John the Baptist, redivivus of a 2015 article

[Giuseppe]

Continuing on my previous post:
It seems to me that the right sequence would be:

• 1) Jesus ben Sapphat ("Damneus") is made temporarily high priest by Herod Agrippas II.

• 2) Hearsay about Jesus being accused of being not a legitimate high priest.

• 3) 1 Clement and Hebrews arguing for Jesus celestial high priest and conceding that he was not a high priest on the earth.

• 4) some Jews deny that Jesus was a high priest also in heaven.

• 5) Hegesippus replies, by claiming that James the Just was the real high priest in Jerusalem and that this same James showed, by preaching about "the gate of Jesus", that Jesus was the celestial high priest.

• 6) inspired by Hegesippus, an interpolator added "James brother of" before "Jesus" and "called Christ" in the place of "son of Damneus".

[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 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

Hi David! Good to hear from you. Interesting that you have suggested James b. Sosa is in the picture in the Hegesippus James the Just story. If you have an article or publication or even a good citeable online discussion on that I would be interested in knowing.

What I also notice is that James b. Sosa had a brother, John b. Sosa, who with James were leaders of an Idumean army which joined forces with Simon bar Giora under Simon's command in Simon's government of Jerusalem at the time of the Revolt. Of course up to the start of the siege Simon was fighting against the John of Gischala and Eleazar factions inside the city, but after the start of the siege Simon and John ended their hostilities and allied, with Eleazar's fate unclear but apparently becoming a cooperating subcommander in the John faction.

John b. Sosa was killed by a stray Roman arrow at the start of the siege according to Josephus so he is out of the picture leaving James b. Sosa. But before that happened one can see this trio for the government of Jerusalem under Simon: Simon, James, and John (with James and John brothers). Compare for the names the identically named leadership trio in the synoptic Gospels: Simon Peter, James, and John (with James and John brothers). And there is independent argument for identification of Simon bar Giora as the figure underlying the Christian figure Simon Peter, as well as the legendary founder-figure of what the orthodox church of the late 2nd century CE called the heretical "Simonians". All of these figures I believe come out of the ca. 60s or First Revolt era, the time in which Josephus was a participant and actively wrote, and Josephus himself shows up in the Gospels' stories in several ways.

So, rather than see a confusion between distinct figures James the Just (the Christian, the brother of Jesus) and a different James b. Sosa, I say collapse the doppelgangers and identify the one of legend as derivative from the one of history, the ones of history meaning the non-fictional figures in Josephus written from contemporary witness sources.

On Jesus "called Christ", Peter Kirby has discussed this in the past I believe in support of this, but it just seems to me there is nothing at Ant 20.10 going on with Jesus "called Christ" other than that particular Jesus had that particular surname like any other person had any other surname, without expectation that the author should be expected to have explained the etymology or meaning of the surname--with that surname not applied or added editorially by Josephus (in which case Josephus would need to explain) but simply reported as part of a surname just as Josephus reports hundreds of other proper names. And the "called Christ" not interpolated at Ant 20.10 (per the reconstruction in which it is not), but a surname that simply existed for that figure among that figure's contemporaries like any other surname or nickname attached to anyone else. It would not be necessary for Josephus to even know let alone tell the meaning or etymology of that surname any more than any other surname or proper name.

"Simon called Peter" (Mt 10:2). "the man called Jesus" (Jn 9:11). "Jesus called Justus" (Col 4:11).

"legomenus", "X who called Y", like "X the son of Y", "X of <location>", "X the <trade or occupation>", "X the <gentilic or ethnic identifier>" , etc. routine way of reporting proper namings.

As I read it, "Jesus called Christ" of Ant 20.10 is the same figure who shows up in variant form as the prophet Jesus b. Ananias of War who had his capital offense trial at that same time, ca. 62 CE, according to War, 7 years and 5 months before the War story of that figure's death from a Roman catapult stone in the siege of Jerusalem of 70 (as the false report of Josephus's death from a stone in the head told by Josephus illustrates, such reports anciently may or may not have been actually true). Ant 20.10 becomes an allusion that that Jesus b. Ananias of War was surnamed--called such popularly or by some in that figure's circles--"christ". It requires no authorial explanation to the reader of the meaning of the surname, no prior introduction, simply is a reporting of a surname in use applied to that figure by contemporaries like any other figure's proper name. The figure in this particular case just happens to be named Jesus and his trial of ca. 62 CE identified by Weeden with the story of the trial of Jesus of the Christian Gospels.

[gdoudna]

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

Very interesting Giuseppe! I think you are right! It is a story version of Jesus being credited with healing the injured Josephus in Capernaum.

This is when Josephus is still fighting the Romans, like Jesus ben Sapphat. Josephus is injured and carried to Capernaum, perhaps because it was away from the scene of conflict, a "safe house" so to speak. There Josephus says "I therefore sent for the physicians: and while I was under their hand..." As you note, in time of war Jesus may not have gone there personally. Some messengers from Josephus arrive and tell Jesus. Josephus recovers. Jesus is subsequently credited with having said something that healed Josephus from a distance. Josephus later does turn over to the side of the Romans, which could account for the story having Josephus (anachronistically at this point) a "centurion"'s "servant".

Josephus does not make explicit in this anecdote any contact with fellow revolutionary Jesus b. Sapphat active in the same region and for the same cause, but that falls into a larger pattern of Josephus minimizing or spinning his relationship with Jesus. Some echo of that may be alluded to in the Jn 19:18 allusion to Joseph of Arimethea (Joseph bar Matthias) as a "secret" disciple of Jesus, not public or overt.

It is a classic example, with thousands of examples in history, of governing public figures in secret working relationships with extrajudicial or illegal militias for common purposes. I think a reading of Josephus is defensible in which Josephus was actively working closely and covertly with Jesus b. Sapphat and his men in Galilee, and what happened Josephus either later claims credit for if it makes him look good (even if actually done by Jesus b. Sapphat), or Josephus denies and blames on Jesus b. Sapphat (if objectionable).

For example the destruction and looting of Agrippa II's palace in Tiberias, at a time when Josephus was in command and present in Tiberias. That did not look the best from the standpoint of Josephus's postwar Rome vantage point. Josephus explains that Jesus b. Sapphat was to blame for that. Josephus's defense for his culpability in that is he was only giving orders.

The Nuremburg defense was when persons charged for something argued they were not culpable because they were only following orders. In that case, Josephus argued he was not culpable because he was only giving the orders (permission).

But back to your relating of the story of Jesus's distance healing of the centurion's servant in Capernaum, with Josephus's recovery from injury with the assistance of (Jewish) physicians at Capernaum: yes!