John the Baptist, redivivus of a 2015 article

[gdoudna]

Peter Kirby—I have not followed all the discussions on the Ant 20 James passage but I wonder if the following explanation could be a possibility on the table.

Assume Hegesippus draws from Papias on the real tradition of James the Just’s death actually occurring during the Revolt. (Side comment one: I really liked your old argument that Hegesippus was Papias, thought it was very intriguing, not sure why you seem to have dropped it; despite a couple of problems it seemed promising and possibly in some form correct to me. Side comment two: possible identification of Hegesippus’s James the Just, Josephus’s James b. Sosa.)

Assume the original Josephus at Ant 20 read not James, brother of Jesus called Christ, but “Jesus, called Christ” who was sentenced to be stoned (no James).

Assume “Jesus called Christ” of the original Ant 20 is the same Jesus as Josephus’s Jesus b. Ananias in War, the prophet, who had a trial before Albinus in 62 CE at the very time of this “Jesus called Christ” of Ant 20 according to proposed original reading for Ant 20 as having “Jesus called Christ” as the referent. The year date of the respective judicial proceedings match. The proper name “Jesus” matches. And Weeden’s monograph has shown the direct similarities going to sourcing between the trial story of Jesus b Ananias of 62 CE, and the trial of “Jesus called Christ” of the Passion Story of the Gospels.

Assume either a reading or an historical interpretation of this original Ant 20 to refer to a judicial sentence for Jesus to be executed, but the sentence was not, in fact, carried out. Just as with War’s Jesus b Ananias and the Christian Passion Story’s Jesus, assume the judicial death sentence by a Jewish legal proceeding or Sanhedrin happened but was not carried out, instead overturned by the Roman governor [because the governor thought Jesus was insane, in War; because the governor thought Jesus was innocent, in the Passion Story; due to a bribe, probably in reality]).

Assume a later, secondary, presumably Christian motivated edit in copying of the original Josephus Ant text which told of a judicial capital sentence upon “Jesus called Christ”. The Christian copyist could not have that stand because it had Jesus Christ in the wrong time and therefore cannot have been the Jesus of the Gospel story (the Christian copyist reasoned). Therefore, add “brother of” and James”, under influence of Papias’s or Hegesippus’s James story, in order to remove Jesus from being that 62 CE reference, and correct what the copyist might actually have believed was a mistake in the then-existing (original) Josephus Ant text.

Not essential to the proposal, but Jesus “Damnaeus” could be a doublet or variant tradition of the same 62 CE Jesus, though that identity not recognized by Josephus or his writing staff composing Antiquities, where doublets abound of actually identical referents. That is, the text of Ant in its composition reads with Jesus Damnaeus as a distinct figure from Jesus called Christ, whereas actually that was a variant tradition of Jesus called Christ, analogous to Jesus Christ and Barabbas of the Gospels’ Passion Story, variant traditions which are written in the Gospels as if distinct figures.

Read “Jesus called Christ” not as Josephus being a Christian, neither positive nor negative toward that Jesus, but simply neutral objective description: the original reference was to a judicial condemnation of a Jesus who was called “Christ”. (It seems the sense there is that “called Christ” is as a surname or nickname that that Jesus was known by.)

In this scenario the reconstruction is there was indeed an edit of the original text of Ant 20, but so far as I am aware this is a different proposal for the nature of the original and the proposed edit than has previously been considered.

What do you think? Could this work?

Greg Doudna

[StephenGoranson]

That's a lot of unsupported "assume"s.

[Giuseppe]

Not essential to the proposal, but Jesus “Damnaeus” could be a doublet or variant tradition of the same 62 CE Jesus, though that identity not recognized by Josephus or his writing staff composing Antiquities, where doublets abound of actually identical referents. That is, the text of Ant in its composition reads with Jesus Damnaeus as a distinct figure from Jesus called Christ, whereas actually that was a variant tradition of Jesus called Christ, analogous to Jesus Christ and Barabbas of the Gospels’ Passion Story, variant traditions which are written in the Gospels as if distinct figures.

In that case (Jesus ben Damneus == Jesus ben Ananias) there would be a tiny parallelism with Barabbas. Barabbas is execrated, based only on the Gospel account, for the only wrong of being 'Son of the Father': i.e. he is portrayed as a robber and a criminal in virtue of the his being the Son of the wrong Father (or: of the wrong Rabbi, if one accepts the less probable reading 'bar rabbas'), not in virtue of the his actions (beyond if in the real History he did actions of robbery and revolt).

In this case, just as in the case of Barabbas the focus of the execration is not on the Son but on the Father of Barabbas, so in the case of Jesus ben Damneus the figure who is going to be execrated is Damneus, i.e. a pun on the Latin Damnatus, 'condemned', and by logical extension the son.

I am partially inspired by this post:

But the name "Damneus" or "Damneion" never shows up anywhere as a person's name except in the case of this person in Josephus' Antiquities. My theory is that the person's name was not really Damneion, but that Josephus, who was writing for the Roman nobility, was using the name as part of his artistic license. In ancient Rome, there was a practice of erasing disgraced or condemned (in Latin, I think that this is "Damnatio") political figures' names called abolitio nominis (abolition of the name). In modern times, this is called "Damnatio memoriae". My theory is that Josephus was calling the person "Damneion" as a kind of "abolitio nominis" out of disrespect. Maybe "Damneion" was really a disgraced figure

(my bold)

[gdoudna]

Giuseppe, I think your ben Damnaeus quote explanation is probably correct on the name. I wonder if it is related to the allegations in the Jesus traditions of scandal in Jesus’s birth or paternity.

[Peter Kirby]

Peter Kirby—I have not followed all the discussions on the Ant 20 James passage but I wonder if the following explanation could be a possibility on the table.

Assume Hegesippus draws from Papias on the real tradition of James the Just’s death actually occurring during the Revolt. (Side comment one: I really liked your old argument that Hegesippus was Papias, thought it was very intriguing, not sure why you seem to have dropped it; despite a couple of problems it seemed promising and possibly in some form correct to me. Side comment two: possible identification of Hegesippus’s James the Just, Josephus’s James b. Sosa.)

Assume the original Josephus at Ant 20 read not James, brother of Jesus called Christ, but “Jesus, called Christ” who was sentenced to be stoned (no James).

Assume “Jesus called Christ” of the original Ant 20 is the same Jesus as Josephus’s Jesus b. Ananias in War, the prophet, who had a trial before Albinus in 62 CE at the very time of this “Jesus called Christ” of Ant 20 according to proposed original reading for Ant 20 as having “Jesus called Christ” as the referent. The year date of the respective judicial proceedings match. The proper name “Jesus” matches. And Weeden’s monograph has shown the direct similarities going to sourcing between the trial story of Jesus b Ananias of 62 CE, and the trial of “Jesus called Christ” of the Passion Story of the Gospels.

Assume either a reading or an historical interpretation of this original Ant 20 to refer to a judicial sentence for Jesus to be executed, but the sentence was not, in fact, carried out. Just as with War’s Jesus b Ananias and the Christian Passion Story’s Jesus, assume the judicial death sentence by a Jewish legal proceeding or Sanhedrin happened but was not carried out, instead overturned by the Roman governor [because the governor thought Jesus was insane, in War; because the governor thought Jesus was innocent, in the Passion Story; due to a bribe, probably in reality]).

Assume a later, secondary, presumably Christian motivated edit in copying of the original Josephus Ant text which told of a judicial capital sentence upon “Jesus called Christ”. The Christian copyist could not have that stand because it had Jesus Christ in the wrong time and therefore cannot have been the Jesus of the Gospel story (the Christian copyist reasoned). Therefore, add “brother of” and James”, under influence of Papias’s or Hegesippus’s James story, in order to remove Jesus from being that 62 CE reference, and correct what the copyist might actually have believed was a mistake in the then-existing (original) Josephus Ant text.

Not essential to the proposal, but Jesus “Damnaeus” could be a doublet or variant tradition of the same 62 CE Jesus, though that identity not recognized by Josephus or his writing staff composing Antiquities, where doublets abound of actually identical referents. That is, the text of Ant in its composition reads with Jesus Damnaeus as a distinct figure from Jesus called Christ, whereas actually that was a variant tradition of Jesus called Christ, analogous to Jesus Christ and Barabbas of the Gospels’ Passion Story, variant traditions which are written in the Gospels as if distinct figures.

Read “Jesus called Christ” not as Josephus being a Christian, neither positive nor negative toward that Jesus, but simply neutral objective description: the original reference was to a judicial condemnation of a Jesus who was called “Christ”. (It seems the sense there is that “called Christ” is as a surname or nickname that that Jesus was known by.)

In this scenario the reconstruction is there was indeed an edit of the original text of Ant 20, but so far as I am aware this is a different proposal for the nature of the original and the proposed edit than has previously been considered.

What do you think? Could this work?

Greg Doudna

Hi Greg,

It's nice to hear from you. Sure, that could work.

I grew less certain regarding Hegesippus and Papias when considering some of the differences that were not completely resolved to my satisfaction, e.g. title of the work and date of composition.

[Giuseppe]

Given this original account in Josephus (following the Greg's hypothesis), not only the victim of Ananus survives, but he was made high priest in the place of Ananus :

And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, (23) who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them Jesus the son of Damneus, 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: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. (24) Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

This makes me remember the Gospel episode in *Ev/Luke about "Herod" putting a robe on Jesus and sending him again to Pilate. Was the historical kernel the idea that an Herod had just made a Jesus a important figure from a religious POV (just as the crown of thorns made the Gospel Jesus an important figure from a political POV)? In this sense also the midrash from the Joshua of Zechariah (another Jesus who was made high priest) may work.

ADDENDA:
Note also the curious "coincidence" of yet another case where Pilate works as the "releaser": he releases Jesus to Herod. This item has to be added to the following list:

The rest has been added, included the name of Pilate, since the irony of

• Pilate who wants to release Jesus

• Pilate who releases Barabbas

• Pilate who releases the corpse of Jesus to Joseph of Arimathea

...is all abundantly explained by PLT (Semitic root for all the verbs as 'release'/'released').

[DCHindley]

Peter Kirby—I have not followed all the discussions on the Ant 20 James passage but I wonder if the following explanation could be a possibility on the table.

Assume Hegesippus draws from Papias on the real tradition of James the Just’s death actually occurring during the Revolt.
...
Side comment two: possible identification of Hegesippus’s James the Just, Josephus’s James b. Sosa.)

Hi Greg,

Long time, eh? As far as I know, I think I am the only person to suggest that James son of Sosa, an Idumean commander of a troop of Idumean volunteers, was the source of some of the details Hegesippus attributed to "James the Just." Everyone here, and in academia in general, seems to think that the James "brother of Jesus called christ" just *has* to be James the brother of Jesus of the NT.

While I think that may well be the case, I am not at all convinced that "called christ" is not a technical term for a member of one of the priestly families from which High Priests were drawn, and Jame's brother was someone like Jesus son of Damnaeus, who was in fact the next in line. IIRC, and I'll look this up, there actually are one or two cases where Josephus, apparently accidentally, makes a secondary mention of a character without introducing him/her previously in the narrative, although those occasions may not "count" per Chrissy's definition ("brother-of" type phrases only).

But I'll certainly entertain the idea that the description Hegesippus applies to his "James the Just" character was likely embellished by the deeds, and judgement, of Idumean commander James son of Sosa, mentioned by Josephus in War 4 & 6.

DCH

[gdoudna]

Peter Kirby -- thanks. If Hegesippus was distinct from Papias I wonder if he has more Papias in his material than has been commonly recognized. It was due to your earlier on Hegesippus that caused me to revisit the issue of Papias's dating, and I ended up concluding the more common "early" dating of Papias was wrong, and the "later" (ca. 130-150 CE) was right. Factors I see that could support that are:

(a) the Luke Stevens JTS 2019 study, "Did Eusebius Read Papias?", showing Eusebius did not have Papias directly but only excerpts of Papias from a source used by Eusebius. That removes argument that Eusebius reflects what Papias did not know or did not have.

(b) Arnold Ehrhardt's old argument which still seems convincing, that the Muratori Fragment draws from Papias for its accounts of formation of the Gospels, including an apostle Andrew origin story for the Gospel of John. The conventional view has Papias already knowing of the Gospel of Mark, and something with the name Matthew, but because that is all Eusebius says, people have assumed that is all that Papias had on that. Per the Ehrhardt argument, Papias wrote of the production of the Gospel of John too, maybe all four Gospels. A later dating of Papias's activity would allow for other arguments that favor production of the Gospels early or mid-2nd CE, somewhat later than the common notion of 70s-90s CE.

(c) It seems an influential, not sole but influential, reason for the perceived "early" dating of Papias in the end goes back to the prior chronological issue, the dating of Jesus. The bedrock premise has always been that Jesus and the disciples of Jesus were 30s CE, believed bedrock true even though as everyone realizes, historical sources are either weak or non-existent (those are the only two choices there) in external history for that. I am convinced Lena Einhorn's work on the time-shift, and the late Franz Vermeiren's work on the Gospels' Jesus in Galilee stories coming from Jesus ben Sapphat active in Galilee during the Revolt, are correct insights, i.e. a Jesus in history underlying the Gospels' traditions emerges who has not been recognized due to being in an unfamiliar but correct dating. I have already published my own study which I think removes Josephus's John the Baptist not from historical existence, but from historical existence in the 30s CE, arguing that that is a chronologically dislocated (by ancient original error of Josephus or his staff in composition of Antiquities) story of the execution of Hyrcanus II by Herod the Great (https://www.academia.edu/43060817/_Is_J ... s_II_2020_).

Then, with Jesus moved to the 60s CE, the key apostle Christian story figures similarly emerge to life as derivative from figures active in the time of the Revolt--such that it can be said: to the extent the major Gospels'/Acts story figures go back to legendary origins they're all there in the First Revolt. And there is nothing left in the 30s CE at all (apart from, as Giuseppe notes, the unidentified Samaritan false prophet). On the dating of Paul's letters, I believe the authentic Paul material may be from a Paul who lived on both sides of the Revolt with the genuine Paul letter material post-70, e.g. Galatians maybe ca. 80 CE--though the full redating argument on Paul still awaits to be made in print. To return to the point, if the figures underlying the Christian origin-tradition stories--Jesus et al--were really active in the era of the First Revolt--where everyone already knows the Olivet prophecy, the tax-tribute issue, the Transjordan Gerasene massacre context, and on and on, are First Revolt-- not the 30s--that sea-change in the chronological picture resolves so much as a different picture of things, now allowing for, e.g. Papias's persons alive in the time of Trajan who claimed Jesus had raised them from the dead to go back to contemporaneity with Jesus chronologically, Papias's claims to have interviewed persons who knew the apostles, and so on.

[gdoudna]

Giuseppe -- and maybe consider reading the NT letter of Hebrews as an apologia of Jesus supporters to having an Aaronic-ancestry claim discredited and gone?

[Giuseppe]

Giuseppe -- and maybe consider reading the NT letter of Hebrews as an apologia of Jesus supporters to having an Aaronic-ancestry claim discredited and gone?

indeed Hebrews talks about Jesus entering in the heaven as a celestial high priest. And in Hegesippus's legend, James the Just seems to be invited to show the "gate of Jesus": a sarcastic way to prove the same apology advanced by Hebrews? Something as: "if you can, show us the celestial gate through which the your so-called high priest Jesus gave his sacrifice in heaven".

In that case, Hegesippus would be evidence of an early Jewish polemic against Jesus (ben Sapphat) being a legitimate high priest, not only on the earth (a point conceded by Hebrews's apologia) but also in heaven.

Side note: Greg, you may find interesting this point about Capernaum in Josephus.