James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ in Josephus

[Michael BG]

I have not given careful consideration to this until now. When I have thought about it I just thought that the Christ reference was an interpolation and the Jesus was somebody referred to earlier.

The quote is in Josephus’ Antiquities 20.9.1

"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. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. 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. 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; 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, 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."

Origen (early 3rd century) maybe quotes Josephus in Commentary on Matthew (10.17) “And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the “Antiquities of the Jews” in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ”.

According to Peter Kirby’s website (http://earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html):

“Wells states, ‘The words (the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ) have the character of a brief marginal gloss, later incorporated innocently into the text’”. Wells states that the phrase “Jesus who was called Christ” is the same as Mt 1:16 “Ἰησοῦς ὁ λεγόμενος Χριστός” – “Jesus the one-termed Christ”. According to the Perseus website the Greek is - Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ, (I don’t know Greek but I think the tenses are different.)

Doherty states that “Iakobos onoma autoi… could have stood perfectly well on its own (with a slight change in grammatical form)”. Perseus has “Ἰάκωβος ὄνομα αὐτῷ” – “James called of-him” – “him called James”.

Doherty suggests that it is unlikely that Josephus would refer to anyone as the Messiah (Christ). Also he would need to define what Christ meant. The only times “Christ” appears are here and in the Testimonium Flavianum.

I thought there was a person called Jesus was in Josephus before 20.9.1, but there isn’t one.

Bernard Muller makes the argument (http://historical-jesus.info/104.html) that it is unlikely that Josephus would write, James the brother of Jesus the son of Damneus and then later describe Jesus as the son of Damneus.

It seems to me unlikely that Josephus would have used “Christ” to describe anyone and therefore it seems reasonable to assume that a later Christian added a note in the margin that stated James was the brother of Jesus named the Christ. Josephus only had an individual named James without any description of who he was. This leave us with the problem of Origen. It is unlikely that he was quoting a version that had “the brother of Jesus named the Christ”. Therefore we are left with the supposition that Origen was not quoting Josephus but had made the connection between James in Josephus and James the brother of Jesus. It seems reasonable that in a commentary on Matthew he would use wording similar to Mt 1:16 “Jesus the one-termed Christ”. It can be argued that Josephus did not state that Jerusalem fell and the Temple was burnt because the Jews killed James as Origen states he did, it can be argued that the killing of James was just another instance of the behaviour of the Jews that led to the Roman victory. It is therefore a possibility that the Christian who add the note in the margin was influenced by Origen.

[Bernard Muller]

to Michael BG,

“the brother of Jesus named the Christ”

Please, no "the" in the Greek: the brother of Jesus named Christ. There is a big difference.
About only "James", the question is: who is that James? Josephus was in Jerusalem during James' execution. James was a fairly common name. How to explain Josephus did not provide additional details in order to identify that James among other "James"?
The expression 'tou legomenou' ("him named") is also used by Josephus in other parts of 'Antiquities'.

Cordially, Bernard

[outhouse]

It seems to me unlikely that Josephus would have used “Christ”

.

And I personally would not place weight on that.

The traditions in place usually existed long before what is known literary. Small groups could have used that term fairly early, and slowly increased in usage. With different groups saying a little different from the rest.

We have a possible martyrdom that while small in origin, was very widespread geographically speaking and increasing popularity rather quickly. Its a blip on his radar and we know plenty of traditions existed.

Ill say maybe possible.

[toejam]

The tampering that has gone on in the Testimonium Flavianum renders this passage suspicious at the least, but I've yet to be convinced that it's not authentic. It's always struck me as odd that the Testimonium Flavianum has Josephus declare Jesus the Messiah, where as here he only refers to him as one called the Messiah. That is a big difference, as Bernard has said. Given the attestation found in Galatians, Acts, the Gospel of Thomas, Heggesippus and the Pseudo-Clementine and other Jewish-Christian traditions - i.e. that Jesus' immediate heir was a certain James, known in several of these sources also as Jesus' brother - I find it hard to deny its authenticity with any degree of confidence. It doesn't seem like something the growing Orthodox parties, who were all for the diminishing of Jewish-Christianity and links to Jesus' family (spare Mary), would want to insert in the way it is found today. But who knows? Not I!

[maryhelena]

Just to throw the cat among the pigeons......a link to an old thread of mine.

1) If the James passage in Antiquities is a Christian interpolation - then these Christians have unwittingly linked the gospel story to the DSS. A story about a wicked priest and a teacher of righteousness.The Antiguities story reverses the story in the DSS, i.e. Antiquities has James (the teacher of righteousness) killed whereas the DSS has the wicked priest killed. This reversal is indicated via the reversal of characher that Josephus ascribes to the wicked priest, Ananus - from good character in War to bad characher in Antiquities.
2) If the passage was from the pen of the Josephan writer - then linkage between Hasmonean history, the DSS and the gospel story is being indicated. Consequently, raising questions regarding the influence of Josephus on early Christian writings.


DSS Teacher of Righeousness and the Josephan James.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=518&p=9231

[John2]

Maryhelena wrote:

"The Antiguities story reverses the story in the DSS, i.e. Antiquities has James (the teacher of righteousness) killed whereas the DSS has the wicked priest killed. This reversal is indicated via the reversal of characher that Josephus ascribes to the wicked priest, Ananus - from good character in War to bad characher in Antiquities."

Actually, the Teacher of Righteous was killed, which is why the Wicked Priest was killed in return as punishment from God. The Teacher was alive when the Psalm 37 Pesher was composed, but not when the Habakkuk Pesher was composed.

Psalm 37 Pesher (col. 4):

"This refers to the wicked [Pri]est who ob[serv]es the [Teach]er of Righteous[ness and seeks] to kill him [ . . . ] and the Law that he sent to him, but God will not le[ave him in his power] and will not [condemn him when] he comes to trial. But to the [wicked God will give] his just [de]serts, by putting him into the power of the cruel Gentiles to do with him [what they want]."

Habakkuk Pesher (col. 9):

"Interpreted, this concerns the Wicked Priest whom God delivered into the hands of his enemies because of the iniquity committed against the Teacher of Righteousness and the men of his Council, that he might be humbled by means of a destroying scourge, in bitterness of soul, because he had done wickedly to His elect."

Habakkuk Pesher (col. 11):

"Interpreted, this concerns the Wicked Priest who pursued the Teacher of Righteousness to the house of his exile that he might confuse him with his venomous fury. And at the time appointed for rest, for the Day of Atonement, he appeared before them to confuse them, and to cause them to stumble on the Day of Fasting, their Sabbath of repose."

These are Vermes' translations of the Habakkuk Pesher, and as I mentioned to Spin last year, the word that Vermes translates as "confuse" here is the same word in Hab. 1:13 that is generally translated as "swallow" and also has the sense of destroying:

http://biblehub.com/habakkuk/1-13.htm

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/1104.htm

I think this makes the best sense here because the Psalm 37 Pesher says that the Wicked Priest planned to try and kill the Teacher of Righteousness, and it's laughable to me to imagine the idea that the Wicked Priest was killed in revenge for only arguing with the Teacher and his friends.

[John2]

I also wrote last year:

"Regarding the issue of why Josephus presents Ananus in a positive light in the Jewish War and a negative one in the Antiquities, the DSS say that the Wicked Priest "was called by the name of truth when he first arose. But when he ruled over Israel his heart became proud, and he forsook God and betrayed the precepts for the sake of riches" (1QpHab col. 8), and that his "ignominy was greater than his glory" (col. 11).

This could explain Josephus' good and bad presentations of Ananus, and fits his statement that Ananus was deposed "after he had ruled for only three months," since the Wicked Priest had become proud "when he ruled over Israel."

This statement also indicates that Doudna may be incorrect when he says that "an historical Wicked Priest of Pesher Habakkuk, if there was one, would be active before Herod, because this figure is portrayed as ruling over Israel, but not much before Herod, because the Wicked Priest’s regime is portrayed as falling in the context of a Kittim or Roman invasion, and the Romans are not in Judea until the middle of the first century bce."

[John2]

Spin also agreed with this interpretation of "bala" in the Habakkuk Pesher in a response to John T (and which, BTW, shows that I'm NOT John T):

John T wrote:

"it is now up to you Spin and Stephan to place your finger on the text where it talks about the death of the Teacher of Righteousness. Please note you can blow up the text if needed to read it clearly."

To which Spin replied:

"It was dealt with sufficiently by John2 here. Going to the manuscript is unnecessary. There are no problem readings in col.11 lines 4-5, which talk of the wicked priest (הכהן הרשע) who pursued (רדף אחר, "pursue after") the teacher of righteousness (ורהמ הצדק) to consume him (ל׃בלעו) in the heat.... The verb בלע means "to consume, devour" and is used frequently enough indicating destruction in the old testament. He pursued him in order to destroy him. In col. lines 9-10 the wicked priest is punished for his wickedness against the wicked teacher, which is commentary on Hab 2:8b which talks of human bloodshed. Not only did the wicked priest pursue the teacher of righteousness to destroy him, he succeeded in shedding his blood and was thus punished for it according to the pesher writer. And there is nothing complicated, contentious or doubtful in the text on the subject."

[maryhelena]

Maryhelena wrote:

"The Antiguities story reverses the story in the DSS, i.e. Antiquities has James (the teacher of righteousness) killed whereas the DSS has the wicked priest killed. This reversal is indicated via the reversal of characher that Josephus ascribes to the wicked priest, Ananus - from good character in War to bad characher in Antiquities."

Actually, the Teacher of Righteous was killed, which is why the Wicked Priest was killed in return as punishment from God. The Teacher was alive when the Psalm 37 Pesher was composed, but not when the Habakkuk Pesher was composed.

From Greg Doudna's article on the Bible and Interpretation site:

A Narrative Argument that the Teacher of Righteousness was Hyrcanus II.

• The reaction of the Wicked Priest to the law sent from the Teacher is: he rejects the law sent, and he tries to kill the sender, the Teacher. (But in the texts he does not kill the Teacher, despite his intent.) The reaction of the Wicked Priest implies something significant was at stake in the world of the text with this “law”.

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/201 ... 8018.shtml

The point of my post was to draw attention to how the scholarship of Greg Doudna can throw some light upon the Josephan story about James and Ananus. i.e. a story about a wicked priest and a man, a teacher, of righteousness.

[John2]

And my point is that both the Teacher of Righteousness and the Wicked Priest were killed in the DSS (like James and Ananus in Josephus), so there is no "reversal" of anything going on here.