Peter Kirby

This thread is a spin-off from the Galatians one.

Thanks for your comments, Bede.

What do you mean? (And why?)

I will talk about Gal 1:18-24 elsewhere.

There are at least three responses to this.

(1) Ken Olson points out that Origen refers to "brothers of Jesus" in Commentary on Matthew 10.17: "But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or 'The Book of James,' that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary." The phrase "Jesus who is called Christ" is found in the New Testament (Matthew 1:16; Matthew 27:17, 22; John 4:25). The exact six-word construction is not found outside of Josephus and references to Josephus, but that's what you get when you string most any six words together.

(2) The suggestion has been made that the original passage read "the brother of Jesus, James being his name." If this is correct, then one need only imagine that a note saying "the one called Christ" got incorporated into the text, not that the entire identification of James was so interpolated.

(3) The passage could be authentic as it stands. I am not wedded to any particular hypothesis on Jesus in Josephus.

But I am not a Jesus Myther. I think that Paul's Jesus is human. (And I don't follow Wells & Ellegard either.)

An assumption prior to sense experience as to what Josephus says? I wouldn't even know what the text of Josephus says without my senses and powers of induction.

You read my post to XTalk entirely wrong if you think the point was to prove interpolation. The questions were made out of actual interest in the answers. The first fifteen or so were copied from a post to JesusMysteries, and I expected both interpolationists and authenticists to respond to the questions.

Well, the last one was an argument for corruption.

Doherty mentions the anomalous character of the reference to "Jesus who is
called Christ" in Josephus:

<<In the Antiquities 20 reference we actually have a double identification:
one for James, that he was Jesus' brother, the second for Jesus, that he was
the one called the Christ. But would Josephus have been likely to offer this
identification for Jesus? First of all, it implies that the historian had
explained just what "the Christ" was at some previous point. (His readership
was a Greco-Roman one, who would not be expected to have much familiarity
with the idea.) The fact is, he has not, and certainly not in the Antiquities
18 passage, where the declaration "He was the Messiah" is rejected as a later
and obvious Christian insertion.

Moreover, the entire Jewish tradition of messianic expectation is a subject
Josephus seems to avoid, for he nowhere else describes it, not even in
connection with the rebellious groups and agitators in the period prior to
the Jewish War. (His one clear reference to the messianic "oracles" of the
Jews, the object of whom he claims was Vespasian [Jewish War 6.5.4], is in a
different book, and is dealt with in very cursory fasion.) This silence and
apparent reluctance would seem to preclude the likelihood that Josephus would
introduce the subject at all, especially as a simple aside, in connection
with Jesus. (p. 218)>>

Doherty suggests that a more likely reference would identify Jesus by his
crucifixion under Pilate. Another possibility is that Josephus would not
refer to Jesus at all but rather make use of a more traditional patrilineal
reference.

Concerning the reference to Jesus as the one called Christ, Steve Mason
explains that Josephus would not have assumed his readership to understand
the term:

<<First, the word "Christ" (Greek christos) would have special meaning only
for a Jewish audience. In Greek it means simply "wetted" or "anointed."
Within the Jewish world, this was an extremely significant term because
anointing was the means by which the kings and high priests of Israel had
been installed. The pouring of oil over their heads represented their
assumption of God-given authority (Exod 29:9; 1 Sam 10:1). The same Hebrew
word for "anointed" was mashiach, which we know usually as the noun Messiah,
"the anointed [one]." Although used in the OT of reigning kings and high
priests, many Jews of Jesus' day looked forward to an end-time prophet,
priest, king, or someone else who would be duly anointed.

But for someone who did not know the Jewish tradition, the adjective "wetted"
would sound most peculiar. Why would Josephus say that this man Jesus was
"the Wetted"? We can see the puzzlement of Greek-speaking readers over this
term in their descriptions of Christianity: Jesus' name is sometimes altered
to "Chrestus" (Suetonius, Claudius 25.4), a common slave name that would amke
better sense, and the Christians are sometimes called "Chrestians.">>

Since Josephus is usually sensitive to his audience and pauses to explain
unfamiliar terms or aspects of Jewish life, it is very strange that he would
make the bald assertion, without explanation, that Jesus was "Christ."

The fact that the term "Christ" appears only in Ant. 18.3.3 and here in 20.9.1
seems to do little to suggest the authenticity of the phrase. It has been
often observed that Josephus avoided the subject of messianic expectation.
Crossan states:

<<The more important point, however, is that neither there nor anywhere else
does Josephus talk about messianic claimants. He makes no attempt to explain
the Jewish traditions of popular kingship that might make a brigand chief or
a rural outlaw think not just of rural rebellion but of regal rule. The
reason is, of course, quite clear and was seen already. For Josephus, Jewish
apocalyptic and messianic promises were fulfilled in Vespasian. It is hardly
likely, that Josephus would explain too clearly or underline too sharply the
existence of alternative messianic fulfillments before Vespasian, especially
from the Jewish lower classes. (The Historical Jesus, p. 199)>>

Even in the passage where Josephus seems to describe Vespasian as the
fulfillment of the messianic oracles, Josephus does not make use of the term
"Christ." So why is it found here, without explanation?

Why would Josephus introduce a Jewish term to which he has a general aversion
at this point only and not give an explanation of its meaning, particularly
as Josephus is sensitive to his audience and explains the meaning of the
Jewish concepts that he mentions?

Wouldn't it have been more attractive for Josephus to use "the one crucified
by Pilate" if he had a general aversion to the term Christ and did not use it
in the context of Vespasian or those rebels who put on the diadem?

And even if Josephus decided to use this politically charged term, how could
he not give an explanation or rationalization of its meaning at some point?

And given its negative connotation to Romans, would the relatively positive
reconstruction of the Testimonium proposed by Meier et al. be believable, as
though Josephus would approve of one called Christ by many?

Finally, pretty much everyone these days agrees that Antiquities 18.3.3 is not completely authentic. Why should we then approach the other reference to Jesus with the assumption that it is "authentic unless decisively disproven"?

best,
Peter Kirby

Vinnie

Because its special pleading when one simply approaches every historical Jesus passage and demands something that they do not require when looking at different passages. As best as I can tell it is up to the one arguing interpolation to show that a certain text block was not in the original text. If you have no good arguments then the text is going to be used as is as a working hypothesis. Unless of course, textual scholars do not feel they have a usuable copy of said work. If a whole work was very suspect then it simply prohibits its use. but if it is usuable then it is necessary that you provide solid evidence that a certain passage was interpolated. If we are going to do otherwise, we might as well give up historical reconstruction. I see no point to it.

Vinnie

Vorkosigan

But Vinnie, we DO have knowledge that there were several versions of Josephus floating around (Slavonic Josephus, silence on the TF in early Xtian fathers, Arabic rescension, and of course, the parallel but sometimes different stories in War and Antiquities). Further, we know that Josephus was tampered with by Christians, or at least, that is rather widely suspected. It seems incredible that Christians who redacted/interpolated the TF could have left the James reference alone (in fact, one argument in favor of authenticity is that it is so brief).

I personally believe that the original reference was to "the brother of Jesus, James by name" and refered to the family Damneus, not the family of Jesus son of Joseph.

Further, any document that arrives down the centuries through Christian hands is automatically suspect, especially where it mentions Jesus. It's sound historical thinking to suspect history from polemicized or politicized sources. I mean, scholars treat Josephus' accounts with great suspicion and check them against each other and reality whenever possible. So doing it here in Ant. 20.9.1 is a typical scholarly analytical move, not some wacky far-out mode of analysis.

Vorkosigan

Peter Kirby

There's absolutely no reason to suspect what Josephus writes about Antipater to have been interpolated. I agree that, in most cases, we operate under a working hypothesis of authenticity. However, I would make a category for texts that are dubious, if not disproven. For example, suppose that I left behind a diary where I have an out-of-context panegyric of Bill Gates. Scholars analyzing my diary would realize that I am a happy Linux user and wouldn't idolize Bill. So, though it is still possible that I wrote something about Bill in that passage, we know that the evil minions of Microsoft have revised my diary to some extent. Now suppose that they discover another passage in which I wrote something factual about the wider selection of software under MS Windows. It's possible that I wrote that, but since we know that Microsoft has been messing with the diary, we have to entertain reasonable doubt. On the other hand, in passages in which I speak about how I felt about a certain class or how I got the wrong food at Del Taco, there is no strong and plausible motive for interpolation by the text's caretakers, so we continue to operate under the assumption of authenticity in those cases.

best,
Peter Kirby

Bede

On the interpolation side, Vork's idea of a marginal gloss incorporated into the text is the only game in town. It is reasonably clear, possible and requires only a mistake we know to have been all too common. But it still fails.

Some facts:

a) Origin has a copy of Josephus that lacks the Christian changes to Ant 18.

b) The copy he has contains the James brother of Jesus called Christ phrase.

These two points can't be reasonably disputed. So we know for a fact that Origin's Josephus in about 200AD contained the reference. This, coupled with the same phrase appearing in our own copies settles the issue as a matter of scholarly dispute (or should do).

For Vork's most reasonable of the interpolation scenarios to be right requires that Origin's copy had been both glossed and then gone through another generation where the gloss was incorporated. This is a lot to ask in one hundred years when there were very few literate Christians around to either make to the gloss or agree with it and add it to the text. The fact we have no positive reason to believe this took place leaves the idea high and dry except as a get out for Jesus mythers for whom the phrase is a problem. Adding additional steps with multiple levels of interpolation, as Olsen does, simply increases the implausibility of the scenario.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Vinnie

Can anyone show me how say Antiquities 13 or 6 (random references) is better attested than Antiquities 18? Bede pointed out that Origen's version had such a text in ca 200 ad. Can anyone show me why I should think Antiquities 18 is an interpolation aside from "well Christians copied the texts"? The last time I checked, Josephus' shorter reference looked nothing like a Christian interpolation (see Meier VI, pp 57-59). This is one of the most important points for me. It does not look like something a Christian interpolator would write. In that light cannot see how you can escape the charge of special pleading here.

This is what I would call argumentum ad contentium.

At any rate, James was NOT the Brother of a Non-Historical Jesus.

Vinnie

Peter Kirby

Nobody is saying that certain books have better manuscript attestation than others. I have pointed out that the "Christ" passages are plausibly explained as due to Christian caretakers.

Origen's Commentary on Matthew dates ca. 230, and his Against Celsus ca. 250. This allows for an interpolation to have taken place in the late second century in Alexandria.

It's also worth noting that, however we explain it, Origen says that Josephus attributes the destruction of Jerusalem to the death of James, something not found in our manuscripts of Josephus.

That's easy. It is highly unlikely that Josephus, a believing Jew working under Romans, would have written, "He was the Messiah." This would make him suspect of treason, but nowhere else is there an indication that he was a Christian. Indeed, in Wars of the Jews, Josephus declares that Vespasian fulfilled the messianic oracles. Furthermore, Origen, writing about a century before Eusebius, says twice that Josephus "did not believe in Jesus as the Christ."

I suppose that you wanted to know why I think that there was plausibly an interpolation in the twentieth book. I am happy to oblige. The only alteration to the Greek text that I propose is the addition of "tou legomenou Christou." There is justification for this.

1. There is no good argument for authenticity. Normally one doesn't require an argument for authenticity, but reasonable doubt applies when a "Christ" passage occurs in a non-Christian author copied by Christian scribes, especially when we already know that the non-Christian author has been reworked with Christian material. See the Microsoft and Bill Gates analogy above.

2. The insertion is completely plausible and explicable. When a second century Christian came into ownership of a copy of Josephus' Antiquities, he naturally assumed that the Jesus and James mentioned in 20.200 corresponded to the figures in the New Testament. He added the pious explanatory note "the one called Christ" in the margin. When a scribe made a copy from this examplar--it could have been the very manuscript used by Origen--he assumed that the marginal note belonged to the text and included it after the name "Jesus."

3. There is great difficulty in supposing that Jesus alone of all mentioned by Josephus was said to have been called a Messiah or "Christ." This is because (a) Josephus is usually careful to explain Jewish terms to his audience and (b) Josephus avoids the term "Christ" even when describing messianic revolutionaries that put on the diadem (and even when saying that Vespasian fulfilled the messianic oracles). This argument means that the hypothesized original, without the three words in question, is reasonable and not gratuitous.

4. In the original text of Josephus, the most logical assumption is that the "Jesus" mentioned is the same as "Jesus son of Damneus." This explains why James was killed and why the high priesthood passed on to Jesus; there was something of a feud between the two families. As Jay Raskin notes concerning 20.9.4, which records a squabble between the high priests when a successor is appointed to Jesus son of Damneus, on this hypothesis, "Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, is associated in 'Wars' with the Ananus faction. So Agrippa gave Jesus ben Damneus the high Priesthood as compensation for Ananus killing his brother and later took it back and gave it to a friend of Ananus, Jesus ben Gamaliel."

Until a stronger argument for authenticity is advanced, I will doubt that Josephus referred to Jesus "called a Christ."

This might apply to the idea that the entire sentence on the stoning of James was inserted, or even to the idea that the identification of James was inserted. I argue for neither of those ideas. I suggest that someone clarified simply that Jesus was "the one called Christ."

It is special pleading to say, "Oh, yeah, we can't just assume that Josephus wrote the stuff about Jesus Christ in Ant. 18.3.3, which is corrupt, but we can assume that Josephus wrote about the one called Christ in Ant. 20.9.1 just because it is in our manuscripts, and even though Josephus never refers to someone else as being called a Christ."

I have committed no such fallacy.

Irrelevant. The inauthenticity of the reference to the one called Christ in Ant. 20.9.1 does not imply the non-historicity of Jesus.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

But I am not a Jesus Myther; I am just someone who sees that the text is problematic.

Why do you suppose that a hundred years is too short for an interpolation to have been made? The Longer Ending of Mark, which is widely agreed to have been added, is quoted by Irenaeus of Lyons ca. 180. This shows that an interpolation can be made within a hundred years or so of the original text.

I suppose, then, that you would suggest that Christians didn't own copies of Josephus until the third century when Origen wrote, and that Origen got his copy from pagans or Jews? There is no evidence for such an assertion.

We do know that Justin Martyr, who wrote in 150, had read a copy of Josephus. This is eighty years before Origen wrote his Commentary on Matthew. So there is plenty of time for a few copies to have been made by Christians, one with the gloss and then a later one which incorporates the gloss.

best,
Peter Kirby

Bede

Peter,

You are indulging in special pleading to dispose of a completely innocuous passage.

We know from Origen that the Brother of Jesus passage was present when before the additions to Ant 18 so your argument fails. To claim everything that went through Christian hands is presumed be fake (as you are doing here) is simply shifting the burden and gets tiresome.

You have no evidence at all except your own gut feelings about plausibility. I happen to agree but have learnt the history isn't what feels good to me.

You are tying yourself in knots here. Christ was clearly a name for the founder of a sect of primarily Greek speaking sectarians whom Josephus had clearly heard of. Hence, he doesn't use the word Christ as it is a proper name associated with one individual. Your argument may be reasonable but again, you have no evidence.

Which explains exactly why Josephus chose to add 'called Christ', so we won't get confused. Also, we don't know if this other James existed beyond the hypothetical reconstruction which is unacceptably multiplying entities.

As for all that stuff about there being enough time, there could be, but it is unlikely and we still have no real evidence for the Ant 20 interpolation.

To repeat, we have no reason to doubt the Ant 20 passage, it has irrefutable textual witnesses including Origen, and is entirely explicable in Josephus's work. To conclude: the passage must stand unless positive evidence against it is found. In the meantime we must stick to the facts.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Vinnie

Kirby, I mixed my numbers up above (18 and 20) but I'll get back to it soon Of course there is good reason to doubt the TF. But this is still special pleading regarding the shorter reference.

Vinnie