Josephus, Antiquities 20.200: List's Take

[Chrissy Hansen]

I personally think the phrase can be either confessional or distanced, depending on context. I also think that the entire idea that a Christian scribe would always go around using pious language when interpolating something is, actually, an invalid assumption. "Distanced" language, as Whealey calls this, could be perfectly sensible (especially since several of those texts are already imagining how non-Christians, including Jews, would talk about Jesus). So, ultimately, I think it makes little difference as to whether this passage is authentic or not. Christians could use it as either a confessional or a non-confessional phrase, and neither bothered them.

[MrMacSon]

The best interpolation hypothesis IMO remains the idea that a certain "James" was mentioned without providing an identifier. That is: if we go with an interpolation hypothesis, that is the one that would seem the most likely and easiest to defend.

List's argument is, quote,

1) AJ 20.200 originally read τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ Ἰάκωβος ὄνομα αὐτῷ.
The James in question was not the early Christian leader, but a member of Jerusalem’s political elite. Josephus narrates a story not about Jewish persecution of Christ-followers, but about the machinations of Judean political leaders and the part they played in the deteriorating situation in Jerusalem prior to the Roman siege.^a

2) Origen interprets this passage as a story about James the Just and Jesus Christ. His exegesis is extremely free, but nonetheless attentive to the overall context of AJ 20. The words λεγόμενος Χριστός are to be ascribed to Origen (Comm. in Mt. 10.17; Cels. 2.13, 1.47).⁴³

3) On the basis of Origen’s interpretation of Josephus, a Christian scribe added the words (τοῦ) λεγομένου Χριστοῦ as a marginal note in their copy of AJ ...

---

43. Note that Origen uses the phrase λεγόμενος Χριστός elsewhere in his works and only in connection to individuals who are not Christians: Pilate (Cels. 1.2; Schol. in Mt. 17.308.11; cf. Matt 27.22) and the Samaritan women (Jo. 1.5.29; 1.21.126; cf. John 4.25), which is consistent with his usage in connection to Josephus.

a List says earlier

... A.J. 20.197–203 is embedded in a wider context illustrating the unstable political landscape of Jerusalem and Judea in the 50s and 60s. A.J. 20.189–97 concerns a dispute between Agrippa II and the temple elite over who had the authority to control the height of the temple wall that adjoined the palace, while A.J. 20.204–7 details Albinus’s endeavors to destroy the Sicarii and the violent takeover of the priests’ tithes by Ananias’s servants. As James McLaren writes, the period was “marked by disputes among the Jewish elite—certain families of priests, wealthy laity and Herodians.”

List then refers to War 2.276 and Josephus's view that “the corruption and fictionalism of Albinus’s procuratorship during this period as the beginning of the end: "...at this time were those seeds sown which brought the city to destruction",” but I think this is nonsense as the First Roman-Jewish War would not have even started; (ii) it started in Caesarea for unrelated matters; and, when the rolling battles finally arrived outside Jerusalem, (iii) it was not destroyed in the First Roman-Jewish War; only the Temple was.

(And the account in War 4.314–25, linking the supposed fall of Jerusalem to the execution of Ananus is also spurious reasoning on Josephus' part (if in fact that was original to Josephus)).

I also think Ant. 20.200 is unlikely to have named just one individual, and also, in the context List rightly identifies (as quoted above), it would hardly have named that individual in relation to a nondescript brother. So, contrary to List, I think that James and Jesus are unlikely to have been names that Josephus would have used here (without fuller, more significant context for or about them).

I think I can reject this particular hypothesis as unlikely, for the same reason as spin: Jesus is identified later (as son of Damneus). It's one thing to identify a person not at all; it's another thing to identify them at the second occasion of mentioning him. The earlier context would also have been highly appropriate (for a "son of"); the person named is described by reference to their brother first.

This is why Carrier suggests as a possible hypothesis that there were two identifications of "son of Damneus," one of which is removed. Yet that removal is also odd as it undermines the gloss idea, which is employed to explain the nature of the proposed change.

So, further to what I just above said in this post, I think that the name Jesus was never in this passage, therefore it's unnecessary that we even have to consider whether Ant. 20.200 was a reference to Jesus ben Damneus. Though, I think the mention of Jesus ben Damneus in Ant. 20.203 could well have prompted a scribe (or outright forger) to think of introducing a or the Jesus into Ant. 20.200.

---

I think Ant. 20.200 originally read something like

[ 200] "With Festus dead and Albinus only on his way, Ananus thought he had now a good opportunity to act on this. He assembled a judiciary Sanhedrin and brought before them [alleged wrongdoers], and, after condemning them as lawbreakers, gave them over to be stoned."

---

[200] ἅτε δὴ οὖν τοιοῦτος ὢν ὁ Ἄνανος, νομίσας ἔχειν καιρὸν ἐπιτήδειον διὰ τὸ τεθνάναι μὲν Φῆστον, Ἀλβῖνον δ' ἔτι κατὰ τὴν ὁδὸν ὑπάρχειν, καθίζει συνέδριον κριτῶν καὶ παραγαγὼν εἰς αὐτὸ [alleged wrongdoers] καί τινας ἑτέρους, ὡς παρανομησάντων κατηγορίαν ποιησάμενος παρέδωκε λευσθησομένους.

[Peter Kirby]

I personally think the phrase can be either confessional or distanced, depending on context. I also think that the entire idea that a Christian scribe would always go around using pious language when interpolating something is, actually, an invalid assumption. "Distanced" language, as Whealey calls this, could be perfectly sensible (especially since several of those texts are already imagining how non-Christians, including Jews, would talk about Jesus). So, ultimately, I think it makes little difference as to whether this passage is authentic or not. Christians could use it as either a confessional or a non-confessional phrase, and neither bothered them.

That's a good way to put it. Thank you.

[Peter Kirby]

I think Ant. 20.200 originally read something like

[ 200] "With Festus dead and Albinus only on his way, Ananus thought he had now a good opportunity to act on this. He assembled a judiciary Sanhedrin and brought before them [lawbreakers], and, after condemning them as lawbreakers, gave them over to be stoned."

---

[200] ἅτε δὴ οὖν τοιοῦτος ὢν ὁ Ἄνανος, νομίσας ἔχειν καιρὸν ἐπιτήδειον διὰ τὸ τεθνάναι μὲν Φῆστον, Ἀλβῖνον δ' ἔτι κατὰ τὴν ὁδὸν ὑπάρχειν, καθίζει συνέδριον κριτῶν καὶ παραγαγὼν εἰς αὐτὸ [lawbreakers] καί τινας ἑτέρους, ὡς παρανομησάντων κατηγορίαν ποιησάμενος παρέδωκε λευσθησομένους.

Yes, that is possible too.

IMO the name James being there somehow makes it substantially more probable that a marginal gloss would be added. And I currently don't perceive any difficulty of the name James being there that is resolved by it not being there. I know I'm just rehashing the old take from Doherty and spin on these forums, but it still seems like the most probable form out of all the interpolation hypotheses.

[Peter Kirby]

Though, I think the mention of Jesus ben Damneus in Ant. 20.203 could well have prompted a scribe (or outright forger) to think of introducing a or the Jesus into Ant. 20.200.

Just to acknowledge that I did read this. I just don't find it provides a sufficient or comparable probability for a marginal gloss or interpolation, compared to the alternative that the name James was there.

[Peter Kirby]

So, further to what I just above said in this post, I think that the name Jesus was never in this passage, therefore it's unnecessary that we even have to consider whether Ant. 20.200 was a reference to Jesus ben Damneus.

Agreed; the Jesus ben Damneus stuff seems compelling at first, but I think it's a bit of a dead end.

On the other hand, I am more willing to countenance the correction or authenticity alternatives to an interpolation.

[MrMacSon]

τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ in the extant Ant. 20.200 is in

Matthew 27:17 and 22 : as τὸν λεγόμενον Χριστόν (both in the mouth of Pilate; see footnote 43 below)
Matthew 1:16 : as ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστός¹
John 4:25 : also as ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστός

1 which, in footnote 39, List notes is

.a passage about Jesus’s family, is sufficiently biblical (and thus also sufficiently reverential). If it was good enough for [the] author of Matthew, it was certainly good enough for a Christian redactor of Josephus.

And note List's footnote 43:

Note that Origen uses the phrase λεγόμενος Χριστός elsewhere in his works and only in connection to individuals who are not Christians: Pilate (Cels. 1.2; Schol. in Mt. 17.308.11; cf. Matt 27.22) and the Samaritan women (Jo. 1.5.29; 1.21.126; cf. John 4.25), which is consistent with his usage in connection to Josephus.

[MrMacSon]

Though, I think the mention of Jesus ben Damneus in Ant. 20.203 could well have prompted a scribe (or outright forger) to think of introducing a or the Jesus into Ant. 20.200.

Just to acknowledge that I did read this. I just don't find it provides a sufficient or comparable probability for a marginal gloss or interpolation, compared to the alternative that the name James was there.

Cheers. But, as I propose/superficially argue above, one would expect a James in Ant 20.200 to be of note: even more than the brother of a Jesus, even if called Christ;* especially, as List notes at the start of his article,

Despite [James/Ἰάκωβος's] prominence as leader in the Jerusalem church (Gal 1.19, 2.9; Acts 15.13; G. Thom. 12), and his reported witness to the resurrection (1 Cor 15.7; Gos. Heb. apud Jerome Vir. ill. 2), remarkably little is known about him. In fact, the most extensive traditions that survive concern not the manner of his life, but his death. Much has been made of Josephus’s version of the events (Jewish Antiquities 20.197–203, the concise and unembellished account preferred to the Christian traditions, which are hagiographic and thus generally seen as of limited historical value ...

afaik, there is no other prominent James/Ἰάκωβος figure in the early to mid 1st century AD/CE.

* other than if the TF (Ant. 18.63-4/3.3) was genuine/legitimate

[Peter Kirby]

Yes, on the interpolation hypothesis, then I personally think one of two things is probably true:

(a) this is an otherwise unknown 'a certain James and some others' (or similar wording), who is remembered only in this notice by Josephus... the plausibility of which can perhaps be allowed because of how common the name is... I think this state of affairs is common enough to be considered plausible...

(b) this is the same James as the one who was in Jerusalem (according to the current Pauline letters for example), mix and match with anyone's favorite theories anyway (whether mythicist or historicist), even though this James isn't identified further in Ant. 20.200

[Chrissy Hansen]

τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ in the extant Ant. 20.200 is in

Matthew 27:17 and 22 : as τὸν λεγόμενον Χριστόν (both in the mouth of Pilate; see footnote 43 below)
Matthew 1:16 : as ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστός¹
John 4:25 : also as ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστός

1 which, in footnote 39, List notes is

.a passage about Jesus’s family, is sufficiently biblical (and thus also sufficiently reverential). If it was good enough for [the] author of Matthew, it was certainly good enough for a Christian redactor of Josephus.

And note List's footnote 43:

Note that Origen uses the phrase λεγόμενος Χριστός elsewhere in his works and only in connection to individuals who are not Christians: Pilate (Cels. 1.2; Schol. in Mt. 17.308.11; cf. Matt 27.22) and the Samaritan women (Jo. 1.5.29; 1.21.126; cf. John 4.25), which is consistent with his usage in connection to Josephus.

What is your citation and full title for Origen, Schol. in Mt. 17.308.11? Not seen this one before. I'd also be interested in your citations for Origen, Jo as well. Specifically just want to know what editions you are using.