I discussed them above (samples 1 and 2). I went through every adelphonymic I could find in Josephus' extant work and observed how he used them. In the case of (1) he introduces a new character (x), and identifies a relationship to some figure (Y), which can be unknown. In cases where the related brother is unknown, said brother is named second (because this figure is basically irrelevant generally, such as your Felix - Pallans example in JW 2.247). In case (2) he identifies a new character by relation to a previously known brother, i.e., the brother of Y, named X. However, Y is always a previously known figure.
The 20.200 passage best parallels the case (2) but this leads to two possible outcomes:
(A) the James 20.200 passage is dependent on prior knowledge of the Testimonium Flavianum, as the case (2) examples I have noted above always have Josephus referring to someone who was previously introduced in the text. As the TF was previously tampered with and this 20.200 passage would appear dependent, it likewise increases the inherent probability that 20.200 is also tampered with. Especially when we consider the "called Christ" language, as Josephus nowhere else uses this terminology.
Or (B) the TF is ignored as an interpolation, in which case the 20.200 passage is unique in all cases of Josephus' adelphonymics. In which case, we have reason to doubt it, because it is an inherently awkward passage. There is likewise absolutely no parallel for the James passage entire, i.e., "the brother of X, called Y, named Z". I tried finding any example of this, but there are none.
I am resting my case specifically on how Josephus uses the two forms of adelphonymics without any apparent exception that I have yet found except James 20.200, a passage which we have automatic reason for suspicion because of both questionable terminology, and the known tampering by Christians of Josephus' works.
The 20.200 passage best parallels the case (2) but this leads to two possible outcomes:
(A) the James 20.200 passage is dependent on prior knowledge of the Testimonium Flavianum, as the case (2) examples I have noted above always have Josephus referring to someone who was previously introduced in the text. As the TF was previously tampered with and this 20.200 passage would appear dependent, it likewise increases the inherent probability that 20.200 is also tampered with. Especially when we consider the "called Christ" language, as Josephus nowhere else uses this terminology.
Or (B) the TF is ignored as an interpolation, in which case the 20.200 passage is unique in all cases of Josephus' adelphonymics. In which case, we have reason to doubt it, because it is an inherently awkward passage. There is likewise absolutely no parallel for the James passage entire, i.e., "the brother of X, called Y, named Z". I tried finding any example of this, but there are none.
I am resting my case specifically on how Josephus uses the two forms of adelphonymics without any apparent exception that I have yet found except James 20.200, a passage which we have automatic reason for suspicion because of both questionable terminology, and the known tampering by Christians of Josephus' works.
Statistics: Posted by Chrissy Hansen — Mon Apr 22, 2024 9:25 pm