Freethought & Rationalism Archive

PhilosopherJay · 09-29-2011, 08:37 PM

Hi All,

Here is a methodology for exposing interpolations. We may compare interpolations to commercials on commercial television shows. Generally speaking, the plot of the television shows can be seen as arguments. For example, let us take a one hour crime drama. X has been killed by Y, special unit Z gathers clues from the crime scene that leads to suspects A, B, C, and Y. After following several wrong clues, they risk their lives and after an exciting chase with gunfire, they capture Y. Comedies also present arguments, for example, take a typical half-hour situation comedy. X is madly in love with Y and is going to seduce Y, but has promised relative or old friend Z to help with a problem, Y tries an absurd and hilarious trick to try to satisfy the desire for Y and yet still help Z. This results in both Y and Z being disappointed, but ultimately forgiving X for trying so hard, even if X is a crazy buffoon. Commercial interpolations will generally have nothing to do with these plot-arguments, but will be short self-contained plot-arguments. X is unhappy. Nobody likes X. X tries product A and suddenly everybody likes X and X is happy.

In Antiquities book 20, chapter, Josephus is making a long argument about the rivalry between two high priests - Ananus, son of Ananus and Jesus/Joshua, son of Gamaliel. It is part of a longer argument that Josephus makes in "Life" and "War" in which he compares and contrasts the two. For example:

Quote:

4.37. And now the multitude were going to rise against them already; for Ananus, the ancientest of the high priests, persuaded them to it. He was a very prudent man, and had perhaps saved the city if he could but have escaped the hands of those that plotted against him.

Wars 4.3.9

Quote:

The best esteemed also of the high priests, Jesus the son of Gamalas, and Ananus the son of Ananus when they were at their assemblies, bitterly reproached the people for their sloth, and excited them against the zealots; for that was the name they went by, as if they were zealous in good undertakings, and were not rather zealous in the worst actions, and extravagant in them beyond the example of others.

Quote:

War 4.5.2 2. But the rage of the Idumeans was not satiated by these slaughters; but they now betook themselves to the city, and plundered every house, and slew every one they met; and for the other multitude, they esteemed it needless to go on with killing them, but they sought for the high priests, and the generality went with the greatest zeal against them; and as soon as they caught them they slew them, and then standing upon their dead bodies, in way of jest, upbraided Ananus with his kindness to the people, and Jesus with his speech made to them from the wall. Nay, they proceeded to that degree of impiety, as to cast away their dead bodies without burial, although the Jews used to take so much care of the burial of men, that they took down those that were condemned and crucified, and buried them before the going down of the sun. I should not mistake if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city, and that from this very day may be dated the overthrow of her wall, and the ruin of her affairs, whereon they saw their high priest, and the procurer of their preservation, slain in the midst of their city. He was on other accounts also a venerable, and a very just man; and besides the grandeur of that nobility, and dignity, and honor of which he was possessed, he had been a lover of a kind of parity, even with regard to the meanest of the people; he was a prodigious lover of liberty, and an admirer of a democracy in government; and did ever prefer the public welfare before his own advantage, and preferred peace above all things; for he was thoroughly sensible that the Romans were not to be conquered. He also foresaw that of necessity a war would follow, and that unless the Jews made up matters with them very dexterously, they would be destroyed; to say all in a word, if Ananus had survived, they had certainly compounded matters; for he was a shrewd man in speaking and persuading the people, and had already gotten the mastery of those that opposed his designs, or were for the war. And the Jews had then put abundance of delays in the way of the Romans, if they had had such a general as he was. Jesus was also joined with him; and although he was inferior to him upon the comparison, he was superior to the rest; and I cannot but think that it was because God had doomed this city to destruction, as a polluted city, and was resolved to purge his sanctuary by fire, that he cut off these their great defenders and well-wishers, while those that a little before had worn the sacred garments, and had presided over the public worship; and had been esteemed venerable by those that dwelt on the whole habitable earth when they came into our city, were cast out naked, and seen to be the food of dogs and wild beasts. And I cannot but imagine that virtue itself groaned at these men's case, and lamented that she was here so terribly conquered by wickedness. And this at last was the end of Ananus and Jesus.

Notice the comparisons between Ananus and Jesus.

Here are the mentions in Josephus' Autobiography:

Quote:

38. But the hatred that John, the son of Levi, bore to me, grew now more violent, while he could not bear my prosperity with patience. So he proposed to himself, by all means possible, to make away with me; and built the walls of Gischala, which was the place of his nativity. He then sent his brother Simon, and Jonathan, the son of Sisenna, and about a hundred armed men, to Jerusalem, to Simon, the son of Gamaliel, (16) in order to persuade him to induce the commonalty of Jerusalem to take from me the government over the Galileans, and to give their suffrages for conferring that authority upon him. This Simon was of the city of Jerusalem, and of a very noble family of the sect of the Pharisees, which are supposed to excel others in the accurate knowledge of the laws of their country. He was a man of great wisdom and reason, and capable of restoring public affairs by his prudence, when they were in an ill posture. He was also an old friend and companion of John; but at that time he had a difference with me.When therefore he had received such an exhortation, he persuaded the high priests, Ananus, and Jesus the son of Gamala, and some others of the same seditious faction, to cut me down

This passage tells us that Jesus/Joshua, son of Gamaliel, had a brother named Simon who was also a friend of Josephus, although at this time, he was fighting with Josephus. Both Ananus and Jesus, son of Gamaliel side against Josephus with Simon

Quote:

41. Now, as my father wrote me an account of this, (for Jesus the son of Gamala, who was present in that council, a friend and companion of mine, told him of it,) I was very much troubled, as discovering thereby that my fellow citizens proved so ungrateful to me, as, out of envy, to give order that I should be slain:

Again, this establishes the close friendship of Jesus/Joshua, son of Gamaliel and Josephus. Jesus went to Josephus' Father and told him about the plot against Josephus. It is obvious that the sons of Gamaliel, both Simon and Jesus/Joshua worked alongside Ananus, son of Ananus, but they may at times undercut each other, as when Jesus warns Josephus of the plans Gamaliel and Simon, son of Gamaliel have against him.

What we should be expecting/hoping in Antiquities is that Josephus will go more into detail about the exact relationship of Jesus/Joshua, son of Gamaliel and Ananus, son of Ananus.

We get the discussion of Ananus in 20.9.1, but it is not connected to Jesus/Joshua, son of Gamaliel, Instead, we get a character named Jesus Damneus who is unmentioned at any other point in Josephus and unmentioned in the Talmud.

However, there is an indication that Josephus meant Jesus, son of Gamaliel when he wrote Jesus, son of Damneus in a paragraph soon after this.

Quote:

9.4 And now Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, became the successor of Jesus, the son of Damneus, in the high priesthood, which the king had taken from the other; on which account a sedition arose between the high priests, with regard to one another; for they got together bodies of the boldest sort of the people, and frequently came, from reproaches, to throwing of stones at each other. But Ananus was too hard for the rest, by his riches, which enabled him to gain those that were most ready to receive.

This statement has Jesus, the son of Gamaliel fighting with Jesus, the son of Damneus. Yet the winner is Ananus according to Josephus. Imagine someone writing that Augustus fought against Marc Anthony and the winner was Joan of Arc. Obviously something is wrong here. This passage would only make sense if Ananus was fighting against Jesus, the son of Gamaliel for the priesthood.

Quote:

9.4 And now Ananus, son of Ananus, became the successor of Jesus, the son of Gamaliel in the high priesthood, which the king had taken from the other; on which account a sedition arose between the high priests, with regard to one another; for they got together bodies of the boldest sort of the people, and frequently came, from reproaches, to throwing of stones at each other. But Ananus was too hard for the rest, by his riches, which enabled him to gain those that were most ready to receive.

This now makes sense of this passage. We need only go and put in the name of Jesus, the son of Gamaliel in the first passage to have it make sense. The question is if we need to put in Simeon, the son of Gamaliel who is Jesus' brother. Was "brother" in the original? We may try it both ways:

Quote:

1. AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, (23) who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, son of Gamaliel who was called Christ, whose name was James, Simon and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. (24) Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus Gamaliel, high priest.

We know that Simon was not executed. He lived through the war. The passage just says that he was delivered to be stoned, not that he was stoned. Apparently, he was rescued in time. Obviously Ananus would have been punished if he illegally executed the brother of Jesus and others, so it makes sense that he did not carry out his plan.

It is also possible that no brother appeared in the original, but it directly talked of Jesus, the son of Gamaliel:

Quote:

1. AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, (23) who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, son of Gamaliel and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. (24) Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, Gamaliel high priest.

Damneus seems to be a Latin term, "Damne," which means Demon in Latin. Why this name, "Jesus, son of the demon" was chosen here is anybody's guess. The fact remains that logically the Josephus' narrative suggests that Jesus, son of Gamaliel was originally written by Josephus as the high priest after Ananus.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

mountainman · 10-04-2011, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

Here is a methodology for exposing interpolations. We may compare interpolations to commercials on commercial television shows. Generally speaking, the plot of the television shows can be seen as arguments. For example, let us take a one hour crime drama. X has been killed by Y, special unit Z gathers clues from the crime scene that leads to suspects A, B, C, and Y. After following several wrong clues, they risk their lives and after an exciting chase with gunfire, they capture Y. Comedies also present arguments, for example, take a typical half-hour situation comedy. X is madly in love with Y and is going to seduce Y, but has promised relative or old friend Z to help with a problem, Y tries an absurd and hilarious trick to try to satisfy the desire for Y and yet still help Z. This results in both Y and Z being disappointed, but ultimately forgiving X for trying so hard, even if X is a crazy buffoon. Commercial interpolations will generally have nothing to do with these plot-arguments, but will be short self-contained plot-arguments. X is unhappy. Nobody likes X. X tries product A and suddenly everybody likes X and X is happy.

In Antiquities book 20, chapter, Josephus is making a long argument about the rivalry between two high priests - Ananus, son of Ananus and Jesus/Joshua, son of Gamaliel. It is part of a longer argument that Josephus makes in "Life" and "War" in which he compares and contrasts the two. For example:

Quote:

4.37. And now the multitude were going to rise against them already; for Ananus, the ancientest of the high priests, persuaded them to it. He was a very prudent man, and had perhaps saved the city if he could but have escaped the hands of those that plotted against him.

Wars 4.3.9

Quote:

The best esteemed also of the high priests, Jesus the son of Gamalas, and Ananus the son of Ananus when they were at their assemblies, bitterly reproached the people for their sloth, and excited them against the zealots; for that was the name they went by, as if they were zealous in good undertakings, and were not rather zealous in the worst actions, and extravagant in them beyond the example of others.

Quote:

War 4.5.2 2. But the rage of the Idumeans was not satiated by these slaughters; but they now betook themselves to the city, and plundered every house, and slew every one they met; and for the other multitude, they esteemed it needless to go on with killing them, but they sought for the high priests, and the generality went with the greatest zeal against them; and as soon as they caught them they slew them, and then standing upon their dead bodies, in way of jest, upbraided Ananus with his kindness to the people, and Jesus with his speech made to them from the wall. Nay, they proceeded to that degree of impiety, as to cast away their dead bodies without burial, although the Jews used to take so much care of the burial of men, that they took down those that were condemned and crucified, and buried them before the going down of the sun. I should not mistake if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city, and that from this very day may be dated the overthrow of her wall, and the ruin of her affairs, whereon they saw their high priest, and the procurer of their preservation, slain in the midst of their city. He was on other accounts also a venerable, and a very just man; and besides the grandeur of that nobility, and dignity, and honor of which he was possessed, he had been a lover of a kind of parity, even with regard to the meanest of the people; he was a prodigious lover of liberty, and an admirer of a democracy in government; and did ever prefer the public welfare before his own advantage, and preferred peace above all things; for he was thoroughly sensible that the Romans were not to be conquered. He also foresaw that of necessity a war would follow, and that unless the Jews made up matters with them very dexterously, they would be destroyed; to say all in a word, if Ananus had survived, they had certainly compounded matters; for he was a shrewd man in speaking and persuading the people, and had already gotten the mastery of those that opposed his designs, or were for the war. And the Jews had then put abundance of delays in the way of the Romans, if they had had such a general as he was. Jesus was also joined with him; and although he was inferior to him upon the comparison, he was superior to the rest; and I cannot but think that it was because God had doomed this city to destruction, as a polluted city, and was resolved to purge his sanctuary by fire, that he cut off these their great defenders and well-wishers, while those that a little before had worn the sacred garments, and had presided over the public worship; and had been esteemed venerable by those that dwelt on the whole habitable earth when they came into our city, were cast out naked, and seen to be the food of dogs and wild beasts. And I cannot but imagine that virtue itself groaned at these men's case, and lamented that she was here so terribly conquered by wickedness. And this at last was the end of Ananus and Jesus.

Notice the comparisons between Ananus and Jesus.

Here are the mentions in Josephus' Autobiography:

Quote:

38. But the hatred that John, the son of Levi, bore to me, grew now more violent, while he could not bear my prosperity with patience. So he proposed to himself, by all means possible, to make away with me; and built the walls of Gischala, which was the place of his nativity. He then sent his brother Simon, and Jonathan, the son of Sisenna, and about a hundred armed men, to Jerusalem, to Simon, the son of Gamaliel, (16) in order to persuade him to induce the commonalty of Jerusalem to take from me the government over the Galileans, and to give their suffrages for conferring that authority upon him. This Simon was of the city of Jerusalem, and of a very noble family of the sect of the Pharisees, which are supposed to excel others in the accurate knowledge of the laws of their country. He was a man of great wisdom and reason, and capable of restoring public affairs by his prudence, when they were in an ill posture. He was also an old friend and companion of John; but at that time he had a difference with me.When therefore he had received such an exhortation, he persuaded the high priests, Ananus, and Jesus the son of Gamala, and some others of the same seditious faction, to cut me down

This passage tells us that Jesus/Joshua, son of Gamaliel, had a brother named Simon who was also a friend of Josephus, although at this time, he was fighting with Josephus. Both Ananus and Jesus, son of Gamaliel side against Josephus with Simon

Quote:

41. Now, as my father wrote me an account of this, (for Jesus the son of Gamala, who was present in that council, a friend and companion of mine, told him of it,) I was very much troubled, as discovering thereby that my fellow citizens proved so ungrateful to me, as, out of envy, to give order that I should be slain:

Again, this establishes the close friendship of Jesus/Joshua, son of Gamaliel and Josephus. Jesus went to Josephus' Father and told him about the plot against Josephus. It is obvious that the sons of Gamaliel, both Simon and Jesus/Joshua worked alongside Ananus, son of Ananus, but they may at times undercut each other, as when Jesus warns Josephus of the plans Gamaliel and Simon, son of Gamaliel have against him.

What we should be expecting/hoping in Antiquities is that Josephus will go more into detail about the exact relationship of Jesus/Joshua, son of Gamaliel and Ananus, son of Ananus.

We get the discussion of Ananus in 20.9.1, but it is not connected to Jesus/Joshua, son of Gamaliel, Instead, we get a character named Jesus Damneus who is unmentioned at any other point in Josephus and unmentioned in the Talmud.

However, there is an indication that Josephus meant Jesus, son of Gamaliel when he wrote Jesus, son of Damneus in a paragraph soon after this.

Quote:

9.4 And now Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, became the successor of Jesus, the son of Damneus, in the high priesthood, which the king had taken from the other; on which account a sedition arose between the high priests, with regard to one another; for they got together bodies of the boldest sort of the people, and frequently came, from reproaches, to throwing of stones at each other. But Ananus was too hard for the rest, by his riches, which enabled him to gain those that were most ready to receive.

This statement has Jesus, the son of Gamaliel fighting with Jesus, the son of Damneus. Yet the winner is Ananus according to Josephus. Imagine someone writing that Augustus fought against Marc Anthony and the winner was Joan of Arc. Obviously something is wrong here. This passage would only make sense if Ananus was fighting against Jesus, the son of Gamaliel for the priesthood.

Quote:

9.4 And now Ananus, son of Ananus, became the successor of Jesus, the son of Gamaliel in the high priesthood, which the king had taken from the other; on which account a sedition arose between the high priests, with regard to one another; for they got together bodies of the boldest sort of the people, and frequently came, from reproaches, to throwing of stones at each other. But Ananus was too hard for the rest, by his riches, which enabled him to gain those that were most ready to receive.

This now makes sense of this passage. We need only go and put in the name of Jesus, the son of Gamaliel in the first passage to have it make sense. The question is if we need to put in Simeon, the son of Gamaliel who is Jesus' brother. Was "brother" in the original? We may try it both ways:

Quote:

1. AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, (23) who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, son of Gamaliel who was called Christ, whose name was James, Simon and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. (24) Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus Gamaliel, high priest.

We know that Simon was not executed. He lived through the war. The passage just says that he was delivered to be stoned, not that he was stoned. Apparently, he was rescued in time. Obviously Ananus would have been punished if he illegally executed the brother of Jesus and others, so it makes sense that he did not carry out his plan.

It is also possible that no brother appeared in the original, but it directly talked of Jesus, the son of Gamaliel:

Quote:

1. AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, (23) who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, son of Gamaliel and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. (24) Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, Gamaliel high priest.

Damneus seems to be a Latin term, "Damne," which means Demon in Latin. Why this name, "Jesus, son of the demon" was chosen here is anybody's guess. The fact remains that logically the Josephus' narrative suggests that Jesus, son of Gamaliel was originally written by Josephus as the high priest after Ananus.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Hi Philosopher Jay,

If anyone's guess includes me then it would appear to me, on the assumption that your foregoing reconstruction is valid, that this totally unknown character who is known as "Jesus, son of the demon" was introduced by an interpolator while preserving the text of Josephus at some point in time.

If we were to compare this interpolation to an advertisement we would have to say that just before the Christian TF advertisement appears (that Jesus is the Messiah and Son of the God), someone has inserted another advertisement - namely that Jesus is the Son of the demon). This looks like competitive marketing of advertisements.

One way to explain it is that the "Jesus son of a demon" was surreptitiously interpolated into Jospehus AFTER the death of Eusebius by a vile blasphemous heretical Arian dissident, who knew the TF was a Eusebian forgery, and who wished to blatantly, yet surreptitiously ADVERTISE this state of affairs to an elite inside Arian audience.

The Christian interpolation was like a flag Eusebius had officially placed on a mountain of evidence. It could not be removed. It was there to stay. However it could itself be advertised by another very subtle interpolation immediately before it. Espionage and intrigue of the Bishops?

2c's worth - all just conjecture and speculation.
Best wishes

Pete

PhilosopherJay · 10-05-2011, 10:58 AM

Hi Pete,

Thanks. Interesting speculation.

I am really unsure how the name Jesus Damneus got into the text. I can only reiterate that Jesus Gamaliel makes much more sense there. Jesus Gamaliel's name in the text would help to explain the rivalry between Ananus and Gamaliel that Josephus makes explicit in his other text. Damneus' name just doesn't seem to add any information.

Warmly,

Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Hi Philosopher Jay,

If anyone's guess includes me then it would appear to me, on the assumption that your foregoing reconstruction is valid, that this totally unknown character who is known as "Jesus, son of the demon" was introduced by an interpolator while preserving the text of Josephus at some point in time.

If we were to compare this interpolation to an advertisement we would have to say that just before the Christian TF advertisement appears (that Jesus is the Messiah and Son of the God), someone has inserted another advertisement - namely that Jesus is the Son of the demon). This looks like competitive marketing of advertisements.

One way to explain it is that the "Jesus son of a demon" was surreptitiously interpolated into Jospehus AFTER the death of Eusebius by a vile blasphemous heretical Arian dissident, who knew the TF was a Eusebian forgery, and who wished to blatantly, yet surreptitiously ADVERTISE this state of affairs to an elite inside Arian audience.

The Christian interpolation was like a flag Eusebius had officially placed on a mountain of evidence. It could not be removed. It was there to stay. However it could itself be advertised by another very subtle interpolation immediately before it. Espionage and intrigue of the Bishops?

2c's worth - all just conjecture and speculation.
Best wishes

Pete

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.