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

[ficino]

Thanks ficino,

Sorry to be so late to respond. The process by which scholia were made to medieval codex mss may not apply to 1st century or two CE. According to David Trobisch the process of writing books in ancient Roman times involved vetting the drafts with friends before releasing a final version.

[text from DCH omitted for brevity]

Hello David, it is stimulating to read your further thoughts. I can't go more deeply into this question. Just a few things:
1. I assume that you recognize that not all marginalia in codices can be considered scholia.
2. speculation about Josephus' having sent one or more drafts to friends for correction is interesting but of course remains speculation as concerns AJ 20. I had suggested a source switch as a possible explanation for the shift in tone toward Ananus in that book (others have suggested this before). Signs of haste such as this, even if there is not a source shift, don't add weight to a hypothesis of correction of AJ 20 by a friend of Josephus.
Point of interest: an alternative way of vetting a draft was to read it aloud before a circle of friends or students, as Isocrates had done centuries before with the Panathenaicus. But I don't see mileage, in any case, in speculation about Josephus' having vetted AJ 20 in a public reading.
3. as I said, I'm not a specialist in papyri. There are students' papyrus books surviving of authors commonly studied in schools - Homer et al. - and some of these have notes or other helpful insertions made by the student (cf. Raffaella Cribiore on this). But even with student copies, I do not know of questions written in margins.
4. at this point, I have trouble accepting the hypothesis that AJ 20.200 is what Josephus wrote, because the words λεγομένου Χριστοῡ come out of nowhere and cry out for some explanation. And as Carrier points out ("Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200," Journal of Early Christian Studies 20.4 [2012] 489-514), this account of the death of James does not square with other accounts of the martyrdom of James the Just. On the whole, Carrier's hypothesis seems more economical to me.

If I have further thoughts I will share them here.

Best, ficino

[John2]

Maryhelena,

You wrote:

"The carbon dating works against Eisenman."

I've never found the carbon dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls to be an issue for Eisenman's theories, since the range of dates for the Scrolls he thinks are relevant to Christian origins includes the first century CE:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dat ... ea_Scrolls

There is a wide enough range in dating to encompass various theories, so it is important to couple this with what the Scrolls actually say, and on that score I think Eisenman's theory makes the most sense. Additionally, the numerous coins from the 66-70 CE war (up to 68 CE) found at Qumran indicates that the DSS sect at least existed up to that time.

An example of what the Scrolls say that indicates a first century CE setting is their description of the "Kittim" (who are seen by other scholars, such as Wise, Abegg and Cook in their translation of the DSS, as the Romans):

"[T]hey sacrifice to their standards and worship their weapons of war" and "parcel out their yoke and their taxes" (1QpHab col. 6).

Josephus describes the Romans as doing exactly these things:

"And now the Romans ... brought their ensigns to the temple and set them over against its eastern gate; and there did they offer sacrifices to them (War 6.6.1); and:

"Cyrenius came himself into Judea, which was now added to the province of Syria, to take an account of their substance ... the Jews, although at the beginning they took the report of a taxation heinously, yet did they leave off any further opposition to it ... yet was there one Judas ... who, taking with him Sadduc ... both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty" (Ant. 18.1.1).

This is one small example of how what the Scrolls say, coupled with the coin data, indicates a first century CE setting.

[maryhelena]

Maryhelena,

You wrote:

"The carbon dating works against Eisenman."

I've never found the carbon dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls to be an issue for Eisenman's theories, since the range of dates for the Scrolls he thinks are relevant to Christian origins includes the first century CE:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dat ... ea_Scrolls

Dating the DSS scrolls is a contentious issue for Eisenman. He has gone so far as to say:

It is for this reason, I have turned to "the Internal Evidence", which is just what I did in my earlier blog (internal-evidence-vs-external-evidence-carbon-testing-dead-sea-scrolls) and what I will continue to do. If the results of these tests and other "External Measurements", such as archaeology and paleography - some, like a new "science", "patina analysis", .........really not exact sciences at all - conflict with "the Internal Data"; then, regardless of one's confidence in them, they must be jettisoned.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-ei ... 33599.html

I can't fault Eisenmen here - nothing wrong in putting a question mark over dating. However, from his position of supporting a specific theory - questions would be raised as to his motive in questioning the results of carbon dating. 'Internal Evidence' re the DSS - there is no 'evidence' - there is interpretation of the sources. Once interpretation is involved it's best to keep open space for revisions.....

There is a wide enough range in dating to encompass various theories, so it is important to couple this with what the Scrolls actually say, and on that score I think Eisenman's theory makes the most sense. Additionally, the numerous coins from the 66-70 CE war (up to 68 CE) found at Qumran indicates that the DSS sect at least existed up to that time.

And I prefer the route that Greg Doudna is taking - identifying the end of the Hasmonean period as being reflected in the DSS.....

An example of what the Scrolls say that indicates a first century CE setting is their description of the "Kittim" (who are seen by other scholars, such as Wise, Abegg and Cook in their translation of the DSS, as the Romans):

"[T]hey sacrifice to their standards and worship their weapons of war" and "parcel out their yoke and their taxes" (1QpHab col. 6).

Josephus describes the Romans as doing exactly these things:

"And now the Romans ... brought their ensigns to the temple and set them over against its eastern gate; and there did they offer sacrifices to them (War 6.6.1); and:

"Cyrenius came himself into Judea, which was now added to the province of Syria, to take an account of their substance ... the Jews, although at the beginning they took the report of a taxation heinously, yet did they leave off any further opposition to it ... yet was there one Judas ... who, taking with him Sadduc ... both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty" (Ant. 18.1.1).

This is one small example of how what the Scrolls say, coupled with the coin data, indicates a first century CE setting.

Yes, Rome is relevant to Judean history.....However, keep in mind that Rome was involved in that history from 63 b.c.e.(a time when Rome removed Aristobulus II from being King and High Priest and installing his brother Hyrcanus II) This being a time when the Hasmonean family conflict became enmeshed with Rome. Plenty of scope there for the DSS type stories to be composed. There was no lst century conflict that could overshadow the Jewish situation from 63 b.c.e.

Eisenman is wrong in equating the Teacher of Righteousness to the Antiquities James - that Teacher figure was long dead by 62/63 c.e. What Eisenman is 'seeing' is a reflection of that DSS figure in the Antiquities James story. If he can face that - then perhaps he can look at the carbon dating with more acceptance than he now appears to be doing. Eisenman' theories of the DSS are faulty. Therefore, his interpretation of the Antiquities passage about James, a passage set around 62/63 c.e., based on his faulty interpretation of the DSS - is wrong.

The DSS Teacher of Righteousness is not the Antiquities James. The Antiquities James reflects this DSS figure - there is a connection but there is no direct equation of the two figures. As there is no direct equation between Ananus of around 70 c.e. to the Antiquities James of 62/63 c.e. The Josephan story of Ananus and James is not history - it is an allegorical story, a snapshot that reflects Hasmonean/Jewish history going back many years.

The gospel writers were great storytellers. They told stories with a theological or philosophical intent. Josephus is also a great storyteller. He tells stories with a political intent.

[DCHindley]

I will hunt down the descriptions of the process of publishing given by David Trobisch (on editing collections of one's letters) and perhaps Wayne Meeks (who seems to equate the process of upper crust Roman types as an analogue to publication of the books of the NT, which I think is a stretch, but at least relevant to Josephus).

Oops, I meant Harry Gamble, Books & Readers in the Early Church, not Wayne Meeks.

However, this is how he describes the ancient publication process:

[83] ... Apart from works intended for public performance (such as dramas, poetic works to be recited at competitions, or addresses written for civic occasions), publication in the ancient world was a great deal more private than the modem phrase private publication, suggests. Authors who wished to make their work public had several ways to do so. They might make or have made at their own expense, several copies of an initial draft, which they would then distribute to friends. This alone did not amount to publication but constituted what we might think of as a referee procedure: the author expected a private [84] reading and response from the recipients, with a view to revising and improving the work. Alternatively, they might invite a small group of friends to a reading (recitatio). at which the work, or parts of it, would be read by the author and discussed by the gathered company. In these ways an author made his work known, but only to a small and sympathetic circle of acquaintances. The work remained essentially private, under the author's direct control, and was still subject to revision. Only after the author had tentatively proffered a composition and then revised it would he or she make it available to a larger audience. (pages 83-84)

I have to wonder what forms the responses the author expected to his gift copies would take. Unfortunately, the bibliography in the endnotes is all in foreign languages I do not read.

On the process by which texts were published and entered into circulation in antiquity, the most helpful discussions are V. Burr, "Editionstechnik," RAC 4 (1959): 597-610; B. van Groningen, "Ekdosis," Mnemosyne 16 (1963): 1-17; R. Sommer, "T. Pomponius Atticus und die Verbreitung von Ciceros Werken," Hermes 61 (1926): 389-422; K. Quinn, "The Poet and His Audience in the Augustan Age," ANRW 30.1, 75-180, and R. Starr, "The Circulation of Literary Texts in the Roman World," CQ 37 (1987): 213-23. Of the older literature, one of the more useful discussions is K. Dziatzko, Untersuchungen liber ausgewahlte Kapitel des antiken Buchwesen (Leipzig: Teubner, 1900), 149-78.

As for Trobisch, his comments have mostly to do with the selection and editing of private letters for publication, and would not be relevant to Josephus.

DCH

[ficino]

According to David Trobisch the process of writing books in ancient Roman times involved vetting the drafts with friends before releasing a final version.

Hello David, it is stimulating to read your further thoughts. I can't go more deeply into this question. Just a few things:

1. I assume that you recognize that not all marginalia in codices can be considered scholia.

Please excuse my imprecise use of terms. I am not sure what to call something jotted in the margin of a written text that is meant to be a criticism of some kind, either positive or negative. "Scholia" I think is a technical term for such comments generated from the readings of manuscripts by scholars in medieval times. They were probably not derived from marginal notes.

Hello David, to go into detail about scholia would quite derail your thread, but in the interest of common inquiry I observe that "scholia" in MSS of Greek authors generally refers to learned commentary, written in the margins, as you say, and tied to particular words or parts of the main text. I don't know of scholars today who would consider students' notes to be scholia. In many cases the scholia on an author, esp. poets and Attic orators, can be shown to go back to the commentaries of the great Alexandrian commentators of the third cent. BCE to first CE. They generally appear in mss. of commonly studied authors. People who work on them tend to put the formation of the present-day scholia, as opposed to that of the (posited) original commentary, in the 8th to 10th cent. CE, often in Constantinople, where maiuscule manuscripts were being recopied into minuscule script and there were libraries.

A few sources on scholia on "pagan" authors that I think are generally available are:

John W. White, scholia on the Birds of Aristophanes, still very useful conspectus of the formation of the scholia:
http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000840932

Eleanor Dickey comments on scholia of various authors:
http://books.google.com/books?id=ldMW5v ... &q&f=false

and our own Roger has a comment on the topic and on Dickey:

http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/2011 ... stophanes/

[DCHindley]

Wonderful,

Oh my! I appear to have edited my original reply to ficino, and obliterated it into the ether.

So .... refer to above for a more substantial reply than the original one was anyways.

DCH

[ficino]

Oops, I meant Harry Gamble, Books & Readers in the Early Church, not Wayne Meeks.

However, this is how he describes the ancient publication process:

[83] ... Apart from works intended for public performance (such as dramas, poetic works to be recited at competitions, or addresses written for civic occasions), publication in the ancient world was a great deal more private than the modem phrase private publication, suggests. Authors who wished to make their work public had several ways to do so. They might make or have made at their own expense, several copies of an initial draft, which they would then distribute to friends. This alone did not amount to publication but constituted what we might think of as a referee procedure: the author expected a private [84] reading and response from the recipients, with a view to revising and improving the work. Alternatively, they might invite a small group of friends to a reading (recitatio). at which the work, or parts of it, would be read by the author and discussed by the gathered company. In these ways an author made his work known, but only to a small and sympathetic circle of acquaintances. The work remained essentially private, under the author's direct control, and was still subject to revision. Only after the author had tentatively proffered a composition and then revised it would he or she make it available to a larger audience. (pages 83-84)

I have to wonder what forms the responses the author expected to his gift copies would take. Unfortunately, the bibliography in the endnotes is all in foreign languages I do not read.

On the process by which texts were published and entered into circulation in antiquity, the most helpful discussions are V. Burr, "Editionstechnik," RAC 4 (1959): 597-610; B. van Groningen, "Ekdosis," Mnemosyne 16 (1963): 1-17; R. Sommer, "T. Pomponius Atticus und die Verbreitung von Ciceros Werken," Hermes 61 (1926): 389-422; K. Quinn, "The Poet and His Audience in the Augustan Age," ANRW 30.1, 75-180, and R. Starr, "The Circulation of Literary Texts in the Roman World," CQ 37 (1987): 213-23. Of the older literature, one of the more useful discussions is K. Dziatzko, Untersuchungen liber ausgewahlte Kapitel des antiken Buchwesen (Leipzig: Teubner, 1900), 149-78.

The material collected by Gamble looks very useful, thanks!

[John2]

Maryhelena,

We at least seem to agree that (at least some of) the DSS appear to have been written during the Roman era. And since 63 BCE is within the range of the carbon dating, it's possible that the Scrolls I think are relevant to the first century CE could pertain to that earlier time instead.

But regarding the first of the two examples I gave for thinking that the Scrolls are from the first century CE -that the Kittim are said to "sacrifice to their standards and worship their weapons of war" in the Habakkuk Pesher- this is something that is only said of Titus' soldiers in all of ancient literature (War 6.6.1). And this likely happened because it was during the Imperial Roman era that "under the eagle or other emblem was often placed a head of the reigning emperor, which was to the army the object of idolatrous adoration."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquila_(Roman)

So it's fair to presume that the standards that were worshipped by Titus' soldiers bore an image of the emperor, which logically ties it to my second example, that the Kittim "parcel out their yoke and their taxes," because even though tribute was instituted during Pompey's time (War 1.7.6), money taxes were not paid until the first century CE:

"Quirinius was ordered to organize the taxation of the new prefecture. Until then, taxes had been paid in kind. However, during the census which Quirinius organized, the inhabitants were required to declare their property in money. There are no indications that the Roman money taxes were higher than the taxes they replaced, but taxes in money were more onerous than taxes in kind, because a farmer had to borrow in case of a poor harvest" and "any Roman coin would bear an image of the goddess Roma or a legend saying that the man represented was the divine emperor."

http://www.livius.org/su-sz/sulpicius/quirinius.html

But however all that may be, another example that indicates a first century CE setting for the Scrolls is their unique prohibition of niece marriage:

"But while the Law of incest was written for males, it likewise applies to females. Therefore, if the daughter of a brother uncovers the nakedness of the brother of her father, he is near kin" (CD col. 5); and:

"A man shall not take the daughter of his brother or the daughter of his sister, for this is an abomination" (11QT col. 66).

As far as I am aware, there is no evidence that the Hasmoneans practiced niece marriage, but it was common practice among the Herodians, with Herod Antipas being but one example:

"He was first married to Phasaelis, a daughter of Aretas IV, an Arabian leader. Later, he divorced her in order to marry Herodias. She had been the wife of Herod Antipas' half-brother (who was also called Herod). Marriage to the ex-wife of one's brother was not uncommon, but Herodias was also the daughter of another half-brother, Aristobulus. Marriage to one's niece was also permitted, but marriage to a woman who was both one's sister-in-law and one's niece was unusual."

http://www.livius.org/he-hg/herodians/h ... tipas.html

This is all I have time for at the moment, but these are some of the examples that indicate that the Scrolls were written during the first century CE.

[maryhelena]

Maryhelena,

We at least seem to agree that (at least some of) the DSS appear to have been written during the Roman era. And since 63 BCE is within the range of the carbon dating, it's possible that the Scrolls I think are relevant to the first century CE could pertain to that earlier time instead.

Particularly anything to do with the Wicked Priest and the Teacher of Righteousness....

But regarding the first of the two examples I gave for thinking that the Scrolls are from the first century CE -that the Kittim are said to "sacrifice to their standards and worship their weapons of war" in the Habakkuk Pesher- this is something that is only said of Titus' soldiers in all of ancient literature (War 6.6.1). And this likely happened because it was during the Imperial Roman era that "under the eagle or other emblem was often placed a head of the reigning emperor, which was to the army the object of idolatrous adoration."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquila_(Roman)

So it's fair to presume that the standards that were worshipped by Titus' soldiers bore an image of the emperor, which logically ties it to my second example, that the Kittim "parcel out their yoke and their taxes," because even though tribute was instituted during Pompey's time (War 1.7.6), money taxes were not paid until the first century CE:

"Quirinius was ordered to organize the taxation of the new prefecture. Until then, taxes had been paid in kind. However, during the census which Quirinius organized, the inhabitants were required to declare their property in money. There are no indications that the Roman money taxes were higher than the taxes they replaced, but taxes in money were more onerous than taxes in kind, because a farmer had to borrow in case of a poor harvest" and "any Roman coin would bear an image of the goddess Roma or a legend saying that the man represented was the divine emperor."

http://www.livius.org/su-sz/sulpicius/quirinius.html

But however all that may be, another example that indicates a first century CE setting for the Scrolls is their unique prohibition of niece marriage:

"But while the Law of incest was written for males, it likewise applies to females. Therefore, if the daughter of a brother uncovers the nakedness of the brother of her father, he is near kin" (CD col. 5); and:

"A man shall not take the daughter of his brother or the daughter of his sister, for this is an abomination" (11QT col. 66).

As far as I am aware, there is no evidence that the Hasmoneans practiced niece marriage, but it was common practice among the Herodians, with Herod Antipas being but one example:

"He was first married to Phasaelis, a daughter of Aretas IV, an Arabian leader. Later, he divorced her in order to marry Herodias. She had been the wife of Herod Antipas' half-brother (who was also called Herod). Marriage to the ex-wife of one's brother was not uncommon, but Herodias was also the daughter of another half-brother, Aristobulus. Marriage to one's niece was also permitted, but marriage to a woman who was both one's sister-in-law and one's niece was unusual."

http://www.livius.org/he-hg/herodians/h ... tipas.html

This is all I have time for at the moment, but these are some of the examples that indicate that the Scrolls were written during the first century CE.

Yes, good point about the niece marriage - but, as you say, and I'm not sure, re what would be the position of the Hasmoneans.

As to the Romans - they were still occupying Judea after the death of both the Wicked Priest (Antigonus) and the Teacher of Righteousness (Hyrcanus). (applying these two labels a question of which side of the conflict one was on.....). Thus, the DSS writers would be referencing this continued state of affairs in Judea. i.e. spread out the time-frame for the DSS - don't restrict an interpretation to the first century and Antiquities 20 and James. Always keeping in mind that the Antiquities James, even when not viewed as a brother of the gospel Jesus - is a questionable figure regarding claims for historicity.

[John2]

Maryhelena,

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

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.

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).