Vorkosigan

You mean "anywhere but on earth"

GakuseiDon

D'oh! Yes, that's correct.

TedM

I may recall incorrectly, but it would have been unusual for Josephus to have mentioned Jesus as brother of James without indicating that it is the same Jesus mentioned below. As such, if an interpolation occurred resulting in what we see today, it was most likely NOT an accidental scribal interpolation, as Carrier says. Second, it does not automatically follow that the deposed Ananus would be replaced by the brother of James unless there is an indication that the person who appointed the new priest somehow favored the viewpoints or was influenced by those that favored the viewpoints of James when appointing the successor. If I recall correctly neither is indicated. Lastly, there is another possible reason why the current version 'makes sense' that Carrier seems to ignore: It happened as described. In other words, he was reporting the events that led to the deposing of Ananus.

One might also ask what the odds are that church tradition got the story all wrong about how James, an early pillar in the church, actually died--instead replacing it by someone else known well enough for Josephus to have mentioned him in such an important event? Was there no such thing as Christian tradition?

ted

Amaleq13

I would need to see the support for this because it doesn't seem unusual to me. I would think that, given the reference to Christ as interpolated, it would have been obvious that the same Jesus was being discussed. In addition, it might help explain the truly unusual sentence structure. There is no other example of Josephus mentioning describing a man by first referring to his brother. Every other example has Josephus naming the man and following it with "brother of...".

If the "Christ phrase" has been interpolated, Jesus was the primary reference even though the story was about James so that would appear to explain the unusual sentence structure.

I do not understand how this follows from your recollection.

About the same as the odds that an early tradition might develop about a death for Judas that was entirely different from either Gospel story.

Besides, even if we accept the passage as genuine, Josephus doesn't suggest that the church tradition of James' death was right. He isn't thrown off any towers after all. Hell, Josephus doesn't even tell us he died!

TedM

Ok, I found an old post of mine here:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...riest+Josephus







If it was clear that the first James was the brother of Jesus, son of Damneus, then an interpolation would most likely have been an intentional falsifying of the true text.


So that would be zero? Both accounts are similar--the same Field of Blood was bought with the money, and Judas died soon afterwards. They aren't 'entirely different', as would be the case with James here had he never really been stoned.

The church tradition may have grown over the years, but the basic details are still the same--a fair man, brother of Jesus, accused by priests, stoned.

Mostl likely either it was an intentional falsification of the original Josephus text, or it was an unbelievably stupid mistake, or there was a highly unlikely coincidence that two James', with brothers believed to have been named Jesus, were accused by priests and then stoned, and both accounts survived in the writings..

ted

Amaleq13

Although I'm not sure you succeed, your post attempts to argue against "son of Damneus" as the original text but nobody appears to making that claim. As far as I can tell, it does absolutely nothing to argue against the notion that "called the Christ" was margin gloss unintentionally incorporated.

You should have read more carefully. I was clearly referring to the "early tradition" Papias passed on that differed from both Gospel stories.

Your seemingly odd conception of what constitutes a reliable tradition aside, only two of those are actually in Josephus. He does not say that James was a "fair man" and he also does not say that the sentence was carried out. As I said, contrary to your claim, Josephus does nothing to show that the church tradition about James' death is correct even if we assume they are the same James.

Vorkosigan

I do not suggest that. Whoever altered Josephus here took out "brother of Jesus Damnaeus, Jacob by name," and inserted the ref to Jesus Christ.

Michael

TedM

Are you suggesting that someone would have unintentionally thought that Jesus, son of Damneus, was the same Jesus Christians called Christ, yet removed the first reference to Damneus or a later reference to James as the brother of Jesus, son of Damneus?

Sorry, I don't know about the tradition from Papias. Thanks.


I'll agree that the passage doesn't say James was a fair or good man, just that fair people thought the actions by Ananus were excessive or inappropriate. It would be hard to imagine the brother of a wrongdoer justly stoned to have then been appointed high priest, so your reading would seem to be a poor match with the James/Jesus, son of Damneus theory. The passage does imply that James was stoned. Had he not been stoned, I would expect the passage to have indicated in some way that the act was not carried out.

In any case, I don't see how the following is likely:

1. Josephus records the stoning of James, brother of Jesus, son of Damneus
2. Someone before Hegissupus mistakenly thinks it is about James, brother of Jesus, and changes it to read that way.
3. Church tradition draws on this change to create a tradition about James the brother of Jesus being stoned

The following is also not likely:

1. Josephus records the stoning of James, brother of Jesus, son of Damneus
2. A tradition develops that James the pillar was also accused and stoned to death, possibly confusing the real James with James the pillar
3. Someone familiar with the tradition of James mistakenly thinks Josephus was writing about the pillar James, and makes changes.


ted

TedM

I apologize if I misrepresented your view when I wrote this months ago. Would you say such an insertion was an intentional falsehood? I think the removal of a reference to Damnaeus would be evidence of an intentional falsehood. If I understood Carrier, he does not think an interpolation here would have been intentionally false: I am not able to find justification for his conclusion.

ted

Amaleq13

I'm suggesting that an argument for accidental marginal gloss would necessarily include an assumption that the original text just gave the name "Jesus". Perhaps Richard had a more complicated scenario in mind but I don't see why it would be necessary.

He passed on a story about him bloating (from guilt?) to such an extent that a passing chariot squished him. Thus should die the myth of the reliability of early oral tradition.

They appear to have been upset because Ananus was deliberately taking advantage of the lack of procurator to try to rush through a death sentence on the men.

This is straw man. I did not say James was a "wrongdoer" nor that he was "justly stoned". I said that, contrary to your inclusion of it as a common feature, Josephus does not tell us that the sentence was actually carried out. It doesn't appear to be required for the story. Albinus was angry for the same reason the other men were upset which does not require that the sentence actually be carried out. Just trying to abuse his power before the new procurator arrived was the problem.

You'll have to ask Richard about the specifics of how he imagines the passage to have accidently resulted from a marginal gloss.