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 . . .

[Goat]

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 . . .

Well, I think the vast majority of scholars will agree that Ant 18.3.3 has at least been modified. Now, it has been the recent custom of a number of scholars to assume it was there, and try to reconstruct it. I believe that was started by John P. Meier in the early 1990's.

The problem I have with that approach is that.. well, it's circular, and making assumptions. Yes, the overtly Christian references, and such CAN be removed, but it is trying to reconstruct Josephus strictly from Josephus, with the assumption the passage was there to begin with. To me, that seems a bit of wishful thinking and projection there.

In addition to breaking up the flow of the passages, I don't see any evidence that the TF existed before it was quoted in the 4th century.

[historia]

John Meier notes that, over the years, scholars have posited four basic hypotheses to explain the first reference to Jesus above in Antiquities 18.

(1) The entire account about Jesus is a Christian interpolation; Josephus simply did not mention Jesus in this section of The Antiquities.

(2) While there are signs of heavy Christian redaction, some mention of Jesus at this point in The Antiquities -- perhaps a pejorative one -- caused a Christian scribe to substitute his own positive account. The original wording as a whole has been lost, though some traces of what Josephus wrote may still be found.

(3) The text before us is basically what Josephus wrote; the two or three insertions by a Christian scribe are easily isolated from the clearly non-Christian core.

(4) The Testimonium is entirely by Josephus.

For the purposes of this debate, I will defend hypothesis #3.

[Mithrae]

Origen (c 240CE) wrote that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as Christ, but he directly quoted the passage from Antiquities 20.

http://www.textexcavation.com/anaorigjos.html

From this we can conclude two things:

1> The comments in Antiquities 18 have at the very least been significantly tampered with, and possibly inserted wholesale

2> That act of forgery has no bearing on the other passage


There is no evidence in manuscripts or quotations to suggest the inauthenticity of the Antiquities 20 passage. Alternative readings raise problems, rather than solving them: Removing "the one called Christ" makes the passage less clear, leaving it a matter of guesswork who this Jesus or James were. Replacing "the one called Christ" with a different phrase is even more highly speculative, and requires the presumption of deliberate fraud by a Christian scribe - yet "the one called Christ" is a neutral phrase, not distinctively Christian.

Alternative interpretations (whether based on alternative reading or not) raise even greater difficulties: 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. Claiming that it was some otherwise unknown James makes us wonder why Josephus bothered naming him at all. In both cases we wonder who those others killed with him were, whereas the identification of James as the Christian leader could hint at that answer also.

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.

There are no mysteries or unresolved problems there, except those introduced by alternative speculation.

[Goat]

John Meier notes that, over the years, scholars have posited four basic hypotheses to explain the first reference to Jesus above in Antiquities 18.

(1) The entire account about Jesus is a Christian interpolation; Josephus simply did not mention Jesus in this section of The Antiquities.

(2) While there are signs of heavy Christian redaction, some mention of Jesus at this point in The Antiquities -- perhaps a pejorative one -- caused a Christian scribe to substitute his own positive account. The original wording as a whole has been lost, though some traces of what Josephus wrote may still be found.

(3) The text before us is basically what Josephus wrote; the two or three insertions by a Christian scribe are easily isolated from the clearly non-Christian core.

(4) The Testimonium is entirely by Josephus.

For the purposes of this debate, I will defend hypothesis #3.

Fine.

What evidence do you have that this reconstruction actually existed, and that the reconstruction is not wishful thinking? Can you show it existed before the 4th century?

[Nickman]

Ill post my explaination of JF 20.9.1-4 from the other thread which I hold as an interpolation. I have also added to the explaination for more clarity. Newer comments are in normal font and my older post is in italics.

We start with a clash between members of two sects of the sanhedrin. Ananus and Jesus bar Damneus. While members of the sanhedrin were away, Ananus took it upon himself to assemble the sanhedrin without consent of Agrippa and Albinus. He did so for his own gain. This is the point of the story, not James. Ananus took advantage of their absence to assemble the sanhedrin and he formed accusations against Jesus' bar Damneus brother i.e. James. There was strife among the sanhedrin. You claimed earlier that they wouldn't be fighting amongts one another but in Josephus, as we will see, there was a fight over the high priest position.

"... when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, 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."

Why would Albinus be sneaky and have to wait for Albinus to be on a journey and Festus to die, in order to try a man named James who is Jesus Christ's brother to stoning? If the sanhedrin was altogether as a whole on the issue of Jesus' crucifixion, and now you have his brother as the leader, why the sneakiness? They would still be in agreement because this James is spreading false teachings about the Messiah. It makes no sense. When it is read as two rival families in desire for the priesthood it makes sense.

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 sanhedrin without his consent.

It wasn't about the death of James that was disliked, it was the assembling of the sanhedrin without consent that was disliked and unlawful.

Let's continue.

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.

The same Jesus whose brother died at the hands of Ananus after his unlawful assembly of the sanhedrin while members were away is Jesus bar Damneus.

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.

[Mithrae]

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"

[historia]

Well, I think the vast majority of scholars will agree that Ant 18.3.3 has at least been modified.

Agreed. Hypothesis #4 above, that the text is genuine, has long ago been abandoned by scholars.

Now, it has been the recent custom of a number of scholars to assume it was there, and try to reconstruct it. I believe that was started by John P. Meier in the early 1990's.

The earliest author to argue that there was an original, historical core behind the current TF was the French philologist Tanaquilius Faber (1615-1672). He basically proposed a version of hypothesis #2, that the TF replaced an originally negative account of Jesus by Josephus.

Through the 18th and 19th Centuries, a majority of scholars favored hypothesis #1, that the TF is entirely a Christian interpolation. In the early part of the 20th Century, however, scholarly opinion began to shift toward a belief that the TF is only partly interpolated. Today most scholars -- including Jewish scholars and most Josephus experts -- hold this position.

Meier's article from 1990, which I quoted above, appears to have been influential in the TF debate, but mostly, I believe, in winning scholars over to belief that the interpolations are minor -- that is, shifting support for hypothesis #2 to #3. In the article itself he notes that most scholars already hold to a partial interpolation.

My information here comes from Alice Wealey, Josephus on Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times (2003).

In addition to breaking up the flow of the passages, I don't see any evidence that the TF existed before it was quoted in the 4th century.

The oldest extant Greek manuscript we posses of Antiquities dates only to the 11th Century. So we have no direct, textual evidence, one way or the other, on this issue.

[historia]

I think there are good reasons to believe that the reference to Jesus in Antiquities 18 has only been partly interpolated. I'll address each of these points in turn.

But let me first set out the text again, here now clearly distinguishing the Christian interpolations (in red) from the original text written by Josephus (in black).

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."

[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.