spin wrote:You can do the math yourself. The basic structure as evinced in English is [relation] of [name], eg "the mother of Mary" or "the king of Siam". These will be in the vast preponderance in Greek syntax, "the of-Mary mother" and "the of-Siam king". (One notable exception is "son of Bill", as the Greek rarely uses "son", using just the genitive, so "Phil the son of Bill" becomes "Phil of-Bill", though irregularly some now is inserted with irregular results.) Pick a book of AJ and see how long it takes to find an exception.
I had a little time this weekend, so I decided to revisit this topic. As my mission is to gain a better understanding of early Christianity, I am willing to engage an argument, even if the person who presents it is utterly disrespectful.
The argument is that the Greek "brother of Jesus" is not characteristic of Josephus. It is said we should find "of-Jesus brother," and we do find many examples of this syntax throughout AJ, yet in the very same book 20 of "Antiquities" we read:
πρὸς τούτοις δὲ καὶ οἱ παῖδες Ἰούδα τοῦ Γαλιλαίου ἀνήχθησαν τοῦ τὸν λαὸν ἀπὸ Ῥωμαίων ἀποστήσαντος Κυρινίου τῆς Ἰουδαίας τιμητεύοντος, ὡς ἐν τοῖς πρὸ τούτων δεδηλώκαμεν, Ἰάκωβος καὶ Σίμων, οὓς ἀνασταυρῶσαι προσέταξεν Ἀλέξανδρος.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... 99.01.0145
Here, we find not "of-Judas of Galilee sons...Jacob and Simon" or "Jacob and Simon of Judas" but "sons of Judas of Galilee...Jacob and Simon..."
If we can point to this style used in the very same book in which "brother of Jesus called Christ" appears, I think it is safe to say any argument that the syntax is not "Josephan" dissolves. Perhaps this is a technique used when Josephus adds a qualifier such as "called Christ" or "the Galilean" or perhaps it is just something he slips into in this book.
Furthermore, this passage also serves as evidence against the (already weak) pride-of-place grammatical argument, since Jacob and Simon, who are currently under discussion in the section, are named later in the passage than the already-related Judas. Thus, it need not be a Christian purposefully/unconciously putting Jesus' name before James, but perhaps something Josephus does when dealing with a more-famous relative--and we can safely assume "Christos", despite his obscure origins, was more known than James in Rome by the 90s CE. Or perhaps the order of names reflects no intentions on the part of the author at all.
