ynquirer

Chaucer here offers a good counter-argument in favour of the authenticity of the phrase “brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” The clue rests with the supposition that only the short phrase “called Christ” was interpolated. His argument is rather strong in reference to this. Surely it is not just the short phrase that was interpolated, but allegedly the long phrase “brother of Jesus called the Christ” that was a marginal gloss referring to the name “James”?

It is not a simple gloss that was interpolated, at any rate, since it would have needed some editing. Actually, the total interpolation would amount to “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was.” All right, let’s assume for the sake of hypothesis that the whole phrase was interpolated. Who was this James – simply “James that passed by” or perhaps “James so-well-known-that-did-not-need-to-be-introduced”?

That is the reason why the null hypothesis about the original, non-interpolated wording is “the brother of Jesus, whose name was James.” However, the hypothesis highlights the same difficulty for Jesus. Who was this “Jesus” – “Jesus that passed by” or perhaps “Jesus so-well-known-that-did-not-need-to-be-introduced” or maybe “Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest (to be introduced later)”?

Solo

I think there are two issues with the phrase which together make the Josephan authorship hugely improbable:

1) the author of the Ant. XX phrase transparently tries to identify James by kinship reference to a sibling, which is highly unusual and would work only if the identifying relationship was so well established in the mind of Josephus' intended readership that it displaced all other names under which James was known.

2) 'Christ' or 'Messiah' is so prominently and obviously adorning the cognomen of Jesus that it makes its origin hugely improbable with someone who was not a believer himself. It has been argued lamely by the fundies that the turn of phrase "so-called Christ" is really a mark of disrespect by Josephus and therefore attesting to genuinneness of the passage. In reality, the "Iesous hos legomenos Christos" is a term that comes directly from the gospel of Matthew where it is used twice (1:16 and 27:17), in both cases suggesting a titular cognomen.

Jiri

Chaucer

Has it perhaps occurred to you that, on this board, your implicit dismissal as "fundies" of those who argue that the word "legomenos" (called) does show genuine Josephan authorship constitutes a flagrant ad hominem on your part against all atheists here who happen to argue the same? I wonder what the moderators here will say about that...........

Chaucer

Toto

Moderation issues are always off topic. You can report a post if you think it violates a rule.

I am not aware of any atheist who argues that "legomenos" shows genuine Josephan authorship because it is a term of disrespect. Generally, atheists who are that involved in this debate do not rely on bogus arguments, and it is fairly well established that "legomenos" cannot be validly translated as "so called," as some have in the past claimed. And it is found in the gospels.

Would you care to address the substance of the matter?

ynquirer

Unsound supposition from lack of acquaintance with Josephus’ style. In addition to “the brother of Jesus,” there are the following like phrases in the same ch.20 of AJ: “Herod, the brother of the deceased Agrippa” (20.1.3), “Herod the brother of Agrippa the great king” (20.5.2), “Felix, the brother of Pallas” (20.7.1), “Germanicus, the brother of Caesar” (20.8.1), “Aaron, the brother of Moses” (20.10.1).

Therefore, it is far from unusual that Josephus introduces someone by reference to a sibling; actually, it is rather usual. And if you may say that both Agrippa, Caesar and Moses were well established in the mind of Josephus’ intended readership, you may not say so of Pallas. Who was this Pallas? There is not the slightest indication that he ever visited Judaea. Hardly was he known to a Jewish audience of the late first century.

This is unsound supposition from lack of acquaintance with Josephus’ religious ideas.

Chaucer

I am well acquainted with certain atheists who maintain at the least that using such a term is a sign of profound disinterest, to put it mildly, and who even go on to point out that someone like Pilate(!) feels perfectly comfortable referencing Jesus precisely that way at 27:17 of Matthew, showing clearly that such a turn of phrase was never confined to believers. Unfortunately, so far, I've only encountered atheists like that off line in the bricks-and-mortar world and on online boards other than this one. So plainly, you only have my word for it.

I hardly think it unlikely that there may yet be an atheist on this board some day who will view the disinterest in both Pilate's use of the term and in Josephus's as showing similar outlooks. But you'd know better than me if that's happened here already. The bottom line is, I have encountered similar interpretations from a few atheists elsewhere, and they'd definitely view being called "fundies" for such an interpretation as a slur. Since you don't accept that, and I'd have to invade certain atheists' privacy to prove you're simply wrong, I guess I'll just have to drop this for now. What choice do I have? But if some more annoyed atheists eventually start writing in here as well, annoyed and offended at being equated with "fundies", I guess you'll have to revisit this.

In the mean time, I'd like to know how one could possibly view anything out of Pilate's mouth as an expression exclusive to a believer?!

Also, I note that this whole exchange has so far failed to yield one clear example in which two other Josephus examples of similar proximity show two different descriptive catch phrases adopted in separate but close sentences without comment or reference to the alternate term.

Chaucer

show_no_mercy

Are you saying that ιησου του λεγομενου χριστου is a phrase of disinterest? I suppose σιμωνα τον λεγομενον πετρον (Simon called Peter) is also a sign of disinterest?

Do you realize that "Jesus called Christ" is at the 16th line in the first chapter of the first book of the New Testament? Ιs that author also disinterested?

aa5874

But did not Josephus introduce many very well known figures in his writings?

And did not Josephus give at least a full chapter each on John the Baptist and Jesus son of Ananus?

Now, when AJ 20.9.1 is examined, it will be noticed that it is James that was introduced. The passage is about some James who was to be stoned to death.

And to make matters worse, Josephus mentioned many many persons called Jesus in his writings, so if Jesus called Christ in AJ 20.9.1 is not linked to the forgery in AJ 18.3.3 then the identity of Jesus in AJ 20.9.1 cannot be assumed to be Jesus called Christ in the NT.

Now, here is a "CATCH 22". If AJ 20.9.1 made reference to Jesus of the NT and the forged AJ 18.3.3 also made reference to Jesus of the NT, then AJ 20.9.1 is related to the forgery in AJ 18.3.3 where Jesus was raised from the dead and his status as a man was not certain.

But, if the advent of the Christ or Messiah was one of the most significant expectations of the Jews how was it that Josephus only wrote about his brother?

There were "tons of prophecies" about the advent of the Christ in Hebrew Scripture and after the Christ came Josephus ignored him and wrote about the "innocent death" of his brother by an unauthorised assembled Sanhedrin.

But, Jesus of the NT HAD no brother called James according to Papias. James the apostles is the son of an aunt of Jesus.

AJ 20.9.1 where Jesus is called Christ must be or is most likely a forgery.

Chaucer

Why don't you address Pilate's using the same turn of phrase found in Josephus?

Chaucer

Toto

The words are those of the author of the gospel of Matthew, not Pilate.