Josephus Antiquities 20.200 on James: The scholars who doubt

[Chrissy Hansen]

I've been collecting bibliographic references to academics who challenge the authenticity (at least partially) of Josephus' Antiquities 20.200 (20.9.1) on James the brother of Jesus. I regard the passage as inauthentic myself, as I've noted elsewhere. But I've been trying to survey to see who else takes this position. Here is a collection I've come up with of references since 1960 in English, French, and German.

Anyone know any other references? Please feel free to add to my list.

Yakov Lentsman, L’Origine du Christianisme (Moscow: Editions en langues etrangeres, 1961), 66

Michael Grant, The Ancient Historians (New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 1970), 263 says "the remarks about Jesus, and probably portions of the other passages as well [referring to John the Baptist], do not in fact go back to Josephus at all, but are insertions by a later hand."

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

Léon Herrmann, Chrestos. Témoignages païens et juifs sur le christianisme du premier siècle (Bruxelles: Latomus, 1970), 99–104

R. Joseph Hoffmann, Jesus Outside the Gospels (Amherst: Prometheus, 1984), 55 refers to the passage as "mutilated" by Christians

Graham Twelftree, “Jesus in Jewish Tradition,” in David Wenham (ed.), The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), 289–332 considers the James passage an interpolation but the Testinomium Flavianum partially authentic.

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

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

Hermann Detering, Falsche Zeugen: Außerchristliche Jesuszeugnisse auf dem Prüfstand (Aschaffenburg: Alibri Verlag, 2011), 22–29

Christopher M. Hansen, “Jesus’ Historicity and Sources: The Misuse of Extrabiblical Sources for Jesus and a Suggestion.” The Journal of Biblical Theology 4, no. 3 (2021): 139–162 (I am including myself for completeness, I consider it an interpolation)

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

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 (thanks Ken!), argues that Origen's version was the original and the textus receptus is therefore inauthentic

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

James Tabor and Simcha Jacobovici, The Jesus Discovery: The Resurrection Tomb that Reveals the Birth of Christianity (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2012), 235 argue that "called the Christ" was an interpolation

Dennis R. MacDonald, Two Shipwrecked Gospels: The Logoi of Jesus and Papias’s Exposition of Logia About the Lord (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2012), 548 argues that “who was called the Christ” is an interpolation, but that Jesus may have been mentioned in book 18.

Robert M. Price, Killing History: Jesus in the No-Spin Zone (Amherst: Prometheus, 2014), 243–4 argues it likely referred to Jesus ben Damneus.

Raphael Lataster, “Questioning the Plausibility of Jesus Ahistoricity Theories—A Brief Pseudo-Bayesian Metacritique of the Sources,” Intermountain West Journal of Religious Studies 6, no. 1 (2015): 63–96

Nicholas P. L. Allen, “Josephus on James the Just? A reevaluation of Antiquitates Judaicae 20.9.1,” Journal of Early Christian History 7 (2017): 1–27

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

Dave Allen, [forthcoming article reconstructing the TF in the Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism] holds that the James Passage did not originally refer to Jesus.

S. I. Kovalev, Osnovnyye Voprosy Proiskhozhdeniya Khristianstva (Moskva: Nauka, 1964), 33 considers it probably inauthentic, possibly referring to a different "Jesus" originally.

Ambrogio Donini, U istokov khristianstva (ot zarozhdeniya do Yustiniana), Second Edition (Moskva: Izdatel’stvo politicheskoy literatury, 1989), 50–52 contends that all references to Jesus in Josephus were interpolations and even suspects the Classical authors as well.

Kurt L. Noll, "Investigating Earliest Christianity without Jesus," in Thomas L. Thompson and Thomas S. Verenna (eds.), 'Is this not the Carpenter?' The Question of the Historicity of the Figure of Jesus (Sheffield: Equinox, 2012), 233-266 (250n56) says " I doubt that the two passages in Josephus that mention Jesus and James were unmolested by later Christian scribes. [...] In addition to the usual (and significant) arguments against the authenticity of the two passages in Josephus (A. J. 18.3.3; 20.9.1), it is worth noting that Josephus never uses the word ‘Christ’ except when mentioning Christianity’s Jesus, which suggests that the word was interpolated in both passages".

[ABuddhist]

I've been collecting bibliographic references to academics who challenge the authenticity (at least partially) of Josephus' Antiquities 20.200 (20.9.1) on James the brother of Jesus. I regard the passage as inauthentic myself, as I've noted elsewhere.

Would you be kind enough to present to us your reasoning? I would be interested in knowing your opinion that the reference was originally to Jesus ben Damneus, who would have been anointed as high priest.

[Chrissy Hansen]

Well, I do not consider the TF authentic because its language and style are remarkedly similar to Eusebius', we have no prior citations of it, and it fits Eusebius' agenda perfectly. Further, it appears that all of our manuscript tradition on it goes back to Eusebius as well. So, it is no surprise it appears elsewhere. Basically, just read Olson's.

As for 20.200, given that "the Christ" element would presume Josephus had already discussed the term (which he doesn't, TF is a forgery, imo). The term would not have been automatically familiar to Josephus' gentilic audience. Thus, the fact he just states it plainly either means (A) he had to discuss it previously, or (B) someone who already knew the term inserted it. That being said, I'll go as far as Olson in his 1999 article and contend that the entire phrase "the brother of Jesus who was called Christ" is an interpolation. I do not think the "Ben Damneus" argument is particularly persuasive. Likewise, it contradicts Christian tradition, implying a redactor decided to identify the two later on. I don't think Origen has knowledge of this passage in Josephus, but possibly another interpolation or tradition (or he is just making stuff up). The first author to actually cite this passage as a whole is Eusebius, once again. I would also contend that Christian alterations/insertions of small phrases is not unheard of. For instance, the name "Simon" replacing Atomos in Latin manuscripts. I'd argue this is an attempt to make Josephus align with Acts so that we get Simon Magus attested (who is, imo, an ahistorical character probably made as a literary double of Peter, cf. also Simon of Cyrene).

[MrMacSon]

Carrier's, “Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 20 (2012), has these in the first two footnotes (elaborated as a list here):

1. James Carleton Paget, “Some Observations on Josephus and Christianity,” Journal of Theological Studies 52 (2001): 539–624, esp. 546–54, which treats the scholarship on the passage in AJ 20.200 ...
   .
2. Many scholars have already proposed that the reference in AJ 20 is an interpolation; see
   • G. A. Wells, Did Jesus Exist? (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1975), 11, ...* and
   • Paget,^ “Some Observations,” 546–47 (Paget entertains the possibility [that AJ 20 is an interpolation]: 552 n. 45)
     
     * omits "K.A. Olson, “Eusebius and the ‘Testimonium Flavianum’,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61, no. 2 (1999): 305–22, at 315" b/c you have it above

There's also

• Baras, Z., "The Testimonium Flavianum and the Martyrdom of James", in Josephus, Judaism and Christianity, Feldman, Louis H.; Hata, Gōhei (eds), 1987; pp.308-313
  
  • "In the hands of Origen and Eusebius the incident described in AJ XX.200 [which Baras says has been defined as "the martyrdom of James"] became, through 'Christian historiosophical interpretation', the [proposed] 'main cause' for the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Temple.
    
    "Origen... not only attributed to Josephus a statement unknown to us from any other source or version but also "corrected" Josephus' alleged statement in a way favourable to the Christian historiosophical point of view."

• (and possibly also
  • Society and Religion in the Second Temple Period, Michael Avi-Yonah and Zvi Baras eds., (1977), pp.308-313 )

[Chrissy Hansen]

Yeah Paget ultimately argues against such an interpretation and has done so elsewhere as well. I forgot Wells. I need to check his most recent books to make sure he was still arguing that later on.

And reading through Zvi Baras' chapter, I can't find where he endorses an interpolation hypothesis of Ant. 20.200.

[MrMacSon]

... reading through Zvi Baras' chapter, I can't find where he endorses an interpolation hypothesis of Ant. 20.200.

Baras doesn't explicitly say it but his repeated use of historiosophical, eg. in "Christian historiosophical interpretation", "the Christian historiosophical point of view", and, at the end, "for the purposes of Christian historiosophy" are fairly indicative when 'historiosophy' means "historical interpretation based on a particular theological view".

And that last reference comes in these sentences

"The changes, for purposes of Christian historiosophy, proposed by Origen and carried out by Eusebius in the story of James' martyrdom are not without bearing on the Testimonium itself. It seems plausible that Eusebius treated the Testimonium in a similar way to what he had done with the story of James' martyrdom. He seems to have been concerned only with the need of the hour; being preoccupied with the Christian historiosophy shared by Origen and himself ... discrepancies that only meticulous research could reveal in due time."

I get the impression Baras was concerned about more than historical 'interpretation'.

[Chrissy Hansen]

Except the indication is that he seems to be saying that the Josephan passage may have been authentic, and is using historiosophical to discuss Christian bastardization of the text. Here Origen is doing some wild interpretative work, and Eusebius is basically carrying it all out. Nothing in the text gives me any clear indication that he thinks the text is interpolated. I'll look through more of Baras' work elsewhere, but until I find something pretty decisive I'm not going to include him in the bibliography just for accuracy's and carefulness' sake.

[Ken Olson]

I've been collecting bibliographic references to academics who challenge the authenticity (at least partially) of Josephus' Antiquities 20.200 (20.9.1) on James the brother of Jesus. I regard the passage as inauthentic myself, as I've noted elsewhere. But I've been trying to survey to see who else takes this position. Here is a collection I've come up with of references since 1960 in English, French, and German.

Anyone know any other references? Please feel free to add to my list.

Interestingly, there are two or three scholars who have argued that the version of the James passage found in Origen is authentic and the extant text is, therefore, inauthentic. Notably:

Sabrina Inowlocki, "Did Josephus Ascribe the Fall of Jerusalem to the Murder of James, Brother of Jesus?" Revue des études juives, 170 (1-2), janvier-juin 2011, pp. 21-49.

It can be downloaded from her Academia.edu site:

https://www.academia.edu/47127443/Did_J ... r_of_Jesus

IIRC P.-A. Bernheim 1996 (cited in Inowlocki) proposes a similar hypothesis.

Best,

Ken

[Chrissy Hansen]

I've been collecting bibliographic references to academics who challenge the authenticity (at least partially) of Josephus' Antiquities 20.200 (20.9.1) on James the brother of Jesus. I regard the passage as inauthentic myself, as I've noted elsewhere. But I've been trying to survey to see who else takes this position. Here is a collection I've come up with of references since 1960 in English, French, and German.

Anyone know any other references? Please feel free to add to my list.

Interestingly, there are two or three scholars who have argued that the version of the James passage found in Origen is authentic and the extant text is, therefore, inauthentic. Notably:

Sabrina Inowlocki, "Did Josephus Ascribe the Fall of Jerusalem to the Murder of James, Brother of Jesus?" Revue des études juives, 170 (1-2), janvier-juin 2011, pp. 21-49.

It can be downloaded from her Academia.edu site:

https://www.academia.edu/47127443/Did_J ... r_of_Jesus

IIRC P.-A. Benrheim 1996 (cited in Inowlocki) proposes a similar hypothesis.

Best,

Ken

That is wild. I've seen the theory proposed as a hypothetical (Zvi Baras brought it up), but did not think anyone still argued it. Good to know.

[Trees of Life]

I've been collecting bibliographic references to academics who challenge the authenticity (at least partially) of Josephus' Antiquities 20.200 (20.9.1) on James the brother of Jesus. I regard the passage as inauthentic myself, as I've noted elsewhere. But I've been trying to survey to see who else takes this position. Here is a collection I've come up with of references since 1960 in English, French, and German.

The passage within Antiquities 20.200 (20.9.1) has 'brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, named James.'
James brother of Jesus is not being referred to by Josephus in Antiquities 20.200.

In precise terms, James brother of Jesus son of Joseph is not being referred to.

James brother of the Lord is being referred to.

In precise terms, James brother of Jesus son of God is being referred to.

Psalm 2.2— anointed or Christ.
Psalm 2.7— 'thou my son.'


James son of Alphaeus also called James the Less:

James the Less was the biological son of Alphaeus and his first wife, Mary [History of Joseph the Carpenter]. Alphaeus was the son of Clopas. Clopas was the brother of Joseph the Carpenter. James the Less was the great nephew of Joseph the Carpenter.
Joseph and the Virgin Mary/Mariam became foster/redeemer parents of James the Less and his brother Judas when Alphaeus was widowed [History of Joseph the Carpenter]. Joseph enrolled James with Mary and kin in Bethlehem. James the Less was 'the son of Joseph brother of Jesus [The James Ossuary].

After six years according to Hebrew lore [Deut. 15.12] James and Judas were returned to Alphaeus who had married Mary/Maria, 'the other Mary', the Virgin Mary's younger sister.

James son of Zebedee.

James was the biological son of Zebedee and Mary. Zebedee is modified into Theudas, Greek for Zebedee. Both Zebedee and Theudas define as gift of God. The bishop of Jerusalem is referred to in archives as the brother of the Lord and in precise terms, the biological son of Theudas and Mary, in the Apocalypse of James.