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

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3001
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

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

Post by DCHindley »

Winston Churchill issued the order for D-Day preparations:
"Do not argue the matter [of how to construct and anchor floating piers for the required port facilities] - Let me have the solution worked out." FWIW, the engineers did exactly that, successfully figuring out how it could be done.

Everything needed to work out the entire problem of the James reference of Ant 20:200, the accounts of James in Hegesippus & Origen, and the TF of 18:63-64 recounted by Eusebius, can be found in War book 4:
Josephus, Jewish War 4.163-163 ff, 193 Speech of Ananus to the people, in general assembly, against the Zealots
162 And now, when the multitude were gotten together to an assembly, and everyone had indignation at these men's [i.e., the Zealots] seizing upon the sanctuary, at their rapine and murders, but had not yet begun their attacks upon them, (the reason of which was this, that they imagined it to be a difficult thing to suppress these Zealots, as indeed the case was,) Ananus stood in the midst of them, and casting his eyes frequently at the temple, and having a flood of tears in his eyes, 163 he said, … 193 By these motives Ananus encouraged the multitude to go against the Zealots, although he knew how difficult it would be to disperse them, because of their multitude, and their youth, and the courage of their souls; but chiefly, because of their consciousness of what they had done, since they would not yield, as not so much as hoping for pardon at the last for their enormities.

Josephus, Jewish War, book 4:238-270 Speech of Jesus, the oldest of the high priests next to Ananus, to the Idumeans:
238 Accordingly, Jesus, the oldest of the high priests next to Ananus, stood upon the tower that was opposite them [i.e., the Idumeans], and said thus:- … 270 Thus spoke Jesus, yet did not the multitude of the Idumeans give any attention to what he said, but were in a rage, because they did not meet with a ready entrance into the city. The generals also had indignation at the offer of laying down their arms, and looked upon it as equal to a captivity, to throw them away at any man's injunction whomever.

Josephus, Jewish War, book 4:286-288 The violent storm, immediately following Jesus' speech to the Idumeans, that predicted some grand calamities were to come:
286 for there broke out a prodigious storm in the night, with the utmost violence, and very strong winds, with the largest showers of rain, with continued lightnings, terrible thunderings, and amazing concussions and bellowing of the earth, that was in an earthquake. 287 These things were a manifest indication that some destruction was coming upon men, when the system of the world was put into this disorder; and anyone would guess that these wonders predicted some grand calamities that were coming. 288 Now the opinion of the Idumeans and of the citizens was one and the same. The Idumeans thought that God was angry at their taking arms, and that they would not escape punishment for their making war upon their metropolis. Ananus and his party thought that they had conquered without fighting, and that God acted as a general for them;

Josephus, Jewish War, Book 4.5.2 (315-320) Indignant, the Idumeans go on a rampage and kill, among many other high priests, both Ananus and Jesus.
315 and for the other multitude, they [i.e., the Idumeans] esteemed it needless to go on with killing them [i.e., the common people], but they sought for the high priests, and generally went with the greatest zeal against them; 4:316 and as soon as they caught them they slew them, and then standing upon their dead bodies, in way of jest, upbraided Ananus with his kindness to the people, and Jesus with his speech made to them from the wall. 4:317 Nay, they proceeded to that degree of impiety as to cast away their dead bodies without burial, although the Jews used to take so much care of the burial of men, that they took down those who were condemned and crucified, and buried them before the going down of the sun. 4:318 I should not be mistaken if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city, and that from this very day may be dated the overthrow of her wall, and the ruin of her affairs, whereon they saw their high priest, and the procurer of their preservation, slain in the midst of their city. 4:319 He was on other accounts also a venerable, and a very just man; and besides the grandeur of that nobility, and dignity, and honour of which he was possessed, he had been a lover of a kind of equality; even with regard to the lowest of the people; 4:320 he was a prodigious lover of liberty, and an admirer of a democracy in government; and did ever prefer the public welfare before his own advantage, and preferred peace above all things; for he was thoroughly sensible that the Romans were not to be conquered. He also foresaw that of necessity a war would follow, and that unless the Jews made up matters with them very dexterously, they would be destroyed;
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!
Josephus actually does say who it was whose death foretold the destruction of the city. It was the very same Ananus, in War 4.318. That is an inconvertible fact that cannot be easily dispensed with. Sorry to disappoint the romanticists.

Jesus the chief priest had made a speech from the city wall trying to persuade the Idumeans not to enter the city with their arms during the early part of the Jewish war, on peril of bringing destruction to the city. A terrible thunderstorm that followed was seen as an ill omen confirming God agreed with his prediction.

Both Ananus and the Chief Priest Jesus were killed by the Idumeans and their bodies cast away without burial, probably meaning the Valley of Hinnom that ran between the city wall itself and the "Mountain of Olives." In other words, their dead bodies were thrown over the wall into the valley, where Idumean pickets prevented anyone from carrying the bodies away for burial.

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.

From these misinterpretations of the two marginal notes, Hegesippus spun the story of James the Just one, a High priest who officiated in the temple, who gave a speech about Jesus Christ on the wall, was cast off the wall, and killed (the fuller's club used to dispatch him and the lament of the Rechabite are Hegisippus' own additions to the legend, got from who knows where). I am not willing to say whether he himself ever saw this manuscript with the two marginal notes, but he had heard about them for sure.

Isn't the Christian imagination a wonderful thing?

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. I am seriously doubting whether there was an actual mention of Jesus called Christ anywhere in the books Josephus wrote.

The best I will do is suspect that the text of Antiquities 18 was monkeyed around with to make Pilate's governorship start in 26 CE rather than 19 CE, in order to make it impossible for his death to have occurred in the year stated by the Acts of Pilate published around 315 CE by the Caesar of Asia Minor and Syria, Maximinus Daia (that is, 21 CE). This is NOT an endorsement of the accuracy or genuineness of Maximinus' Acts of Pilate, but an illustration of just how far Christians were willing to go to negate any criticism of the accuracy of the gospels. It probably also means that the Acts of Pilate of Maximinus differently describes the trial and execution of Jesus. The redacting of Josephus book 18 would almost certainly have been by Eusebius himself, and as long as he was at it, why not add the TF to book 18? The addition of the words "called Christ" to Ant 20:200 was probably already a done deal, perhaps by Origen.

Eusebius, who became Constantine's confidant and cheerleader, on Constantine's accession had the clout to offer this "corrected" (perhaps touted as "improved") version of Ant 18 (and with 20:200) as the standard. While I have no proof to this effect (why start now?), I wonder whether Constantine may have underwritten the cost of replacing the "defective" versions of Ant 18 with revised ones, to deface the memory of Maximinus Daia, who had opposed his moves in the west during the wars between the various Augusti and Caesars of the Tetrarchy. Maximinus had backed the retired Augustus Maximin's bid to wrest control of the Western Empire from Constantine. Retired Augustus Maximin held Rome for a while, and the rules of the Tetrarchy allowed free travel between areas held by the Augusti and Caesars, so in theory Maximinus Daia could have got access to copies of Pilate's Acta (reports), but this is by no means certain.

"Do not argue the matter - Let me have the solution worked out."

DCH
Last edited by DCHindley on Sat May 31, 2014 8:49 am, edited 9 times in total.
PhilosopherJay
Posts: 383
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 7:02 pm

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

Post by PhilosopherJay »

Hi DCHindley,

I would call this a home-run.

It nicely presents the logic that gets us from text A to text B, C, and D in a very plausible and understandable fashion.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin
DCHindley wrote:Winston Churchill issued the order for D-Day preparations:

{Snip}

Everything needed to work out the entire problem of the James reference of Ant 20:200, and the TF of 18:63-64, Hegesippus, Origen and Eusebius, can be found in War book 4:

{snip}

"Do not argue the matter - Let me have the solution worked out."

DCH
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3001
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

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

Post by DCHindley »

Thanky Dankey, neighbor!

Image

DCH
PhilosopherJay wrote:Hi DCHindley,

I would call this a home-run.

It nicely presents the logic that gets us from text A to text B, C, and D in a very plausible and understandable fashion.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3945
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

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

Post by Bernard Muller »

This addition of "called Christ" to Ant 20:200 required a previous mention of Jesus Christ,
I disagree with that. Not if "Jesus called Christ" was already known by his audience as the alleged founder of Christianity. It is not the only case when Josephus identified a man through the name of a well known brother, without having said anything about that famous brother earlier.
Wars, II, XII, 8 "After this Caesar sent Felix, the brother of Pallas, to be procurator of Galilee, and Samaria, and Perea ..."
This is the only mention of "Pallas" in 'Wars' (the 'Pallas' in Wars I, XXVIII, 8 is another person, the mother of one of Herod the Great's son), but is known to us through other historical records: he was a favorite in the court of Claudius, then the one of Nero.
Let's also note there is another 'Felix' in 'Wars' (I, XII, 1), a Roman commander who lived three to four generations earlier, but appears only one book before.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3001
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

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

Post by DCHindley »

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!

Image

DCH

*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.
Bernard Muller wrote:
This addition of "called Christ" to Ant 20:200 required a previous mention of Jesus Christ,
I disagree with that. Not if "Jesus called Christ" was already known by his audience as the alleged founder of Christianity. It is not the only case when Josephus identified a man through the name of a well known brother, without having said anything about that famous brother earlier.
Wars, II, XII, 8 "After this Caesar sent Felix, the brother of Pallas, to be procurator of Galilee, and Samaria, and Perea ..."
This is the only mention of "Pallas" in 'Wars' (the 'Pallas' in Wars I, XXVIII, 8 is another person, the mother of one of Herod the Great's son), but is known to us through other historical records: he was a favorite in the court of Claudius, then the one of Nero.
Let's also note there is another 'Felix' in 'Wars' (I, XII, 1), a Roman commander who lived three to four generations earlier, but appears only one book before.

Cordially, Bernard
Last edited by DCHindley on Sat May 31, 2014 9:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2265
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

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

Post by maryhelena »

DCHindley wrote: <snip>
The best I will do is suspect that the text of Antiquities 18 was monkeyed around with to make Pilate's governorship start in 26 CE rather than 19 CE, in order to make it impossible for his death to have occurred in the year stated by the Acts of Pilate published around 315 CE by the Caesar of Asia Minor and Syria, Maximinus Daia (that is, 21 CE). This is NOT an endorsement of the accuracy or genuineness of Maximinus' Acts of Pilate, but an illustration of just how far Christians were willing to go to negate any criticism of the accuracy of the gospels. It probably also means that the Acts of Pilate of Maximinus differently describes the trial and execution of Jesus. The redacting of Josephus book 18 would almost certainly have been by Eusebius himself, and as long as he was at it, why not add the TF to book 18? The addition of the words "called Christ" to Ant 20:200 was probably already a done deal, perhaps by Origen.

DCH
OK - so the Eusebius TF interpolations are related to the Acts of Pilate.... :thumbup:

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.

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.

That Eusebius (the mastermind of the forgery for the sake of the argument) did not do this speaks volumes. Eusebius could not do this because the TF, minus the Christian interpolations, was already in place.

Which of course, brings up the argument of why Christian writers earlier than Eusebius did not make specific mention of the Josephan TF. The response is surely - why would they? What is in the core of the TF that would interest early christian writers? Nothing. Only after the Christianizing process would the TF be of any use for Christian apologetic. Yes, gLuke with it's Emmanus Narrative makes a connection; for gLuke the wonder-doer figure of Slavonic Josephus is Jesus of Nazareth. But then, who wrote first, Josephus or gLuke? Since both are using the source material in Slavonic Josephus, it's really not of great concern. The source material in Slavonic Josephus allowed gLuke to name the wonder-doer as Jesus of Nazareth - Josephus could use the self-same material and not label the wonder-doer as Jesus.

Eusebius, in attempting to curtail the argument in Acts of Pilate re a crucifixion in the 7th year of Tiberius, followed gLuke and 'updated' the Josephan account. By so doing hoping to discredit the 7th year of Tiberius crucifixion story. ie the wonder-doer is Jesus and Josephus has got his dating wrong for Pilate.

With no name on the Josephus wise man/wonder-doer - the core of the TF was of no interest to Christians. A no-name wise man/wonder-doer - how many of those walked the sands of Palestine? - and anyway the timing is wrong for gLuke....

A TF interpolated with Christian ideas does not, obviously, support a historical Jesus. A TF, without the Christian interpolations, does not negate the premise of the Jesus historicists. The historicist JC assumption does not rise or fall depending on an interpretation of the Josephan TF. The TF is not evidence either way in the debate between the historicists and the ahistoricts.

The TF is not 'evidence' for a historical Jesus, or 'evidence', because of it being interpolated, for a literary, composite, JC figure. What the TF is 'evidence' for is a developing Jesus story. A story that goes back way beyond the 15th year of Tiberius - Eusebius notwithstanding.... ;)
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
PhilosopherJay
Posts: 383
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 7:02 pm

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

Post by PhilosopherJay »

Hi Bernard,

There was no need for Josephus to tell his audience who Pallas was. Pallas was quite famous. Josephus in Antiquities (20.8.9) says:
9. Now when Porcius Festus was sent as successor to Felix by Nero, the principal of the Jewish inhabitants of Cesarea went up to Rome to accuse Felix; and he had certainly been brought to punishment, unless Nero had yielded to the importunate solicitations of his brother Pallas, who was at that time had in the greatest honor by him.
Apparently Pallas fell from grace and was executed in 62. Josephus was writing the Wars around 74. A man who was held in the "highest honors" and was suddenly executed by the emperor would have been quite well known to the Roman officials that Josephus was writing Wars for. It would be as if I said that President Obama appointed Bernard Clinton, the brother of Hillary to be ambassador to Jerusalem. There would be absolutely no need to explain who Hillary Clinton was.

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.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin


Bernard Muller wrote:
This addition of "called Christ" to Ant 20:200 required a previous mention of Jesus Christ,
I disagree with that. Not if "Jesus called Christ" was already known by his audience as the alleged founder of Christianity. It is not the only case when Josephus identified a man through the name of a well known brother, without having said anything about that famous brother earlier.
Wars, II, XII, 8 "After this Caesar sent Felix, the brother of Pallas, to be procurator of Galilee, and Samaria, and Perea ..."
This is the only mention of "Pallas" in 'Wars' (the 'Pallas' in Wars I, XXVIII, 8 is another person, the mother of one of Herod the Great's son), but is known to us through other historical records: he was a favorite in the court of Claudius, then the one of Nero.
Let's also note there is another 'Felix' in 'Wars' (I, XII, 1), a Roman commander who lived three to four generations earlier, but appears only one book before.

Cordially, Bernard
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3945
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

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

Post by Bernard Muller »

to DCH,
While it is ambiguous which previously introduced Jesus may have been intended in Ant 20:200, there are candidates*.
That's the whole point: Josephus could not have written only "the brother of Jesus" (without "called Christ") because there were many 'Jesus' then and before.

Carrier (and some of his fans) has the same position than you do. I replied to that:
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p21.htm
and
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p71.htm
(the exceptions may be counted in one hand, if I am not mistaken)
Maybe, but they do exist.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
steve43
Posts: 373
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:36 pm

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

Post by steve43 »

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.

From these misinterpretations of the two marginal notes, Hegesippus spun the story of James the Just one, a High priest who officiated in the temple, who gave a speech about Jesus Christ on the wall, was cast off the wall, and killed (the fuller's club used to dispatch him and the lament of the Rechabite are Hegisippus' own additions to the legend, got from who knows where). I am not willing to say whether he himself ever saw this manuscript with the two marginal notes, but he had heard about them for sure.


My nomination for the 2014 Golden Winged Frog Award :roll:
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3945
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

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

Post by Bernard Muller »

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
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Post Reply