Josephus and Modern Scholarship, pp. 705-707

[Difflugia]

Josephus and Modern Scholarship by Louis H. Feldman and Wolfgang Haase, pp. 705-707:

Almost all scholars have accepted as authentic Josephus' reference (Ant. 20.200) to James, "the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ" (τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ). If it had been a Christian interpolation, it would, in all probability, have been more laudatory of James. As THACKERAY, p. 133, has remarked, the language and tone, especially the caustic reference to the heartlessness of the Sadducees (Ant. 20.199), are thoroughly Josephan. The fact that the high priest Ananus is here called rash and daring and that in the Life 193 ff. he is said to have been bribed to vote for Josephus' removal from his command in Galilee, whereas in the War 4.319—320 he is eulogized, should not in itself be a cause for suspicion, since there are so many discrepancies between the 'War' and the 'Antiquities'. What is a deciding factor is that Origen had the passage in his text of Josephus, since he expresses astonishment that Josephus, who witnessed the righteousness of James (our text has no such direct encomium), should have refused to accept Jesus as the Messiah.

MOREAU regards the passage as authentic because a Christian could never have written "Jesus the so-called Christ". We may respond by noting that the phrase may mean "who was called" or "who is mentioned above".

GOGUEL, pp. 144—153, says that if the account of James' death had been interpolated by a Christian, it would not have contradicted the version of Hegesippus, which was very popular in Christian circles.

BRANDON postulates that Christian censors removed Josephus' statement about James, which gave greater honor to him than to Jesus. We may comment that BRANDON'S chief reason for so thinking is that Origen asserts that Josephus explained the overthrow of the Jewish nation by the Romans as G-d's revenge for the murder of the righteous James; such a passage is to be found not in Josephus but in Hegesippus, with whom Origen apparently confused Josephus, as did so many others in this period until relatively modern times. Alternatively, we may suggest that perhaps Origen connected the death of James and the fall of Jerusalem because this passage occurs in Book 20 of the 'Antiquities', which gives the background leading up to the war against the Romans.

BLINZLER asserts that the passage is definitely genuine. ZEITLIN objects, noting that Origen quotes it on three occasions, each time with some variations. We may comment that quotations in antiquity were freer and looser than they are today, as we noted in Eusebius' variations in citing the 'Testimonium'; but the important point is that though there are variations, they all agree in the key point of mentioning that James was the brother of the Christ.

WINTER notes that "called Christ" may be added merely for identification.

NICKLIN and TAYLOR remark that Eusebius carelessly expresses himself as if he thought that our quotation from Josephus gives an account of James' death, but he shows himself to be unconscious of any contradiction between the account of Josephus and that of Hegesippus, since he quotes them both and indeed commends Hegesippus as the more accurate. Scholars have seen in the second quotation, they say, what is not there, namely an account of his death.

SCHOEPS, p. 121, comments on Hegesippus' reworking of the end of James as based upon Josephus, Eusebius, and Pseudo-Clement. He also comments, p. 148, on the passage in Origen, 'Contra Celsum', regarding James.

KILPATRICK, pp. 8—9, discusses Josephus' account of the execution of James (Ant. 20.197—203) and expresses a preference for this account rather than for that of Hegesippus.

BRANDON suggests that Josephus' non-committal attitude toward Jesus is due to his sympathy for Ananus, who, in Josephus' view, if he could have suppressed the Zealots, would have led the nation back to its allegiance to the Romans (War 4. 318—325). BRANDON feels that there is ground for doubting whether the text as we now have it represents what Josephus originally wrote, since Origen says that Josephus recognized the fall of Jerusalem in 70 as divine punishment for killing the righteous James. He finds it hard to believe that Origen confused Josephus and Hegesippus, since Origen actually cites the title and the particular book of the "Antiquities' in which the Jesus passage occurs. We may remark that Josephus' attitude toward James is completely positive and hardly non-committal. As to BRANDON'S idea that a Christian scribe altered both the James passage and the 'Testimonium Flavianum', we may ask why the 'Testimonium' has come down with this alteration, whereas the James passage has not. As to explaining Origen's confusion of Josephus and Hegesippus, he may have looked upon Hegesippus as so clearly dependent upon Josephus as to be for practical purposes indistinguishable from it, and in any case he may be quoting from memory, as was so often the case in antiquity in view of the difficulty of acquiring and consulting texts.

HARE, pp. 32—34, accepts the authenticity of the James passage. He also accepts the point of BRANDON that it is unlikely that a Christian scribe, intent on making Josephus a witness to the truth of Christianity, would have been content with such a bare mention of the martyrdom. In addition, he stresses that since Origen bears witness to the fact that in his text of Josephus the righteousness of James was acknowledged, while the messiahship of Jesus was denied, the unadorned report in Josephus commands a far greater credence than does the legendary narrative of Hegesippus.

FINEGAN, pp. 47—49, deals briefly with the presentation of the death of James in Josephus and in Hegesippus.

BLINZLER concludes that Josephus' account in Antiquities 20.200 is worthy of credence and that Hegesippus' is legend.

CATCHPOLE, pp. 60—61, briefly discusses Josephus' account of the death of James.

GIROD, pp. 113—117, contends that Origen's version of James' martyrdom appeared in Josephus' original text. But, as BARAS has noted, it is against Josephus' custom, which was to search for factors that would culminate in a particular event rather than to ascribe a disaster of such proportions to a crime committed against an individual. Also, as he correctly remarks, it is unlikely that the Jesus passage should have remained in Josephus' text while the story of James' martyrdom, which the Church labored to preserve, should have been excised from Josephus' writings.

HERRMANN notes that the passage on James does not supply evidence as to terminology concerning Jesus.

CATCHPOLE, pp. 241—245, says that the alleged political complexion of the causes of James' condemnation cannot be accepted, since the accusation of having transgressed the law within the context of Pharisee-Sadducee divergences—which is how Josephus frames the incident—indicates a religious offence, and stoning confirms this. The word πρῶτον, he says, indicates an unjust trial and fits in with Josephus' statement about the judicial harshness of the Sadducees.

SMITH regards it as surprising that the Pharisees got the high priest Ananus deposed because he exceeded his powers in procuring the conviction and execution of James. It is hard to believe, he says, that the Pharisees would have made an outcry about the execution of James, the leader of the Christians, unless a great change had occurred since the persecution under Agrippal. This fits in with the statement in Acts 23. 9 that when Paul was brought before the Sanhedrin there were Pharisees who defended him.

GRANT concludes that Hegesippus' account of the death of James is confused, since he portrays James as thrown down from the wing of the Temple, stoned, and struck on the head with a launderer's club. He notes that Eusebius, in his 'Chronicle', was not impressed by Hegesippus' account of the death of James; he knew some Christian story on the subject, but his primary source was the real Josephus. In his 'Ecclesiastical History', on the other hand, Eusebius used Origen's 'Contra Celsum' but looked up the passage in Josephus and quoted it. He was confused because he used contradictory sources — Hegesippus and Josephus.

DAVIES notes that most scholars accept the authenticity of 'Antiquities' 20.200.

KLAUSNER says that there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the passage.

THOMA comments on Antiquities 20.197—203.