The Legion of Jesuses in Josephus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The Legion of Jesuses in Josephus

Post by Secret Alias »

I know (or I think I know) that angelic names were not common for people until the Medieval period (i.e. Michael, Gabriel etc). Beyond that I know nothing.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Legion of Jesuses in Josephus

Post by MrMacSon »

MrMacSon wrote: Sun Jun 16, 2019 4:59 pm
davidlau17 wrote: Sun Jun 16, 2019 9:33 am
Trees of Life wrote: Sun Jun 16, 2019 2:19 am Where is the 'Jesus brother of James' personage text of 1. Jesus brother of James in the works of Josephus?
It's just the inverse of "the brother of Jesus called Christ, whose name was James" from Anitquities (20.9.1). Of course, it would be mistaken for anyone to assume that this Jesus was actually alive during that time (~62 CE) - but I just noted that his name was relevant that year, enough so for Josephus to identify James by it. In fact, one might get the impression James was being stoned on account of his relation to this brother named Jesus.
re "... his name was relevant that year" - who is the person or entity 'his name' is referring to??
davidlau17 wrote: Mon Jun 17, 2019 5:04 am Jesus called Christ.
Cheers [ie. from Antiquities 20.200 / 9.1]
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: The Legion of Jesuses in Josephus

Post by MrMacSon »

davidlau17 wrote: Mon Jun 17, 2019 6:23 am
MrMacSon wrote: Sun Jun 16, 2019 5:24 pm
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.
There have been book pages, and even whole journal editions and books written about the parallels between the NT Jesus and both Jesus son of Anianas and Jesus son of Saphat, -

Theodore J. Weeden, 'Two Jesuses, Jesus of Jerusalem and Jesus of Nazareth: Provocative Parallels and Imaginative Imitation', Forum [Westar Institute’s academic journal], New Series 6, 2, Fall 2003, -
  • Prologue
  • Part One, Sec. A: The Case for Mark’s Imitation of the Story of Jesus the Son of Ananias
  • Part One, Sec. B: The Markan Jesus and Jesus the Son of Ananias
  • Part Two: The Case for Luke and the Final Q Redactor’s Imitation of the Story of Jesus Son of Ananias
  • Part Three: The Case for John’s Imitation of the Story of Jesus Son of Ananias
  • Part Four: Results of the Investigation of Parallels Between Jesus of Jerusalem and Jesus of Nazareth
  • Weeden concluded that Josephus modelled the story of Jesus son on Ananias on the figure of Jeremiah and Mark's account of Jesus of Nazareth depended directly on Josephus’ account.

Craig Evans, 'Jesus in Non-Christian Sources', in Studying the Historical Jesus leds. Chilton and Evans), pp. 443-78 (475-77). "


Vermeiren, Frans J (2015) A Chronological Revision of the Origins of Christianity; 234 pp.
Trees of Life
Posts: 61
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2018 8:56 am

Re: The Legion of Jesuses in Josephus

Post by Trees of Life »

davidlau17 wrote: Mon Jun 17, 2019 5:44 am
Trees of Life wrote: Sun Jun 16, 2019 11:21 pm 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.
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.
Thanks for qualifying your list to the forum with: 'It was simply meant to be read at face value.'

Why then, have you not qualified your actual list?

Where has Josephus archived a Jesus, surnamed brother of James? And also the corollary, where has Josephus identified a James, surnamed brother of Jesus?

Your 1. Jesus brother of James in your list, was not surnamed by Josephus, unlike the other five of which Jesuses, were surnamed by Josephus.
Truth perdures.
davidlau17
Posts: 141
Joined: Wed May 29, 2019 9:45 am

Re: The Legion of Jesuses in Josephus

Post by davidlau17 »

Trees of Life wrote: Mon Jun 17, 2019 7:00 pm
Thanks for qualifying your list to the forum with: 'It was simply meant to be read at face value.'

Why then, have you not qualified your actual list?

Where has Josephus archived a Jesus, surnamed brother of James? And also the corollary, where has Josephus identified a James, surnamed brother of Jesus?

Your 1. Jesus brother of James in your list, was not surnamed by Josephus, unlike the other five of which Jesuses, were surnamed by Josephus.
You're hairsplitting over semantics here, and I'm not quite sure what the motive is. Technically, all the names are incorrectly nomenclated. "Jesus, son of Sapphias" should only read "Jesus of Sapphias"; "Jesus son of Damneus" should only read "Jesus of Damneus", and so on. The "son" part is logically inferred by translators. We do not have to infer that the Jesus mentioned in Antiquities 20.9.1 had a brother named James. Josephus tells us explictly: "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James."

Technically though, Josephus never archives a Jesus who was surnamed "brother of James" - he supposedly surnames Jesus from Antiquities 20.9.1 with "who was called Christ". The problem with this surname is that it might just be interpolation. Jesus from 18.3.3 is never actually given surname. Josephus (supposedly) mentions that "He was the Christ", in passing, but he never directly refers to him as "Jesus called Christ".
I always felt that a scientist owes the world only one thing, and that is the truth as he sees it. - Hans Eysenck
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Legion of Jesuses in Josephus

Post by Ben C. Smith »

davidlau17 wrote: Thu Jun 20, 2019 3:53 pm
Trees of Life wrote: Mon Jun 17, 2019 7:00 pm
Thanks for qualifying your list to the forum with: 'It was simply meant to be read at face value.'

Why then, have you not qualified your actual list?

Where has Josephus archived a Jesus, surnamed brother of James? And also the corollary, where has Josephus identified a James, surnamed brother of Jesus?

Your 1. Jesus brother of James in your list, was not surnamed by Josephus, unlike the other five of which Jesuses, were surnamed by Josephus.
You're hairsplitting over semantics here, and I'm not quite sure what the motive is. Technically, all the names are incorrectly nomenclated. "Jesus, son of Sapphias" should only read "Jesus of Sapphias"; "Jesus son of Damneus" should only read "Jesus of Damneus", and so on. The "son" part is logically inferred by translators.
Uh oh. It looks like you may have consulted the Greek text of the Antiquities. Apparently nobody told you that reporting on the Greek text is not allowed in response to Trees of Life's posts.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Trees of Life
Posts: 61
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2018 8:56 am

Re: The Legion of Jesuses in Josephus

Post by Trees of Life »

davidlau17 wrote: Thu Jun 20, 2019 3:53 pm
Trees of Life wrote: Mon Jun 17, 2019 7:00 pm
Thanks for qualifying your list to the forum with: 'It was simply meant to be read at face value.'

Why then, have you not qualified your actual list?

Where has Josephus archived a Jesus, surnamed brother of James? And also the corollary, where has Josephus identified a James, surnamed brother of Jesus?

Your 1. Jesus brother of James in your list, was not surnamed by Josephus, unlike the other five of which Jesuses, were surnamed by Josephus.
David Lau wrote:
'Technically though, Josephus never archives a Jesus who was surnamed "brother of James" - he supposedly surnames Jesus from Antiquities 20.9.1 with "who was called Christ". '

Thanks for confirming that Jesus brother of James doesn't exist in Josephus' works and that Jesus called Christ does exist in Josephus' works — in Antiquities 20.9.1.

Just listing Josephus' Jesus as he has written in Antiquities 20.9.1 and adding your rider, (supposed), would free your mien from being labelled deficient in the eyes of the interpolation cabal, and a dissenter of their penchant for conformity, if it were to be a concern of yours.

What is being pointed out to you is that by listing your Jesus surnamed brother of James, one that doesn't exist and that you depict as being written by Josephus, you could be termed indigent in a historiographical metier, but you aren't perturbed by that, as it seems.
Truth perdures.
davidlau17
Posts: 141
Joined: Wed May 29, 2019 9:45 am

Re: The Legion of Jesuses in Josephus

Post by davidlau17 »

Trees of Life wrote: Sun Jun 23, 2019 4:01 am Thanks for confirming that Jesus brother of James doesn't exist in Josephus' works and that Jesus called Christ does exist in Josephus' works — in Antiquities 20.9.1.
You've cherry-picked one sentence from a rather long post.

According to Josephus, Jesus called Christ had a brother named James. Thus, I identified him as: Jesus, brother of James. Evidently, this identifier was good enough for you to recognize which Jesus I was referring to. Thus, it was a successful one.

In short, you're putting too much stock into surnames. They are simply labels used to help one identify the individual in question. One could go by multiple surnames (i.e. Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus son of Joseph from Nazareth, Jesus Christ, Jesus the Nazarene; James the son of Zebedee, James the brother of John; Joseph Barsabbas, Joseph Justus; James the Just, Jame's the Lord's brother, James the Bishop; etc). They identify the individual - but they are not titles. They are malleable to change.
Trees of Life wrote: Sun Jun 23, 2019 4:01 am Just listing Josephus' Jesus as he has written in Antiquities 20.9.1 and adding your rider, (supposed), would free your mien from being labelled deficient in the eyes of the interpolation cabal, and a dissenter of their penchant for conformity, if it were to be a concern of yours.

What is being pointed out to you is that by listing your Jesus surnamed brother of James, one that doesn't exist and that you depict as being written by Josephus, you could be termed indigent in a historiographical metier, but you aren't perturbed by that, as it seems.
The authenticity of Antiquites 18.3.3 appears to be a point of contention here. You assume that I'm conforming to the majority opinion by presuming it to be interpolated. Not so. All evidence points to this chapter being heavily altered, if not a case of outright forgery.

To begin with, as a Jewish Pharisee who wrote derisively about all other messiah claimants, Josephus would have been unlikely to believe Jesus to be the Christ. However, even if he did come to that belief, common sense would tell us that he would dedicate a heavy portion of Antiquities to his Messiah. Instead he casually and abruptly proclaims, "He was the Christ". The Testimonium Flavianum is one of the shortest chapters in his Antiquities; it consists of a grand total of 89 words.

Compare this to the next chapter (18.3.4), an absurd tale describing a Roman pagan, Decius Mundus, who tricks a pious pagan lady (Paulina) into committing adultery with him. Mundus pretends to be the god Anubis, and manages to sleep with Paulina in the Temple of Isis. Mundus takes a day before boasting about his sexual conquest, leaving Paulina dismayed, and the story ends with Tiberius (yes, the emperor) destroying the Temple of Isis. What does any of this have to do with the history of the Jews? Absolutely nothing. How many words does Josephus dedicate to this irrelevant story? 683 words.

Some textual evidence against 18.3.3 can be found in its use of the word ποιητής. It uses ποιητής to mean "doer", as in "a doer of surprising deeds". Elsewhere, however, Josephus only uses the term ποιητής to mean "poet" - never to mean "doer". A later author, Eusebius, does use the term in this manner - a point that will prove relevant later. So far, I've only provided internal evidence against the Testimonium; perhaps, external evidence provides support for its authenticity. Does it?

Well a number of early Christian authors did assert that Josephus wrote of Jesus in his Antiquities. Eusebius actually quoted 18.3.3, verbatim and in its entirety, in his Historia Ecclesiae (c. 324 CE). Unfortunately though, his citation may have proven more damning than redemptive. Before Eusebius, no Christian author ever referred to the passage, even when they would have had every motivation to do so. Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho, would have had a strong reason to use the passage, but he never mentions anything resembling it. Origen, in Contra Celsus, actually complains that while Josephus mentions Jesus, he does not regard Jesus as the Christ. This directly clashes with the sentence "He was the Christ". From Origen's attestation alone, we can conclude that (at the very least) this particular sentence was not in the original form of Antiquities.

I sort of regret writing all that. Points regarding the Testimonium Flavianum's (in)authenticity seem pretty tangential. Your main point seems pedantic - you've yet to explain why presenting Jesus from 20.9.1 with a different surname is such a cause for concern. I think this debate should be buried.
I always felt that a scientist owes the world only one thing, and that is the truth as he sees it. - Hans Eysenck
Martin Klatt

Re: The Legion of Jesuses in Josephus

Post by Martin Klatt »

. . .
Last edited by Martin Klatt on Thu Jul 18, 2019 7:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: The Legion of Jesuses in Josephus

Post by DCHindley »

Martin Klatt wrote: Tue Jun 25, 2019 3:17 amHmm, actually if we consider that part of the Testimonium to be genuine, maybe up to the line where he is called Christ, which according to the remarks of Origen was not there yet, I think you could make a case in which Josephus is only smirking about this Jesus in his usual fashion when he relates about prophetic pretenders.

Then a ποιητής of "surprising deeds" is in fact someone telling tall tales. And a σοφὸς ἀνήρ should be understood as a wise-guy with the negative connotation and the rest was also written in a sarcastic voice. Then later on it was doctored and the Christ pretension added (Eusebius?)to reflect a completely reversed picture of a really holy person.
The first person I am aware of that suggested that a real but non-flattering statement about someone who could be identified as Jesus was originally present but was edited into a positive statement, was Robert Eisler. I do not read German so his two volume work, Iesous Basileus ou Basileusas (1929/30) is not in the works for me, but there is an abridged English translation by the name The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist, translated by Alexander Krappe (what a name), 1833.

Eisler gave examples of ancient "Hue & Cry" notices ("Wanted" posters), the Letter of Lentulus (sp?) and other documents that seem to hint at a wanted poster for Jesus or Paul (why should he be left out of the fun?) and examines the passages in some detail, followed by examples of official censorship of the Talmud to explain just how such a revision could be pulled off.

There are several rather crappy scans floating about, but Peter Kirby found a really compact one (a mere 21 Mb) of surprisingly good quality OCR (of the English at least) that could be found by searching the site.* Like all 19th century scholars, he was - mmm - "eccentric," holding many a biased opinion about Jews and Arabs (by today's standards even), and advocated the idea that the Slavonic translation/adaptation of Josephus' War was influenced by Josephus' early Aramaic account of the Capture of Jerusalem (which had not otherwise survived, in Aramaic at least). War was Josephus' much expanded Greek translation of this Aramaic Capture, which the Romans had exported to the Judeans residing in the Parthian and Mesopotamian diaspora to dissuade them from supporting further Judean rebellions against Roman rule.

Read, be entertained, laugh at them, sure, but in another 100 years someone will read our posts here and laughing at us for the exact same reasons. :D

DCH

*viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1236&p=27373&hilit=Eisler#p30445
Post Reply