Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

jbbaehr wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 4:18 am @ABudhist why do you doubt the ben Damneus argument ?

There seems to be a super simple sequence of events here:

"called the Christ ?" is a sidenote

So the original just refers to James the brother of Jesus ... and the Jesus is qualified by the end of the passage where it talks about Jesus ben Damneus.

So without that phrase it appears to be a wholly consistent passage where Ananus (unlawfully) punishes James and his brother Jesus ben Damneus is compensated by being given the High Priesthood.

I have heard (but don't have a reference) that sibling compensation was not an uncommon way of settling an unjust action - does anyone have references for this happening (other than here!)

Welcome aboard.

Since the thread has been revived, and anticipating that ABuddhist may rejoin, let me briefly recap the quasi-Bayesian objection to "called Christ," which in turn explains doubt about ben Damneus (pace Carrier), or any specific hypothesis about what Josephus wrote to distinguish James's brother from other Jesuses.

There are three Jesuses, not one, who are (1) men whom Josephus wrote about and (2) whose father's name or the same string as the father's name also appears in the immediate vicinity of the mention of James himself. They are:

Jesus son of Damneus
Jesus son of Gamaliel
Jesus son of Ananus (not the same Ananus as appears in the passage, but the same string)

Each of these candidates has some additional specific feature favorable to its being correct: Gamaliel as much as Damneus would have the sibling compensation factor; Ananus has a temporal coincidence. That is, James was tried in the summer of 62, while Jesus began his ravings a few weeks or months later.

All three are serious possibilities as alternatives to Jesus called Christ, and each of the four hypotheses is incompatible with any of the others. Since plain-language doubt is no more or less than identification of seriously possible incompatible alternatives, the logic of doubt is clear:

If the tenability of the "ben Damneus" hypothesis is sufficient to doubt the "called Christ" hypothesis, then the tenability of either of the other two hypotheses is sufficient to doubt the "ben Damneus" hypothesis.

Which of them might be the most plausible or best supported is a different question from sufficiency to describe all four of these proposed solutions as uncertain.

jbbaehr wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 4:18 am @ABuddhist why do you doubt the ben Damneus argument ?

I personally lack any strong feelings about the ben Damneus argument; however, the arguments by other people in favour of the ben Damneus argument have made it seem to me to be at least a reasonable hypothesis. My only quibble, I suppose, is whether Josephus would have introduced the nickname Christ for an anointed high priest with no explanation. So, I rather favour the claim that the reference to "called Christ" would have been a later interpolation (because of how it is not explained at all in the context) - perhaps an accidental incorporation of a scribal annotation. But this is compatible, as I understand the matter, with both the ben Damneus argument and with others. Maybe you confused my views about this argument with those of Chris Hansen? She doubts the ben Damneus argument.

ABuddhist wrote: ↑Mon May 30, 2022 4:26 am

jbbaehr wrote: ↑Tue May 24, 2022 4:18 am @ABuddhist why do you doubt the ben Damneus argument ?

I personally lack any strong feelings about the ben Damneus argument; however, the arguments by other people in favour of the ben Damneus argument have made it seem to me to be at least a reasonable hypothesis. My only quibble, I suppose, is whether Josephus would have introduced the nickname Christ for an anointed high priest with no explanation. So, I rather favour the claim that the reference to "called Christ" would have been a later interpolation (because of how it is not explained at all in the context) - perhaps an accidental incorporation of a scribal annotation. But this is compatible, as I understand the matter, with both the ben Damneus argument and with others. Maybe you confused my views about this argument with those of Chris Hansen? She doubts the ben Damneus argument.

I think I see part of the confusion. There are two incompatible hypotheses, and a variant of one of them:

Theory A. Josephus never wrote "called Christ," but instead wrote the father's name of some other Jesus. Eusebius goes on record that the correct reading is "called Christ," in agreement with Origen. This was accepted thereafter as the correct reading, enough so as to overrule any exemplar which names a different Jesus, seeing that as a likely corruption of the accepted text.

Theory A bis. Theory A as stated with the additional assumption that there was some kind of scribal annotation that was originally understood as such, but sometime later on was interpreted as an error report, thereby becoming incorporated into the text instead of the original in order to "correct" a non-existent error.

Theory B. Josephus did write "called Christ," as Origen recalls and Eusebius corroborates. However, the "Christ" supposedly refers to the annointed status of ben Damneus (or ben Gamaliel?).

Of these, Theory A bis implies Theory A, and therefore Theory A is more plausible than Theory A bis. Against which, it is possible to trade off plausibility for specificity, so maybe some find the more specific Theory A bis attractive in this case.

Theory B does indeed carry the difficulty "whether Josephus would have introduced the nickname Christ for an anointed high priest with no explanation." The difficulty is greatly compounded if there was any version of a Flavian Testimony that mentioned Jesus of Galilee as another "Christ." Eliminating that serious possibility costs an additional assumption.

Paul the Uncertain wrote: ↑Mon May 30, 2022 6:17 am The difficulty is greatly compounded if there was any version of a Flavian Testimony that mentioned Jesus of Galilee as another "Christ." Eliminating that serious possibility costs an additional assumption.

I am fully aware of this, but would you not concede that the peer-reviewed scholarship leaves as a serious possibility the idea that there was originally no Flavian testimony? Furthermore, I recall a suggestion in a peer-reviewed publication (discussed within this forum) that Josephus may have derived his information about Jesus from GLuke.

Joseph would have needed to be clairvoyant to do so.

ABuddhist wrote: ↑Mon May 30, 2022 4:26 am My only quibble, I suppose, is whether Josephus would have introduced the nickname Christ for an anointed high priest with no explanation. So, I rather favour the claim that the reference to "called Christ" would have been a later interpolation (because of how it is not explained at all in the context) - perhaps an accidental incorporation of a scribal annotation. But this is compatible, as I understand the matter, with both the ben Damneus argument and with others.

Richard Carrier has argued in 'Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200', Journal of Early Christian Studies 20.4 (2012) 489-54 that the identifier 'who was called Christ' is an interpolation into the text of the Antiquities and that the Josephan text can readily be understood without it:


Carrier reconstructs the text of the Antiquities by removing the identifier 'who was called Christ' and taking the Jesus whose brother was named James was to be the Jesus son of Damneus mentioned later in the same passage. When I hear of 'the ben Damneus argument' I normally understand it to refer to Carrier's form of the argument, though others, at least online, had previously made the suggestion that James' brother was the Jesus son of Damneus mentioned at the end of the passage. I don't know of any scholar who, in a published work, has proposed keeping the designation 'who was called Christ' an applying it to Jesus son of Damneus on the basis that he was an anointed high priest. (If anyone knows of such and can provide a reference, I'll add it to my notes). It is quite possible that someone somewhere has suggested this in an online argument.

I agree with Carrier that 'who was called Christ' is more likely that not an interpolation, though I am not certain of it. I think it is probably a Christian gloss meant to connect the James mentioned by Josephus with the Christian James for the benefit of Christian readers. I think Carrier's James, the son of Damneus theory is possible, but I think there are other plausible possibilities. Carrier's reconstruction is in some ways an elegant solution, because it involves simply removing a suspected interpolation and not conjecturally adding anything to the test. I think, however, that the interpolator may have altered the text in other ways, and other possibilities remain.

One criticism of the theory that the text originally referred to James the brother of Jesus, and that this Jesus was the Jesus son of Damneus mentioned later in the passage is that Josephus is usually more linear in the way he introduces characters. That is, he would normally introduce a character and then later identify another character as his brother, rather than vice versa. We would expect him to introduce Jesus son of Damneus first and then say that James was the brother of Jesus son of Damneus. I'm not sure the sequence we find in Carrier's reconstruction of the passage can be paralleled elsewhere in Josephus, in which a character is introduced and identified by relation to another character who is introduced only later. (Again, if anyone does know of an example of this in Josephus, I'd be glad to learn of it).

Best,

Ken

On the subject of interpolations in ancient texts used by early Christians. Much ink has been spilled (split?) on the lacuna is at the end of chapter 74 in the Dialogue of Justin Martyr. Obviously I take an interest in the passage because immediately afterwards in chapter 75 Justin makes his first (supposed) connection between the nomen sacrum and Jesus/Joshua. As I have noted before that, the nomen sacrum is simply ‘a man’ or a ‘crucified man’ who is at once the divine Logos who met the Patriarchs. Outside of this unrelated issue to the current OP of this thread let's consider the scholarship written on the lacuna. A. L. Williams was one of the first to make note of it and writes:

It is clear that there is also a lacuna about the end of lxxiv. 3, though there is no trace of this in the MSS. In lxxiii. 3, 4 Justin had quoted Ps. xcvi at length and had argued in 1 that the Jews had deliberately omitted part of v. 10 ‘the Lord reigned from the tree.’ In § 5 Trypho expresses his disbelief in such a statement, and in § 6 Justin defends it, adding in 1xxiv. 1-3 the beginning of an elaborate exposition of the Psalm, closing with the words, ‘even Him who died after He was crucified, and was deemed worthy by Him (God the Father) to reign over all the earth, as also by’ . . . Immediately upon these words follows in § 4 a reference to Deut. 31. 16-18, which has nothing to do with the subject. The exposition of Ps. xcvi is not continued either here or elsewhere. It is evident that something is missing. https://archive.org/stream/SPCKJustinMa ... r_djvu.txt

Williams also notes that the Dialogue has a hurly-burly quality in which “Justin does not always keep to his immediate subject.” He adds:

[T]he fact that there is no further allusion to the accusation that the Jews had tampered with the Scriptures until cxx. 5 leaves, the impression that there is something seriously wrong with the text of the Dialogue at this point. This is confirmed by the fact that the latter part of the Dialogue (lxxiv.4-cxlii) refers to earlier remarks of which no, trace remains. Such are lxxix. I (the fall of the angels); lxxix. 4 (Justin says he has cited Zech. 3. I, 2 and Job I. 6); lxxx. 2 (Justin says he has already mentioned the fact that some Christians do not accept the doctrine of the Millennium); cv. 4 (Justin says he has already spoken about I Sam. 28. 7); cxlii. I (Trypho implies that he has already been told of Justin's impending voyage).

There have been many others who have written on this. Oskar Skarsaune makes reference to a few and offers his own solutions. For my purposes it is possible to pretend that it’s a mere coincidence that a sudden thematic change – the introduction of the Jesus/Joshua theme – coincides with a large body of material that bridges the gap of thematic continuity between Dialogue 74.3 and 120.4. Williams and others put forward the idea that there are ‘missing leaves,’ a lost ‘second book of the Dialogue.’ There are all sorts of ingenious ways of avoiding the obvious fact that the historical Justin likely never identified ι̅ς̅ as Ἰησοῦς. But then comes a second piece of evidence that closes the door to this possibility.

There is also a well known ‘gloss’ a few lines later, in which ‘Justin’ tells his readers about the transfer of Damascus to Syrophoenicia from Arabia. It is part of a detailed ‘prophetic’ discussion, but the events in question did not take place in the lifetime of Justin. Rather, they occurred between 194-198, under Septimius Severus. As Tertullian notes:

Damascus was reckoned to Arabia until it was brought into Coele Syria, on the division of Syria by Septimius Severus between 193 and 198 (Dio Cassius 53.12): Justin, dial. 78, seems to have previous knowledge of this rearrangement unless the observation is a later addition.

While later scholarship has tended to reference THIS error as a ‘gloss,’ it was first referenced as proof that Justin didn’t write the material. It is worth noting that no one who argues for a ‘gloss’ has taken into account a pattern of textual revision that immediately follows the lacuna in 74.4 including the sudden ‘discovery’ of the nomen sacrum as denoting Jesus/Joshua starting in 75. I think of course that the entire section from chapter 75 to chapter 120 was written fifty years after Justin’s death and moreover, since the only which connect ι̅ς̅ to Jesus, or ‘Jesus son of Nun’ occur within this falsified section (Dial. 75.1-2, 89.1-2, 106.1-4, 113.1-4, 120.3:3). But with respect to the present OP it might be useful to see if there are anything written about anomalies to the text of Book Twenty which might argue for a more extensive reworking of material.

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Mon May 30, 2022 9:27 am It is quite possible that someone somewhere has suggested this in an online argument.

I encountered the argument on r/academicbiblical (or maybe r/debatereligion) on reddit, whose readers (if I recall correctly) did not reject it. The user was /u/brojangles (a nonmythicist); you might want to ask em.

ABuddhist wrote: ↑Mon May 30, 2022 7:31 am

Paul the Uncertain wrote: ↑Mon May 30, 2022 6:17 am The difficulty is greatly compounded if there was any version of a Flavian Testimony that mentioned Jesus of Galilee as another "Christ." Eliminating that serious possibility costs an additional assumption.

I am fully aware of this, but would you not concede that the peer-reviewed scholarship leaves as a serious possibility the idea that there was originally no Flavian testimony? Furthermore, I recall a suggestion in a peer-reviewed publication (discussed within this forum) that Josephus may have derived his information about Jesus from GLuke.

My own view is that it is uncertain whether or not Josephus wrote any form of a Flavian Testimony, although I lean to the consensus view that there was something about Jesus in Antiquities.

Regardless, there is no concession involved in acknowledging peer-reviewed advocacy of no-TF hypotheses (Ken's, for instance). Scholarship on both sides of a controversy is an ordinary and usual sign that a matter is both interesting and uncertain, and that is my own view of the matter.

Paul the Uncertain wrote: ↑Mon May 30, 2022 3:25 pm

ABuddhist wrote: ↑Mon May 30, 2022 7:31 am

Paul the Uncertain wrote: ↑Mon May 30, 2022 6:17 am The difficulty is greatly compounded if there was any version of a Flavian Testimony that mentioned Jesus of Galilee as another "Christ." Eliminating that serious possibility costs an additional assumption.

I am fully aware of this, but would you not concede that the peer-reviewed scholarship leaves as a serious possibility the idea that there was originally no Flavian testimony? Furthermore, I recall a suggestion in a peer-reviewed publication (discussed within this forum) that Josephus may have derived his information about Jesus from GLuke.

My own view is that it is uncertain whether or not Josephus wrote any form of a Flavian Testimony, although I lean to the consensus view that there was something about Jesus in Antiquities.

Regardless, there is no concession involved in acknowledging peer-reviewed advocacy of no-TF hypotheses (Ken's, for instance). Scholarship on both sides of a controversy is an ordinary and usual sign that a matter is both interesting and uncertain, and that is my own view of the matter.

I hope that you were not offended by my words; I was not trying to offend with my remarks. I find you to be a balanced and thoughtful commentator.

I certainly wish that more biblical scholars would acknowledge that certain issues are uncertain and should be discussed in more detail.