Bernard Muller wrote:So, I gather, you do not have any better examples. Did you try?
It's your job to show it's unlikely if you think the phrase is unlikely.
I didn't have to give the examples of similar constructions that you now, today, feel are not good enough.
You have to demonstrate your assertion if you want to make it.
Bernard Muller wrote:"When I was in Mexico, I saw James and some others being arrested"
"When I was in Mexico, I saw James, an old friend of mine, and some others being arrested"
It is telling that your misunderstanding flows from a falsehood.
it's "a guy named James and some others." And, yes, it obviously does "make sense."
On the other hand, none of your posts have made much sense for a while now in this thread.
You need to learn how to reason properly instead of throwing shit against a wall and hoping it sticks.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
"one whose name was Sameas, a righteous man he was" tells you nothing at all to identify this Sameas, as "a wicked man he was, and very mischievous" gives you no identification whatsoever of this Ananias. Using your above logic, you should be content that this James (along with some others) "was accused of having transgressed the law and" was "delivered up to be stoned".
The aim was not to differentiate James from the certain others, but to supply a context for the removal of Ananus, which he does. By trying to dictate that Josephus needed to qualify this James, you are not dealing with the needs of the author. He needs to show that Ananus was going beyond his rightful bounds, not expand the background to why Ananus was dealt with. Josephus was not interested in this James, but in Ananus, and he has no compulsion to adhere to your desires of what he should tell us.
So why Josephus would name one among others brought to trial, without the intention to say anything about him?
Why would he single out one individual by only stating his name and nothing else?
If you can find examples in Josephus' works which follow closely what Peter proposed, please enlighten me.
The examples (righteous Sameas and wicked Ananias) you tried to dismiss didn't work, so no new examples are needed yet.
Bernard Muller wrote:More so when Josephus was in Jerusalem at the time, and should have info about that James.
What would you think if I was emailing to friends: "When I was in Mexico, I saw James and some others being arrested". And nothing else about James, before or after. Wouldn't that look odd? My friends would wonder: who is that James? I might even be suspected to have erased something I wrote about this guy.
However, if I had written: "When I was in Mexico, I saw James, an old friend of mine, and some others being arrested", that would make sense.
Cordially, Bernard
Sorry, but you've neither responded to what you were supposed to nor extended your argument, Bernard.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
I got evasive and sometimes insulting answers. I am tempted to conclude that Peter's "solution" is very odd and is not exemplified anywhere else in Josephus' works.
OK, maybe it is too much to ask with "some others".
But are there any examples in Josephus' works which follow that pattern: "NAMED PERSON by name", involved in some action, but with nothing else said about that particular NAMED PERSON in the narration (with the NAMED PERSON having a single and common name).
And with "and some others", there are more incentives for Josephus to say something about that enigmatic James who he singled out from the others.
Anyway, I am going to check all Josephus' works for "whose name was" in order to see for myself.
Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Bernard Muller wrote:I got evasive and sometimes insulting answers.
That you didn't like the answers you got doesn't make them evasive.
Bernard Muller wrote:I am tempted to conclude that Peter's "solution" is very odd and is not exemplified anywhere else in Josephus' works.
You are misrepresenting the state of the discussion. You have failed to make the case you assume. Previously I wrote:
"one whose name was Sameas, a righteous man he was" tells you nothing at all to identify this Sameas, as "a wicked man he was, and very mischievous" gives you no identification whatsoever of this Ananias. Using your above logic, you should be content that this James (along with some others) "was accused of having transgressed the law and" was "delivered up to be stoned".
You did not deal with the issue that the examples of Sameas and Ananias do not support you, in that they don't provide any identification.
Bernard Muller wrote:OK, maybe it is too much to ask with "some others".
But are there any examples in Josephus' works which follow that pattern: "NAMED PERSON by name", involved in some action, but with nothing else said about that particular NAMED PERSON in the narration (with the NAMED PERSON having a single and common name).
And with "and some others", there are more incentives for Josephus to say something about that enigmatic James who he singled out from the others.
Anyway, I am going to check all Josephus' works for "whose name was" in order to see for myself.
Why are you asserting that with "and some others", there are more incentives for Josephus to say something about that enigmatic James who he singled out from the others?? Obviously your interlocutors don't agree with the assertion, so you need to do more than just assert it.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
You did not deal with the issue that the examples of Sameas and Ananias do not support you, in that they don't provide any identification.
I am not only talking about complete identification, but about some details or comments about individuals presented as "one whose name was" or anything similar. These Sameas and Ananias have one personal comment each, but not the James in the proposed Peter's scheme. If you name someone out of the blue, as an active person in your narration, you simply do not write only his name (and a common one at that) and nothing else. That's my point.
Why are you asserting that with "and some others", there are more incentives for Josephus to say something about that enigmatic James who he singled out from the others?? Obviously your interlocutors don't agree with the assertion, so you need to do more than just assert it.
What's so special about James? Josephus made a point to name him (but not for any of "some others") but has nothing personal to say about him (according to Peter's proposal). No qualification, comment or identification.
BTW, I found cases in Josephus' Antiquities when group of others or some others are mentioned, with not one named among them. If that James was just somebody with that name and nothing else worth saying about him, why name him in the first place?
I'll know more of that tomorrow after I do my research.
Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Most of my frustration with you in the recent posts in this thread comes from the multiplication of distinctions you have made in order to disqualify evidence against your position and a refusal to acknowledge that the burden of proof is yours along with a failure to show that your suspicion of strangeness has more than a subjective statement that seems motivated by your attempt to discredit the plausibility of what really is a quite ordinary hypothesis regarding the original text of this passage, a hypothesis that is accepted by several scholars who did not find the implausibility that you seek to find in the wording suggested here (including scholars whose Greek and knowledge of ancient Greek literature is better than yours or mine).
Anyhow, since you, Bernard Muller, are not satisfied with the parallels in Josephus (and are oblivious to the fact that parallels are not required to make a text a plausible example of ancient Greek given that the variety of unique plausible ancient Greek expressions is infinite), here's another ancient Greek example that illustrates the plausibility of the suggestion. (I suppose you already hate it.)
When a common festival was being celebrated by all the Pelasgi, a man whose name was Pelorus (ᾧ ὄνομα Πέλωρος) brought news to Pelasgus that there had been some violent earthquakes in Hæmonia, by which the mountains called Tempe had been rent asunder, and that the water of the lake had burst through the rent, and was all falling into the stream of the Peneus; and that all the country which had formerly been covered by the lake was now laid open, and that, as the waters were now drained off, there were plains visible of wondrous size and beauty.
- Athenaeus Soph., Deipnosophistae - Book 14, Kaibel paragraph 45, line 6
That "some others" are also mentioned by Josephus, instead of just the one James, is a simple consequence of the historical fact that there were others. That some others are not named is just a simple consequence of the historical fact that their names were not known or remembered by Josephus or because Josephus didn't want to clutter his narrative with several names. That there was nothing else said about James (other than the stuff that is said about these people being accused of breaking the law and delivered to be stoned, which you wrongly and tendentiously bracket as not being used to explain the appearance of this James and certain others, despite these being the most significant details that are relevant to the story), the person whose name was chiefly associated with the victims of the sham trial in memory, would simply be a consequence of the fact that Josephus didn't consider such other details that you apparently crave relevant to his narrative and historical aims in the story of the deposition of Ananus. Much detail is given about the character of Ananus and his traits because he is the subject of the story, in which the words "one whose name was James and some others" are only read anachronistically, in line with our modern interests in the historical Jesus instead of the historical concerns of Josephus, as demanding of further explanation. With the original text of Josephus being read without the phrase that is the object of such sweaty effort to preserve it for its reference to Jesus, nobody would find it strange in the first place. No more than anyone has ever tried to argue that the original text above must have said more about the incidental prop of a character that is Pelorus above.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
You did not deal with the issue that the examples of Sameas and Ananias do not support you, in that they don't provide any identification.
I am not only talking about complete identification, but about some details or comments about individuals presented as "one whose name was" or anything similar. These Sameas and Ananias have one personal comment each, but not the James in the proposed Peter's scheme.
And so? Is that a factoid or are you making up something that you haven't enunciated here?
Bernard Muller wrote:If you name someone out of the blue, as an active person in your narration, you simply do not write only his name (and a common one at that) and nothing else. That's my point.
You are just making things up. And James and the others were not active in the narrative they were purely in the predicate. As they don't leave predication, Josephus shows that his interest lies elsewhere.
Bernard Muller wrote:
Why are you asserting that with "and some others", there are more incentives for Josephus to say something about that enigmatic James who he singled out from the others?? Obviously your interlocutors don't agree with the assertion, so you need to do more than just assert it.
What's so special about James? Josephus made a point to name him (but not for any of "some others") but has nothing personal to say about him (according to Peter's proposal). No qualification, comment or identification.
These people were not the subjects of the story. They were not agents. Their doings are of no importance. They are merely there to show Ananus going beyond his powers causing their deaths. The passage is not about them, but Ananus. If Josephus mentions a name of one of them, it is a bonus.
Bernard Muller wrote:BTW, I found cases in Josephus' Antiquities when group of others or some others are mentioned, with not one named among them. If that James was just somebody with that name and nothing else worth saying about him, why name him in the first place?
I'll know more of that tomorrow after I do my research.
Perhaps Josephus never attended the Muller School of Narrative Techniques.
In your research you might note how many of the examples deal with people who are not the actors or agents, but merely the objects of the action.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
I'm not sure how relevant this is, but James (Jacob) is a much commoner name than the other examples you give. e.g. another James (the son of Judas of Galilee) is mentioned in Antiquities XX. There might be more need to explain which James than for example which Jechonias.
It's possibly relevant, and at the end of the day a small modicum of probability against a hypothesis might be wrung out from this argument, but it would have to sit next to other arguments (some of which I, at least, take to be more straightforward and probative).
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
I apologise if this has been already covered, but one should note that the way the passage is written the brother of Jesus-called-Christ (whose name was James) it cannot be produced from James by adding a gloss. It has to be rewritten not just expanded.
