i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.
thanks..
I don't believe we have anything else regarding this High Priest.
In his paper Carrier wrote his analysis of the section:
Ananus was persecuting his rival [Jesus, son of Damneus] for office by attacking his brother, and the authorities achieved justice by punishing Ananus, and redressed his offense by giving the office to his enemy, the very man whose brother he had killed.
i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.
thanks..
I like Erhman for his popularizing of critical scholarship but he has a blind spot regarding the historical Jesus discussion. He really was terribly disappointing in his debates (and book) with Carrier. Carrier can be a pill sometimes, I see him as one of those minds, as we say 'on the spectrum'. His mind is very sharp but people skills are nil. He was asked to investigate the topic, he came into it with no prejudices and dedicated a couple years to it. I don't always agree but I have yet seen anyone actually demonstrate the flaw in his logic. (tho he has many detractors who claim to).
To sum my thoughts, even if it was firmly established there was an historical Jesus, this passage in Josephus still would not be about him in my mind.
i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.
thanks..
Regarding the appropriateness of saying, (who was named or "called" the anointed). It doesn't seem out of place for me, but if you do, maybe the single word was interpolated to easier make the passage appear to be about the Jesus of the Gospels. There are many such examples in Josephus as you doubtless know. Recall it was Christians alone that held the collection. Any way you look at it, it's a very tenuous thread to support the claim that the Jesus in the Gospels was in Josephus.
i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.
thanks..
No, I didn't originate that understanding. As to the history of this simpler explanation, forgive me but I've seen it many times. I do think Carrier brought it up recently again. The simple explanation is generally the one to be disproven. It's just not the popular one with Christians trying to prove historicity that gets all the attention. The line "who was called/named the anointed" is an interrupter phrase for identification of the James he was then speaking about. ("You know that James, the brother of the High Priest") The following lines clarify when and how Jesus received his High Priesthood. Think about the context, it makes no sense at all to be referring to a Christian. It was all about a power struggle between rivals for the priesthood. Just before the passage I posted above, this describes the situation.
8. About this time king Agrippa gave the high priesthood to Ismael, who was the son of Fabi. And now arose a sedition between the high priests and the principal men of the multitude of Jerusalem; each of which got them a company of the boldest sort of men, and of those that loved innovations about them, and became leaders to them; and when they struggled together, they did it by casting reproachful words against one another, and by throwing stones also. And there was nobody to reprove them; but these disorders were done after a licentious manner in the city, as if it had no government over it. And such was the impudence and boldness that had seized on the high priests, that they had the hardiness to send their servants into the threshing-floors, to take away those tithes that were due to the priests, insomuch that it so fell out that the poorest sort of the priests died for want. To this degree did the violence of the seditious prevail over all right and justice......
i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.
thanks..
Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, (who was named the (annointed) Christ,) whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.
2. Now as soon as Albinus was come to the city of Jerusalem, he used all his endeavors and care that the country might be kept in peace, and this by destroying many of the Sicarii. But as for the high priest, Ananias he increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money: he therefore cultivated the friendship of Albinus, and of the high priest [Jesus], by making them presents; he also had servants who were very wicked, who joined themselves to the boldest sort of the people, and went to the thrashing-floors, and took away the tithes that belonged to the priests by violence, and did not refrain from beating such as would not give these tithes to them.
i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.
thanks..
Reading the Josephus quote in context you will see the political struggles revolve around the High priesthood. Jesus who was named as the "anointed" is a clear reference to the Jesus named as High Priest just a few lines below. Christ is a loaded translation that to modern Christian ears can only mean THE Christ. IOW , I also feel the passage is perfectly authentic, it is not however referring to the Jesus of the Gospels.
I'm not really trying to convince you of this, just sharing with someone who sems to have an interest.
There is a lot to this topic and so much of what is assumed is actually supposition or tradition.
i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.
thanks..
My opinion regarding the James ossuary claims. It has been determined to be a modern forgery. Sure, there are voices that disagree but that's not surprising in such a religiously loaded topic. Fact is the box was probably real and the inscription faked a few decades ago. It was in the 'collection' of known trafficker of forgeries. But apart from all the arguments about the inscription, what convinces me is the fact that the traditions that Jesus had a physical brother is from a second layer of tradition.
We have a couple historical Jameses. One was a murdered priest in the temple who was brother of the High Priest Jesus. It was due to this murder that many Jews blamed the Roman attack of 70. And there was a James who was one of the Christian leaders in the Jerusalem church. There were likely other Jameses among the early Christians whose names found their way into the Gospels. There was so much confusion regarding all the Jameses in early Christain circles that it was easy to conflate them or maybe even divide one into two or more.
wiki has a very introductory summary here:James, brother of Jesus - Wikipedia
Understanding the controversies of the early church might illuminate the topic as well. You seem to have read some on this topic by your earlier comments. Consider the value to the antiDocetist movement if Jesus had a physical brother. Then ask yourself the likelyhood of Doecistism ever starting if the earliest Christians knew Jesus had physical brothers.
i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.
thanks..
I wonder what did the writers of portions of purported historical accounts in the Bible obtain their information about the history of the kingdoms of Assyria, Babylon, and of Persia?
disillusionedJW....No need to wonder, writers/prophets were themselves generally from the educated class with connections with royalty. It would not be at all surprising for a true contemporary to know of the goings on in the political world they live in. It is this type of detailed knowledge that distinguishes an 8th century or 6th century writer from pseudonymous authors (or redactors) who often get details and names wrong or include anachronisms. The WT and others use this as a bit of a red herring against higher criticism. In reality monarchial period descriptions (at least those after David and Solomon) are generally useful for an outline of historical events. The religious overlay that interpreted those events through a lens of supernatural providence, or the sensationalization of events, must be understood in those terms, as religious and national propaganda. The Bible is typical of all ancient cultures in that regard. Similarly, all nations had a mythic past that served as establishing national origin and identity. that are far more likely to be pure imagery and symbol.
most of what follows may be new to some but well established by scholarship for well over a hundred years.
anyone reading the genesis stories of creation and the flood are struck by the way two versions of the story have been literally stitched together.
the documentary hypothesis formalized this recognition by assigning names to the sources in genesis and exodus as, j,e,p and a redactor r. while there have been suggested refinements this basic model has stood.
We didn't touch the versions incorporated into the songs of Moses and Miriam in chapter 15. Now while many would date them very early because of the use of archaic Hebrew, others see that as typical of the genre. Who knows. Vs 1-18 are the song of Moses and 20-21 are the song of Miriam.
. In these songs Yahweh destroys the Pharoah and his army by throwing them into the sea. Nothing about Israel passing through the sea. A notable omission that the redactor 'corrected' in vs 19.
most of what follows may be new to some but well established by scholarship for well over a hundred years.
anyone reading the genesis stories of creation and the flood are struck by the way two versions of the story have been literally stitched together.
the documentary hypothesis formalized this recognition by assigning names to the sources in genesis and exodus as, j,e,p and a redactor r. while there have been suggested refinements this basic model has stood.
Kaleb....I can't imagine it will ever be possible to speak definitively about details, (such as the angel reference) The Redactor no doubt slipped segues into the composition to facilitate the flow, how much theological content he introduced is a matter of debate.
dropoffyourketlee....Countless efforts to locate the scene on a map have led to as many suggestions. The way I read it, and the various retellings, is that some thought of the sea of reeds as in the southern Arabian Peninsula while others envisioned it much futher north just east of the Jordan by Mt Zaphon. (Ex 14:2).
Ultimately the legend serves a theological purpose, both the mastery over chaos motif by the storm god often repeated in the region, and more importantly to later generations, as an origin story that culturally separated the Israelites from the Canaanites. As such it might be a mistake to reconstruct a historical foundation at all. Others disagree of course and will keep trying.
