Josephus Antiquities 20.200 on James: The scholars who doubt

[andrewcriddle]

There are as previously stated various forms of the Ben Damneus hypothesis.
IF the idea is that instead of James the brother of Jesus called Christ the original text of Josephus read James the brother of Jesus meaning Jesus ben Damneus, then it would be unlikely that Josephus would describe things this way. One would expect James ben Damneus as the name of the executed man and Jesus the brother of James as the name of the new high priest.

Andrew Criddle

[Paul the Uncertain]

There are as previously stated various forms of the Ben Damneus hypothesis.
IF the idea is that instead of James the brother of Jesus called Christ the original text of Josephus read James the brother of Jesus meaning Jesus ben Damneus, then it would be unlikely that Josephus would describe things this way. One would expect James ben Damneus as the name of the executed man and Jesus the brother of James as the name of the new high priest.

Andrew Criddle

There are a few things that bother me, maybe you or the community can help. First, I know it's a small point, but Josephus doesn't say that James was executed, only that he was handed over for execution. This was immediately followed in Josephus's account by high-status individuals complaining to the incoming governor and to the king. Is it certain that James was executed and then people complained afterward, or was one possible point of the complaints to prevent the sentence from being carried out?

(While I may be wrong in considering the latter as a serious possibility, that is not solecist. Whiston, who believed that James the Convicted was indeed James the Just, also believed this James was executed later, not as a result of this trial.)

Second, Gamaliel is about as likely a candidate string as Damneus, Carrier's teaching in favor of Damneus notwithstanding. If James's brother were shown to be Jesus ben Gamaliel, a later high priest, then would that affect your level of surpise?

@ABuddhist

No worries, and thank you for the kind words.

[ABuddhist]

Second, Gamaliel is about as likely a candidate string as Damneus, Carrier's teaching in favor of Damneus notwithstanding. If James's brother were shown to be Jesus ben Gamaliel, a later high priest, then would that affect your level of surpise?

To me, both seem more plausible than a reference to Jesus Christ. After all, Christianity, according to all but the most zealous fundamentalist, was a tiny movement during the 60s CE in Judea. Why would the death of its leader/founder's brother be noteworthy? In contrast, the death of a man who was brother to a future high priest (and thus presumably from a powerful Jewish family in Judea) would be the sort of thing which Josephus would have noted.

I assume the conventional narration, in which James was executed, for this response, but if it referred only to his being sentenced to death, my point would remain, in the form: "Why would the sentencing to death of its leader/founder's brother be noteworthy? In contrast, the sentencing to death of a man who was brother to a future high priest (and thus presumably from a powerful Jewish family in Judea) would be the sort of thing which Josephus would have noted."

[John2]

... Christianity, according to all but the most zealous fundamentalist, was a tiny movement during the 60s CE in Judea ... "Why would the sentencing to death of its leader/founder's brother be noteworthy? In contrast, the sentencing to death of a man who was brother to a future high priest (and thus presumably from a powerful Jewish family in Judea) would be the sort of thing which Josephus would have noted."

Romans is thought to have been written in the 50's CE and in 1:8 Paul notes that the faith of Roman Christians was "being proclaimed all over the world," and this alone could have made Christianity (and the death of its founder's brother) noteworthy to Josephus.

And Cassius Dio (67.14) notes that around the time Josephus published the Antiquities, Flavius Clemens and his wife Flavia Domitilla and "many others" had "drifted into Jewish ways," and Domitilla (if not also Clemens and "many others") may have been a Christian, as per Eusebius in EH 3.18.4-5:

To such a degree, indeed, did the teaching of our faith flourish at that time that even those writers who were far from our religion did not hesitate to mention in their histories the persecution and the martyrdoms which took place during it.

And they, indeed, accurately indicated the time. For they recorded that in the fifteenth year of Domitian Flavia Domitilla, daughter of a sister of Flavius Clement, who at that time was one of the consuls of Rome, was exiled with many others to the island of Pontia in consequence of testimony borne to Christ.

And Eusebius mentions one of these writers who were presumably "far from our religion" in his Chronicon:

Brutius writes that there were very many Christian martyrs under Domitian, among whom were Flavia Domitilla ... she was exiled to the island of Pontia, because she bore witness that she was a Christian.

And since Josephus had been adopted into the same family as Domitilla, her religion and the death of its founder's brother (who was a preeminent leader of her religion during her lifetime) could have been noteworthy to him.

[ABuddhist]

... Christianity, according to all but the most zealous fundamentalist, was a tiny movement during the 60s CE in Judea ... "Why would the sentencing to death of its leader/founder's brother be noteworthy? In contrast, the sentencing to death of a man who was brother to a future high priest (and thus presumably from a powerful Jewish family in Judea) would be the sort of thing which Josephus would have noted."

Romans is thought to have been written in the 50's CE and in 1:8 Paul notes that the faith of Roman Christians was "being proclaimed all over the world," and this alone could have made Christianity (and the death of its founder's brother) noteworthy to Josephus.

And Cassius Dio (67.14) notes that around the time Josephus published the Antiquities, Flavius Clemens and his wife Flavia Domitilla and "many others" had "drifted into Jewish ways," and Domitilla (if not also Clemens and "many others") may have been a Christian, as per Eusebius in EH 3.18.4-5:

To such a degree, indeed, did the teaching of our faith flourish at that time that even those writers who were far from our religion did not hesitate to mention in their histories the persecution and the martyrdoms which took place during it.

And they, indeed, accurately indicated the time. For they recorded that in the fifteenth year of Domitian Flavia Domitilla, daughter of a sister of Flavius Clement, who at that time was one of the consuls of Rome, was exiled with many others to the island of Pontia in consequence of testimony borne to Christ.

And Eusebius mentions one of these writers who were presumably "far from our religion" in his Chronicon:

Brutius writes that there were very many Christian martyrs under Domitian, among whom were Flavia Domitilla ... she was exiled to the island of Pontia, because she bore witness that she was a Christian.

1. Why trust Paul's words rather than dismissing them as hyperbole? Or do you truly believe that people in the polity that would be known as Wa-Friendly-to-Wei (and later as Japan) and other parts of the world knew about the community of Christians in Rome?

2. Why should we trust Eusebius, whose mendacity has already been exposed in other accounts and whose credibility is already challenged about many things? Especially given that we have no surviving Brutius and the Jews claim than Clemens begame a Jew? See, for example, Ramsay MacMullen Dunham Professor of History and Classics who claimed about Eusebius in Christianizing the Roman Empire: A.D 100-400, Ramsay MacMullen, p. 6, Yale University Press, 1984: “Hostile writings and discarded views were not recopied or passed on, or they were actively suppressed..., matters discreditable to the faith were to be consigned to silence."

[John2]

1. Why trust Paul's words rather than dismissing them as hyperbole? Or do you truly believe that people in the polity that would be known as Wa-Friendly-to-Wei (and later as Japan) and other parts of the world knew about the community of Christians in Rome?

I take Paul to mean more or less the Roman world in which Christians were active, and that would have given Christians plenty of visibility to be noticed by non-Christians.

2. Why should we trust Eusebius, whose mendacity has already been exposed in other accounts and whose credibility is already challenged about many things? Especially given that we have no surviving Brutius and the Jews claim than Clemens begame a Jew? See, for example, Ramsay MacMullen Dunham Professor of History and Classics who claimed about Eusebius in Christianizing the Roman Empire: A.D 100-400, Ramsay MacMullen, p. 6, Yale University Press, 1984: “Hostile writings and discarded views were not recopied or passed on, or they were actively suppressed..., matters discreditable to the faith were to be consigned to silence."

Eusebius mentions sources that were available for others to see and I presume Brutius was one of them. This is not to say that I think Eusebius correctly understood all of his sources and didn't put his "spin" on them, but as far as I can tell, others in his time were able to see his sources and judge them for themselves.

For example, in the case of Papias, Eusebius cites whatever he considered to be useful from him and belittles the rest, but he tells everyone where they can find his citations to judge for themselves (EH 3.39.12-13). And we know Papias was known by others since others cite things from him that Eusebius does not. So I prefer to dismiss Eusebius' "spin" of Papias (which is obvious) rather than Papias.

I suppose he [Papias] got these ideas through a misunderstanding of the apostolic accounts, not perceiving that the things said by them were spoken mystically in figures. For he appears to have been of very limited understanding, as one can see from his discourses.

As for Clemens and Domitilla, Dio Cassius doesn't say that they became Jewish but that they had "drifted into Jewish ways," and I think that aptly describes the Roman perception of Christianity at that time, especially from Domitian's point of view, since I view Christianity as being a version of Fourth Philosophic Judaism, which his father and brother had fought against.

I also factor in that Paul was familiar with "those of Caesar's household" and had an associate named Clemens, and 1 Clement was purportedly written in Rome (where Flavius Clemens lived) and is commonly dated to the time of Domitian's persecution, in which Flavius Clemens and "many others" were punished or executed (cf. 1 Clem. 1:1: "the sudden and repeated calamities and reverses which are befalling us").

And take Josephus, for example. He joined the Fourth Philosophy and subscribed to their main belief that "one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth" and applied it to Vespasian. Would this have been understood at that time as "Vespasianity," or was it a version of Fourth Philosophic Judaism? I suppose we (and later "Vespasianists" and their observers) could call it "Vespasianity," but in Josephus' time I reckon it was perceived (by himself and others) as a version of Judaism. And if there were any Gentiles who were on board with "Vespasianity" during Josephus' time, I think it would be apt for writers to say that they had "drifted into Jewish ways."

[John2]

1. Why trust Paul's words rather than dismissing them as hyperbole? Or do you truly believe that people in the polity that would be known as Wa-Friendly-to-Wei (and later as Japan) and other parts of the world knew about the community of Christians in Rome?

I take Paul to mean more or less the Roman world in which Christians were active, and that would have given Christians plenty of visibility to be noticed by non-Christians.

2. Why should we trust Eusebius, whose mendacity has already been exposed in other accounts and whose credibility is already challenged about many things? Especially given that we have no surviving Brutius and the Jews claim than Clemens begame a Jew? See, for example, Ramsay MacMullen Dunham Professor of History and Classics who claimed about Eusebius in Christianizing the Roman Empire: A.D 100-400, Ramsay MacMullen, p. 6, Yale University Press, 1984: “Hostile writings and discarded views were not recopied or passed on, or they were actively suppressed..., matters discreditable to the faith were to be consigned to silence."

Eusebius mentions sources that were available for others to see and I presume Brutius was one of them. This is not to say that I think Eusebius correctly understood all of his sources or didn't put his "spin" on them, but as far as I can tell, others in his time were able to see his sources and judge them for themselves.

For example, in the case of Papias, Eusebius cites whatever he considered to be useful from him and belittles the rest, but he tells everyone where they can find his citations to judge for themselves (EH 3.39.12-13). And we know Papias was known by others since others cite things from him that Eusebius does not. So I prefer to dismiss Eusebius' "spin" of Papias (which is obvious) rather than Papias.

I suppose he [Papias] got these ideas through a misunderstanding of the apostolic accounts, not perceiving that the things said by them were spoken mystically in figures. For he appears to have been of very limited understanding, as one can see from his discourses.

As for Clemens and Domitilla, Dio Cassius doesn't say that they became Jewish but that they had "drifted into Jewish ways," and I think that aptly describes the Roman perception of Christianity at that time, especially from Domitian's point of view, since I view Christianity as being a version of Fourth Philosophic Judaism, which his father and brother had fought against.

I also factor in that Paul was familiar with "those of Caesar's household" and had an associate named Clement (who are mentioned in the same letter, Php. 4:3 and 22), and 1 Clement was purportedly written in Rome (where Flavius Clemens lived) and is commonly dated to the time of Domitian's persecution, in which Flavius Clemens and "many others" were punished or executed (cf. 1 Clem. 1:1: "the sudden and repeated calamities and reverses which are befalling us").

And take Josephus, for example. He joined the Fourth Philosophy and subscribed to their main belief that "one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth" and applied it to Vespasian. Would this have been understood at that time as "Vespasianity," or was it a version of Fourth Philosophic Judaism? I suppose we (and later "Vespasianists" and their observers) could call it "Vespasianity," but in Josephus' time I reckon it was perceived (by himself and others) as a version of Judaism. And if there were any Gentiles who were on board with "Vespasianity" during Josephus' time, I think it would be apt for writers to say that they had "drifted into Jewish ways."

[John2]

Melito of Sardis seems like a good source for Domitian's persecution of Christians to me. He was Jewish by birth and lived in one of the seven cities addressed in Revelation (which itself is commonly thought to have been written during Domitian's time), and subscribed to views that were more Jewish Christian than Orthodox (like his contemporaries Papias and Hegesippus).

Jewish by birth, Melito lived in an atmosphere where the type of Christianity practiced was largely oriented toward the Jewish form of the Christian faith ...

Both his Jewish background and background in Stoicism led to his beliefs that the Christian Passover, celebrated during holy week, should be celebrated at the same time as the Jewish Passover.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melito_of_Sardis

Given Melito's time period (died c. 180 CE), location (a hotbed of Jewish Christianity addressed in Revelation), and his Jewish and Christian background, I factor in what he says about Domitian in EH 4.26.9.

Nero and Domitian, alone, persuaded by certain calumniators, have wished to slander our doctrine, and from them it has come to pass that the falsehood has been handed down, in consequence of an unreasonable practice which prevails of bringing slanderous accusations against the Christians.

[schillingklaus]

Dating Paul into pre-war times is fraudulously apologistic, not worth of any critical readership.

FJ was not aware of anything Christian as his reading of Genesis was not aware of original sin, Satan vs YHWH, paradisical clothings, and some other things indispensable for Christian theology.

[John2]

But I think the best source of all for Domitian's persecution of Christians (or for anything) is Hegesippus, given his Jewish background, fluency in Hebrew, knowledge of 1 Clement and Jewish oral traditions, and his journey to Rome (which included meeting "a great many bishops" there and elsewhere in the Empire).

And he says that Domitian persecuted the grandchildren of Jesus' brother Jude for "belong[ing] to the family of David" because he was afraid of the coming of the Messiah (the main belief of the Fourth Philosophic Jews his father and brother had fought against), which fits what Cassius Dio says about his persecution of Flavius Clemens and Flavia Domitilla for having "drifted into Jewish ways." So whether Christians were thought of as being distinct from Jews at this time or not, they were caught up in Domitian's persecution because of their belief in a Messiah.


EH 3.20-1-8:

1. Of the family of the Lord there were still living the grandchildren of Jude, who is said to have been the Lord's brother according to the flesh.

2. Information was given that they belonged to the family of David, and they were brought to the Emperor Domitian by the Evocatus. For Domitian feared the coming of Christ as Herod also had feared it. And he asked them if they were descendants of David, and they confessed that they were. Then he asked them how much property they had, or how much money they owned. And both of them answered that they had only nine thousand denarii, half of which belonged to each of them.

4. And this property did not consist of silver, but of a piece of land which contained only thirty-nine acres, and from which they raised their taxes and supported themselves by their own labor.

5. Then they showed their hands, exhibiting the hardness of their bodies and the callousness produced upon their hands by continuous toil as evidence of their own labor.

6. And when they were asked concerning Christ and his kingdom, of what sort it was and where and when it was to appear, they answered that it was not a temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly and angelic one, which would appear at the end of the world, when he should come in glory to judge the quick and the dead, and to give unto every one according to his works.

7. Upon hearing this, Domitian did not pass judgment against them, but, despising them as of no account, he let them go, and by a decree put a stop to the persecution of the Church.

8. But when they were released they ruled the churches because they were witnesses and were also relatives of the Lord. And peace being established, they lived until the time of Trajan.

EH 4.22.1-7:

1. Hegesippus in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us has left a most complete record of his own views. In them he states that on a journey to Rome he met a great many bishops, and that he received the same doctrine from all. It is fitting to hear what he says after making some remarks about the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians.

2. His words are as follows: And the church of Corinth continued in the true faith until Primus was bishop in Corinth. I conversed with them on my way to Rome, and abode with the Corinthians many days, during which we were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine.

3. And when I had come to Rome I remained there until Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus. In every succession, and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord ...

7. And he wrote of many other matters, which we have in part already mentioned, introducing the accounts in their appropriate places. And from the Syriac Gospel according to the Hebrews he quotes some passages in the Hebrew tongue, showing that he was a convert from the Hebrews, and he mentions other matters as taken from the unwritten tradition of the Jews.