Do all Roads Lead to Eusebius: Antiquities 20.200

[JarekS]

Adding entire sections of text to a two-hundred-year-old work that has been in public circulation for so long is strange and risky. It also brings no benefits and carries the risk of revealing forgery. Eusebius' Church History pursues historical policy and its goal is not to get caught in primitive fraud on an unimportant matter.
The term "James, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ" does not define the author's opinions or views. It is a quotation of a foreign opinion, other people's views.

[Ken Olson]

4) The theory I am proposing is that Eusebius, who was looking for a passage in his manuscript of the Antiquities for the passage about James that Origen was talking about, found Antiquities 20.200, and glossed it with the identifier 'the brother of Jesus who was called Christ" which he had found in Origen. I do not know how James was identified in Ant. 20.200 before that.

[Snip]

3) Eusebius glosses other quotations of Josephus for the benefit of his Christian readers. When quoting a passage from Josephus on the Hasmoneans, Eusebius adds: 'who are called the Maccabees'.

The citation for the Hasmonean / Maccabees things is here:

I've previously suggested on this forum that Eusebius glossing James as the brother of Jesus who was called Christ so that his readers would be able to identify the man put to death in Ant. 20.200 as the Christian James is similar to his glossing the Hasmoneans with 'the ones who were called the Maccabees" for the benefit of his Christian readers. When quoting Josephus Ant. 20.247-249 in Demonstratio 8.2, he adds the identifier just so his Christian readers will know to identify the Hasmoneans with the Maccabees, not for some important Christological reason.

That still leaves us with the questions of a) why Origen would have thought the ‘called Christ’ phrase was in Josephus,

I don't know that Origen did think Josephus used the actual words 'called Christ'. He is not quoting his source (whatever that may have been) exactly and I think the 'called Christ' may be his own wording. Or perhaps I should say his own wording which was influenced by Matthew 1.16, 27.17, 22.

and b) why Eusebius would have bothered to add it. I mean, even if he was puzzled by not finding the phrase Origen had cited, it seems unlikely that he’d have reacted by assuming it had to be there and misquoting the entire passage on the assumption that that phrase should be there. The natural reaction would have been for him to think that Origen made a mistake.

We have good reason to think that Eusebius did not believe Origen was mistaken because (according to what I think is the most widespread view of scholars commenting on the subject, including Chadwick, Mason and Painter) Eusebius turns Origen's indirect quotation of Josephus into a direct quotation of Josephus in HE 2.23:

HE 2.23.20. Josephus, at least, has not hesitated to testify this in his writings, where he says, These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the Christ. For the Jews slew him, although he was a most just man.

It does not matter what you hypothesize his natural reaction to what Origen wrote that Josephus said would have been if we have in HE 2.23.20 his actual reaction to what Origen wrote Josephus said.

Jerome, too, seems to have trusted what Origen wrote Josephus had said about James (and what Eusebius repeated):

Josephus also in the twentieth book of his Antiquities, and Clement in the seventh of his Outlines, mention that, on the death of Festus who reigned over Judea, Albinus was sent by Nero as his successor. Before he had reached his province, Ananias the high priest, the youthful son of Ananus of the priestly class taking advantage of the state of anarchy, assembled a council and publicly tried to force James to deny that Christ is the son of God. When he refused Ananius ordered him to be stoned. Cast down from a pinnacle of the temple, his legs broken, but still half alive, raising his hands to heaven he said: Lord, forgive them for they know not what they do. Then struck on the head by the club of a fuller, such a club as fullers are accustomed to wring out garments with, he died. This same Josephus records the tradition that this James was of such great sanctity and reputation among the people that the downfall of Jerusalem was believed to be on account of his death.(Jerome De Viris Illustribus 2)

So I don't accept your argument about what is unlikely based on what you think Eusebius' reaction would have been to what Origen wrote that Josephus said.

The exception to that, of course, would be if Eusebius was also working from some other source of information about the identity of this particular James; just as he knew from elsewhere that the Hasmoneans were called the Maccabees, so he knew from elsewhere that the James put to death in this incident was Jesus’s brother.

You are proposing that Eusebius would have needed another source of information besides Origen, because you don't think he would have believed Origen. But we have reason to think he did trust what Origen wrote about what Josephus said.

The question of why he would have connected what Origen said with the particular James put to death in Ant. 20.200 is fairly easily answered. Josephus records the execution of two men named James in Antiquities 20. The man whose name was James in Ant. 20.200 and James the son of rebel Judas of Galilee who was crucified along with his brother Simon in Ant. 20.102. The James that Origen wrote that Josephus had spoken about was clearly not the latter. I am proposing that Eusebius identified the James who was tried on a capital charge with in Ant. 20.200 with the identifier Origen has used because, first, he thought it was true, second, he thought it was interesting for his Christian readers, and third, because one of is interests, and particularly in the Ecclesiastical History and Chronicon, was to set Christian history within the broader scope of world history (though the world he knew was, of course, a limited one).

I think that’s unlikely as an explanation, because of the unlikelihood of Eusebius referring to Jesus as ‘Jesus who was called Christ’ (when Eusebius believed that he was Christ),

He is using the words 'called Christ' which Origen said were in the passage in Josephus about James (Comm. Matt 10.17, Contra Celsum 1.47). (Parenthetically, I think the author of the Gospel According to Matthew believed Jesus was Christ when he identified Jesus as 'who was called Christ' in Matt 1.16).

I understand that you think it's unlikely that Eusebius would have written 'called Christ', but I do not think you have made a solid case for why it is unlikely.

but it’s worth considering if we want to cover all bases. Of course, that particular theory is interesting in light of the frequency with which mythicists try to use interpolation explanations for the line in Josephus; if Eusebius had some other source of information that the James put to death was Jesus’s brother, then that would still be evidence pointing away from mythicism.

While the theory that Josephus Antiquities 20.200 has been interpolated may be attractive to mythicists, it is certainly not a solely mythicist argument, if that's what you are suggesting. In the late 19th and the first half of the 20th century it was quite commonly thought to have been interpolated. I cite a few in my paper "Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum", Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61.2 (1999), including Emil Schürer in his classic History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/43723559

It has been admittedly less fashionable to suggest interpolation in Ant. 20.200 in the second half of the twentieth century and the first quarter of the 21st, but there are a few, such as the Josephus scholar Tessa Rajak. Chris Hansen has been keeping a list of others and could tell you more (and I would identify myself as a minimalist, not a mythicist; I do not deny the existence of an historical Jesus but think we know extremely little about him).

I shall try to get to your longer post when I get a chance. I've been a bit busy of late.

Best,

Ken

[Peter Kirby]

While the theory that Josephus Antiquities 20.200 has been interpolated may be attractive to mythicists, it is certainly not a solely mythicist argument, if that's what you are suggesting. In the late 19th and the first half of the 20th century it was quite commonly thought to have been interpolated. I cite a few in my paper "Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum", Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61.2 (1999), including Emile Schuerer in his classic History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/43723559

It has been admittedly less fashionable to suggest interpolation in Ant. 20.200 in the second half of the twentieth century and the first quarter of the 21st, but there are a few, such as the Josephus scholar Tessa Rajak. Hansen has been keeping a list of others and could tell you more (and I would identify myself as a minimalist, not a mythicist; I do not deny the existence of an historical Jesus but think we know extremely little about him).

This is well said. I'm a nobody, but I've also argued for the Ant. 20.200 reference being an interpolation, while not at the same time arguing against the historicity of Jesus, in my TF page. I've argued both sides of Ant. 20.200 authenticity. I've also argued against a HJ and for a HJ in the past. I've presented arguments on both sides of the Mar Saba thing (and perhaps regret saying anything, my goodness). I've offered considerations for and against different theories on the Marcion stuff. I've been on either side of the Q debates at various times. Some would find this inconsistent, and some would try to harmonize it to find in me the mirror image of whatever their interests are (but I would be a degenerate as evidenced by the fact that I don't agree with them on everything). And there's a bit of truth to whatever someone would say here; I'm only human.

Hmm... did I have a point?

Well I did want to say that I respect you and Chrissy Hansen.

[Chrissy Hansen]

Chris Hansen has been keeping a list of others and could tell you more (and I would identify myself as a minimalist, not a mythicist; I do not deny the existence of an historical Jesus but think we know extremely little about him).

I also would identify as a minimalist (not mythicist). For those wondering, there has been a relative increase in recent literature arguing against the authenticity of 20.200 or at least claiming (without argument) it is inauthentic:

Ivan Prchlík, “Ježíš řečený Christos‘ u Iosepha Flavia: Jistota nejistoty,” in Antica Slavica, ed. Peter Fraňo and Michal Habaj (Trnava: Univerzita sv. Cyrila a Metoda v Trnave 2018), 77–152 and 280–6

Li Yaming, Lishi shang zhenshi de yesu (Taibei shi: Wunan tushu chuban gufen youxian gongsi, 2017), 41–2

Fausto Parente, “Sulla doppia trasmissione, filologica ed ecclesiastica, del testo di Flavio Giuseppe: Un contributo alla storia della ricezione della sua opera nel mondo cristiano,” Rivista di Storia e Letteratura religiosa 36, no. 1 (2000): 3–51

Léon Herrmann, Chrestos: Témoignages païens et juifs sur le christianisme du premier siècle (Bruxelles: Latomus, 1970), 97–104 (per Ken)

Hermann Detering, Falsche Zeugen: Außerchristliche Jesuszeugnisse auf dem Prüfstand (Aschaffenburg: Alibri Verlag, 2011), 22–9

Rivka Nir, The First Christian Believer: In Search of John the Baptist (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2019), 70n121

Dave Allen, “An Original Negative Testimonium,” Journal of Higher Criticism 15, no. 1 (2020): 67–90 (at 84–90)

Michael Grant, The Ancient Historians (New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 1970), 263

Robert M. Price, Killing History: Jesus in the No-Spin Zone (Amherst: Prometheus, 2014), 243–4

Nicholas P. L. Allen, “Josephus on James the Just? A re-evaluation of Antiquitates Judaicae 20.9.1,” Journal of Early Christian History 7, no. 1 (2017): 1–27

Joshua Efron, Studies on the Hasmonean Period (Leiden: Brill, 1987), 333–6

Raphael Lataster, Questioning the Historicity of Jesus: Why a Philosophical Analysis Elucidates the Historical Discourse (Leiden: Brill, 2019), 199–202

Tessa Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and His Society (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 131n73 (per Ken)

Kurt L. Noll, “Investigating Earliest Christianity without Jesus,” in ‘Is this not the Carpenter?’ The Question of the Historicity of the Figure of Jesus, ed. Thomas L. Thompson and Thomas S. Verenna (Sheffield: Equinox, 2012), 233–66 (250)

Jürgen Becker, “The Search for Jesus’ Special Profile,” in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus, ed. Tom Holmén and Stanley E. Porter (4 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 2011), vol. 1, 57–89 (59)

Graham Twelftree, “Jesus in Jewish Tradition,” in The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels, ed. David Wenham (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), 289–332

Richard Carrier, “Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 20 (2012): 489–514

Ken Olson, “Eusebius and the ‘Testimonium Flavianum’,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61, no. 2 (1999): 305–22

I also want to make special note of some Soviet literature:

S. I. Kovalev, Osnovnyye Voprosy Proiskhozhdeniya Khristianstva (Moskva: Nauka, 1964), 33

Ambrogio Donini, U istokov khristianstva (ot zarozhdeniya do Yustiniana), Second Edition (Moskva: Izdatel’stvo politicheskoy literatury, 1989), 50–2

Abram Ranovich, O rannem khristianstve (Moskva: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauka SSSR, 1959), 242 speaks of the “references” to Jesus (plural) being forgeries and discusses the TF briefly, implying he also thinks 20.200 is inauthentic

N. V. Rumyantsev, “Iosif Flaviy ob Iisuse Khriste i Ioanne Krestitele,” Ateist 36 (1929): 32–57

J. Lenzman, L’Origine du christianisme (Moscou: Editions en langues etrangeres, 1961), 66

There are also those who argue just for "called Christ" being an interpolation and either propose a different adelphonymic or patronymic was present, or that it just read "brother of Jesus named James":

James Tabor and Simcha Jacobovici, The Jesus Discovery: The Resurrection Tomb that Reveals the Birth of Christianity (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2012), 235

Dennis R. MacDonald, Two Shipwrecked Gospels: The Logoi of Jesus and Papias’s Exposition of Logia About the Lord (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2012), 548

Nicholas List, "The Death of James the Just Revisited," Journal of Early Christian Studies 32, no. 1 (2024): 17–44

And then there is Sabrina Inowlocki who is basically doing her own thing:

Sabrina Inowlocki, “Did Josephus Ascribe the Fall of Jerusalem to the Murder of James, Brother of Jesus?” Revue des études juives 170, no. 1–2 (2011): 21–49

In some way, all of these academics propose that the James 20.200 passage in our textus receptus has been tampered with.

[Chrissy Hansen]

That still leaves us with the questions of a) why Origen would have thought the ‘called Christ’ phrase was in Josephus, and b) why Eusebius would have bothered to add it. I mean, even if he was puzzled by not finding the phrase Origen had cited, it seems unlikely that he’d have reacted by assuming it had to be there and misquoting the entire passage on the assumption that that phrase should be there. The natural reaction would have been for him to think that Origen made a mistake.

The exception to that, of course, would be if Eusebius was also working from some other source of information about the identity of this particular James; just as he knew from elsewhere that the Hasmoneans were called the Maccabees, so he knew from elsewhere that the James put to death in this incident was Jesus’s brother. I think that’s unlikely as an explanation, because of the unlikelihood of Eusebius referring to Jesus as ‘Jesus who was called Christ’ (when Eusebius believed that he was Christ), but it’s worth considering if we want to cover all bases. Of course, that particular theory is interesting in light of the frequency with which mythicists try to use interpolation explanations for the line in Josephus; if Eusebius had some other source of information that the James put to death was Jesus’s brother, then that would still be evidence pointing away from mythicism.

Because he was misremembering. Origen notoriously is bad at remembering what Josephus wrote, and when you come across a guy named James, who was stoned, and the entire passage is part of a longer context where Josephus is describing the leadup and reasons for the turmoil that led to the Jewish War and destruction of the Temple, it would be easy from memory to just tie those together. This James overlaps a number of times with popular Christian legend, and Origen in general just stretches what Josephus says.

And Eusebius would bother adding it because he wanted to accumulate as much foreign evidence for his positions as possible. You also really can't make a case Eusebius would think Origen was wrong when he actually does two things: (1) attributes a false statement to Josephus derived from Origen directly, see HE 2.23.20, and (2) then is the first (and only) person to quote the passage directly.

Also, the identification of the James in book 20 would automatically be the most likely, because there is no other James that Origen could possibly refer to. So if Eusebius was trying to find or interpolate a passage, this was the prime one. There are only ever two people named James in book 20, and only one of them is a plausible candidate, because the first one was the son of Judas the Galilean and was killed at the very beginning. Additionally, this James (as I noted above) overlaps with the James of Christian tradition in multiple ways just by coincidence. Thus, Eusebius had good reason to make that identification, just as Origen did.

There is also no reason to think it unlikely that Eusebius would refer to Jesus as "Jesus who was called Christ." I am pretty sure that Eusebius thinks Jesus is the victor, but he still says he is "called victor": Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica 4.12 (ὁ Χριστὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, νικηφόρος λεγόμενος). We can also compare similar reverential language in other Christian texts:

-Origen, Contra Celsum 4.28 (καὶ Χριστὸς εἶναι λεγόμενος τοῦ ϑεοῦ)
-Justin Martyr, First Apology 30 (τί κωλύει καὶ τὸν παρ’ ἡμῖν λεγόμενον Χριστόν)

I see no reason to take this argument as particularly credible.