James the br of Jesus Christ, the TF, and everything

[maryhelena]

Maryhelena,

There are some additional correspondences between the Scrolls and issues that pertain to the first century CE.

That some correspondence between the DSS and the first century is possible does not negate the primary focus of the DSS i.e. the conflict between a Wicked Priest and a Teacher of Righteousness. That conflict is not reflected in the first century.

Greg Doudna:

In his death at the hands of gentiles
Antigonus Mattathias corresponds with the portrayal of the death of
the Wicked Priest, and Antigonus Mattathias is the only Hasmonean
ruler of the first century bce who does.
And so it seems to me that the wicked ruler of these texts reflects
Antigonus Mattathias,

ALLUSIONS TO THE END OF THE HASMONEAN DYNASTY
IN PESHER NAHUM (4Q169)

http://scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads ... 59-278.pdf

So far we can say that the Scrolls are anti-sacrifice-to-standards (something that only Titus' soldiers are said to have done), anti-tax (which could refer to the taxes imposed in the time of Pompey or in the first century CE) and anti-niece marriage (something that is said of first century CE Herodians and not, as far as I am aware, the Hasmoneans).

But additionally Josephus says that the 66-70 CE war started when rebels persuaded:

“those that officiated in the Divine service to receive no gift or sacrifice for any foreigner. And this was the true beginning of our war with the Romans; for they rejected the sacrifice of Caesar on this account; and when many of the high priests and principal men besought them not to omit the sacrifice, which it was customary for them to offer for their princes, they would not be prevailed upon” (War 2.17.2).

The issue of Gentile sacrifice is also discussed in the Dead Sea Scrolls:

“Concerning the offering of grain by the Gentiles … it is impure … one is not to eat any Gentile grain, nor is it permissible to bring it to the Temple … Concerning sacrifices by Gentiles, we say that in reality they sacrifice to the idol that seduces them; therefore it is illicit” (MMT).

Paul discusses the issue of food sacrificed to idols in 1 Cor. 8:

"So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that 'An idol is nothing at all in the world' and that 'There is no God but one.' For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many 'gods' and many 'lords'), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do" (v. 4-8).

And James is presented as forbidding it in Acts 15:

"It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols" (v. 28-29).

So not only was this a first century CE issue (to such a degree that it started the 66-70 CE war), Paul was okay with it and James is presented as sharing the opinion of the DSS sect.

One cannot establish historicity for 'James' nor can one establish historicity for 'Paul'. Trying to interpret the DSS is one thing - but to tie that interpretation up with an interpretation of figures from the NT, figures that cannot be historically verified - is a pointless exercise.

But getting back to the Kittim, something else they do in the Habakkuk Pesher is:

"destroy many by the sword, young men, grown ups, and old people, women and children, and have no pity even on the fruit of the womb" (1QpHab col. 6).

While there is no doubt that Pompey's invasion caused many to perish, destruction like this is only said by Josephus of the Romans in the first century CE:

"Nor was there commiseration of any age, or any reverence of gravity, but children and old men ... were all slain in the same manner" (War 6.5.1); and:

"The soldiers also came to the rest of the cloisters that were in the outer [court of the] temple, whither the women and children, and a great mixed multitude of the people, fled, in number about six thousand. But ... the soldiers were in such a rage, that they set that cloister on fire; by which means it came to pass that some of these were destroyed by throwing themselves down headlong, and some were burnt in the cloisters themselves. Nor did any one of them escape with his life" (War 6.5.2).

Contrast this with what he says about Pompey:

"But there was nothing that affected the nation so much, in the calamities they were then under, as ... their holy place ... with two thousand talents of sacred money. Yet did not he [Pompey] touch that money, nor any thing else that was there reposited; but he commanded the ministers about the temple, the very next day after he had taken it, to cleanse it, and to perform their accustomed sacrifices. Moreover, he made Hyrcanus high priest ... by which means he acted the part of a good general, and reconciled the people to him more by benevolence than by terror" (War 1.7.6).

John2, maybe, if you are interested in discussing Eisenman - why not start a new thread? This is DCH' thread - and we don't want to get on the wrong side of David now, do we....

[andrewcriddle]

Hello Andrew,

Personally, I do not think that the text of Ant. 20:200 as it survives is 100% by Josephus, if only because the word "christos" with the meaning "anointed person" is evident only here and the TF in 18:63, "this man was the Christ."

The phrase as it stands in Ant 20:200, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, [τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ Ἰάκωβος ὄνομα = the brother of Jesus, the one called Christ, Jacob by name], seems out of keeping with Josephus' avoidance of the term "christos" even when describing anointed priests or rulers.

At very best it seems to me that to be "called anointed" would be a technical term to describe a former high priest (say, Jesus son of Phabes of 15:322, or Jesus the son of Sie of 17:341) or a member of a pool of persons deemed suitable high priestly designates (say, Jesus son of Damneus of 20:203 appointed by Agrippa II in 62 CE, or Jesus son of Gamaliel of 20:213 who was a high priest appointed by Agrippa II in 63 CE, and may be same as Jesus son of Gamala of War 4:160, and likely the same Jesus who gave the speech to the Idumeans in War 4:238-270).

135 ... the captains of ... troops of robbers ... 147 ... took upon them [selves the power] to appoint high priests. 148 ...[T]hey ... disannulled the [usual order of] succession, according to those families out of whom the high priests used to be made ... 153) ... [and] they undertook to dispose of the high priesthood by casting lots for it, whereas, as we have said already, it was to descend by succession in a family.

However, Josephus prefers to refer to this latter class of men as members of the aristocracy associated with ruling families, not as men with special anointing beforehand. As far as I can tell, he never refers to even High Priests or ex-High Priests as "anointed." The only other place in all of Josephus' works where the word χριστός is used is Ant. 8:137 where it is used as an adjective to designate the plaster dabbed onto the exterior of the upper deck of Solomon's temple (ὸ δὲ ἄλλο μέχρι τῆς στέγης χριστὸν ἦν).

Josephus, even while saying outright that Vespasian was the world ruler predicted by Judean sacred scripture, never even alludes to him as an analogue to Cyrus the Persian, which the author of Isaiah 45:1 calls the Lord's "anointed" [τῷ χριστῷ μου] in the Old Greek of the Christian Old Testament. Cyrus is mentioned something like 38 times in the works of Josephus, without mention of Isaiah's prophesy except in the case of Ant. 11:3-6, where Cyrus is made to paraphrase Isaiah's prophecy of 44:26-45:1, but only says God "approved" (ἀποδείξας) of him to release the Judean captives and restore the city again.

Assuming then that the phrase "called Christ" is foreign to Ant. 20:200 and likely an interpolation, I am more inclined see the Christian process of adding to the legend of James the Just as the result of some misunderstanding of a comment about Josephus' portrayal of Ananus son of Ananus in Ant. 20:200, which was in polar opposition to what he says of him in War 4, where he is an extremely just man whose ignoble death became the cause for the destruction of the city.

Christians appear to have come to associate this James who was brother of a certain Jesus with Jesus the Christian "Christ" on the basis of tradition also found in Gal. 1:19 "James the Lord's brother" and also reflected in Clement of Alexandria's lost Hypotyposeis book 6 (per the fragment preserved in Eusebius' Church History 2.1.3-6), which also cites Gal. 1:19, and of course Hegesippus who links James the Just with "Jesus as the Christ" (again, per the fragment preserved by Eusebius in Church History 2.23.3-19).

But where would such a tradition come from? There needs to be more than a question about the appropriateness of attributing the destruction of the city to the death of Ananus for Christians to misunderstand as if referring to James the brother of Jesus Christ. I think that the same writer of the marginal question, or perhaps someone later (I am not going to get all dogmatic about it), also offered an alternative, the high priestly Jesus who gave the speech to the Idumeans on the wall, who was also killed with Ananus and shared the same ignoble treatment. This may be where the term "anointed one" was used to further identify this Jesus as already an ex-high priest or was soon to be appointed one. The vocabulary of such a commentator, who was under no constraint to appear diplomatic, will not necessarily be the same as that employed by Josephus in works dedicated to his Roman patrons, but also sure to be read by Diasporic Judeans.

Now there would be two somewhat ambiguous comments, which if taken out of context or interpreted by someone unfamiliar with Josephus' War, furnishes all the materials necessary to make a Christian think that "Josephus" said that James was a high priest, that he was very just, that he gave a speech on the wall, was killed, his death was the cause of the destruction of the city, and that Josephus would have been more correct to attribute the destruction the death of Jesus (assumed to mean Jesus Christ).

It may not be as "clean" as assuming the present text of 20:200 is 100% genuine, but it doesn't require assuming that Josephus wrote the anomalous "called Christ," using a noun that is only used of the unnamed miracle worker executed by Pilate who "was the Christ" in Ant. 18:63, which almost nobody thinks is 100% genuine, and at the same time gives a reasonable source for ALL later Christian tradition about James the Just and a motive for adding "called Christ" to Ant. 20:200 and the TF to Ant. 18:63-64.

DCH

Hi David

I agree that it is unlikely that Josephus used the term Christ twice and only twice, both times referring to Jesus. However we both doubt that the reference to Christ in book 18 is authentic. Therefore the word is used at most once by Josephus. A large minority of a writers vocabulary will be words used once and once only , many of these occasional words could plausibly have been used elsewhere but weren't. This is not on its own an argument against authenticity.

Andrew Criddle

[John2]

"John2, maybe, if you are interested in discussing Eisenman - why not start a new thread?"

That's a good idea. I am still new here and haven't tried to start a new thread about anything yet. So I will give that a shot.

[Hawthorne]

Hello Andrew,

Personally, I do not think that the text of Ant. 20:200 as it survives is 100% by Josephus, if only because the word "christos" with the meaning "anointed person" is evident only here and the TF in 18:63, "this man was the Christ."

The phrase as it stands in Ant 20:200, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, [τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ Ἰάκωβος ὄνομα = the brother of Jesus, the one called Christ, Jacob by name], seems out of keeping with Josephus' avoidance of the term "christos" even when describing anointed priests or rulers.

At very best it seems to me that to be "called anointed" would be a technical term to describe a former high priest (say, Jesus son of Phabes of 15:322, or Jesus the son of Sie of 17:341) or a member of a pool of persons deemed suitable high priestly designates (say, Jesus son of Damneus of 20:203 appointed by Agrippa II in 62 CE, or Jesus son of Gamaliel of 20:213 who was a high priest appointed by Agrippa II in 63 CE, and may be same as Jesus son of Gamala of War 4:160, and likely the same Jesus who gave the speech to the Idumeans in War 4:238-270).

135 ... the captains of ... troops of robbers ... 147 ... took upon them [selves the power] to appoint high priests. 148 ...[T]hey ... disannulled the [usual order of] succession, according to those families out of whom the high priests used to be made ... 153) ... [and] they undertook to dispose of the high priesthood by casting lots for it, whereas, as we have said already, it was to descend by succession in a family.

However, Josephus prefers to refer to this latter class of men as members of the aristocracy associated with ruling families, not as men with special anointing beforehand. As far as I can tell, he never refers to even High Priests or ex-High Priests as "anointed." The only other place in all of Josephus' works where the word χριστός is used is Ant. 8:137 where it is used as an adjective to designate the plaster dabbed onto the exterior of the upper deck of Solomon's temple (ὸ δὲ ἄλλο μέχρι τῆς στέγης χριστὸν ἦν).

Josephus, even while saying outright that Vespasian was the world ruler predicted by Judean sacred scripture, never even alludes to him as an analogue to Cyrus the Persian, which the author of Isaiah 45:1 calls the Lord's "anointed" [τῷ χριστῷ μου] in the Old Greek of the Christian Old Testament. Cyrus is mentioned something like 38 times in the works of Josephus, without mention of Isaiah's prophesy except in the case of Ant. 11:3-6, where Cyrus is made to paraphrase Isaiah's prophecy of 44:26-45:1, but only says God "approved" (ἀποδείξας) of him to release the Judean captives and restore the city again.

Assuming then that the phrase "called Christ" is foreign to Ant. 20:200 and likely an interpolation, I am more inclined see the Christian process of adding to the legend of James the Just as the result of some misunderstanding of a comment about Josephus' portrayal of Ananus son of Ananus in Ant. 20:200, which was in polar opposition to what he says of him in War 4, where he is an extremely just man whose ignoble death became the cause for the destruction of the city.

Christians appear to have come to associate this James who was brother of a certain Jesus with Jesus the Christian "Christ" on the basis of tradition also found in Gal. 1:19 "James the Lord's brother" and also reflected in Clement of Alexandria's lost Hypotyposeis book 6 (per the fragment preserved in Eusebius' Church History 2.1.3-6), which also cites Gal. 1:19, and of course Hegesippus who links James the Just with "Jesus as the Christ" (again, per the fragment preserved by Eusebius in Church History 2.23.3-19).

But where would such a tradition come from? There needs to be more than a question about the appropriateness of attributing the destruction of the city to the death of Ananus for Christians to misunderstand as if referring to James the brother of Jesus Christ. I think that the same writer of the marginal question, or perhaps someone later (I am not going to get all dogmatic about it), also offered an alternative, the high priestly Jesus who gave the speech to the Idumeans on the wall, who was also killed with Ananus and shared the same ignoble treatment. This may be where the term "anointed one" was used to further identify this Jesus as already an ex-high priest or was soon to be appointed one. The vocabulary of such a commentator, who was under no constraint to appear diplomatic, will not necessarily be the same as that employed by Josephus in works dedicated to his Roman patrons, but also sure to be read by Diasporic Judeans.

Now there would be two somewhat ambiguous comments, which if taken out of context or interpreted by someone unfamiliar with Josephus' War, furnishes all the materials necessary to make a Christian think that "Josephus" said that James was a high priest, that he was very just, that he gave a speech on the wall, was killed, his death was the cause of the destruction of the city, and that Josephus would have been more correct to attribute the destruction the death of Jesus (assumed to mean Jesus Christ).

It may not be as "clean" as assuming the present text of 20:200 is 100% genuine, but it doesn't require assuming that Josephus wrote the anomalous "called Christ," using a noun that is only used of the unnamed miracle worker executed by Pilate who "was the Christ" in Ant. 18:63, which almost nobody thinks is 100% genuine, and at the same time gives a reasonable source for ALL later Christian tradition about James the Just and a motive for adding "called Christ" to Ant. 20:200 and the TF to Ant. 18:63-64.

DCH

Hi David

I agree that it is unlikely that Josephus used the term Christ twice and only twice, both times referring to Jesus. However we both doubt that the reference to Christ in book 18 is authentic. Therefore the word is used at most once by Josephus. A large minority of a writers vocabulary will be words used once and once only , many of these occasional words could plausibly have been used elsewhere but weren't. This is not on its own an argument against authenticity.

Andrew Criddle

I don't think it is only a quantitative problem here, but also a qualitative one. Is it likely that Josephus identifies James by relationship to Jesus called Christ when he has not previously referred to that person with that identifier?

[andrewcriddle]

I don't think it is only a quantitative problem here, but also a qualitative one. Is it likely that Josephus identifies James by relationship to Jesus called Christ when he has not previously referred to that person with that identifier?

It partly depends on what background knowledge Josephus expects of his readers. By the time Antiquities was published (early 90's CE), educated Romans were probably aware of a Jesus who was called Christ by his followers, the supposed founder of a weird and troublesome cult.

Andrew Criddle

[pakeha]

I don't think it is only a quantitative problem here, but also a qualitative one. Is it likely that Josephus identifies James by relationship to Jesus called Christ when he has not previously referred to that person with that identifier?

It partly depends on what background knowledge Josephus expects of his readers. By the time Antiquities was published (early 90's CE), educated Romans were probably aware of a Jesus who was called Christ by his followers, the supposed founder of a weird and troublesome cult.

Andrew Criddle

You'd think so, wouldn't you?
However, we know Pliny the Younger in 113thought it necessary to torture two deaconess to try to obtain information about their beliefs, with indifferent results

But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/pliny.html

Curiously enough, Pliny never mentions Jesus, only Christ, correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't mind admitting I'm very confused about what we really know about what Romans knew about Christians before the mid-second century, other than Nerva's decree in 98

The distinction between Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism was recognized by the emperor Nerva around the year 98 in a decree granting Christians an exemption from paying the Fiscus Iudaicus, the annual tax upon the Jews. From that time, Roman literary sources begin to distinguish between Christians and Jews.

Sorry, it's from Wiki.

[Tenorikuma]

DCH, your initial post in this thread is fascinating. I haven't had the chance to read the rest of the thread yet.

However, there's a major problem with the hypothesis that Pilate began his tenure in 19: we have coins minted by Valerius Gratus in Caesarea in 24 CE.

Numismatic evidence trumps literary every time, I should think.

[DCHindley]

DCH, your initial post in this thread is fascinating. I haven't had the chance to read the rest of the thread yet.

However, there's a major problem with the hypothesis that Pilate began his tenure in 19: we have coins minted by Valerius Gratus in Caesarea in 24 CE.

Numismatic evidence trumps literary every time, I should think.

The coin in question is Hendin 647: Judaea, under Roman Procurator Valerius Gratus, under Tiberius, Æ Prutah. Year 11 (24 AD). IOV-LIA (for Julia Livia) L-IA (the date) either side of palm branch / TIB KAI CAP, three lines in wreath.
http://theos-sphragis.info/prefect_coins.html (beware, this is an apologetic site)

Since the coins of the prefects did not include the prefect's names, just the year of the reign of Tiberius (the era is sometimes unclear). There are four, one each for the first 4 years of Gratus' governorship, then they stop.

Minted	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31
Tiberius			1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
Gratus				LΒ	LΓ	LΔ	LΕ						LΙΑ
Pilate																		LΙϚ	LΙΖ	LΙΗ

I think it is pretty clear that the annual issues of Gratus stopped dead 18 CE, but no coin follows until seven years later in 24 CE, and again none for five years until 29 CE. As the existing text of Josephus attributes the rule of Gratus to 15-26, and Pilate 26-36 CE, of course the coin of 24 HAS to be by Gratus. The coins mean nothing without the name of the governor, and they just do not have them.

In any event, if Pilate was appointed in 26 but waited until 29 CE to issue his first coin that is three years. If Pilate was appointed in 19 CE then his first coin issued in 24 was six years into his governorship. The design of the coin of 24 CE is similar but not exactly the same as those of Gratus' early years, but not that much different than those of Pilate's later years (where Tiberius' name was spelled out slightly more fully).

The fact is, provinces of the empire frequently went many years without any issue of fractional coins (such as bronze prutahs), especially if the number of fractional coins in circulation (sometimes going back many decades, even to Herodian times) was sufficient to keep the local economy moving.

DCH

[Tenorikuma]

DCH, I'm sympathetic to your argument, but I don't think you can dismiss the coins that easily. Coins minted by Judaean prefects are usually distinctive to the prefect in question. The 24 CE issue by Gratus is virtually identical in design to his 18 CE issue. Only the date is different. http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/j ... tus/t.html

Coins issued by Pilate have a rather different design. To make your hypothesis stick, you would have to propose a plausible reason why Pilate simply reused Gratus's coin design for his first issue.

(Keeping in mind that I am not a numismatics expert.)