Page 12 of 13
Re: John the Baptist, redivivus of a 2015 article
Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2024 7:30 pm
by Peter Kirby
Chrissy Hansen wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2024 7:18 pm
Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2024 5:05 pm
Chrissy Hansen wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2024 3:44 pm
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2024 11:07 am
DrSarah wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2024 9:28 am
Well, unless we can speculate a very convincing reason, I think Occam’s razor still cuts through to the much simpler explanation that the passage actually was original to Josephus
I think that you have not read my confession
here, where I have given up to doubt about the authenticity of the Baptist Passage in Josephus.
As to the James passage, I stand on the position that only "called Christ" is interpolated. List's
point is decisive and moves the balance towards the interpolation without even disturbing Origen and/or Hegesippus for that matter:
Chrissy Hansen wrote: ↑Mon Apr 08, 2024 5:26 pm
(1) It is not unheard of for Josephus to refer to people merely by brother or father, even brothers/fathers who are only just mentioned
and have no prior acknowledgement.
(2) It makes better sense of the passage than assuming that Josephus is inexplicably referring to some figure two books previously (18.63-64).
Yeah I'm actually working on challenging List's argument here. I have been going through Josephus and logging adelphonymics (i.e., where a person is introduced by relation to their brother), and two things are apparent:
(1) It is either used to introduce a new person who is named first (i.e., X brother of Y), and this is the only case where the "brother of Y" figure is unknown. Thus, not like the Ant. 20.200 passage. Or, (2) it is used to introduce a person by relation to a previously established figure, i.e., the brother of Y, named X. To make these a bit clearer:
(1) X [newly introduced person], the brother of Y [relation established or unestablished previously]
(2) the brother of Y [relation established previously], named X [newly introduced person]
The case of (2) is the case that best resembles our case for James 20.200 but if List or Carrier are correct and this "Jesus" was Jesus ben Damneus (JbD), then it violates Josephus' style, since JbD has not been previously mentioned and it follows the (2) pattern. I have not found any adelphonymics which are exceptions to these two patterns so far. So no, I can't find any example where Josephus introduces a new figure (James) but via relation to another completely unidentified named figure (Jesus) the latter of whom is named first.
I have found no examples (2) where X is introduced by relation to Y without Y having been previously established. So if the phrase "the brother of Jesus, called Christ, named James" is correct authentic, it is entirely exceptional. Thus, I argue the entire phrase "the brother of Jesus, called Christ" needs to be omitted. I am not sure if this James even had a previously unknown identifier. Josephus did on various occasions just name drop a random person without clarification.
Not having read your paper, maybe these examples (I offered some for an interpolation hypothesis and one for an authenticity hypothesis that doesn't involve an earlier passage) are already discussed in it.
The one in favor of authenticity is an example of case 1 and so not a direct parallel to the 20.200 passage. In this case, does an X, the brother of Y format (Φήλικα τὸν Πάλλαντος ἀδελφὸν) in JW 2.247. I've found multiple examples of this.
Josephus, however, never introduces a character relative first (i.e., brother of Y named X) without previously identifying who Y is. Thus, this isn't actually an example of what we see in 20.200.
What's case 1 and, more importantly, how did you determine that a "direct parallel" (by your definition) is necessary?
Is it some word order stuff that you are resting your case on?
Re: John the Baptist, redivivus of a 2015 article
Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2024 9:32 pm
by Peter Kirby
Chrissy Hansen wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2024 9:25 pm
I am resting my case specifically on how Josephus uses the two forms of adelphonymics without any apparent exception that I have yet found
I understand what you're doing on that level, but you haven't answered the question of how you know that the distinctions that you're making are necessary in your search for a "direct parallel." Perhaps you have developed some thoughts about that which you haven't yet shared.
Re: John the Baptist, redivivus of a 2015 article
Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2024 9:33 pm
by Peter Kirby
Most likely a satisfactory answer to that question moves beyond a mechanical search through the text of Josephus.
By which I mean that the scope of data considered would have to be wider, not just Josephus, or that the consideration would have to be motivated by some other knowledge by which we can already know that what you're trying to do here involves a relevant, meaningful distinction.
Re: John the Baptist, redivivus of a 2015 article
Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2024 9:46 pm
by Peter Kirby
And I am really just skeptical that it's even possible to justify the premise mentioned at all. It seems like a major flaw.
Re: John the Baptist, redivivus of a 2015 article
Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2024 10:57 pm
by Peter Kirby
I wasn't commenting on the other considerations. From the perspective of your outline as a whole, perhaps it's at most a minor flaw.
I was commenting specifically on the point where we have in effect excluded the data from the Pallas example, with respect to mentioning someone with reference to another person not otherwise named, with use of a distinction regarding the order of words in the two different instances.
From my own perspective, excluding data is what requires justification. It's always possible to mention something that can allegedly exclude data. IMO the exclusion requires special knowledge, and inclusion should be based on the phenomenon under investigation (eg, here, naming someone with reference to someone else not otherwise described).
Limiting data to Josephus is the bigger problem, especially when we're talking about things like the word order in adelphonymic references.
If we have so little data on some features to the point where there's a single example in the text of the Antiquities, then a wider search seems relevant for determining how to understand this. If we don't have an understanding developed from sufficient data, it doesn't seem justified to pick up on this for any particular conclusion. Anomaly detection isn't just uniqueness.
It may be relevant to disclose that my perspective is affected by a background in statistics, and to some extent I am viewing this through that lens to the extent it seems appropriate. But I generally think it is most important to develop an understanding in each case of what we're claiming to identify as relevant features for consideration.
Re: John the Baptist, redivivus of a 2015 article
Posted: Tue Apr 23, 2024 12:55 pm
by gdoudna
Peter Kirby—I have not followed all the discussions on the Ant 20 James passage but I wonder if the following explanation could be a possibility on the table.
Assume Hegesippus draws from Papias on the real tradition of James the Just’s death actually occurring during the Revolt. (Side comment one: I really liked your old argument that Hegesippus was Papias, thought it was very intriguing, not sure why you seem to have dropped it; despite a couple of problems it seemed promising and possibly in some form correct to me. Side comment two: possible identification of Hegesippus’s James the Just, Josephus’s James b. Sosa.)
Assume the original Josephus at Ant 20 read not James, brother of Jesus called Christ, but “Jesus, called Christ” who was sentenced to be stoned (no James).
Assume “Jesus called Christ” of the original Ant 20 is the same Jesus as Josephus’s Jesus b. Ananias in War, the prophet, who had a trial before Albinus in 62 CE at the very time of this “Jesus called Christ” of Ant 20 according to proposed original reading for Ant 20 as having “Jesus called Christ” as the referent. The year date of the respective judicial proceedings match. The proper name “Jesus” matches. And Weeden’s monograph has shown the direct similarities going to sourcing between the trial story of Jesus b Ananias of 62 CE, and the trial of “Jesus called Christ” of the Passion Story of the Gospels.
Assume either a reading or an historical interpretation of this original Ant 20 to refer to a judicial sentence for Jesus to be executed, but the sentence was not, in fact, carried out. Just as with War’s Jesus b Ananias and the Christian Passion Story’s Jesus, assume the judicial death sentence by a Jewish legal proceeding or Sanhedrin happened but was not carried out, instead overturned by the Roman governor [because the governor thought Jesus was insane, in War; because the governor thought Jesus was innocent, in the Passion Story; due to a bribe, probably in reality]).
Assume a later, secondary, presumably Christian motivated edit in copying of the original Josephus Ant text which told of a judicial capital sentence upon “Jesus called Christ”. The Christian copyist could not have that stand because it had Jesus Christ in the wrong time and therefore cannot have been the Jesus of the Gospel story (the Christian copyist reasoned). Therefore, add “brother of” and James”, under influence of Papias’s or Hegesippus’s James story, in order to remove Jesus from being that 62 CE reference, and correct what the copyist might actually have believed was a mistake in the then-existing (original) Josephus Ant text.
Not essential to the proposal, but Jesus “Damnaeus” could be a doublet or variant tradition of the same 62 CE Jesus, though that identity not recognized by Josephus or his writing staff composing Antiquities, where doublets abound of actually identical referents. That is, the text of Ant in its composition reads with Jesus Damnaeus as a distinct figure from Jesus called Christ, whereas actually that was a variant tradition of Jesus called Christ, analogous to Jesus Christ and Barabbas of the Gospels’ Passion Story, variant traditions which are written in the Gospels as if distinct figures.
Read “Jesus called Christ” not as Josephus being a Christian, neither positive nor negative toward that Jesus, but simply neutral objective description: the original reference was to a judicial condemnation of a Jesus who was called “Christ”. (It seems the sense there is that “called Christ” is as a surname or nickname that that Jesus was known by.)
In this scenario the reconstruction is there was indeed an edit of the original text of Ant 20, but so far as I am aware this is a different proposal for the nature of the original and the proposed edit than has previously been considered.
What do you think? Could this work?
Greg Doudna
Re: John the Baptist, redivivus of a 2015 article
Posted: Tue Apr 23, 2024 1:03 pm
by StephenGoranson
That's a lot of unsupported "assume"s.
Re: John the Baptist, redivivus of a 2015 article
Posted: Tue Apr 23, 2024 9:58 pm
by Giuseppe
gdoudna wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 12:55 pm Not essential to the proposal, but Jesus “Damnaeus” could be a doublet or variant tradition of the same 62 CE Jesus, though that identity not recognized by Josephus or his writing staff composing Antiquities, where doublets abound of actually identical referents. That is, the text of Ant in its composition reads with Jesus Damnaeus as a distinct figure from Jesus called Christ, whereas actually that was a variant tradition of Jesus called Christ, analogous to Jesus Christ and Barabbas of the Gospels’ Passion Story, variant traditions which are written in the Gospels as if distinct figures.
In that case (Jesus ben Damneus == Jesus ben Ananias) there would be a tiny parallelism with Barabbas. Barabbas is execrated, based only on the Gospel account, for the only wrong of being 'Son
of the Father': i.e. he is portrayed as a robber and a criminal in virtue of the his being the Son of the
wrong Father (or: of the wrong Rabbi, if one accepts the less probable reading
'bar rabbas'), not in virtue of the his actions (beyond if in the real History he did actions of robbery and revolt).
In this case, just as in the case of Barabbas the focus of the execration is not on the Son but
on the Father of Barabbas, so in the case of Jesus ben Damneus the figure who is going to be execrated is Damneus, i.e. a pun on the Latin
Damnatus, 'condemned', and by logical extension the son.
I am partially inspired by this post:
But the name "Damneus" or "Damneion" never shows up anywhere as a person's name except in the case of this person in Josephus' Antiquities. My theory is that the person's name was not really Damneion, but that Josephus, who was writing for the Roman nobility, was using the name as part of his artistic license. In ancient Rome, there was a practice of erasing disgraced or condemned (in Latin, I think that this is "Damnatio") political figures' names called abolitio nominis (abolition of the name). In modern times, this is called "Damnatio memoriae". My theory is that Josephus was calling the person "Damneion" as a kind of "abolitio nominis" out of disrespect. Maybe "Damneion" was really a disgraced figure
(my bold)
Re: John the Baptist, redivivus of a 2015 article
Posted: Wed Apr 24, 2024 11:48 am
by gdoudna
Giuseppe, I think your ben Damnaeus quote explanation is probably correct on the name. I wonder if it is related to the allegations in the Jesus traditions of scandal in Jesus’s birth or paternity.
Re: John the Baptist, redivivus of a 2015 article
Posted: Wed Apr 24, 2024 3:39 pm
by Peter Kirby
gdoudna wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2024 12:55 pm
Peter Kirby—I have not followed all the discussions on the Ant 20 James passage but I wonder if the following explanation could be a possibility on the table.
Assume Hegesippus draws from Papias on the real tradition of James the Just’s death actually occurring during the Revolt. (Side comment one: I really liked your old argument that Hegesippus was Papias, thought it was very intriguing, not sure why you seem to have dropped it; despite a couple of problems it seemed promising and possibly in some form correct to me. Side comment two: possible identification of Hegesippus’s James the Just, Josephus’s James b. Sosa.)
Assume the original Josephus at Ant 20 read not James, brother of Jesus called Christ, but “Jesus, called Christ” who was sentenced to be stoned (no James).
Assume “Jesus called Christ” of the original Ant 20 is the same Jesus as Josephus’s Jesus b. Ananias in War, the prophet, who had a trial before Albinus in 62 CE at the very time of this “Jesus called Christ” of Ant 20 according to proposed original reading for Ant 20 as having “Jesus called Christ” as the referent. The year date of the respective judicial proceedings match. The proper name “Jesus” matches. And Weeden’s monograph has shown the direct similarities going to sourcing between the trial story of Jesus b Ananias of 62 CE, and the trial of “Jesus called Christ” of the Passion Story of the Gospels.
Assume either a reading or an historical interpretation of this original Ant 20 to refer to a judicial sentence for Jesus to be executed, but the sentence was not, in fact, carried out. Just as with War’s Jesus b Ananias and the Christian Passion Story’s Jesus, assume the judicial death sentence by a Jewish legal proceeding or Sanhedrin happened but was not carried out, instead overturned by the Roman governor [because the governor thought Jesus was insane, in War; because the governor thought Jesus was innocent, in the Passion Story; due to a bribe, probably in reality]).
Assume a later, secondary, presumably Christian motivated edit in copying of the original Josephus Ant text which told of a judicial capital sentence upon “Jesus called Christ”. The Christian copyist could not have that stand because it had Jesus Christ in the wrong time and therefore cannot have been the Jesus of the Gospel story (the Christian copyist reasoned). Therefore, add “brother of” and James”, under influence of Papias’s or Hegesippus’s James story, in order to remove Jesus from being that 62 CE reference, and correct what the copyist might actually have believed was a mistake in the then-existing (original) Josephus Ant text.
Not essential to the proposal, but Jesus “Damnaeus” could be a doublet or variant tradition of the same 62 CE Jesus, though that identity not recognized by Josephus or his writing staff composing Antiquities, where doublets abound of actually identical referents. That is, the text of Ant in its composition reads with Jesus Damnaeus as a distinct figure from Jesus called Christ, whereas actually that was a variant tradition of Jesus called Christ, analogous to Jesus Christ and Barabbas of the Gospels’ Passion Story, variant traditions which are written in the Gospels as if distinct figures.
Read “Jesus called Christ” not as Josephus being a Christian, neither positive nor negative toward that Jesus, but simply neutral objective description: the original reference was to a judicial condemnation of a Jesus who was called “Christ”. (It seems the sense there is that “called Christ” is as a surname or nickname that that Jesus was known by.)
In this scenario the reconstruction is there was indeed an edit of the original text of Ant 20, but so far as I am aware this is a different proposal for the nature of the original and the proposed edit than has previously been considered.
What do you think? Could this work?
Greg Doudna
Hi Greg,
It's nice to hear from you. Sure, that could work.
I grew less certain regarding Hegesippus and Papias when considering some of the differences that were not completely resolved to my satisfaction, e.g. title of the work and date of composition.