Doubting again about the Baptist Passage in Josephus...

[Peter Kirby]

There is even more evidence that demonstrates that the current version of the JP (especially line 200) is fraudulent.

What was the earlier "evidence"?

[Peter Kirby]

There is even more evidence that demonstrates that the current version of the JP
(especially line 200) is fraudulent. If we consider the evolution of the tradition behind
the historical existence of James as “brother” of Jesus – often called the “Elder” or the
“Just,” many references are made to a disciple/apostle called James in the NT but it is
not always clear which James is being referred to. More importantly, nowhere in the NT
is any mention made of an individual called James being martyred or killed, let alone
of the specifics of a most elaborate death: first by stoning, then by being thrown off the
top of the Temple, then having his legs broken and finally being hit over the head with
a club!
What can be gleaned is the following: In the NT, Jesus (of Nazareth) is recorded
as having had a number of siblings, one of whom is named “James.” Specifically, the
four brothers of Jesus as named in the gospels (Matt. 13:55 and Matt. 6:3), were James,
Joses, Simon and Judas. It is often assumed (in Christian tradition), that James was the
eldest and that Joses was the second eldest.
Here it is important not to confuse this James with John’s brother who is mentioned
in Acts 12:1–3, and who is assumed to have died c. 44 CE. This latter James is also
known as James the greater, son of Zebedee, and must also be distinguished from James
the lesser, son of Alpheus. Incidentally, he is recorded (Acts 12:2), as having been killed
by the sword.
The hotly disputed Epistle to the Galatians (Gal. 1:18) informs the reader that some
three years after Paul started his ministry he visited Jerusalem, where he stayed with
Cephas for 15 days. Subsequently, he met with “the Lord’s brother” (Gal. 1:19) who
we can determine by ratiocination was considered to be one of the “apostles.” Later
in the text (Gal. 2: 1), the reader is informed that, after fourteen years, Paul revisits
Jerusalem where he again (Gal. 2: 9) meets with James, Cephas and John. Here, this
James (who together with Cephas and John) is “esteemed” as a “pillar” (of the church)
gives rise to the obvious assumption that this is the self-same James previously alluded
19
Allen Josephus on James the Just?
to in Gal. 1:19. In the context of what is written it would seem that this James favoured
circumcision and was either still a practicing Jew or had strong Jewish roots. It is also
implied that he held some high position or other within the Jerusalem Church leadership.
As an aside, it is informative that this assertion agrees with Gos. Thom. 12 where
there is a reference to James the Just as “leader,” viz.:
The disciples said to Jesus, “We know that you are going to leave us. Who will be our leader?”
Jesus said to them, “No matter where you are you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake
heaven and earth came into being.”
Again, in 1 Corinthians there is a reference to “the Lord’s brothers and Cephas” (1 Cor.
9:5), so once again an assumption may be made that this most likely refers indirectly
to James (the Just) as well. Also, a “James,” who is normally assumed to be identical
to the one in gospel accounts, and who is very likely the same individual mentioned
in the Pauline epistles, is mentioned in Acts 15:13: “When they finished, James spoke
up. ‘Brothers,’ he said, ‘listen to me.’” Supposedly, this same person is also mentioned
in Acts 21:17–18, in an account that tallies closely with Paul’s Galatians: “
When we
arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers and sisters received us warmly. The next day Paul and
the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present.”
Thus, apart from the JP, the often ambiguous references found in the gospels, as
well as the clearly apocryphal Letter of James,46 there is in fact no independent account
of a brother of Jesus called James. The previously mentioned James merely confirms
a Christian tradition that Jesus had a brother called James. Assuming that this James is
really either the half-brother or full brother of a historical Jesus of Nazareth, and based
solely on the contents of Acts and the Letter to the Galatians, one may make the deduction
that the apostle Paul’s conversion took place sometime between 33 and 34 CE. This
means that he met with someone named James in c. 36/37 CE and possibly again in c.
50/51 CE. This is the latest date that can be established for a possible brother or cousin
of Jesus called James being mentioned. And even here we have no way of knowing
whether this is a fictitious James or an actual reference to a historical personage. If we
assume the latter, then the latest date that we can adopt for this individual still being
alive is c. 51 CE.

Does anyone have to say anything here?

This is not "more evidence" "that demonstrates" the passage "is fraudulent."

It's a good thing for its defenders that this is not the only essay arguing for this conclusion.

[Peter Kirby]

The only other early author (apart from the disputed Josephus) to mention James before the close of the second century CE is Hegesippus

Throwing Clement of Alexandria under the bus, among other problems with this false statement.

Does this "blatant falsehood" make NPL Allen guilty of the same ""academic dishonesty"" as Origen?

Not my opinion. Just highlighting an absurdity of the essay.

[Peter Kirby]

The issue is further compounded by the fact that, by the fourth and fifth centuries, it
was more normal for the mainstream church to refrain from referring to Jesus as having
flesh and blood brothers.

You also don't have to wait for the fourth and fifth centuries.

There's an allusion to this in one of the passages of Origen that is a focus of this essay.

Origen, Contra Celsum 1.47

Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine.

[Peter Kirby]

One last possible place from which one might be tempted to try to extract something
historically reliable concerning the enigmatic James the Just is the much-maligned
Dead Sea Scroll literature.

Seems like a bizarre turn, if one had already been tempted to try to expunge everything from Paul, Josephus, Mark, etc.

[Peter Kirby]

However, in
point of fact, much uncertainty exists about the accuracy of the western dating system,
especially in the context of the Julian-Claudian period. By way of example, Jewish
authorities have always favoured a date of c. 68 CE for the destruction of the Temple,
which is nearly two years earlier than the western date of 70 CE. In addition, the periods
of reigns for many of the Julio-Claudian emperors differ quite considerably depending
on whether the source is, say, Josephus, Dio or Epiphanius.

Separate to this discussion, this appears to support SG's comments that dating was a confusing affair in antiquity, and transposing our understanding of correct dates into the minds of the people of the past is liable to misrepresent.

[MrMacSon]

I've seen an argument somewhere that the relevant passage - τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ - is simply a combination of Gal 1:19 and 2-3 passages in G.John and G.Matthew

τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ in Ant 20.200/9.1 cf. τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ Κυρίου in Gal 1:19

τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ in Ant 20.200/9.1 and in G.John 4:25 and G.Matthew 27 twice: Matt. 27:17 and v.22

[Peter Kirby]

This evidence of an earlier date for Ananus which is surely convincing means that
Josephus’s account of Ananus’s actions in the JP occurred anywhere between three
and thirteen years earlier than previously believed, making it even more unlikely that
the individual supposedly identified as James the brother of Jesus was the victim of the
stoning originally described.

A forger, living between the second and fourth century
of the Common Era, would not have been aware of how inaccurate their dates were
and so happily placed the interpolation in what they thought was the ideal place in
the A.J.’s Ananus narrative but unwittingly in the wrong period.

I'm aware of two and a half chronological markers (as we perceive them) for the death of James:

association with Ananus (e.g., mentioned in Origen and, it is under debate, Antiquities)

Vespasian immediately sieged them (e.g., stated by Eusebius and sometimes attributed to Hegesippus)

association of the death of James with the reason for the destruction of Jerusalem (e.g., mentioned in Origen)

The last one isn't a chronological marker, IMO, because Origen is just as happy arguing it was because of the death of Jesus, which happened much earlier. Clearly this does not require Origen to find a super-close proximity in time. Nor indeed does Origen relate this assumption to a proximity in time. He relates it to a misreading of Josephus.

IMO, the statement in Eusebius above was not in Hegesippus, occurs after the quotation of Hegesippus, and is motivated by his reading of Origen. I have been meaning to write a post about this, which I noticed as being most likely recently after seeing a couple relevant pieces of evidence here.

In any case, the argument here by NPL Allen doesn't carry its freight. The argument of a date of 59 CE terminus may carry the day, but a difference of three years isn't large enough to give such an argument heft, even if we granted the tenuous assumption that an interpolation would have to have been inserted from the perspective of a close proximity in time between the death of James and the siege of Jerusalem.

The first clear evidence for such a perspective is Eusebius, but NPL Allen already sought to clear Eusebius from potential blame here (possibly in a faulty way but, in any case, this is another weakness of the essay).

Last but not least... why am I even going along with the idea that this could be an argument for interpolation?

If the JP is authentic, then the Christian tradition is inaccurate

Why wouldn't discordance with Christian assumptions of chronology be an argument for authenticity (if anything)?

Not that I think it is. IMO, it's not a good argument either way.

[Peter Kirby]

This compound collection of evidence should be viewed as insurmountable for any
scholar who continues to insist that the JP is in any way authentic and, by extension, it
places even more doubt on the TF.

The conclusion quoted places extreme doubt on the ability of NPL Allen to process evidence in a reliable way here.

[Peter Kirby]

Allen, Nicholas Peter Legh. “Josephus, Origen, and John the Baptist: Exposing a Christian Apologist’s Deceit.”

Origen must now be considered the primary suspect for what is possibly a third century CE Christian forgery.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10. ... 17.1317008

IMO, hold fast, good sir!

One of your most well-respected credentials now is your tendered opinion that the Baptist passage is probably authentic.

It gives everything else you say an air of plausible fair-mindedness, willingness to follow evidence.

Why give up a good thing?