spin

The brother of Jesus called Christ, whose name was James

It is claimed that this contorted reference to James is an honest to goodness turn of phrase from the pen of Josephus and, to prove it, Origen's knowledge of the passage has been cited as an early testimony to it.

First, here is what Josephus says in some context (AJ 20.9.1):

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 . . .

I have noted elsewhere that the structure "the brother of Y . . whose name was X" is elsewhere unattested to in Josephus's works, so we are at once put on guard about it. I have also noted that unlike many commentators I see the phrase "Jesus called [legonemou] Christ" as quite an acceptible phrase for a xian to use, given that GMt uses the very same phrase in 1:16, "Jesus called [legomenos] Christ", and a similar one in 10:2, "Simon called [legomenos] Peter". Although other examples of legomenos being used for people can be found in Josephus, they are comparatively rare, as he tended to use other verbs for people, though legomenos is used frequently with place names.

Thus alerted to the strangeness of the language used here, we move on to Origen the apparent testimony to the reference to Jesus in relation to James. Here is the passage from Contra Celsus 1.47:

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.

It will be noticed that Origen doesn't actually cite any of the phrases specifically found in 20.9.1 with the exception of the questionable phrase, "brother of Jesus called Christ". What we have is Origen referring to the passage and giving his personal commentary on it. Here are Origen's words again with the basic content of what he got from Josephus with his commentary in parentheses and in "plum":

[Josephus], (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).

If we put aside the questioned phrase for a moment, here is what Origen says of the content of the Josephus passage: "[Josephus], in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, says nevertheless that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just". Yet this is still unlike the Josephus text, which merely knows this James, though without mentioning the surname "the Just" nor the relationship between the death of James and the destruction of Jerusalem. In fact, the only similarity other than the questionable phrase is the death of James. Nothing more. (And perhaps someone might like to tell me where Josephus relates the fall of the temple to the death of James.)

Origen is alluding to the passage from Josephus, not citing it. In alluding to it, he also adds other related material. Origen in no sense is perverting Josephus; he is merely elucidating on the text as I am doing here, though perhaps one could read Origen as saying what Josephus should have said.

Origen is therefore no help in understanding the "brother of Jesus... James" mentioned in Josephus AJ 20.9.1. We are left with a passage which is about James that has the oddly constructed reference to Jesus which would require further information if we were to believe that Josephus truly said that Jesus was called the Christ, for the messiah to a practising Jew of the time was extremely significant. There is no hint of that information, except according to some the spurious Testimonium Flavium, which I have touched on in this thread.


spin

Johann_Kaspar

Question: is there any other example in Josephus where he is reversing the logical order, that he is not putting FIRST the name of the character?
All I remember is that he is putting (always?) the name and after only does he give explanations or precisions about that name.
Thus it should read: James the brother of Josué who is called messiah.

Bernard Muller

Johann_Kaspar:
I have that to dilute Spin's argument:

- "a man of Gischala [Galilee], the son of Levi, whose name was John [a Zealot leader]." (Wars, II, XXI, 1)
- "one of the priests, the son of Thebuthus, whose name was Jesus ..." (Wars, VI, VIII, 3)
- "the sons of [former rebel] Judas of Galilee were now slain; ...The names of those sons were James and Simon" (Ant., XX, V, 2)
- "a brother of his [Jehoahaz], by the father's side, whose name was Eliakim" (Ant., X, V, 2)

Of course, Spin is going to argue these are not exact parallels.

Best regards, Bernard

Mathetes

Was Jesus really called Christ by the general public (non-Christian Jews)? Not during his life, at least.

According to Mark 8:27-30:

It looks like people were calling him all kinds of things, but not Christ.

And after his life, why would non-Christians call him "Christ", that is, "anointed one from God", if they did not believe in him?

spin

You got it, Bernard. For example, your lonely "brother" citation from AJ comes after a discourse about Jehoahaz, hence "a brother of his", which naturally makes sense in the context, but impossible in the James passage.

In the first two cases we have a preamble, "a man from Giscala" and "one of the priests", an important prefiguring not found in the James passage. They help to prepare the reader for the delay of naming the person who is in each case defined not by his brother but by the relatively normal qualification of his father. This is why I specifically pointed out the structure "the brother of Y . . whose name was X".

Without a clear parallel I think the basic complain stands. The focus has been taken away from James and inappropriately given to Jesus called Christ a la Mt 1:16.


spin

spin

As Bernard shows, this is not always the case, but the vast majority of them.

When you do have the father coming before the son he qualifies, the father isn't qualified as in our case with "the brother of Jesus called Christ who was named James". What you find is first a brief personal description such as "a man from Giscala" to which the paternal relation is attached "a man of Gischala, the son of Levi" and finally the name of the person of interest, "a man of Gischala, the son of Levi, whose name was John."


spin

Bernard Muller

Josephus could have written:
a man of Gischala, John, the son of Levi
OR
Jesus, one of the priests, the son of Thebuthus
OR
Eliakim, a brother of his by the father's side

However Josephus, on the spot, used a more convoluted syntax (Josephus used many long, convoluted sentences). So if he did for those, he could have done it for James. And maybe Josephus wanted to put that Jesus called Christ well in evidence, as the brother of somebody accused of breaking the Law?

Best regards, Bernard

spin

It is natural, when establishing a relationship with someone you were just talking about, to go from the known to the unknown person with who the someone had the relationship. But to save us both time though, why not give a precedent for each of these?

The point I was trying to make in my response to you was that none of your examples is sufficiently similar to the one under investigation, ie

the brother of Jesus called Christ, named James,

not

a just man, the brother of Jesus called Christ, named James,

Accepting the word "brother" in the context for a moment, it is not attached to anything preceding it, unlike all your examples. (And "a brother of his" isa different matter, due to its use of the linking device "his" to attach the phrase to what came before it.)


spin

Amaleq13

How does that make sense in context? The point of the story is that the proceedings against James and the others was not legal. Connecting one of the victims to a "known criminal" would undermine that.

Bernard Muller

Amaleq13:
There are all kind of ways to interpret that. I expressed one, just to prove that Josephus' syntax can be fully justified.
Furthermore, Josephus never said James was not at fault, just that his offence of breaking the law was tolerated by other Jews (maybe to explain why he lasted so long in Jerusalem?).
The proceedings not being legal is another issue altogether and what concerned some notable Jews of Jerusalem then (possibly because some thought they might be next?). Nothing is said about them thinking James was innocent.

Best regards, Bernard