Josephas: "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"

[John2]

to hakeem,

A late writing does not affect the fact that Christian writings claim James the Lord's brother was still alive c 68 CE or after the death of Peter which means James in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 must have been some other person.

According to Hegesippus's text about James, it is clear the James who was stoned to death was the James, the brother of Jesus. From start to end, no other James is identified.

About the ending, "And shortly after [James' martyrdom] Vespasian besieged Judaea, taking them captive".
That ending is highly faulty on historical matters and not to be trusted:
Titus, not Vespasian besieged Jerusalem, not Judea. And the Romans after the siege killed most who were found in Jerusalem, the rest being made slaves.

Cordially, Bernard

But the word for "shortly after" (eutheos) needn't necessarily mean "immediately" (as it is also translated) but rather "the next thing of importance that happened." As Hoogterp puts it:

What eutheos (and euthus) is not is "immediately". Immediate means no middle, and eutheos describes a straight line, which could be more aptly put as "directly", but always includes a middle. What is apparent through a casual look at the New Testament usages of this word is that Eutheos demands a middle, a time gap, the duration of which could be a few moments to hours, days, or even months or more! ... eutheos is apparently more concerned with sequence of events, rather than with timing.


https://books.google.com/books?id=e-m0A ... ly&f=false

So in my view Vespasian besieging "them" (and not Jerusalem) would refer to Vespasian's campaign, which began in 67 CE and would have been, from Hegesippus' perspective, "the next thing of importance that happened."

EH 2.23.18: "And immediately Vespasian besieged them" (i.e., Jews but particularly the ones who killed James).

[gryan]

Interesting but complicated, and very late.

What is interesting to me is that you seem to be dismissive of the pseudo-Clementines because of their lateness, but in another thread you call on what you call pseudo-Papias (a misnomer) as support for your interpretation of Galatians; yet Papias of Lombardy is far, far later than the pseudo-Clementines. I am not sure I understand the methodology.

My method

I think there may be elements of Pseudo-Papias that are very ancient indeed; but to discern that, there has to be an ancient context to confirm it. In this case, the context is an inter-textual literary context. My working hypothesis is that the first part of Fragment X 1) correlates well the Marys and Jameses GMark, and 2) distinguishes between the Jameses of Galatians: James the "brother of the Lord" (understood as another son of "the mother of the Lord", but not one of the 12), and James, one of the three "pillars" (understood son of Alphaeus, one of the 12, successor of James the son of Zebedee, martyred). The test of authenticity will be whether the the two Jameses hypothesis results in a more coherent reading of Galatians. If so, this part of Pseudo-Papias, may be judged authentic to the actual situation portrayed in the epistle to the Galatians.

This, in contrast with Jerome's exegesis, which is situated in Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria. It is in conflict with any reading of Galatians that presumes that James the brother of the Lord is the same person as James the pillar. So that includes all modern scholars, to my knowledge. But I think I may have found an ally in Victorinus.

While this hypothesis may be impossible to "prove" conclusively, it is hoped that a more coherent reading of the epistle to the Galatians, its author, Paul, and its first audience. will be made possible for those who for whatever reason my be drawn to explore it. Or the hypothesis could become clearly exposed as mistaken.

Ben, I'd very much like to hear your notes on that statement of method.

[Ben C. Smith]

Interesting but complicated, and very late.

What is interesting to me is that you seem to be dismissive of the pseudo-Clementines because of their lateness, but in another thread you call on what you call pseudo-Papias (a misnomer) as support for your interpretation of Galatians; yet Papias of Lombardy is far, far later than the pseudo-Clementines. I am not sure I understand the methodology.

My method

I think there may be elements of Pseudo-Papias that are very ancient indeed; but to discern that, there has to be an ancient context to confirm it. In this case, the context is an inter-textual literary context. My working hypothesis is that the first part of Fragment X 1) correlates well the Marys and Jameses GMark, and 2) distinguishes between the Jameses of Galatians: James the "brother of the Lord" (understood as another son of "the mother of the Lord", but not one of the 12), and James, one of the three "pillars" (understood son of Alphaeus, one of the 12, successor of James the son of Zebedee, martyred). The test of authenticity will be whether the the two Jameses hypothesis results in a more coherent reading of Galatians. If so, this part of Pseudo-Papias, may be judged authentic to the actual situation portrayed in the epistle to the Galatians.

This, in contrast with Jerome's exegesis, which is situated in Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria. It is in conflict with any reading of Galatians that presumes that James the brother of the Lord is the same person as James the pillar. So that includes all modern scholars, to my knowledge. But I think I may have found an ally in Victorinus.

While this hypothesis may be impossible to "prove" conclusively, it is hoped that a more coherent reading of the epistle to the Galatians, its author, Paul, and its first audience. will be made possible for those who for whatever reason my be drawn to explore it. Or the hypothesis could become clearly exposed as mistaken.

Ben, I'd very much like to hear your notes on that statement of method.

What would be the distinguishing mark(s), if any, between (A) pseudo-Papias having genuinely ancient elements and (B) pseudo-Papias merely being, from your perspective, a better interpreter of Galatians than Jerome?

The sentence I highlighted appears to be especially mysterious. A more coherent reading of Galatians would seem to be a test of interpretive prowess, not of authentically ancient tradition. If I interpret a verse more coherently than Jerome does, does that make my interpretation more authentically ancient than Jerome, even if my interpretation cannot be traced back any further than Jerome?

[gryan]

What would be the distinguishing mark(s), if any, between (A) pseudo-Papias having genuinely ancient elements and (B) pseudo-Papias merely being, from your perspective, a better interpreter of Galatians than Jerome?

In my method alone, I could not tell! But my goal is to read Galatians, not to find a date for a fragment of a presumed unlikely Papias fragment. So that would be ok.

[hakeem]

A late writing does not affect the fact that Christian writings claim James the Lord's brother was still alive c 68 CE or after the death of Peter which means James in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 must have been some other person.

According to Hegesippus's text about James, it is clear the James who was stoned to death was the James, the brother of Jesus. From start to end, no other James is identified.

What you say does not alter the fact that the preface to the Recognitions state James the Lord's brother was alive after the death of Peter and that multiple Christians writers claimed James the Lord's brother was not the brother of Jesus.

About the ending, "And shortly after [James' martyrdom] Vespasian besieged Judaea, taking them captive".
That ending is highly faulty on historical matters and not to be trusted:
Titus, not Vespasian besieged Jerusalem, not Judea. And the Romans after the siege killed most who were found in Jerusalem, the rest being made slaves.

Cordially, Bernard

Why do you trust the writings attributed to Hegesippus?

[John2]

to hakeem,

A late writing does not affect the fact that Christian writings claim James the Lord's brother was still alive c 68 CE or after the death of Peter which means James in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 must have been some other person.

According to Hegesippus's text about James, it is clear the James who was stoned to death was the James, the brother of Jesus. From start to end, no other James is identified.

About the ending, "And shortly after [James' martyrdom] Vespasian besieged Judaea, taking them captive".
That ending is highly faulty on historical matters and not to be trusted:
Titus, not Vespasian besieged Jerusalem, not Judea. And the Romans after the siege killed most who were found in Jerusalem, the rest being made slaves.

Cordially, Bernard

But the word for "shortly after" (eutheos) needn't necessarily mean "immediately" (as it is also translated) but rather "the next thing of importance that happened." As Hoogterp puts it:

What eutheos (and euthus) is not is "immediately". Immediate means no middle, and eutheos describes a straight line, which could be more aptly put as "directly", but always includes a middle. What is apparent through a casual look at the New Testament usages of this word is that Eutheos demands a middle, a time gap, the duration of which could be a few moments to hours, days, or even months or more! ... eutheos is apparently more concerned with sequence of events, rather than with timing.


https://books.google.com/books?id=e-m0A ... ly&f=false

So in my view Vespasian besieging "them" (and not Jerusalem) would refer to Vespasian's campaign, which began in 67 CE and would have been, from Hegesippus' perspective, "the next thing of importance that happened."

EH 2.23.18: "And immediately Vespasian besieged them" (i.e., Jews but particularly the ones who killed James).

to hakeem,

A late writing does not affect the fact that Christian writings claim James the Lord's brother was still alive c 68 CE or after the death of Peter which means James in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 must have been some other person.

According to Hegesippus's text about James, it is clear the James who was stoned to death was the James, the brother of Jesus. From start to end, no other James is identified.

About the ending, "And shortly after [James' martyrdom] Vespasian besieged Judaea, taking them captive".
That ending is highly faulty on historical matters and not to be trusted:
Titus, not Vespasian besieged Jerusalem, not Judea. And the Romans after the siege killed most who were found in Jerusalem, the rest being made slaves.

Cordially, Bernard

But the word for "shortly after" (eutheos) needn't necessarily mean "immediately" (as it is also translated) but rather "the next thing of importance that happened." As Hoogterp puts it:

What eutheos (and euthus) is not is "immediately". Immediate means no middle, and eutheos describes a straight line, which could be more aptly put as "directly", but always includes a middle. What is apparent through a casual look at the New Testament usages of this word is that Eutheos demands a middle, a time gap, the duration of which could be a few moments to hours, days, or even months or more! ... eutheos is apparently more concerned with sequence of events, rather than with timing.


https://books.google.com/books?id=e-m0A ... ly&f=false

So in my view Vespasian besieging "them" (and not Jerusalem) would refer to Vespasian's campaign, which began in 67 CE and would have been, from Hegesippus' perspective, "the next thing of importance that happened."

EH 2.23.18: "And immediately Vespasian besieged them" (i.e., Jews but particularly the ones who killed James).

I've changed my mind (or am gaining clarity) about one thing above. I think Hegesippus' reference (if it is his and not Eusebius' remark) to Vespasian besieging "them" could indeed refer to (or include) the fall of Jerusalem even though Titus was the one who actually did it, for how else could those who killed James there be punished (assuming at least some of them were in Jerusalem up to 70 CE)?

Yet Vespasian is the one who made it all possible and the one who was ultimately in charge of the war (under Nero and then as emperor himself) and the one who had approached the walls of Jerusalem in 69 CE after subduing the rest of Judea. In every respect from 67 CE on it was Vespasian's war and I think Hegesippus is reflecting that in the same way as in Rabbinic Judaism as per Avot de Rabbi Nathan 4.5, which applies Isaiah's fallen "Lebanon" (i.e., Temple) imagery to Vespasian.

When Vespasian came to destroy Jerusalem, he said to them: ‘You fools! Why do you seek to burn down the holy house? After all, what am I asking of you? I merely ask that you relinquish unto me each man his bow and arrow, and I will depart from you.’ They answered him in return: ‘Just as we went out against two [Roman armies] that came before you and killed them, so, too, will we go out against you and kill you!’

When our Master, Yochanan b. Zakkai, heard these words, he called out to the men of Jerusalem and said to them: ‘My sons, why would you destroy this city, or seek to burn down the holy house!? After all, what is he (i.e. Vespasian) asking of you? Look, he’s not asking from you anything except that you relinquish your bows and arrows, and he’ll depart from you.’ They replied to him: ‘Just as we went out against two [Roman armies] before him and killed them, so, too, we will go out against him and kill him.’

Vespasian had armored men positioned along the walls of Jerusalem, and informants within the city. Everything that they’d hear, they’d write it down upon arrows and shoot the arrows outside the wall, one of which said that Rabban Yochanan b. Zakkai was among those that admired the Caesar, and that he’d make mention of this fact to the people of Jerusalem.

When Rabbi Yochanan b. Zakkai’s repeated warnings went unheeded, he sent and called for his disciples, Rabbi Eliezer [b. Hyrcanus] and Rabbi Yehoshua [b. Hananiah]. He said to them: ‘My sons, stand up and take me out of this place! Make me a coffin and I’ll sleep in it.’ Rabbi Eliezer held on to the front end of the coffin, and Rabbi Yehoshua held on to the back end. They carried the coffin as he laid in it until sunset, until they stopped at the gates of Jerusalem’s walls. The porters at the gates enquired who it was that had died. They answered them: ‘It’s a dead man, as if you did not know that we’re not permitted to let a corpse remain within Jerusalem overnight!’ The porters replied: ‘If it’s a dead man, remove him.’ They then removed him, and remained with him until the sun had set, which, by that time, they had reached Vespasian. They opened up the coffin and he stood up before him. He (i.e. Vespasian) enquired of him: ‘Are you Rabban Yochanan b. Zakkai? Ask what I shall give you.’ He said to him: ‘I ask for nothing, except Yavneh (Jamnia). I will go and teach therein my disciples, and I’ll establish therein prayer, and I’ll perform therein all of the duties prescribed in the divine Law.’ He answered him: ‘Go, and do all that you want to do.’ Rabbi Yochanan b. Zakkai then said to him: ‘Would you like me to tell you something?’ Vespasian answered him: ‘Say it.’ He said to him: ‘You are destined to rule over the Roman Empire!’ He asked him: ‘How do you know that?’ He replied: ‘Thus has it been passed down unto us, that the holy house will not be given into the hands of a mere commoner, but rather into the hands of a king, as it says (Isaiah 10:34): He shall cut down the forest thickets with an iron [instrument], and Lebanon shall fall by a mighty one.’

[John2]

... Christian writings claim James the Lord's brother was still alive c 68 CE or after the death of Peter which means James in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 must have been some other person.

Where are you getting this c. 68 CE date from, and how do you know when Peter died?

[hakeem]

... Christian writings claim James the Lord's brother was still alive c 68 CE or after the death of Peter which means James in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 must have been some other person.

Where are you getting this c. 68 CE date from, and how do you know when Peter died?

I am showing what Christian writers claimed.

A Christian writing states that Peter and Paul were killed in the 14th year of Nero who was Emperor c 54-68 CE.

De Viris Illustribus 5

He then, in the fourteenth year of Nero on the same day with Peter, was beheaded at Rome for Christ's sake and was buried in the Ostian way, the twenty-seventh year after our Lord's passion.

[rgprice]

to rgprice,

If this sentence were talking about Jesus Christ, then Jesus Christ would be the one who has no relation to the story, and thus we would expect James to come first in the sentence, because James would be who was being talked about,

Jesus called Christ is brought about as an identifier for James. That's it.

if James is the brother of Jesus son of Damneus, because giving the high priesthood to Jesus would then be seen as a form of reparation to the family for the wrongful death of James, and as a further punishment to Ananus.

Where did you get that James and Jesus son of Damneus were from the same family?

I notice a lot of "if" in your writing. And brother of Jesus (a common name then) whose name was James (a common name then) does not make any sense because that Jesus, brought in for identification of James, does not help.

his citations of “Josephus” were probably really citations of Hegesippus, or citations of commentaries that themselves mixed the sources of Josephus and Hegesippus, or perhaps Hegesippus himself is the source of the error—perhaps he claimed that Josephus made this correlation.

Origen knew about Josephus' works: evidence in Origen,
Origen, On Matthew 10.17.
Origen, Against Celsus 1.16.
Origen,Against Celsus 1.47.
Origen, Against Celsus 2.13.
Origen, Against Celsus 4.11.

See http://www.textexcavation.com/anaorigjos.html for the relevant quotes.

Cordially, Bernard

Firstly, I addressed the issue of Origen fully in my book, and quoted part of that here. The Origen evidence does not support this passage.

"Where did you get that James and Jesus son of Damneus were from the same family?"

If you remove "who was called Christ" then this is implied: "brought before them the brother of Jesus, whose name was James, and some others"

James is the brother of Jesus. The question is who is this Jesus. When you remove "who was called Christ" it is obvious t that this Jesus is Jesus son of Damneus.

Its as if the story read:

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus son of Damneus, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

Ananus accused James son of Damneus and some companions of false crimes and had them killed. People were upset about this to they complied to Agrippa, who took the priesthood from Ananus and gave it to the brother of the man that he had killed, Jesus son of Damneus.

The point of the story is to explain why Agrippa gave the priesthood to Jesus son of Damneus. He did so because Ananus had killed his brother.

The detail about the stoning of James is only relevant if James was the brother of Jesus son of Damneus, who was given the priesthood. More than one person was stoned, it was a group of people. Why call out James in particular from among the group, unless James is relevant because he is related to Jesus son of Damneus?

If the story is simply, Ananus wrongfully killed some people, therefor the citizens complained to Agrippa, whereby he took the priesthood from him and gave it to Jesus son of Damneus, then why bother calling out James in particular? James, at that point, is just one among a group of people.

The point of calling out James is because that particular person is related to Jesus son of Damneus, to whom the priesthood was given.

[Bernard Muller]

to rgprice,

Ananus accused James son of Damneus and some companions of false crimes and had them killed. People were upset about this to they complied to Agrippa, who took the priesthood from Ananus and gave it to the brother of the man that he had killed, Jesus son of Damneus.

The point of the story is to explain why Agrippa gave the priesthood to Jesus son of Damneus. He did so because Ananus had killed his brother.

You are imagining thing: if Ananus accused James son of Damneus, Josephus would have specified: Jesus, son of Damneus. And Agrippa gave the high priesthood to Jesus son of Damneus because he felt he was the most qualified for the job, regardless to what happened to James.

Cordially, Bernard