Ganging up On Josephus James Ganghymn Style. The Argument Against Josephus James.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1469
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Ganging up On Josephus James Ganghymn Style. The Argument Against Josephus James.

Post by JoeWallack »

Seems To Me. Josephus Don't Want To Talk About It.

JW:
The purpose of this Thread is to inventory the reasons supporting the argument that the only place you can find
the Christian James mentioned in original Josephus is in "They Never Said That". I have faith that most Skeptics
don't appreciate just how good the argument is. I'm not really concerned with what Believers like "John" Stauros
think since they also think that Jesus sacrificed himself to himself thereby conquering death by dying and
putting an end to his own eternal law.

So let's start the list with the same best reason not to think Josephus originally wrote the TF:

1) The Argument from Silence:

1 - No evidence for the He's Dead James(HDJ) before Eusebius, except possibly Origen.
  • 1) General silence - expectation that if the HDJ existed it would have been used due to its importance to Christianity.
    • 1 - Probably most, if not all, Church Fathers would have heard of/been familiar with Josephus as he was the official historian of 1st century Israel where they thought Jesus was from.

      2 - For Church Fathers with a minimum of extant writings, most refer to/quote from Josephus and he is actually the most referred to non-Christian author of the early Church.

      3 - After Eusebius some major Church authors still don't refer to the HDJ Presumably because their copies don't have it.
    2) Specific silence - http://vridar.wordpress.com/2009/03/06/josephus/
    • ca.140 CE Justin Martyr
      • For the Cave, consider that Justin was a philosopher in
        Rome and his interests were:

        1) Jesus

        2) 1st century Israel

        3) Arguing with Pagan and Jewish philosophers

        The related question should be:

        Why wouldn't Justin be familiar with Josephus?

        I also wonder if the Cave is even willing to concede that
        extant Church Father writings prove the Fathers could
        read and write. Maybe they just dictated, or maybe they
        became blind or maybe they were temporarily sight-
        impared while Josephus was in front of them.
      ca.170 CE Theophilus - uses Josephus

      ca.180 CE Irenaeus - uses Josephus

      ca.190 CE Clement of Alexandria - uses Josephus

      ca.200 CE Tertullian - uses Josephus

      ca.200 CE Minucius Felix - uses Josephus

      ca.210 CE Hippolytus - uses Josephus

      ca.220 CE Sextus Julius Africanus - uses Josephus

      ca.230 CE [backing up truck noise]Origen[/backing up truck noise] - uses Josephus
      See 3 "James, the brother of Jesus" passage
      Origen specifically says that Josephus mentions a Christian James in two separate Origen writings. Jesus, that's pretty direct. But (and I cannot lie, I like big buts) most of the related detail Origen attributes to Josephus is not in extant Josephus but in extant Hegesippus. So it's possible
      Origen never saw it in Josephus. Then note the following Patristics who still make no mention of it. Origen, being the outstanding Textual Critic of the early Church, was subsequently accused of Judaizing his writings which were then edited. More uncertainty.

      ca.240 CE Cyprian

      ca.270 CE Anatolius - uses Josephus

      ca.290 CE Arnobius

      ca.300 CE Methodius - uses Josephus

      ca.300 CE Lactantius

      Of the 13 Fathers here who show no awareness of the HDJ 9 show use of Josephus. In addition a decent argument can be
      made that a few of the 4 who show no clear reference to Josephus do have some decent parallels. Comically, Roger Pearse started this list in order to demonstrate that the Fathers in general would have no interest in Josephus and ends up demonstrating that the conclusion he disputes is correct.

      Note that it's not just the quantity of Patristics who show no awareness of the HDJ up to E (Eusebius) that is remarkable but
      also the quantity of years, over 200, with no* awareness of the HDJ.
    The Argument from Silence is normally a weak argument but here the quality and quantity of it makes it look like, as the Brits say, The Cruncher.


    Josephus

    The Palestinians should not launch knives, bullets and rockets at the Israelis but the Israelis should not give houses back to the descendants of
    Jews who had their houses stolen from them by the Palestinians. - Andy Levin

    http://thenewporphyry.blogspot.com/
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 651
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: Ganging up On Josephus James Ganghymn Style. The Argument Against Josephus James.

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

Great thread starter, Joe.

The problem is inherently difficult: to authenticate two words in an ancient text (or if you prefer, a half dozen or so words, if the issue is whether Josephus singled out any of the defendants at that trial).

What confidence is justified in any statement about what those words were originally?

A reasonable, but not obligatory, model of transmission holds that Eusebius's witness was in effect legislative for later scribes, similar to what many or most of us think happened with the Flavian Testimony. Once Eusebius's witness was interpreted as a block quote, then if your exemplar read differently, then it was corrupted.

In the James case, only with pain can Eusebius's recitation of the trial narrative be interpreted other than as a block quote, and what he says is there is the phrase (brother of) Jesus called Christ. No dissent, if there ever was any, survives. So, any bearing evidence (besides analysis of Eusebius's reliability as a fact witness) needs to come from before the weighty pronouncement of Eusebius.

The pattern of earlier non-citation by known users of Josephus is surely relevant. I am unsure of its warranted strength, however. In the end, if the received Josephus is authentic, then all it establishes is the existence of James. The received passage doesn't even say the death sentence was carried out. Whiston thought 62 was too early to agree with other Christian writing on the death of James.

To quote something, a writer needs to know it's there (this brief and digresive mention is easy to miss), and needs to be making a point that the passage supports. "James was sentenced and maybe executed with due process according to Jewish law, but contrary to Roman law" is what the passage reports. This seems an aspect of James's career that may not have come up often before Origen.
No evidence for the He's Dead James(HDJ) before Eusebius, except possibly Origen.
Origen's witness is surely a hash. My own view is that he should be read parallel to Bart Ehrman's witness to "Letter 10" of Pliny to Trajan. There is no question that Ehrman intends to refer to actual correspondence between Pliny and Trajan, and a good deal of what his report implies is actually true of the received correspondence (yes, fire brigades and Christians were subjects of the correspondence), but the report is false (it was two different letters, there was only one fire mentioned, ...).

Origen's report implies that in Book 20 of the Antiquities Josephus claimed that God caused the destruction of 70 CE on account of the unjust killing of somebody other than Jesus Christ. Yes, that's so, and in as many words.

Referring to assassins in or near the Temple (end of 20.8.5)
And this seems to me to have been the reason why God, out of his hatred of these men’s wickedness, rejected our city; and as for the temple, he no longer esteemed it sufficiently pure for him to inhabit therein, but brought the Romans upon us, and threw a fire upon the city to purge it.
The $64 question then becomes why does Origen associate this judgment of God with the trial narrated several hundred words later in the same book? Two leading theories: because the trial was indeed of James, brother of Jesus called Christ, or Origen supplied the called Christ from Matthew and misapplied it to the trial of some other James, perhaps with a brother named Jesus and a father whose name appears in the text in the vicinity of the trial (Damneus, Gamaliel or Ananus).

Damned if I know. The bottom line, though, is that there is ample justification for severe uncertainty surrounding this authentication largely accepted by a consensus. Once again, great thread.
Ken Olson
Posts: 866
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Ganging up On Josephus James Ganghymn Style. The Argument Against Josephus James.

Post by Ken Olson »

Just a reminder, Sabrina Inowlocki had pointed out an instance of Eusebius adding his own gloss to explain or further identify a name for his Christian readers when quoting a source in Demonstartio Evangelica 8.2, where he is quoting Antiquities 18:

Josephus, himself a Hebrew, is sufficient evidence of this, giving the history of those times in the Eighteenth Book of the Archaeology of the Jews:
"Herod was then made king by the Romans, but did no longer appoint High-Priests out of the family of Asamonaeus, and these were called Maccabeans, but made certain men to be so that were of no eminent families, but only of the Hebrew race, excepting that he gave that dignity to Aristobulus; for he made this Aristobulus, the son of Hyrcanus, high priest, and took his sister Mariamne to wife, aiming at winning the goodwill of the people through their memory of Hyrcanus. Yet did he afterwards, out of his fear lest they should (398) all bend their inclinations to Aristobulus, put him to death in Jericho, and that by contriving to have him suffocated while swimming, as I have already related. But after this man he never entrusted the High Priesthood to the descendants of Hyrcanus. Archelaus also acted like his father Herod in the appointment of the High-Priests, as did also the Romans, who took the government over the Jews into their hands afterwards."
And again in another place he says of them ...

https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/euse ... ook8.htm#6

Eusebius is quoting Josephus Ant. 20.10.5/20.247, not book 18, and he has added his own gloss 'and these were called the Maccabeans' so that his (presumably Christian) readers will know that the family of Asamonaeus are the same as the Maccabees from the Book of Maccabees which he has been discussing in book 8 of the Demonstratio.

So adding the identifier 'the brother of Jesus who was called Christ' or just 'who was called Christ" as a Eusebian identifying gloss for the man put on trial in Ant. 20.200 would not be entirely unprecedented in his work or outside of the parameters of his level of accuracy in quotation.

Best,

Ken
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2316
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Ganging up On Josephus James Ganghymn Style. The Argument Against Josephus James.

Post by andrewcriddle »

Ken Olson wrote: Fri Jul 22, 2022 5:52 am Just a reminder, Sabrina Inowlocki had pointed out an instance of Eusebius adding his own gloss to explain or further identify a name for his Christian readers when quoting a source in Demonstartio Evangelica 8.2, where he is quoting Antiquities 18:

Josephus, himself a Hebrew, is sufficient evidence of this, giving the history of those times in the Eighteenth Book of the Archaeology of the Jews:
"Herod was then made king by the Romans, but did no longer appoint High-Priests out of the family of Asamonaeus, and these were called Maccabeans, but made certain men to be so that were of no eminent families, but only of the Hebrew race, excepting that he gave that dignity to Aristobulus; for he made this Aristobulus, the son of Hyrcanus, high priest, and took his sister Mariamne to wife, aiming at winning the goodwill of the people through their memory of Hyrcanus. Yet did he afterwards, out of his fear lest they should (398) all bend their inclinations to Aristobulus, put him to death in Jericho, and that by contriving to have him suffocated while swimming, as I have already related. But after this man he never entrusted the High Priesthood to the descendants of Hyrcanus. Archelaus also acted like his father Herod in the appointment of the High-Priests, as did also the Romans, who took the government over the Jews into their hands afterwards."
And again in another place he says of them ...

https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/euse ... ook8.htm#6

Eusebius is quoting Josephus Ant. 20.10.5/20.247, not book 18, and he has added his own gloss 'and these were called the Maccabeans' so that his (presumably Christian) readers will know that the family of Asamonaeus are the same as the Maccabees from the Book of Maccabees which he has been discussing in book 8 of the Demonstratio.

So adding the identifier 'the brother of Jesus who was called Christ' or just 'who was called Christ" as a Eusebian identifying gloss for the man put on trial in Ant. 20.200 would not be entirely unprecedented in his work or outside of the parameters of his level of accuracy in quotation.

Best,

Ken
My issue here is that although IMO 'who was called Christ" is a plausible Eusebian identifying gloss an original Josephan text 'James the brother of Jesus [unidentified]' is unlikely. Whereas 'the brother of Jesus who was called Christ'' is (again IMO) a rather drastic identifying gloss for Eusebius not really paralleled by examples like 'and these were called the Maccabeans''

Andrew Criddle
Ken Olson
Posts: 866
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Ganging up On Josephus James Ganghymn Style. The Argument Against Josephus James.

Post by Ken Olson »

andrewcriddle wrote: Fri Jul 22, 2022 11:33 pm My issue here is that although IMO 'who was called Christ" is a plausible Eusebian identifying gloss an original Josephan text 'James the brother of Jesus [unidentified]' is unlikely. Whereas 'the brother of Jesus who was called Christ'' is (again IMO) a rather drastic identifying gloss for Eusebius not really paralleled by examples like 'and these were called the Maccabeans''

Andrew Criddle
The theory I'm proposing is a bit more complex than that. Eusebius is taking the language of the gloss from Origen and applying it to the James he found executed in the Antiquities.

18. And one of them, who was a fuller, took the club with which he beat out clothes and struck the just man on the head. And thus he suffered martyrdom. And they buried him on the spot, by the temple, and his monument still remains by the temple. He became a true witness, both to Jews and Greeks, that Jesus is the Christ. And immediately Vespasian besieged them.
19. These things are related at length by Hegesippus, who is in agreement with Clement. James was so admirable a man and so celebrated among all for his justice, that the more sensible even of the Jews were of the opinion that this was the cause of the siege of Jerusalem, which happened to them immediately after his martyrdom for no other reason than their daring act against him.

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.
21. And the same writer records his death also in the twentieth book of his Antiquities in the following words:
But the emperor, when he learned of the death of Festus, sent Albinus to be procurator of Judea. But the younger Ananus, who, as we have already said, had obtained the high priesthood, was of an exceedingly bold and reckless disposition. He belonged, moreover, to the sect of the Sadducees, who are the most cruel of all the Jews in the execution of judgment, as we have already shown.

22. Ananus, therefore, being of this character, and supposing that he had a favorable opportunity on account of the fact that Festus was dead, and Albinus was still on the way, called together the Sanhedrin, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ, James by name, together with some others, and accused them of violating the law, and condemned them to be stoned.
(Eusebius, HE, 2.23)

In HE 2.23, Eusebius first quotes the legendary story of James from Hegesippus.

Then he quotes what Origen claimed Josephus had said in Contra Celsum 1.47 (cf. Contra Celsum 2.13, Commentary on Matthew 10.15), turning Origen's indirect speech into direct speech. Eusebius does not locate it in the text of the Antiquities because it's not there. His authority for the passage is Origen.

Eusebius finds the man executed in Ant 20.200, whose name may have been James already in that text, and who was brought before before a Sanhedrin of judges by the high priest and put on trial to be stoned. Eusebius considers this man to be the most plausible figure that Origen could have meant, even though the event is a few years earlier and the details are not precisely the same. Eusebius identifies the man with the identifier Origen had used. (How James was originally identified in Ant. 20.200 I don't know - 'a certain man"?).

Best,

Ken
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2316
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Ganging up On Josephus James Ganghymn Style. The Argument Against Josephus James.

Post by andrewcriddle »

Ken Olson wrote: Sat Jul 23, 2022 12:32 am
andrewcriddle wrote: Fri Jul 22, 2022 11:33 pm My issue here is that although IMO 'who was called Christ" is a plausible Eusebian identifying gloss an original Josephan text 'James the brother of Jesus [unidentified]' is unlikely. Whereas 'the brother of Jesus who was called Christ'' is (again IMO) a rather drastic identifying gloss for Eusebius not really paralleled by examples like 'and these were called the Maccabeans''

Andrew Criddle
The theory I'm proposing is a bit more complex than that. Eusebius is taking the language of the gloss from Origen and applying it to the James he found executed in the Antiquities.

18. And one of them, who was a fuller, took the club with which he beat out clothes and struck the just man on the head. And thus he suffered martyrdom. And they buried him on the spot, by the temple, and his monument still remains by the temple. He became a true witness, both to Jews and Greeks, that Jesus is the Christ. And immediately Vespasian besieged them.
19. These things are related at length by Hegesippus, who is in agreement with Clement. James was so admirable a man and so celebrated among all for his justice, that the more sensible even of the Jews were of the opinion that this was the cause of the siege of Jerusalem, which happened to them immediately after his martyrdom for no other reason than their daring act against him.

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.
21. And the same writer records his death also in the twentieth book of his Antiquities in the following words:
But the emperor, when he learned of the death of Festus, sent Albinus to be procurator of Judea. But the younger Ananus, who, as we have already said, had obtained the high priesthood, was of an exceedingly bold and reckless disposition. He belonged, moreover, to the sect of the Sadducees, who are the most cruel of all the Jews in the execution of judgment, as we have already shown.

22. Ananus, therefore, being of this character, and supposing that he had a favorable opportunity on account of the fact that Festus was dead, and Albinus was still on the way, called together the Sanhedrin, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ, James by name, together with some others, and accused them of violating the law, and condemned them to be stoned.
(Eusebius, HE, 2.23)

In HE 2.23, Eusebius first quotes the legendary story of James from Hegesippus.

Then he quotes what Origen claimed Josephus had said in Contra Celsum 1.47 (cf. Contra Celsum 2.13, Commentary on Matthew 10.15), turning Origen's indirect speech into direct speech. Eusebius does not locate it in the text of the Antiquities because it's not there. His authority for the passage is Origen.

Eusebius finds the man executed in Ant 20.200, whose name may have been James already in that text, and who was brought before before a Sanhedrin of judges by the high priest and put on trial to be stoned. Eusebius considers this man to be the most plausible figure that Origen could have meant, even though the event is a few years earlier and the details are not precisely the same. Eusebius identifies the man with the identifier Origen had used. (How James was originally identified in Ant. 20.200 I don't know - 'a certain man"?).

Best,

Ken
IF Eusebius is glossing using Origen's identifier i.e. James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the Christ one might expect a reference to Just James eg. the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ, named James the Just.

Andrew Criddle
Ken Olson
Posts: 866
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Ganging up On Josephus James Ganghymn Style. The Argument Against Josephus James.

Post by Ken Olson »

andrewcriddle wrote: Sat Jul 23, 2022 1:36 am IF Eusebius is glossing using Origen's identifier i.e. James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the Christ one might expect a reference to Just James eg. the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ, named James the Just.

Andrew Criddle
He might have done, but I don't know that we should expect he would necessarily do so. In the passage Eusebius attributes to Josephus, he seems to be following Origen's wording in Contra Celsum 1.47. In the parallel passage in Origen Commentary on Matthew 10.17, Origen refers simply to James, not James the Just, so it seems to have been dispensable:

these things came to pass against them in accordance with the ire of God on account of the things which were dared by them against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wondrous thing is that, although he did not accept our Jesus to be Christ, he yet testified that the justice of James was not at all small (Origen, Commentary on Matthew 10.17)
http://www.textexcavation.com/josephustestimonium.html

On the theory under consideration, the Antiquities may have already had the 'James by name" part of τον αδελφον Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου, Ιακωβος ονομα αυτω. In order to identify the James in Ant.20.200 as the Christian James it would have been necessary to identify him as the brother of Jesus, and to identify that Jesus as the one who was called Christ (note the traditional explanation that there are many Jesuses in Josephus and Richard Carrier's alternative Jesus, son of Damneus), but the appellation the Just would not have been necessary, was dispensable (at least to Origen), and Eusebius might well have opted to let Ιακωβος ονομα αυτω stand.

Added note: in the Demonstratio Evangelica, which is earlier than the Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius writes:

Herod again later on, the King of the Jews, killed James the brother of John with the sword, and cast Peter into prison, as is written in the Acts of the Apostles. [Acts xii.1-3] And yet, though they had suffered thus, the rest of the disciples held tenaciously to Jesus, and were still more diligent in preaching to all of Him and His miracles. Afterwards James, the Lord's brother, whom of old the people of Jerusalem called "the Just" for his extraordinary virtue, being asked by the chief priests, and teachers of the Jews what he thought about Christ, and answering that He was the Son of God, was also stoned by them.57 Peter was crucified head downwards at Rome,58 Paul beheaded,59 and John exiled to an island. Yet though they suffered thus, not one of the others gave up his intention, (d) but they made their prayer to God that they themselves might suffer a like fate for their religion, and continue to bear witness to Jesus and his marvelous works. (DE 3.5, the same chapter where in which Eusebius first quotes the TF)

He doesn't cite Josephus Ant. 20.200 in support here, and the passage as we know it may not have been in the manuscripts yet (i.e., as would be the case if the current text is based on the reading in the later HE).

Best,

Ken
gryan
Posts: 791
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Ganging up On Josephus James Ganghymn Style. The Argument Against Josephus James.

Post by gryan »

Ken Olson wrote: Sat Jul 23, 2022 5:33 am
andrewcriddle wrote: Sat Jul 23, 2022 1:36 am IF Eusebius is glossing using Origen's identifier i.e. James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the Christ one might expect a reference to Just James eg. the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ, named James the Just.

Andrew Criddle
He might have done, but I don't know that we should expect he would necessarily do so. In the passage Eusebius attributes to Josephus, he seems to be following Origen's wording in Contra Celsum 1.47. In the parallel passage in Origen Commentary on Matthew 10.17, Origen refers simply to James, not James the Just, so it seems to have been dispensable:

these things came to pass against them in accordance with the ire of God on account of the things which were dared by them against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wondrous thing is that, although he did not accept our Jesus to be Christ, he yet testified that the justice of James was not at all small (Origen, Commentary on Matthew 10.17)
http://www.textexcavation.com/josephustestimonium.html

On the theory under consideration, the Antiquities may have already had the 'James by name" part of τον αδελφον Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου, Ιακωβος ονομα αυτω. In order to identify the James in Ant.20.200 as the Christian James it would have been necessary to identify him as the brother of Jesus, and to identify that Jesus as the one who was called Christ (note the traditional explanation that there are many Jesuses in Josephus and Richard Carrier's alternative Jesus, son of Damneus), but the appellation the Just would not have been necessary, was dispensable (at least to Origen), and Eusebius might well have opted to let Ιακωβος ονομα αυτω stand.

Added note: in the Demonstratio Evangelica, which is earlier than the Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius writes:

Herod again later on, the King of the Jews, killed James the brother of John with the sword, and cast Peter into prison, as is written in the Acts of the Apostles. [Acts xii.1-3] And yet, though they had suffered thus, the rest of the disciples held tenaciously to Jesus, and were still more diligent in preaching to all of Him and His miracles. Afterwards James, the Lord's brother, whom of old the people of Jerusalem called "the Just" for his extraordinary virtue, being asked by the chief priests, and teachers of the Jews what he thought about Christ, and answering that He was the Son of God, was also stoned by them.57 Peter was crucified head downwards at Rome,58 Paul beheaded,59 and John exiled to an island. Yet though they suffered thus, not one of the others gave up his intention, (d) but they made their prayer to God that they themselves might suffer a like fate for their religion, and continue to bear witness to Jesus and his marvelous works. (DE 3.5, the same chapter where in which Eusebius first quotes the TF)

He doesn't cite Josephus Ant. 20.200 in support here, and the passage as we know it may not have been in the manuscripts yet (i.e., as would be the case if the current text is based on the reading in the later HE).

Best,

Ken
@Ken Olson

For reference and further study, is this particular argument in any of your published papers?
Ken Olson
Posts: 866
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Ganging up On Josephus James Ganghymn Style. The Argument Against Josephus James.

Post by Ken Olson »

gryan wrote: Sat Jul 23, 2022 9:46 am
Ken Olson wrote: Sat Jul 23, 2022 5:33 am
andrewcriddle wrote: Sat Jul 23, 2022 1:36 am IF Eusebius is glossing using Origen's identifier i.e. James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the Christ one might expect a reference to Just James eg. the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ, named James the Just.

Andrew Criddle
He might have done, but I don't know that we should expect he would necessarily do so. In the passage Eusebius attributes to Josephus, he seems to be following Origen's wording in Contra Celsum 1.47. In the parallel passage in Origen Commentary on Matthew 10.17, Origen refers simply to James, not James the Just, so it seems to have been dispensable:

these things came to pass against them in accordance with the ire of God on account of the things which were dared by them against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wondrous thing is that, although he did not accept our Jesus to be Christ, he yet testified that the justice of James was not at all small (Origen, Commentary on Matthew 10.17)
http://www.textexcavation.com/josephustestimonium.html

On the theory under consideration, the Antiquities may have already had the 'James by name" part of τον αδελφον Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου, Ιακωβος ονομα αυτω. In order to identify the James in Ant.20.200 as the Christian James it would have been necessary to identify him as the brother of Jesus, and to identify that Jesus as the one who was called Christ (note the traditional explanation that there are many Jesuses in Josephus and Richard Carrier's alternative Jesus, son of Damneus), but the appellation the Just would not have been necessary, was dispensable (at least to Origen), and Eusebius might well have opted to let Ιακωβος ονομα αυτω stand.

Added note: in the Demonstratio Evangelica, which is earlier than the Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius writes:

Herod again later on, the King of the Jews, killed James the brother of John with the sword, and cast Peter into prison, as is written in the Acts of the Apostles. [Acts xii.1-3] And yet, though they had suffered thus, the rest of the disciples held tenaciously to Jesus, and were still more diligent in preaching to all of Him and His miracles. Afterwards James, the Lord's brother, whom of old the people of Jerusalem called "the Just" for his extraordinary virtue, being asked by the chief priests, and teachers of the Jews what he thought about Christ, and answering that He was the Son of God, was also stoned by them.57 Peter was crucified head downwards at Rome,58 Paul beheaded,59 and John exiled to an island. Yet though they suffered thus, not one of the others gave up his intention, (d) but they made their prayer to God that they themselves might suffer a like fate for their religion, and continue to bear witness to Jesus and his marvelous works. (DE 3.5, the same chapter where in which Eusebius first quotes the TF)

He doesn't cite Josephus Ant. 20.200 in support here, and the passage as we know it may not have been in the manuscripts yet (i.e., as would be the case if the current text is based on the reading in the later HE).

Best,

Ken
@Ken Olson

For reference and further study, is this particular argument in any of your published papers?
No, it isn't. My argument has changed since I first published in 1999, when I took the claims of the external witnesses like Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, and the Chronicon Paschale to mean there really were different forms of Josephus' Antiquities floating around with different form of the James passage. I realized not long after it was published that it was more likely that Origen had made an error and that Eusebius had taken him to be correct and the later witnesses were quoting Eusebius (and/or possibly Origen). They weren't actually checking the text of the Antiquities to see if was there. (Ancient writers are horrible about verifying their references; so are a lot of modern authors). I didn't address the James passage in my 2013 paper to keep that focused and on topic (for the Eusebius section of the SBL). I've discussed it in a couple of SBL papers, on this list, and a few other places online (like the now defunct Crosstalk list).

Best,

Ken


and I've mad it in various forms on this list before. Maybe I should write it up and post it on my blog.
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1469
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

The Argument From Context

Post by JoeWallack »

Pump Up The James Argument. Hey, LXX Laity.

JW:
After The Argument From Silence the next best argument against Josephus James, The Argument From Context. Dr. Carrier gives the context argument here Reading Josephus on James: On Valliant Flunking Literary Theory.

Looking at the glory of James through the hole:

The Antiquities of the Jews/Book XX
Chapter 9

CONCERNING ALBINUS UNDER WHOSE PROCURATORSHIP JAMES WAS SLAIN; AS ALSO WHAT EDIFICES WERE BUILT BY AGRIPPA.

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,[23] 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 [to exercise his authority]. 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, [or, some of his companions]; 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 [Agrippa], 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.[24] 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.
General context
The primary subject is Ananus, son of Ananus, who is appointed High Priest. Ananus is guilty of breaking the Law by assembling the Sanhedrin without the permission of the Governor. James is relatively unimportant to the story. He is accused of breaking the Law. No mention of what he did or what happened to him. Seems like quite a coincidence that the McGuffin in the story is one of the most famous Christians in the early Church. Note the Markan like irony here that Ananus is guilty of breaking the law by accusing this James of breaking the law.

Specific context
1. Identification of James.
The Jewish form is normally soandso son of soandso. Ananus, son of Ananus. Jesus, son of Damneus. Here we have "the brother of Jesus". This is a Christian type of identification.
2. Identification of Jesus.
"Who was called Christ". Josephus is writing from a Jewish perspective and not a Christian one. Jews would not have called/referred to Jesus as "Christ".
3. If Josephus was referring to the same Jesus in the TF he normally says "the same".
4. An even bigger coincidence than this same James being the accused here is that another Jesus gets the High Priesthood after Ananus' removal. A possibility is that Jesus Ben Damneus was a rival for the High Priesthood and Ananus accused his brother, who may have been lax towards the Law, to smear the family. When Ananus is removed, Jesus Ben Damneus is the logical replacement.

Dr. Carrier's article is detailed and full of good insights and logic but Jesus F. Krist are his conclusions overstated. Skeptics rightly point out that we have no credible extant witness for what Josephus originally wrote so there is no quality evidence that HDJ is original. But it has to work both ways. We also have no quality evidence that HDJ is not original. Maybe there was a James, brother of Jesus, who was a Christian leader, and a High Priest did accuse him of breaking the Law, and that's what Josephus wrote. I don't know, I wasn't there. All we are doing is comparing relatively bad evidence in a who can make the best bad argument contest. Try to focus on the evidence and not worry so much about conclusions.

Speaking of the best bad arguments, up next, the Disconnect Origen/Eusebius (Doe!) Argument.


Joseph

HISTORIAN, n. A broad-gauge gossip.

The New Porphyry
Post Reply