spin

The word "except" is useful. With "usually" there is a minority range. With AJ 20.200 it is not a minority range so much as an all except. There isn't a fratronym like that in AJ 20.200. You've tried to cover this fact up by moving out of the phrase level and jumping clauses. You're making function such a flexible beast that it loses significance. (This is also a brief critique of your long obfuscatory discourse.)

LegionOnomaMoi

1) From Viti: "The label of (un)-markedness satisfies language description, but does not suffice for an explanation of word order variation."

2) You have yet to provide any reference to support your use of markedness to do what it is not intended to do: demonstrate a problem with the text, rather than the analyst.

3) You have yet to provide any reference to support your method of bracketing constituents, or that this method is applicable for a functional analysis of marked/unmarked structure

4) You made claims about "exceptions" due to previous mention, but failed to respond to both Cohen and Tal Ilan & J. J. Price's analysis which demonstrates that Josephus "introduces" people he has already mentioned as if he hadn't. According to both of them, Josephus acts as if he doesn't realize he has previously mentioned people he introduces much of the time, and therefore the entire basis for your ad hoc exception is invalid.

5) There are "fratonyms" that are structurally similar to 20.200, but you have invented ad hoc reasons that they don't apply (the "fame" and "previous mention") for which you have not only failed to supply any supporting reference, but against which I have supplied both Cohen and a detailed article on this problem by Tal Ilan and J. J. Price.

6) As Mason suggests, this usage may be more of a "nickname" type than it is an kinship identifier. He also suggests that the preposed mention of Jesus' name relative to James' name is to call attention to the reason for James being on trial in the first place. Either one (among other possibilities) would explain the structure.

7) There are plenty of examples (I listed many) which, if we broke them up according to your "structural" analysis have no parallels in Josephus. If, however, we stop applying a naive transformationalist approach to a functionalist analysis, we suddenly have lots of parallels.

EarlDoherty

Maryhelena, you continue to bewilder me. I haven't a clue as to what you are getting at in your quoting of Josephus' references to Agrippa. Whatever does that have to do with whether Josephus would be willing (or not) to refer to Jesus as "called Christ"? Whether he was writing the Antiquities 20 years later, his own memory of having declared Vespasian the fulfillment of the Jewish prophecies would hardly have faded, nor would his fear of being misunderstood for referring to someone else as "called messiah."

And please identify who else Josephus referred to as "called messiah." What about Judas the Galilean, or Theudas, or the unnamed Egyptian. Were not all these figures much more 'messianic' than Jesus? Wasn't there a strong possibility that such messiah-like figures would have been declared messiah by their followers, just as allegedly Jesus was? Shouldn't Josephus have referred to them as "called messiah" if he had no fear of the term?

And your "inclusion of Jews and gentiles in the Jewish prophecies" idea in regard to Josephus' declaration of Vespasian in Jewish War is anything but simple. It's one of the most bizarre readings I've ever encountered, and totally unsupported by the text.

You never cease to amaze me.

Earl Doherty

LegionOnomaMoi

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that somehow they were "more" messianic than Jesus. Josephus does not do what the author of John does, which is to give a transliteration of the semitic equivalent, and then the Greek. Instead, he simply uses the Greek. In Christian texts outside the gospels, including Paul, "Christ" has become so linked with "Jesus" it is practically part of his name. So much so that his followers are eventually named not "messianists" but "christians". In the few roman sources which mention him (e.g., Tacitus) we don't find Jesus but "Christ" and whatever information the authors have (they seem to know little at all), at the least it appears they knew the name "christ".

So if Josephus thought these others more "messianic" he might have done what John does, and use legomenos or methermeneuomenos after transliterating the Hebraic term. However, Josephus appears to know that, for example, Judas is known by his place of origin. Likewise, that Jesus is known by "Christ" (not messiah). So he refers to him by what he is known as.

aa5874

Again, NOBODY of antiquity, apologetic or non-apologetic, used Tacitus Annals to claim Jesus did exist for over 300 YEARS after Annals 15.44 was supposedly written.

We know that Annals was INTERPOLATED after the 5th century because NO Church writer who mentioned Tacitus EVER, EVER, used his writings to prove Jesus did exist.

In the 4th century ONLY the forgeries in Antiquities of the Jews was used by the Church.

And to confirm that Tacitus Annals with Christus is forgery sources that mentioned passages similar to Annals 15.44 NEVER mentioned Christus.

Sulpitius Severus mentioned passages that are almost identical to Annals 15.44 and again NEVER mentioned Christus.

See Sacred Histories 2.29 attributed to Sulpitius Severus.

I cannot allow you to promote erroneous information. Tacitus Annals with Christus had NO influence at all on any Christian writer up to the 5th century.

It MUST have been Interpolated AFTER the 5th century.

spin

So you accept that there's basically nothing in Viti's article about GN vs NG order that you can salvage. Hence the reduction to a passing comment that you take out of context, for it is not a generic statement, but refers specifically to traditional views regarding word order in old Indo-European languages. She then rules out the notion of drift explaining the word order issues and goes on to conclude that the "alternative hypothesis of different functions originally conveyed by different orders is in principle more feasible."

She is less than no use to you. :wave:

The usual bleeding about markedness.

Repeating this red herring is another example of you wasting your own effort, especially when you are merely guessing why information is given when Josephus gives it. As long as you refuse to look at the specific examples you will throw up any preposterous excuse, such as this one of Josephus simply forgetting. It has no impact on the word order issue. If he has forgotten he's already introduced someone he can just use unmarked syntax.

Examples? You've got a lot of mine that disagree with your claim.

Already dealt with.

Mason is welcome to his opinions, as you are. He can suggest whatever he likes, as you can. But the effect is: put your hand in a bucket of water, then pull it out and tell us what's changed.

As I pointed out, you were jumping clauses with gay abandon. Our scope is with noun phrases. You're crossing boundaries, boyo. Try to concentrate.

And if we paint everything white it all looks the same, doesn't it?

angelo

This thread is extremely interesting reading. Congrats. to all participants. Keep up the high quality of discussion.

maryhelena

Earl, you referenced the Josephan account of Vespasian. You used an argument over this text to support your reading of the James passage i.e. that since Josephus has referenced Vespasian as a messiah type figure - therefore - he would not reference another figure as such. This is faulty reasoning - as Josephus has connected Agrippa I with messianic ideals.

If gMatthew can use the OT for his JC fulfilling prophecy storyline - then so can Josephus in regard to Agrippa I.


It's not a good idea to have double standards here.....what gMatthew can do so, likewise, can Josephus do...

Why not look yourself, Earl, Check out Josephus to see if he applied any OT prophecies in regard to those figures you mentioned. (Figures by the way that have no supporting historical evidence...)

From the man with a sub-lunar theory re a crucified messiah figure - that must surely be a compliment!

thief of fire

Ok how's this?
forget about any battle with LegiOnonamoMoi and if you could take some time to plainly answer the questions. Juts assume that we here and wanting to follow your points, that we are not interested in who "wins" but just in understanding you.
Let's just assume I and everyone here will give you a fair hearing. You have a very economic style at times, but I dont think it's always helpful and can obscure what you are communicating, so if I could ask just address these points ina way that anyone visiting thisn forum could understand and follow up if they had the inclination.
I know for example that you just responded tio the first point, but I don't think you did so in a way that really made yourself perfectly clear to all observers. I think that would be the moat helpful thing you could do.
Please I'm not asking for an essay but I'm not looking for one line dismissals either. let's just hear you case (a bit clearer). I think most here understand you are interested in fresh perspectives and not taking any authority for granted.

1) From Viti: "The label of (un)-markedness satisfies language description, but does not suffice for an explanation of word order variation."

2) You have yet to provide any reference to support your use of markedness to do what it is not intended to do: demonstrate a problem with the text, rather than the analyst.

3) You have yet to provide any reference to support your method of bracketing constituents, or that this method is applicable for a functional analysis of marked/unmarked structure

4) You made claims about "exceptions" due to previous mention, but failed to respond to both Cohen and Tal Ilan & J. J. Price's analysis which demonstrates that Josephus "introduces" people he has already mentioned as if he hadn't. According to both of them, Josephus acts as if he doesn't realize he has previously mentioned people he introduces much of the time, and therefore the entire basis for your ad hoc exception is invalid.

5) There are "fratonyms" that are structurally similar to 20.200, but you have invented ad hoc reasons that they don't apply (the "fame" and "previous mention") for which you have not only failed to supply any supporting reference, but against which I have supplied both Cohen and a detailed article on this problem by Tal Ilan and J. J. Price.

6) As Mason suggests, this usage may be more of a "nickname" type than it is an kinship identifier. He also suggests that the preposed mention of Jesus' name relative to James' name is to call attention to the reason for James being on trial in the first place. Either one (among other possibilities) would explain the structure.

7) There are plenty of examples (I listed many) which, if we broke them up according to your "structural" analysis have no parallels in Josephus. If, however, we stop applying a naive transformationalist approach to a functionalist analysis, we suddenly have lots of parallels.

LegionOnomaMoi

And who, during his life, were these? As Cotton and Eck note in some detail in their paper "Josephus' Roman Audience: Josephus and the Roman Elites" (in the volume Flavius Josephus & Flaviun Rome; Oxford University Press; 2005), it seems unlikely that Josephus had much contact at all among the roman elites: "Above all it seems certain that he held no prominent position in the social life of Flaviun Rome". Indeed, they raise the possibility that he was "extremely lonely and extremely isolated in rome". The argument over who Josephus' patron was, let alone his general audience, is hardly settled. But in any case:


The term "christus" in latin exists solely as a transliteration of the greek, and only appears thanks to christianity. In Greek, as you well know, it was hardly used and derived from the verb corresponding to the meaning behind the Hebraic term. As you say, his readers (at least any among the elite) could hardly be expected to know the "ins and outs" of Jewish messianism or be acquainted with either aramaic or hebrew. So why would the term "christos" be offensive? For one, it is, after all, easily confused with "chrestos", but more importantly why would "called Christ" conjure up messianic images for Josephus' audience if they were not familiar with Jewish messianism? The central links between the Greek term and the Hebrew were the LXX and the NT. You speak of Josephus' prophesy about Vespasian, but neither he nor Tacitus nor Suetonius actually use the word "messiah" or "christ". Only one who WAS familiar with the "ins and outs" of Jewish messianism would connect this prophesy with, well, Jewish messianism.


I don't find Eisler's argument particularly convincing myself. But then, I don't find arguments about hypothetical components of texts for which we have no evidence very convincing in general, whether someone is referring to the addition or the removal. Eisler responds to your argument (actually, Zeitlin's, but the argument is the same) concerning a reference that "ought" to be there by arguing that it was, but was removed. Your answer is that a component was added. I find neither convincing, and apparently neither do Josephan experts (and here at least is an area in which biblical scholars are hardly the guardians of the written word, as Josephus bridges the realms of classics, biblical studies, and jewish studies, and perhaps the greatest Josephan scholar of the 20th century was a classicist).


First, because 3 of those times are in one work, and in it twice placed on Pilate's lips (as you know) and the other time (in John) means basically "which is translated as" or "which signifies/means" (see, e.g., the BDAG). More importantly, there are the issues I've already outlined numerous times elsewhere, some of which I'll repeat below:

Stephen Huller has already pointed to some. But the full number depends on whether or not you include things like Barsalibi's commentary, Tatian, etc. However, as for the manuscripts, numbers 1 , 118, 131, & 129 omit "Iesous. The Curetonian, Claromontanus, Syriac Sinaiticus, omit "called", but once you get into the translations it's hard to be as exact, especially as a number of important ones are incomplete (for example, my gothic edition of matthew begins "...ak ana lukarnastaþin, jah liuteiþ allaim þaim in þamma garda" halfway into 5.15 (ak ana==all' epi). Then there's the fact that the "church fathers" who quote it (e.g., Hippolytus, who has Ioseph, cui disponsata fuit virgo Maria, quae genuit Iesum Christum ex spiritu sancto) are usually "paraphrasing". Additionally, although Tatian is said not to have used Matthew, mss. B & E include Matthew's genealogy at the end (as a sort of appendix), and both have "Jesus the messiah" and omit "called".

But as the entire first textual "family" as well as multiple different other textual traditions seem to have removed either "Jesus" or "called" (despite the fact that the tendency was to add Jesus, thus the textual difficulties with 1:18), I think it's quite fair to say that a good number of texts "altered" Matt. 1:16.

Because we have 7000+ copies of NT manuscripts or fragments? And because it was altered in two very different ways (those following family 1 omitted Jesus, so that the line simply reads "the one called/known as christ" while a number of old translations in various languages omit "called")?



First, monumental work? Second, by the time of AJ, Paul had already written his letters and travelled widely, making more of a name for himself during his day then did Jesus. Yet Josephus doesn't mention him at all (neither does anyone else outside the NT during the 1st century). Josephus doesn't even mention Hillel (although he's supposed to be a pharisee).

Either that, or you have assumed quite a bit about who Josephus has chosen to mention. Rabbi Hillel was famous before Josephus was born, and died shortly before Josephus was born (about a generation). He was one of the most important Jewish figures not only in his day, but for the centuries to come. While it's certainly true that we can't just assume Hillel was a pharisee because of his prominence in the rabbinic writings (or, still less, Jerome), even if he wasn't he was known as a leader among those similar to the pharisees (the pre-rabbinic non-priestly "teachers" of the law), and thus Josephus, a pharisee, would not only have known about him, but should have (one would think) discussed him in a lengthy book on the history of the Jewish people. He mentions his brother, he mentions Gamiel his grandson, but not the man himself.


Interesting. If TF is an interpolation, and AJ 20.200 was the only mention Josephus made of Jesus, that makes one more reference to Jesus than Josephus makes of one of the most famous Jews of Jesus' rough contemporaries (and of those in and around the first century). Yet you conclude that if Josephus didn't write any part of the TF, then necessarily a mention of Jesus only once in passing implies he knew nothing about him, and that Jesus was thus "insignificant". Tell me, do you think that Hillel was as little known?


As J. C Paget points out in "Some Observations on Josephus and Christianity", when Origen mentions that Josephus speaks of James, he does not give any precise passage (even a book) and neither does Eusebius here (in the quote linking the fall of Jerusalem to James) "in spite of the fact that it occurs in paragraphs of their own writings where precise references to other passages in Josephus are given". Not only that, but this wouldn't be the first time Origen mischaracterizes what Josephus has said, such as his addition to what Josephus says about Pilate (effigies not just in Jerusalem, as in BJ and AJ, but in the Temple, although perhaps the better analogy is with his "condensed" form of Josephus' account of John the Baptist, which is, to say the least, not exactly accurate).

Eusebius seems to have simply relied on Origen and assumed that his reference was to another passage (see here e.g., Baras, 1977), but whatever the case the fact remains that Origen does not tell us where in Josephus he is getting his information and it is quite likely that he is deliberately (contra Burkitt, who supposes it an accident) connecting Ananus' execution of James with the fact that Josephus connects the "capture of the city" (ἁλώσεως...τῇ πόλει) with Ananus (BJ 4.318-325). Or he simply took the eventual conclusions of Josephus and linked them without any help whatsoever. Or, in partial agreement with Spin (and Thackeray) Origen misread Hegesippus who implies a connection, and Origen takes it and runs with it without firsthand knowledge (as he seems to do with Josephus and John the Baptist). This would explain why Eusebius actually cites Josephus' 20th book after a nearly verbatim copy of what Origen has (thinking, perhaps, that Origen had access to some other account).

Whatever the case, the only people who appear to follow you, that Origen is citing a lost passage, are claiming that this is somehow more evidence for the TF or some other crap. It's much more likely (and explains much more of our available evidence, from the unique wording both in Eusebius and Origen to the fact that the passage is so very unlikely to be the hand of a christian scribe) that Origen made some link that Josephus never did, whether he did so deliberately or not.


He doesn't give "the opposite word order" (although how that is possible...). Unlike Josephus, for whom James is a sidenote, of little import, for Origen James is focal. So his name (with the addition of "the Just") is pulled to the front, but the rest is identical: "the brother of Jesus, the one called christ".



I'm saying you are denying it because Origen makes a claim Josephus never does, but that the fact that Origen says Josephus wrote something he didn't doesn't mean that Origen isn't using Josephus to make claims which Josephus never made. In other words, it is quite possible, and in fact likely, that Origen either directly or indirectly relied on Josephus about James, and linked what Josephus said (by accident or deliberately) with something Josephus never linked it to.

The point seems to have flown rather over your head. We can re-word virtually any line of any text if we want, but the point is to have some basis for thinking the text didn't say what it does now.


Rather amusing that you connected these two sentences. You do realize that pointing out the improbability that someone Ananus executed would have a brother who was next in line to take his place doesn't entail that "no one with familial connections was ever executed by the authorities in the ancient world"? It doesn't even entail that the situation didn't happen as you say. Hence "unlikely".

It's one thing not to be a pauper, and quite another to be related to the next high priest when you've just been executed by the one before. Particularly given that priestly families were rather closely related.

You might try reading Josephus. According to him, those who went to Albinus did so because of an unlawful assembly of the Sanhedrim. He doesn't seem to care much about the actual execution, nor imply that this was the problem, but that he and his companions were executed against the law. It is the unlawfulness, rather than the individual (who was, after all, not alone) which is the focus. Had this James been of regard, then why would those who went out to meet Albinus on the road focused on the assembly and not (according to Josephus) either on the execution or who was executed?



1) See above
2) It's amazing how much historicity you see in NT accounts when it suits you.

Quite. I'm sure you have the linguistic background with which to judge.