Josephas: "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Josephas: "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"

Post by gryan »

Josephus on Jesus may, or may not, have information useful in understanding the meaning of "James, the Lord's brother" in Gal 1:19. But this is a highly debated passage (see Carrier vs McDonald beginning at 1:36:20 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1_ZEVDC7rw). Arguably, it is striking that there is another man named "Jesus" in the near context. I assume Jesus existed, so I do not agree with Carrier on that. But I do think that as a historian, Carrier makes a compelling argument in his reading of this text.

What happens to the story as a whole if the Christian part underlined was interpolation?

...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: 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 sanhedrim without his consent. 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.

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 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.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Anti ... #Chapter_9
Last edited by gryan on Wed Feb 10, 2021 10:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
rgprice
Posts: 2102
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Josephas: "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"

Post by rgprice »

I spend about 11 pages on this in my book. After simply removing "who was called Christ":
What this passage would be saying is that Ananus was a priest who abused his power. Ananus wrongly condemned James and some others to death, but the equitable citizens wrote to Herod to complain about this, so Herod punished Ananus by taking the high priesthood from him and giving it to James’s brother, Jesus (son of Damneus).
This story makes perfect sense, follows the typical writing style of Josephus, and now the mention of Jesus as the brother of James has context and relevance. The story here is about Ananus, and how Jesus son of Damneus obtained the high priesthood. The whole point of the sentence that mentions James is to explain issues relevant to Jesus son of Damneus. If this sentence were talking about Jesus Christ, then Jesus Christ would be the one who has no relation to the story, and thus we would expect James to come first in the sentence, because James would be who was being talked about, but in this case, Jesus is mentioned first because Jesus is who is being talked about, and it only makes sense that Jesus is the one being talked about if this is Jesus son of Damneus, whom the narrative is about.
“Jesus Christ,” some guy who was presumably killed for being a false prophet thirty years prior, is an obscure reference out of the blue that has no relation to the narrative. The story here makes sense if James is the brother of Jesus son of Damneus, because giving the high priesthood to Jesus would then be seen as a form of reparation to the family for the wrongful death of James, and as a further punishment to Ananus.
- Deciphering the Gospels pp 276
I then go on to discuss Origen's references to Josephus regarding James.
So, if “who was called Christ” is not authentic, then how did it get there? There are two likely possibilities: either it came from the insertion of a note or it was later inserted into the text as a correction based on references made by Origen, which appear to cite Josephus a source for a link between Jesus and James. Origen’s citations, however, are highly problematic and almost certainly spurious.
As with the Testimonium Flavianum, if this was inserted based on a marginal or interlinear note, then it was probably a completely innocent mistake. These types of things happened. A Christian reading the work may have seen the names Jesus and James together and jumped to the conclusion that this was “Jesus Christ” and then made a note saying so. A later scribe would have then just incorporated it, assuming it to be true, in order to clarify the passage.
The other, and I believe more likely, possibility is that Origen’s passage that attributed to Josephus a claim that Jesus was called Christ is actually a mistake on Origen’s part, but this set a precedent, leading others to believe that Josephus had actually said this.
- Deciphering the Gospels
Origen actually cites Josephus as a source for “brother of Jesus” three times, and in every case, as in this one, he paraphrases and mentions things that no one has ever been able to find in any works of Josephus. In fact, in The Jewish War, written about two decades before Antiquity, Josephus attributed the destruction that befell the Jews to the deaths of both Ananus the elder (the father of the corrupt Ananus) and either Jesus son of Damneus or Jesus son of Gamaliel (he does not specify), whom he said were shrewd negotiators and levelheaded decision-makers who opposed the war against the Romans.
What appears to be the case is that Origen had somehow confused the works of Josephus with the works of the early Christian chronicler Hegesippus. Hegesippus is known as the earliest chronicler of Christian history, and he was also an apologist. His works are universally acknowledged as highly flawed and imaginative, basically inventing history, but he did also use historical sources. Origen’s paraphrase above does correspond to passages in the works of Hegesippus, and thus his citations of “Josephus” were probably really citations of Hegesippus, or citations of commentaries that themselves mixed the sources of Josephus and Hegesippus, or perhaps Hegesippus himself is the source of the error—perhaps he claimed that Josephus made this correlation.
- Deciphering the Gospels
I've cut out a good bit, but that's the gist of it.
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: Josephas: "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"

Post by hakeem »

Antiquities of the Jews 20.91
..........the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James...

James in AJ 20.9.1 was not the Lord's brother in Galatians 1.18.

In Christian writings, James the Lord's brother was alive c 68 CE or after Peter was supposedly dead but James in AJ 20.9.1 was stoned to death c 62-64 CE or before Albinus arrived in Judea.

Preface to the Recognitions
The epistle in which the same Clement, writing to James the Lord's brother, informs him of the death of Peter, and that he had left him his successor in his chair...

gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Josephas: "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"

Post by gryan »

hakeem wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 10:37 am Antiquities of the Jews 20.91
..........the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James...

James in AJ 20.9.1 was not the Lord's brother in Galatians 1.18.

In Christian writings, James the Lord's brother was alive c 68 CE or after Peter was supposedly dead but James in AJ 20.9.1 was stoned to death c 62-64 CE or before Albinus arrived in Judea.

Preface to the Recognitions
The epistle in which the same Clement, writing to James the Lord's brother, informs him of the death of Peter, and that he had left him his successor in his chair...

Interesting but complicated, and very late. Tyrannius Rufinus wrote this about something written by Clement:

"The epistle in which the same Clement, writing to James the Lord's brother, informs him of the death of Peter, and that he had left him his successor in his chair and teaching, and in which also the whole subject of church order is treated, I have not prefixed to this work, both because it is of later date, and because I have already translated and published it. But I do not think it out of place to explain here what in that letter will perhaps seem to some to be inconsistent. For some ask, Since Linus and Cletus were bishops in the city of Rome before this Clement, how could Clement himself, writing to James, say that the chair of teaching was handed over to him by Peter? Now of this we have heard this explanation, that Linus and Cletus were indeed bishops in the city of Rome before Clement, but during the lifetime of Peter: that is, that they undertook the care of the episcopate, and that he fulfilled the office of apostleship; as is found also to have been the case at Cæsarea, where, when he himself was present, he yet had Zacchæus, ordained by himself, as bishop. And in this way both statements will appear to be true, both that these bishops are reckoned before Clement, and yet that Clement received the teacher's seat on the death of Peter. But now let us see how Clement, writing to James the Lord's brother, begins his narrative."
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/080400.htm
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Josephas: "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"

Post by gryan »

rgprice wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 10:12 am I spend about 11 pages on this in my book. After simply removing "who was called Christ":
What this passage would be saying is that Ananus was a priest who abused his power. Ananus wrongly condemned James and some others to death, but the equitable citizens wrote to Herod to complain about this, so Herod punished Ananus by taking the high priesthood from him and giving it to James’s brother, Jesus (son of Damneus).
This story makes perfect sense, follows the typical writing style of Josephus, and now the mention of Jesus as the brother of James has context and relevance. The story here is about Ananus, and how Jesus son of Damneus obtained the high priesthood. The whole point of the sentence that mentions James is to explain issues relevant to Jesus son of Damneus. If this sentence were talking about Jesus Christ, then Jesus Christ would be the one who has no relation to the story, and thus we would expect James to come first in the sentence, because James would be who was being talked about, but in this case, Jesus is mentioned first because Jesus is who is being talked about, and it only makes sense that Jesus is the one being talked about if this is Jesus son of Damneus, whom the narrative is about.
“Jesus Christ,” some guy who was presumably killed for being a false prophet thirty years prior, is an obscure reference out of the blue that has no relation to the narrative. The story here makes sense if James is the brother of Jesus son of Damneus, because giving the high priesthood to Jesus would then be seen as a form of reparation to the family for the wrongful death of James, and as a further punishment to Ananus.
- Deciphering the Gospels pp 276
I then go on to discuss Origen's references to Josephus regarding James.
So, if “who was called Christ” is not authentic, then how did it get there? There are two likely possibilities: either it came from the insertion of a note or it was later inserted into the text as a correction based on references made by Origen, which appear to cite Josephus a source for a link between Jesus and James. Origen’s citations, however, are highly problematic and almost certainly spurious.
As with the Testimonium Flavianum, if this was inserted based on a marginal or interlinear note, then it was probably a completely innocent mistake. These types of things happened. A Christian reading the work may have seen the names Jesus and James together and jumped to the conclusion that this was “Jesus Christ” and then made a note saying so. A later scribe would have then just incorporated it, assuming it to be true, in order to clarify the passage.
The other, and I believe more likely, possibility is that Origen’s passage that attributed to Josephus a claim that Jesus was called Christ is actually a mistake on Origen’s part, but this set a precedent, leading others to believe that Josephus had actually said this.
- Deciphering the Gospels
Origen actually cites Josephus as a source for “brother of Jesus” three times, and in every case, as in this one, he paraphrases and mentions things that no one has ever been able to find in any works of Josephus. In fact, in The Jewish War, written about two decades before Antiquity, Josephus attributed the destruction that befell the Jews to the deaths of both Ananus the elder (the father of the corrupt Ananus) and either Jesus son of Damneus or Jesus son of Gamaliel (he does not specify), whom he said were shrewd negotiators and levelheaded decision-makers who opposed the war against the Romans.
What appears to be the case is that Origen had somehow confused the works of Josephus with the works of the early Christian chronicler Hegesippus. Hegesippus is known as the earliest chronicler of Christian history, and he was also an apologist. His works are universally acknowledged as highly flawed and imaginative, basically inventing history, but he did also use historical sources. Origen’s paraphrase above does correspond to passages in the works of Hegesippus, and thus his citations of “Josephus” were probably really citations of Hegesippus, or citations of commentaries that themselves mixed the sources of Josephus and Hegesippus, or perhaps Hegesippus himself is the source of the error—perhaps he claimed that Josephus made this correlation.
- Deciphering the Gospels
I've cut out a good bit, but that's the gist of it.
Stylistically very readable prose, and the argument is clear!
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Josephas: "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"

Post by Bernard Muller »

to gryan,
About "who was called Christ" in Josephus' Antiquities. If not in the original text, the readers would asked: who is that Jesus, since there were many Jews called Jesus in these days. And Jesus, son of Damneus, which occurred more than 90 words later, is not said to be a brother of James.
Actually, if Josephus thought that Jesus was the brother of James, he would have written: the brother of Jesus, the son of Damneus.
Proper syntax again avoiding non-sense and confusion, as I explained for Trump and senator Cassidy. BTW, can you find examples otherwise: first a person with a common name, then, many words later, an explanation on who that person is.
Just looking at the passage you quoted I see first: "this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood" (identification), then "Ananus was of his disposition", then "send to Ananus", then "not lawful for Ananus".

BTW, I debated Carrier on his blog about that topic: see http://historical-jesus.info/33.html and http://historical-jesus.info/67.html
But I do think that as a historian, Carrier makes a compelling argument in his reading of this text.
Carrier might be a historian (even a good one) of matters about the Roman Empire, but on the topic of Jesus, he is very much a Mythicist apologist. Here is an appraisal from one of my readers:
"Carrier, like all mythicists in my humble opinion, really finagles a lot ridiculous things to get to his point. To me it's mind boggling how he could have success with his theories. Not to mention, I've seen his comments to you on some of his articles, and he is rude and an egomaniac."

Cordially, Bernard
Last edited by Bernard Muller on Wed Feb 10, 2021 6:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Josephas: "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"

Post by Bernard Muller »

to rgprice,
If this sentence were talking about Jesus Christ, then Jesus Christ would be the one who has no relation to the story, and thus we would expect James to come first in the sentence, because James would be who was being talked about,
Jesus called Christ is brought about as an identifier for James. That's it.
if James is the brother of Jesus son of Damneus, because giving the high priesthood to Jesus would then be seen as a form of reparation to the family for the wrongful death of James, and as a further punishment to Ananus.
Where did you get that James and Jesus son of Damneus were from the same family?

I notice a lot of "if" in your writing. And brother of Jesus (a common name then) whose name was James (a common name then) does not make any sense because that Jesus, brought in for identification of James, does not help.
his citations of “Josephus” were probably really citations of Hegesippus, or citations of commentaries that themselves mixed the sources of Josephus and Hegesippus, or perhaps Hegesippus himself is the source of the error—perhaps he claimed that Josephus made this correlation.
Origen knew about Josephus' works: evidence in Origen,
Origen, On Matthew 10.17.
Origen, Against Celsus 1.16.
Origen,Against Celsus 1.47.
Origen, Against Celsus 2.13.
Origen, Against Celsus 4.11.

See http://www.textexcavation.com/anaorigjos.html for the relevant quotes.

Cordially, Bernard
hakeem
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: Josephas: "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"

Post by hakeem »

hakeem wrote: In Christian writings, James the Lord's brother was alive c 68 CE or after Peter was supposedly dead but James in AJ 20.9.1 was stoned to death c 62-64 CE or before Albinus arrived in Judea.

Preface to the Recognitions
The epistle in which the same Clement, writing to James the Lord's brother, informs him of the death of Peter, and that he had left him his successor in his chair...

gryan wrote:Interesting but complicated, and very late. Tyrannius Rufinus wrote this about something written by Clement..
A late writing does not affect the fact that Christian writings claim James the Lord's brother was still alive c 68 CE or after the death of Peter which means James in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 must have been some other person.

By the way, the so-called Pauline Epistles are themselves very late writings.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Josephas: "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"

Post by Ben C. Smith »

gryan wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 11:13 amInteresting but complicated, and very late.
What is interesting to me is that you seem to be dismissive of the pseudo-Clementines because of their lateness, but in another thread you call on what you call pseudo-Papias (a misnomer) as support for your interpretation of Galatians; yet Papias of Lombardy is far, far later than the pseudo-Clementines. I am not sure I understand the methodology.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Josephas: "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"

Post by Bernard Muller »

to hakeem,
A late writing does not affect the fact that Christian writings claim James the Lord's brother was still alive c 68 CE or after the death of Peter which means James in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 must have been some other person.
According to Hegesippus's text about James, it is clear the James who was stoned to death was the James, the brother of Jesus. From start to end, no other James is identified.

About the ending, "And shortly after [James' martyrdom] Vespasian besieged Judaea, taking them captive".
That ending is highly faulty on historical matters and not to be trusted:
Titus, not Vespasian besieged Jerusalem, not Judea. And the Romans after the siege killed most who were found in Jerusalem, the rest being made slaves.

Cordially, Bernard
Post Reply