RogueBibleScholar

Hi all!

I finally got around to completing an investigation into possible parallels to the James passage in the Wars. At least, that's what it started as. After some looking, I thought perhaps the Jesus ben Gamalas and Ananus ben Ananus who were high priests who were martyred by the Zealots just before the beginning of the attack on Jerusalem, had been replaced by an evil Jesus ben Damneus, and Ananus ben Ananus. After completing a more thorough investigation, I believe in short that the martyrdom of Ananus ben Ananus and Jesus ben Gamalas has been left out of the Antiquities; that the priest in the Antiquites: Jesus ben Damneus, is a fictional character; that Jesus ben Gamalas was never a high priest; and most of Antiq. XX, ch. 9, has been extensively reworked, so that James could replace Jesus and Ananus as the last martyr before Jerusalem was destroyed. It would take too long to explain all of my reasoning here to spare me repeating the entirety of a rather long study; but my major conclusions are as follows:

1. In the Wars, Jesus ben Gamalas and Ananus ben Ananus are martyred by the Zealots, after Jesus makes a plea for accommodating the Romans, and urging the Idumeans to go home. Both are described in complimentary terms only. In the Autobiography, Jesus ben Gamalas is "a friend and confidant" of Josephus.
2. In the Antiquities, Ananus ben Ananus robs from lesser priests, causing some to starve to death; and Jesus ben Gamalas' plea for peace is missing. Both of their deaths at the hands of the Zealots is missing.
3. In the Wars, in Josephus' mind, the martyrdom of such a noble person as Ananus ben Ananus dissolved the security of Jerusalem; allowing the Romans to attack.
4. In the Antiquities, Ananus ben Ananus is made to cause the increase in the power of the Zealots by releasing them for hostages; so that the security of Jerusalem is not compromised by his noble death, but by his weakness of character.
5. In Christian theology, James' martyrdom is the reason for the destruction of Jerusalem. James is martyred in the Antiquities by Ananus ben Ananus, and is the last high-profile martyr before the attack on Jerusalem begins.
6. In the Antiquities, Jesus ben Damneus and Jesus ben Gamalas are described successively as "the high priest"; and yet the passages seem to reverse themselves as to who is the high priest twice. Both are supposedly high priests before the death of Ananus ben Ananus.
7. In the Wars and the Autobiography, neither Jesus is ever referred to as the "high priest"; but after the death of Ananus senior, only Ananus ben Ananus is referred to as the "high priest" or "the eldest of the high priests", until his martyrdom.
8. One of these priests in the Antiquities is called "Jesus, son of Damneus"; and yet Damneus is not a likely name for a father of a chief priest to have; but is a likely name for a character invented to villainize Jewish priests.
9. The Wars and the Antiquities contradict each other over how Ananus ben Ananus' priesthood ends. The former says he was a martyr arguing for peace, and the latter says he was replaced for having unjustly killing James.
10. The Wars and the Antiquities contradict each other over who was the priest when Florus arrives as procurator of Judea. The Wars has it as Ananus ben Ananus, and the Antiquities has it as Matthias, the son of Theophilus.

You can read my whole essay on the subject at my webpage, The Alternative Bible Scholarship Site | Christian Editing In Josephus' Works under the "James, Ananus ben Ananus, Jesus ben Gamalas & Jesus ben Damneus" heading. I am interested to know what people who have read my essay think of my reasoning (it's not terribly long, just a bit long to repeat here); or if anyone has anything on a different but related subject they think I might find interesting. Please let me know what you think.

The Rogue Bible Scholar

RogueBibleScholar

I seem to have scared off people putting any comment here whatsoever, which was not my intention. I'm entertaining any responses anyone might have, half-baked or otherwise. I think this is a pretty big breakthrough, in assessing an important source, really the only extensive non-Christian one, other than archaeology, for First Century Judea, Samaria and Israel. Anyone else?

Tom Sawyer

Not related to the thread, but I'm just curious - what's a rogue bible?

Back Again

Isn't is a simpler explanation that the politics (security, social status, etc.) of Josephus evolved over the twenty years between the writing of Wars and Antiquities?

I'm not sure that contradictions between the two works, by themselves, are evidence of Christian tampering. Histories were also literary works as well as propoganda devices.

Tom,
I thought a Rogue bible had something to do with World of Warcraft.

aa5874

You are ONLY speculating. You must show that the writings of Josephus fundamentally evolved in every aspect over the twenty years for your " simpler explanation" to be of any validity or can even be offered.

There are many implications and complications if Jesus was just a man, crucified as a blasphemer, and yet worshiped as a God with the power to forgive the sins of the Jews in Judea before the Fall of the Temple.

show_no_mercy

It seems as though Josephus' view on Ananus ben Ananus changed from writing "War" to "Antiquities" (as I understand it, "War" was written first). I don't think that it was Christian tampering, but there's definitely an inconsistency there. The character "Damneus" (Δαμναίος) seems to appear from out of nowhere just to have a son named Jesus. After Josephus names this Jesus Damneus, we don't know what happens to him or anything, since he isn't mentioned in "War" or any other source.

It is possible that this character is an invention of Josephus, and unlikely an invention of Christians. They wouldn't associate the Sacred Name (Jesus) with condemnation.

The Greek word δαμνάω (damnaw) means to overpower. Though I'm not sure if that word exists/meant the same in Koine Greek.

RogueBibleScholar

I suppose a rogue Bible would be a reconstruction of Marcion's text, which has already been done, although they fill in more blanks than they admit; but a rouge Bible scholar is a scholar of the Bible who is not limited making small modifications to scholarship that has gone before, whether Christian or non-Christian; and has something different to day.

> It seems as though Josephus' view on Ananus ben Ananus changed from
> writing "War" to "Antiquities" (as I understand it, "War" was written first). I
> don't think that it was Christian tampering, but there's definitely an
> inconsistency there.

I'm saying I believe I can make a pretty good case that that is exactly what is happening.

>The character "Damneus" (Δαμναίος) seems to appear from out of nowhere
>just to have a son named Jesus. After Josephus names this Jesus
>Damneus, we don't know what happens to him or anything, since he isn't
>mentioned in "War" or any other source.

Actually, there never is a character Damneus that appears, only a Jesus, son of Damneus.

> It is possible that this character is an invention of Josephus, and unlikely
> an invention of Christians. They wouldn't associate the Sacred Name
> (Jesus) with condemnation.

Sure it is possible. The problem is, Josephus in the Autobiography refers to Ananus ben Ananus as a "friend and confidant", and yet in the Antiquities, says that Ananus ben Ananus stole tithes from lesser priests to the point of starving some of them to death. Why would Josephus simply change his mind, if he knew this when he wrote the Wars? Even if praising priests he knew to be villains, he would have moderated his praise somewhat, so as not to say "virtue itself groaned" at their deaths. I'm not sure at all that Josephus did not believe in the power of miracles; although I do not, in the metaphysical sense. That leaves the possibility that he found out afterwords; but he nowhere explains the reason for his dramatic reversal, nor qualifies his "friend and confidant" language in his Autobiography. I'm not saying I can prove it absolutely, that it was Christian editing; but that it is a simpler explanations than such an unexplained reversal that is also unacknowledged in the Autobiography.
A simpler explanation is that Christians substituted a Christian martyr for two Jewish ones. While it seems unlikely for a Christian to vilify a person with a Christian name; even Christians don't try to lionize the other Jesus' in Josephus. It also seems unlikely that Josephus would introduce a Jesus to vilify just here, and vilify Ananus ben Ananus right afterwords; when he had such glowing praise for them in the first book. It seems very unlikely that he did not fail to give them the highest praise possible in the Wars, nor fail to vilify Ananus in the worst possible terms in the Antiquities; while nowhere explaining the reason for his reversal, or his false praise.

>The Greek word δαμνάω (damnaw) means to overpower. Though I'm not
>sure if that word exists/meant the same in Koine Greek.

That's good to know. I'll research it a bit, and make a note of it on my webpage. Now, what, pray tell, is a father of a Jewish high priest, doing with a Greek root for his name? Are similar examples known? At a minimum, Josephus seems to be inventing this character. This seems unlikely to me, however. Surely, Josephus could have come up with a word to vilify Jesus ben Gamalas Hebrew that was not quite kosher, if he wanted to. I think we are dealing with a character invented by a Greek or Latin mind. Why then, is this character introduced? Only to take over the high priest position from Ananus ben Ananus, who has just been relieved of the high priesthood, only for killing James. If Jesus ben Damneus is a fiction from a Latin or Greek mind, then it is not a far stretch to conclude that the reason for his introduction into the narrative, i.e. the martyrdom of James, is also fiction. This is immediately followed by a portrayal of Ananus ben Ananus that is diametrically opposed to his character: starving lesser priests to death by stealing tithes from them, as opposed to "and did ever prefer the public welfare before his own advantage". Instead of being the reason for the downfall of Jerusalem due to his own righteousness and subsequent martyrdom, a diametrically opposite version is substituted: that he caused the downfall of Jerusalem by giving into the Zealots' demands to release other Zealots for hostages. In the Antiquities, never is there a single biographical detail for Jesus ben Damneus, nor Jesus ben Gamalas ever given; except that they were high priests. Why suppress their entire biographies? Because whoever was writing, did not want to relate the account of their martyrdom in the Wars. Once you start going down that road that Jesus ben Damneus is fictional, the reason for his introduction into the narrative immediately follows, and I assert, implies a massive rewrite of all of Antiq. 20, ch. 9. If Christians might have some reluctance to vilify a different Jesus, how much more would they wish to vilify the great martyrs immediately before the start of the Jewish War, and put their own there; so that God can be said to have been taking up the cause of the Christians, not the rightful priesthood, in destroying Jerusalem?

Only by making Josephus out to be Christian can the blame be laid on him; and this has been tried from the days of Eusebius until the days of WHiston and beyond. I don't believe it at all. In Against Apion, he argues passionately for the antiquity of the Jews, he divorces, and endorses burnt sacrifice. Apart from passages associated with Christian heroes, any place that a difference in doctrine between Temple period Judaism and Christianity can be detected, Josephus advocates the Temple period Judaism; with the single exception of designating Vespasian Messiah. Vespasian's son, Titus, would then be next in line, of Israel's, and the world's, new dynasty, in his eyes.

TRBS

show_no_mercy

Well yeah, that's what I mean. The character Damneus appears just to have a son named Jesus (hence Jesus son of Damneus)

Off the top of my head, John Hyrcanus (Ϋρκανος) the Jewish priest/king of the Hasmonean era who destroyed the Samaritan Temple. He adopted his Greek surname upon his ascension.

RogueBibleScholar

I figured, and yet, it is significant that a priest named Damneus is completely unknown elsewhere; as is Jesus ben Damneus - and we possess not a single biographical detail about either, except that they were supposedly priests. In the Wars, Josephus is still referring to Ananus senior as "the high priest" after Florus arrives, at a later time than their supposed priesthoods. I notice that I claimed the Wars says the priest was Ananus ben Ananus when Florus arrived, but I was mistaken. Ananus senior was still priest, with Ananus ben Ananus being called "high priest" only when the Zealots had killed Ananus senior, after the outbreak of the War.

You are right about Hyrcanus. Now that I look back, Boethus is probably a Greek name; and Theophilus clearly is. Still, it seems somebody would have told them what it means in Latin.

mountainman

Well done. Your article is thoughtfully presented and set out - sources cited. Many authors have been suspicious of the "Christian" references in Josephus since the age of enlightenment, and many have suspected the interpolator to have been Eusebius. I have even attempted to write an article - entitled Making Fruit Salad of the Testimonium Flavianum.

What's next? What are the implications of your analyses? Do you go along with the idea that Eusebius performed this task?