Linguistic Reasons:Ken Olson wrote: ↑Tue May 08, 2018 9:21 am Tree of Life wrote:
Let’s look at the Greek of Ant. 20.200: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.'
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»?
1. Continuity:
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.'
2. Esoteric Purposes:
The text, as rendered by me, 'James, the "so-called" brother of Jesus Christ/Messiah' is read by virtue of those who knew James as such.
Notes:
1. I scrutinized your Greek in as far as my limited understanding.
2. In view of Josephus' Antiquities being an outstanding tome; how does an interpolator succeed in secretly adulterating his work? Would for example, Origen have appreciated the scandal?
3. Josephus' work is accorded authenticity due to his knowledge of the esoteric context applied to James the Just.