ApostateAbe

G. A. Wells argues in his book, Did Jesus Exist?, page 11, concerning Antiquities 20.9.1:

The second passage in Josephus which mentions Jesus consists of half a dozen words in a paragraph about an intemperate Sadducean high priest who in AD 62 brought a number of men before the Sanhedrin as 'breakers of the law' and 'delivered them to be stoned'. The victims are described as 'James and certain others', and James is further specified as 'the brother of Jesus, him called Christ'. Now it is unlikely that Josephus would have mentioned Jesus here simply - as it were - in passing, when he mentions him nowhere else. Nor can his silence be defended by alleging that he habitually suppresses mention of leaders of Messianic proportions. O'Neill gives details of hos mention of 'perhaps ten leaders who gathered followings and might have been considered Messiahs by a people who were looking for the Messiah'. None of these men actually called themselves Messiah, but neither - according to O'Neill and other theologians - did Jesus (317, pp 158, 165). In Josephus' entire work the term 'Christ' occurs only in the two passages about Jesus and his brother James. This hardly strengthens the case for their authenticity. Schurer, Zahn, von Dobschutz and Juster are among the scholars who have regarded the words 'the brother of Jesus, him called Christ' as interpolated. 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 Church 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. And it is also of interest that even a second century Christian account of 'James the brother of the Lord' (that of Hegesippus, preserved as a quotation in Eusebius) represents him as in some respects a Jewish rather than a Christian saint. This lends some force to my suggestion that the James of whom Josephus wrote was within Judaism.

It was Wells' position that there was no first-century historical Jesus, and, if this line in Josephus is genuine, the position seems much more unlikely, so these arguments for interpolation would qualify for what Bart Ehrman calls "sholarship of convenience." If the ancient evidence seems to contradict one's position, then no problem--it was an interpolation.

That isn't to say interpolations never happen. In this case, there are two very big problems with claiming that the phrase "brother of Jesus, him called Christ" was an interpolation.

• If it was interpolation, then the original text of Josephus left James effectively unidentified, as "James" was a very common name in ancient Judea. The proposition creates an anomoly for Josephus, as for any ancient writer, where no anomoly existed before.
• The phrasing does not fit a Christian perspective. They would not have called Jesus "called Christ" but "the Christ." This we know from the Testimonium Flavianum, where Christian interpolation in Josephus is certain.

Further, it is strange that Wells believed that this is an innocent marginal gloss rather than an interpolation intended for deceit, because a marginal gloss is even more problematic. The author of a marginal gloss would be explicitly writing from his own perspective and not pretending to write from the perspective of Josephus. So, why would the author of this marginal gloss write "called Christ" rather than "the Christ"? Was he not a Christian?

It is typically argued that only "called Christ" is a marginal gloss and not the fuller phrase "brother of Jesus, called Christ," though this solves neither problem. Both Jesus and James were very common names. Some have identified "Jesus" as another "Jesus" later in the text, which requires Josephus to have identified "Jesus" the second time he mentions his name rather than the first time, which would be merely downgrading the required anomaly.

I am in agreement with Wells that James was a Jew. I don't think anyone seriously disputes that.

PhilosopherJay

Hi ApostateAbe,

1. James (Jacob) was certainly a common name so the phrase "James the
brother of "X" would certainly have been in the original.
2. The writer who changed "X" to Jesus might have been reading Matthew 27:22
Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Duvduv

What other conclusions can one make, Jay, considering that these works as we have them ascribed to "Josephus" were always in the hands of the CHURCH and never in t he hands of any Jewish communities or rabbinical authorities??

Grain of salt, anyone? Remember the mythology of Massada recounted in "Josephus"?

As the great commentator Nachmanides once says, ".......according to Josephus, IF we are to believe him......."

ApostateAbe

Duvduv, as it relates to the phrase in Josephus in question, do you believe the phrase was original to Josephus and Josephus was merely recounting myth, or do you believe that Josephus was telling the truth and the phrase was changed by a Christian or Christians?

aa5874

Again, ApostateAbe goes around in a vicious myopic circle to nowhere. It is time to move on. There was no Messianic ruler called Jesus in the 1st century--NONE--ZERO--NIL.

Again, in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 the word "Χριστοῦ" is ambiguous, that is, it has more than one meaning.


The Greek word "Χριστοῦ" cannot be PRESUMED to ONLY mean "Messiah" or "Christ" for it can also mean the "anointed ".

There is NO evidence whatsoever that Greeks and Romans who read Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 would have claimed Jesus was called the Messiah, Christ or the Messianic ruler because in the previous writings of Josephus Wars of the Jews 6.5.4 Vespasian was the prophesied Messiah.

Vespasian was the Prophesied Messianic ruler predicted in Hebrew Scripture based on Josephus Wars of the Jews 6.5.4, Tacitus Histories 5 and Suetonius Life of Vespasian.
Greeks and Romans would probably have called the Jesus in AJ 20.9.1 the anointed .

The use of the Greek word "Χριστοῦ" is found in the Greek Septuagint and also meaning the anointed.

King David was called the anointed

Josephus mentioned No Jewish Messiah called Jesus in his previous book Wars of the Jews.

Josephus mentioned the sects of Judea in Wars of the Jews composed c 75 CE and Antiquities of the Jews c 93 CE and the Jesus sect is NOT ever mentioned.

1. Wars of the Jews 2.8Antiquities of the Jews 18And further, up to the 3rd century, Apologetic writers ADMITTED that the Jews had ZERO knowledge of the advent of Jesus called Christ and had identified no person as Jesus Christ.

[Dialogue with Trypho Jesus the brother of James in Antiquities 20.9.1 was probably anointed High priest, son of Damneus.

Duvduv

A tough question, because if the passage was part of a larger text written by a Roman Christian or other non-Jew as"Josephus" then technically speaking it's not an interpolation or gloss.

Why do we assume the whole book was written by who tradition says wrote it, i.e. a Jew of the priestly caste named Josephus ben Mattityahu? Is it conceivable that a part WAS written by such a person and then it was attached to additional material written by someone else? Or alternatively that NONE of it was written by "Josephus" who is not mentioned in any traditional Jewish text? Would I bet my meager savings that Josephus actually existed? Not likely.
So who knows?
Scholars evidently tend to accept the traditional explanations of the Church at face value about who wrote what when, but why?

The writings in Josephus about the four sects is so silly. How would any informed Jew compare a group of resistance fighters to a sect following the rabbinic tradition as being equivalent in popularity and importance. It's pure bunk, just like the Massada story is pure bunk.

aa5874

Please, you have NO evidence at all that Josephus was a non-Jew. You promote propaganda.

If you don't know who wrote every word of any book then your claims about any writing are futile and irrelevant.

Duvduv

For heaven's sake........now we are in court to defend "Josephus".......How the hell do you know, AA, whether someone with that name ever actually existed and wrote those books?! Were you there?! Was there ever someone who lived named Mark Twain? NO. There was Samuel Clemens who used the name Mark Twain. And that was only 100+ years ago!

Since we already know how much pure bunk exists in the writings of "Josephus" and that these books were always in the hands of the church, do you still want to swear about the reliability of these writings?
Give me a break.......

ApostateAbe

Duvduv, aa5874 seems to have the more down-to-earth perspective, and I would take that as a very big red flag.

Sheshbazzar

Now that could be taken in two very different ways.