Page 1 of 3
Josephus on James the Just?
Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 3:28 am
by Giuseppe
Re: Josephus on James the Just?
Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 3:40 am
by Joseph D. L.
Doubtful. Clement of Alexandria's edition of Josephus was also corrupted, extending to the tenth year of Antoninus Pius.
Re: Josephus on James the Just?
Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 6:28 am
by Ben C. Smith
Joseph D. L. wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2018 3:40 am
Doubtful. Clement of Alexandria's edition of Josephus was also corrupted, extending to the tenth year of Antoninus Pius.
I like Peter's interpretation of this line from Clement:
http://peterkirby.com/chasing-hegesippus.html.
Re: Josephus on James the Just?
Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 8:58 am
by archibald
Text excavation is .....not something I am at all expert on. So I'll say very little about that.
All I will say is that even though I, in my at least fairly well-informed but still amateur way, lean towards Jesus historicity, I still allow, in my head, that The James Passage has had 'brother of Jesus' added. Not necessarily, imo, to bolster a case for Jesus' historicity, because my position is that such an issue was not likely in dispute (even if he didn't exist).
In other words, an amended James Passage, unlike 'outer space Jesus', is not something I would strongly argue against.
Re: Josephus on James the Just?
Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 10:18 am
by Giuseppe
I agree with N Allen that Origen is the interpolator. For the simple reason that even today, some Christian apologists say that the Muslims are also ''Christians'' insofar they recognize Jesus as a True Prophet, too. The irony that the one ''called Christ'' is really ''THE Christ'' is too much strong to be not deliberate (by the same his interpolator).
And if Origen interpolated ''called Christ'', then the possibility that he interpolated ALSO the entire passage about John the Baptist (against Celsus' denigration of the Baptist) becomes more and more concrete (pace Peter's views).
Re: Josephus on James the Just?
Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 11:40 am
by Ken Olson
I'm less confident about what's going on with James in Ant. 20.200 than I am with the Testimonium in Ant. 18.63-64, but I suspect that Eusebius is primarily responsible for the current reading of the passage. In HE 2.13.20, he reports Origen's version of the passage, which Origen probably took from "Hegesippus" (I haven't had time to fully absorb Peter Kirby's very interesting hypothesis yet) and/or Clement. Most recent exegetes (Chadwick, Mason, Painter) think Eusebius took Origen's indirect discourse on what Josephus said and changed it into a direct quotation of Josephus, but without citing it to a particular book. He then provides the passage about James in nearly the form in which it currently it exists in the manuscripts of Antiquities and cites it to the twentieth book of Josephus' Antiquities. I think he found the passage about Ananus putting a man to death in Josephus and identified the man as the James who was the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, borrowing the identifier from the Origen passage he had just quoted. The man may have been named James in the original, but whether he really was or what further identification Josephus may have given him I couldn't say.
Sabrina Inowlocki goes over some of the changes Eusebius introduces in quoting Josephus in Eusebius and the Jewish Authors. Perhaps the closest parallel is where he glosses Josephus description of the Hasmoneans as "who are called Maccabees" (citation available on request). This theory would further entail that the alteration of the James passage was carried over into the manuscripts of the Antiquities (as I believe the Testimonium was). The plausibility of passages making their way from the Greek Eusebius Ecclesiastical History into the Greek Josephus Antiquities is aided by the fact that sixth century Latin translation of the Antiquities borrowed the translations of the Testimonium and the passage about John the Baptist from Rufinus' existing translation of the Antiquities rather than making a fresh translation.
I haven't had the opportunity to read the full text of Allen's paper.
Re: Josephus on James the Just?
Posted: Sun May 06, 2018 10:25 am
by Trees of Life
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.'
Re: Josephus on James the Just?
Posted: Mon May 07, 2018 4:59 pm
by DCHindley
Trees of Life wrote: ↑Sun May 06, 2018 10:25 am
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.'
Ohhh Kay.
"If it's good for Paul and Titus
If it's good for Paul and Titus
If it's good for Paul and Titus
Then it's good enough for meeeee."
"If it's good for Jo-os-ephus
If it's good for Jo-os-ephus
If it's good for Jo-os-ephus
Then it's good enough for meeeee."
Are you actually saying you believe the two accounts in Josephus
Antiquities 18 & 20 are unimpeachable witnesses to Jesus' historicity as Christ? Man, it's been 20 years since I last heard anyone defend these passages in Josephus as 100% authentic and proof that Jesus was the Christ.
Over time (since fall 2013) there have been a lot of posts here about these two accounts, which I highly recommend you search for and read.
The thing about Historical Criticism, which is the general methodology adopted here, is that we ask the same kinds of questions about the bible or early Christian literature as we do about any other historical sources, like Josephus. Most of us have serious reservations about the text and intended meaning of both these sets of books.
If you wouldn't just accept the critique of a Socialist as of prime credibility, because you are suspicious of that their analysis is tainted by their "anti-Christian" bias, why can't we do the same with your critique? We do.
DCH
Re: Josephus on James the Just?
Posted: Mon May 07, 2018 8:05 pm
by Trees of Life
DCHindley wrote: ↑Mon May 07, 2018 4:59 pm
Trees of Life wrote: ↑Sun May 06, 2018 10:25 am
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.'
DCH:
Are you actually saying you believe the two accounts in Josephus
Antiquities 18 & 20 are unimpeachable witnesses to Jesus' historicity as Christ?
No.The 'so called' translation text of Josephus is the post subject — in light of the documented evidence of Antiq. Book 18 ch 3:3; Antiq. Book 20 ch 9:1.
That template is: with the text rendered correctly, Josephus documents that James was the 'so-called brother of Jesus Christ', in contrast to being the 'brother of Jesus Christ.'
DCH, in that vein, quote something that Paul said on the matter of James the Just being the Lord's brother, if you wish to contribute to the post subject, being well versed on the subject as far as can be detected.
Re: Josephus on James the Just?
Posted: Tue May 08, 2018 9:21 am
by Ken Olson
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»?