Josephus on Jesus: Part 2
The “James Passage”
Because it is the lesser contested and shorter of the two passages, we will look first at what is commonly referred to as the “James Passage.” It states:
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 Sanhedrin 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. (Antiquities 20.9.1)[5]
Several aspects of this passage provide the fuel for both its support and its criticism.
Lack of Extant Manuscripts. Of the dozen manuscripts we do have, three Greek texts are the most reliable. These are from the thirteenth century. Critics argue this gap between the original and the few manuscripts we have leaves open the possibility of Christian interpolation. However, while few manuscripts have survived, the scarcity of Josephus’ works is no worse than it is for other works from the same period. While we may wish for a richer manuscript tradition, in and of itself this is not a very compelling argument.[6]
Use of Christos (Messiah). Other than in the case of Jesus, Josephus never uses the term “Christos.” In other places in his writings, Josephus has merely referred to “messiah” figures. “Christos” may have been associated with political revolutionaries in some parts of the Empire; therefore, its use is suspicious.[7] But there were twenty-one other people named Jesus in Josephus’ writings. “We can easily imagine why he would use it when describing the brother of James…. It seems Josephus simply knew that the brother of James was ‘called Christ’ by his followers and so distinguished him from the other persons named ‘Jesus’ he had already mentioned.”[8]
The Order of James and Jesus. Earl Doherty asks, “Why would Josephus think to make the Jesus idea paramount, placing it before the James one? James is the character that brought about Ananus’ downfall, while mention of Jesus is supposed to be an identifying afterthought.”[9] While the word order may strike us as unusual, it is apparently hardly enough concern for most scholars to question it since “the large majority of scholars regard it as authentic in its present form.”[10] In other words, most scholars believe the extant copies stay true to the original manuscript, regardless of whether one finds the style odd.
The Different Views of Ananus. Tessa Rajak concludes that the different treatment Ananus receives from Josephus from his earlier work, The Jewish War (4.5.2), to the James passage in Antiquities calls its authenticity into question. According to Rajak, Josephus’ negative treatment of Ananus in the later work “is a startling divergence from the previous assessment”[11] and is therefore grounds for its dismissal. Directly answering her charge, Louis H. Feldman says, “There are a number of instances in the Antiquities where Josephus contradicts what he says in the War” that characterize a general negative shift from the earlier to the later work.[12] For instance, “Josephus’ more negative view of the Sadducees is one of the notable shifts from The Jewish War that characterize The Antiquities.”[13]
Evidence of Textual Alteration. In the third century, Origen “said that, according to Josephus, the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple were God’s punishment of the Jews for their murder of James ‘the brother of Jesus, him called Christ’ (Contra Celsum, i, 47). If a text of Josephus had contained any such statement, it could only have been as a result of Christian interpolation.”[14] But no extant manuscript contains the pas-sage to which Origen appears to be referring. What is true is that the passage we do have “is found in the main Greek manuscript tradition of The Antiquities without any notable variation. The early 4th-century Church historian Eusebius also quotes this passage from Josephus in his Ecclesiastical History (2.23. 222)”[15] Origen seems to refer to a passage for which we have no corroboration. However, his mention of the death of James is important for another reason.
Origen cites the passage on the death of James in his
public apology Contra Celsum written circa 248 AD for
his largely pagan readership, so Origen must have been
pretty confident that Josephus had indeed written
something about the death of James. Moreover, in
Origen’s day, official copies of Antiquities were kept in
the Roman public library, and thus could be readily
checked by the sort of educated pagans to whom Contra
Celsum is addressed, while Christians, conversely, were in
no legal or social position to be tampering with them.[16]
Additional Factors that Favor Authenticity. In addition to the concerns we have already addressed, there are other consider-ations that tend to favor the authenticity of the James passage. First, the reference to James is a passing, blasé reference since the main subject is the illegal behavior of Ananus. Jesus’ mention is even tertiary to James’ own secondary mention as a way to identify James. James was, after all, was a very common name. And Josephus, knowing “no pedigree (e.g., ‘James the son of Joseph’) he can use to identify this James…. is forced to identify him by his better-known brother, Jesus, who in turn is specified as that particular Jesus ‘who-is-called-Messiah.”[17] Second, early Christian and New Testament writers would not have referred to James so matter-of-factly as the “brother of Jesus.” The record demonstrates James was referred to as the “brother of the Lord” or the “brother of the Savior.” “Josephus’ words ‘called Christ’ are neutral and descriptive, intended to neither confess nor deny Jesus as the ‘Christ.’”[18] Finally, Josephus’ account of James’ time and manner of death differ greatly from second-century and New Testament writers. “If Josephus’ account was invented by a Christian, we would expect it to better reflect the Christian accounts.”[19] It is thus that “almost all scholars have accepted as authentic Josephus’ reference (Ant. 20.200) to James, ‘the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ.’”[20]
In our next post we'll pick up with the Testimonium Flavianum.
[5] William Whiston, trans., The New Complete Works of Josephus (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999), 656, author’s format maintained.
[6] Eddy and Boyd, The Jesus Legend, 186, 188.
[7] Wells, The Jesus Myth, 218.
[8] Eddy and Boyd, The Jesus Legend, 188.
[9] Earl Doherty, The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin With a Mythical Christ? (Ottawa: Age of Reason Publications, 2005), 217, emphasis in the original.
[10] Michael R. Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2010), 235-36.
[11] Tessa Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and His Society (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 131n73.
[12] Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata, eds., Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity (Detroit: Wayne State, 1987), 56.
[13] John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 59.
[14] G. A. Wells, The Jesus Legend (LaSalle, IL: Open Court, 1996), 54.
[15] Meier, A Marginal Jew, 57.
[16] Alice Whealey, Josephus on Jesus: The Tesimonium Flavanium Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times (New York: Lang, 2003), 2.
[17] Meier, A Marginal Jew, 57-58.
[18] Van Voorst, Jesus outside the New Testament, 84.
[19] Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus, 237.
[20] Louis H. Feldman, Josephus and Modern Scholarship 1937-1980 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1984), 705, author’s original format maintained.