Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Hi DCH,

I really like the idea that James the Just is another Christian mythological figure based on Ananus. One of the reasons he probably because known as Ananus the Just is that he brought the terrorist zealot Jesus of Galilee to justice.

I also think the hypothesis that accidental marginal notes were inserted into the text is a good hypothesis to explain the whole Josephus said the war catastrophe was because of what happened to James.. We all make mistakes and misjudgements all the time, so that is a nice solution. However, I would like to offer an hypothesis that changes were deliberately made to the text.

If we look at the paragraph in question, it begins with Agrippa replacing a high priest from one with a Sadducee one and ends with him bringing back a another high priest, probably from an opposing party.

197 Hearing of the death of Festus, Caesar sent Albinus as procurator to Judea. And the king deposed Joseph from the high priesthood and passed on that dignity to the son of Ananus, himself also called Ananus. 198 They call this elder Ananus a most fortunate man, for after he himself had held that dignity for a long time, his five sons all served as high priest to God, which has never happened to any of our previous high priests. 199 But this younger Ananus, who, as we have said, assumed the high priesthood, was a notably bold and audacious man and he belonged to the Sadducee sect which, as we have already shown, was the strictest of all the Jews in judging offenders. 200 With Festus dead and Albinus only on his way, Ananus thought he had now a good opportunity to act on this. He assembled a judiciary Sanhedrin and brought before them James, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, and some others, and after condemning them as lawbreakers, gave them over to be stoned. 201 The fairest of the citizens and those most upset at the breaking of the laws, disliked this being done and sent to the king, asking him to stop Ananus from acting like this in future, as what he had already done was not right. 202 Some of them also went to meet Albinus as he was on his way from Alexandria, to tell him that Ananus had wrongfully assembled a Sanhedrin without his consent. 203 Albinus agreed with this and wrote in anger to Ananus threatening to punish him for doing this. So king Agrippa deposed him from the high priesthood, after he had ruled for only three months, and appointed Jesus, the son of Damnaeus, as high priest.

To understand the politics involved, we have to go back to the previous paragraph where Agrippa brought in the high priest Joseph son of Simon.

194 With the permission of Festus, they sent ten of their leading men to Nero, with Ismael the high priest and Helcias, the keeper of the sacred treasury. 195 When Nero heard what they had to say, he forgave what they had already done, and also allowed them to let stand the wall they had built. This was granted to gratify Poppea, Nero's wife, who was a religious woman and had requested him for these favours and told the ten envoys to go on home, while she kept Helcias and Ismael with herself as hostages. 196 When the king heard this news, he gave the high priesthood to Joseph, surnamed Cabi, son of Simon the former high priest.

Because he was on the wrong side of Nero (the old High Priest was being held in Rome as a hostage), Agrippa suddenly appointed apparently a high priest from the Pharisee party, Joseph. After Festus died and Nero sent Albinus, Agrippa thought he could bring back a Sadducee priest and appointed Ananus son of Ananus. But Ananus immediately "He assembled a judiciary Sanhedrin and brought before them James, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, and some others, and after condemning them as lawbreakers, gave them over to be stoned."

The problem is there is no explanation of why Ananus did this. Why did he pick James? Josephus does not explain. The reason for this is that Josephus wrote the explanation and it was deliberately erased by Christians. What did Josephus write? The most logical explanation for James being attack would have been if he was a rival candidate for the priesthood because he was the son of Josephus. The original text would have read ""He assembled a judiciary Sanhedrin and brought before them James, the son of the former high priest Joseph, and some others, and after condemning them as lawbreakers, gave them over to be stoned." This would have immediately explained to people the nature of Ananus' crime. He was eliminating his rival. The punishment for this accident would have revealed in the last line of the text, "So king Agrippa deposed him from the high priesthood, after he had ruled for only three months, and appointed Jesus, the brother of James and son of Joseph, as high priest.

Thus Josephus tells a moral story of family rivalry for the Jewish high priesthood. Here is the passage as I believe Josephus originally wrote it.

197 Hearing of the death of Festus, Caesar sent Albinus as procurator to Judea. And the king deposed Joseph from the high priesthood and passed on that dignity to the son of Ananus, himself also called Ananus. 198 They call this elder Ananus a most fortunate man, for after he himself had held that dignity for a long time, his five sons all served as high priest to God, which has never happened to any of our previous high priests. 199 But this younger Ananus, who, as we have said, assumed the high priesthood, was a notably bold and audacious man and he belonged to the Sadducee sect which, as we have already shown, was the strictest of all the Jews in judging offenders. 200 With Festus dead and Albinus only on his way, Ananus thought he had now a good opportunity to act on this. He assembled a judiciary Sanhedrin and brought before them James the son of the former high priest Joseph,and some others, and after condemning them as lawbreakers, gave them over to be stoned. 201 The fairest of the citizens and those most upset at the breaking of the laws, disliked this being done and sent to the king, asking him to stop Ananus from acting like this in future, as what he had already done was not right. 202 Some of them also went to meet Albinus as he was on his way from Alexandria, to tell him that Ananus had wrongfully assembled a Sanhedrin without his consent. 203 Albinus agreed with this and wrote in anger to Ananus threatening to punish him for doing this. So king Agrippa deposed him from the high priesthood, after he had ruled for only three months, and appointed Jesus, the brother of James and son of Joseph, as high priest..

The original Christians who read the passage were afraid that people would confuse James and Jesus with a priestly father named Joseph for the characters in their gospels. They left in the phrase "James" but took out the phrase "son of the high priest Joseph" and probably left in the phrase "Jesus, the brother of James." Later Christians liked the idea that Josephus mentioned James the brother of Jesus and added James, brother of Jesus called Christ." However, they knew that Jesus was not high priest in 62 CE, so they changed Jesus ben Joseph to Jesus ben Damneus."

I do not know how or why they picked the name Damneus.

As far as the coincidence of a man named Joseph having two sons named James (Jacob) and Joshua (Jesus), we should recall that Jacob and Joshua are two of the most popular characters in the Hebrew Scriptures and two of the most popular names at the time.

The advantage of this explanation is that the changes were deliberate rather than just scribal error and therefore gives the forgers more credit for cunning and solving problems.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

JohnT wrote:
ACan you suggest why Josephus would write about James the Just in The Antiquities of the Jews but not include him in The War of the Jews?

As far as the extant text supports, Josephus does not mention anyone called James the Just.

f DCH can suggest that the writings about James were added to the TF why can't I be on equal footing to say perhaps the writings that Jerome referred to were removed?

You have more to account for. Proponents of a tampered Antiquities, whether book 18 or book 20, have an underlying theory that explains the possible insertion or alteration of the text. The various theories explain how and why the text was altered. It is virtually universally held by critical scholars that references to Jesus Christ in AJ Book 18 do not come to us as written by Josephus. We can say with a high probability that Christians tampered with the text to buttress historical claims concerning Jesus Christ. Those who hold this position can trace the manuscript history back to parties who could have an interest in making just such alterations in the text as we see.

Your position is not on equal footing here. You have not proposed a theory for who, why, or how a party came to delete certain passages from the text. What is your theory for why anyone would delete references to James the Just? How did it come about? How did it come to be universal in all manuscripts? It seems like you have a huge obstacles to overcome to claim equal footing.

Hawthorne,

In response to me, you wrote:

"As far as the extant text supports, Josephus does not mention anyone called James the Just."

That's true, and I didn't say that he does and I don't know what this has to do with what I did say. And the other thing you cited is not from me.

John2 wrote:Hawthorne,

In response to me, you wrote:

"As far as the extant text supports, Josephus does not mention anyone called James the Just."

That's true, and I didn't say that he does and I don't know what this has to do with what I did say. And the other thing you cited is not from me.

It was supposed to be John T, I must have caught the wrong quote tag. I fixed it, I think.

Your assumption that Ismael was taken by force and imprisoned in the Salon of Poppea is in error.

PhilosopherJay wrote:
<snip>
The advantage of this explanation is that the changes were deliberate rather than just scribal error and therefore gives the forgers more credit for cunning and solving problems.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Hi, Philosopher Jay

Interesting scenario.....

My problem is that such a scenario takes away from Josephus any intent or motive for what is in the relevant passage at Ant.20. It is, for what's its worth, a passage generally understood to be authentic. That some early christian writers have understood the James in the passage to be James from the gospel story - that is their interpretation. It does not mean that that was what Josephus intended. For the sake of argument, remove the 'James, the brother of Jesus called Christ' - and the passage still stands on its own. It's a conflict between Ananus and James. What that conflict was is the question - not who James was the brother of. Yes, as you write above, it is a conflict between High Priests. But is that conflict a present conflict or is it reflecting a much earlier conflict. The fact that Josephus has contradicted his earlier, War 4.ch.5, characterization of Ananus, should perhaps alert one that more is going on here than a perceived current, 62/63 c.e. conflict between Ananus and James.

The dating, itself, suggests that the Ananus and James story is reflecting earlier history. History of the last years of Hasmonean rule. A rule that ended in 37 b.c.e. - 100 years prior to 62/63 c.e. It’s a family history; a history of a family at war. A history of a war about the right to rule as Kings and High Priests of the Jews. There are two protagonists in this history. Two sons of Alexander Jannaeus fight it out for rulership. On the one side is Hyracanus II. On the other side is his brother, Aristobulus II and his son Antigonus II.

If one was on the side of Aristobulus and his son Antigonus, then the other side, Hyrcanus, could be labelled as the Wicked Priest - and vice versa. (the old story, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter...). The DSS captures this conflict as one between a Teacher of Righteousness and a Wicked Priest. Again, depending on ones perspectives, roles would be interchangeable.

If, as seems to be the case, the DSS have used these terms to capture the essence of the Hasmonean brothers at War - then, why not Josephus? If this is what Josephus has done, and I think it is, then there is no need for assuming any Christian interpolation in this passage. Even the 'James, the brother of Jesus called Christ' can be read as not having a Christian inference. After all, the Hasmonean Kings and Priests were 'christ' figures as being anointed Kings and High Priests. Even if, for the sake of argument, there is a double meaning in Ant. 20 - the primary meaning, for Josephus, has to be considered. That meaning, for Josephus, needs to be read in connection with the DSS conflict between a Teacher of Righteousness and a Wicked Priest.

In two earlier threads I referenced the work of Greg Doudna on the DSS.

(Doudna: Antigonus: Wicked Priest hung up alive on a cross
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=513]
(DSS Teacher of Righteousness and the Josephan James
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=518#p9231)

Josephus has, in War, labeled Ananus as a just man. In Slavonic Josephus the same characteristic is used in regard to Ananus - an Ananus who lived near the time of the fall of Jerusalem in 70 c.e.
Josephus, in the James passage, has reversed the characteristic of Ananus. From a just man, in War, he becomes, in Antiquities, a man bold and audacious, who wrongfully assembled a Sanhedrin and had some people stoned to death. Thus, working from the DSS scenario, Ananus is at one time the just High Priest and the second time the Wicked Priest. Different perspectives on the Hasmonean situation, different context and different times. In 62/63 c.e. Ananus depicts, symbolizes, a Wicked Priest from the DSS scenario. Prior to 70 c.e. Ananus depicts, symbolizes, the just priest, the Teacher of Righteousness that, re Slavonic Josephus, the people listen to.

And James? Like Ananus, this figure would be the corresponding figure of the DSS - either the Wicked Priest or the Teacher of Righteousness depending on context. Yes, there is no James in the story in War - however, historically, one of the two High Priests in the Hasmonean family conflict outlived the other by about 7 years - as in the two Ananus stories. One story with James, the other story without James.

Josephus says that: "They call this elder Ananus a most fortunate man, for after he himself had held that dignity for a long time, his five sons all served as high priest to God, which has never happened to any of our previous high priests." These are:

Hasmonean Kings and High Priests from John Hyrcanus 134 - 104 b.c.e.

1)Aristobulus 104 - 103 b.c.e.
2)Alexander Jannaeus 103 - 76 b.c.e.
3)Hyrcanus II 67 - 66 b.c.e. (High Priest from 76 b.c.e. to 66 b.c.e.)
4)Aristobulus II 66 - 63 b.c.e.
5)Antigonus 40 - 37 b.c.e.

Josephus has, in Ant.20, made a symbolic story re the Hasmonean conflict. He has used the High Priest Ananus to symbolize both the just and the wicked priest of the DSS. James, in the 62/63 c.e. story, is reflecting the DSS Teacher of Righteousness figure. Neither of these two DSS figures existed - they are simply representations of the two figures of the Hasmonean family conflict. At one time the conflict between the brothers, Hyrcanus and Aristobulus. After the death of Aristobulus, between his son Antigonus and Hyrcanus.

And James the brother of Jesus called Christ? The Hasmonean 'christ' figure was executed, by being hung on a cross and scourged and then beheaded by Rome in 37 b.c.e. - his 'brother', his uncle Hyrcanus, survived him for 7 years. Killed by Herod I around 30 b.c.e.

PhilosopherJay, the Christians might have wanted to make the James of Ant.20 their own - but, methinks, Josephus must have first option on what was his intent and motive for what is in that Antiquities passage. If one can't find motive for Josephus - then OK - try the Christian interpolation idea. However, that road leads nowhere. Blaming the early christian writers might explain where we are today - historical gospel Jesus etc. It does not explain early christian origins. That requires we take the Josephan road; thats the only road that leads to the gate that opens the way towards early christian origins.....

DCH,

I'm late for the party, but I do believe you've solved the riddle on this one. And yes, the government of Tiberius Caesar was counted from 21 CE, even by Tiberius himself.

Hawthrone posted: “Your [John T] position is not on equal footing here. You have not proposed a theory for who, why, or how a party came to delete certain passages from the [TF] text. What is your theory for why anyone would delete references to James the Just? How did it come about? How did it come to be universal in all manuscripts? It seems like you have a huge obstacles to overcome to claim equal footing.”
*****************************
Answer: My theory is the same as DCH but allows for the doorknob to turn both ways.

My belief is editors not only inserted the name of Jesus to buttress the existence of Jesus but altered the TF in an attempt to cover up the fact that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

After the Edict of Milan (313 A.D.), Constantine not only legalized Christianity but later at the Council of Nicea (325 A.D.) established what orthodox Christianity would be, including the very nature, i.e. homoousious of the only begotten Son of God. Constantine went on to pay for new official Bibles to be written and placed in the major churches of his empire. The editors of the new bibles, (Athanasius/Eusebius?) had a motive to smooth over/remove scripture with Arian views. Likewise, the heresy of Jesus Christ having brothers and sisters is just one of those issues that had to be dealt with. Thankfully, a few commentaries of the Ante-Nicene Fathers regarding James the Just being a brother of Jesus Christ survived and thus we can imagine not only the motive as to why the TF was edited to validate Jesus as Christ but also to diminish the status of his brother, James the Just. I can cite some examples if you want but I suspect you already know about them.

So, yes, I think my position is on equal footing with DCH.

Hawthorne,

I wrote:

"As for why Josephus doesn't mention James in the Jewish War, if I recall correctly, Mason points out (in Josephus and the New Testament) that there are other people Josephus mentions in the Antiquities that aren't mentioned in the War ..."

I couldn't find any references to this when I checked this book, so I may have recalled incorrectly. But in any event, I found another book that lists some people Josephus mentions in the Antiquities but not the Jewish War besides James:

Onias the Righteous (Ant. 14.2.1); the Pharisee leaders Pollio and Sameas (Ant. 14.9.4, 15.1.1); Saddok, the Pharisee co-founder of the Fourth Philosophy (Ant. 18.1.1); James and Simon, the sons of Judas the Galilean (Ant. 20.5.2). And I already mentioned John the Baptist (Ant. 18.5.2).

So it's not unusual at all that Josephus mentions someone in the Antiquities but not the Jewish War.

Thanks ficino,

Sorry to be so late to respond. The process by which scholia were made to medieval codex mss may not apply to 1st century or two CE. According to David Trobisch the process of writing books in ancient Roman times involved vetting the drafts with friends before releasing a final version.

I believe that Edwin P Menes (Loyola University Faculty for Classical Studies) summed up the issue well in this post to the sci.classics Yahoo Group.

Subject: Where is the Oldest Manuscript Copy of Suetonius? 8/22/96

“Except for chance finds (usually out of Egypt) Classical manuscripts are in codex form (like a modern book) rather than in scroll form. One of the great filters in the transmission process, in fact, was the choice of what to copy from papyrus scrolls onto vellum pages (late 3rd to early 5th century, for the most part).

Also, though autograph manuscripts would be neat to have, the only one I know of is papyrus pieces in the hand of Dioscorus of Aphrodito (6th century A.D. Egypt). There’s a lot of dispute about ancient book production, but the author most likely wrote on wax tablets (which allowed easy correction). The finished work on wax would then have been copied onto a papyrus roll by a secretary, for final correction by the author. From there it would go to friends for further comment or it might enter the book trade immediately, either via a commercial seller or via a private publisher.”

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/s ... JQrrAHPj8J

I suppose that making rough drafts on wood tablets covered in wax makes sense, and I believe that there is in fact a surviving wax tablet with a part of a literary work on it (I may be wrong, but tablets with writing have survived), but I would not say this is the form that an author might choose to pass it around for feedback and comments. Perhaps a papyrus roll with wide margins just for this purpose.

There are four reused rolls with The Constitution of Athens, originally written by the school of Aristotle, and a couple lengthy fragments.


http://britishlibrary.typepad.co.uk/dig ... thens.html

The columns, while of uneven width, included plenty of margin space between them and on top & bottom. This was written on a roll previously used to record farm accounts, and includes crossed out sections, meaning it wasn't considered too sacred to mark up.

This would not be the same sort of thing as a comment on the text of Josephus, but does show that there was likely to be room for commentary if that was what was desired on the part of the author. My hypothesis does not require that the comments became part of the text.

I have to wonder, though, just where Origen, or Hegesippus, or Pamhilus or Eusebius, all being from Palestine (I think), could have seen such a mss of a work written in or around Rome. Josephus could have dispatched a review copy to a friend in Alexandria, but who would he conceivably send one to in Palestine, now the personal property of the Emperor? Josephus had been granted some gift land in Judea by one of the Flavian emperors (perhaps Vespasian), perhaps the same as his holdings previous to the Revolt, but as far as I know, he spent his entire literary career in Rome. He did say that he ran many of the things he wrote about by Agrippa II as a fact checker, although he still managed to get some details, including details about Herodian family relationships, wrong.

Whoever it was had read the War, particularly book 4. Could Josephus have had confidants, similar to himself, who had survived the war and as Roman-supporting former aristocrats been granted gift land in Judea?

DCH

ficino wrote:

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

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.