Josephus on Jesus and James

[historia]

All of the extant manuscripts of Josephus' Antiquity of the Jews contain the following references to Jesus of Nazareth. Did Josephus write this text, or are these reference entirely Christian interpolations?

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

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 . . . 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 . . .

[Mithrae]

I generally don't talk much about the Testimonium Flavianum. Since it's obviously been altered, it holds little or no value in discussing Jesus' historicity or deeds - it would amount to an argument from speculation.

From what I've gathered there seem two key points which could favour partial authenticity:
> If it were inserted wholesale, it's a very crude forgery, blatantly Christian rather than Jewish. I find it easier to imagine an over-zealous Christian scribe 'correcting' some negative or neutral comments about Jesus, than such a ham-fisted (and possibly counter-productive) approach to inserting Jesus into the work.

> The Arabic version published by Shlomo Pines of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities seems more or less in line with what we might expect of Josephus. But if the TF were inserted wholesale, we would then have to conclude that some later transcriber or translator de-Christianized it, which doesn't seem very probable of a Christian (or even Muslim) scribe.

However there's at least one important point which I think weighs heavily against even partial authencity:
> Origen for one seems to have been quite interested in what Josephus had to say about Jesus; he quoted the reference to Jesus' brother James on no less than three occasions. Yet neither he, nor any other writer prior to Eusebius, mentions any other comments by Josephus regarding Jesus. It would be quite strange if an unaltered original version of the TF passed by with so little notice, particularly when at least one Christian author is known to have been pretty keen on the other reference to Jesus. (Conversely I gather that the TF as known is suddenly seized upon by several Christian authors within a century of Eusebius.)

So I really don't know what to think

[Nickman]

If we read further in 20.9.4

And now Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, became the successor of Jesus, the son of Damneus, in the high priesthood, which the king had taken from the other; on which account a sedition arose between the high priests, with regard to one another; for they got together bodies of the boldest sort of the people, and frequently came, from reproaches, to throwing of stones at each other. But Ananias was too hard for the rest, by his riches, which enabled him to gain those that were most ready to receive. Costobarus also, and Saulus, did themselves get together a multitude of wicked wretches, and this because they were of the royal family; and so they obtained favor among them, because of their kindred to Agrippa; but still they used violence with the people, and were very ready to plunder those that were weaker than themselves. And from that time it principally came to pass that our city was greatly disordered, and that all things grew worse and worse among us.

The whole story is about a sedition with the high priests. It has nothing to do with a Jesus of Nazareth. The words "who is called Christ" are an interpolation. It detracts from the actually story of a priestly sedition to gain supremacy. People just don't like to read. Josephus is recording a fight between two sects of the high priesthood and someone saw opportunity to add words that don't fit for their christian agenda, just like they did in book 18. It just doesn't fit.

That passage you've quoted clearly explains why this sedition between the high priests arose - the replacement of yet another high priest by Agrippa. Skipping over a chunk of Josephus' text and trying to read that back into the actions of Ananus a year or so earlier is absurd reasoning. But there does seem to be a consistent theme in this part of Josephus' work, namely the various troubles which were befalling Judea in the lead-up to the revolt:

• 20.8.10 - Describing the sicarii outlaws, and a deceiver slain with his followers
  
  20.8.11 - Desire for privacy causes tension between the priests, Agrippa and governor Festus; high priest Ishmael is detained in Rome, and is succeeded by Ananus junior
  
  20.9.1 - High priest Ananus junior abuses his power and is replaced by Jesus ben Damneus
  
  20.9.2 - Governor Albinus combats the sicarii; (former) high priest Ananas senior uses his wealth currying favour with Albinus, while stealing tithes from the priests
  
  20.9.3 - The sicarii kidnap Ananus' son Eleazar, who persuades Albinus to release some of their number in exchange
  
  20.9.4 - Agrippa expands Caesaria Philippi and angers his people by transferring many artworks there; he causes further unrest by replacing high priest Jesus ben Damneus with Jesus ben Gamaliel; the high priests squabble amongst themselves, with Agrippa's kinsmen taking sides
  
  20.9.5 - Albinus' time nearing its end, he seeks to be well-remembered by executing all the worse criminals and fining then freeing the lesser offenders; the prisons were emptied, but the country was filled with robbers
  
  20.9.6 - The Levites seek Agrippa's permission to set aside their former garments and wear whatever linen they desired; Josephus writes that this violated their law, and punishment must surely follow
  
  20.9.7 - The temple's construction work is completed, and over eighteen thousand workers are unemployed; Agrippa denies permission to employ them further on rebuilding the eastern cloisters; Agrippa replaces high priest Jesus ben Gamaliel with Matthias ben Theophilus, "under whom the Jews' war with the Romans took its beginning"

I understand that Ananus has a past of being "unlawful" and causing problems. I am failing to see how Jesus Christ plays any part in the story, and why you think the Jesus is none other than Jesus ben Damneus?

[Mithrae]

I understand that Ananus has a past of being "unlawful" and causing problems. I am failing to see how Jesus Christ plays any part in the story, and why you think the Jesus is none other than Jesus ben Damneus?

This incident related by Josephus occurred in 62CE. We know from Paul that James the brother of Jesus who was called Christ lived in Jerusalem from the 50s CE, and the 2nd century Jewish Christian church chronicler Hegesippus wrote an embellished account which in its bare bones suggests that James was unlawfully killed by religious authorities shortly before the Jewish revolt.

Josephus in passing mentioned the same event, identifying this James in a simple and neutral manner. You are the one proposing Christian tampering, but you have given no rational reason to suspect any.

[Nickman]

If we were going to amend the TF I would do a little differently as seen below.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

The first point we might make in defense of this hypothesis is that the reconstructed text (in black) reads rather smoothly.

In fact, the red interpolations largely interrupt the main of the text. The first interpolation, for example, seems to be a response to the statement that Jesus was a man. The last interpolation, likewise, breaks up the obvious connection between Josephus' statement that Jesus' followers did not forsake him after his death and the result of that continued allegiance, which is that the movement is "not extinct to this day."

I would amend the part I did because it is unbecoming of a devout Jew at that time or anytime. Claiming that people received the truth would be a contradiction to his own faith and an agreement that Jesus taught the truth. If he states that Jesus spoke the truth then he would be a Christian, or at least a closet one.

[Nickman]

Here is what it looks like and how it flows with my amendment, just fun.


Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. The tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Look at US. It seems out of place as well, but could just be in general. It depends also on the time when Jesus was crucified. Josephus would have either been unborn or very very young. By that I mean 1 or 2.

If Josephus was unborn I find it unlikely that he would say "amongst us" yet he could be speaking in general to the audience.

I still think it doesn't fit at all when we look at what he is actually talking about before and after this text.

[Nickman]

I understand that Ananus has a past of being "unlawful" and causing problems. I am failing to see how Jesus Christ plays any part in the story, and why you think the Jesus is none other than Jesus ben Damneus?

This incident related by Josephus occurred in 62CE. We know from Paul that James the brother of Jesus who was called Christ lived in Jerusalem from the 50s CE, and the 2nd century Jewish Christian church chronicler Hegesippus wrote an embellished account which in its bare bones suggests that James was unlawfully killed by religious authorities shortly before the Jewish revolt.

Hegesippus had what sources to make his account? christian most likely. Can you name one source that Hegesippus got his information from that would lead him to write in as much detail as he did? Josephus does not give even the slightest bit of info that can be contributed to Hegesippus. Hegesippus was a Christian chronicler. His sources were most certainly Christian and based on tradition outside of Josephus. There is no connection between Josephus and Hegesippus.

Can you show the bare bones portion you speak of?

Josephus in passing mentioned the same event, identifying this James in a simple and neutral manner. You are the one proposing Christian tampering, but you have given no rational reason to suspect any.

In one post you mention Jesus as being insignificant and thats why Pliny, Seneca, and Philo didn't write about him and/or Theudas and Judas. Now you have a double standard and apply it to Jesus being mentioned by Josephus as if he is now popular that people would know him and also his brother and want to kill James.

There is reason to suspect christian tampering in book 20, and it is called Book 18.

[Mithrae]

This incident related by Josephus occurred in 62CE. We know from Paul that James the brother of Jesus who was called Christ lived in Jerusalem from the 50s CE, and the 2nd century Jewish Christian church chronicler Hegesippus wrote an embellished account which in its bare bones suggests that James was unlawfully killed by religious authorities shortly before the Jewish revolt.

Hegesippus had what sources to make his account? christian most likely. Can you name one source that Hegesippus got his information from that would lead him to write in as much detail as he did? Josephus does not give even the slightest bit of info that can be contributed to Hegesippus. Hegesippus was a Christian chronicler. His sources were most certainly Christian and based on tradition outside of Josephus. There is no connection between Josephus and Hegesippus.

Can you show the bare bones portion you speak of?

Bare bones means "the gist of it" or "the basic points" - you can read the full thing for yourself here. You're correct that the Jewish Christian community would have remembered the death of their leader James, from which stories Hegesippus derived his own account.

Josephus in passing mentioned the same event, identifying this James in a simple and neutral manner. You are the one proposing Christian tampering, but you have given no rational reason to suspect any.

In one post you mention Jesus as being insignificant and thats why Pliny, Seneca, and Philo didn't write about him and/or Theudas and Judas. Now you have a double standard and apply it to Jesus being mentioned by Josephus as if he is now popular that people would know him and also his brother and want to kill James.

There is reason to suspect christian tampering in book 20, and it is called Book 18.

'Insignificant' and 'popular' are buzz-words, black and white thinking, empty rhetoric which you are incorrectly applying to my comments. (Blatantly incorrectly in fact; I pointed out that we'd have little reason to expect mention by those authors even if the gospel stories about the numbers of Jesus' hearers were accurate!)

> We have some reason from Paul and Hegesippus to believe that James, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, was killed by the Jewish religious authorities not long before the revolt.
> We have some reason to believe that residents of Rome (where Josephus published Antiquities of the Jews) might recall Nero's scapegoating and torture of Christians.
> So Josephus' passing reference to James' death and identifying him by relation to the Christian founder do not create any mysteries, nor offer us any reason to suspect Christian tampering.

I have already pointed out - both in the other thread and very explicitly (twice!) in this one - that since Origen quoted the comments in Antiquities 20 but not those in Antiquities 18, we know that the TF was altered separately and probably after Origen. There cannot be any connection between tampering in book 18 and speculated tampering in book 20. Don't expect anyone to take you seriously if you're simply going to ignore facts which contradict your views.

This will probably be my last reply to you. Thankyou for the discussion

[Nickman]

Bare bones means "the gist of it" or "the basic points" - you can read the full thing for yourself here. You're correct that the Jewish Christian community would have remembered the death of their leader James, from which stories Hegesippus derived his own account.

Really? As if I don't understand what bare bones means? Im asking you to provide what you claim as bare bones and not just tell me to read it like others in a previous forum. If you're gonna claim that it has the basics of what book 20 of Josephus has, then it should be easy for you to provide it. I know what it says. I find nothing that makes a correlation in the two stories in the sense that you seem to be claiming.

On the christian community, I don't think any of them remember what happened and they are still trying to piece it together. The reason being, because their history is patch work. This is evidence on every topic on this forum.

'Insignificant' and 'popular' are buzz-words, black and white thinking, empty rhetoric which you're applying to my comments.

How am I doing so? Jesus is insignificant for Pliny, Seneca and Philo yet he is not for a non contemporary who wrote his Antiquities 60 years later? You mean to tell me that a writer, who is in his late 50's, made mention of this insignificant Jesus and his brother James, which Philo, Seneca, and Pliny do not, even though they lived at the same time as said Jesus? Not to mention an already known interpolation in the same exact book, by Christians, just two chapters earlier?

> We have some reason to believe that James, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, was killed by the Jewish religious authorities not long before the revolt

From Hegesippus? Thats it? Your gonna use a Christian source from the second century? He doesn't get even a significant mention in all of the NT.

> We have some reason to believe that residents of Rome (where Josephus published Antiquities of the Jews) might recall Nero's scapegoating and torture of Christians

.
What does Nero have to do with Ananus?

> So Josephus' passing reference to James' death and identifying him by relation to the Christian founder do not create any mysteries, nor offer us any reason to suspect Christian tampering

.
Yes they do. The insignificant James of the gospels who has no important role, is now supposed to be popular enough to be killed by Ananus in the middle of a priestly feud that doesn't even pertain to him?

I have already pointed out - both in the other thread and very explicitly (twice!) in this one - that since Origen quoted the comments in Antiquities 20 but not those in Antiquities 18, we know that the TF was altered separately and probably after Origen. There cannot be any connection between tampering in book 18 and tampering in book 20. Don't expect anyone to take you seriously if you're simply going to ignore facts which contradict your views.

This will be my last reply to you. Thankyou for the discussion

So between 96 ad and Origen in the 3rd century there was no room for interpolation? There was plenty of time from 3rd century until Eusebius (very short time) for the interpolation of book 18, but the almost 100 years between Josephus' completion of antiquities and Origen, I need to take your word that no interpolation was added?

Your argument is lacking. If it can be altered after Origen, doesn't mean it wasn't before.

[Mithrae]

Several minor edits for clarity in my last post.

> So Josephus' passing reference to James' death and identifying him by relation to the Christian founder do not create any mysteries, nor offer us any reason to suspect Christian tampering

Yes they do. The insignificant James of the gospels who has no important role, is now supposed to be popular enough to be killed by Ananus in the middle of a priestly feud that doesn't even pertain to him?

A priestly feud you recently invented.

Josephus says (20.9.4) that "a sedition arose between the high priests" a year or so after the death of this James, on account of Agrippa's replacement of yet another high priest. In the last couple of days you decided that this must be relevant to events from the earlier year (20.9.1). Surely not because I had pointed out the problem of proposing that Josephus had offered no explanation for a high priest killing the member of another prominent priestly family (and some others)!

[historia]

The whole story is about a sedition with the high priests. It has nothing to do with a Jesus of Nazareth. The words "who is called Christ" are an interpolation. It detracts from the actually story of a priestly sedition to gain supremacy.

Perhaps you can back-up here and explain a few things for me and others reading this thread for the first time, apart from the old thread.

If the phrase "who is called Christ" in Antiquities 20 is an interpolation, then how did the original text read? Was it simply:

"[Ananus] assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned."

My first problem with this is the one posed by Mithrae above: If this is correct, as you maintain, then Josephus has left us an exceedingly ambiguous reference to the identity of this James. He's the brother of Jesus? Jesus who?

Second, if the Jesus here is Jesus the son of Damneus, then why does Josephus wait to identifying him as "the son of Damneus" until the end of the verse? Why not introduce him here, with the mention of James, as the "son of Damneus."

Third, why does Josephus identify this James by reference to his brother? It would be far more common to identify someone as the "son of so-and-so," as we see throughout Antiquities. If James here is the brother of Jesus the son of Damneus, then it would have been far simpler, and customary, to identify him as the "son of Damneus" as well.

Finally, again going back to Mithrae's argument, "Claiming that the James killed was brother to the new high priest (Jesus ben Damneus) begs us wonder why Josephus didn't bother to explain this apparent deadly feud in the upper eschalons of the priesthood."