John the Baptist, redivivus of a 2015 article

[Peter Kirby]

Well, unless we can speculate a very convincing reason, I think Occam’s razor still cuts through to the much simpler explanation that the passage actually was original to Josephus

I think that you have not read my confession here, where I have given up to doubt about the authenticity of the Baptist Passage in Josephus.

As to the James passage, I stand on the position that only "called Christ" is interpolated. List's point is decisive and moves the balance towards the interpolation without even disturbing Origen and/or Hegesippus for that matter:

(1) It is not unheard of for Josephus to refer to people merely by brother or father, even brothers/fathers who are only just mentioned and have no prior acknowledgement.

(2) It makes better sense of the passage than assuming that Josephus is inexplicably referring to some figure two books previously (18.63-64).

Yeah I'm actually working on challenging List's argument here. I have been going through Josephus and logging adelphonymics (i.e., where a person is introduced by relation to their brother), and two things are apparent:

(1) It is either used to introduce a new person who is named first (i.e., X brother of Y), and this is the only case where the "brother of Y" figure is unknown. Thus, not like the Ant. 20.200 passage. Or, (2) it is used to introduce a person by relation to a previously established figure, i.e., the brother of Y, named X. To make these a bit clearer:

(1) X [newly introduced person], the brother of Y [relation established or unestablished previously]
(2) the brother of Y [relation established previously], named X [newly introduced person]

The case of (2) is the case that best resembles our case for James 20.200 but if List or Carrier are correct and this "Jesus" was Jesus ben Damneus (JbD), then it violates Josephus' style, since JbD has not been previously mentioned and it follows the (2) pattern. I have not found any adelphonymics which are exceptions to these two patterns so far. So no, I can't find any example where Josephus introduces a new figure (James) but via relation to another completely unidentified named figure (Jesus) the latter of whom is named first.

I have found no examples (2) where X is introduced by relation to Y without Y having been previously established. So if the phrase "the brother of Jesus, called Christ, named James" is correct authentic, it is entirely exceptional. Thus, I argue the entire phrase "the brother of Jesus, called Christ" needs to be omitted. I am not sure if this James even had a previously unknown identifier. Josephus did on various occasions just name drop a random person without clarification.

Not having read your paper, maybe these examples (I offered some for an interpolation hypothesis and one for an authenticity hypothesis that doesn't involve an earlier passage) are already discussed in it.

[Chrissy Hansen]

Well, unless we can speculate a very convincing reason, I think Occam’s razor still cuts through to the much simpler explanation that the passage actually was original to Josephus

I think that you have not read my confession here, where I have given up to doubt about the authenticity of the Baptist Passage in Josephus.

As to the James passage, I stand on the position that only "called Christ" is interpolated. List's point is decisive and moves the balance towards the interpolation without even disturbing Origen and/or Hegesippus for that matter:

(1) It is not unheard of for Josephus to refer to people merely by brother or father, even brothers/fathers who are only just mentioned and have no prior acknowledgement.

(2) It makes better sense of the passage than assuming that Josephus is inexplicably referring to some figure two books previously (18.63-64).

Yeah I'm actually working on challenging List's argument here. I have been going through Josephus and logging adelphonymics (i.e., where a person is introduced by relation to their brother), and two things are apparent:

(1) It is either used to introduce a new person who is named first (i.e., X brother of Y), and this is the only case where the "brother of Y" figure is unknown. Thus, not like the Ant. 20.200 passage. Or, (2) it is used to introduce a person by relation to a previously established figure, i.e., the brother of Y, named X. To make these a bit clearer:

(1) X [newly introduced person], the brother of Y [relation established or unestablished previously]
(2) the brother of Y [relation established previously], named X [newly introduced person]

The case of (2) is the case that best resembles our case for James 20.200 but if List or Carrier are correct and this "Jesus" was Jesus ben Damneus (JbD), then it violates Josephus' style, since JbD has not been previously mentioned and it follows the (2) pattern. I have not found any adelphonymics which are exceptions to these two patterns so far. So no, I can't find any example where Josephus introduces a new figure (James) but via relation to another completely unidentified named figure (Jesus) the latter of whom is named first.

I have found no examples (2) where X is introduced by relation to Y without Y having been previously established. So if the phrase "the brother of Jesus, called Christ, named James" is correct authentic, it is entirely exceptional. Thus, I argue the entire phrase "the brother of Jesus, called Christ" needs to be omitted. I am not sure if this James even had a previously unknown identifier. Josephus did on various occasions just name drop a random person without clarification.

Not having read your paper, maybe these examples (I offered some for an interpolation hypothesis and one for an authenticity hypothesis that doesn't involve an earlier passage) are already discussed in it.

The one in favor of authenticity is an example of case 1 and so not a direct parallel to the 20.200 passage. In this case, does an X, the brother of Y format (Φήλικα τὸν Πάλλαντος ἀδελφὸν) in JW 2.247. I've found multiple examples of this.

Josephus, however, never introduces a character relative first (i.e., brother of Y named X) without previously identifying who Y is. Thus, this isn't actually an example of what we see in 20.200.

[Peter Kirby]

Well, unless we can speculate a very convincing reason, I think Occam’s razor still cuts through to the much simpler explanation that the passage actually was original to Josephus

I think that you have not read my confession here, where I have given up to doubt about the authenticity of the Baptist Passage in Josephus.

As to the James passage, I stand on the position that only "called Christ" is interpolated. List's point is decisive and moves the balance towards the interpolation without even disturbing Origen and/or Hegesippus for that matter:

(1) It is not unheard of for Josephus to refer to people merely by brother or father, even brothers/fathers who are only just mentioned and have no prior acknowledgement.

(2) It makes better sense of the passage than assuming that Josephus is inexplicably referring to some figure two books previously (18.63-64).

Yeah I'm actually working on challenging List's argument here. I have been going through Josephus and logging adelphonymics (i.e., where a person is introduced by relation to their brother), and two things are apparent:

(1) It is either used to introduce a new person who is named first (i.e., X brother of Y), and this is the only case where the "brother of Y" figure is unknown. Thus, not like the Ant. 20.200 passage. Or, (2) it is used to introduce a person by relation to a previously established figure, i.e., the brother of Y, named X. To make these a bit clearer:

(1) X [newly introduced person], the brother of Y [relation established or unestablished previously]
(2) the brother of Y [relation established previously], named X [newly introduced person]

The case of (2) is the case that best resembles our case for James 20.200 but if List or Carrier are correct and this "Jesus" was Jesus ben Damneus (JbD), then it violates Josephus' style, since JbD has not been previously mentioned and it follows the (2) pattern. I have not found any adelphonymics which are exceptions to these two patterns so far. So no, I can't find any example where Josephus introduces a new figure (James) but via relation to another completely unidentified named figure (Jesus) the latter of whom is named first.

I have found no examples (2) where X is introduced by relation to Y without Y having been previously established. So if the phrase "the brother of Jesus, called Christ, named James" is correct authentic, it is entirely exceptional. Thus, I argue the entire phrase "the brother of Jesus, called Christ" needs to be omitted. I am not sure if this James even had a previously unknown identifier. Josephus did on various occasions just name drop a random person without clarification.

Not having read your paper, maybe these examples (I offered some for an interpolation hypothesis and one for an authenticity hypothesis that doesn't involve an earlier passage) are already discussed in it.

The one in favor of authenticity is an example of case 1 and so not a direct parallel to the 20.200 passage. In this case, does an X, the brother of Y format (Φήλικα τὸν Πάλλαντος ἀδελφὸν) in JW 2.247. I've found multiple examples of this.

Josephus, however, never introduces a character relative first (i.e., brother of Y named X) without previously identifying who Y is. Thus, this isn't actually an example of what we see in 20.200.

What's case 1 and, more importantly, how did you determine that a "direct parallel" (by your definition) is necessary?

Is it some word order stuff that you are resting your case on?

[Chrissy Hansen]

I discussed them above (samples 1 and 2). I went through every adelphonymic I could find in Josephus' extant work and observed how he used them. In the case of (1) he introduces a new character (x), and identifies a relationship to some figure (Y), which can be unknown. In cases where the related brother is unknown, said brother is named second (because this figure is basically irrelevant generally, such as your Felix - Pallans example in JW 2.247). In case (2) he identifies a new character by relation to a previously known brother, i.e., the brother of Y, named X. However, Y is always a previously known figure.

The 20.200 passage best parallels the case (2) but this leads to two possible outcomes:

(A) the James 20.200 passage is dependent on prior knowledge of the Testimonium Flavianum, as the case (2) examples I have noted above always have Josephus referring to someone who was previously introduced in the text. As the TF was previously tampered with and this 20.200 passage would appear dependent, it likewise increases the inherent probability that 20.200 is also tampered with. Especially when we consider the "called Christ" language, as Josephus nowhere else uses this terminology.

Or (B) the TF is ignored as an interpolation, in which case the 20.200 passage is unique in all cases of Josephus' adelphonymics. In which case, we have reason to doubt it, because it is an inherently awkward passage. There is likewise absolutely no parallel for the James passage entire, i.e., "the brother of X, called Y, named Z". I tried finding any example of this, but there are none.

I am resting my case specifically on how Josephus uses the two forms of adelphonymics without any apparent exception that I have yet found except James 20.200, a passage which we have automatic reason for suspicion because of both questionable terminology, and the known tampering by Christians of Josephus' works.

[Peter Kirby]

I am resting my case specifically on how Josephus uses the two forms of adelphonymics without any apparent exception that I have yet found

I understand what you're doing on that level, but you haven't answered the question of how you know that the distinctions that you're making are necessary in your search for a "direct parallel." Perhaps you have developed some thoughts about that which you haven't yet shared.

[Peter Kirby]

Most likely a satisfactory answer to that question moves beyond a mechanical search through the text of Josephus.

By which I mean that the scope of data considered would have to be wider, not just Josephus, or that the consideration would have to be motivated by some other knowledge by which we can already know that what you're trying to do here involves a relevant, meaningful distinction.

[Chrissy Hansen]

By ‘spontaneously’, I mean using the phrase where he wasn’t quoting it from someone else. In other words, the quote from Matthew isn’t Origen coming up with it ‘spontaneously’; he’s quoting someone else. Out of all the places in which Origen refers to Jesus, the only places in which he uses ‘called Christ’ are the quotes from Matthew and the reference to the Josephan passage. That in itself strongly suggests that his reference to Josephus is, as it appears to be, another quote (or at least cite, since it’s not quite accurate enough to count as a direct quote).

I take issue with most of what you responded with, but I'm going to focus here. Firstly, we actually have very similar language used by Origen in a clearly reverant manner:

Contra Celsum 4.28 (per Ken): καὶ Χριστὸς εἶναι λεγόμενος τοῦ ϑεοῦ

However, I should also note that the specific language used here was exceptionally common for early Christian authors, particularly when they reimagined or just fabricated the way their opponents talked. As a few examples:

-Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 32 places οὗτος δὲ ὁ ὑμέτερος λεγόμενος Χριστός in the mouth of Trypho
-Ps.-Clement, Homiliae 18.4 puts τοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς λεγομένου Χριστοῦ in the mouth of Simon Magus
-Alexander, Inventio crucis 4037.27 (TLG) writes Ὁ δὲ Πιλάτος πάντα τὰ πεπραγμένα ἐπὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ ἀνήγαγε τῷ Καίσαρι, καὶ ὅτι ὁ σταυρωθεὶς Ἰησοῦς, ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστὸς, ἀνέστη τριήμερος, καὶ θαυμάσια μεγάλα ἐπιτελοῦνται ὑπὸ τῶν αὐτοῦ μαθητῶν ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ. Here ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστὸς is in the mouth of Pilate.

Likewise, we have other cases where Christians place this in their own mouth:

Justin Martyr, First Apology 30 τί κωλύει καὶ τὸν παρ’ ἡμῖν λεγόμενον Χριστόν

Even more relevantly, we have the reverential title in Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica 4.12 ὁ Χριστὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, νικηφόρος λεγόμενος (the Christ of God, called victor). So, actually we have no reason to think Origen wouldn't use this language. Matthew may well have been an influence for this type of language, as Matthew's phraseology was quoted quite frequently in early Christian literature, including in early Christian treatises covering Jesus' execution (cf. Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae 17.3a.3–4).

For relevant uses of the John and Matthew passages, see:

-Gelasius, Historia Ecclesiastica 2.24.17 (Matthew 1:16)
-Suda s.v. Νέρων (nu 254) references John 19:38 with ἠρώτηϲε δὲ καὶ τὸν Πιλάτον, but ὁ λεγόμενοϲ Χριϲτόϲ is put in the mouth of Pilate unlike the gospel. This is a harmony bringing this language over from Matthew.
-John Chrysostom, Homiliae in Joannem 59.190.38–39 (John 4:25), TLG
-John Chrysostom, In Samaritanam 59.540.63–64 and 59.541.13 (both referring to John 4:25), TLG
-Cyrillus, Exposito Psalmos 69.981.33–34 (John 4:25), TLG
-Cyrillus, Commentarius in Isaiam prophetam 70.1312.18–19 (John 4:25), TLG
-Eustathius, Commentarius in hexaemeron 772.8 (Matthew 1:16), TLG
-Athanasius, Sermo de descriptione deiparae 28.949.30–31 (referencing Matthew 27:17), TLG

I don't think there is a single case to be made that a Christian couldn't interpolate this language. It is found throughout early Christian literature, both as they imagine how opponents speak, and also placed in their own mouths in reverential terms. Even Origen uses parallel language as noted above, and he clearly has knowledge of Matthew's phraseology, see Origen, Commentarii in Evangelium Joannis 1.5.29 and 1.21.126 (John 4:25); Origen, Contra Celsum, praef.2 (Matthew 27:22); Origen, Scholia in Matthew 27.11 (Matthew 27:22); Origen, Commentariorum Series in Evangelium Matthaei (Mt. 22.34-27.63), chap. 121 (Matthew 27:22).

[Peter Kirby]

And I am really just skeptical that it's even possible to justify the premise mentioned at all. It seems like a major flaw.

[Chrissy Hansen]

I am resting my case specifically on how Josephus uses the two forms of adelphonymics without any apparent exception that I have yet found

I understand what you're doing on that level, but you haven't answered the question of how you know that the distinctions that you're making are necessary in your search for a "direct parallel." Perhaps you have developed some thoughts about that which you haven't yet shared.

I'm not sure exactly what this question means, particularly the word "necessary" here. Are you asking how I know it is relevant? Or if I developed these distinctions as a categorical criterion when doing my survey? I'm not sure what you are specifically asking here.

For clarification:

I did not develop the distinction in search of a parallel, but as a result of searching for the parallels. It is something I observed after looking through all of his adelphonymics and finding that none of them matched the James passage. If you are asking why these distinctions are relevant, I would say that on their own they would not necessarily be. However, they are at least a potential indicator of un-Josephan style (as this is now how Josephus uses adelphonymics in any other case).

I would say where this becomes a meaningful distinction is specifically when we also consider two other things: (1) the passage contains un-Josephan terminology ("Christos" which is only found in a known-to-be tampered passage); and (2) the passage is the only one which also bogs down an adelphonymic with further descriptives of an irrelevant character (i.e., the "who is called Christ"). This provides three stylistic variations both in terms of vocab and grammar, all of which distinguish this one passage from every other supposed parallel.

If you already have a known un-Josephan element, and then you find other oddities, in my view it seems hard to simply argue these are all coincidences or anomalies of his style. Thus, all are pertinent until one demonstrates why they are not. Which is not really my job as I am not arguing for authenticity. That is the onus for the pro-authenticity side.

[Peter Kirby]

I wasn't commenting on the other considerations. From the perspective of your outline as a whole, perhaps it's at most a minor flaw.

I was commenting specifically on the point where we have in effect excluded the data from the Pallas example, with respect to mentioning someone with reference to another person not otherwise named, with use of a distinction regarding the order of words in the two different instances.

From my own perspective, excluding data is what requires justification. It's always possible to mention something that can allegedly exclude data. IMO the exclusion requires special knowledge, and inclusion should be based on the phenomenon under investigation (eg, here, naming someone with reference to someone else not otherwise described).

Limiting data to Josephus is the bigger problem, especially when we're talking about things like the word order in adelphonymic references.

If we have so little data on some features to the point where there's a single example in the text of the Antiquities, then a wider search seems relevant for determining how to understand this. If we don't have an understanding developed from sufficient data, it doesn't seem justified to pick up on this for any particular conclusion. Anomaly detection isn't just uniqueness.

It may be relevant to disclose that my perspective is affected by a background in statistics, and to some extent I am viewing this through that lens to the extent it seems appropriate. But I generally think it is most important to develop an understanding in each case of what we're claiming to identify as relevant features for consideration.