Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Posted: **Sat Jun 04, 2022 4:39 am**

Paul the Uncertain wrote: ↑Thu Jun 02, 2022 9:40 am
andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Thu Jun 02, 2022 2:25 am There are as previously stated various forms of the Ben Damneus hypothesis.
IF the idea is that instead of James the brother of Jesus called Christ the original text of Josephus read James the brother of Jesus meaning Jesus ben Damneus, then it would be unlikely that Josephus would describe things this way. One would expect James ben Damneus as the name of the executed man and Jesus the brother of James as the name of the new high priest.

Andrew Criddle
<SNIP>
Second, Gamaliel is about as likely a candidate string as Damneus, Carrier's teaching in favor of Damneus notwithstanding. If James's brother were shown to be Jesus ben Gamaliel, a later high priest, then would that affect your level of surpise?

If the text originally read James the brother of Jesus then I don't see how any reader could realise that this meant Jesus ben Gamaliel.

Andrew Criddle

Posted: **Sat Jun 04, 2022 4:54 am**

I thank you, John2, for your well-cited corrections to my views. Never let it be said that I do not welcome polite correction.

However, I have 2 points in reply:

1. Why do we assume that Paul was being honest when he described Rome's Christian community as famed throughout the Roman Empire? A more plausible claim would be that it was famed throughout the Christian communities of the Roman Empire. Members of religious minorities, especially new religious movements, tend to have much better knowledge of what their co-religionists in other communities are doing; cf., the Jewish communities in Medieval Europe and the the Iskcon Hindu communities in North America during the 1960s and 1970s.

2. There is a big difference between saying that Flavia Domitilla became a Christian and saying that she drifted into Jewish ways. If there were only Christian claims associating her with Christianity, then your interpretation would make sense, I admit. But other scholars have claimed that her husband Titus Flavius Clemens really converted to Judaism (see, for evidence, here: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ke ... bar-shalom ) and Wikipedia, hardly a bastion of religious radicalism, lists her husband as a convert to Judaism. So why do you trust earlier Christian claims over Dio's claim when supported by later scholarship?

Posted: **Sat Jun 04, 2022 6:46 am**

Thank you for your reply, andrewcriddle.

If the text originally read James the brother of Jesus then I don't see how any reader could realise that this meant Jesus ben Gamaliel.

I have a similar problem with Damneus under the hypothesis that Josephus didn't actually say to which Jesus he was referring. Indeed, if he doesn't say, then I (personally) can't exclude Jesus ben Ananus or the relatively recently mentioned Jesus at the time the name appears, the Jesus who is called Christ.

I think the more realistic hypothesis is that the original text was "Jesus" with some brief text to say expicitly which Jesus was meant. As has already come up in the thread, sometimes it's tricky to keep track of which family of hypotheses is being commented upon. Sorry if I misunderstood the scope of your remark.

Posted: **Sat Jun 04, 2022 2:53 pm**

ABuddhist wrote: ↑Sat Jun 04, 2022 4:54 am
1. Why do we assume that Paul was being honest when he described Rome's Christian community as famed throughout the Roman Empire? A more plausible claim would be that it was famed throughout the Christian communities of the Roman Empire. Members of religious minorities, especially new religious movements, tend to have much better knowledge of what their co-religionists in other communities are doing; cf., the Jewish communities in Medieval Europe and the the Iskcon Hindu communities in North America during the 1960s and 1970s.

But the Gentile Mission put Christianity "out there" in a way it might not have been if it was for Jews only. Paul, who was Jewish, and his associates (some of whom were also Jewish) were all over the place seeking Gentile converts. As Paul says in Gal. 2:9 and 2 Cor. 11:26:

... James, Cephas, and John—those reputed to be pillars—gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we should go to the Gentiles ...

In my frequent journeys, I have been in danger from rivers and from bandits, in danger from my countrymen and from the Gentiles, in danger in the city and in the country, in danger on the sea and among false brothers ...

Christianity is clearly a "Jewish way" to me. Jews were the primary movers and shakers of it (to judge from the NT), and most of the NT appears to have been written by Jews and some of the letters are addressed solely to Jews. So I think any Gentiles who were drawn to Christianity during the first century CE could aptly be said to have drifted into Jewish ways.

In Suetonius' reference to Chrestus, for example (which I take to be Jesus), he says, "Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome."

But if you don't think this refers to Jesus, even in the early second century CE, when Christianity was becoming more distinct, Tacitus notes that, "Judea [was] the first source of the evil."

2. There is a big difference between saying that Flavia Domitilla became a Christian and saying that she drifted into Jewish ways. If there were only Christian claims associating her with Christianity, then your interpretation would make sense, I admit. But other scholars have claimed that her husband Titus Flavius Clemens really converted to Judaism (see, for evidence, here: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ke ... bar-shalom ) and Wikipedia, hardly a bastion of religious radicalism, lists her husband as a convert to Judaism. So why do you trust earlier Christian claims over Dio's claim when supported by later scholarship?

At that time (first century CE) I don't think there was any difference between being a Christian or drifting into Jewish ways, since Christianity is a "Jewish way" (one that was extended to Gentiles, but still primarily Jewish). And in that light I don't think it matters if Rabbinic Jews thought Flavius Clemens was Jewish any more than they thought Paul or Jesus or Peter or James were Jewish.

And as for Domitilla, Christian catacombs were created on her property as early as 120 CE, long before Eusebius' citation of Brutius and perhaps even before Melito and Hegesippus were active.

Domitilla Catacomb is one of the largest and the most ancient underground cemeteries in Rome, part of a property then belonged to Flavia Domitilla going back to the year 120 A.D. The frescos preserved underground in this Catacomb demonstrate the Faith of the first century Christians in Rome.

https://www.catacombedomitilla.it/en

But Melito and Hegesippus are key for me, since they had Jewish and Christian backgrounds, and since Hegesippus was familiar with Jewish oral traditions (and 1 Clement), if he was aware of its apparent references to Flavius Clemens, it didn't stop him from thinking that Domitian persecuted Christians.

Posted: **Sat Jun 04, 2022 8:24 pm**

There is no such thing as a Domitian prosecution of Christians except in the heads of superstitious apologists like Ehrman.

Posted: **Tue Jun 07, 2022 5:00 am**

John2 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 03, 2022 6:03 pm Melito of Sardis seems like a good source for Domitian's persecution of Christians to me.

I find it odd, that Pliny the Younger wrote to Trajan about what to do with XCs as if he had never heard of him, neither he nor Trajan could find any imperial precedent for who they were, how they should be tried, and what the charges should be. Since Pliny was a Quaestor, Tribune, and Praetor under Domitian, and survived one of Domitian's purges himself, it's really strange he knows nothing about XCs, or that they were persecuted under Domitian (setting precedent). Sounds like the Domitian persecution is just good ol' XC fantasy, that, or Pliny's letter to Trajan and vice-versa is forged. Or both.

Posted: **Tue Jun 07, 2022 7:01 am**

perseusomega9 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 07, 2022 5:00 am I find it odd, that Pliny the Younger wrote to Trajan about what to do with XCs as if he had never heard of him, neither he nor Trajan could find any imperial precedent for who they were, how they should be tried, and what the charges should be. Since Pliny was a Quaestor, Tribune, and Praetor under Domitian, and survived one of Domitian's purges himself, it's really strange he knows nothing about XCs, or that they were persecuted under Domitian (setting precedent). Sounds like the Domitian persecution is just good ol' XC fantasy, that, or Pliny's letter to Trajan and vice-versa is forged. Or both.

I doubt the Christian tradition that Domitian himself took an interest in persecuting Christians and put out an effort eradicate them. That said, there probably was persecution of Christians during Domitian's reign.

But my main interest here is in what how we interpret what Pliny wrote at the beginning of Letter 10.96 (if anyone wants to dispute the translation on the basis of the Latin text, go ahead):

It is my regular custom, my lord, to refer to you all questions which
cause me doubt, for who can better guide my hesitant steps or
instruct my ignorance? I have never attended hearings concerning
Christians, so I am unaware what is usually punished or investigated,
 and to what extent. I am more than a little in doubt whether there is
to be a distinction between ages, and to what extent the young
should be treated no differently from the more hardened; whether
pardon should be granted to repentance; whether the person who
has been a Christian in some sense should not benefit by having
renounced it; whether it is the name Christian, itself untainted with
crimes, or the crimes which cling to the name which should be
punished.

Pliny does not say he's never heard of Christians, only that he's never been present at the hearings, and does not know what is to be investigated or punished and *to what extent*. In the absence of definite knowledge (as he claims), he submits the procedure he followed to the emperor for approval. He expects the emperor will rubber stamp it, and he does.

This is very typical of how inferiors deal with superiors in bureaucracies, businesses, and other human pursuits. You don't criticize the policy or the supervisor, you say: 'I wasn't sure *exactly* what you wanted, so this is what I did, is that OK?". You do what you think is in the spirit of the policy as you understand it and what you think the supervisor would want and then you ask for confirmation. I know I've done this in jobs I've held outside the field, and I've done it with my professors when asking for clarification on assignments, and my students have done similar with me. The supervisor, who is usually a busy person, generally allows that what the supervisee has done or started to do was fine, as long as it's not a clear violation of what the supervisor wanted. And if it's not what the supervisor wanted, the supervisee will probably escape negative consequences because he's expressed that he's been trying to follow policy to the best of his ability and has given the supervisor opportunity to correct him if he's wrong.

Best,

Ken

Posted: **Tue Jun 07, 2022 8:17 am**

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Tue Jun 07, 2022 7:01 am there probably was persecution of Christians during Domitian's reign.

what would be such evidence?

Posted: **Tue Jun 07, 2022 8:45 am**

Chris Hansen wrote: ↑Sun Mar 06, 2022 3:12 pm I've been collecting bibliographic references to academics who challenge the authenticity (at least partially) of Josephus' Antiquities 20.200 (20.9.1) on James the brother of Jesus. I regard the passage as inauthentic myself, as I've noted elsewhere. But I've been trying to survey to see who else takes this position. Here is a collection I've come up with of references since 1960 in English, French, and German.

Anyone know any other references? Please feel free to add to my list.

Yakov Lentsman, L’Origine du Christianisme (Moscow: Editions en langues etrangeres, 1961), 66

Michael Grant, The Ancient Historians (New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 1970), 263 says "the remarks about Jesus, and probably portions of the other passages as well [referring to John the Baptist], do not in fact go back to Josephus at all, but are insertions by a later hand."

Tessa Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and His Society (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 131

Léon Herrmann, Chrestos. Témoignages païens et juifs sur le christianisme du premier siècle (Bruxelles: Latomus, 1970), 99–104

R. Joseph Hoffmann, Jesus Outside the Gospels (Amherst: Prometheus, 1984), 55 refers to the passage as "mutilated" by Christians

Graham Twelftree, “Jesus in Jewish Tradition,” in David Wenham (ed.), The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), 289–332 considers the James passage an interpolation but the Testinomium Flavianum partially authentic.

Joshua Efron, Studies on the Hasmonean Period (Leiden: Brill, 1987), 333

Ken Olson, “Eusebius and the ‘Testimonium Flavianum’,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61, no. 2 (1999): 305–22

Hermann Detering, Falsche Zeugen: Außerchristliche Jesuszeugnisse auf dem Prüfstand (Aschaffenburg: Alibri Verlag, 2011), 22–29

Jürgen Becker, “The Search for Jesus’ Special Profile,” in Tom Holmén and Stanley E. Porter (eds.), Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus (4 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 2011), vol. 1, 57–89 declares that both references to Jesus are likely interpolations (59)

Petr Pokorný, “Jesus Research as Feedback on His Wirkungsgeschichte,” in Holmén and Porter, Handbook for the Study, vol. 1, 333–359 in the same volume argues it is likely a Christian interpolation

Sabrina Inowlocki, "Did Josephus Ascribe the Fall of Jerusalem to the Murder of James, Brother of Jesus?" Revue des études juives, 170, no. 1–2 (2011): 21–49 (thanks Ken!), argues that Origen's version was the original and the textus receptus is therefore inauthentic

Richard Carrier, “Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 20 (2012): 489–514

James Tabor and Simcha Jacobovici, The Jesus Discovery: The Resurrection Tomb that Reveals the Birth of Christianity (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2012), 235 argue that "called the Christ" was an interpolation

Dennis R. MacDonald, Two Shipwrecked Gospels: The Logoi of Jesus and Papias’s Exposition of Logia About the Lord (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2012), 548 argues that “who was called the Christ” is an interpolation, but that Jesus may have been mentioned in book 18.

Robert M. Price, Killing History: Jesus in the No-Spin Zone (Amherst: Prometheus, 2014), 243–4 argues it likely referred to Jesus ben Damneus.

Raphael Lataster, “Questioning the Plausibility of Jesus Ahistoricity Theories—A Brief Pseudo-Bayesian Metacritique of the Sources,” Intermountain West Journal of Religious Studies 6, no. 1 (2015): 63–96

Nicholas P. L. Allen, “Josephus on James the Just? A reevaluation of Antiquitates Judaicae 20.9.1,” Journal of Early Christian History 7 (2017): 1–27

Ivan Prchlík, “Ježíš řečený Christos‘ u Iosepha Flavia: Jistota nejistoty,” in Peter Fraňo and Michal Habaj (eds.), Antica Slavica (Trnava: Univerzita sv. Cyrila a Metoda v Trnave 2018), 77–152 and 280–6.

Thanks for this list

Posted: **Tue Jun 07, 2022 10:23 am**

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Jun 07, 2022 8:17 am
Ken Olson wrote: ↑Tue Jun 07, 2022 7:01 am there probably was persecution of Christians during Domitian's reign.
what would be such evidence?

It's an inference from (1) when I would date Mark and (2) the fact that I think Mark was written to encourage Christians not to apostasize in a time of trouble and persecution (Mark 4.16, 8.48 13.14, 14.53-66) some time after the destruction of the temple (i.e., the temple had been destroyed and the end times had clearly not arrived then, but would Mark assures his audience they would arrive real soon now).

Also, I take Pliny's letter to be authentic, and while he disclaims specific knowledge of the official policy, he knows that trials of Christians have taken place in the past and asks whether membership in the sect (the name) itself is to be punished or only specific crimes that members of the sect were commonly believed to have committed. Some of those he questioned claimed to have apostasized already, one as many as twenty years ago. His method of asking those who denied being Christians to deny or curse Christ and sacrifice or burn incense to the statues of the emperor or the gods looks suspiciously like what Mark may be talking about in 8.48 and 14.53-66 (one can avoid this by fleeing to the hills as in 13.14). It would be possible to suppose that Pliny invented these procedures himself. but I suspect he had some knowledge of the procedures used in previous trials even if he disclaimed exact knowledge of the extent to which he should investigate (i.e, make an effort to hunt down) Christians or to which they should be punished and whether this differed by the degree of the offense (which both he and the emperor seem to have felt it did).

My previous note on how I would date Mark:

viewtopic.php?p=113680#p113680

Best,

Ken

Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Josephus Antiquities 20.200 on James: The scholars who doubt

Re: Josephus Antiquities 20.200 on James: The scholars who doubt

Re: Josephus Antiquities 20.200 on James: The scholars who doubt

Re: Josephus Antiquities 20.200 on James: The scholars who doubt

Re: Josephus Antiquities 20.200 on James: The scholars who doubt

Re: Josephus Antiquities 20.200 on James: The scholars who doubt

Re: Josephus Antiquities 20.200 on James: The scholars who doubt

Re: Josephus Antiquities 20.200 on James: The scholars who doubt

Re: Josephus Antiquities 20.200 on James: The scholars who doubt

Re: Josephus Antiquities 20.200 on James: The scholars who doubt

Re: Josephus Antiquities 20.200 on James: The scholars who doubt