The Legion of Jesuses in Josephus

[davidlau17]

Historiographical Approach:

Neither Jesus brother of James or James brother of Jesus were archived by Josephus specifically in those terms of identification, in relation to 1. Jesus brother of James.

Your inverse of Jesus brother of James being James brother of Jesus, was purposely not written by Josephus at Antiquities 20.200, because James brother of Jesus would describe a redeemed brother of Jesus.

Josephus certainly never uses the terms "the redeemed brother of Jesus called Christ, whose name was James". The 'redeemed' part has simply been inferred by you. I would presume Josephus chose to use the wording "the brother of Jesus called Christ, whose name was James" either because a.) Jesus was a better known figure than James, or b.) James was put on trial because he was known as the brother of someone that people believed to be the Christ.

Antiquities 20.200 'the brother of Jesus called Christ, whose name was James' is Josephus describing a so-called brother, when used in relation to James, the bishop of Jerusalem.

Josephus never uses the term "so-called brother" when referring to Jesus' relation to James. He does, however, use the term "called" (or "so-called" in some translations) when he refers to Jesus called Christ.

That is, James being known as the brother of the personage Jesus.

I agree with that. It seems (but correct me if I'm wrong) that your issue is with my rewording the passage to identify Jesus by his relation to James (indirectly making James appear to be the more important figure), instead of identifying James by his relation to Jesus (indirectly making Jesus appear to be the more important figure).

Yes, I said that Jesus was the brother of James - when, actually, Josephus' precise words were "the brother of Jesus called Christ, whose name was James" - but I disagree that there is any big issue here. The only issue would be that of status - in other words, which of the two (James or Jesus) was the more renowned figure? Josephus' wording strongly indicates that Jesus was.

When I listed "1) Jesus, the brother of James", it was not meant to indicate that James was a more renowned personage than Jesus. It was simply meant to be read at face value.

[davidlau17]

SG reply: Actually "56, 126-33, 449" are page numbers in the book. 449 is a page with an addendum item for Joshua.

Yeah, that was my mistake. A study done by Richard Bauckham using Tal Ilan's data had counted 447 names (as opposed to the 721 names counted by Ilan), and I confused your mention of '449' as meaning Bauckham's number of names. My apologies.

[davidlau17]

That is an interesting commentary.

These are also an interesting coincidences, -

Thanks, though I probably overstated any oddity regarding the number of Jesuses mentioned by Josephus. Still, the strange parallels between two or three of the individuals mentioned by Josephus (Jesus son of Anianas, Jesus son of Sapphias, and Jesus of Gamala) and the Bibical Jesus seem notable.

[Secret Alias]

It has to be said that while the commonness of the name Joshua is important, it would be interesting to compare the frequency of ALL names versus use in Josephus for a relative comparison. Josephus's work is very unusual. The 'history' is very much developed in light of Daniel's prophesy - especially the timeline of the destruction of the temple. I am not saying that the frequency of the name Joshua might have some significance directly related to Christianity. But Josephus's account of the destruction IS NOT a history per se or at least a 'pure' history. It is very strange - especially the mention of transvestite rebels causing trouble behind the walls of Jerusalem as an example. Moreover given the fact that we know that Joshua was the expected 'one like Moses' among the Samaritans there may be some sort of symbolic/mythical interest in the fate of 'saviors' of this name. Again I am not suggesting that Josephus was a Christian work or that the interest in 'Joshua' was directly related to the Christian Lord. But there is a seeming abnormal interest in the name Joshua. Again, I say this without having compared the frequency of other personal names (like Abraham, Isaac, Moses, Judah etc). But again consider for a moment Paul's statement of the 'name above all names' in light of Josephus's 'reporting.' How could 'Jesus' have been a holy name if every Tom, Dick and Harry so to speak walking around in Judea was so called. Somethings not right.

[davidlau17]

It has to be said that while the commonness of the name Joshua is important, it would be interesting to compare the frequency of ALL names versus use in Josephus for a relative comparison.

Here's my effort at doing that - posted a couple of pages back.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5192&start=10#p99273

As for Josephus' works in general, a number of his stories strike me as too far-fetched to actually be considered historical (the bizarre tale of Decius Mundus following the Testimonium Flavianum, for example). That said, his accounts are less hagiographic than those written by other early historians relevant to the advent of Christianity, such as Eusebius.

[Secret Alias]

No what I mean is (a) all references for Abraham in Josephus vs. (b) attestation from the same source for inscriptions etc.

So you average out Joshua Josephus personalities/Joshua inscriptions dated to the same time period vs Abraham Josephus personalities/Abraham inscriptions from the same time period. And do this for a sample of attested names and compare.

[davidlau17]

No what I mean is (a) all references for Abraham in Josephus vs. (b) attestation from the same source for inscriptions etc.

So you average out Joshua Josephus personalities/Joshua inscriptions dated to the same time period vs Abraham Josephus personalities/Abraham inscriptions from the same time period. And do this for a sample of attested names and compare.

Oh, I see. That would seem to be the best method of getting at whether or not the number of names from each of the different sources (Josephus, ossuary inscriptions, etc.) actually converge. Yeah, that would be interesting.

[Secret Alias]

The only way to know what strange is is by figuring out what normal is.

[arnoldo]

FWIW, the name "Abraham" appears to not have been a common name during the time period in question according to the following source.

COHEN, N. (1976). JEWISH NAMES AS CULTURAL INDICATORS IN ANTIQUITY. Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Period, 7(2), 97-128. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/24656874

[Ben C. Smith]

The only way to know what strange is is by figuring out what normal is.

Then we are all doomed here.