Flavius Josephus About Jesus?

[dogsgod]

1It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them.[2] 3When he saw that this pleased the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also. This happened during the Feast of Unleavened Bread. 4After arresting him, he put him in prison, handing him over to be guarded by four squads of four soldiers each. Herod intended to bring him out for public trial after the Passover.

 

[dogsgod]

To seize and/or arrest is distinct from beheading someone. I can't believe this has to be explained.

 

[Oberon]

Let's put this little "interpolation theory" to rest here and now, by looking closely at the evidence.

We have no alternative readings of the text. All of our texts attest to the reading that James dies. So dogsgod has no textual reason to doubt that 12:2 was part of the original Acts.

However, that doesn't mean it CAN'T be an interpolation. It could be that all of our texts are wrong. But what reason do we have to assume this? None. There is no reason. More importantly, there is GOOD reason to assume the line was there all along. It fits.

Acts 12 begins with a general statement about Herod persecuting "some" people from the church. It is a standard opening. He follows this by two syntactically connected clauses.

1. James is killed.
2. Seeing this pleased the Jews, he takes Peter.

Now, there are a few reasons that both of these parts need to be there in order for the whole passage to make any sense.

First, the general statement that Herod does evil to "some" from the church doesn't make any sense if the only person he does it to is Peter. It makes perfect sense if it starts with James and then Peter.

More importantly, the clauses of 12:2 and 12:3 are linked syntactically.

12:2 aneilen de...
12:3 idon de...

Both clauses start with an aorist verb followed by the particle de, linking them together in a logical order. First James is killed, and then seeing this pleases, the Jews, Herod takes Peter. Linked together by the verb + particle construction.

If we take out 12:2, this construction no longer has the same logic. idon de is not linked to 12:1, only to 12:2, meaning it doesn't make sense without 12:2.

So, we have no texts attesting to a variant reading to indicate that Acts 12:2 is an interpolation.

We have no reasons in the text itself to assume this either.

Finally, there is good reason, from the text, to assume that 12:2 is not an interpolation, as it fits syntactically within the passage.

1It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them.

It doesn't say arrest. It says he put out his hands to do evil against some from the church.

 

[dogsgod]

We have no alternative readings of the text. All of our texts attest to the reading that James dies. So dogsgod has no textual reason to doubt that 12:2 was part of the original Acts. However, that doesn't mean it CAN'T be an interpolation. It could be that all of our texts are wrong. But what reason do we have to assume this? None. There is no reason. More importantly, there is GOOD reason to assume the line was there all along. It fits.

That's rubbish and you should know this. Copies were made from copies and once a marginal notation or an out of place line finds its way into the text it's well known that all proceeding copies can include this.

 

[dogsgod]

It doesn't say arrest. It says he put out his hands to do evil against some from the church.

Verse 1

New International Version (©1984)
It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them.New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Now about that time Herod the king laid hands on some who belonged to the church in order to mistreat them.
International Standard Version (©2008)
About that time, Herod arrested some people who belonged to the church and mistreated them.
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
About that time King Herod devoted his attention to mistreating certain members of the church.
King James Bible
Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church.
American King James Version
Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church.
American Standard Version
Now about that time Herod the king put forth his hands to afflict certain of the church.
Bible in Basic English
Now, about that time, Herod the king made cruel attacks on the Christians.
Douay-Rheims Bible
AND at the same time, Herod the king stretched forth his hands, to afflict some of the church.
Darby Bible Translation
At that time Herod the king laid his hands on some of those of the assembly to do them hurt,
English Revised Version
Now about that time Herod the king put forth his hands to afflict certain of the church.
Webster's Bible Translation
Now about that time, Herod the king stretched forth his hands to afflict certain of the church.
Weymouth New Testament
Now, about that time, King Herod arrested certain members of the Church, in order to ill-treat them;
World English Bible
Now about that time, King Herod stretched out his hands to oppress some of the assembly.
Young's Literal Translation
And about that time, Herod the king put forth his hands, to do evil to certain of those of the assembly,



verse 3



New International Version (©1984)
When he saw that this pleased the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also. This happened during the Feast of Unleavened Bread.New American Standard Bible (©1995)
When he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to arrest Peter also. Now it was during the days of Unleavened Bread.
International Standard Version (©2008)
When he saw how this was agreeable to the Jews, he proceeded to arrest Peter, too. This happened during the Festival of Unleavened Bread.
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
When he saw how this pleased the Jews, he arrested Peter too. This happened during the days of Unleavened Bread.
King James Bible
And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)
American King James Version
And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)
American Standard Version
And when he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also. And those were the days of unleavened bread.
Bible in Basic English
And when he saw that this was pleasing to the Jews he went on to take Peter in addition. This was at the time of the feast of unleavened bread.
Douay-Rheims Bible
And seeing that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to take up Peter also. Now it was in the days of the Azymes.
Darby Bible Translation
And seeing that it was pleasing to the Jews, he went on to take Peter also: (and they were the days of unleavened bread
English Revised Version
And when he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also. And those were the days of unleavened bread.
Webster's Bible Translation
And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. Then were the days of unleavened bread.
Weymouth New Testament
Finding that this gratified the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also; these being the days of Unleavened Bread.
World English Bible
When he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also. This was during the days of unleavened bread.
Young's Literal Translation
and having seen that it is pleasing to the Jews, he added to lay hold of Peter also -- and they were the days of the unleavened food --





You're completely alone in your translation. No one else agrees with you. Any fool can read how these translations make perfect sense without the interpolation.

 

[Oberon]

You're completely alone in your translation.

Not really. Plenty of translations say "stretch out hands" or some variant.

However, they aren't literal word for word translations. They are trying to render idiomatic greek into readable english.
Κατ᾿ εκεινον δε τον καιρον επέβαλεν ῾Ηρωδης ο βασιλευς τας χειρας κακωσαί τινας των απο της εκκλησίας/ and at this time Herod the King epebalon/attacked/threw forth [his] tas cheiras/hands kakosai/to do evil [to] some of those from the church.

Any fool can read how these translations make perfect sense without the interpolation.

Any fool who knows anything about textual criticism knows you can't base arguments of interpolation on a translation. And this is why.

A translation of Greek into english cannot show the syntactical relation between the verb+ particle construction of the two clauses. We don't have a particle or construction like this.

Which is why nobody makes interpolation arguments based on translations. A translation may make sense with or without a line, while the original text does not.

 

[dogsgod]

Understandably interpolations are not based on translations but at the same I'm not taking your word for the notion that 12:2 can't be removed nor could it have been inserted. Provide a source for this.

 

[Oberon]

Understandably interpolations are not based on translations but at the same I'm not taking your word for the notion that 12:2 can't be removed nor could it have been inserted. Provide a source for this.

How could I provide a source on a theory that no one shares but you? Nobody has questioned Acts 12:2, and there is no reason to, so the issue hasn't come up.

And its not my fault that you can't read the greek and understand that syntactically the clauses fit together with Acts 12:2 far more than without, not to mention the overall context.

You have a standard topical general introduction, with Herod wronging "some" people of the church. Luke then specificies, in two syntactically and logically linked clauses, that the first one harmed was James (who was killed), and that as a result of the reaction from this Peter was also harmed (by being arrested). The parallelism is set up by the verb+ de construction in Act 12:2 and Acts 12:3, linking them to each other, and both clauses are linked to the intro in 12:1.

 

[Oberon]

So, now that we have moved beyond dogsgod's baseless assertion of interpolation based on his reading of a translation, we are still left with the execution of James apart from Paul in acts 12. Which is just one of many indications that Ben is simply picking and choosing passages, because it is quite clear that the Jesus sect was persecuted apart from and prior to Paul.

 

[Ben Masada]

No there wasn't more than one James as far as these references go. If there ever was an interpolation Acts 12:2 was it. That line makes no sense and James, the brother of Jesus being the James referred to in Acts after 12:2 makes even less sense, it's complete nonsense and requires a true believer to believe such silly notions.

Way to go dogsgod, tell him so. This Oberon needs to leak the wounds caused by his false pride.

 

[Ben Masada]

So, now that we have moved beyond dogsgod's baseless assertion of interpolation based on his reading of a translation, we are still left with the execution of James apart from Paul in acts 12. Which is just one of many indications that Ben is simply picking and choosing passages, because it is quite clear that the Jesus sect was persecuted apart from and prior to Paul.

No, it was not. Not by Jews, at least. If the Nazarenes had any suspiction that they would be persecuted by the local Jews, they would not have estabalished their headquarters between the jaws of the shark. I mean in Jerusalem. Then, they held a good relationship with the local Jews for about 30 years until Paul showed up preaching apostasy. (Acts 9:29-31)

If James had not interfered with the Jewish hunting of Paul to bring him to trial, by spiriting him out of Jerusalem and back to Tarsus, the good realationship with the local Jews would have continued. But Tertullus, the High Priest's Attorney made it very clear that Paul was acting as a ringleader for the Sect of the Nazarenes, as the only explanation for their having saved Paul's life. (Acts 24:5) That's when the problem with the local Jews started for the Nazarenes.

 

[Ben Masada]

[/color][/b]

Because of any number of reasons. We don't know, and Acts doesn't say. Acts never connects the name christians with Paul. Furthermore, Acts explicitly states that all the apostles were preaching Jesus as the resurrected Christ prior to Paul.

Oberon, I thought you were a little sharper. Did Paul need to say, "From now on, we are Christians?" Come on! Do you think that after a whole year preaching at the synagogue of Antioch, people started calling the disciples Christians because an angel came down from Heaven to tell the people that the disciples had turned into Christians? I think if you don't develop your logic I am going to stop wasting my time with you.

Apparently you are completely ignorant to it. There are several James' in Acts. The "main" James, the disciple of Jesus and brother of John, dies in Acts 12.

Hold this thought. You claim that "The main James, the disciple of Jesus and brother of John dies in Acts 12." According to a certain custom among founders of sects in Judaism, it does not matter how important were someone's disciples, at the death of the founder, the chairmanship of the sect had to be occupied by the closest man in the family. In the case of Jesus, his brother James. And you say above that he died in Acts 12. That's the main James in the book of Acts. The Chairman of the Sect of the Nazarenes. Nevertheless, much later in the life of Paul, after he had settled himself as the founder of Christianity, some of the Judaizers, who had been sent from Judea to recover their synagogues overturned by Paul into Christian churches, Paul get some of them and travels to Jerusalem to solve this problem once and for all. There was a Concil and guess who presided that Council? James, the brother of Jesus. I guess he had resurrected. (Acts 15:13) Then, much further, in fact, at the end of Paul's activities in the Middle East, just prior to being arrested in the Temple and be taken to Rome, Paul pays a visit to James, who advised him to get together with four other Jews who had made a vow, and camouflage himself in the Temple to give an impression that he was also observing the Jewish laws. That's when he was arrested in the Temple and taken to Rome because he applied to Caesar. The point is that at this time, end of Paul's career, James was there. But Oberon says that he had been killed in Acts 12, in the very beginning. And before you make up another James to pick youself up from drowning, Paul says that he was indeed James, the brother of the Lord. (Acts 15:13; 21:18; Gal. 1:19) But what is terribly ironic is that Oberon says that I am completely ignorant for not believing that James, the brother of Jesus was killed in Acts 12, even after godsdog proved to him that the James in Acts 12 was an interpolation. I wonder what Oberon has to say about this one.

Not according to Acts. Acts is very clear about the unity of christianity prior to Paul, and about the apostles preaching the resurrected Christ. Furthermore, Paul never uses the word christian, in any of his writings. He refers to "followers of the Lord" and "brethren" but never christians. Finally, once more Acts never explicitly connects Paul with the term christians, but it DOES explicitly connect the other apostles with preaching the resurrected messiah.

Instead of insisting on the same thing over and over again that the Apostles preached about Jesus resurrection prior to Paul, why don't you explain the contradiction that Paul was almost killed for doing the same about 30 years aftert Jesus had been gone?



We know that the disciples of Jesus were persecute prior to that, so there is no contradiction. The gospels record the disciples going into hiding. Acts records how Jews like Paul persecuted them. Then it goes on to say that Paul is in turn persecuted when he converts. No contradiction. There was persecution before, after, and apart from Paul.

No, they were not. You are making up things for some kind of agenda you hold unto. Hellenistic Herodians, and Romans but not regular Jews. Something of the sort started after Paul fled Israel with the help of James.


The fact that you want it to be so doesn't make it "obvious" it just makes you uninformed. Paul never uses either term. Neither acts nor the gospels have a single term for the Jesus sect. Outsiders called them both "christians" and "nazarenes." They called each other "saints" "brethren" "followers of the Lord" and so forth.

The Nazarenes were never called Christians. The only other name they were also called by was "The New Way." (Acts 9:2)



Not according to Acts, which records Peter and James preaching the resurrected Christ prior to Paul. Get your sources straight.

You are wrong again, and it seems to me you love to be on the wrong. If Peter and James preached about Jesus' resurrection prior to Paul, the local Jews would have no reason to arrest Paul. You ought to try to think for a change.

Again, read your source thoroughly to avoid looking foolish. There was more than one James.

I wonder who is looking foolish now with James dead in Acts 12 and resurrected in Acts 21. Now, let me give you the mercy strike so that you won't have to suffer too long. When Jesus went to the Gethsemani, he left nine of the disciples behind and took with him the three main ones: Peter, James and John. (Mat. 26:37) At the transfiguration on Mount Tabor, Jesus took again the three main pillars of his disciples: Peter, James and John. (Mat. 17:1,2) You can see this repeated in all gospels. Peter, James and John, the main pillars of Jesus' group of Twelve. That's exactly what Paul called these three when he came for his last visit Jerusalem, when he got arrested and was taken to Rome, he met those, as he says, the acknowledged pillars: Peter, James and John. (Gal. 2:9) Acknowledged pillars by whom? Obviously by Jesus, according to the gospel writers. Now, thank me for taking you out of misery.

 

[Oberon]

No, it was not. Not by Jews, at least.

Wrong. Jesus was executed. The apostles were in hiding. This is in the gospels, prior to Paul. Then, we know that Jews were persecuting the church, because Paul was one of them. We know that the disciples were preaching the risen christ prior to Paul, because Acts tells us. Finally, we know that the church was persecuted apart from Paul, because James was executed and Peter was arrested, even after Paul was gone.

If the Nazarenes had any suspiction that they would be persecuted by the local Jews, they would not have estabalished their headquarters between the jaws of the shark. I mean in Jerusalem. Then, they held a good relationship with the local Jews for about 30 years until Paul showed up preaching apostasy. (Acts 9:29-31)

Only Acts 4 records contention prior to Paul, as do the gospels. In acts 5, the apostles are put in prison. This is all prior to Paul. Read your sources before spouting this bunk.

 

[Oberon]

Oberon, I thought you were a little sharper. Did Paul need to say, "From now on, we are Christians?"

If you want to claim that they were called christians because of Paul, then someone somewhere should connect the two. But all you have is a reference that the followers of the Jesus sect were first called christians in a place where Paul, among other, was.

On the other hand, Paul never uses the term. The same source records the other apostles preaching the risen christ prior to Paul. And Paul was not alone in Antioch.

Come on! Do you think that after a whole year preaching at the synagogue of Antioch, people started calling the disciples Christians because an angel came down from Heaven to tell the people that the disciples had turned into Christians? I think if you don't develop your logic I am going to stop wasting my time with you.

Paul wasn't alone in Antioch. Nor was he the only one preaching the risen christ. So you have no basis for your claim.

Hold this thought. You claim that "The main James, the disciple of Jesus and brother of John dies in Acts 12." According to a certain custom among founders of sects in Judaism, it does not matter how important were someone's disciples, at the death of the founder, the chairmanship of the sect had to be occupied by the closest man in the family.

Do you have any source for this ridiculously idiotic claim, or are you just making things up as usual?

In the case of Jesus, his brother James. And you say above that he died in Acts 12. That's the main James in the book of Acts.

Wrong. There are multiple James in Acts. Read Acts 1:12. The disciple of Jesus who was the more important James was James the brother of John, not the brother of Jesus. James the brother of John dies in Acts 12. Jesus' brother James was still alive.

The Chairman of the Sect of the Nazarenes. Nevertheless, much later in the life of Paul, after he had settled himself as the founder of Christianity, some of the Judaizers, who had been sent from Judea to recover their synagogues overturned by Paul into Christian churches, Paul get some of them and travels to Jerusalem to solve this problem once and for all. There was a Concil and guess who presided that Council? James, the brother of Jesus. I guess he had resurrected. (Acts 15:13)

Once again, you are reading into the text. There is nothing about Paul as a founder, nor James presiding, nor anything else you claim.

But Oberon says that he had been killed in Acts 12, in the very beginning. And before you make up another James to pick youself up from drowning, Paul says that he was indeed James, the brother of the Lord. (Acts 15:13; 21:18; Gal. 1:19)

MORE THAN ONE JAMES! How hard is this? Acts 1 mentions more than one James. Do you know anything about names in ancient judaism? MANY, many, people had the same name. There were AT LEAST two important people named James in the early christian sect. One was Jesus' brother.

The other, more important James, was James Jesus' disciple, the brother of John, who dies in Acts 12. James Jesus' brother is still alive.

DIFFERENT PEOPLE! Read your sources thoroughly to avoid appearing completely ignorant. Stop making things up.

Instead of insisting on the same thing over and over again that the Apostles preached about Jesus resurrection prior to Paul, why don't you explain the contradiction that Paul was almost killed for doing the same about 30 years aftert Jesus had been gone?

How is this a contradiction? Stephen is killed prior to Paul. Acts records the apostles being arrested in acts 5 prior to Paul. The gospels record them in hiding. Acts records James the brother of John being killed while Paul is nowhere near, and Peter being arrested. Josephus records James the brother of Jesus being killed, while Paul is nowhere in sight.

The followers of Jesus were persecuted before Paul, apart from Paul, and after Paul.

There is no contradiction.

No, they were not. You are making up things for some kind of agenda you hold unto. Hellenistic Herodians, and Romans but not regular Jews. Something of the sort started after Paul fled Israel with the help of James.

The gospels, Acts, and Josephus all record the apostles being persecuted apart from Paul. Acts records Stephen being killed prior to Paul. Acts records the apostles being arrested prior to Paul's conversion, it records Paul persecuting the early christians (and Paul admits to this in his letters), it records the christians preaching the risen christ, and it records apostles being executed prior to Paul.

The Nazarenes were never called Christians. The only other name they were also called by was "The New Way." (Acts 9:2)

Wrong. They were called "saint" "brethren" and "followers of the lord." Paul uses these last two.

You are wrong again, and it seems to me you love to be on the wrong. If Peter and James preached about Jesus' resurrection prior to Paul, the local Jews would have no reason to arrest Paul. You ought to try to think for a change.

They arrested the apostles prior to Paul. See acts 5:18.

I wonder who is looking foolish now with James dead in Acts 12 and resurrected in Acts 21.

Different James. Read your sources.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Ok......I've read everyone's responses and I have one or two questions. Which James was it that was killed?

Was it James the Lessor (Son of Alphaeus)

or

James the Greater (Son of Zebedee)?

 

[dogsgod]

Ok......I've read everyone's responses and I have one or two questions. Which James was it that was killed?

Was it James the Lessor (Son of Alphaeus)

or

James the Greater (Son of Zebedee)?

James, son of Zebedee was supposedly killed. Actually he probably was killed but the line regarding his death (Acts12:2) seems to be haphazardly inserted into Acts at a later date. It makes far more sense without it but Oberon claims that the Greek requires it be there otherwise every sentence before and following loses its meaning (how convenient). I can't argue the Greek but I can otherwise certainly show how this is an interpolation if there ever was one. The story continues as if it never happened and awkward questions arise for the reader by it being there, it's where the confusion begins.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

James, son of Zebedee was supposedly killed. Actually he probably was killed but the line regarding his death (Acts12:2) seems to be haphazardly inserted into Acts at a later date. It makes far more sense without it but Oberon claims that the Greek requires it be there otherwise every sentence before and following loses its meaning (how convenient). I can't argue the Greek but I can otherwise certainly show how this is an interpolation if there ever was one. The story continues as if it never happened and awkward questions arise for the reader by it being there, it's where the confusion begins.

Here's something I found interesting...you might too.

“The brother of Jesus called Christ”: another Eusebian footprint in Josephus? « Vridar

Brother of Jesus called Christ / 2 « Vridar

 

[Oberon]

James, son of Zebedee was supposedly killed. Actually he probably was killed but the line regarding his death (Acts12:2) seems to be haphazardly inserted into Acts at a later date.

So far, your only support for interpolation is that in your translation the line could be removed and the passage still make sense. That isn't an argument for interpolation. Textual critics don't search through texts to find which lines COULD be removed and have the passage still make sense. That is possibly the worst approach to textual criticism I have ever seen, but of course you aren't a textual critic, and no textual critic agrees with you, so it is hardly suprising.

Textual critics look first and foremost at places where our texts disagree. Not a problem here.

Next, they look at lines which are clearly at odds either with the syntax or themes or views of the author. For example, Josephus appears to be christian in the larger reference to Jesus, so it is very likely that the text has been altered.

Also not a problem here. James the brother of John is never mentioned again. The line fits well into the passage, even in translation, apart from the syntax of the greek. Herod attacks the church, first by killing James, and then by arresting Peter.

Your only reason for assuming interpolation is that a James is mentioned later in the text. But we know from the beginning of the text, apart from all the other sources, that there was more than one James. When one dies, clearly any other mention of a James is not that one.

You have no reason for assuming interpolation, even looking at a translation.

And that is without my arguments based on the greek.

I can't argue the Greek but I can otherwise certainly show how this is an interpolation if there ever was one. The story continues as if it never happened and awkward questions arise for the reader by it being there, it's where the confusion begins.

The story does not continue as if it never happened. The passage starts by saying that Herod is persecuting the sect. It continues by saying more specifically that he killed James. It then links this killing with the arrest of Peter, and continues with the arrest story.

You are claiming, based on a translation, that the line COULD be removed and the passage still makes sense. So what? Lots of lines could be removed from many texts, and they could still make sense. Horrible argument.

Your critique of Luke's literary skills aside, Luke clearly links the clauses together, even in translation.

 

[Oberon]

Here's something I found interesting...you might too.

“The brother of Jesus called Christ”: another Eusebian footprint in Josephus? « Vridar

Brother of Jesus called Christ / 2 « Vridar

The consensus of Josephan scholarship is that the longer reference to Jesus has been altered, but that Josephus did discuss Jesus.

There is almost complete unanimity of scholarship that the shorter reference to James the brother of Jesus is genuine. It is attested to by early witnesses, it fits well in the passage, and most importantly, it doesn't look christian. Christians didn't refer to Jesus as "the one called christ." To christians, he WAS christ. The reason for assuming that the longer reference to Josephus is a forgery is because it looks so christian. In the shorter reference, James is marginal to the story, and Jesus is used only to identify him. And he isn't "Jesus the Christ" but only CALLED Christ.

No reason to assume interpolation.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The consensus of Josephan scholarship is that the longer reference to Jesus has been altered, but that Josephus did discuss Jesus.

I'm not persuaded by "consensus of scholarship"

There is almost complete unanimity of scholarship that the shorter reference to James the brother of Jesus is genuine.

But the majority doesn't rule here. And I disagree. "Called Christ"....does give me reason to speculate it was inserted. My personal view, even from the beginning, gives me reason to think the reference has nothing to do with a Jesus Christ but focuses on a Jesus, the brother of James who was executed, and after this James was executed his brother Jesus was crowned.