I was talking about the fact that there was no antecedent, such as "a just man", onto which one could hang "the brother of Jesus called Christ". Not one of your finds is applicable.

Look again at this:

[Ananus] brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others . . .

Not

brought before them a just man, the brother of Jesus called Christ, named James

or something similar to "a just man" onto which we hang the qualifying phrase "the brother of Jesus called Christ". This would more parallel

a man of Gischala, the son of Levi, whose name was John

one of the priests, the son of Thebuthus, whose name was Jesus

But enough of this.

My original contention was based on the irregular structure based around the word "brother",which is unattested in its form in Josephus, ie that a person is qualified by an erstwhile unintroduced brother (especially one qualified by the highly emotionally charged surname of Christ in a phrase straight out of Matt 1:16). I gave this problem of the lack of a link preceding "the brother of Jesus . . ." as a further, syntactic, problem: when fronting the qualifier, Josephus always hangs that qualifier on some previous phrase, unlike the case with "the brother of Jesus . . ."

And what I was most interested in was the relationship of Origen's attestation of the James passage and the passage itself, for clearly Origen was not citing directly from it and therefore cannot be used to support the presence of "Jesus called Christ".


spin

Amaleq13

The point is we have, in James the Just, a figure who was widely respected by Jews and Christians alike. So respected, in fact, that many Jews (and apparently Christians as well) considered the fall of Jerusalem was due to his unjust execution. I agree that Hegesippus' story of that death has been exaggerated but I think there is sufficient evidence to conclude that James the Just obtained a good reputation among Jews and Christians.

Your argument requires that Josephus not only disregard this reputation and belief about the unjust nature of his execution but to actually denegrate it by choosing to identify James by his relationship to a much lesser known condemned criminal.

GakuseiDon

But if there were a TF in there describing Jesus as a "wise man", then that relationship would make sense - is that what you are getting at?

Amaleq13

No, my understanding is that Bernard agrees with me against the authenticity of the TF. We are discussing the short reference as the solitary mention of Jesus in Josephus.

James the Just appears to have been widely respected by Christians and Jews to the point where the latter, and possibly some of the former, attributed the fall of Jerusalem to his unjust execution.

According to Bernard's argument, we must assume that Josephus disagreed with that sentiment so strongly that he chose to identify James by his association with a lesser-known executed criminal and chose to avoid making any suggestion that James was wrongly punished.

That doesn't seem to me to be a very credible assumption. I doubt the story originally had anything to do with James the Just. It has become about him due to the interpolated phrase.

rlogan

That was a very interesting analysis, Spin. Thank you.

I have been looking for this and I do not see it. Can someone find a citation to this?



I think we've pretty much killed the Josephus entries for the HJ. As they have been buttresses for one another, it is really a matter of the death of neither or the death of both.

Bernard Muller

Spin:
I was answering that from you:
And I did, showing Josephus can have the order reversed. Then you went on a later post:
which was new and never mentioned before. Then you wrote:

I found:

Wars 1, 27, 4 "Now there was a certain old soldier of the king's, whose name was Tero, who had a son that was very familiar with and a friend to Alexander"

Wars 1, 32, 6 "Now after this it was discovered that Antipater had laid a plot against Salome also; for one of Antiphilus's domestic servants came, and brought letters from Rome, from a maid-servant of Julia, whose name was Acme."

Antiquities 18, 6, 6 "as he therefore saw one of Caius's slaves, whose name was Thaumastus, carrying some water in a vessel,"

I do not see here expressions like, your quote (bolded letters mine):

By the way, Thebuthus is never mentioned before or after in 'Wars'.

But I am quite sure these are not the carbon copies you are looking for!

Best regards, Bernard

spin

I missed this latest attempt of yours Bernard to grasp what I was talking about. The form I have been talking about is "the brother of Y (. . .), named X" and its anomalies, one of which being the fact that we are introduced to a family relationship without it being attached to anything -- be it a description of the persion being introduced or be it introduction through a person just mentioned. You gave three examples which showed the form:

These are all standard examples for when the family relationship is given before the name of the person in question.

Yes, we have "a certain soldier", this is not a family relationship, but similar to "a man from Gischala". He was one of the king's soldiers. Your example is not analogous.

Yes, "a maid-servant". Not analogous.

Yes, "one of Caius's slaves", having just talked at length about Caius. Again, not analogous.

Yet the first two supply a description of the person, a certain soldier, a maid-servant, just like one of the priests or a man from Gischala.

Unfortunately, no, Bernard. I was relatively specific about what the problem is. Not only is the expression "the brother of Jesus (. . .) named James", infrequent because it gives the relationship before the person's name and this is a far minority of situations (but acceptible), it is unique with its use of "brother" instead of the standard "father". Further, it doesn't attach the family relationship to a brief preceding description of the person. In the infrequent case, without the preceding description or at least a preceding mention of the person in the relationship, eg a "brother of his" or "brother of Jehoahaz" having just talked of Jehoahaz, we have a very anomalous form in Josephus.

Actually, Bernard, I don't really know why you stretched so far as to give these last strained parallels, getting even further away from the form under examination.

Josephus the Jew very frequently uses filiality to help define a person, but this is done in very strict formats.

So,

1) the use of "brother of" as a defining phrase is unprecedented in J.,

2) the lack of attachment for the family relationship doesn't reflect J., and

3) the unusual Jesus called Christ, like it was straight out of Matt 1:16, is unexplainable when we think of this writer who sees Vespasian as his saviour figure,

all point to the fact that this expression is not native to Josephus.


spin