DE BERGERAC

Admired members, admired Peter Kirby, this is my first post here and I must confine myself to little more than acknowlegde your achievement. :notworthy English, on the other hand is not my mother tongue, I apologise for my poor usage.

I have been reading a lot about Christian origins and I am also the possessor of Mr. Kirby's CD. I chose to delve into the affair as a teenager and I have been investigating since, and intend to go on doing so forever.

Some days ago I was reading a Wells book, in which he surveys the validity of every non-Christian source as to Jesus's historicity. I remembered that one of Harold Leidner's main arguments is that many Jesuses are recorded in Josephus's work. So I went in a hurry to fetch my Whiston Josephus with this thought in mind: "Maybe there are more Jesuses in the vicinity of the James passage, and the information relates to one of them". It certainly was the case, so I came to the net and lighted upon this forum.

I tend to agree with the initial thesis proposed. Could it be that the passage is authentic (Christ mention included!) and even so it refers, as it must do, to some of the two Jesuses who were high priests after Ananus? Does a Christ title necessarily refer to the Messiah figure or it can be understood to point to a person who had "anointed" for surname? :wave:

TedM

I decided to look at Josephus' last 6 books of Antiquities to see how he identifies people. I chose those books because they cover a time period contemporary to Josephus. I narrowed the focus to a comparison of 'son of' to 'brother of' references. I found that he used the term "son of" roughly 69 times, and "brother of" roughly 13 times. Here is a list of how he described 28 of the high priests, beginning with Ananelus, taken from the ccel website:

4 are listed by name only, 25 with "son of", 1 with "son in law", and 2 with " brother of". Both of the 2 "brother of" also had a "son of".

Given these numbers, it is most likely that the original reference had only "son of". It is not likely that the original passage had "brother of Jesus, whose name was James" only, as Vorkosigan suggests.

If it was an unintentional interpolation, it surely would not have had "son of Damneus" either. In the unlikely event that it said "brother of Jesus, whose name was James" you have 2 further unlikelhoods: 1. Josephus didn't further identify James and Jesus when first mentioned though he could have if both were the son of Damneus and 2. the interpolator didn't make the connection between the first Jesus and the second one later in the paragraph.

If it was an intentional interpolation, it may have said "brother of Jesus, son of Damneus, whose name was James". We would then have someone intentionally changing the identification of James. Such an interpolator would have done so without describing the Christ in positive terms, and without even describing James in positive terms. This seems unlikely for a Christian to have done, though of course it is possible.

It appears to me that the reason given for Jesus Damneus' election was punishment for having a sanhedren without proper consent. There is no suggestion by Josephus that the new appointment reflected an ironic poetic justice. There is no indication of the relationship between Jesus' political aspirations and James' viewpoints, either at the time James is first mentioned, at the time of his death, or at the time of the appointment of Jesus. The context therefore is not strongly supportive of an original brother reference.

ted

Amaleq13

Ted,

Am I correct in thinking that there are no other examples in Josephus that follow this same structure of naming the brother before the person being discussed?

spin

We a re going over material long gone over yet I see not a jot of new information. Vork's "realisation" is old hat.

I have challenged anyone to cough up with a phrase analogous to an unprecedented

the brother of Jesus called Christ, whose name was James

ie a grammatically similarly contorted phrase which has the relationship and the relation before the subject of the passage and at the same time without any prior reference to the relation in the near context.

Normally we will find structures such as "James, son of Joseph", as the usual form, less frequently with "James, the brother of Jesus". Again even less frequently "... Jesus ..., the brother of his, James" or "... Jesus ..., the brother of Jesus, James" Never, just "the brother of Jesus, James". You may remember Bernard Muller going blue in the face trying to find an example that would fit this contorted paradigm and failing.

Obviously, there is a clear problem with the unqualified and nicely biblical form "called Christ". Our devout Jewish writer could not have made that statement. But at the same time its existence signals textual inteference, a textual interference also noted in the contorted syntax of "the brother of Jesus [..], James".

The whole phrase is an obvious crock and was seen as such in the past, but with new efforts to shave fish, the passage has been revisited and the damage has been pared back. Totally unconvincing if you look at the phrase in its general literary context.


spin

TedM

Sorry Amaleq, I just don't know. I only did a quick and very narrow search--I didn't even look at examples of "X's brother" or "Y's son".

ted

spin

Check out this thread so that we don't rehash the same stuff. Yes, you'll find "brother" there.


spin

TedM

I agree that it is highly unusual, and even if Josephus had introduced a novel description in "called Christ" I don't see a precedent for such a description coming before the person's name. Perhaps it originally read "James, the brother of Jesus, called Christ", and an interpolator preferred the listing of Jesus before James.

In any case, your response doesn't speak to the unlikelihood of the alternatives, which is what my post was about.

ted

spin

First thing you do is remove the dead wood and you end up with

brought before them (one) called James and some companions,

Any problem there? Why not go with it? It makes sense in itself.

What the text simply doesn't make clear is what Ananus had against this James, but giving him some relationship doesn't change this.


spin

TedM

Ok, but such a desciption is possible, but not probable for Josephus. In other words, the odds don't favor a name without a description, so any alleged interpretation based on this alleged 'original' is also not favored by the odds. Now, it may be that a name without a description increased the odds of an interpolation, but how or why might that have happened? Does it really make sense for an interpolator to simply see the name James and decide that either 1. it is referring to James, the leader of the Jewish Christians or 2. it is a good place to put in a reference to Jesus, called Christ, and then not even exalt either one of them?

No, but giving him a relationship does increase the expectation of a discussion of that relationship further given the context, but no such discussion appears.

As for Ananus' motive, this is speculative, but since he was a Saducee (sp?) and they didn't believe in the resurrection, one could wonder if the accusation was a cover for claims in favor of a resurrection--which of course is what the Christians later said James did. Its not supported by this text, though.

ted

Toto

Note that this thread was resurrected from 2002.