spin

No, Josephus avoids using the term -- except of course when referring to Jesus.

See Josephus, BJ, 6.312ff (BJ 6.5.3 towards the end).

"But what more than all incited them (the Jews) to the war was an ambiguous oracle, likewise found in their sacred scriptures, to the effect that at that time one from their country would become ruler of the world. This they understood to mean someone of their own race, and many of their wise men went astray in their interpretation of it. The oracle, however, in reality signified the sovereignty of Vespasian, who was proclaimed Emperor on Jewish soil."

This is probably a reference to the sceptre and the star of Numbers 24:17-19.


spin

Ben C Smith

That is certainly possible, but I think the 90 weeks prophecy of Daniel is at least as likely as the star prophecy of Numbers, since there seems to be a time element to the oracle in question (at that time, though it is possible some astrological sign was interpreted as marking the right time for the Numbers oracle), and there are ways to artificially calculate the 90-week timespan to reach various points in century I.

Ben.

Cege

Aaaack! Is nothing clear and fer shur?

Numbers 24:17-19 (NIV):
17 "I see him, but not now;
I behold him, but not near.
A star will come out of Jacob;
a scepter will rise out of Israel.
He will crush the foreheads of Moab,
the skulls [a] of [b] all the sons of Sheth. [c]

18 Edom will be conquered;
Seir, his enemy, will be conquered,
but Israel will grow strong.

19 A ruler will come out of Jacob
and destroy the survivors of the city."

What about those scripture verses would be a certainty for prophecying Vespasian's emperorship?

What about 90 days in Daniel would apply to Vespasian?

Is the "oracle" so ambiguous that it can't be actually named by Josephus? And why is it "their sacred scriptures" instead of 'our sacred scriptures', since Josephus is Jewish himself?

DCHindley

Andrew,

Has everyone completely ignored Josephus, _War_ 4.314-320 (5.1-2)?

314 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 ... 315 … but they sought for the high priests, and the generality went with the greatest zeal against them; 316 and as soon as they caught them they slew them, and then standing upon their dead bodies, in way of jest, upbraided Ananus [son of Ananus] with his kindness to the people, and Jesus [son of Gamalas] with his speech made to them from the wall. 317 Nay, they proceeded to that degree of impiety, as to cast away their dead bodies without burial ... 318 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. 319 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; 320 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.

Ant. 20.200 (9.1) may have originally read thus:

"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he [Ananus, son of Ananus] assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them [a certain one] whose name was James, 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."

The phrase “brother of Jesus,” if in the original, may have identified this James as a brother of Jesus son of Damneus, whom Albinus made High Priest after deposing Ananus. The phrase "who was called Christ" would then be a reference to the fact that the High Priest is indeed an anointed one, and thus a “so-called Christ.”

However, the copy of the _Antiquities_ owned by Hegesippus gave him the impression that Josephus thought that the destruction of the city of Jerusalem was due to the prosecution of this James.

Eusebius _H.E._ 23.19: These things are related at length by Hegesippus, who is in agreement with Clement. James was so admirable a man and so celebrated among all for his justice, that the more sensible even of the Jews were of the opinion that this was the cause of the siege of Jerusalem, which happened to them immediately after his martyrdom for no other reason than their daring act against him.

Origen is also of the same opinion.

Contra Celsum: Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless—being, although against his will, not far from the truth—that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),—the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice

I would explain this as the result of both Hegesippus and Origen reading a marginal gloss at this place in their texts of _Ant_ 20.200 that said something like "On account of this one (referring to Ananus) the city was destroyed." The originator of this gloss was very probably thinking of _War_ 4.318.

Either both these writers mistakenly understood this gloss at Ant 20.200 to refer to the James who was tried by Ananus rather than to Ananus, or Hegesippus did and Origen later accepted this interpretation.

Josephus' _Antiquity of the Jews_ 20.200 was a topic of discussion on XTalk around July 25-30, 2000 and again 10/1/00, and probably at other times, so I'd recommend scanning the archives. Also, try John P. Meier's _A Marginal Jew_ Vol 1, pg. 80, foot note 41, for an exhaustive review. I believe that Maier comes down on the side of authenticity (but this is from memory).

When I originally proposed this solution on the Crosstalk2 list Steve Mason contacted me off-list and advised that he thought it still left a grammatical anomaly to resolve.

Most of the XTalk list members seemed to be of the opinion that the passage was genuine and might actually tell us something about how James the brother of Jesus was perceived by the ruling elite of Jerusalem. In my reconstruction, it tells us nothing of the sort, because it was not Jesus' brother who was originally being referred to, but some unrelated James who was *later* associated with James the brother of Jesus.

spin

You'll find that I discussed the central part of this in post #13 of this thread.

This is the position I argue on linguistic and other grounds, working from a hypothetical marginal comment by a scribe who knew Origen's Commentary on Matthew.

This doesn't work on discourse grounds, unless one were to propose two modifications in the same paragraph, for, if there were a reference to a Jesus as brother of James, it would have been a first mention requiring the genealogical note "son of Damneus" here, not with a later reference in the same paragraph.

Confusion between Ananus and James as a reason for christian writers ascribing the fall to the death of James has been discussed and I gave it as the reason why I didn't think Origen had read Josephus at all, but used a catena of relevant quotes from various authors. This explains why Origen readily confused the 20 books "of the antiquities" with "the two books of the antiquities" (what we call "Contra Apion"). He wasn't working from either.

Ben C ascribes Origen's position as a conflation of Josephus and Hegesippus. The gloss does make sense, but I wouldn't bank on Hegesippus and Origen using the same copy of Josephus, but deriving the idea from Hegesippus does seem reasonable.

Josephus' _Antiquity of the Jews_ 20.200 was a topic of discussion on XTalk around July 25-30, 2000 and again 10/1/00, and probably at other times, so I'd recommend scanning the archives. Also, try John P. Meier's _A Marginal Jew_ Vol 1, pg. 80, foot note 41, for an exhaustive review. I believe that Maier comes down on the side of authenticity (but this is from memory).

When I originally proposed this solution on the Crosstalk2 list Steve Mason contacted me off-list and advised that he thought it still left a grammatical anomaly to resolve.[/quote]
What I've said here is that it is easier to spot the tampering than to reconstruct the state pre-tampering.

I also proposed as a minimal reconstruction for grammatical purposes where we find ...ton adelfon Ihsou tou legomenou christou... the simple replacement with anQrwpon. I'm not proposing that it was necessarily that way, but it resolves any complaints over the grammar.

What's missing in the passage is why Ananus took these steps against James, which I think is a major problem with the current state of the text.

As I've pointed out in this thread, it is truly curious that Josephus has avoided using christos throughout his work, not even using it for the messianic passage I referred to a few posts back regarding Vespasian, yet he, Josephus the good Jew, happily uses it for Jesus, who certainly wasn't by Jewish standards the/a messiah.

I guess I'd have to agree with you!


spin

andrewcriddle

It is an interesting idea but maybe over-complicated. It involves a postulated (hypothetical) gloss causing indirectly a postulated (hypothetical) interpolation.

It might be simpler to suggest
a/ that Josephus' original text was as we have it.
b/ A gloss such as you suggest occurred (referring to Ananus)
c/ This gloss was misinterpreted by Origen and/or Hegesippus to refer to James the brother of Jesus called Christ.
d/ Origen's claims about Josephus followed as a result.

Andrew Criddle

spin

It would seem that you should admit that the Origen references are a red herring, because you have to agree that he made mistakes with regard to Josephus, while claiming that he veraciously maintained the supposed reference to Jesus as the christ, while showing no interest in getting other information from the passage correct.

At the same time you are not able to propose any rationale for Josephus using christos for Jesus when he in fact has eschewed the word everywhere else in the text including places well adapted for it, such as the messianic reference to Vespasian, while the place where Origen first uses the brother of Jesus called christ reference is his commentary on Matthew, the source text for the original statement that Jesus was called christ, Mt 1:16. The fact that all words except "brother" that Origen is supposed to have got from Josephus are found in Matthew, while James is elsewhere described as "brother of the lord", a term which came to be synonymous with Jesus. Origen's construction of such a phrase as "the brother of Jesus called christ" would be rather unremarkable and further the ready-made phrase from Origen makes a perfect marginal note for the passage in Josephus.

I find the forlorn insistence on the veracity of this passage when we know that Josephus has already been tampered with rather strange in its against-the-odds hopefulness.


spin

Cege

Could that James be the son of Judas the Galilean?

Is there a reference somewhere to writings by Josephus that are generally accepted as 'original' and unedited?

spin

If this James had been strongly identified by Josephus (for example, as son of Judas), I couldn't see a good opportunity for a scribal process to have modified it as it is today. A marginal note may easily enter a tax if it is seen as an omission, for scribes checking texts write corrections in the margin, so note can be mistaken as correction, but more deliberate modifications such as reascribing someone's family connection (as against additions) in texts would be much rarer.

Josephus isn't frequently referred to in the surviving early church fathers. Tertullian may be the earliest and it was in passing.


spin

JoeWallack

JW:
In addition to the Forgery of "Gergesenes" as a correction of "Gerasenes" as witnessed by my Jewrassic Pork Thread another example of Forgery in the Christian Bible, much better related to the issue at hand in this Thread, is Matthew 27:17:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Matthew_27:17

where apparently, under the influence of Origen's authority, "Jesus Barabbas" was changed to "Barabbas". Peter Kirby is moving in the direction of cross-referencing such Bible passages that have this type of common characteristic.

The offending passage:

"When therefore they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?"

Note that "Matthew" has changed his source, "Mark", to refer to Jesus here as
"Jesus who is called Christ". This gives "Matthew" a reason to use "Jesus Barabbas" as the qualification, "who is called Christ", which is needed to distinguish the two Jesuses.

The reason that "Matthew" changed "Mark" to refer to Jesus as "who is called Christ" here and elsewhere is that in General "Matthew" is primarily a Reaction to "Mark". Specifically, "Mark's" primary Identification of Jesus is as "A son of God", as this was the appropriate Gentile and especially Roman Title for the Hero:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_15

"39 And when the centurion, who stood by over against him, saw that he so gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God."

Note that in "Mark" it's only the centurion, the only character present who would not have had any expectations of Jesus, who simply experienced what he saw without prejewdice, who recognizes Jesus as what he supposedly is (based on his Passion). Another Irony by "Mark", all the Jews, who should know the Signs and witnessed everything, fail to recognize Jesus, while the one person present with no prior knowledge of Jesus or what a Jewish Messiah should be or act like, recognizes Jesus. This centurion character probably played rather well in Rome (understand Dear Reader?). Actually there's no definite article in the Greek so "Mark" may very well have only meant "a son of God". As usual "Matthew" and "Luke" change "Mark" here because good Irony makes bad History:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Matthew_27

"54 Now the centurion, and they that were with him watching Jesus, when they saw the earthquake, and the things that were done, feared exceedingly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God."

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Luke_23

"47 And when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, Certainly this was a righteous man.

48 And all the multitudes that came together to this sight, when they beheld the things that were done, returned smiting their breasts."

"Matthew" has added references to "Jesus who is called Christ", because from a Jewish standpoint the proper Identification is "Messiah" (Christ). As Spin has pointed out, the "Jesus who is called Christ" may have found its way into Josephus through the authority of Origen who picked up the phrase from "Matthew". Obviously if the Christians were willing to change their own sacred writings they would have even less of a problem changing someone else's non sacred writings.

While I Am on the subject of "Matthew" being primarily a Reaction to "Mark", this also applies to Ben and Doherty's argument about "Matthew" placing guards at Jesus' supposed tomb. This is also primarily a Reaction to "Mark" and not to Jewish claims that Jesus' disciples stole his body:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_16

"1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the [mother] of James, and Salome, bought spices, that they might come and anoint him.

2 And very early on the first day of the week, they come to the tomb when the sun was risen.

3 And they were saying among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the tomb?

4 and looking up, they see that the stone is rolled back: for it was exceeding great."

JW:
Note that in "Matthew's" source, when the first witnesses arrive at the tomb, the stone has already been moved. By placing guards at the tomb "Matthew" is dealing primarily with the problem in his Source and not with any supposed Jewish claims. This type of change by "Matthew" is weak historical evidence as again, "Matthew" is primarily a Reaction to "Mark" as opposed to a Reaction to historical witness for Jesus, which Paul and "Mark" are, and therefore "Matthew" is an order of magnitude worse historical evidence for Jesus than "Mark" is.



Joseph

"My Auntie has also fulfilled all the Messianic prophecies except for the ones she hasn't fulfilled yet." Talmud Sanhedrin 53c

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page