Freethought & Rationalism Archive

MrMacSon · 07-29-2013, 04:12 PM

Barbara Theiring gives an interesting account -

Quote:

"In 66 AD active war between the Jews and the Romans broke out, culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Between 66 and 68 the effective leaders in Jerusalem were the priests Ananus the Younger and his deputy Joshua (Jesus), both very much aware of the Roman strength and the hopelessness of resistance. Both made speeches to try to bring the people to reason."

continued ...

http://www.peshertechnique.infinites...es/Ananus.html

add

Quote:

"Josephus wrote at that time:

'The younger Ananus, who had been appointed to the high priesthood ...was rash in his temper and unusually daring. He followed the school of the Sadducees, who are indeed more heartless than any of the other Jews...when they sit in judgement....King Agrippa (II) , because of Ananus' action, deposed him from the high priesthood which he had held for three months' (Antiquities 20; 199, 203).
He was subsequently called "high priest" only as an honorary title.

"The rash action for which he [Ananus the Younger] was deposed was the murder of James the brother of Jesus."

continued ...

Grog · 07-29-2013, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

Barbara Theiring gives an interesting account -

Quote:

"In 66 AD active war between the Jews and the Romans broke out, culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Between 66 and 68 the effective leaders in Jerusalem were the priests Ananus the Younger and his deputy Joshua (Jesus), both very much aware of the Roman strength and the hopelessness of resistance. Both made speeches to try to bring the people to reason."

continued ...

http://www.peshertechnique.infinites...es/Ananus.html

add

Quote:

"Josephus wrote at that time:

'The younger Ananus, who had been appointed to the high priesthood ...was rash in his temper and unusually daring. He followed the school of the Sadducees, who are indeed more heartless than any of the other Jews...when they sit in judgement....King Agrippa (II) , because of Ananus' action, deposed him from the high priesthood which he had held for three months' (Antiquities 20; 199, 203).
He was subsequently called "high priest" only as an honorary title.

"The rash action for which he [Ananus the Younger] was deposed was the murder of James the brother of Jesus."

continued ...

Yes, but to be clear, the passage that this references back to may refer to the brother of Jesus ben Damneus.

Toto · 07-29-2013, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

..

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

And obviously calling someone Ahijah was not deemed bizarre. We don't know what was bizarre at the time of Paul's writing, so your declaration is irrelevant to your attempt at understanding what Paul may have meant.

FWIW It is possible that Ahijah means little brother.

Andrew Criddle

I have tried to track this idea down. But I don't see how it applies to a Hebrew name. From here

Quote:

William Albright (Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, 1968, 63-64) has contested that the names Iaum-ilum and Ya(kh)wi-ilum mean "Mine is God" and "May (the) God," respectively. There is also the name Akhiyami from the late fifteenth century BC, which has been likened to the Hebrew Ahiyyah (My brother is Yah?). Albright contests this also, since the Akkadian "m" was not used to represent the Canaanite "w" until a later stage; however, he states that the meaning of the name Akhiyami "is still obscure." Several readings have been proposed for this name (Encyclopedia Britannica, ibid cit.) It is well known that the ending -ya was used in Akkadian and Amorite to form pet names; thus "Ahijah" can mean, and has been translated as "little brother" (Bermant and Weitzman; Ebla: A Revelation in Archaeology (or via: amazon.co.uk), Times Books, 1979, 181). However, the mention of one named Yo'ah in 2 Kings 18:18 does mean "Yahu is brother/kinsman" and thus Ahiyyah may mean the same. Other supposed occurrences of Ya in Eblaite texts and Yaw from Ugarit do not have widespread scholarly support as relating to YHWH; the Dictionary of Deities and Demons even states that there are no occurrences of the name YHWH before Moses. The Babylonian creator-god Ea, whose name sounds similar, is similar in appearance to the Canaanite high god El (both are depicted as aged figures and supreme deities), and may retain a long tradition of divine imagery probably since Creation.

MrMacSon · 07-29-2013, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Yes, but to be clear, the passage that this references back to may refer to the brother of Jesus ben Damneus.

That's partly the point - as a co-leader just before the fall of the Temple, it is more than possible stories of him, or elaborated stories started around him, have been incorporated in the later stories -

"Both made speeches to try to bring the people to reason"

MrMacSon · 07-29-2013, 04:57 PM

and it's interesting the account of Eusebius of Hegesippus's lost but alleged work about "The Martyrdom of James, who was called the Brother of the Lord"

.(i) contains references to Isaiah, and
(ii) seems to repeat a saying attributed to Jesus of Nazareth

Quote:

And they cried out, saying

Quote:

'Oh! oh! the just man is also in error.'

And they fulfilled the Scripture written in Isaiah

Quote:

'Let us take away the just man, because he is troublesome to us: therefore they shall eat the fruit of their doings [Isaiah 3:10].'

So they went up and threw down the just man, and said to each other 'Let us stone James the Just.'
And they began to stone him, for he was not killed by the fall; but he turned and knelt down and said

Quote:

'I entreat thee, Lord God our Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.'

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Chur...s_history.html - BOOK II, CHAPTER XXIII
.

spin · 07-29-2013, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Leaving aside the question of the literal or symbolic meaning of the phrase, I think brother of the Lord makes far more sense as brother of Christ than as brother of God.

Despite the possible parallels in the Hebrew scriptures, brother of God seems bizarre.

Of course, it does. You have been trained all your life to read "the brother of the lord" in a way not reflective of Paul's usage, so any suggestion to the contrary will be bizarre. But when one realizes Paul clearly and consistently uses "brother" in a non-familial way to represent a believer, you should think that re-inserting the notion of "physical brother" is contrary to Paul's usage, so we should not be dealing with any literal notion that you conjure up with "brother of god". As I point out in the discussion above, if Paul wanted to talk of a physical connection he usually added "in the flesh" to convey the notion, so clearly the literal understanding is questionable.

At this stage someone who wants to assert the significance that the text refers to James being the physical brother of Jesus needs to justify the assertion. They will find that it cannot be done. It appears to be eisegesis.

To clarify; my point was that even if the passage does not refer to physical brotherhood it is, in terms of Paul's usage and general probabilities, more likely to mean brother of Christ than brother of God.

I.E. the passage provides evidence that James (like Paul) believed that the Messiah had already come.

Is this another of your famously unsupported "more likely" assertions, Andrew?

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

And obviously calling someone Ahijah was not deemed bizarre. We don't know what was bizarre at the time of Paul's writing, so your declaration is irrelevant to your attempt at understanding what Paul may have meant.

FWIW It is possible that Ahijah means little brother.

FWIW, the name is clearly spelled אחיהו [ )xyhw ] in 1 Kgs 14:4, 5, 6, 18, & 2 Chr 10:15.

avi · 07-29-2013, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

And obviously calling someone Ahijah was not deemed bizarre. We don't know what was bizarre at the time of Paul's writing,....

And, not so obviously, :
1. How do you ascertain "the time of Paul's writing";
2. Who was the first patristic author to identify any Pauline epistle;
3. How do Paul's epistles get delivered to the various churches: roman, Galatian, etc...? Why would the roman soldiers, occupying the entire region, controlling the highways, permit a courier, sans authorization from the imperial government, to deliver a message, anywhere, to anyone?
4. Weren't the Christians of the late first/early second century (or whenever "Paul" wrote), being persecuted, fed to the lions and so on? One imagines:

Oh, excuse me, sorry folks. There is a small technical glitch, it shouldn't take long for this messenger to deliver a letter from Saint Paul to the Bishop of Galatia. Don't worry, folks, the lions haven't been fed since their meal last week on those two Jehovah's witnesses and the skinny Mormon. It won't take the Bishop long to read Paul's important message from God. Then we can go ahead, as planned, and reward the lions for their patience. Won't it be fun to watch the bishop being emasculated by the hungry lions, The hotdog stand is featuring a special during this unanticipated interruption, three for two drachmas, sorry, only pork today, Nathans cut back on deliveries.

5. Why would the galatians or corinthians, or other congregations, excoriated by Paul, want to reproduce these epistles and distribute them far and wide, instead of burning them? Why would anyone seek to broadcast their mistakes?

too much taken for granted. to much "obviously". Question everything.

Grog · 07-29-2013, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Yes, but to be clear, the passage that this references back to may refer to the brother of Jesus ben Damneus.

That's partly the point - as a co-leader just before the fall of the Temple, it is more than possible stories of him, or elaborated stories started around him, have been incorporated in the later stories -

"Both made speeches to try to bring the people to reason"

I do think this is a plausible explanation for the evolving stories around "James the Just." I think it is possible that these stories stem from a misreading of Josephus' related passage.

Tenorikuma · 07-29-2013, 06:01 PM

@Grog: This is my suspicion as well. The James (ben Damneus) we read of in Josephus was merged with Paul's acquaintance James and speculation by Hegesippus to create the fictive character James the Just. Others variously tried equating him with James the brother of Jesus, James son of Zebedee, etc.

Toto · 07-29-2013, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

...
3. How do Paul's epistles get delivered to the various churches: roman, Galatian, etc...? Why would the roman soldiers, occupying the entire region, controlling the highways, permit a courier, sans authorization from the imperial government, to deliver a message, anywhere, to anyone?

This is not a problem. The Roman road system enabled commerce and travel in general. With their first century technology, the Roman troops were in no position to snoop on all messages. See Richard Bauckham, ed. The Gospels for All Christians (or via: amazon.co.uk), in particular the chapter "Holy Internet" by Michael Thompson.

Quote:

4. Weren't the Christians of the late first/early second century (or whenever "Paul" wrote), being persecuted, fed to the lions and so on?

Persecution was sporadic and less than you might be led to believe.

.

Quote:

5. Why would the galatians or corinthians, or other congregations, excoriated by Paul, want to reproduce these epistles and distribute them far and wide, instead of burning them? Why would anyone seek to broadcast their mistakes?

too much taken for granted. to much "obviously". Question everything.

This is an interesting question. But presumably the people who preserved the letters were using them to bash their opponents in the church debates.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-29-2013, 06:01 PM	#59
Tenorikuma Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Japan Posts: 156	@Grog: This is my suspicion as well. The James (ben Damneus) we read of in Josephus was merged with Paul's acquaintance James and speculation by Hegesippus to create the fictive character James the Just. Others variously tried equating him with James the brother of Jesus, James son of Zebedee, etc.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.