Talk:Josephus A1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Which points to include 2 Reordering 3 Bust 4 Traitor or not? 5 James 6 Protection 6.1 James cont

[edit] Which points to include

I really don't think the bit about Sodomy adds anything to an understanding of Josephus - it belongs (if anywhere) in an article about sexual attitudes. --Doc glasgow 21:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to see more on the questionable aspects - the contradictions, his person, etc. Theres a lot more to do here and in related articles. -SV|t|add 20:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reordering

He Stevertigo. You may well be right to re-order the Josephus article to put the significance before the works (I think it does help), but, #the first two paragraphs now under the 'jewish war' do need to come first to contexualise the ambiguity of his 'defection'

1. you have inadvertantly implied something that is not quite historically acurate. "...fight to the death alongside the doomed citizens of Jerusalem". The question of why Josephus did not fight in Jerusalem is not ambigious - as he was defeated and captured in Galilee the year before. He could not have fought in Jerusalem even had he wished. The question is why he did not commit suicide in Galilee - and why having been captured he co-operated with the Romans - and wrote in such flatterign terms of his captors.

I'll have annother shot at editing this (using your order) - see what you think and let me know --Doc Glasgow 16:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bust

A bust that is believed to be Flavius Josephus. - Can't we do better than this? Where is this bust and what is its providence? Who believes it to be Josephus? I like the image - but we need more or it should be removed. --Doc ^ask? 10:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes we do not know if it is him, I have tried to find sources that confirm the bust but, it seems that every site I find that talks about it says it is "Believed to be him". I will still look around and see if I can find anything but I doubt I will, It can be removed now if you wish. Alus 19:05 22 December, 2005 (UTC)

Pity - it is a nice addition to this article. We don't actually need to know that it is of him, we just need to know that some fairly reputable person(s) believe it to be - then a caveat will do. But my fear is that it is a contemporary bust, which someone has thought looked a bit 'Jewish'. To be on the safe side, I think I'll remove it, but I'll not delete it. Perhaps someone can find a reference. --Doc ^ask? 19:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Livius.org [1], a generally reliable source has the same picture with attribution. I don't know what the copyright status of the image is however. If the only objection is that we don't know with certainty that it is him it should not be excluded from the article. There are plenty of famous ancient busts believed to be this or that individual; as long as the caption accurately reports the status (believed to be) I don't see a problem. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I totaly agree, we don't need to know with certainly. But if we are to say 'believed to be' - we ought to know that it is either widely believed or believed by reasonably reliable people (even if wrongly). 'Believed to be' could mean by two lunatics and a dog.... Perhaps your citation is enough - although it doesn't indicate its source. I also would like us to be able to say a little more about the bust - e.g. which museum is it in, and what datin does it get. There is a 'portrait' of Josephus in Whiston (which is all over the net and non-copyright), but one look at it tells you that it is a mediaeval (or later) artist's impression.--Doc ^ask? 20:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, livius.org cites to Les Dossiers d' Archéologie, 2001[2]; does anyone know more about this publication?

Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Seems unlikely that anyone would have made a statue of him, in view of his later Roman status, although I may be wrong. Monosig 01:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Roman citizens often commissioned busts of themselves. So why is it hard to believe? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Traitor or not?

Did he present himself as a traitor?

"His greatest work, Antiquitates Judaicae (The Antiquities of the Jews), completed in 20 books in AD 93 traces the history of the Jews from creation to just before the outbreak of the revolt of AD 66-70. ... Appended to the Antiquities was a Vita (Life), which is less an autobiography than an apology for Josephus' conduct in Galilee during the revolt. It was written to defend himself against the charges of his enemy Justus of Tiberias, who claimed that Josephus was responsible for the revolt. In his defense, he contradicted the account given in his more trustworthy Jewish War, presenting himself as a consistent partisan of Rome and thus a traitor to the rebellion from the start." "Josephus as historian", Encyclopedia Britannica

If this is true, then it is an important information about Josephus we shouldn't ignore. References to the texts of Justus of Tiberias would also help. --DenisDiderot 23:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

He tried to justify his actions, but was inconsistent doing that. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 23:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

No, you're right in pointing out this - it's bollocks. Josephus's 'take' (at least when he wrote his apology) was he was always well disposed towards Rome (as, he says, was true Judaism). The rebellion happened, according to Josephus, because certain Roman officials acted an an un-roman way, and then the rebellion span out of control under certain Jewish hotheads, who were not represeting 'true' Judaism. I'll try to fix it. --Doc ^ask? 00:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

What do you characterize as "bollocks"? -- Josephus's excuse or the Britannica article? A further reference:

"Justus, the theory goes, adduced evidence to show that the avowedly Rome-friendly Josephus had in fact been a fomenter of rebellion, a warlord, in Tiberias and elsewhere (cf. V 340, 350). Extrapolation from the few charges that Josephus actually attributes to Justus has rendered his attack the hidden hand behind Josephus (entire autobiography (esp. Luther 1910). The best Josephus could produce by way of response was a series of damning new admissions, couched in the feeble excuse that he had been forced to conceal his true motives during the early revolt (e.g., V 22, 175-76); hence the literary artifice of the double game. ... For example: he had initially been friends with John of Gischala, his notorious enemy according to the War (§§ 43-4, 86), and John in turn had been as well-connected in Jerusalem as Josephus (§§ 189-91); Josephus had been eager to undertake such belligerent actions as the removal of images from the Herodian palace at Tiberias (§§ 63-5); he had not been appointed general at the outset, as the War claimed, but only as one member of a commission (§ 29); he had energetically attacked Syrian cities (§ 81) and authorized the building of defensive walls from the sale of royal grain (§§ 72-3)." [3]

--DenisDiderot 02:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] James

Despite TrumpetPower!'s rumbling: it is consensus among historians to identify the James mentioned by Josephus with James, brother of Jesus Christ, just as the text suggests. To include the fringe view that disagrees is to give it undue weight and it also makes the text akward. A fuller treatment of the arguments pro and can can be found over at Talk:James the Just#Josephus_and_James. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the consensus is only amongst Christian historians--and the disagreement is only over the two words in the original identifying Jesus as the Messiah (which Origen explicitly states Josephus never did) and what may have originally occurred at that place in the text. Please stop trying to hide the fact that not everybody agrees with you. unsigned by TrumpetPower!

No, it is the view of the overwhelming majority of historians, regardless of their religion. Don't start the pigeonhole game of discounting scholars because of their religion. Yours is a fringe view which is covered in "Josephus on Jesus" - that's enough. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

How about this:

such figures as Pontius Pilate, Herod the Great, Agrippa I and II, John the Baptist, and "James the brother of Jesus", commonly thought to refer to Saint James the Just and Jesus.

This wording is exact and links to James the Just and Jesus, but also links to the specific section discussing the controversy, and still leaves the possibility open that it refers to other individuals. Jayjg^(talk) 21:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I like the direction you're headed in, but I don't think it's quite enough. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits that the Testamonium Flavanium (the main reference to Jesus Christ) "seems to suffer from repeated interpolations," so I don't think it's fair to say that it's "commonly thought" that the passage refers to Jesus. Do a Google search for Josephus Jesus and pretty much every hit is arguing one side or the other of the argument. To downplay the extent of of the dispute would seem to be quite disingenuous.

TrumpetPower! 22:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

There are two quite distinct passages. The longer one is generally agreed to have been heavily interpolated, and possibly entirely invented. The smaller "James" passage is generally considered to be authentic, though there are a small minority who disagree. Jayjg^(talk) 22:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. The version as it stands makes that clear. Further, it makes clear that the problem with the reference to James is not the authenticity of the passage so much as the identity of the person in question, and that the entirety of the Testamonium is hotly debated. I'm personally happy with the page as it stands right now, but I wouldn't object to "gentler" language that i) accurately summarizes the substance of the dispute; and B) doesn't downplay the seriousness of the debate. There is a certain vocal class of Christians who do both. The former is usually by misrepresenting the substance of the debate (such as by saying that much more than just "called Christ" is in doubt in the James reference, for example); the latter, by dismissing the veritable deluge of challenges as a wacko fringe and therefore not even worth of mention. Str1977 seems to have backed away from such distortions, but his earlier edits are characteristic of the style. For a classic example, see the edit war that Roger Pearse initiated in the Josephus on Jesus article. TrumpetPower! 22:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Mr Trumpet,

• Jayjg is right. There are two passages mentioning Jesus in Josephus - the Testimonium Flavianum the CE was talking about is a different passage.
• I am all for accurately summarizing the substance of the debate ... in the proper place. This is not it.
• I don't downplay the "seriousness" in my edits. However, personally I don't think it is a serious debate, given that the evidence points so clearly in one direction.
• I did not intent to misrepresent one side's point. It was an oversight. However, I see that one could also dispute the entire phrase - but that'd be Original Research, if the proponents of the Damnaeus side don't do it. Personally, I dispute neither.
• Trumpet, if you want to talk about earlier edits than talk about your proclaimations (in edit summaries) about "James, son of Damnaeus" - a name unknown to historiography. About your certainty about the name.
• As for Jayjg's suggestion: I am still fearing that this gives the issue undue weight - however, it would propose

such figures as ... "James the brother of Jesus" and Jesus.

in which "James the brother of Jesus" would link either to Saint James the Just (which briefly addresses the debate and links to Josephus on Jesus) or directly to Josephus on Jesus#Reference to Jesus as brother of James (xx 9.1).

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the version as it stands doesn't "make it clear", but, rather, is misleading. Most historians believe the "James" referred to in Josephus is, in fact, James the Just, and the reference to Jesus tnhere is not "highly disputed", but rather "disputed by some". Your version is far more skeptical than the current historical view; the version I've proposed captures the correct degree of skepticism. Jayjg^(talk) 23:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Please re-read the article. "Highly disputed" clearly refers only to the Testamonium.

Exactly that was my point. WP should reflect the consensus of historiography and the overwhelming majority of historians agrees with the traditional identification. Quite independently of whether there is an interpolation or not. Elsewhere I have elaborated on the good reasons for this view. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you both underestimate the scholarly opposition to the authenticity of both passages. I have neither the time nor the inclination to perform an exhaustive census of peer-reviewed journals, so permit me to use Google as an admittedly-inadequate substitute.

But first, I would hope that there is no disagreement that the Testamonium itself is, indeed "highly disputed. Its authenticity has been challenged for centuries and has been the subject of heated debate ever since. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits that "the passage seems to suffer from repeated interpolations."

The xx.9 passage is not the subject of quite so much attention, yet there is still a fair amount of debate on the matter. Back to that Google search I mentioned, for "Josephus James." The top ten hits, excluding multiple hits for the same site, as of this writing are:

http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/james.html Cites the xx.9 passage without commentary.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html Extensive debate, pro and con, about both passages.

http://www.josephus-1.com/ Christian site, cites both passages, the xx.9 without comment.

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/josephus/josephus.htm Cites Origen citations of the xx.9 passage without commentary.

http://priory-of-sion.com/psp/id25.html Argument against the authenticity of the xx.9 passage.

http://www.geocities.com/aleph135/JosephusAntiquities.html Argument for the authenticity of the xx.9 passage, expressly says that it has not been seen as an interpolation. Does not mention controversy.

http://www.textexcavation.com/josephustestimonium.html Quotes of many passages, including both the Testamonium and xx.9. Limited commentary points out contradictions between the xx.9 passage and Origen.

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/humm/Topics/JewishJesus/josephus.html Casts doubt on the xx.9 passage.

http://www.harvardhouse.com/james.htm Presents the James Ossuary as genuine, discounts the exposure of that fraud.

http://www.harvardhouse.com/james.htm Like the previous, presents the James Ossuary as genuine. Doesn't even mention the exposure of the fraud.

So, we have three sites that merely offer the source material; three that include arguments for the authenticity of the xx.9 passage; and four include arguments against authenticity. I don't know about y'all, but to me that says that, regardless of the validity of the arguments, there's pretty significant opposition to the authenticity of the xx.9 passage.

Cheers,

TrumpetPower! 00:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I have browsed through your links (excepting the uncommented ones) and have found no evidence for the debate you are raising. Some affirm the authenticity of the James passage (note, the Testimonium is NOT under dispute between us substantially), some deny it, some don't voice an opinion on that but deal with other issues (Priorydesion), but none of these pages claims or refers to claims or a discussion that the James killed by Ananus was another James, not James brother of Jesus Christ, or even the otherwise unknown "James son of Damnaeus". Hence the "may or may not" phrase is giving undue weight to a debate (if it exists at all). If you would accept this I am sure we can also reach an agreement on the characterisation of the TF.Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Huh? You agree that the passage is in dispute, but you disagree that there's dispute over the meaning of the passage? I'm sorry, that "just" doesn't make sense.

It's quite simple, really. The only way James is identified in the passage is as the brother of Jesus Christ. It's exactly that identification that's in dispute. Take it away, and there's zero evidence to support the assertion that this James is James the Just. TP who doesn't care to sign

It is quite simple: there is debate about the passage (though not very much) but no one of the debaters claims that James is not James, brother of Jesus Christ. Hence your addition is wrong or at least OR. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Now you're even contradicting yourself. The debate over the passage is about whether or not it mentions Jesus Christ. How could the passage possibly be about the brother of a man who isn't mentioned? If ever there was an unsupported circular argument, it's this.TP who is above signing his posts

Absolutely not. I am not contradicting myself. It is you who appearently cannot read what the links you provided say. I will repeat it slowly for you:

• the James/Ananus passage (henceforth JAP) is subject of controversy, yes
• what is disputed: whether it was interpolated (stuff added or substracted) or inserted as a whole
• what's the problem: for some the unfavourable picture of Ananus (as opposed to the hagiographical treatment of the man in De Bello Judaico) but for most the addition: "who was called the Christ" in reference to Jesus
• why? because some argue that Josephus as a non-Christian Jew could not have written that
• What conclusion do critics draw: passage was interpolated by Christians
• And now, most importantly, what conclusion does no critic draw: that there was a different James, brother of a different Jesus, killed on behalf of Ananus - in other words: NO ONE SUPPORTS YOUR VIEW.

Hence there is no contradiction between acknowledging that there is some debate and rejecting your insertion of a view held by very few people (if it all, hitherto you have cited no one).

PS. I might be bold to ask, but could you, if don't read what's posted here, at least sign your own posts. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

I see the article is now protected, presumably in response to the disagreement over the significance of the xx.9 reference in Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews to "James, brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ."

Str1997 has repeatedly admitted that the passage is disputed, and that the portion of the passage in dispute is of the reference to Jesus Christ. That reference is the only means of identifying the james in question, yet Str1997 insists on claiming as fact that this is, in fact, James the Just. Without the disputed identification of Jesus, no possible argument can be made that the two men are the same. Indeed, Str1997 has yet to offer any evidence or citation that the identification can be made without the disputed passage.

Cheers, TrumpetPower! 18:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason this is protected is because two editors are simply reverting to their chosen version without trying to find any compromise, or seek wider consensus. That's what needs to happen now. I've no time to find citatins right now, but from my experience of early Christian scholarship I'd say that most scholars find the testimonium to Jesus problematic. Either it is an interpolation or a corruption of the original. Sure, some will argue it is genuine, but almost all will at least conceed it is 'disputed'. However, I am not aware of any mainstreem dispute as to the identify of the James mentioned. No doubt someone somewhere does dispute it (that's the case with any historical fact) but what is the level of the dispute. If a dispute can be shown, and that's an 'if', then I think we'd want to indicate that, but Trumpetpower's prefered verion 'may or may not have been...' is far two strong. THat implies that the wole matter is up for grabs. If a dispute can be shown, 1) the full nature of that dispute should be given in the relevant article (not here) 2) a reference to the dispute should be here - e.g. something like 'a James generally identified as James the Just (see further..)' --Doc ^ask? 19:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Doc, two comments:

• this conflict has nothing to do with the Testimonium. The passage in question is a different one.
• among those cited by Trumpet, no one disputes the identification of James killed by Ananus with James, brother of Jesus Christ, despite all misgivings about the authenticity of the passage.

Furthermore I agree with what you wrote, that this is no place to debate this. A reference to the dispute (about the identification of James) is not in order until there is reference to such a dispute. Trumpet hasn't provide one as of yet. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I realise that the James ref. is different from the Jesus one. I'm not aware of any dispute over the James ref. Can Trumpet show a dispute? --Doc ^ask? 20:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I've already done exactly that, in the top ten hits from Google above. Additionally, there's a good amount in the Josephus on Jesus page and the accompanying talk page. Aside from the identification of Jesus as Jesus Christ instead of the far more plausible Iêsoun ton tou Damnaiou, factual conflicts between the passage and facts recorded in The Jewish War call into doubt the entire passage as a whole.

Str1997's sole basis for claiming that Josephus identifies James the Just rests upon the identification as James as "the Brother of Jesus, who was called Christ." It's that identification itself that's in dispute, and, without it, there's nothing whatsoever to link the two Jameses. After all, how can you call James the brother of Jesus if there's no Jesus left?

I'd be happy with some other wording that somehow identifies that the link is traditionally made but that it relies upon the contested identification of Jesus. Your suggestion above works for me.

Cheers,

TrumpetPower! 20:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

No, you haven't "already done that". You have given a top ten hit list which covers the controversy about the passage. I have read through them and found no disput about the identity. Jesus, son of Damnaeus, may be to your liking, but it is at best Original research. In fact, it isn't plausible at all, as I have explained in detail. And James, son of Damnaeus, is merely a figment of your imagination. My interpretation rests on the view of the overwhelming view of historiography, of the plain reading of the passage (which may be interpolated) and on the fact that we know from others sources about the death of James, brother of the Lord. It is no great leap to identify two men named James, killed at the same time, killed by the same, man, both with a brother named Jesus (appearently a famous man) - the leap is not to identify the two and invent a man called "James, son of Damnaeus". But anyway, this all is irrelevant as there seems to be no dispute about the identity of James on the pages you cite as evidence. Give me just one and I may reconsider. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you really want me to expose such a blatant lie? Fine.

From http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html:

However, there has been considerable dispute as to whether the phrase "the brother of Jesus who was called Christ" was part of the original passage. Wells notes: "Schurer, Zahn, von Dobschutz and Juster are among the scholars who have regarded the words 'the brother of Jesus, him called Christ' as interpolated." (p. 11) To this list, we could add Karl Kautsky, S.G.F. Brandon, Charles Guignebert, and Twelftree.

The page includes dozens of screenfuls of commentary on both sides of the issue.

http://priory-of-sion.com/psp/id25.html asserts that the entire passage is in dispute: "The passage attributed to Josephus in our surviving copies of the Antiquities concerning the martyrdom of James is regarded by some scholars to be a Christian interpolation (E Schurer, H Chadwick)"; it details the inconsistencies between the description of Ananus presented in the xx.9 passage and parallel parts of the Jewish Wars.

From http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/humm/Topics/JewishJesus/josephus.html:

The possibility suggests itself that even Origen's Josephus has undergone Christian reworking, simply of a different variety, in which, perhaps, the insulting Testimonium has been expunged, and James has been introduced as a pious Jewish hero.

And there's more....

Cheers,

TrumpetPower! 21:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. If you could, please provide at least one source for your biography of James the Just that matches the story told in Josephus that doesn't use the xx.9 reference as its original source. I'm not aware of a single one. TrumpetPower! 21:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, we need to focus on what the question is here. It is not our place to work out whether Josephus' James is James the Just, that would be original research. I could argue what I think, but it is irrelevant. The question is, is the traditional identification of this James with James the Just disputed, and is that dispute mainstream enough to note? Trumpetpower, can you give a reference that shows any notable scholar disputes the identity of this James? (I can't find any inthe citations above, but I may have missed it). If you can, then we should use words which make it clear that the identification is disputed. If you can't then we should not. I'm not looking for an argument as to why the reference might be dubious, just evidence that someone notable directly disputes it. --Doc ^ask? 22:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

PS, I'm not sure that the 'priory of sion' is a reliable source, and I find its unreferenced suggestion that Chadwick and Schurer dispute this doubtful, but I could be wong on the second point. --Doc ^ask? 22:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the heart problem falls into two broad categories.

First, James the Just is even more of a shadowy figure than Jesus. As best I can tell, the only extant original sources are Origen's quotations of Hegesippus (ca 110 - ca 180), Clement of Alexandria (mid-second century to early third century), and the Josephus reference in question. Trying to reconcile these three accounts itself proves difficult--aside from the relationship to Jesus, there's a good amount of disagreement. Oh--there's also the synoptic gospels. Really, once you strip away Church tradition and doctrine, it's hard to say who, exactly, James the Just actually was. How can one then say who he wasn't?

Second, the only way James is identified is by name and his kinship with Jesus. The authenticity of the passage is disputed in many ways on many grounds, but all cast doubt upon or reject outright the identification of Jesus as Jesus Christ. (Some suggest James is the brother of a Jesus, just not that Jesus; others suggest there was no Jesus mentioned at all; still others reject the entire passage outright.) Since it's solely James's kinship with that identifies him as James the Just, I'm at a loss as to how anybody who rejects the identification of Jesus could even give passing thought to the notion that the person under discussion is James the Just.

But enough speculation. Here's the first argument presented on Peter Kirby's excellent page:

Wells states, "The words have the character of a brief marginal gloss, later incorporated innocently into the text. Josephus probably wrote of the death of a Jewish Jerusalem leader called James, and a Christian reader thought the reference must be to James the brother of the Lord who, according to Christian tradition, led the Jerusalem Chruch about the time in question. This reader accordingly noted in the margin: 'James = the brother of Jesus, him called Christ' (cf. the wording of Mt. 1:16: 'Jesus, him called Christ') and a later copyist took this note as belonging to the text and incorporated it. Other interpolations are known to have originated in precisely such a way." (p. 11) Doherty elaborates: "If he Josephus knew nothing else about James or chose to say nothing more, he would simply have used some equivalent to 'a certain James' or 'someone named James.' And what in fact do we find in the Greek? The words referring directly to James are: Iakobos onoma autoi. Translations render this 'James by name' or 'whose name was James' or 'a man named James.' Such a phrase could have stood perfectly well on its own (with a slight cahnge in grammatical form), and had the reference to a brother Jesus added to it by a Christian interpolator." (pp. 216-217) While these observations do not prove that the reference was interpolated, they do indicate the possibility of the interpolation hypothesis.

Is this enough for you? Do you need more?

You should probably also be aware that Str1997--and, subsequently, I--have been cited for violation of 3RR over Str1997's repeated deletions on the Jesus-Myth page.

Cheers,

TrumpetPower! 22:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, actualy in addition to the Synoptic gospels and the Patristic references you cite, there is also the Book of Acts (general dated AD 70-95) and independently Paul's letters to the Corinthians and Galatians (dated AD 50-60 - and thus contemporary), so there is a fair amount of stuff on which to reconstruct James. But actually, that's irrelevant. The sole question here is, do any/many notable scholars question whether Josephus references James (however they might think the reference may have been doctored)? I still see no citations for this. You mention Wells and Doherty, but who are they? And where do they say this?

Doherty, Earl J. The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? (Ottawa: Canadian Humanist Publications, 1999).

Wells, G. A. Did Jesus Exist? (London: Pemberton Publishing Co., 1986).

See the page for an extensive bibliography.

I'd be willing to do a little reasearch on this, but actually I'm wondering whether its worth the candle.

If this sort of thing at all interests you, at least read Peter Kirby's page [4]. He's perhaps the best Internet-based scholar on early Christianity, and he really does a bang-up job. If I'm not mistraken, he's a Christian, though he does an excellent job of holding to a Wikipedia-type neutral point of view.

Whatever way this falls, it is a very minor point for this article. Could we agree to word this 'figures such as .... James (generally held to be the Brother of Jesus)'? That would indicate that tradition and most/many scholars hold there to be a reference here, but we avoid stating factualy that there is. The debate (if there is one) should probably be recorded elsewhere (eg in the article on James) but it isn't critical to an understandign of Josephus. However, that many have seen a reference to James here is an important example of why Josephus has been of such interest to historians of Christianity. --Doc ^ask? 01:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Your wording works for me, though I might hope for something less encompassing than "generally." All I've been aiming for is language that doesn't blindly assume that Josephus identified James the Just, when even the words that survive to this day don't identify him as James the Just--it's "James, the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ," and at least those last five (English) words are universally rejected by those who challenge the authenticity of the passage--and, with that rejection, the equation of Josephus's James and James the Just.

Thanks for your mediative--meditative?--assistance. I hope this resolves the dispute....

Cheers,

TrumpetPower! 01:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Earlier in this section I've mentioned at least a half-dozen others who also reject the "brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ" line. Indeed, I feel that, if anything, we should be demanding from Str1997 examples of those who reject the authenticity of the passage but still identify James as James the Just. TrumpetPower! 01:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

After much grumbling Trumpet has finally provide one voice who casts doubt on James' identity. But one lone voice still does not make a debate. Claims that he has given more are inaccurate - all of the above (except the Wells quote on some website) do not address any dispute about James' identity. The speculations about a "James, son of Damnaeus" however are clearly originally research or rather original invention. The Debate on this passage is already covered in Josephus on Jesus. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

There are actually plenty of scholars who doubt the authenticity of the testamonium flavianum, but accept (indeed raise no questions about) the reference to James the brother of Jesus. Steve Mason (a major Josephus scholar) in Jospephus and the New Testament pp 163-181 discusses the problems of the TF at length (and finds it unreliable) but then discusses the significance of the James passge without raising any questions of authenticity or identification. The late Keith Hopkins (professor at Cambridge, and a noted sceptic) in A World Full: Pagans Jews and Christians in the Roman Empire of Gods pp 89, 349 also assumes Josephus a reliable source on James as a leader of the Christians and the brother of Jesus of Nazareth. Even A.N. Wilson (in his hatchet-job on Christianity Paul:the mind of the Apostle p. 89) confidently cites Josephus as evidence of the fate of Jesus' brother the leader of the Jerusalem Christians. Thats just from my own bookshelf - and I without looking through my commentaries! No-one even alludes to a debate on the identification of this James, against that we have (so far) one unreferenced citation from an unidentified 'Wells' on some website.--Doc ^ask? 09:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Doc, this is getting tiresome. I've provided far more than "one unreferenced citation from an unidentified 'Wells' on some website" in this section of the talk page alone. Even half of the paragraph you refer to concerns the confirming opinions of Daugherty, and I've provided you with citations for both--"unidentified" is hardly accurate or fair. Please take a moment to read this section from top to bottom. TrumpetPower! 13:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James cont

OK, sorry, you interpolated your answers into my post, and I missed them. However, I'm not sure they really suport your case. Peter Kirby's site seems to indicate that the dispute is over whether Josephus names James as 'the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ' not over the identification of James with the James of the New Testament. Even if the reference to Jesus as Christ here is disputed, I see no dispute over the reference to James of Jerusalem (aka 'the Just'). Wells and Doherty may be disputing that too, but that's not clear from Kirby's comments; and in any case, they seem to be pushers of the rather marginal 'Jesus of Nazareth didn't exist' theory - a position mainstream scholarship tends to ignore as tinfoilhattery. Whilst their theories might be arguing that Josephus isn't talking about the Christian James (and I'm not sure if they are saying that), I can't see why we should have to make allowances for them in a passing remark in this article. I've provided citations that support the contention that manistream secular scholars simply take Josephus at face value as referencing James - and make no allowances (or even mention of) such exotic theories. If such scholars don't even aknowledge a problem here, I see no reason why Wikipedia should. --Doc ^ask? 22:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

One of us is missing something here. Let me see if I can break down what I'm saying, and see if you can help me figure out where we disagree.

1. The only identification of the person in the passage is "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James." In particular, Josephus does not identify him as James the Just.
2. We agree that there is dispute from a minority of scholars over the authenticity of the part of the phrase, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ."
3. Without that phrase, there is nothing to identify the person in question as James the Just.

But how's this for a suggested wording?

...John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus (commonly identified as James the Just), and an oft-disputed reference to Jesus Christ.

That preserves Josephus's original language and links to all three-and-a-half relevant pages in a reasonably non-obtrusive manner that doesn't overly disrupt the flow of the text.

Thoughts?

Cheers,

TrumpetPower! 22:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hm, there may be a dispute over how Jesus has been described here, but I still see no dispute that this is a reference to James, the brother of Jesus of Nazareth. You say 'without that phrase, there is nothing to identify the person in question as James the Just' - but it seems that mainstream scholars do make that identification without even aknowledging any difficulty. If we suggest that they are wrong to do that, then we engage in original reasearch. Again I ask, is their any accredited scholar who suggests that this might be someone other than James the brother of Jesus, or even aknowledges that there is a problem with the identification? I can see some marginal scholars are disputing the wording (and perhaps even the existence) of the reference to Jesus, but I can see no real debate as to the identity of James. If there is no real debate, then it is not wikipedia's place to start one.

Anyway what about this for wording (based on yours)

...John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, and a highly disputed reference to Jesus himself (see Josephus on Jesus).

My reasoning is that 'Just' is a later epithet never used either by Josephus or the contemporary New Testament documents. --Doc ^ask? 23:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy with that wording, though I'd expect Str1997 to object because it doesn't identify or directly link to James the Just, which was what prompted him to keep reverting in the first place.

In preparation for the change you proposed, I just added a reference to James the Just on the Josephus on Jesus page, ensuring that those who land there are aware of the traditional identification.

Cheers,

TrumpetPower! 00:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You are right. I am not entirely happy with that for the reasons given, but I note we are making progress. How about:

"...John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, and a highly disputed reference to Jesus himself."

This way we link in both cases to the Josephus on Jesus article, achieving consistency. It is anyway better to avoid the "James the Just" title as it is actually not very common.

Apart from our dispute, I would suggest changing the sequence of the passage to:

"He makes references to the Jewish High Priests of the time, the Herodian Temple, Sadducees, Pharisees and Essenes, Quirinius' census and the Zealots, and to such figures as Pontius Pilate, Agrippa I and II, John the Baptist ..." (leaving out the double mentioning of Herod the Great)

Furthermore, I'd prefer also including not just "immediate post-Temple Judaism" but also the time before its destruction, as Josephus was a priest who served as such at that time, so he should be knowledgeable about that time too.

07:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I can go with that. --Doc ^ask? 08:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. (But, as an aside, the link to Jesus goes to the article about the reference instead of to Jesus. Shouldn't it be the word "reference" that gets linked rather than the name?) TrumpetPower! 14:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

We can link the entire phrase "reference to Jesus Christ". If this is agreed I guess it is time for unprotection. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, except let's not use Jesus Christ. Christ is not a surname or an NPOV designator, simply 'Jesus' or 'Jesus of Nazareth' (if we need a designator) would be preferable. --Doc ^ask? 16:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's just leave it as "Jesus"--everybody on the planet will know who we're referring to, and "of Nazareth" opens up the whole can of worms that Nazareth was unknown to history for a couple centuries.... TrumpetPower! 17:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

And hey folks, this really has been consensus building at its best. Soooo much better than edit waring. It has been a pleasure working with you both. --Doc ^ask? 16:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

And thanks to you for your time and energy in resolving this dispute. TrumpetPower! 17:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)