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

[Bernard Muller]

to DCH,

For gosh sake, get out of that box, before you look like this!

For your information, I feel very comfortable and at ease in that box, once I removed the trash in it. What is left makes a lot of sense, and can be much better evidenced than the many competing theories outside that box. I am at peace with my findings, and that for already a long time.

Cordially, Bernard

[ficino]

For a while now I have been suggesting that one Josephus mss of Ant book 20, at section 200, had two marginal notes to the effect:

Can this one (meaning Ananus, who is described in 20:200 as stern and rash, while in War 4 he is just and a cool dude) be the just high priest on whose account Jerusalem was destroyed?

Better yet it should be on account of Jesus (meaning the chief priest second in rank behind Ananus) because of the speech from the wall, on account of which he [Jesus the Priest] was killed, and cast off!

Some Christian scribe, seeing this mss in his master or patron's library with the two marginal notes, imagined the first was penned by Josephus himself, and took it to mean James, not Ananus, was the person on account of whose death the city was marked for destruction. This Christian scribe felt compelled to correct the text of Ant 20:200 to add "called Christ" in order to identify the Jesus who was brother of James as Jesus Christ.

Origen saw this same copy, which also now had the second marginal note (perhaps it was not yet in the copy seen by the previous scribe), but wasn't sure whether the second note was made by Josephus or someone else. So he imagined that it was correcting the first note by suggesting that Jesus of Christian fame was the person meant, and the speech on the wall was made by James himself.



DCH

I applaud your efforts and presentation in putting together this hypothesis.

I've worked on very many Greek manuscripts, although not so many on papyrus. For what it's worth, I do not recall a marginalium consisting of a reader's question about the text. Do you have examples that are relevant to your hypothesis? If the books of the AJ in the earlier centuries consisted of papyrus rolls, the margin would seem an inconvenient place to write down a question, since it would be hard to go back and find the spot later.

[maryhelena]

Not previously introducing a character that is mentioned in passing is the exception not the rule in Josephus (the exceptions may be counted in one hand, if I am not mistaken). While it is ambiguous which previously introduced Jesus may have been intended in Ant 20:200, there are candidates*. However, by adding "called Christ" to further identify this man as Jesus Christ of Christian fame, it probably engendered the expectation among Christian readers that Jesus Christ be previously introduced, and Ant 18:63-64 gives it to them.

Most commentators seem determined to fight out the question of what is and is not authentic in the TF based on grammar, vocabulary, etc, like two cats in a box. For gosh sake, get out of that box, before you look like this!

<snip.


*In Antiquities:
03:049 (numerous) Jesus [Joshua] son of Nun.
11:298 Jesus, (son of Eliashib), brother of John – friend of governor Bagoses.
11:299 Jesus, [son of Eliashib] – slain by brother John, the High priest.
11:300 Jesus, [son of Eliashib]
11:301 Jesus, [son of Eliashib] – slain by brother John, the High priest.
12:237 Jesus, brother of Onias III – High priest.
12:238 Jesus, brother of Onias III – Deposed as High priest in favor of Onias = Menelaus
12:239 Jesus, younger brother of Onias = Menelaus – High priest.
12:239 Jesus, brother of Onias III – Renamed Jason. Revolts against Onias = Menelaus.
15:041 Jesus, (brother of Onias III)
15:322 Jesus, son of Phabes – High priest.
17:341 Jesus, the son of Sie – High priest.
18:063 Jesus, no patronym – Condemned to cross by Pilate. He was [the] Christ.
20:200 Jesus, brother of Jacob – Called the Christ.
Others of interest:
20:203 Jesus, son of Damneus – High priest.
20:205 Jesus, [son of Damneus] – High priest.
20:213 Jesus, son of Gamaliel – High priest.
20.213 Jesus, son of Damneus – Deposed as High priest.
20:223 Jesus, son of Gamaliel – High priest.
20:234 Jesus, son of Josadek – High priest.

DCH

All that is demonstrated above is that the name 'Jesus' was not in the core TF. The source of the TF is Slavonic Josephus - and that source does not name the wonder-doer as Jesus. Josephus copied his source and did not interpolate the name 'Jesus'. gLuke used the same source material and named the wonder-doer as Jesus. Eusebius 'updated' the TF over the Acts of Pilate debate. That the TF is placed prior to, or around, 19 c.e. is evidence that there is no whole cloth forgery here. Someone wanting to label the Acts of Pilate a forgery is not going to place a whole cloth TF in the very time frame that supports such a 7th year of Tiberius crucifixion as in the Acts of Pilate.

[/td]

Slavonic Josephus: Wonder-doer story.	Josephus Antiquities: Testimonium Flavianum. (Minus the Eusebius interpolations.)	Gospel of Luke: The Emmaus Narrative
At that time also a man came forward, if even it is fitting to call him a man.	Now there was about this time a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man	About Jesus of Nazareth,
His works, that is to say, were godly, and he wrought wonder-deeds amazing and full of power.	for he was a doer of wonderful works,	He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people.
And many from the folk followed him and received his teachings.	a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him ....many of the Jews.
The teachers of the Law were [therefore] envenomed with envy and gave thirty talents to Pilate, in order that he should put him to death.	and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us	The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death
And they took him and crucified him according to the ancestral law.	had condemned him to the cross	they crucified him
But when they saw his power, that he accomplished everything that he would by word, they urged him that he should enter the city and cut down the Roman soldiers and Pilate and rule over us.		but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel.
Further section of Slavonic Josephus: Time of Claudius: Cuspius Fadus and Tiberius Alexander And at the time of these two many had been discovered as servants of the previously described wonder-doer; and as they spake to the people about their teacher,—that he is living, although he is dead, and that he will free you from your servitude, —many from the folk gave ear to the above-named and took upon themselves their precept,	those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again	And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place... our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning but didn’t find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive...... The Lord has risen..
		And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

[DCHindley]

Now then, if that was what Eusebius was up to - what on earth could he achieve by placing the TF prior to or around 19 c.e.? Surely, if this was a whole cloth forgery he was way of track. Nothing is achieved by placing a whole cloth forgery TF prior to or around 19 c.e. Nothing.

Hence the phrase "About the same time ..." when he introduced the Mundus & Paulina story (19:65-80) involving the expulsion of the priests of Isis from Rome, followed by the story of the men who tricked Fulvia, the wife of Saturninus, into sending costly gifts to the temple of Jerusalem, but secretly diverted the goods for their own benefit, resulting in the banishment of Jews from Rome (18:81-84), both occurring around 19 CE.

The correct place for such a TF forgery - and a forgery that would put an immediate end to the Acts of Pilate crucifixion debate - was to put said forgery post 19 c.e. Josephus makes mention of the 20th year of Tiberius in which Philip the Tetrarch died. Thus, between 19 c.e. and 34 c.e., there was plenty of scope for a whole cloth forgery to be inserted into Antiquities.

The very next episode (18:85-89) that is described is the Samaritan affair which resulted in Pilate's recall to Rome, which probably occurred 36-37 CE.

Then there is the account of Vitellius transferring control of the sacred vestments from Roman guard in the tower of Antonia to the authority of the HP (18:90-95).

Then there is Tiberius' order to Vitellius' to enact a treaty with Artabanus the Parthian and how Herod Antipas pissed off the Consular Governor by sending news of the exchange of hostages before Vitellius' account reached him, around 36 CE (18:96-105).

It is not until 18:106 that Josephus mentions the death of Philip, also prefaced as occurring "about this time," which is dated to a year of Tiberius' reign corresponding to 34 CE. The phrase also occurs in 18: 67, 78, 81 & 91.

Even before the TF, the story of the Standards, which would have occurred at the very beginning, and the other-wise undated Aqueduct affair (Ant 18:55-62) could have occurred anytime in Pilate's rule.

So, it is pretty clear that he is NOT giving a chronological account, but topical accounts of events that occurred at various points of the governorship of Pilate under the reign of Tiberius. This association of events in his governorship with Mundus & Paulina and the Fulvia scandals only bolsters the idea that Pilate actually started his governorship in 19 CE.

DCH

[maryhelena]

<snip>

So, it is pretty clear that he is NOT giving a chronological account, but topical accounts of events that occurred at various points of the governorship of Pilate under the reign of Tiberius. This association of events in his governorship with Mundus & Paulina and the Fulvia scandals only bolsters the idea that Pilate actually started his governorship in 19 CE.

DCH

I've no problem with a 19 c.e. dating for Pilate....however, methinks Eusebius did! And if Eusebius had a problem with dating Pilate to 19 c.e. - he is not about to place a whole cloth TF prior to 19 c.e. David, that is where the TF is - Josephus chronology of events notwithstanding...

Accordingly the forgery of those who have recently given currency to acts against our Saviour is clearly proved. For the very date given in them shows the falsehood of their fabricators.

3. For the things which they have dared to say concerning the passion of the Saviour are put into the fourth consulship of Tiberius, which occurred in the seventh year of his reign; at which time it is plain that Pilate was not yet ruling in Judea, if the testimony of Josephus is to be believed, who clearly shows in the above-mentioned work that Pilate was made procurator of Judea by Tiberius in the twelfth year of his reign.

Eusebius (2010-05-23). The History of the Church (p. 19). . Kindle Edition.

Is Eusebius really going to place a whole cloth TF within a time-frame that he is questioning as being problematic? Eusebius had other choices for a time-frame for a whole cloth TF - choices that would not compromise his labeling the Acts of Pilate a forgery. It makes no sense at all to propose that Eusebius forged a whole cloth TF and placed it within a time-frame that he is questioning - and a time-frame, to boot, that supports the very thing that he is rejecting - the Acts of Pilate and a crucifixion in the 7th year of Tiberius.

[DCHindley]

Well,

What are you saying, that a real event was described preceding 19 CE that related to a Jesus like figure and which was ultimately expanded to the TF? But the time specified in the Maximinian Daia Acts of Pilate is 21 CE, which would follow the M&P and L scandals in Rome. Are you going to remind me that the Slavonic Josephus says the wonder worker was arrested and let go, only to be arrested again before being killed? I am not so convinced that the Slavonic War accounts of the wonder worker have anything to do with anything the translator read in whatever of Josephus' works he had before him.

Even accepting the traditional dating for Pilate's governorship, one event at the beginning (the standards) and one at the very end (the Samaritan affair that got him canned), that leaves 10 years between for the only other events that are given, the aqueduct affair and the supposed TF. Nothing else happened?

DCH

[maryhelena]

Well,

What are you saying, that a real event was described preceding 19 CE that related to a Jesus like figure and which was ultimately expanded to the TF? But the time specified in the Maximinian Daia Acts of Pilate is 21 CE, which would follow the M&P and L scandals in Rome. Are you going to remind me that the Slavonic Josephus says the wonder worker was arrested and let go, only to be arrested again before being killed? I am not so convinced that the Slavonic War accounts of the wonder worker have anything to do with anything the translator read in whatever of Josephus' works he had before him.

David, I'm an ahistoricist.....

Put my idea re the Slavonic Josephus aside. My point stands without it. The Josephan TF and the gLuke TF (Emmaus Narrative) are referencing a mutual source. i.e. neither Josephus or the Lukan writer are the creators of the material in their respective TF narratives. gLuke places his account after the 15th year of Tiberius, necessitated by his 6 c.e. birth narrative. Josephus has put his account prior to, or around, the year 19 c.e.

Eusebius has gLuke before him. He also has Josephus with the 19 c.e. dating - plus the Acts of Pilate. He says the crucifixion in the 7th year of Tiberius is a forgery. Why? His argument is that "the very date given in them shows the falsehood of their fabricators". That date is the 7th year of Tiberius, 19 c.e. from a co-regency.

Take it from there - where would one seek to place a whole cloth TF? The logical place would be as close as possible to the 15th year of Tiberius. Eusebius did not do this. Questioning the chronology of Josephus does not solve this issue. Eusebius had options as to where a whole cloth TF could be put. To go with the 19 c.e. dating would be tantamount to defeating his aim of labeling the Acts of Pilate a forgery. It just does not make any sense at all.

That Eusebius did not forge a whole cloth TF close to the 15th year of Tiberius suggests that a core TF was already in place in the 19 c.e. time-slot - and that it would be an obvious interpolation were he to move it to a more suitable time-slot. What was achieved by Christinizing the core, Jewish, TF? It tied the Josephan TF to gLuke. gLuke having already put the name of Jesus of Nazareth to his account of a wise man/wonder-doer crucified under Pilate. By tying the Josephan TF to gLuke Eusebius has nailed the Acts of Pilate a forgery. Why? because the TF can now be demonstrated to be in the wrong Josephan time-slot - therefore - the Acts of Pilate is a forgery.

Even accepting the traditional dating for Pilate's governorship, one event at the beginning (the standards) and one at the very end (the Samaritan affair that got him canned), that leaves 10 years between for the only other events that are given, the aqueduct affair and the supposed TF. Nothing else happened?

DCH

Sure, plenty happened - but what did not happen is Eusebius placing a whole cloth TF close to the 15th year of Tiberius. He could not do so because a core TF was already in place in a 19 c.e. time-slot. All he could do was Christianize the Jewish TF, thereby, linking it with gLuke and the 15th year of Tiberius - thereby - demonstrating the Acts of Pilate a forgery.....

[DCHindley]

mh,

Are you suuuure?



"Eusebius, Church History I.ix.3. For the things which they have dared to say concerning the passion of the Saviour are put into the fourth consulship of Tiberius, which occurred in the seventh year of his reign"

You have to consult a list of consuls who served each year:

19 CE M. Iunius Silanus Torquatus (January -December ) and L. Norbanus Balbus (January -April )/P. Petronius (May–December )
21 CE Tiberius Caesar Augustus 4th time and Drusus Iulius Caesar 2nd time

So ... I guess his 7th year was not counted from his co-regency with Augustus, but by his sole rule.

[Stephan Huller]

She's always trying to avoid 21 CE for some reason. It's really annoying. The year is 21 CE.

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Bernard,

We can well imagine that Pliny the Younger is the exact type of educated Roman for whom he was writing Antiquities. His knowledge of Christianity appears to be only that it is a crime:

It is my practice, my lord, to refer to you all matters concerning which I am in doubt. For who can better give guidance to my hesitation or inform my ignorance? I have never participated in trials of Christians. I therefore do not know what offenses it is the practice to punish or investigate, and to what extent. And I have been not a little hesitant as to whether there should be any distinction on account of age or no difference between the very young and the more mature; whether pardon is to be granted for repentance, or, if a man has once been a Christian, it does him no good to have ceased to be one; whether the name itself, even without offenses, or only the offenses associated with the name are to be punished.

He is writing about 20 years after Josephus. This is certainly no evidence that he knew anything about anybody named Jesus or associated him with Christianity.


Tacitus, like Pliny, nowhere mentions anyone named Jesus or associates him with being the Christ.
He may have written "Christus, the founder of the name," but
a. that would have been 20 years after Josephus wrote. Not evidence it was known in Josephus' time.
b. It is now apparent that oldest Tacitan manuscript contained the word "Chrestians" (the Good ones). It does not make sense to
say that "the Anointed one" was the founder of the name "the Good ones" It makes much more sense if Tacitus had originally written that Chrestus "The Good One" was was the founder of the name "The Good ones".

As far as Romans and 1 Clement are concerned. Each contain about a dozen references to a son of God/God named Jesus Christ. Neither indicate that he was ever a living human being who lived in that century. If these rhetorical exercises were ever read by anybody in Rome in the First century, they would be astonished to find out that Jesus Christ referred to a man who had lived in the first half of the century in a Roman province. The letters give no indication of this.

Some side notes: Clement has a number of things suggesting that Jesus Christ was a story of an expected God before becoming a a story about an unexpected man.

While rereading 1. Clement, I came across this phrase: (30.5) Blessed is the one born of a woman.
This explains Paul's statement in Galatians 4.4 born of a woman. It was merely a poetical/metaphorical way of saying "Blessed"

Also, I came upon this quote by Jesus Christ in chapter 46, that I never noticed before: "Remember the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, how He said:

"Woe to that man [by whom offences come]! It were better for him that he had never been born, than that he should cast a stumbling-block before one of my elect. Yea, it were better for him that a millstone should be hung about [his neck], and he should be sunk in the depths of the sea, than that he should cast a stumbling-block before one of my little ones. Your schism has subverted [the faith of] many, has discouraged many, has given rise to doubt in many, and has caused grief to us all. And still your sedition continues.

Apparently, Jesus Christ had spoken about the division in the Church of Corinth to the Corinthians. I guess the gospel writers just forgot about Jesus' sojourn to Corinth.

Finally, we should compare the panygerics to love in 1 Corinthians and 1 Clement:

1If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.

4Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, 5does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, 6does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

8Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part; 10but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. 11When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. 12For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. 13But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.

1.Clement 49-50:

Let him who has love in Christ keep the commandments of Christ. Who can describe the [blessed] bond of the love of God? What man is able to tell the excellence of its beauty, as it ought to be told? The height to which love exalts is unspeakable. Love unites us to God. Love covers a multitude of sins. Love bears all things, is long-suffering in all things. There is nothing base, nothing arrogant in love. Love admits of no schisms: love gives rise to no seditions: love does all things in harmony. By love have all the elect of God been made perfect; without love nothing is well-pleasing to God. In love has the Lord taken us to Himself. On account of the Love he bore us, Jesus Christ our Lord gave His blood for us by the will of God; His flesh for our flesh, and His soul for our souls.

Ye see, beloved, how great and wonderful a thing is love, and that there is no declaring its perfection. Who is fit to be found in it, except such as God has vouchsafed to render so? Let us pray, therefore, and implore of His mercy, that we may live blameless in love, free from all human partialities for one above another. All the generations from Adam even to this day have passed away; but those who, through the grace of God, have been made perfect in love, now possess a place among the godly, and shall be made manifest at the revelation of the kingdom of Christ. For it is written, "Enter into thy secret chambers for a little time, until my wrath and fury pass away; and I will remember a propitious day, and will raise you up out of your graves." Blessed are we, beloved, if we keep the commandments of God in the harmony of love; that so through love our sins may be forgiven us. For it is written, "Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not impute to him, and in whose mouth there is no guile." This blessedness comes upon those who have been chosen by God through Jesus Christ our Lord; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

It seems probable that one person worked on both 1 Clement and 1 Corinthians.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Hi Jay,

On the other hand, there is no evidence that anybody knew Jesus called Christ in 94 in Rome. Pliny the Elder, Suetonius, and Tacitus all mention Pallas. They do not mention Jesus called Christ. In fact, at best, Suetonius and Tacitus mention someone named Chrestus ("the good one"). Jesus called Christ (annointed, the wet one) would have been a total head-scratcher for Josephus' audience.

Evidence, even if you deny it, exists in Paul's epistle ('Romans'), 1 Clement & Tacitus' works.
If the Romans knew about 'Christus', as the alleged founder of Christianity, they certainly would know that 'Christ' does not mean "the wet one". Actually, the Greek for 'annointed' does not mean 'soaking wet". You are grossly exaggerating.
Yes there was a time in Christianity when 'Christus' was replaced by 'Chrestus' (the 'good one') by some, including, most likely, Christian copyists on works by Tacitus & (maybe) Suetonius.

Cordially, Bernard