James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ in Josephus

[MrMacSon]

Sameas appears in 14.168, as a righteous man only, but his unique story is told immediately afterwards. Also, Sameas was not a common name like "James".

one whose name was Sameas, a righteous man he was, and for that reason above all fear, rose up, and said,

• "O you that are assessors with me, and O thou that art our king, I neither have ever myself known such a case, nor do I suppose that any one of you can name its parallel, that one who is called to take his trial by us ever stood in such a manner before us; but every one, whosoever he be, that comes to be tried by this Sanhedrim, presents himself in a submissive manner, and like one that is in fear of himself, and that endeavors to move us to compassion, with his hair dishevelled, and in a black and mourning garment: but this admirable man Herod, who is accused of murder, and called to answer so heavy an accusation, stands here clothed in purple, and with the hair of his head finely trimmed, and with his armed men about him, that if we shall condemn him by our law, he may slay us, and by overbearing justice may himself escape death. Yet do not I make this complaint against Herod himself; he is to be sure more concerned for himself than for the laws; but my complaint is against yourselves, and your king, who gave him a license so to do. However, take you notice, that God is great, and that this very man, whom you are going to absolve and dismiss, for the sake of Hyrcanus, will one day punish both you and your king himself also."

Nor did Sameas mistake in any part of this prediction; for when Herod had received the kingdom, he slew all the members of this Sanhedrim, and Hyrcanus himself also, excepting Sameas, for he had a great honor for him on account of his righteousness, and because, when the city was afterward besieged by Herod and Sosius, he persuaded the people to admit Herod into it; and told them that for their sins they would not be able to escape his hands: - which things will be related by us in their proper places.

'Righeousness' was a much touted characteristic in those times?

Ananias is introduced as such in Life 1.195

Accordingly, they resolved to send men of distinction as to their families, and of distinction as to their learning also. Two of these were of the populace, Jonathan and Ananias, by sect Pharisees; while the third, Jozar, was of the stock of the priests, and a Pharisee also; and Simon, the last of them, was of the youngest of the high priests.

Some identification here: man of distinction by his family and learning, "from the populace" and "Pharisee".

Ananias is another way of spelling Ananus?

[Aleph One]

Is it possible that Josephus originally identified him as James, the brother of the Jesus who would go on to be the replacement high priest? This seems to make some narrative sense. The priest unfairly persecutes this guy known to be righteous and in response is deposed and replaced by the guy's brother. I don't know how this would work syntactically/grammatically in the text though. Could it have said "James, the brother of Jesus who was to be high priest", or something?

[Michael BG]

Is it possible that Josephus originally identified him as James, the brother of the Jesus who would go on to be the replacement high priest? This seems to make some narrative sense. The priest unfairly persecutes this guy known to be righteous and in response is deposed and replaced by the guy's brother. I don't know how this would work syntactically/grammatically in the text though. Could it have said "James, the brother of Jesus who was to be high priest", or something?

I think that is unlikely. Some people suggest it was just Jesus, but I am not convinced because Jesus is later introduced as the son of Damneus. So I agree with Bernard’s argument about the problems of James being described by Josephus as in anyway related to the later Jesus. There is not an earlier one for him to be related to. That is why I think it is most likely he was not describe as related to anyone.

to Michael BG,

I think these are examples of people without a description - Nebuchadnezzar (Antiquities 10.1.6), Sameas (Ant 14.9.4) Dorus (Ant 20.8.5) and Ananias (Life 56).

The first time Nebuchadnezzar is introduced in 'Antiquities' is as such (10.84):

one whose name was Nebuchadnezzar took the government over the Babylonians,

This is what I found. A person named Nebuchadnezzar did x, no description.

Sameas appears in 14.168, as a righteous man only, but his unique story is told immediately afterwards. Also, Sameas was not a common name like "James".

one whose name was Sameas, a righteous man he was, and for that reason above all fear, rose up, and said, ...

This is what I found. Sameas does not have a family description, but only a personality one.

Dortus is in 20.125 presented as such:

a certain Samaritan that one of the chief of the Jews, whose name was Dortus, and some other innovators with him, four in number, persuaded the multitude to a revolt from the Romans;

Some identification here, even if Dortus appears not to be a common name.

This is what I found. Dortus also has no family description and he is only said to be important – “a chief”.

Ananias is introduced as such in Life 1.195

Accordingly, they resolved to send men of distinction as to their families, and of distinction as to their learning also. Two of these were of the populace, Jonathan and Ananias, by sect Pharisees; while the third, Jozar, was of the stock of the priests, and a Pharisee also; and Simon, the last of them, was of the youngest of the high priests.

Some identification here: man of distinction by his family and learning, "from the populace" and "Pharisee".

Yours in an earlier reference, which I missed. Here we have three people all of whom are not identified by their father, but only as you say as from families of distinction, two (Jonathan and Ananias] are “of the populace” and Pharisees, while Jozar is from a priestly family.

Are you saying that James has to have a description such as someone “living in Jerusalem”?

No, but something like "son of", "brother of", "a leader among Jews", etc. Anyway something more than solely "James". Certainly, that does not seem right.

I think with the six examples we have we can safely conclude that “son of” or “brother of” is not necessary. However there is only one example of nothing at all and he is not Jewish. Therefore I think you have successfully presented the case that it is likely James has a non-family description.

This description has to be one, which a Christian would replace and not keep. For example if he had been called a Nazarene or from Galilee then it is likely a Christian would have kept it. If he had been called a member of the sect of Essenes or the Pharisees then it is likely a Christian would have removed it.

[Bernard Muller]

to Michael BG,
My main point was that Josephus indicated something descriptive for the men I got from you, when he first introduced them. I did not say this something descriptive had to be all the time "son of ..." or "brother of ..." or any other familial relashionship.
But plain "James" only is most unusual and certainly not like Nebuchadnezzar, Sameas, Dortus and Ananias are introduced.
And that James was executed when Josephus, as a priest, was in Jerusalem. Certainly he would have known more about James than just a name.

What would be your comment if Josephus wrote:
Under these procurators that great famine happened in Judea, in which queen Helena bought corn in Egypt at a great expense, and distributed it to those that were in want, as I have related already. And besides this, Alexander commanded to be crucified James and Simon.

Instead as in AJ 20.100:
Under these procurators that great famine happened in Judea, in which queen Helena bought corn in Egypt at a great expense, and distributed it to those that were in want, as I have related already. And besides this, the sons of Judas of Galilee were now slain; I mean of that Judas who caused the people to revolt, when Cyrenius came to take an account of the estates of the Jews, as we have showed in a foregoing book. The names of those sons were James and Simon, whom Alexander commanded to be crucified.

If he had been called a member of the sect of Essenes or the Pharisees then it is likely a Christian would have removed it.

Why? Josephus also introduced men as just Essene or Pharisee.

Cordially, Bernard

[Michael BG]

to Michael BG,
My main point was that Josephus indicated something descriptive for the men I got from you, when he first introduced them. I did not say this something descriptive had to be all the time "son of ..." or "brother of ..." or any other familial relashionship.
But plain "James" only is most unusual and certainly not like Nebuchadnezzar, Sameas, Dortus and Ananias are introduced.
And that James was executed when Josephus, as a priest, was in Jerusalem. Certainly he would have known more about James than just a name.

I am sorry that you thought I was saying that you said that the description had to be a family relationship. I was making a general point that it is not necessary and I am happy we agree.

What would be your comment if Josephus wrote:
Under these procurators … And besides this, Alexander commanded to be crucified James and Simon.

Instead as in AJ 20.100:
Under these procurators … And besides this, the sons of Judas of Galilee were now slain; I mean of that Judas who caused the people to revolt, when Cyrenius came to take an account of the estates of the Jews, as we have showed in a foregoing book. The names of those sons were James and Simon, whom Alexander commanded to be crucified.

This is the second time you have asked me this question. So you didn’t like my “no comment” comment? I don’t understand what sort of comment you are asking for. Neither really gives a reason why they were crucified. If the text didn’t have any description I would use it as evidence that Josephus sometimes has people without descriptions.

If he had been called a member of the sect of Essenes or the Pharisees then it is likely a Christian would have removed it.

Why? Josephus also introduced men as just Essene or Pharisee.

Cordially, Bernard

If Josephus just names people as an Essene or Pharisee then that is also a possibility and again I think it is likely a Christian would have removed it.

[MrMacSon]

Eusebius allegedly quotes Josephus thus:

• “These things (fall of Jerusalem) happened to the Jews to avenge Jacob the Just, who was the brother of Jesus called Christ, and whom the Jews had slain, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice.” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book 2, 23)

The problem is this quote cannot be found in any of the extant writings of Josephus. Eusebius cited this quote from Origin in his treatise Against Celsius (1:47). Origin, in turn, was supposedly quoting Josephus.

Could that passage and Antiquities 20.200 be tied to what Josephus had previously written in Jewish Wars -

• "In short, none could now speak his mind, with tyrants on every side; and from this date [the death of James the Just(?)] were sown in the city the seed of its impending destruction (halosis)” Jewish Wars, Book II, 272-6.

[DCHindley]

Eusebius allegedly quotes Josephus thus:

• “These things (fall of Jerusalem) happened to the Jews to avenge Jacob the Just, who was the brother of Jesus called Christ, and whom the Jews had slain, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice.” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book 2, 23)

The problem is this quote cannot be found in any of the extant writings of Josephus. Eusebius cited this quote from Origin in his treatise Against Celsius (1:47). Origin, in turn, was supposedly quoting Josephus.

Could that passage and Antiquities 20.200 be tied to what Josephus had previously written in Jewish Wars -

• "In short, none could now speak his mind, with tyrants on every side; and from this date [the death of James the Just(?)] were sown in the city the seed of its impending destruction (halosis)” Jewish Wars, Book II, 272-6.

But isn't that a description of Lucceius Albinus' prefecture? (ca 62-64). It was in the prefectureship of his successor, Gessius Florus (64-66 CE) that the revolt broke out. It is duly noted that Josephus cites the bribery that he accepted from all parties in return for carte blanch permission to do whatever they wanted, as the seed that led to its eventual destruction.

However, later in Book 4, 315-320 Josephus unequivocally says the destruction was the result of the execution of righteous Ananas, then a retired HP, by the Idumeans in the middle stages of the Judean revolt, when the warring factions started to try to consolidate total control over the capital, Jerusalem.

4:318 I should not be mistaken if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city, and that from this very day may be dated the overthrow of her wall, and the ruin of her affairs, whereon they saw their high priest, and the procurer of their preservation, slain in the midst of their city.

DCH <taking some time off>

[John2]

DCH,

I like the idea that Origen misread or misheard this account about Ananus. Everything Origen says about "James" is said about Ananus there; also notice that Ananus is associated with someone named "Jesus" who was "also joined with him ... although he was inferior to him upon the comparison" which could have given Origen the impression that Josephus did not believe that "Jesus" was the Christ.

[DCHindley]

DCH,

I like the idea that Origen misread or misheard this account about Ananus. Everything Origen says about "James" is said about Ananus there; also notice that Ananus is associated with someone named "Jesus" who was "also joined with him ... although he was inferior to him upon the comparison" which could have given Origen the impression that Josephus did not believe that "Jesus" was the Christ.

It is, IMHO, just a tad too coincidental to be, well, truly coincidental. Still, it does give one reason to pause and think ...

Either Origen read something, or someone else read something from Origen, that made him/them THINK the referents were Jesus Christ and Jacob (James) the brother of Jesus.

...
b) Now he [Josephus] himself, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put Christ to death, who was a prophet, nevertheless says, being albeit against his will not far from the truth, that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the just, who was a brother of Jesus called Christ, the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice.
...
d) If, then, he says that it was on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason to say that it happened on account of Jesus Christ? Of his divinity so many churches are witnesses, composed of those who have been convened from a flood of sins and have joined themselves to the creator, and who refer all their actions to his good pleasure.

If we expect to find anything like that in either Antiquities 18:65 (the TF) or 20:200 (James & Ananas) we will be sorely disappointed.

But we do have a situation where Josephus, in War, describes the speeches of Ananus and of one fellow "chief priest" Jesus, on the city wall, probably from the temple parapets themselves, to try to dissuaded the Idumeans from interfering on behalf of the Zealots for mastery of the entire city. Ironically, the Idumeans are let into the city by a stratagem of the Zealots, and proceed to round up all the chief priests they could locate, who had formerly been in charge of the revolt, and executed them summarily in sight of all, then threw their dead bodies off and forbade any to bury them.

In the War, unlike the Antiquities, Josephus portrays Ananus extremely favorably, so much so that he attributes the destruction to his death in this way.

4.5.2 315 and for the other multitude, they [i.e., the Idumeans] esteemed it needless to go on with killing them[i.e., the common people], but they sought for the high priests, and generally went with the greatest zeal against them;
4:316 and as soon as they caught them they slew them, and then standing upon their dead bodies, in way of jest, upbraided Ananus with his kindness to the people, and Jesus with his speech made to them from the wall.
4:317 Nay, they proceeded to that degree of impiety as to cast away their dead bodies without burial, although the Jews used to take so much care of the burial of men, that they took down those who were condemned and crucified, and buried them before the going down of the sun.
4:318 I should not be mistaken if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city, and that from this very day may be dated the overthrow of her wall, and the ruin of her affairs, whereon they saw their high priest, and the procurer of their preservation, slain in the midst of their city.
4:319 He was on other accounts also a venerable, and a very just man; and besides the grandeur of that nobility, and dignity, and honour of which he was possessed, he had been a lover of a kind of equality; even with regard to the lowest of the people;
4:320 he was a prodigious lover of liberty, and an admirer of a democracy in government; and did ever prefer the public welfare before his own advantage, and preferred peace above all things; for he was thoroughly sensible that the Romans were not to be conquered. He also foresaw that of necessity a war would follow, and that unless the Jews made up matters with them very dexterously, they would be destroyed;

However, an astute person, who had also read Antiquities 20:199ff, would see an description of Ananus that was much more negative.

"Antiquities 20:199-201"]199 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;
200 When, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin 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.
201 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;

So different that it could have been the subject of a marginal note by a previous reader. In any event, it probably said something like "Could this (i.e., Ananus) be the same man on whose account the city was destroyed? It would be better had he had attributed it (i.e., the destruction of the city) to the death of Jesus (the chief priest next in rank below Ananus)." This assumes that it was found around Ant 20:200ff. But now I'm beginning to think it was around War 4:315-320. "Can this same man (i.e., Ananus), whose death brought about the destruction of the city, be the same man who broke the law to cause the death of Jacob the Brother of Jesus? It would have been better had he attributed it (i.e., the destruction of the city) to the death of Jesus (the chief priest next in rank below Ananus)!"

Origen or some other commentator, maybe Hegesippus, misunderstood these to mean that the destruction was due to the death of Jacob brother of Jesus instead of Ananus son of Ananus, and should have been due to the death of Jesus Christ instead of Jesus the chief priest next in rank to Ananus. Both Ananus and Jesus his associate made speeches on that city wall, both died at the hands of those to whom they delivered those speeches. Now we have something that can explain Origen saying that he thought Josephus had said that the death of Jacob the brother of Jesus was the cause of the destruction of the city, BUT should have attributed it to the death of Jesus. In Hegesippus, it is Jacob the Just who is killed after giving a speech on the temple wall.

I get chills thinking of it.

[MrMacSon]

But we do have a situation where Josephus, in War, describes the speeches of Ananus and of one fellow "chief priest" Jesus, on the city wall, probably from the temple parapets themselves, to try to dissuaded the Idumeans from interfering on behalf of the Zealots for mastery of the entire city. Ironically, the Idumeans are let into the city by a stratagem of the Zealots, and proceed to round up all the chief priests they could locate, who had formerly been in charge of the revolt, and executed them summarily in sight of all, then threw their dead bodies off and forbade any to bury them.

This is all Ananus ben Ananus - (Ananus the Younger)?

In the War, unlike the Antiquities, Josephus portrays Ananus extremely favorably, so much so that he attributes the destruction to his death in this way.

4.5.2 315 and for the other multitude, they [i.e., the Idumeans] esteemed it needless to go on with killing them[i.e., the common people], but they sought for the high priests, and generally went with the greatest zeal against them;

4:316 and as soon as they caught them they slew them, and then standing upon their dead bodies, in way of jest, upbraided Ananus with his kindness to the people, and Jesus with his speech made to them from the wall.

4:317 Nay, they proceeded to that degree of impiety as to cast away their dead bodies without burial, although the Jews used to take so much care of the burial of men, that they took down those who were condemned and crucified, and buried them before the going down of the sun.

4:318 I should not be mistaken if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city, and that from this very day may be dated the overthrow of her wall, and the ruin of her affairs, whereon they saw their high priest, and the procurer of their preservation, slain in the midst of their city.

4:319 He was on other accounts also a venerable, and a very just man; and besides the grandeur of that nobility, and dignity, and honour of which he was possessed, he had been a lover of a kind of equality; even with regard to the lowest of the people;

4:320 he was a prodigious lover of liberty, and an admirer of a democracy in government; and did ever prefer the public welfare before his own advantage, and preferred peace above all things; for he was thoroughly sensible that the Romans were not to be conquered. He also foresaw that of necessity a war would follow, and that unless the Jews made up matters with them very dexterously, they would be destroyed;

However, an astute person, who had also read Antiquities 20:199ff, would see an description of Ananus that was much more negative.

"Antiquities 20:199-201"]199 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;

200 When, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin 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.

201 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;

So different that it could have been the subject of a marginal note by a previous reader. In any event, it probably said something like

• "Could this (i.e., Ananus) be the same man on whose account the city was destroyed? It would be better had he had attributed it (i.e., the destruction of the city) to the death of Jesus (the chief priest next in rank below Ananus)."

This assumes that it was found around Ant 20:200ff. But now I'm beginning to think it was around War 4:315-320.

• "Can this same man (i.e., Ananus), whose death brought about the destruction of the city, be the same man who broke the law to cause the death of Jacob the Brother of Jesus? It would have been better had he attributed it (i.e., the destruction of the city) to the death of Jesus (the chief priest next in rank below Ananus)!"

Origen or some other commentator, maybe Hegesippus, misunderstood these to mean that the destruction was due to the death of Jacob brother of Jesus instead of Ananus son of Ananus, and should have been due to the death of Jesus Christ instead of Jesus the chief priest next in rank to Ananus.

Both Ananus and Jesus his associate made speeches on that city wall; both died at the hands of those to whom they delivered those speeches.

Now we have something that can explain Origen saying that he thought Josephus had said that the death of Jacob the brother of Jesus was the cause of the destruction of the city, BUT should have attributed it to the death of Jesus. In Hegesippus, it is Jacob the Just who is killed after giving a speech on the temple wall.

I get chills thinking of it.

The ties to the narrative about James is interesting.