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 . . .

[historia]

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.

You mean "spoke the truth" like: love God above all else, love your neighbor as yourself, and take care of the poor and the needy? Jesus was a Jew, and much of what he taught was not particularly novel. Many people, including many Jews, would have agreed with (at least some of) his teachings.

It seems unlikely that Josephus was intimately familiar with the specifics of (later) Christian theology. In his day, Christianity is little more than a fringe Jewish sect. There is no reason for us to assume that he is endorsing Christian beliefs about Jesus.

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 think "us" here almost certainly means "the Jews." The "principle men among us" (that is, Jewish authorities) suggested to the Roman authority (Pilate) that Jesus should be dealt with. No need to over-think this.

[Goat]

The second argument I would make in defense of this hypothesis is that a Christian scribe would almost certainly not have written that Jesus "drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles."

The problem here is the latter part, that Jesus had "many" Gentile followers. Even a cursory reading of the New Testament shows that this was not the case. The gospels describe Jesus' followers as being (almost) entirely Jews. Matthew, in particular, relates that Jesus' ministry was only to Israel, and not to non-Jews (15:21-28).

Would a Christian scribe make such an obvious blunder? That seems unlikely.

This mistake is perfectly understandable, however, if Josephus himself is the author of this text. In Josephus' day, Christianity had become a religion of both Jews and Gentiles, in no small part because of Paul's ministry earlier in the century. Josephus simply (although mistakenly) projected this fact back to the founding of Christianity, not realizing this was only a later development -- something that ancient historians often did.

That argument seems at best weak. The mistake would be not be obvious to someone who was a Christian follower, and NOT of Jewish background.. which many of the early Church fathers were.. Sorry, but that argument does not ring true to me at all.

[historia]

The second argument I would make in defense of this hypothesis is that a Christian scribe would almost certainly not have written that Jesus "drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles."

The problem here is the latter part, that Jesus had "many" Gentile followers. Even a cursory reading of the New Testament shows that this was not the case. The gospels describe Jesus' followers as being (almost) entirely Jews. Matthew, in particular, relates that Jesus' ministry was only to Israel, and not to non-Jews (15:21-28).

Would a Christian scribe make such an obvious blunder? That seems unlikely.

This mistake is perfectly understandable, however, if Josephus himself is the author of this text. In Josephus' day, Christianity had become a religion of both Jews and Gentiles, in no small part because of Paul's ministry earlier in the century. Josephus simply (although mistakenly) projected this fact back to the founding of Christianity, not realizing this was only a later development -- something that ancient historians often did.

That argument seems at best weak. The mistake would be not be obvious to someone who was a Christian follower, and NOT of Jewish background.. which many of the early Church fathers were.. Sorry, but that argument does not ring true to me at all.

Unfortunately, I can't make out exactly what your argument is here, Goat. Can you rephrase this more clearly?

[Goat]

The second argument I would make in defense of this hypothesis is that a Christian scribe would almost certainly not have written that Jesus "drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles."

The problem here is the latter part, that Jesus had "many" Gentile followers. Even a cursory reading of the New Testament shows that this was not the case. The gospels describe Jesus' followers as being (almost) entirely Jews. Matthew, in particular, relates that Jesus' ministry was only to Israel, and not to non-Jews (15:21-28).

Would a Christian scribe make such an obvious blunder? That seems unlikely.

This mistake is perfectly understandable, however, if Josephus himself is the author of this text. In Josephus' day, Christianity had become a religion of both Jews and Gentiles, in no small part because of Paul's ministry earlier in the century. Josephus simply (although mistakenly) projected this fact back to the founding of Christianity, not realizing this was only a later development -- something that ancient historians often did.

That argument seems at best weak. The mistake would be not be obvious to someone who was a Christian follower, and NOT of Jewish background.. which many of the early Church fathers were.. Sorry, but that argument does not ring true to me at all.

Unfortunately, I can't make out exactly what your argument is here, Goat. Can you rephrase this more clearly?

You are making a lot of assumptions about what the assumptions of Josephus would be, verses a later church father. A later Christian, coming from a Gentile background, would have assumed that Jesus had Gentile followers too. So, your statement seems very subjective and false to me.

[Nickman]

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?

James is the brother of Jesus be Damneus. There is no need for another reference. It's possible "ben Damneus" was replaced by "who was called Christ". If we follow Mithrae's argument, then "and some others" should have also been identified.

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."

I pose that it either was there and changed or he just identified him in the same paragraph a few sentences later. See below

2. Now as soon as Albinus was come to the city of Jerusalem, he used all his endeavors and care that the country might be kept in peace, and this by destroying many of the Sicarii. But as for the high priest, Ananias (25) he increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money: he therefore cultivated the friendship of Albinus, and of the high priest [Jesus], by making them presents; he also had servants who were very wicked, who joined themselves to the boldest sort of the people, and went to the thrashing-floors, and took away the tithes that belonged to the priests by violence, and did not refrain from beating such as would not give these tithes to them. So the other high priests acted in the like manner, as did those his servants, without any one being able to prohibit them; so that [some of the] priests, that of old were wont to be supported with those tithes, died for want of food.

Later he doesn't identify Jesus as 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.

Possibly, but he doesn't always do as such. James is thouroughly identified with Jesus ben Damneus.

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."

He doesn't go into great detail, yet the point Josephus is making is not about James. It is about Ananus taking advantage of the fact that Albinus was gone and Festus just died and he assembled the sanhedrin. That is what Josephus states specifically.

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. (24) 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;

The subject is not James or him being killed

[historia]

A later Christian, coming from a Gentile background, would have assumed that Jesus had Gentile followers too.

But that is precisely the point. A later Christian -- regardless of their background -- would not have to make assumptions about Jesus' first followers. He would have the Gospels and Acts at his disposal, which state quite plainly that Jesus' followers were (almost) entirely Jewish.

In relating that Jesus won over "many" Gentile followers, the author of the TF is contradicting the New Testament. And so, if the TF is entirely a Christian interpolation, then we have to assume that the Christian author of this text either lacks a basic knowledge of the Gospels or knowingly contradicted Christian scripture, which seems unlikely.

On the other hand, if we hold that Josephus himself wrote this particular part of the TF, his (mistaken) assertion about Jesus having many Greek followers is entirely understandable. It fits Josephus' limited knowledge of Christian origins and reflects the movements ethnic make-up in his own day. That seems much more likely.

In other words, hypothesis #3 (partial interpolation) accounts for the available data better than hypothesis #1 (total interpolation).

[Goat]

A later Christian, coming from a Gentile background, would have assumed that Jesus had Gentile followers too.

But that is precisely the point. A later Christian -- regardless of their background -- would not have to make assumptions about Jesus' first followers. He would have the Gospels and Acts at his disposal, which state quite plainly that Jesus' followers were (almost) entirely Jewish.

In relating that Jesus won over "many" Gentile followers, the author of the TF is contradicting the New Testament. And so, if the TF is entirely a Christian interpolation, then we have to assume that the Christian author of this text either lacks a basic knowledge of the Gospels or knowingly contradicted Christian scripture, which seems unlikely.

On the other hand, if we hold that Josephus himself wrote this particular part of the TF, his (mistaken) assertion about Jesus having many Greek followers is entirely understandable. It fits Josephus' limited knowledge of Christian origins and reflects the movements ethnic make-up in his own day. That seems much more likely.

In other words, hypothesis #3 (partial interpolation) accounts for the available data better than hypothesis #1 (total interpolation).

Well, isn't that JUST as much of an assumption on your part?

Can you compare it with other writing from Josephus where he was talking about Gentiles and Jews together, so the language can be compared?

[historia]

Earlier I provided two arguments for a partial interpolation of the TF:

• 1. Removing the obvious Christian interpolations leaves an original text that reads smoothly.
  2. The claim that Jesus had many non-Jewish followers contradicts the New Testament, as so is unlikely to have been written by a Christian.

My third argument in favor of a partial interpolation is that the last line of the TF -- "to this day the tribe of Christians ... has not died out" -- has a rather dismissive, if not a negative, tone. The author seems surprised that this "tribe" of people, who are dedicated to a man who suffered a shameful death, are still at it.

If the TF was invented wholesale by a Christian scribe, would he have written something like this? Again, by contrast, this makes perfect sense if Josephus is the author.

[historia]

My fourth argument in favor of partial interpolation concerns the vocabulary of the text. Once we remove the obvious Christian interpolations, the remaining text includes many words and phrases that are typical of Josephus.

I won't pretend to expound on this point. I'll simpy quote here again from Meier's article, cited above:

The vocabulary and grammar of the passage (after the clearly Christian material is removed) cohere well with Josephus' style and language; the same cannot be said when the text's vocabulary and grammar are compared with that of the NT. Indeed, many key words and phrases in the Testimonium are either absent from the NT or are used there in an entirely different sense; in contrast, almost every word in the core of the Testimonium is found elsewhere in Josephus -- in fact, most of the vocabulary turns out to be characteristic of Josephus.

[historia]

Well, isn't that JUST as much of an assumption on your part?

Well, yeah, that's what a hypothesis is: "a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences," as Merriam Webster puts it. The whole point of this thread is to engage in a critical analysis of the text in order to determine which hypothesis best explains the TF.

Can you compare it with other writing from Josephus where he was talking about Gentiles and Jews together, so the language can be compared?

Again, I'm afraid I have no idea what you mean by this. The "language" of Josephus has no bearing on my point above.