rlogan

This is a description of Ananus in Jewish Wars Book 4 ch V:


There are some flattering descriptions of him in the two chapters before this as well. "a very prudent man" etc.

Also:

"The best esteemed also of the high priests, Jesus the son of Gamalas, and Ananus the son of Ananus" Book IV ch 3.


But here is the description in AJ:

I included enough material so that there is absolutely no confusion about both passages talking about the son.



There is something very wrong that the James passage in the AJ would speak so unkindly about him whereas in the JW passages it is all in glowing terms.

More proof that the James passage in the AJ was interpolated - eh?

spin

Josephus is known for various changes in position between JW and AJ. This is consistent with the fact that he wrote AJ some time after JW, so he corrected stuff and made additions. I have incidentally noticed this a number of times.

The James passage along with all the Ananus material not being in JW is not an indication of anything amiss, I don't think.

Godfry n. Glad has proposed that James was the brother of Jesus, ie Jesus, son of Damneus, mentioned at the end of the paragraph, but that would suggest Jesus, son of Damneus and brother of James, rather than prefigure this Jesus. Still, someone else might find more in favour of this idea.


spin

(Consider the lilies of the fields)

rlogan

Good gracious! I'm not on my "turf" here so I have no grounds to disagree. But this is just too extraordinary for me to accept out of hand. That is, there needs to be a specific reason for making such a drastic change on this character.

I would add to this that Ananus is supposedly appointed after Festus, then removed. We get this from AJ but not the JW. I do not know if there are any other references to this appointment.

In the JW Ananus takes up several pages in his confrontation with the zealots. We are given credentials and background up the wazoo for this guy - but nothing about having been appointed to high priest some years before. I find this an odd omission.

I think I will look into this more.

Never saw that.

You'd be surprised how ignorant I am. But I can skin a bear.

spin

In AJ 20.9.1 we are dealing with Ananus son of Ananus, who came to power around the time of the death of Festus and the arrival of Albinus and only ruled for three months. There were other Ananuses. At the time of the change from Festus to Albinus I can see no Ananus in JW. What's your ref.?


spin

Amaleq13

Xeno,

Why would Josephus want to identify James by a relationship to a comparatively unknown executed criminal instead of by his apparently well-known nickname "the Just"? This despite the fact that even those Romans in government who had to deal directly with Christians apparently didn't know his name was "Jesus"?

That would be like identifying Jimmy Carter by his relationship with his brother Billy instead of his previous job as President. AND putting the reference to Billy before naming Jimmy.

I think spin's arguments are strong but they really aren't necessary to suspect this phrase to be an interpolation.



Starting in July, I'll need your number on my speed dial.

rlogan

I'm just a toad, but I think I have something here.

You are right, there is no reference in JW to Ananus, son of Ananus in 62 C.E. at the death of Festus, who rules for three months. This is in AJ, not JW.

But later in the JW, starting in Book IV, Ch 3:
There can only be one ananus, son of ananus. He is written about by Josephus in both JW and AJ.

But in AJ he is the character that executes James in the spurious passage. 62-63CE.

In JW there is page after page of his conflict with the Zealots and his murder. (I do not know the year. But about 68 CE or so)


So Spin, I am saying this is very suspicious. There is an Ananus, son of Ananus in Jewish Wars. There is an Ananus, son of Ananus in Antiquities of the Jews. No question about this.

But in one he serves three months after Festus dies. He is described as insolent and mean.

In the other he is this wise, gentle, just, and prudent father figure that is murdered by the zealots. Josephus describes this as the beginning of the end for Jerusalem and the Temple. Book IV, Ch 5.

So - is this Ananus, son of Ananus appointed twice to be high priest? Removed after three months and then reinstated? Or do we have an inconsistency in these two pieces that is explained by the fact that the James passage is a full interpolation, including the reference to Ananus, son of Ananus (bad guy) when we know he's a good guy?

We should be looking for a later reference in AJ to the murder of Ananus in the temple to see if there is a treatment there that matches the JW description.

rlogan

Happy to help. The paws take some practice.

I wish someone else would pick up the flag on this Ananus business.

If we put this together with what Spin is doing I think the James passage is dead.

As is the TF.

And that changes everything.

spin

While looking for a dated high priest list I came across this page. It's up your alley.


spin

yummyfur

This is probably Ananus Sr. who is also mentioned in the "brother of Jesus who is called Christ" section of AJ.

From the same section of JW, Josephus describes Ananus as

Book 4 Chapter 3 section 7

"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. "

Only Ananus Sr. would qualify as the ancientest of the high preists. Ananus son of Ananus(jr.) is described in the AJ at 62 CE as being young.

the section on Greek from what you referenced is

"Gamala men huios Iêsous Ananou de Ananos"

it seems kind of a strange rendering but my greek is abyssmal

Ananus Sr.(it seems, though it is ambiguous who Jospehus is talking about) is portrayed in AJ as gaining power and influence during Albinus despite not being high priest, on account of his money, and some respect in certain quarters, and being the supporter of Jesus, the son of Damneus and Jesus son of Gamaliel(same as Jesus son of Gamala?, which could also be a reference to a city) in their high preisthood.

I don't think Josephus portrays Ananus Jr. as badly as people think, his two main faults are attempting to usurp power from the Romans over the Sanhedrin, and being a typical Sadducee(i.e. preferring capitol punishment). Is it possible that Christian sensibilities color the translation? In fact the character of James, or his sentence, seem rather unimportant to Josephus, except to explain these two issues.

I think Ananus Sr., Ananus Jr., Jesus son of Gamala were all in the same political camp, that is they had power by Ananus Sr.'s backing. The Sicarrii seem to be against them, as well as certain other priestly families, from the time of Albinus to the revolt.

There won't be any section in AJ on Ananus's death in the Temple, as AJ ends with the start of the rebellion in 66 CE.

Patrick Schoeb

rlogan

Good Lord, can we possibly make this any more confusing?


The plain reading of the text regarding who is being referred to as the executioner of james in Antiquities is the son. There is no ambiguity at all in this. I know there is another paragraph later speaking to a different ananus and a footnote discussion.


But this discussion here will become completely screwed up if we introduce confusion where there is none. The James passage in AJ is clearly referring to Ananus, son of Ananus. Please do not bring into the discussion a later paragraph that does not pertain to the paragraph in question.


Now about the Jewish Wars. Stay on point here. There are two people named ananus. we want to know how Josephus describes the son in Jewish wars. The reason why we want this is because the son is described as insolent and bad tempered in AJ.

Book IV ch 3:


Now this is the son. Same person spoken of in AJ 20.9.1.

Before we confuse ourselves any further let us agree that we have zeroed in on passages in AJ and JW that unquestionably speak to the same person: Ananus, son of Ananus.

In my quote above I have a question:

Is Jesus the best esteemed of the high priests, or are both jesus and "ananus son of ananus" best esteemed?

Pleae read the sentence in full context - not just the quote here.