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

[Hawthorne]

Hawthorne,

I wrote:

"As for why Josephus doesn't mention James in the Jewish War, if I recall correctly, Mason points out (in Josephus and the New Testament) that there are other people Josephus mentions in the Antiquities that aren't mentioned in the War ..."

I couldn't find any references to this when I checked this book, so I may have recalled incorrectly. But in any event, I found another book that lists some people Josephus mentions in the Antiquities but not the Jewish War besides James:

Onias the Righteous (Ant. 14.2.1); the Pharisee leaders Pollio and Sameas (Ant. 14.9.4, 15.1.1); Saddok, the Pharisee co-founder of the Fourth Philosophy (Ant. 18.1.1); James and Simon, the sons of Judas the Galilean (Ant. 20.5.2). And I already mentioned John the Baptist (Ant. 18.5.2).

So it's not unusual at all that Josephus mentions someone in the Antiquities but not the Jewish War.

I don't have an argument against this at all. I do accept that this is true.

[John T]

@Hawthorne,

Likewise, I don't have a problem with what John2 wrote either because it proves nothing one way or the other.

Perhaps you missed my point.

There are two sides to the same coin.
If you accept DCH's theory that the reference about Jesus were added into the TF then you should also give equal weight that it is probable that they would also alter the reference to James the Just.

There seems to be so much evidence from the Ante-Nicene Fathers that James the Just was the first leader (after Jesus) of the Jewish/Christian church and then around 62 A.D. was martyred for his faith that the Son of Man is Jesus. I'm perplexed as to why Biblical scholars of today (in order to deny his place in Jewish history), would go to extreme measures by turning him into a myth.

Any ideas?

Respectfully,

John T

[maryhelena]

@Hawthorne,

Likewise, I don't have a problem with what John2 wrote either because it proves nothing one way or the other.

Perhaps you missed my point.

There are two sides to the same coin.
If you accept DCH's theory that the reference about Jesus were added into the TF then you should also give equal weight that it is probable that they would also alter the reference to James the Just.

Methinks you have the argument DCH used in his OP back to front....This is what DCH wrote:

DCH: This addition of "called Christ" to Ant 20:200 required a previous mention of Jesus Christ, and the TF was created to fill this lack, probably by Eusebius.

The argument of DCH is first the 'addition of 'called Christ to Ant 20.200' and second, the creation of the TF to 'mention Jesus Christ'.

There seems to be so much evidence from the Ante-Nicene Fathers that James the Just was the first leader (after Jesus) of the Jewish/Christian church and then around 62 A.D. was martyred for his faith that the Son of Man is Jesus. I'm perplexed as to why Biblical scholars of today (in order to deny his place in Jewish history), would go to extreme measures by turning him into a myth.

Any ideas?

Respectfully,

John T

Yes, 1)re-read what DCH wrote.....2) Before you run with DCH' assumption/speculation re
'two marginal notes' being inserted into a copy of Antiquities 20 - ask yourself just how you would go about defending this assumption. If you think you can defend this assumption - then you are doing better than what DCH has done. All DCH has done is put forward an assumption, a speculation. If you want to run with it - then you need to be able to defend it; you need to know the weaknesses of the argument in order to be able to counter the weakness. Simply referencing the argument, and that wrongly, does indicate that you need to do some study of DCH's argument in the OP.

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi maryhelena,

I think there is enough history here that we don't have to imagine that Josephus is being allegorical. The conflict between royal priestly families could have mirrored earlier royal family conflicts. The change of opinion about Ananus Ananus between 72 (Wars) and 92 (Antiquities) is not necessarily a real contradiction.

Lets trace the history of the high priesthood starting from the high priest Ananus in Book 18 of Antiquities

Antiquities 18.2.2 034 This man deposed Ananus from the high priesthood and named Ismael, son of Phabi, as high priest and soon replaced him with Eleazar, son of Ananus, who had been high priest before. After he had held the office for a year, Gratus deposed him and gave the high priesthood to Simon, son of Camithus. 035 After he had held the dignity no more than a year, Joseph Caiaphas was made his successor. When Gratus had done all this he returned to Rome after spending eleven years in Judea, and Pontius Pilate came as his successor.

We have Ananus, followed by Ismael Phabi, followed by Eleazar Ananus Followed by Simon Camithus and Joseph Caiaphas.

Antiquities Book 19.2 297 When Agrippa had duly worshipped God, he deposed Theophilus, son of Ananus, from the high priesthood and gave that honour to Simon the son of Boethus, surnamed Cantheras, whose daughter king Herod had married, as I have said earlier. 298 Simon, therefore, held the priesthood with his brothers and his father, just as the three sons of Simon, son of Onias, had formerly held it under the rule of the Macedonians, as we said in a previous passage.

1. Agrippa took the high priesthood from Theophilus, son of Ananus and gave it to Simon, son of Boethus, son of Cantheras (Simon Boethus Centheras).

Antiquities Book 19.4 313 Now king Agrippa took the priesthood from Simon Cantheras, wishing to return it to Jonathan, son of Ananus, as being more worthy of that dignity, but he did not welcome the restoring of this dignity, but refused it saying, 314 "Your Majesty, my soul rejoices at the honour and that you wish to give it to me, though God has judged me unfit for the high priesthood. I am satisfied with having once worn the sacred vestments, but then it was more sacred than for me to now resume them again. 315 But if you want someone worthier than myself to have this honour, take my advice. My own brother is blameless towards God and yourself, and I recommend him as fit for this honour." 316 The king was pleased with this and took Jonathan's advice, and conferred the high priesthood upon his brother, Matthias.

2. King Agrippa takes the priesthood from Simon Boethus Cantheras and gives it to Matthias Ananus (brother of previous priest Theophilus Ananus. He says that soon thereafter Marcus became governor of Syria.

Antiquities Book 19.8 338 When Agrippa had completed in Berytus the work I have earlier mentioned, he moved to Tiberias, a city in Galilee, where he was highly esteemed by other kings. Among those who came to him were Antiochus, king of Commagene, Sampsigeramus, king of Emesa and Cotys, who the king of Lesser Armenia and Polemo, the king of Pontus, and Herod his brother, who was king of Chalcis. 339 All these he treated most cordially, with pleasant conversation that showed his refined spirit, worthy of the respect paid him by the kings who came to see him in this way. 340 While they were staying with him, Marsus, the governor of Syria, also came and the king, in order to show the respect due to the Romans, went seven furlongs out from the city to meet him. 341 But it proved to be the beginning of a difference between him and Marsus; for he took the other kings with him in his chariot and Marsus wondered what such friendship between these kings could mean and did not think such a close agreement of so many powerful men was in the interest of the Romans. Therefore he sent some of his servants to each of them, telling them to go off home without delay. 342 Agrippa took this badly and was hostile to him from then on. He also took the high priesthood away from Matthias and made Elioneus, son of Cantheras, high priest in his place.

3. When he becomes angry with the Romans, Agrippa takes the priesthood from Matthias Ananus and gives it to Elioneus Canthera. It is hard to tell if Elioneus is the brother of Simon Boethius Canteras or his nephew. So far we have the priesthood going from Ananus, to Ismael Phabi, to Eleazar Ananus to Simon Camithus and Joseph Caiaphas to Theophilus Ananus to Simon Boethius Canthera to Matthias Ananus to Elioneus Canthera.

Antiquiities 20.3 015 Herod, the brother of the deceased Agrippa, who then ruled over Chalcis, also asked Claudius Caesar for authority over the temple and the money of the sacred treasure and over the choosing of the high priests, and obtained all that he asked for. 016 From then on, this authority passed on to his descendants until the end of the war. Accordingly, Herod removed the high priesthood from Cantheras, and in his place bestowed that dignity upon his successor, Joseph Cameus.

4. The brother of Agrippa, Herod, gives the High Priesthood from Elioneus Cantheras and gave it to Joseph Cameus.

Antiquities 20.2 103 And now Herod, king of Chalcis, too the high priesthood from Joseph, son of Camydus, naming as his successor Ananias, the son of Nebedeu; and Cumanus came as successor to Tiberius Alexander. 104 Herod, the brother of the great king Agrippa, departed this life in the eighth year of the reign of Claudius Caesar,

5. Herod takes the High Priesthood from Joseph Cameus (or Camydus) and gives it to Ananias Nebedeu.

Antiquties 20.6.2 131 These Quadratus ordered to be put to death, but he sent Ananias the high priest and general Ananus off in chains to Rome, to account for their actions to Claudius Caesar.

6. Ananias Nebedeu gets sent away to Rome in chains.

Antiquties 20:8.5 162 Felix was hostile to Jonathan the high priest, who had often warned him that he should improve his governing of Jewish affairs, to notables complaining about him, since it was he who had asked Caesar to send him as procurator of Judea. He became so tiresome that he had to be got rid of, for those who are disposed to injustice are angered by such frequent warnings. 163 By promising a lot of money Felix persuaded one of Jonathan's most faithful friends, Doras, a citizen of Jerusalem, to set the brigands on Jonathan and do away with him. Doras did so and arranged for the brigands to murder him, in this way. 164 Some of those brigands went up to the city as though to worship God, bringing daggers under their clothing and by so getting close to Jonathan they killed him. 164 Some of those brigands went up to the city as though to worship God, bringing daggers under their clothing and by so getting close to Jonathan they killed him. 165 As this murder was never avenged, the brigands went up to the festivals with the greatest safety from then on, with weapons concealed as before and mingling among the people. Some of their enemies they killed and they were at the service of others for money, and people were killed not only in outer parts of the city, but within the temple itself. For they even dared to commit murder there, heedless of the impiety they were committing. 166 I think this is why God, in hatred for their wickedness, rejected our city, and no longer judged the temple pure enough for his dwelling, but brought the Romans upon us and threw purifying fire on the city and brought slavery upon us, our wives and our children, wishing to make us wiser by our troubles.

7. The next high priest Jonathan gets murdered by zealots. Interestingly, he does not have a family background and Josephus does not say who appointed it. Josephus suggests that his murder by the zealots led to the misfortunes of war and slavery for the Jews.

Antiquities 20:8.8 179 About this time king Agrippa gave the high priesthood to Ismael, son of Fabis. 180 Now the high priests clashed with the leaders of the Jerusalem populace, and each side gathered and led a group of trouble-makers of the worst kind. When they clashed, they taunted each other with words and threw stones, with nobody to rebuke them; and the city was in uproar as if no authority existed. 181 Then the high priests shamelessly sent their servants to the threshing floors, to take the tithes due to the priests, so that the poorer of the priests died of want, for the violence of the rebels had trampled to such a degree on all right and justice.

8. Josephus does not tell us who Ismael Fabis is. We only learn that he comes from a faction opposed to Roman interest.

Antiquities 20.8.11 194 With the permission of Festus, they sent ten of their leading men to Nero, with Ismael the high priest and Helcias, the keeper of the sacred treasury. 195 When Nero heard what they had to say, he forgave what they had already done, and also allowed them to let stand the wall they had built. This was granted to gratify Poppea, Nero's wife, who was a religious woman and had requested him for these favours and told the ten envoys to go on home, while she kept Helcias and Ismael with herself as hostages. 196 When the king heard this news, he gave the high priesthood to Joseph, surnamed Cabi, son of Simon the former high priest.

9. High Priest Ismael gets held hostage in Rome, like Ananias Nebedeu. The High Priests seem to be having a hard time. Ananias sent to Rome in chains, Johnathan murdered by zealots, and Ismael held hostage in Rome.
Joseph Cabi is the son of Simon the form high priest. This must be Simon Boethius Canthera. Thus this priest is Joseph Cabi Simon Boethius Canthera

Antiquities 20.9.1 197 Hearing of the death of Festus, Caesar sent Albinus as procurator to Judea. And the king deposed Joseph from the high priesthood and passed on that dignity to the son of Ananus, himself also called Ananus. 198 They call this elder Ananus a most fortunate man, for after he himself had held that dignity for a long time, his five sons all served as high priest to God, which has never happened to any of our previous high priests. 199 But this younger Ananus, who, as we have said, assumed the high priesthood, was a notably bold and audacious man and he belonged to the Sadducee sect which, as we have already shown, was the strictest of all the Jews in judging offenders. 200 With Festus dead and Albinus only on his way, Ananus thought he had now a good opportunity to act on this. He assembled a judiciary Sanhedrin and brought before them James, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, and some others, and after condemning them as lawbreakers, gave them over to be stoned. 201 The fairest of the citizens and those most upset at the breaking of the laws, disliked this being done and sent to the king, asking him to stop Ananus from acting like this in future, as what he had already done was not right. 202 Some of them also went to meet Albinus as he was on his way from Alexandria, to tell him that Ananus had wrongfully assembled a Sanhedrin without his consent. 203 Albinus agreed with this and wrote in anger to Ananus threatening to punish him for doing this. So king Agrippa deposed him from the high priesthood, after he had ruled for only three months, and appointed Jesus, the son of Damnaeus, as high priest.

10. We now go from Simon Boethus Canthera to Ananus Ananus to Jesus Damnaeus.

Antiquities 20.9.4 213 Now Jesus the son of Gamaliel succeeded to the high priesthood, in place Jesus, son of Damneus, whom the king deposed, and for this reason there was dissension between the high priests. Groups of reckless people got together and often proceeded from insults to stone-throwing, but Ananias had the upper hand through his riches, which enabled him to bribe those who were most susceptible.

11. Finally, we go from Jesus Damnaeus to Jesus Gamaliel.

Antiquities 20.9.7 223 [Agrippa] He also deposed Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, from the high priesthood and gave it to Matthias, son of Theophilus, under whom the war of the Jews with the Romans began.

Here is the list:
Ananus,
Ismael Phabi
Eleazar Ananus
Simon Camithus (Caiaphas or Canthera?)
Joseph Caiaphas (Caiaphas or Canthera?)
Matthias Theophilus Ananus
Theophilus Ananus
Simon Boethius Canthera
Matthias Ananus
Elioneus Canthera.
Joseph Camydus/Cameus (Is this Cantera?)
Ananias Nebedeu (Ananus? - see note below)
Johnathan ? In Wars 2:12.5 Johnathan is identified as a son of Ananus
Ishmael Fabis (related to Ismael Phabi?)
Joseph Cabi Simon Boethius Canthera
Ananus Ananus
Jesus Damneus (Could this be Boethius?)
Jesus Gamaliel (part of Boethius family - see Joshua below. )

There is an interesting passage in Wars 2:12.5, "243 Two others of the most prominent of them he sent to Caesar, along with the high priests Jonathan and Ananias, and Ananus his son and some other Jewish notables If the original read high priests Ananus and his sons Jonathan and Ananias, we can place the name Ananus next to Jonathan and Ananias and everything becomes clear. Jonathan and Ananius were part of the Ananus clan.

There is also this in wars 2:20 566 "They also chose other generals for Idumaea, Jesus, son of Sapphias, one of the high priests, and Eleazar, son of Ananias, the high priest"
Could Sapphias be Boethius the high priest. Could Boethius have changed into Sapphias and then into Damneus?

Note this from Wikipedia:

According to a highly probable assumption, the Boethusians were associated with the members of the high-priestly family of Boethus.

Simon, son of Boethus from Alexandria - or, according to other sources[who?] Boethus himself -, was made a high priest about 25 or 24 B.C. by Herod the Great, in order that his marriage with Boethus's daughter Mariamne might not be regarded as a mésalliance.[clarification needed]

The family of Boethus produced the following high priests:

Simon, son of Boethus, or Boethus himself (24-5 BC)[6]
Joazar, son of Boethus (4 BC and before 6 AD), unpopular and an advocate of compliance with the Roman census[7]
Eleazar, son of Boethus (4-3 BC)[8] independently attested in the Mandaean Sidra d-Yahia.
Simon Cantheras, son of Boethus (41-42 AD)[9]
Elioneus, son of Simon Cantheras (43-44 AD)[10]
Joshua, son of Gamaliel (64 AD), whose wife Martha belonged to the house[11]

The hatred of the Pharisees toward this high-priestly family is shown by the words of the tanna Abba Saul b. Baṭnit, who lived about the year 40 CE at Jerusalem.[12] It must be especially noticed that "the house of Boethus" heads the list of the wicked and sinful priestly families enumerated by Abba.

The war seems to be between the Boethus/Canthera family and the Ananus family.



Antiquities

<snip>
The advantage of this explanation is that the changes were deliberate rather than just scribal error and therefore gives the forgers more credit for cunning and solving problems.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Hi, Philosopher Jay

Interesting scenario.....

My problem is that such a scenario takes away from Josephus any intent or motive for what is in the relevant passage at Ant.20. It is, for what's its worth, a passage generally understood to be authentic. That some early christian writers have understood the James in the passage to be James from the gospel story - that is their interpretation. It does not mean that that was what Josephus intended. For the sake of argument, remove the 'James, the brother of Jesus called Christ' - and the passage still stands on its own. It's a conflict between Ananus and James. What that conflict was is the question - not who James was the brother of. Yes, as you write above, it is a conflict between High Priests. But is that conflict a present conflict or is it reflecting a much earlier conflict. The fact that Josephus has contradicted his earlier, War 4.ch.5, characterization of Ananus, should perhaps alert one that more is going on here than a perceived current, 62/63 c.e. conflict between Ananus and James.

The dating, itself, suggests that the Ananus and James story is reflecting earlier history. History of the last years of Hasmonean rule. A rule that ended in 37 b.c.e. - 100 years prior to 62/63 c.e. It’s a family history; a history of a family at war. A history of a war about the right to rule as Kings and High Priests of the Jews. There are two protagonists in this history. Two sons of Alexander Jannaeus fight it out for rulership. On the one side is Hyracanus II. On the other side is his brother, Aristobulus II and his son Antigonus II.

If one was on the side of Aristobulus and his son Antigonus, then the other side, Hyrcanus, could be labelled as the Wicked Priest - and vice versa. (the old story, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter...). The DSS captures this conflict as one between a Teacher of Righteousness and a Wicked Priest. Again, depending on ones perspectives, roles would be interchangeable.

If, as seems to be the case, the DSS have used these terms to capture the essence of the Hasmonean brothers at War - then, why not Josephus? If this is what Josephus has done, and I think it is, then there is no need for assuming any Christian interpolation in this passage. Even the 'James, the brother of Jesus called Christ' can be read as not having a Christian inference. After all, the Hasmonean Kings and Priests were 'christ' figures as being anointed Kings and High Priests. Even if, for the sake of argument, there is a double meaning in Ant. 20 - the primary meaning, for Josephus, has to be considered. That meaning, for Josephus, needs to be read in connection with the DSS conflict between a Teacher of Righteousness and a Wicked Priest.

In two earlier threads I referenced the work of Greg Doudna on the DSS.

(Doudna: Antigonus: Wicked Priest hung up alive on a cross
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=513]
(DSS Teacher of Righteousness and the Josephan James
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=518#p9231)

Josephus has, in War, labeled Ananus as a just man. In Slavonic Josephus the same characteristic is used in regard to Ananus - an Ananus who lived near the time of the fall of Jerusalem in 70 c.e.

Slavonic Josephus:

And if I say that
the death of Ananus was the start of
the capture
and the destruction of the walls
I shall not be wrong.

For this high priest,
their leader to salvation.

was a venerable man.
just and meek,
not glorying
in his noble birth or his rank.

And he was a very shrewd planner.

if he had lived
he would have made peace in the war
with the Romans.
for all the people listened to him.

Josephus, in the James passage, has reversed the characteristic of Ananus. From a just man, in War, he becomes, in Antiquities, a man bold and audacious, who wrongfully assembled a Sanhedrin and had some people stoned to death. Thus, working from the DSS scenario, Ananus is at one time the just High Priest and the second time the Wicked Priest. Different perspectives on the Hasmonean situation, different context and different times. In 62/63 c.e. Ananus depicts, symbolizes, a Wicked Priest from the DSS scenario. Prior to 70 c.e. Ananus depicts, symbolizes, the just priest, the Teacher of Righteousness that, re Slavonic Josephus, the people listen to.

And James? Like Ananus, this figure would be the corresponding figure of the DSS - either the Wicked Priest or the Teacher of Righteousness depending on context. Yes, there is no James in the story in War - however, historically, one of the two High Priests in the Hasmonean family conflict outlived the other by about 7 years - as in the two Ananus stories. One story with James, the other story without James.

Josephus says that: "They call this elder Ananus a most fortunate man, for after he himself had held that dignity for a long time, his five sons all served as high priest to God, which has never happened to any of our previous high priests." These are:

Hasmonean Kings and High Priests from John Hyrcanus 134 - 104 b.c.e.

1)Aristobulus 104 - 103 b.c.e.
2)Alexander Jannaeus 103 - 76 b.c.e.
3)Hyrcanus II 67 - 66 b.c.e. (High Priest from 76 b.c.e. to 66 b.c.e.)
4)Aristobulus II 66 - 63 b.c.e.
5)Antigonus 40 - 37 b.c.e.

Josephus has, in Ant.20, made a symbolic story re the Hasmonean conflict. He has used the High Priest Ananus to symbolize both the just and the wicked priest of the DSS. James, in the 62/63 c.e. story, is reflecting the DSS Teacher of Righteousness figure. Neither of these two DSS figures existed - they are simply representations of the two figures of the Hasmonean family conflict. At one time the conflict between the brothers, Hyrcanus and Aristobulus. After the death of Aristobulus, between his son Antigonus and Hyrcanus.

And James the brother of Jesus called Christ? The Hasmonean 'christ' figure was executed, by being hung on a cross and scourged and then beheaded by Rome in 37 b.c.e. - his 'brother', his uncle Hyrcanus, survived him for 7 years. Killed by Herod I around 30 b.c.e.

PhilosopherJay, the Christians might have wanted to make the James of Ant.20 their own - but, methinks, Josephus must have first option on what was his intent and motive for what is in that Antiquities passage. If one can't find motive for Josephus - then OK - try the Christian interpolation idea. However, that road leads nowhere. Blaming the early christian writers might explain where we are today - historical gospel Jesus etc. It does not explain early christian origins. That requires we take the Josephan road; thats the only road that leads to the gate that opens the way towards early christian origins.....

[maryhelena]

Hi maryhelena,

I think there is enough history here that we don't have to imagine that Josephus is being allegorical. The conflict between royal priestly families could have mirrored earlier royal family conflicts. The change of opinion about Ananus Ananus between 72 (Wars) and 92 (Antiquities) is not necessarily a real contradiction.

Hi, PhilosopherJay

Yes, perhaps lots of priestly intrigue - but do we have a specific example that would motivate Rome to raise any army for war? There was, surely, only one priestly intrigue that brought about the end of the Jewish state - the Hasmonean priestly conflict. A conflict that involved much more than infighting between two priestly groups. The Hasmonean priestly conflict was a fight for nationhood as much as it was a fight for the right to be a High Priest. Priestly infighting would hardly be worth Rome raising an army - simply replace any troublesome High Priests. The seeds of the war of 70 c.e. were sown in 37 b.c.e. Foreign occupation does not sit well with a people upholding a belief in Theocracy. It is the killing of Antigonus that led to the inescapable conflict of 70 c.e.

Josephus being allegorical in Ant.20? What were his options if he wanted to mark, in 62/63 c.e. the 100 year since the Romans killed Antigonus?

Today, we had the 70th anniversary of D-Day. The German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, walked proudly down that red carpet on the beach in Normandy - and was given a warm welcome. Reconciliation allowed that to happen - that a defeated nation could again walk proud. Nationhood was denied the Jewish nation. 100 years after the events of 37 b.c.e. there was no nationhood to celebrate. But the past could still be remembered, albeit in ways that did not challenge Rome. Allegory, symbolism - the tools of a prophetic historian - were able to bypass Roman sensibilities and create a remembrance to what was lost.

Josephus needs to be read through Jewish eyes. That some early christian writers interpreted Josephus to suit their own cause is interesting in and of itself. That's all. Their interpretations have given us a historical gospel JC. (of whatever variant). To counter that interpretation of Josephus, that this writer is supporting their claim for historicity for the gospel Jesus, Josephus needs to be read without christian eyeglasses. i.e. if there was no gospel story - how could Josephus be read? Surely, he would be read with a Jewish history book in hand.

If one thinks there are christian interpolations in Josephus - remove them. The core of the TF remains - the core of the James passage remains. Let Jewish history address the core of these two passages - not christian interpretations or misreadings. If there is double meaning to be found - so be it. Put both meanings on the table - not judging one against the other. Allegory and symbolism allow for various meanings. If, as seems to be the case, the Josephan writings have got us to where we are today - a historical Jesus - then those self same writings can be interpreted to deny that claim. The claim of the Jesus historicists, that Josephus supports their position, cannot be challenged by arguing interpolations or marginal notes. Their error is not exposed by such tactics. That route has been tried and failed. An alternative route is to re-interpret Josephus via Jewish history. Knocking down a position is easier if one can offer a better option. That better option is reading Josephus via Hasmonean/Jewish history.

---------------------

As a side note: 2016 marks the Centenary of the Irish Easter Rising of 1916. And, interestingly to say the least........

"British royal family invited to Easter Rising 100th anniversary"
http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/brit ... 06193.html

------------------------

Lets trace the history of the high priesthood starting from the high priest Ananus in Book 18 of Antiquities

Antiquities 18.2.2 034 This man deposed Ananus from the high priesthood and named Ismael, son of Phabi, as high priest and soon replaced him with Eleazar, son of Ananus, who had been high priest before. After he had held the office for a year, Gratus deposed him and gave the high priesthood to Simon, son of Camithus. 035 After he had held the dignity no more than a year, Joseph Caiaphas was made his successor. When Gratus had done all this he returned to Rome after spending eleven years in Judea, and Pontius Pilate came as his successor.

We have Ananus, followed by Ismael Phabi, followed by Eleazar Ananus Followed by Simon Camithus and Joseph Caiaphas.

Antiquities Book 19.2 297 When Agrippa had duly worshipped God, he deposed Theophilus, son of Ananus, from the high priesthood and gave that honour to Simon the son of Boethus, surnamed Cantheras, whose daughter king Herod had married, as I have said earlier. 298 Simon, therefore, held the priesthood with his brothers and his father, just as the three sons of Simon, son of Onias, had formerly held it un

der the rule of the Macedonians, as we said in a previous passage.

1. Agrippa took the high priesthood from Theophilus, son of Ananus and gave it to Simon, son of Boethus, son of Cantheras (Simon Boethus Centheras).

Antiquities Book 19.4 313 Now king Agrippa took the priesthood from Simon Cantheras, wishing to return it to Jonathan, son of Ananus, as being more worthy of that dignity, but he did not welcome the restoring of this dignity, but refused it saying, 314 "Your Majesty, my soul rejoices at the honour and that you wish to give it to me, though God has judged me unfit for the high priesthood. I am satisfied with having once worn the sacred vestments, but then it was more sacred than for me to now resume them again. 315 But if you want someone worthier than myself to have this honour, take my advice. My own brother is blameless towards God and yourself, and I recommend him as fit for this honour." 316 The king was pleased with this and took Jonathan's advice, and conferred the high priesthood upon his brother, Matthias.

2. King Agrippa takes the priesthood from Simon Boethus Cantheras and gives it to Matthias Ananus (brother of previous priest Theophilus Ananus. He says that soon thereafter Marcus became governor of Syria.

Antiquities Book 19.8 338 When Agrippa had completed in Berytus the work I have earlier mentioned, he moved to Tiberias, a city in Galilee, where he was highly esteemed by other kings. Among those who came to him were Antiochus, king of Commagene, Sampsigeramus, king of Emesa and Cotys, who the king of Lesser Armenia and Polemo, the king of Pontus, and Herod his brother, who was king of Chalcis. 339 All these he treated most cordially, with pleasant conversation that showed his refined spirit, worthy of the respect paid him by the kings who came to see him in this way. 340 While they were staying with him, Marsus, the governor of Syria, also came and the king, in order to show the respect due to the Romans, went seven furlongs out from the city to meet him. 341 But it proved to be the beginning of a difference between him and Marsus; for he took the other kings with him in his chariot and Marsus wondered what such friendship between these kings could mean and did not think such a close agreement of so many powerful men was in the interest of the Romans. Therefore he sent some of his servants to each of them, telling them to go off home without delay. 342 Agrippa took this badly and was hostile to him from then on. He also took the high priesthood away from Matthias and made Elioneus, son of Cantheras, high priest in his place.

3. When he becomes angry with the Romans, Agrippa takes the priesthood from Matthias Ananus and gives it to Elioneus Canthera. It is hard to tell if Elioneus is the brother of Simon Boethius Canteras or his nephew. So far we have the priesthood going from Ananus, to Ismael Phabi, to Eleazar Ananus to Simon Camithus and Joseph Caiaphas to Theophilus Ananus to Simon Boethius Canthera to Matthias Ananus to Elioneus Canthera.

Antiquiities 20.3 015 Herod, the brother of the deceased Agrippa, who then ruled over Chalcis, also asked Claudius Caesar for authority over the temple and the money of the sacred treasure and over the choosing of the high priests, and obtained all that he asked for. 016 From then on, this authority passed on to his descendants until the end of the war. Accordingly, Herod removed the high priesthood from Cantheras, and in his place bestowed that dignity upon his successor, Joseph Cameus.

The brother of Agrippa, Herod, gives the High Priesthood from Elioneus Cantheras and gave it to Joseph Cameus.

Antiquities 20.2 103 And now Herod, king of Chalcis, too the high priesthood from Joseph, son of Camydus, naming as his successor Ananias, the son of Nebedeu; and Cumanus came as successor to Tiberius Alexander. 104 Herod, the brother of the great king Agrippa, departed this life in the eighth year of the reign of Claudius Caesar,

Herod takes the High Priesthood from Joseph Cameus (or Camydus) and gives it to Ananias Nebedeu.

Antiquties 20.6.2 131 These Quadratus ordered to be put to death, but he sent Ananias the high priest and general Ananus off in chains to Rome, to account for their actions to Claudius Caesar.

Ananias Nebedeu gets sent away to Rome in chains.

Antiquties 20:8.5 162 Felix was hostile to Jonathan the high priest, who had often warned him that he should improve his governing of Jewish affairs, to notables complaining about him, since it was he who had asked Caesar to send him as procurator of Judea. He became so tiresome that he had to be got rid of, for those who are disposed to injustice are angered by such frequent warnings. 163 By promising a lot of money Felix persuaded one of Jonathan's most faithful friends, Doras, a citizen of Jerusalem, to set the brigands on Jonathan and do away with him. Doras did so and arranged for the brigands to murder him, in this way. 164 Some of those brigands went up to the city as though to worship God, bringing daggers under their clothing and by so getting close to Jonathan they killed him. 164 Some of those brigands went up to the city as though to worship God, bringing daggers under their clothing and by so getting close to Jonathan they killed him. 165 As this murder was never avenged, the brigands went up to the festivals with the greatest safety from then on, with weapons concealed as before and mingling among the people. Some of their enemies they killed and they were at the service of others for money, and people were killed not only in outer parts of the city, but within the temple itself. For they even dared to commit murder there, heedless of the impiety they were committing. 166 I think this is why God, in hatred for their wickedness, rejected our city, and no longer judged the temple pure enough for his dwelling, but brought the Romans upon us and threw purifying fire on the city and brought slavery upon us, our wives and our children, wishing to make us wiser by our troubles.

The next high priest Jonathan gets murdered by zealots. Interestingly, he does not have a family background and Josephus does not say who appointed it. Josephus suggests that his murder by the zealots led to the misfortunes of war and slavery for the Jews.

Antiquities 20:8.8 179 About this time king Agrippa gave the high priesthood to Ismael, son of Fabis. 180 Now the high priests clashed with the leaders of the Jerusalem populace, and each side gathered and led a group of trouble-makers of the worst kind. When they clashed, they taunted each other with words and threw stones, with nobody to rebuke them; and the city was in uproar as if no authority existed. 181 Then the high priests shamelessly sent their servants to the threshing floors, to take the tithes due to the priests, so that the poorer of the priests died of want, for the violence of the rebels had trampled to such a degree on all right and justice.

Josephus does not tell us who Ismael Fabis is. We only learn that he comes from a faction opposed to Roman interest.

Antiquities 20.8.11 194 With the permission of Festus, they sent ten of their leading men to Nero, with Ismael the high priest and Helcias, the keeper of the sacred treasury. 195 When Nero heard what they had to say, he forgave what they had already done, and also allowed them to let stand the wall they had built. This was granted to gratify Poppea, Nero's wife, who was a religious woman and had requested him for these favours and told the ten envoys to go on home, while she kept Helcias and Ismael with herself as hostages. 196 When the king heard this news, he gave the high priesthood to Joseph, surnamed Cabi, son of Simon the former high priest.

High Priest Ismael gets held hostage in Rome, like Ananias Nebedeu. The High Priests seem to be having a hard time. Ananias sent to Rome in chains, Johnathan murdered by zealots, and Ismael held hostage in Rome.
Joseph Cabi is the son of Simon the form high priest. This must be Simon Boethius Canthera. Thus this priest is Joseph Cabi Simon Boethius Canthera

Antiquities 20.9.1 197 Hearing of the death of Festus, Caesar sent Albinus as procurator to Judea. And the king deposed Joseph from the high priesthood and passed on that dignity to the son of Ananus, himself also called Ananus. 198 They call this elder Ananus a most fortunate man, for after he himself had held that dignity for a long time, his five sons all served as high priest to God, which has never happened to any of our previous high priests. 199 But this younger Ananus, who, as we have said, assumed the high priesthood, was a notably bold and audacious man and he belonged to the Sadducee sect which, as we have already shown, was the strictest of all the Jews in judging offenders. 200 With Festus dead and Albinus only on his way, Ananus thought he had now a good opportunity to act on this. He assembled a judiciary Sanhedrin and brought before them James, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, and some others, and after condemning them as lawbreakers, gave them over to be stoned. 201 The fairest of the citizens and those most upset at the breaking of the laws, disliked this being done and sent to the king, asking him to stop Ananus from acting like this in future, as what he had already done was not right. 202 Some of them also went to meet Albinus as he was on his way from Alexandria, to tell him that Ananus had wrongfully assembled a Sanhedrin without his consent. 203 Albinus agreed with this and wrote in anger to Ananus threatening to punish him for doing this. So king Agrippa deposed him from the high priesthood, after he had ruled for only three months, and appointed Jesus, the son of Damnaeus, as high priest.

We now go from Simon Boethus Canthera to Ananus Ananus to Jesus Damnaeus.

Antiquities 20.9.4 213 Now Jesus the son of Gamaliel succeeded to the high priesthood, in place Jesus, son of Damneus, whom the king deposed, and for this reason there was dissension between the high priests. Groups of reckless people got together and often proceeded from insults to stone-throwing, but Ananias had the upper hand through his riches, which enabled him to bribe those who were most susceptible.

We now go from Jesus Damnaeus to Jesus Gamaliel.

Antiquities 20.9.7 223 [Agrippa] He also deposed Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, from the high priesthood and gave it to Matthias, son of Theophilus, under whom the war of the Jews with the Romans began.

Here is the list:
Ananus,
Ismael Phabi
Eleazar Ananus
Simon Camithus (Caiaphas or Canthera?)
Joseph Caiaphas (Caiaphas or Canthera?)
Matthias Theophilus Ananus
Theophilus Ananus
Simon Boethius Canthera
Matthias Ananus
Elioneus Canthera.
Joseph Camydus/Cameus (Is this Cantera?)
Ananias Nebedeu (Ananus? - see note below)
Johnathan ? In Wars 2:12.5 Johnathan is identified as a son of Ananus
Ishmael Fabis (related to Ismael Phabi?)
Joseph Cabi Simon Boethius Canthera
Ananus Ananus
Jesus Damneus (Could this be Boethius?)
Jesus Gamaliel (part of Boethius family - see Joshua below. )

There is an interesting passage in Wars 2:12.5, "243 Two others of the most prominent of them he sent to Caesar, along with the high priests Jonathan and Ananias, and Ananus his son and some other Jewish notables If the original read high priests Ananus and his sons Jonathan and Ananias, we can place the name Ananus next to Jonathan and Ananias and everything becomes clear.

There is also this in wars 2:20 566 "They also chose other generals for Idumaea, Jesus, son of Sapphias, one of the high priests, and Eleazar, son of Ananias, the high priest"
Could Sapphias be Boethius the high priest. Could Boethius have changed into Sapphias and then into Damneus?

Note this from Wikipedia:

According to a highly probable assumption, the Boethusians were associated with the members of the high-priestly family of Boethus.

Simon, son of Boethus from Alexandria - or, according to other sources[who?] Boethus himself -, was made a high priest about 25 or 24 B.C. by Herod the Great, in order that his marriage with Boethus's daughter Mariamne might not be regarded as a mésalliance.[clarification needed][6]

The family of Boethus produced the following high priests:

Simon, son of Boethus, or Boethus himself (24-5 BC)[6]
Joazar, son of Boethus (4 BC and before 6 AD), unpopular and an advocate of compliance with the Roman census[7]
Eleazar, son of Boethus (4-3 BC)[8] independently attested in the Mandaean Sidra d-Yahia.
Simon Cantheras, son of Boethus (41-42 AD)[9]
Elioneus, son of Simon Cantheras (43-44 AD)[10]
Joshua, son of Gamaliel (64 AD), whose wife Martha belonged to the house[11]

The hatred of the Pharisees toward this high-priestly family is shown by the words of the tanna Abba Saul b. Baṭnit, who lived about the year 40 CE at Jerusalem.[12] It must be especially noticed that "the house of Boethus" heads the list of the wicked and sinful priestly families enumerated by Abba.

The war seems to be between the Boethus/Canthera family and the Ananus family.



Antiquities

<snip>
The advantage of this explanation is that the changes were deliberate rather than just scribal error and therefore gives the forgers more credit for cunning and solving problems.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Hi, Philosopher Jay

Interesting scenario.....

My problem is that such a scenario takes away from Josephus any intent or motive for what is in the relevant passage at Ant.20. It is, for what's its worth, a passage generally understood to be authentic. That some early christian writers have understood the James in the passage to be James from the gospel story - that is their interpretation. It does not mean that that was what Josephus intended. For the sake of argument, remove the 'James, the brother of Jesus called Christ' - and the passage still stands on its own. It's a conflict between Ananus and James. What that conflict was is the question - not who James was the brother of. Yes, as you write above, it is a conflict between High Priests. But is that conflict a present conflict or is it reflecting a much earlier conflict. The fact that Josephus has contradicted his earlier, War 4.ch.5, characterization of Ananus, should perhaps alert one that more is going on here than a perceived current, 62/63 c.e. conflict between Ananus and James.

The dating, itself, suggests that the Ananus and James story is reflecting earlier history. History of the last years of Hasmonean rule. A rule that ended in 37 b.c.e. - 100 years prior to 62/63 c.e. It’s a family history; a history of a family at war. A history of a war about the right to rule as Kings and High Priests of the Jews. There are two protagonists in this history. Two sons of Alexander Jannaeus fight it out for rulership. On the one side is Hyracanus II. On the other side is his brother, Aristobulus II and his son Antigonus II.

If one was on the side of Aristobulus and his son Antigonus, then the other side, Hyrcanus, could be labelled as the Wicked Priest - and vice versa. (the old story, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter...). The DSS captures this conflict as one between a Teacher of Righteousness and a Wicked Priest. Again, depending on ones perspectives, roles would be interchangeable.

If, as seems to be the case, the DSS have used these terms to capture the essence of the Hasmonean brothers at War - then, why not Josephus? If this is what Josephus has done, and I think it is, then there is no need for assuming any Christian interpolation in this passage. Even the 'James, the brother of Jesus called Christ' can be read as not having a Christian inference. After all, the Hasmonean Kings and Priests were 'christ' figures as being anointed Kings and High Priests. Even if, for the sake of argument, there is a double meaning in Ant. 20 - the primary meaning, for Josephus, has to be considered. That meaning, for Josephus, needs to be read in connection with the DSS conflict between a Teacher of Righteousness and a Wicked Priest.

In two earlier threads I referenced the work of Greg Doudna on the DSS.

(Doudna: Antigonus: Wicked Priest hung up alive on a cross
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=513]
(DSS Teacher of Righteousness and the Josephan James
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=518#p9231)

Josephus has, in War, labeled Ananus as a just man. In Slavonic Josephus the same characteristic is used in regard to Ananus - an Ananus who lived near the time of the fall of Jerusalem in 70 c.e.

Slavonic Josephus:

And if I say that
the death of Ananus was the start of
the capture
and the destruction of the walls
I shall not be wrong.

For this high priest,
their leader to salvation.

was a venerable man.
just and meek,
not glorying
in his noble birth or his rank.

And he was a very shrewd planner.

if he had lived
he would have made peace in the war
with the Romans.
for all the people listened to him.

Josephus, in the James passage, has reversed the characteristic of Ananus. From a just man, in War, he becomes, in Antiquities, a man bold and audacious, who wrongfully assembled a Sanhedrin and had some people stoned to death. Thus, working from the DSS scenario, Ananus is at one time the just High Priest and the second time the Wicked Priest. Different perspectives on the Hasmonean situation, different context and different times. In 62/63 c.e. Ananus depicts, symbolizes, a Wicked Priest from the DSS scenario. Prior to 70 c.e. Ananus depicts, symbolizes, the just priest, the Teacher of Righteousness that, re Slavonic Josephus, the people listen to.

And James? Like Ananus, this figure would be the corresponding figure of the DSS - either the Wicked Priest or the Teacher of Righteousness depending on context. Yes, there is no James in the story in War - however, historically, one of the two High Priests in the Hasmonean family conflict outlived the other by about 7 years - as in the two Ananus stories. One story with James, the other story without James.

Josephus says that: "They call this elder Ananus a most fortunate man, for after he himself had held that dignity for a long time, his five sons all served as high priest to God, which has never happened to any of our previous high priests." These are:

Hasmonean Kings and High Priests from John Hyrcanus 134 - 104 b.c.e.

1)Aristobulus 104 - 103 b.c.e.
2)Alexander Jannaeus 103 - 76 b.c.e.
3)Hyrcanus II 67 - 66 b.c.e. (High Priest from 76 b.c.e. to 66 b.c.e.)
4)Aristobulus II 66 - 63 b.c.e.
5)Antigonus 40 - 37 b.c.e.

Josephus has, in Ant.20, made a symbolic story re the Hasmonean conflict. He has used the High Priest Ananus to symbolize both the just and the wicked priest of the DSS. James, in the 62/63 c.e. story, is reflecting the DSS Teacher of Righteousness figure. Neither of these two DSS figures existed - they are simply representations of the two figures of the Hasmonean family conflict. At one time the conflict between the brothers, Hyrcanus and Aristobulus. After the death of Aristobulus, between his son Antigonus and Hyrcanus.

And James the brother of Jesus called Christ? The Hasmonean 'christ' figure was executed, by being hung on a cross and scourged and then beheaded by Rome in 37 b.c.e. - his 'brother', his uncle Hyrcanus, survived him for 7 years. Killed by Herod I around 30 b.c.e.

PhilosopherJay, the Christians might have wanted to make the James of Ant.20 their own - but, methinks, Josephus must have first option on what was his intent and motive for what is in that Antiquities passage. If one can't find motive for Josephus - then OK - try the Christian interpolation idea. However, that road leads nowhere. Blaming the early christian writers might explain where we are today - historical gospel Jesus etc. It does not explain early christian origins. That requires we take the Josephan road; thats the only road that leads to the gate that opens the way towards early christian origins.....

[John2]

Philosopher Jay,

You wrote:

"The DSS captures this conflict as one between a Teacher of Righteousness and a Wicked Priest."

Speaking of the Dead Sea Scrolls ....

I was hoping to hold back my views on Eisenman a little longer, considering that he seems to generally be perceived as a kook, but I happen to agree with his theory that Ananus is the Wicked Priest in the Scrolls.

The theory has two things going for it that seem relevant to this discussion. Regarding the issue of why Josephus presents Ananus in a positive light in the Jewish War and a more negative one in the Antiquities, consider that the DSS say that the Wicked Priest "was called by the name of truth when he first arose. But when he ruled over Israel his heart became proud, and he forsook God and betrayed the precepts for the sake of riches" (1QpHab col. 8; Vermes).

This could explain Josephus' good/bad presentations of Ananus. And note that Josephus says Ananus was deposed "after he had ruled for only three months," which fits with the statement that the Wicked Priest had become proud "when he ruled over Israel."

The other thing that seems relevant is the similar manner in which Ananus and the Wicked Priest died and had their corpses desecrated. Ananus was murdered by Idumeans who afterwards mocked his corpse and left it unburied, and the Wicked Priest was murdered by "men of violence" who, according to Vermes, "inflicted horrors of evil diseases and took vengeance upon his body of flesh," and according to Eisenman, "inflicted upon him the Judgments on Evil" and "took vengeance on the flesh of his corpse."

It should be pointed out that Josephus considered what happened to Ananus so appalling that he singles it out as an extraordinary event, so it would be strange if something like this had happened to someone else and no one noticed it.

These correspondances are in addition to the Wicked Priest having previously killed a Teacher of Righteousness who in many respects resembles James.

[Hawthorne]

@Hawthorne,

Likewise, I don't have a problem with what John2 wrote either because it proves nothing one way or the other.

Perhaps you missed my point.

There are two sides to the same coin.
If you accept DCH's theory that the reference about Jesus were added into the TF then you should also give equal weight that it is probable that they would also alter the reference to James the Just.

There seems to be so much evidence from the Ante-Nicene Fathers that James the Just was the first leader (after Jesus) of the Jewish/Christian church and then around 62 A.D. was martyred for his faith that the Son of Man is Jesus. I'm perplexed as to why Biblical scholars of today (in order to deny his place in Jewish history), would go to extreme measures by turning him into a myth.

Any ideas?

Respectfully,

John T

It seems like the solution was to argue that James was not the fleshly brother of Jesus, not to excise references to him. Are you suggesting that the identfier "the just" was deleted from the text? I guess I am not following you.

[John T]

@Maryhelena,

Thank you for your friendly advice.
Clearly, I need to do some more research before bringing the subject up again.

Perhaps I will find the answer in the current book that I am reading: "James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Schools" by Robert Eisenman.

Sadly, I think, not even a newly discovered Community Rule manuscript listing James in his obtained rank of understanding would change the minds of some here.

'They shall be inscribed in the order, one after another, each according to his understanding and his deeds in the Law..'Community Rule' Cave 4.

Respectfully,

John T

[DCHindley]

All DCH has done is put forward an assumption, a speculation. If you want to run with it - then you need to be able to defend it; you need to know the weaknesses of the argument in order to be able to counter the weakness. Simply referencing the argument, and that wrongly, does indicate that you need to do some study of DCH's argument in the OP.

In the words of Digbert: "Boo hoo"

DCH

[Hawthorne]

@Maryhelena,

Thank you for your friendly advice.
Clearly, I need to do some more research before bringing the subject up again.

Perhaps I will find the answer in the current book that I am reading: "James the Brother of Jesus and the Dead Sea Schools" by Robert Eisenman.

Sadly, I think, not even a newly discovered Community Rule manuscript listing James in his obtained rank of understanding would change the minds of some here.

'They shall be inscribed in the order, one after another, each according to his understanding and his deeds in the Law..'Community Rule' Cave 4.

Respectfully,

John T

Are there any references to James being the brother of Jesus in the DSS? Wouldn't it be strange if James the Just is mentioned yet with no reference to being the brother of Jesus, called Christ? My comments about James are limited to whether there is any mention of James the Just in Antiquities, not the DSS. It would be great if the DSS supplied us with independent confirmation of the Jesus story. As far as I know, there is no help to be found there.