spin

Sorry, I admit my response was badly worded here. It was sufficient for me to note, as you had written the comment regarding the TF and its impact if kosher, that if you wanted to use it here, we'd need to suspend the discussion. My bad.

As to the James reference to Jesus being able to stand alone (ie not dependent on an earlier mention of a "Jesus called christ"), you don't have any reason to propose it except as a counterproposal. The structure "(a certain X), whose name was Y" reflects Josephus; what you propose doesn't.

Umm, so? How did the information get into the text (assuming for a moment that it is veracious)?

We would need to look at them. Context usually clarifies usage.

I stated that it was unusual that he used an adelphonymic rather than a patronymic. This was originally a comment of frequency, which taken with the other indicators makes the phrase highly doubtful. I also stated that it was unusual for the fronting of the relationship and that it didn't occur as the start of a defining introduction of a person (see any provisos already discussed). I also stated that Josephus avoided using christos, so much so that it is coincidentally only mentioned with Jesus, the questioned passages. I also mentioned the situation of the qualifier needing to be qualified is unusual, ie not just qualifying James with "the brother of Jesus", but with "the brother of Jesus called christ". In the short space of less than ten words we have four indicators of difficulty.

If we put aside the reference to "christ", you haven't come up with one example which is a strict parallel to "the brother of X called Y whose name was Z...", not even of "the brother of X whose name was Z...", as an introduction of a person. The best you've done is to find a "the son of X whose name was Z" which was not an introduction of the person.

This stretching and fudging to grasp at anything similar I went through with another poster some years ago. What I asked for didn't take rocket science, but a clear understanding of what the phrase in Josephus was actually doing and to understand that it was unparalleled in the works of Josephus.


spin

DCHindley

Ben,

I've privately asked Steve Mason to comment, and he has responded. I'm in process of asking him if it is acceptable to post, or quote directly from, his reply, or if I'm going to have to paraphrase it.

DCH

[/QUOTE]

DCHindley

Ben,

Steve Mason has allowed me to quote a couple paragraphs of his initial response to me that dealt with the question of how Josephus identifies new characters in his narratives:

"I'm not aware of any studies (which doesn't mean there aren't any, since Josephus is pursued by so many disciplines in so many languages -- perhaps there is a journal article somewhere) dealing with this phenomenon. My own commentary work -- just completed War 2 -- tends to confirm your findings [on characters named "Jesus" that confirmed Ben's statement that Josphus tends to introduce his characters at time of first introduction]. This is true generally of ancient writers, but especially with Josephus. Given that in both Roman and Judaean circles a very small pool of names was heavily used, and in the Judaean context Yehoshua is one of the top few, along with Shimon and Yehuda, Josephus needs to identify the person by either patronymic or place of origin, far less often by other indicators such as school affiliation (Menachem the Essaios, etc. -- unless Essaios also marks a place of origin). Only when the narrative is already thus contextualized, usually, does he use the name alone. When he can't be bothered, or doesn't know the relevant identifiers, he can also use the expedient of tis: 'A certain X....'. "

"Life is a bit more careless. In your examples, yes, Jesus the 2iC [2nd in charge] to Ananus [in War 4] is indeed son of Gamalas. But the Iesous of [Life] 246 isn't in Tiberias; he is in Gabara, and may be the one mentioned at 200. The Iesous in Tiberias (from Life 271) is the archon, or council-president (278-79) -- a case of mentioning the name shortly before giving the identification. That also happens occasionally in War. I have wondered whether it is not a deliberate narrative technique: provoking the reader to wonder who this guy is, and then supplying the identification after a few sentences (the way the films frequently raise such questions -- Who is this person? -- and only later supply the answer."

So, Ben, it appears we are both kind of right. Don't you love happy endings?

FWIW, Steve declined to give any opinion on either side of the genuinity of the James passage, although he did think it is much more likely to be genuine than the TF seems to be on the basis of style.

Thank you, Steve.

DCH

[/QUOTE]