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

[John2]

Hawthorne,

You wrote:

"Are there any references to James being the brother of Jesus in the DSS?"

No. James' name also does not appear in the DSS. While some Scrolls mention names, like the Priestly Courses (e.g., Queen Alexandra Salome, Hycanus and perhaps the Roman Aemelius Scaurus), the ones that I think are relevant to Christian origins use code names like the Teacher of Righteousness, the Wicked Priest, the Liar and the Seekers of Smooth Things (i.e., the intepretations of Scripture called the Pesharim and the Damascus Document).

This use of code names could be due to the fact that the DSS sect appears to have been involved in the 66-70 CE war with Rome, given that coins from this revolt were found at Qumran and the general revolutionary ethos and anti-tax, anti-sacrifices-on-behalf-of-gentiles stance in the Scrolls that is similar to that of the Fourth Philosophy and the rebels who started this war. Or perhaps it only had to do with the fact that they kept their doctrines secret from outsiders.

While this makes it frustrating for ascertaining their identities, there is enough biographical information provided in the Scrolls to at least make some fair enough guesses, and I lean strongly towards Eisenman's idea that the Teacher of Righteousness is James, the Wicked Priest is Ananus and the Liar is Paul. This is controversial, and I understand that, and welcome looking at it from different points of view.

There does seem to be a consensus, though, that the Seekers of Smooth Things were the Pharisees.

[maryhelena]

@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.

Doubt it......not that I've read any of Eisenman's books. Eisenman, from reading the odd references to his books, has connected the James of Antiquities with the Teacher of Righteousness of the DSS. Good so far - however, the problem for Eisenman is that the DSS dating, the carbon dating, does not support his DSS and Antiquities 20 theory. i.e. the carbon dating does not support a first century dating for the DSS. (Eisenman goes further with a christian interpretation - he equates the James of Antiquities with the James of the NT - something that certain early christian writers have already done)

You might find the following article interesting - it's by Greg Doudna

Response to Robert Eisenman in the Huffington Post (Oct. 22, 2013) and Jerusalem Post (Oct. 21, 2013)

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/201 ... 8031.shtml

Doudna has proposed that the Wicked Priest of the DSS is the last Hasmonean King and High Priest, Antigonus II. Executed by the Romans in 37 b.c.e. I put up a thread on Doudna' position a while back. Link below.

Doudna: Antigonus: Wicked Priest hung up alive on a cross
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=513

Doudna' interpretation of DSS material does allow, although I have not read Doudna do so, a connection between the DSS and Antiquities 20. Josephus, in his 62/63 c.e. story about Ananus and James is telling an allegorical or symbolic story. A story that runs backwards 100 years to around 37 b.c.e. and the execution of Antigonus. It is the 100 year time-frame that links the DSS Wicked Priest and Teacher of Righteousness story to Antiquities. The content of Ant.20.20 (the James story) is not history - it is a reflection of earlier Hasmonean/Jewish history. History that is also reflected in the DSS.

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

The carbon dating works against Eisenman - thus, his theory won't run well here.....If one wants to take up the Antiquities James connection to the DSS - that's a different ball game. That requires that one work with, instead of against, the carbon dating - plus dropping those christian eyeglasses and reading Josephus through Jewish eyes.

And just for the record, I'm in the ahistoricist/mythicist camp myself..... That means I uphold the position that there was no gospel JC (of whatever variant its proposers assume). That further means; there was no flesh and blood brother, named James, of the gospel Jesus; that no flesh and blood followers of the gospel Jesus went around preaching the immoral doctrine that a human flesh and blood sacrifice was the means of salvation; that no followers went around preaching against the evidence of their own eyes - that dead flesh and blood bodies become living bodies.

[andrewcriddle]

A rather simpler solution would be that the original text of Antiquities book 20 agreed with our current manuscripts; however an early manuscript of Antiquities book 20 had a marginal note against chapter 9:1 (the passage about Ananus and James) saying "On account of this man's righteous blood Jerusalem was overthrown", (or something similar), this note meant that on account of the death of Ananus (as described in the Jewish War) Jerusalem was overthrown. However Origen (and possibly Hegesippus) misread this note as a claim that Jerusalem was overthrown on account of the death of James.

Unless one is arguing that our current text of Antiquities 20:9:1 is something that Josephus is unlikely to have written, the above solution seems to explain the external evidence rather well.

Andrew Criddle

[MrMacSon]

However Origen (and possibly Hegesippus) misread this note as a claim that Jerusalem was overthrown on account of the death of James.

or Origen's successor, Pamphilus of Caesarea?

[maryhelena]

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

Yes, David, whistling in the wind is just what you are doing with this irrational theory about 'two marginal notes' in Antiquities. It's a totally unnecessary assumption that is bound to fall at the first hurdle. The external evidence, of early christian writers regarding the James of Antiquities, is a christian interpretation of a Josephan source. An interpretation of Josephus that itself relies on a priory interpretation of the gospel Jesus story. How these early christian writers got to their interpretation might be interesting. However, it has no greater significance than it reveals their own disposition to their material. It does not answer the problems that the James passage and the TF present.

[maryhelena]

A rather simpler solution would be that the original text of Antiquities book 20 agreed with our current manuscripts; however an early manuscript of Antiquities book 20 had a marginal note against chapter 9:1 (the passage about Ananus and James) saying "On account of this man's righteous blood Jerusalem was overthrown", (or something similar), this note meant that on account of the death of Ananus (as described in the Jewish War) Jerusalem was overthrown. However Origen (and possibly Hegesippus) misread this note as a claim that Jerusalem was overthrown on account of the death of James.

The problem with this is that, in Antiquities 20, Ananus is not a righteousness man. If there was such a marginal note as you propose - then surely there would be questions as to how the Wicked Priest of Antiquities, dated 62/63 c.e. later became the just ex High Priest of 70 c.e. in War book 4. Such a marginal note raises questions not answers.

The external evidence, the writings of some early christians, is not evidence that some manuscript of Antiquities (not the original ms) had the proposed marginal note. What the evidence from early christian sources indicates is that these writers were trying to stretch their gospel Jesus interpretations to the events of 70 c.e. The gospel Jesus died in the 30s. James, the Antiquities brother of Jesus, died around 62/63 c.e. Neither death leading directly to the events of 70 c.e.

These early christian writers found, in War, the Josephan story about Ananus and Jesus. Josephus saying that it was the death of Ananus that led to the fall of Jerusalem. The early christian writers took the characteristics of Ananus and Jesus and applied them to James, i.e. a Josephan story prior to 70 c.e. is transposed, by early christian writers, on to James of 62/63 c.e - and thereby, since the Antiquities James is, re the christian writers, the brother of the gospel Jesus, that transference runs all the way back to the execution of the christ figure, Jesus, in the 30s.

The killing of the gospel Jesus, a figure that prophesied that the temple stones would fall down, and the killing of his Antiquities brother James, are both relevant to the events of 70 c.e. Which is simply to say that the early christian writers were interested to view the events of 70 c.e. through a gospel lens; a gospel lens that kept the Jesus story of the 30s clearly in focus and relevant to 70 c.e.

Yes, the above is an interpretation of the why the early christian writers interpreted the Josephan source on James as they did. How did they arrive at their interpretation of the Josephan source? By reading their prior interpretation of the gospel Jesus story into Josephus. They did not need any marginal notes to tell them their interpretation must be done in such and such a way - interpretation does not work that way. It's freewheeling and by chance or design will yield it's value.

Unless one is arguing that our current text of Antiquities 20:9:1 is something that Josephus is unlikely to have written, the above solution seems to explain the external evidence rather well.

Andrew Criddle

The early christian writers did not need marginal notes in Antiquities - their writings betray an ability to interpret their Josephan sources to suit their gospel predispositions and motivations.

[DCHindley]

In the words of Digbert: "Boo hoo"

DCH

Yes, David, whistling in the wind is just what you are doing with this irrational theory about 'two marginal notes' in Antiquities. It's a totally unnecessary assumption that is bound to fall at the first hurdle. The external evidence, of early christian writers regarding the James of Antiquities, is a christian interpretation of a Josephan source. An interpretation of Josephus that itself relies on a priory interpretation of the gospel Jesus story. How these early christian writers got to their interpretation might be interesting. However, it has no greater significance than it reveals their own disposition to their material. It does not answer the problems that the James passage and the TF present.

DCH

[maryhelena]

In the words of Digbert: "Boo hoo"

DCH

Yes, David, whistling in the wind is just what you are doing with this irrational theory about 'two marginal notes' in Antiquities. It's a totally unnecessary assumption that is bound to fall at the first hurdle. The external evidence, of early christian writers regarding the James of Antiquities, is a christian interpretation of a Josephan source. An interpretation of Josephus that itself relies on a priory interpretation of the gospel Jesus story. How these early christian writers got to their interpretation might be interesting. However, it has no greater significance than it reveals their own disposition to their material. It does not answer the problems that the James passage and the TF present.

DCH

Likewise, David ...although I'm a little ahead of you - afternoon here.....

[DCHindley]

A rather simpler solution would be that the original text of Antiquities book 20 agreed with our current manuscripts; however an early manuscript of Antiquities book 20 had a marginal note against chapter 9:1 [200] (the passage about Ananus and James) saying "On account of this man's righteous blood Jerusalem was overthrown", (or something similar), this note meant that on account of the death of Ananus (as described in the Jewish War) Jerusalem was overthrown. However Origen (and possibly Hegesippus) misread this note as a claim that Jerusalem was overthrown on account of the death of James.

Unless one is arguing that our current text of Antiquities 20:9:1 is something that Josephus is unlikely to have written, the above solution seems to explain the external evidence rather well.

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

[DCHindley]

Likewise, David ...although I'm a little ahead of you - afternoon here.....

Then

DCH