spin

I think we've been here I think we've been I think we've been here before.

Rubbish, TedM. By the form we have now, you should know that this last suggestion is silly. There would basically be no need to modify the text at all for all the information is there, yet the syntax in the current form of the text is quite unusual compared to this last suggestion of yours. It's plain that the text has been modified to include extra or different information. Simply buggering the syntax wouldn't be thought of, if all the information was there, strongly suggesting that it wasn't.

I assume nothing of the kind. I have been saying, and let me say it yet again, we don't know what was there before the text got modified, so it is a waste of time to reconstruct what you cannot know anything about.

As the passage had a different original structure, you simply cannot reclaim what you don't know and that is what was prior.

And I think you waste time conjecturing on what is simply not there.

Etc.

My original suggestion was in no way aimed at a definitive reconstruction of the original text, but to minimise the damage:

Any problem there? Why not go with it? It makes sense in itself.[/quote]
You attempted to force familial connections, so I indicated that a familial connection is not the only option, saying It could as easily have been "a just man whose name was James".

You may have misunderstood my position, or you may simply be misrepresenting it above.


spin

TedM

Sorry, I misrepresented your position.


[/quote]


And I replied:

You replied:


I took your reply to mean that you see "a just man whose name was James" as equally probable, even though you had previously said that by far "son of X" is the preferred way Josephus referred to people.

It seems to me that you are content with concluding that the passage has been interpolated. Why? Is it because you can discount the credibility of the interpolated part entirely? Is it because you believe nothing can be learned about a passage once it is deemed to be interpolated?

It seems to me that by examining the arguments for different original-to-final scenarious, one might learn something--what is not likely and maybe what is very likely to have happened with the text, including a more accurate conclusion about how much of the content of the final text was included in the original.

ted

spin

"[C]ontent" is definitely not a word I would use in this context. It is more "resigned".

What is there to be learnt from the phrase that seems wholly interpolated? It cannot give indications of what was there before.

Let's start off with the emperor's new clothes and assume that there is something in them. What can we tell about the clothes themselves? Are they fashionable? Do they fit him well? Etc.


spin

TedM

One possibility for an interpolation is that the original was similar in content to the final in some way, even if the structure has changed dramatically. So, I disagree with your last sentence. If we retain the name James, why not retain the name Jesus? Your approach to getting rid of dead wood makes sense but carries the risk of getting rid of something without taking into account reasons why it perhaps should be retained.

That's why I questioned why an interpolator would take the passage without the dead wood and change it to what we have. Is it only because of the name James without a qualifier? Is it because James had similarities to the actual 'pillar' James? If there were similarities does that give credibility to the idea that he was Jesus' brother? Etc... How an when an interpolation would likely have occurred can help us learn more about different aspects related to the interpolated subject, and maybe even help determine the probability that the hypothetical 'original' was accurate.

After cutting out the dead wood, you suggested that the passage made sense, so why not go with it? I agree, but I think one way to answer that question is to ask if there are good reasons why an interpolator would or wouldn't go with it, and whether there are good reasons an interpolator would change it to what we see today.

ted

Amaleq13

As has been pointed out repeatedly, because the bizarre syntax suggests it is not original.

Does it make sense that a Christian editor would see a reference to a guy identified only as James getting killed by the high priest and think of Acts?

Peter Kirby

The syntax has not been shown to be bizarre. At best you can argue that the order of phrases is rare. Which is not to say the same thing. It is bizarre to write "a red big ball"; it is rare to write "a ball, big and red". The former is not only rare but seems bizarre to English speakers, who prefer to write "a big red ball." The latter places the adjectives in an apposative phrase, which is rare but not bizarre. The order found in 20.9.1 could be the same: not found frequently, but not strange. I haven't seen anyone really try to investigate it as a linguistic question; just bickering based on word searches of Whiston.

kind thoughts,
Peter Kirby

TedM

Why? What James in Acts was identified as the brother of Jesus, called Christ, and killed by a high preist?

ted

Amaleq13

OK, "rare". The point is that the reason for considering it an interpolation has been given repeatedly.

Peter Kirby

It's not the only reason. But is it a good reason at all? Once you've said that the order of phrases is not bizarre, I don't see why it is. Where's the logic? Step me through it.

thanks,
Peter Kirby

Amaleq13

Actually, I think "unique" might be more accurate than "rare" since, IIUC, there are no other examples of this in structure in Josephus.

As for the logic of the argument, that seems better addressed by the author (ie spin) than myself. I was just pointing out that what was asked for had already been given.