andrewcriddle

IMHO this is a much stronger argument that at least one of the references to xristos is not original than that both are later interpolations.

Using a term once only in a problematic passage is not IMO in itself good evidence against authenticity.

However, using a term twice only and both times in problematic passages does (again IMO) strongly suggest that at least one is not original.

Andrew Criddle

DE BERGERAC

I know that Xtros ocurs only in those two passages. The TF is an interpolation, arguments to the effect are very compelling, and Solomon Zeitlin's atribution of its creation to Eusebius, on the grounds of his use of the noun "tribe" referring to Christians, very cogent.

As to this second well known "James" passage, I am trying to imagine reasons that would make it genuine and even not alusive to the HJ -or "gospel Jesus"-.

The fact is that one tries to substantiate references to the Christ-Messiah one comes across the fact that "many, many" claimed the title. And who were them? Well, old acquaintances: Judas the Galilean, Theudas, the Egyptian, the Samaritan... WELL, IN FACT THEY ARE ALL KNOWN TO US ONLY BY JOSEPHUS REFERENCES, AND HE NEVER SAID THEY CLAIMED THE TITLE. They were deceivers, robbers, miracle-workers, self-style prophets. But precisely, the title Christ-Messiah does not come up. Josephus does not write about the idea and concept of a Messiah.

A) A historical Jesus was merged with the Jesuah son of Nun, who was called Jesus Christ.

B) "Christians" created basically the role of a Messiah-Christ UNDER THAT NAME AND TITLE, arranging bits and pieces from the OT: the scion of Jesse, etc.

C) Maybe around 90 CE and before (60, time of Jesus, son of Damneus) one could bear the nickname "Christ", without that meaning that he was to be a descendant of David who would bring about the deliverance of Israel, etc. but simply that he was one know as "anointed", very fitting for a high priest.

D) Christian "christology" gave feedback to Judaism that took up LATER the idea of Messiah under the precise TITLE.

Is this very far-fetched?

spin

I'm not sure I understand this reasoning, Andrew.

But, if we have a practising Jew, Josephus, who shows that he doesn't use the word xristos in contexts where one might expect it from the HB (be it the Hebrew or the LXX), one doesn't expect it with regard to figures who the Jew cannot see as the messiah -- if in fact that's what the term could mean to Josephus. I did find the related Greek verb [= to smear] used for something completely different (with regard to paint, IIRC, spread over a roof), but if Josephus didn't work from the LXX -- and I know scholars like to fit him into using the LXX --, he had no precedent for its use of xristos to mean messiah (and this is what that verb usage seems to imply), then we are back to a text which would mean for Josephus and his Roman readers "Jesus called ointment", a somewhat nonsensical epithet at best or a clear post hoc addition with different meaning at worst.

I am, however, intrigued as to how one use is better than two given the similarity of contexts, ie both referring to Jesus.


spin

andrewcriddle

My point is that a large fraction of a writers vocabulary is words used only once and hence the presence in a given passage of a word not found elsewhere doesn't prove anything much (A number of words not found elsewhere is a different matter.)

However if a writer repeatedly uses a word in one context but never in any other context, then either he regarded it as uniquely appropriate in that context or a later copyist so regarded it.

(FWIW I regard it as plausible that the earliest form of the TF lacked any reference to 'he was the Christ' this was then modified to agree with the passage about James ie to read 'he was called Christ' it was finally modified to the unambiguous 'he was the Christ')

Andrew Criddle

spin

I hope to have shown that the particular usage is simply not supportable in Josephus. It presupposes his usage of LXX, yet when LXX xristos passages are looked at in Josephus one doesn't find xristos. It presupposes his usage of xristos which reflects the significance "messiah", which doesn't match the one unproblematical use of the related verb "to smear", in the form xriston (AJ 8.137). And the practising Jew using "messiah" requires explanation.

On top of this the James passage is syntactically structured to say something that the text doesn't support with the fronting of Jesus, ie before the mention of James, without a clear earlier reference that the reader would be aware of. The James passage's reference to twn adelfwn ihsou tou legomenou xristou is definitely an interpolation in my eyes, just another marginal note which crept into the text.

(And tell me, why is James in twn adelfwn ihsou tou .. iakwbos onoma autwi in the nominative and not accusative?)

Picking out the fly-specks before eating the dropped sandwich.


spin