josephus there is a question about james

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
issemm
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2019 2:42 am

josephus there is a question about james

Post by issemm »

I am Korean. I am using a translator now. Please see

There is no critical study of Christianity or the Bible in Korea. So Koreans think the claims of Christian dialectics such as William Craig, Gary Habermas and Lee Strobel are true. Nothing else was introduced. So I will come to this forum and ask questions through the interpreter. I'm sorry.


My question is:

Josephus recorded the death penalty of Jesus' brother James in ancient Jewish history. But as far as I know, Josephus never intentionally used the word 'Messiah'. However, Joseph has no reason to apply a special exception to Jesus.

Is not this the decisive basis for interpolation? Is there any good argument to explain this problem?

I think people have discussed this problem thousands of times here. But there may have been a time when I lacked knowledge like myself. So help me.



안녕하세요. 반가워요.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: josephus there is a question about james

Post by Irish1975 »

Welcome to the forum! Your question is very interesting, and I look forward to someone else answering it. ;) Someone who knows Josephus better than I do...
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: josephus there is a question about james

Post by andrewcriddle »

Using a term once and once only is quite frequent and not in itself suspicious.

What is more unusual is to use a term a very few times but always in the same narrow context.

I.E. It is a problem about our current texts of Josephus that Christ occurs only twice, both referring to Jesus. However the passage in Book 18 (the TF) is, in its present form, not original. If there is an authentic original it probably did not contain any reference to Jesus being the Christ.

Hence the original text of Josephus contained at most only one usage of the word Christ, which is entirely plausible.

Andrew Criddle
issemm
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2019 2:42 am

Re: josephus there is a question about james

Post by issemm »

No. No. 

What are you talking about? 

Josephus did not use the word Messiah wherever he needed it. It was deliberate because it thought Messiah was the cause of the revolt. And it is also because it declared the Roman Emperor Vespasian a true Messiah. 


My question was to avoid the expression Joseph was Messiah. 
Why is Jesus the exception? Isn't it because of interpolation?

Do you have any other explanation? 


I asked if there was an explanation for him. Why are you saying the wrong thing?
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: josephus there is a question about james

Post by andrewcriddle »

issemm wrote: Sat May 25, 2019 1:19 am No. No. 

What are you talking about? 

Josephus did not use the word Messiah wherever he needed it. It was deliberate because it thought Messiah was the cause of the revolt. And it is also because it declared the Roman Emperor Vespasian a true Messiah. 


My question was to avoid the expression Joseph was Messiah. 
Why is Jesus the exception? Isn't it because of interpolation?

Do you have any other explanation? 


I asked if there was an explanation for him. Why are you saying the wrong thing?
We don't know why Josephus made little use of the term Christ. (He doesn't tell us).

The fact that a technical term is used once and once only in a writer's work is not in itself an argument for inauthenticity or interpolation.

Most people underestimate the probability that a random short passage of an author's work will include at least one word never used again by the writer.

Andrew Criddle
issemm
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2019 2:42 am

Re: josephus there is a question about james

Post by issemm »

andrewcriddle wrote: Sat May 25, 2019 1:58 am
issemm wrote: Sat May 25, 2019 1:19 am No. No. 

What are you talking about? 

Josephus did not use the word Messiah wherever he needed it. It was deliberate because it thought Messiah was the cause of the revolt. And it is also because it declared the Roman Emperor Vespasian a true Messiah. 


My question was to avoid the expression Joseph was Messiah. 
Why is Jesus the exception? Isn't it because of interpolation?

Do you have any other explanation? 


I asked if there was an explanation for him. Why are you saying the wrong thing?
We don't know why Josephus made little use of the term Christ. (He doesn't tell us).

The fact that a technical term is used once and once only in a writer's work is not in itself an argument for inauthenticity or interpolation.

Most people underestimate the probability that a random short passage of an author's work will include at least one word never used again by the writer.

Andrew Criddle
We are not aware of Josephus' intentions, but we can guess. And the use of terminology can be evidence of interpolation, depending on the circumstances.

You just don't agree with my premise, but...
I'm not going to argue through an interpreter. Let's just say I'm wrong.

And I'll ask you again.

We don't know Yosephus' intentions. I really don't know. I don't know. I don't know. You shouldn't pretend to know.
But assuming I'm right, can that be conclusive evidence of forgery?
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: josephus there is a question about james

Post by andrewcriddle »

issemm wrote: Sat May 25, 2019 3:17 am
andrewcriddle wrote: Sat May 25, 2019 1:58 am
We don't know why Josephus made little use of the term Christ. (He doesn't tell us).

The fact that a technical term is used once and once only in a writer's work is not in itself an argument for inauthenticity or interpolation.

Most people underestimate the probability that a random short passage of an author's work will include at least one word never used again by the writer.

Andrew Criddle
We are not aware of Josephus' intentions, but we can guess. And the use of terminology can be evidence of interpolation, depending on the circumstances.

You just don't agree with my premise, but...
I'm not going to argue through an interpreter. Let's just say I'm wrong.

And I'll ask you again.

We don't know Yosephus' intentions. I really don't know. I don't know. I don't know. You shouldn't pretend to know.
But assuming I'm right, can that be conclusive evidence of forgery?
The presence of a word found nowhere else in an author's work cannot on its own be solid evidence of forgery.

Andrew Criddle
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: josephus there is a question about james

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

Welcome to the forum, issemm.

There are plenty of reasons to think that Josephus' original identification of the hapless James' wasn't James the Just, but his infrequent use of the word Christ doesn't loom large among them, IMO.

Our manuscripts use the same words for James' brother as Matthew twice puts in Pilate's mouth when he was describing Jesus, the one "called Christ." Would those measured words have caught in the character's throat as offensive to his Roman sensibilities? Really?

Granted, Romans might have scratched their heads back in book 18 had Josephus called the Christians' Jesus outrightly the Messiah, especially after having identified Vespasian and Titus as the bearers of that distinction in earlier work. But to say that somebody else was called the Messiah?

Romans were tough; they could take it.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: josephus there is a question about james

Post by DCHindley »

issemm,

The term "christ" simply means an "anointed one." It was often used symbolically to designate someone specially appointed to a task. All Judean priests and kings were so "anointed."

This James, if he was of priestly descent, could well have laid claim to being next in line for the High Priesthood. Then the Jesus with which he was brother, was another person of high priestly lineage, who also laid claim to the right of succession. Ananus' father (also Ananus) had already been HP before. Ananus son of Ananus now governed the priestly aristocracy which ran things in Judea. Since he apparently supported the claims of this Jesus to be his eventual successor, it has been proposed that this Jesus was Jesus son of Damnaeus, who did succeed Ananus.

Andrew, on the other hand, is firmly convinced that the fragmentary nature of the surviving records makes it possible that Josephus was referring to a historical Jesus from which "Christians" derive. He is correct that in any author, many words in a corpus of texts by an author are hapax (only found once), so it is possible.

In my humble opinion there are real problems with associating the Jesus of this passage in Antiquities 20:200 with Jesus revered by Christians. I take the term "anointed one" to be a technical term that Josephus had avoided using because of political reasons (he had called Vespasian one of the "anointed ones" referenced by Daniel 9: 24-27, and Vespasian was his patron) but here accidentally let it slip. On the other hand, Ananus could have been nipping in the bud James' eschatological claims about his brother Jesus, of Christian fame.

DCH
Post Reply