Amaleq13

Wholesale isn't looking good on this evidence.

How about "called Christ" only?

As you know from our previous discussions of the subject, I think it is probable that James had an established reputation independent of and prior to his involvement with Christianity. Even if I assume that Jesus was known for being "called Christ", it seems like a very odd choice to identify James given an established reputation.

Jesus seems too well known and James seems not well known enough.

Ben C Smith

To a readership in Rome?

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Well, there are still ways out. But I think any hypothetical trajectory of development has to account for it.

Ben.

spin

Interesting comparison. One has people saying I'll have this bit, this bit and this bit, but I won't have that, that or that there. The other I just say cut the whole phrase out.

That's getting into the spirit of things.

Well, Ben C, I daresay you should have answered them for yourself instead of asking me. I'm not a big one on clairvoyance. Please go ahead and answer them better.

Here they are again for you:

Okay, so now we have παραγαγων εις αυτο ανθρωπον, Ιακωβος ονομα αυτω, και τινας ετερους (brought before it a man, James was his name, and some others).

Do you think that was all that was there? Does it seem more likely that Josephus (A) just named a certain man James (a rather common name) without any other identifier or that he (B) originally included some marker (place of origin, name of father or other relative, nickname) to distinguish this James from anybody else by that name? And, if the former, why single James out from the anonymous others in the first place?

You said that James is "a rather common name", but how often is the name found in Josephus? Why was James singled out from the anonymous others?

I'll happily admit that I don't know all of what was there, given the available evidence for textual disturbance (it's easier to delineate a disturbance than to remedy it), so any reconstruction would be at best speculative and the rule is KISS.


spin

spin

I didn't say anything about an encomium on James, just the attribution of the calamity pinned on the death of James. In fact the lack of encomium regarding James is illustrative. As Josephus makes Ananus's death the act which brought the fall, he waxes lyrical as a justification.

You will agree that the attribution is clearly there in BJ for Ananus, which was written before AJ and that the AJ passage deals with this same Ananus and that there is neither an attribution for the calamity being placed on the death of James nor an encomium following it in the text we have today.

How else would you like to deal with the evidence we have regarding Ananus and James as it impacts on Origen's use of Josephus? Do you truly think that Josephus having first placed the calamity on the death of Ananus changes his mind and places it on the death of James, then that change of heart is conveniently omitted in some sort of textual disturbance?

I find it quite easy to accept that someone in the developing tradition, be it Origen or someone before him, wrongly places the calamity on James through a misrecollection, a crossover from Ananus (from BJ) in this passage from AJ which mentions both Ananus and James.

Do you think Origen actually ever had a text of either BJ or AJ?


spin

Ben C Smith

Yes, but why do you cut out only a phrase from Antiquities 20 but the entire pericope in Antiquities 18?

We have James (Jacob) the son of Sosas and James (Jacob) the son of Judas the Galilean. According to Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, page 85, we have two more by that name in Josephus, not counting the patriarch. (I do not know offhand which two they are, since Bauckham provides a count, not a list.)

Because Josephus knew he was the brother of Jesus, whom the Romans called Christ, the reputed founder of the despised sect of Christians; he was making the connection for the sake of his Roman readership.

If you do not like that answer, provide your own.

If the rule is KISS, then I say there was no interpolation. Josephus identified James by his brother, whom he knew the Romans already knew as Christ. Origen conflated Hegesippus and Josephus from faulty notes or from memory, the basis of his confusion being that both Hegesippus and Josephus had referred to the stoning of the same man. No later scribe was concerned to insert the exact wording of the phrase from Origen while simultaneously omitting the meat of what Origen was asserting.

Again, if you do not like that answer, provide your own.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Here is something else to consider.

Josephan tendency 1. There may be instances in which Josephus just gives a name without any additional identifier (name of a relative, occupation, point of origin, et cetera), but I do not think it can be doubted that he usually adds an identifier of some kind.

Josephan tendency 2. There may also be instances in which Josephus allows two men by the same name to become blurred or confused in his narrative (that is, the reader is not sure which of the two men named Tom is being referred to now), but I do not think it can be doubted that he usually distinguishes such men. (For example, when Josephus deals in close proximity with two men named Ananus, father and son, he calls one the elder and the other the younger; the reader is never left in confusion about who is who. Also, when Josephus deals with the various Herods he almost always identifies each by naming his brother, his kingdom, or some other feature.)

Funny, then, that our inserted phrase (if that is what it is), brother of Jesus called Christ, fills out these two Josephan proclivities. Josephus is writing about somebody named James, so brother of Jesus fills out his usual habit of giving some identifier to a named individual (tendency 1 above). Usually, just giving the name of father or brother by itself would do (without going on to further identify the father or brother), but in this case leaving Jesus on its own may lead to confusion between this Jesus and the other Jesus at the end of this same pericope, Jesus son of Damneus. So adding called Christ fills out the usual habit of keeping like-named individuals separate (tendency 2 above).

None of this is to deny that Josephus may break with habit now and again in his writings; in fact, I insist that he (as well as authors in general) can and does. But it seems interesting that our intrepid Christian scribe happens to distinguish everybody in typical Josephan fashion.

Ben.

spin

The two passages are dealt with differently because of the differences between them. One is a long passage about Jesus, which all and sundry claim that at least part of it has been altered. The admission of alteration begs the question, how does one know which part of the passage is alteration and which isn't. The passage itself starts out with the demerit of disturbing the discourse cohesion of the context it is placed in. One therefore has to question the passage in its entirety.

The second passage we deal with is not a long passage but a mere phrase which we arrive at through a number of means:

1. it features a term that seems unlikely Josephus would have used (especially one he refused to use for Vespasian while alluding to messianic prophecy);
2. it features an unusual familial relationship without a context to justify it; and
3. it features a rather disturbed syntactic structure also without a context to justify it.

Why you find it worth trying to compare two different passages with different implications alludes me, in that it would seem you are not trying to hard to understand what is going on.

So you've shown that James was not "a rather common name" at least in Josephus.

I don't need to: even you know it's inadequate.

But where did you get the added "whom the Romans called...". I thought we are trying to follow KISS as much as possible...

I'm glad you've come around to the notion that Origen wasn't citing Josephus at all, but merely alluding to what he'd received secondhand about what he had written.

No need. You've done enough damage.


spin

spin

The reason I mentioned KISS is to reduce the amount of vain speculation.

Lots of people are given without familial relationship, especially those referred to in passing, eg Bagoas and Karos in AJ 17.44 (17.2.4 end), Andromacus and Gemellus in AJ 16.242 (AJ 16.8.3), the first high priest Herod appointed was from Babylon and named Ananel in AJ 15.22 (AJ 15.2.4). Even Zenodorus doesn't get a familial connection in AJ 15.344 (AJ 15.10.1).

For me the most puzzling thing about the James reference is that we don't find out from Josephus what James and the others actually did, if anything.


spin

andrewcriddle

Steve Mason says something similar in "Josephus and the New Testament" p 14 of the 1st edition. Andrew Criddle