Did Josephus say that Jesus was called Chrēstos?

Covering all topics of history and the interpretation of texts, posts here should conform to the norms of academic discussion: respectful and with a tight focus on the subject matter.

Moderator: andrewcriddle

User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8483
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Did Josephus say that Jesus was called Chrēstos?

Post by Peter Kirby »

I would suppose that "The Legend of James the Just and his Martyrdom" is a topic in its own right:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11668
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8483
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Did Josephus say that Jesus was called Chrēstos?

Post by Peter Kirby »

Peter Kirby wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2024 2:13 pm For a short while, I was almost persuaded that "He became a true witness, both to Jews and Greeks, that Jesus is the Christ, and immediately Vespasian besieged them." belonged to the wording of Eusebius. More careful study has persuaded me that this suspicion of mine was not correct. Some may still find my thought process here to be of interest, so I can share it.
Peter Kirby wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2024 2:13 pm
For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph. He also relates that Vespasian after the conquest of Jerusalem gave orders that all that belonged to the lineage of David should be sought out, in order that none of the royal race might be left among the Jews; and in consequence of this a most terrible persecution again hung over the Jews.

Of course, it's just possible that this means "Vespasian after the conquest of Jerusalem [by Titus]," but in either case Vespasian is the subject of the narrative of Hegesippus according to Eusebius, in a story told in close connection to the conquest of Jerusalem. And if the earlier reference forms part of the quotation of Hegesippus, it seems most natural to read Hegesippus as claiming that Vespasian was responsible for the conquest of Jerusalem by siege. This is consistent with what is said immediately before by Eusebius:

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.11.1-2. After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James. They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph.

Eusebius refers to the account of Hegesippus on Symeon becoming bishop again later (Ecclesiastical History, 4.22.4-5). It's unnatural to assume that Eusebius would be the source of a claim that Vespasian conducted the conquest of Jerusalem, given that Eusebius used Josephus and knew that Titus conducted the siege of Jerusalem. This makes it likely that the claim comes from Hegesippus, as something narrated after the death of James. The idea that Hegesippus put the death of James in very close proximity in time to the conquest of Jerusalem makes sense of what Eusebius says above about Symeon becoming the second bishop of Jerusalem, where the decision about who to succeed James is made after the conquest of Jerusalem.
Peter Kirby wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2024 2:13 pm This indicates further against attributing the words "immediately Vespasian besieged them" to Eusebius, who would have attributed the siege of Jerusalem more directly to Titus and places the death of James prior to the outbreak of the war, following Josephus.
Eusebius, who read Josephus, does refer to Titus in the context of the war and as the one who laid siege to Jerusalem.
Peter Kirby wrote: Sat Mar 16, 2024 10:28 pm
Origen, Against Celsus 2.13.

Origen, Against Celsus 2.13.
[E1] Τοῦτο γὰρ ἤρξατο μὲν ἔτι Νέρωνος βασιλεύοντος, παρέτεινε δὲ ἕως τῆς Οὐεσπασιανοῦ ἡγεμονίας, οὗ ὁ υἱὸς Τίτος καθεῖλε τὴν Ἱερουσαλήμ, [C] ὡς μὲν Ἰώσηπος γράφει, [E2] διὰ Ἰάκωβον τὸν δίκαιον, τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ, [G] ὡς δὲ ἡ ἀλήθεια παρίστησι, διὰ Ἰησοῦν τὸν Χριστὸν τοῦ θεοῦ.

[E1] For this [siege] began while Nero was still being king, and it lasted until the leadership of Vespasian, whose son Titus destroyed Jerusalem, [C] as Josephus writes, [E2] on account of James the just, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, [G] but, as the truth demonstrates, [actually] on account of Jesus the Christ of God.

These details at least, that "... armies around Jerusalem, encompassing and enclosing and besieging it; this began while Nero was still being king, and it lasted until the leadership of Vespasian, whose son Titus destroyed Jerusalem," seem to have been derived from Origen's reading of Josephus.

I found no reason to believe that Hegesippus had read Josephus: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11668 as the part about the stoning of James there could have been based on the Second Apocalypse of James. Such ignorance of the works of Josephus on the part of Hegesippus helps to explain the remarks of Hegesippus on Vespasian, in relation to the siege and conquest of Jerusalem, as quoted and paraphrased by Eusebius.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8483
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Did Josephus say that Jesus was called Chrēstos?

Post by Peter Kirby »

I have previously written that Eusebius treated Origen with great respect and had read Against Celsus 1.47.
Peter Kirby wrote: Tue Mar 19, 2024 10:39 am
Peter Kirby wrote: Sat Mar 16, 2024 9:01 pm
Euseb. H. E. II 1, 4f. Ὁ δ' αὐτὸς (Clemens) ἐν ἑβδόμῳ τῆς αὐτῆς ὑποθέσεως (d. i. der Hypotyposeis) ἔτι καὶ ταῦτα περὶ αὐτοῦ (d. i. den Jakobus) φησιν· »Ἰακώβῳ τῷ δικαίῳ καὶ Ἰωάννῃ καὶ Πέτρῳ μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν παρέδωκεν τὴν γνῶσιν ὁ κύριος, οὗτοι τοῖς λοιποῖς ἀποστόλοις παρέδωκαν, οἱ δὲ λοιποὶ ἀπόστολοι τοῖς ἑβδομήκοντα, ὧν εἷς ἦν καὶ Βαρνάβας. δύο δὲ γεγόνασιν Ἰάκωβοι, εἷς ὁ δίκαιος, ὁ κατὰ τοῦ πτερυγίου βληθεὶς καὶ ὑπὸ γναφέως ξύλῳ πληγεὶς εἰς θάνατον, ἕτερος δὲ ὁ καρατομηθείς. αὐτοῦ δὴ τοῦ δικαίου καὶ ὁ Παῦλος μνημονεύει γράφων· <ἕτερον δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εἶδον, εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου.>»

In the seventh book of the same Hypotyposeis, Clement also speaks concerning James as follows: "The Lord after His resurrection delivered knowledge to James the Just and to John and Peter; these delivered it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom one was Barnabas. But there are two Jameses: one called the Just, who was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple and beaten to death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded. And Paul mentions the Just, one of the apostles, in his writings, saying, 'But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord's brother.'"

This can also be punctuated this way:

But the same writer, in the seventh book of the same work, relates also the following things concerning him: "The Lord after his resurrection imparted knowledge to James the Just and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one. But there were two Jameses: one called the Just, who was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple and was beaten to death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded." Paul also makes mention of the same the Just, where he writes, "Other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother."

In this rendition, it would perhaps be Eusebius who was inspired to make this quote by Origen (Against Celsus 1.47), instead of Eusebius preserving part of a quote from Clement of Alexandria. I can't be certain, but the idea that it is two separate quotes seems consistent with the quotation habits of Eusebius and the respect that Eusebius paid to Origen.
When I wrote that, of course I had in mind the passage where Eusebius quotes something as though it came from Josephus, not because he found it in any copy of Josephus, but rather because he found it said by Origen in Against Celsus 1.47 (in the context of what Origen writes about Josephus).

Comparing what Eusebius writes to what Origen writes:

Origen, Against Celsus 1.47 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.23.20


ταῦτα συμβεβηκέναι τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις κατ’ ἐκδίκησιν Ἰακώβου
τοῦ δικαίου, ὃς ἦν ἀδελφὸς Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ,
ἐπειδήπερ δικαιότατον αὐτὸν ὄντα ἀπέκτειναν.
ἀμέλει γέ τοι ὁ Ἰώσηπος οὐκ ἀπώκνησεν καὶ τοῦτ'
ἐγγράφως ἐπιμαρτύρασθαι δι' ὧν φησιν λέξεων·
»ταῦτα δὲ συμβέβηκεν Ἰουδαίοις κατ' ἐκδίκησιν Ἰακώβου
τοῦ δικαίου, ὃς ἦν ἀδελφὸς Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ,
ἐπειδήπερ δικαιότατον αὐτὸν ὄντα οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἀπέκτειναν».


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.
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.”

Josephus of course would not have said directly what Eusebius presents as δι' ὧν φησιν λέξεων, and likewise Origen is most naturally read as providing his own words (and not the very words of Josephus) when saying, "[the Jews] having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice." The transfer here of Origen's words into Ecclesiastical History 2.23.20 is apparent, and thus so is the debt of Eusebius to Against Celsus 1.47.

To my mind, this renders feckless the idea of any such 'lost' reference in Josephus; if there were one, Eusebius didn't know about it.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8483
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Did Josephus say that Jesus was called Chrēstos?

Post by Peter Kirby »

Quoting Ben C. Smith:
Peter Kirby wrote: Sat Mar 16, 2024 10:28 pm E and G. On account of James and of Jesus:

Jerusalem, these things, to them, on account of James, the just, the brother of Jesus who is called Christ, on account of Jesus the Christ.

On Matthew 10.17.









...ειρηκεναι
κατα μηνιν θεου
ταυτα αυτοις
απηντηκεναι

δια
τα εις Ιακωβον

τον αδελφον Ιησου
του λεγομενου
Χριστου

υπ αυτων
τετολμημενα....




λεγει δε οτι
και ο λαος
ταυτα ενομιζε
δια τον Ιακωβον
πεπονθεναι.
Against Celsus 1.47.





...ο δε και ωσπερ
ακων ου μακραν

της αληθειας
γενομενος φησι

ταυτα
συμβεβηκεναι
τοις Ιουδαιοις
κατ εκδικησιν
Ιακωβου
του δικαιου, ος ην
αδελφος Ιησου
του λεγομενου
Χριστου
....


ειπερ ουν
δια Ιακωβον λεγει
συμβεβηκεναι τοις
Ιουδαιοις τα κατα
την ερημωσιν
της Ιερουσαλημ,
πως ουχι ευλογωτερον
δια Ιησουν
τον Χριστον

τουτο φασκειν
γεγονεναι;
Against Celsus 2.13.
Τουτο γαρ ηρξατο
μεν ετι Νερωνος
βασιλευοντος,
παρετεινε δε εως
της Ουεσπασιανου
ηγεμονιας, ου ο
υιος Τιτος καθειλε
την Ιερουσαλημ...






δια
Ιακωβον
τον δικαιον,
τον αδελφον Ιησου
του λεγομενου
Χριστου

ως δε η αληθεια
παριστησι,







δια Ιησουν
τον Χριστον

του θεου.

In his inimitable style, Andrew Criddle once wrote:

https://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/sh ... dfecc.html
There are IMO three possible explanations for the major differences between this and our text of Josephus

1/ The two are independent Origen's claim is not derived from the text of Josephus and our current text of Josephus is in no way based on what Origen says. This seems possible but unlikely, the two passages agree in such things as calling James the brother of Jesus called Christ.

2/ Origen's claim is a Christian distortion of Josephus but based on something actually in Josephus' text, most simply on our present text of Josephus. IMO this is the most likely.

3/ Our present text of Josephus has been affected by Origen's claim. IMO this is the least likely option. It requires Origen's claim to be rewritten into something less related to Christian concerns.

User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8483
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Did Josephus say that Jesus was called Chrēstos?

Post by Peter Kirby »

In the same thread, Ben C. Smith offered:
Ben C. Smith wrote:I would add that Josephus himself uses language that would perhaps seem, to a Christian, to tie the punishment of Ananus (for his unlawful actions against James and certain others) with the punishment of the country as a whole:

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. 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.

....

Now all this was contrary to the laws of our country, which, whenever they have been transgressed, we have never been able to avoid the punishment of such transgressions.

Post Reply