|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 8,674
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson
Not according to the editors of the critical text of Josephus. If one is going to make statements about what Josephus did or did not write, it is unserious to ignore the views of the relevant specialists.
|
Every defense of this passage that I have seen, and I'm not sure that I have seen theirs, leans on the early citation by Origen as "evidence for" the validity of this passage, yet in fact the citation by Origen is the strongest piece of evidence against its validity, because Origen is defiantly citing Hegesippus, not Josephus, and Origen is problem the source of the whole error.
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...history.htm#10
Quote:
The only remaining possible non-Christian attestation to the existence of Jesus Christ, then, is the passing mention of "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" in Antiquity of the Jews, so let us now take a look at that.
First let's take a look at the passage in question:
1. And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. 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 called 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.
- Antiquity of the Jews, Book XX; Flavius Josephus, 94-100 CE What is important to note here is that this is a passage that is definitely talking about at least one Jesus, the son of Damneus. Indeed, the name "Jesus" was quite common at the time. In fact the whole issue of the name of Jesus is quite confusing, because Jesus and Joshua are really two different interpretations of the exact same Hebrew name. "Jesus" is the English form of the Latin form of the Greek translation of Yeshu'a, while Joshua is the direct English translation of Yeshu'a, without going through the Greek variant. So, in reality Jesus and Joshua are the exact same name, or would have been the exact same name as far as Jews were concerned, because to them both of these names would have been Yeshu'a.
That's not critically important here, but what is important is the fact that both "Jesus" and "James" (in their Greek and Hebrew forms) were extremely common names at the time. Indeed there are at least 19 or so "Jesuses" listed between the Bible and the works of Josephus. Josephus himself lists about 14.
1. Jesus son of Naue (Joshua of Nun)
2. Jesus son of Saul
3. Jesus, high priest, son of Phineas
4. Jesus son of the high priest Jozadak
5. Jesus son of Joiada
6. Jesus, high priest, son of Simon
7. Jesus, high priest, son of Phabes
8. Jesus, high priest, son of See
9. Jesus, high priest, son of Sirach (writer of Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach)
10. Jesus Christ
11. Jesus son of Damnaeus, became high priest
12. Jesus son of Gamaliel, became high priest
13. Jesus son of high priest Sapphas and military general
14. Jesus, chief priest, probably to be identified with 10 or 11
15. Jesus son of Gamalas, high priest
16. Jesus, brigand chief on borderland of Ptolemais
17. Jesus son of Sapphias
18. Jesus brother of Chares
19. Jesus a Galilean, perhaps to be identified with 15
20. Jesus in ambuscade, perhaps to be identified with 16
21. Jesus, priest, son of Thebuthi
22. Jesus, son of Ananias, rude peasant, prophesies the fall of Jerusalem.
Of the 28 high priests between the reign of King Herod the Great and the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, four of them were named Jesus.
So, it's important here to understand that both Jesus and James were very popular names, and that the mere coupling of these names by themselves would not in any way identify a Jesus as the same Jesus who is the subject of the Gospels, one has to consider the passage and the subject of the writing.
This chapter is discussing events that were taking place around 60 CE, some time between about 60 and 66 CE. Nothing in this chapter or the passage has any relationship to "Jesus Christ", and the use of "Christ" as an identifier is quite odd, for Josephus never explains what this term means. One could argue that if the Testimonium Flavianum is authentic, then the Testimonium Flavianum is what provides the explanation for who this Jesus is, but if the Testimonium Flavianum as we have it is not authentic, at least including the reference to "Christ", then this would be a completely oddball and unsupported reference. Josephus also never uses the term "Christ" in any of this other works.
There is nothing else in Antiquity of the Jews that would indicate that this James has any relationship to Jesus Christ, or that anything in this discussion has any relationship to him. In addition, since this is something that is occurring around 60 CE, it would seem quite odd to identify James by his association to a person whom the Jews had supposedly killed as a common criminal some 30 years prior to the event, and 60 years prior to this writing.
Christians argue that this was done because "Jesus Christ" was so well known that it makes the passage make sense, but as we have seen, no one prior to Josephus had even written about Jesus Christ aside from some Christians, so it certainly does not seem that he was well known.
A much more likely case here is that the Jesus mentioned as the brother of James is the same Jesus who is the son of Damneus.
...
The phrase, '"who was called Christ," was probably inserted into the text later.
One argument against this being authentic is that Josephus doesn't use the term Christos anywhere else, so it does not appear likely that this is original. If it were original, however, then there are certainly many possibilities for reading the text, and it can't simply be presumed that this is talking about the Jesus Christ of the Gospels, but more than likely it isn't original in the first place.
The other arguments against this being original deal with the structure of the sentence, the subject matter of the passage, the fact that even if Jesus Christ existed he would be an odd person for Josephus to use as an identifier for someone else, especially by brotherhood, and the fact that if this were talking about "James the Just" (which it almost certainly isn't for reasons we shall see) then this James himself would have been more famous than Jesus at this point in time and this association would have made no sense, as James himself, according to Christian legend, was a community leader and well known person, though there is no reference to him in the non-Christian literature (unless this is a reference to him).
Let's read the passage again, without "who was called Christ" in the passage:
But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. 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, 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. What this passage would be saying, is that Ananus was a priest who abused his power. Ananus wrongly condemned James and some others to death, but the equitable citizens wrote to Herod to complain about this, so Herod punished Ananus by taking the high priesthood from him and giving it to James' brother, Jesus (son of Damneus).
This story makes perfect sense, follows the typical writing style of Josephus, and now the mention of Jesus as the brother of James has context and relevancy. The story here is about Ananus, and how Jesus son of Damneus obtained the high priesthood. The whole point of the sentence that mentions James is to explain issues relevant to Jesus son of Damneus. If this sentence were talking about Jesus Christ, then Jesus Christ would be the one who has no relation to the story, and thus we would expect James to come first in the sentence, because James would be who was being talked about, but in this case Jesus is mentioned first because Jesus is who is being talked about, at it only makes sense that Jesus is the one being talked about if this is Jesus son of Damneus, whom the narrative is about.
We can also break the text down as follows:
[Ananus unlawfully] assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus and some others; 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; ... 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 and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest. "Jesus Christ", some guy that was presumably killed for being a false prophet 30 years prior, is an obscure reference out of the blue that has no relation to the narrative.
The story here makes sense if the James is the brother of Jesus son of Damneus, because giving the high priesthood to Jesus would then be seen as a form of reparation to the family for the wrongful death of James, and as a further punishment to Ananus.
Why wouldn't Josephus put the "son of" identifier in the first reference instead of after the fact? Well, for the very reason that "brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" seems odd, because it's a double qualifier and a cumbersome sentence. In addition, the strong point of the passage is the naming of Jesus as the high priest, thus Josephus uses the formality of identifying Jesus by his father when he states that he was named the high priest.
Why didn't he identify James by his father instead? Because if James is related to Jesus son of Damneus then this is implied, and Jesus is the more important figure, he is the one who becomes high priest. It is also possible, by the way, that "whose name was James" is a part of the inserted text as well, and what was really added was "who was called Christ, whose name of James".
The real question, however, is if this is James "the brother of Jesus Christ" of the Gospels, and Christians claim that the Gospels are true, then that would mean that this James would have to be in the line of David as well, and thus if anything it would have made more sense to qualify James by his father Joseph, who would had to have been in the line of David, and thus would have been seen as prestigious name worth mentioning. Likewise, if this was "James the Just", then why not identify him by his supposed prestigious position in society, instead of a link to being the bother of Jesus? Josephus does this when he mentions John the Baptist, whom he calls "John the Baptist", identifying him not by his father, but by a title or by his deeds. This passage really opens up a whole can of worms of Christians, because it simply doesn't make sense if read with "who was called Christ" in it, and it draws many other aspects of Christian lore into question.
There are also no other examples in the works of Josephus of identifying someone in the manner that is used here if "who was called Christ" were talking about a different person from Jesus son of Damneus, i.e. mentioning the person being related first, and then the subject after, with an explanation of who the person being related is in between.
So, if "who was called Christ" is not authentic, then how did it get there? There are two likely possibilities, either it came from the insertion of a note, or it was later inserted into the text as a correction based on references made by Origen, which appear to cite Josephus a source for a link between Jesus and James. Origen's citations, however, are highly problematic and almost certainly spurious.
As with the Testimonium Flavianum, if this was inserted based on a marginal or interlinear note then it was probably a completely innocent mistake. These types of things happened. A Christian reading the work may have seen the names Jesus and James together and jumped to the conclusion that this was "Jesus Christ", and then made a note saying so. A later scribe would have then just incorporated it, assuming it to be true, in order to clarify the passage.
The other, and I believe more likely, possibility is that Origen's passage that attributed to Josephus a claim that Jesus was called Christ is actually a mistake on Origen's part, but this set a precedent leading others believe that Josephus had actually said this.
Let's look again at Origen's citation of this passage from Against Celsus:
I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, that the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who lived no great length of time after John and Jesus. For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless-being, although against his will, not far from the truth-that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),-the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine
- Against Celsus; Origen Origen actually cites Josephus as a source for "brother of Jesus" three times, and in every case, as in this one, he paraphrases and mentions things that no one has ever been able to find in any works of Josephus. In fact in The Jewish War, written about two decades before Antiquity, Josephus attributed the destruction that befell the Jews to the deaths of both Ananus the elder (the father of the corrupt Ananus) and either Jesus son of Damneus or Jesus son of Gamaliel (he does not specify), whom he said were shrewd negotiators and level-headed decision makers who opposed the war against the Romans.
What appears to be the case is that Origen has somehow confused the works of Josephus with the works of the early Christian chronicler Hegesippus. Hegesippus is known as the earliest chronicler of Christian history, and he was also an apologist. His works are universally acknowledged as highly flawed and imaginative, basically inventing "history", but he did also use historical sources. Origen's paraphrase above does correspond to passages in the works of Hegesippus, and thus his citations of "Josephus" were probably really citations of Hegesippus, or citations of commentaries that themselves mixed the sources of Josephus and Hegesippus, or perhaps Hegesippus himself is the source of the error, perhaps he claimed that Josephus made this correlation.
Here is a passage from Hegesippus, which corresponds to Origen's passage in Against Celsus:
James, the Lord's brother, succeeds to the government of the Church, in conjunction with the apostles. He has been universally called the Just, from the days of the Lord down to the present time. For many bore the name of James; but this one was holy from his mother's womb. He drank no wine or other intoxicating liquor, nor did he eat flesh; no razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, nor make use of the bath. He alone was permitted to enter the holy place: for he did not wear any woolen garment, but fine linen only. ... Therefore, in consequence of his pre-eminent justice, he was called the Just, and Oblias, which signifies in Greek Defense of the People, and Justice, in accordance with what the prophets declare concerning him.
...
The aforesaid scribes and Pharisees accordingly set James on the summit of the temple, and cried aloud to him, and said: "O just one, whom we are all bound to obey, forasmuch as the people is in error, and follows Jesus the crucified, do thou tell us what is the door of Jesus, the crucified." And he answered with a loud voice: "Why ask ye me concerning Jesus the Son of man? He Himself sitteth in heaven, at the right hand of the Great Power, and shall come on the clouds of heaven."
And, when many were fully convinced by these words, and offered praise for the testimony of James, and said, "Hosanna to the son of David," then again the said Pharisees and scribes said to one another, "We have not done well in procuring this testimony to Jesus. But let us go up and throw him down, that they may be afraid, and not believe him." And they cried aloud, and said: "Oh! oh! the just man himself is in error." Thus they fulfilled the Scripture written in Isaiah: "Let us away with the just man, because he is troublesome to us: therefore shall they eat the fruit of their doings." So they went up and threw down the just man, and said to one another: "Let us stone James the Just." And they began to stone him: for he was not killed by the fall; but he turned, and kneeled down, and said: "I beseech Thee, Lord God our Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."
And, while they were thus stoning him to death, one of the priests, the sons of Rechab, the son of Rechabim, to whom testimony is borne by Jeremiah the prophet, began to cry aloud, saying: "Cease, what do ye? The just man is praying for us." But one among them, one of the fullers, took the staff with which he was accustomed to wring out the garments he dyed, and hurled it at the head of the just man.
And so he suffered martyrdom; and they buried him on the spot, and the pillar erected to his memory still remains, close by the temple. This man was a true witness to both Jews and Greeks that Jesus is the Christ.
And shortly after Vespasian besieged Judaea, taking them captive.
- Commentaries on the Acts of the Church; Hegesippus, 165-175
This is the only known account that precedes the writing of Origen which resembles what he cites in Against Celsus, and it resembles his account very well. The mixing up of authors was not uncommon, and these types of confusions are not otherwise unknown. This is especially likely in the case of Josephus and Hegesippus because we know that there was on-going confusion about these two names, and some scholars think that Hegesippus is actually a corruption of the name Josephus, meaning that these two different writers may both have had the same name. In Greek Josephus is written Iosippus, and some people have translated this as Hegesippus while others translated it is Josephus. It is considered proper to translate it as Josephus, but this was a common error that is more well known in relation to later 4th century works that are wrongly attributed to a Hegesippus based on the name Iosippus within the text.
How exactly Origen got confused we cannot know. Maybe he was confused by the names? Maybe he got a scroll of Hegesippus that was wrongly attributed to Josephus by someone else? We also know of another work was that wrongly attributed to Josephus, which was probably written by the 3rd century Christian writer Hippolytus, Discourse to the Greeks Concerning Hades. Indeed this work is still commonly attributed to Josephus, though scholars do not acknowledge it as such.
These types of mistakes happened, but that only explains Origen's citation, what about the text from Josephus that we have today?
Well, either the phrase "who was called Christ" was an independent insertion into the text of a marginal or interlinear note, or Origen actually set the precedent and later scribes, when looking for clarity, knew of Origen's work and inserted the phrase into Josephus thinking that it was supposed to go there.
This again is not uncommon. Firstly, many scribes were familiar with many works, and it would not be uncommon for later scribes who were copying Josephus to have also read or copied Origen. Secondly, scribes were supposed to make an effort to clarify ambiguous names, or to make corrections based on other references. If they read a work that didn't have a passage that someone else had claimed that it did have, they were then supposed to try and figure out what was original and then make the correction, so if someone had read one of Origen's three works where he claimed that Josephus said that James was the brother of Jesus Christ, then when making their copies of this passage in Josephus it would have looked to them like a mistake if the phrase about Christ was not there, thus they would have added it.
So, what we can say with confidence about the "brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" passage, is that the inclusion of "who was called Christ" seems very much out of place and the entire passage makes more sense when "who was called Christ" is removed. This phrase is in the middle of a passage that is discussing Jesus son of Damneus, and the passage is clear and meaningful without this phrase present. Indeed, introducing a separate Jesus that is unrelated to the story seems quite unlikely.
We also know that Origen is cited as the earliest confirmation of this passage, but Origen's reference to Josephus is highly problematic and doesn't comply with anything that we know of that has ever been written by Josephus, and it is pretty unbelievable that Josephus would have made any commentary on "James the Just", since this is just a Christian title and we have no such existing commentary on "James the Just" from Josephus. It appears that Origen somehow got his sources confused and mixed up the works of Hegesippus with Josephus, leading him to falsely attribute to Josephus a phrase that he never wrote.
This mistaken attribution by Origen then led other scribes to insert the text into Josephus at the only place where a James was mentioned as the brother of a Jesus, in a passage that is really clearly talking about a different Jesus.
|
|
01-17-2007, 11:26 AM
