Josephus on James the Just?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Ulan
Posts: 1326
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Josephus on James the Just?

Post by Ulan » Wed May 16, 2018 12:46 am

Trees of Life may as well be a KJV Onlyist. Nobody else would get the idiotic idea that an English translation matters in any way when it comes to finding the true meaning of a Greek text.

As such, this isn't exactly a "new" low here at the forum.

Trees of Life
Posts: 27
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2018 8:56 am

Re: Josephus on James the Just?

Post by Trees of Life » Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:47 am

Trees of Life wrote:
Tue May 15, 2018 10:56 am
Ken Olson wrote:
Tue May 08, 2018 9:21 am
Tree of Life wrote:
The so called/called text applies to brother and when correctly rendered Ant. Bk 20 Ch 9:1 is read: 'James, the so called brother of Jesus Christ/Messiah.'
Let’s look at the Greek of Ant. 20.200:

τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ, Ἰάκωβος ὄνομα αὐτῷ

the brother (of) Jesus the (one) called (the?) Christ, James (the) name (of) him

Can you give valid linguistic (as opposed to ideological or dogmatic) reasons for taking τοῦ λεγομένου as modifying τὸν ἀδελφὸν as opposed to Χριστοῦ in this text? Why would the author place τοῦ λεγομένου between «Jesus» and «Christ» if he intended it to modify «brother»?
As to your last sentence one element to consider is instead of having author (Josephus), is to insert translator, e.g. Origen.

If it were possible to pervert the text without rebuttal from the community, then Origen would be intentionally doing so in order to ingratiate himself to Jewish associates, those of whom viewed Jesus to be the 'so called' Christ/Messiah.
More Apt Is:

Prescribed Banalism.

Transcribers in vogue with contemporaries, indulge in meddling. And when transcribers meddle with the original text by making errant 'corrections', continuity is abandoned.

According to their banal understanding that the descriptor 'so called' doesn't apply to brother, transcribers have aligned with the community at large and with immunity have prescribed the exoteric view.

James the Just son of Zebedee was the so called brother of Jesus. James the Less son of Alphaeus was the brother of Jesus.

With Josephus being a native of the clime, he was surely aware of the esoteric nature of James not being identified ecumenically, for he along with the initiates of early Christianity had as an objective the systematized ratification of Christianity in its development.

That can be detected in the esoteric knowledge of the disciples of Jesus Christ who use the descriptors called, so called, surnamed, etc when James the Just is named in their memoirs and teachings.

To begin with, this can be seen in the Apocalypse of Peter: 'James whom our Lord called his brother' and Acts of Philip: ' James who bore the name of brother of the Lord.'

The James that was director of the Christian doctrine in Jerusalem held as a symbol of office his staff, and that element seen in icons resides with James son of Zebedee.

Josephus describing Jesus as the 'so called' Christ is inchoate in the text of Antiquities 20.200.

Whereas the text has been meddled with, it is not so, the text is as the original.
Last edited by Trees of Life on Sun Aug 05, 2018 10:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
Truth perdures.

Trees of Life
Posts: 27
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2018 8:56 am

Re: Josephus on James the Just?

Post by Trees of Life » Sun Aug 05, 2018 10:32 am

Trees of Life wrote:
Sun May 06, 2018 10:25 am
Giuseppe wrote:
Tue Jan 16, 2018 3:28 am
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... aicae_2091

Origen as the interpolator?
There is no interpolator to report due to there being no interpolation.

Josephus has earlier in Antiquities Book 18 Chapter 3:3 stated as fact that Jesus was the Messiah/Christ.

It then follows that in Antiquities Book 20 Chap. 9:1 the application of 'so called', or 'called' is not in reference to the established identity of Jesus who was well known as the Christ/Messiah, nor for the established identity of James who was well known as the administrator for the Christian sect in Jerusalem.

The so called/called text applies to brother and when correctly rendered Ant. Bk 20 Ch 9:1 is read: 'James, the so called brother of Jesus Christ/Messiah.'


Enhanced Billings:

Josephus has billed Jesus as the Messiah in Antiquities 18:3.3 and has billed James as the brother of the Lord in Antiquities Book 20 Chapter 9:1. Hebrew has primacy as Josephus composed in the 'language of our country' before it was translated into the Greek,[Preface, Jewish War].

Antiquities Book 18 Chapter 3:3
The passage is expressed definitively.
Josephus has billed Jesus as the Messiah. The meaning is blatant. 'He was the Christ'. In Hebrew — 'He was the Messiah'. Messiah has two meanings both "the Christ" and "the measured" and so Josephus has billed Jesus ["Redeemer"]as the anointed king, true ["Nazarene"] and just. [Gospel of Philip]

Josephus being trained in the priesthood and well versed in the Torah and the Nevi'im has stated that Jesus is the Messiah — as foretold by Moses and the divine prophets, of whom the Samaritan woman quotes in John 4.25: "the Messiah comes, called Christ, who tells us all things"; 'just and right is he, the rock of salvation', [Deuteronomy 32.]
The Messiah meaning is employed to render Lord Messiah, Lord Christ'. Exactly as meant of the Messiah to come, quoted by the prophet Isaiah: 'The Holy One of Israel', 'Your King'; 'Savior'; 'Immanuel' (God with us), 'conceived and born of a virgin'.
So named after their Messiah/Christ, were the Christians... 'to this day' — Josephus' expression 'to this day' is conveyed to the attentive scholar examining the Messianic texts: Deuteronomy 4:4, 4:20, 4:38 — inheritance; 8:18 — covenant; 10:15 — chosen; 18:15, 18:18 — Messiah.
Josephus conveys continuity to the reviewer with Ant. Book 18.3.4 — 'Also at that time', so to recognize that the previous 18.3.3 Messiah passage wasn't an interpolation. Continuity from Ant. Book 18.109 ff, where the reader is apprised by Josephus of John the Baptist, the harbinger of Jesus Christ who was the Messiah, stated so of Jesus again in Book 20, Chapter 9.1.

Antiquities Book 20 Chapter 9.1.
The passage is expressed denominatively and belongs to James. It is rendered to the reader: James, the brother of the Lord, "brother" being an honorific. The word 'called' is designated to Jesus "the Christ/Messiah/Lord". When contextualized 'called' belongs to James, so-called or named was James — James 'the brother of the Lord' or 'the Lord's brother' in prosoprographical terms. The word "brother", is an honorific.

Commentaries rendering the Antiquities Book 20.9.1 'called' text as questionable in relation to Jesus being the designated Christ/Messiah, are counterfactual in relation to Josephus' assigning the Messiah/Lord descriptor to Jesus in Antiquities Book 18.3.3: 'He was the Messiah.' Those of whom represent their disapproval by modifying 'was' and 'called' , expressing them as questionable with, 'perhaps the Christ/Messiah' and with 'so-called Christ/Messiah' — meddle with the original composition of Josephus and abandon the continuity of the Messiah/Christ passages.
The expressions 'was' and 'called' Messiah/Christ are in turn definitive and denominative — consistant with the literature of the time:

Matthew:1.16, 'and Jacob fathered Joseph the husband of Miriam, from whom was born Yeshua who is called the Messiah.
Matthew:27.17, Pilate said to them, “Whom do you want me to release to you—Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?”
Matthew:27.22, 'Pilate said to them, “What then shall I do with Yeshua, who is called Messiah?”
John:4.25, 'The woman says to him, I know that Messiah is coming, who is called Christ; when *he* comes he will tell us all things.
Acts of Pilate, 'Pilate said,"then what shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?"'

Hebrew into Greek into English = Jesus who is called Christ/Messiah, the Lord Messiah; Lord Christ.

Origen Against Celsus: 1.47, 'these things came to pass against them in accordance with the ire of God on account of the things which were dared by them against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ.'
Origen Against Celsus: 2.13 '...James the just, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ,(Messiah)'
Origen Commentary on Matthew 10.17, ' But James is this one of whom Paul says that he saw in the epistle to the Galatians, saying: But I did not see any of the other apostles except James the brother of the Lord....James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ.

Origen hasn't interpolated,manipulated or meddled with the text of Antiquities 18.3.3 or Antiquities 20.Chapter 9.1, according to himself and the proponents of whom remain with 'called, was Christ/Messiah'.
Truth perdures.

User avatar
John T
Posts: 1112
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Josephus on James the Just?

Post by John T » Thu Aug 09, 2018 4:35 am

Of course we don't want to point out that Joseph most likely had written two versions of his famous works. One for the Roman Flavian dynasty and one for the Jewish scholars.

Origen did not interpolate, instead he cited the secret version that was used among the surviving Jewish scholars.

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift

Post Reply