Jesus granskad

This is part 3c of the translation of my treatise Jesuspassagerna hos Josefus – en fallstudie into English.

Den svenska texten.

III. The brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James

The James passage in Josefus

Identification in earlier reference

The identification

To identify one James, who certainly would be relatively unknown, as the brother of perhaps an equally unknown Jesus, seems to be ill-considered, to say the least. The brief passage in the Antiquities of the Jews 20:200 has dual identifications. It is not just James who is identified as the brother of Jesus; also Jesus is identified as Christ. The purpose would then be to make clear for the reader which Jesus Josephus referred to this time; not to be mixed up with the approximately 20 other people called Jesus which Josephus reports of in his works. But Josephus wrote the Antiquities of the Jews primarily for non-Jews living outside Palestine, and to the vast majority of these the term Christ (Messiah) was meaningless. To explain who Jesus was by saying that it was the Jesus who was called Christ may have been relevant in the third century or even for a good deal of the second century when Jesus Christ became more widely known. But in the 90’s, he was almost certainly unknown to the masses and it would therefore be pointless to identify Jesus as the one called Christ without providing any further information.

On comparison the Roman consul and historian Cornelius Tacitus can be cited. Around the year 117 CE he wrote that Nero punished “a class hated for their disgraceful acts, called Christians by the populace. Christ, from whom the name had its origin, was executed by procurator Pontius Pilatus during the reign of Tiberius” (Tacitus, Annals 15:44). One might expect that the spread of Christianity was at least somewhat exponentially, which means that there probably were many more Christians in Tacitus’ time than in Josephus’. Despite this and despite the fact that Tacitus wrote more than two decades later than Josephus, Tacitus nonetheless felt compelled to explain who the Christians were and that their leader Christ was executed by Pilate. How much more important should not it have been for Josephus to explain who this Christ was?

If we play with the idea of the Testimonium, which is found earlier in Josephus’ work (book 18), being genuine and that Josephus in book 20 wanted to refer to that paragraph, it would have been far more logical for him to identify Jesus as the one “who was executed by Pilate” (as Tacitus does) than the one “who was called Christ”.[211] That would be an identification that is much easier to remember for the reader; much the way Josephus, when he once more returned to Judas of Galilee, referred back to his earlier description of Judas’ instigation of rebellion during the taxation carried out by Quirinius. Steve Mason points out that Josephus tend to introduce his characters when he first introduces them, although not necessarily until after a few sentences. At first he identifies them by either patronymic or place of origin, more rarely by other indicators such as school affiliation. “Only when the narrative is already thus contextualized, usually, does he use the name alone.” And in cases where the person is irrelevant or Josephus did not know who he was, he can for example write: “A certain X …”.[212] Josephus could accordingly have settled for writing “a certain James”; and if we are dealing here with a Christian interpolation, the original text by Josephus also might have read so.

The James passage reasonably requires an earlier reference to Jesus. The defense of the authenticity of the shorter passage also relies on the presence of the longer passage (the Testimonium) earlier in Josephus’ work. Only there is it explained who Jesus was, and that he was Christ. In order for the sentence “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James” to be genuine, also the entire Testimonium Flavianum ought to be genuine. That is, including the statement “he was the Christ [Messiah]” a phrase that almost everyone, even those who defend the authenticity of the Testimonium, consider to be a later addition. And yet this expression, even in the unlikely event of the reading “he was believed to be the Messiah”, is not fully adequate, because in neither case is it said that Jesus was named or called the Christ (which is how he is identified in the James passage), but only that he was the Christ. Unless Josephus has not written the Testimonium in book 18 with the identification of Jesus as the Christ, there is no good reason to assume that he later in book 20 would have chosen to identify Jesus as the Jesus who was called Christ. If so, he left the reader in the lurch with a meaningless identification of a certain James as well as a certain Jesus, and this in a way which is inconsistent with how Josephus normally identified his characters.

Regarding the question of whether Josephus wrote anything at all about Jesus, one can start from two diametrically opposed positions. The one position is to assume that the James passage is genuine, since the short paragraph has no explicit Christian elements. Based on this observation one can then argue that the Testimonium (in some form) must be authentic; this because the James passage requires a previous identification of Jesus as Christ. This is the approach that almost everyone who argue that Josephus actually wrote about Jesus also takes.

The other position is to start by examining the Testimonium, and if one then reach the conclusion that the Testimonium is not likely (in any form) to be authentic, there is accordingly no previous identification, and the brief passage in book 20 must reasonably also be a forgery. This is also supported by the fact that the phrase “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ” seems to have been interpolated a second time in a different context and at an unidentified location in one of Josephus’ works – as witnessed by Origen. This is the approach that almost everyone who argue that Josephus did not mention Jesus takes; including this writer.

Roger Viklund, 2011-03-28

This is part 3b of the translation of my treatise Jesuspassagerna hos Josefus – en fallstudie into English.

Den svenska texten.

III. The brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James

The James passage in Josefus

Identification in earlier reference

Furthermore, it is not like Josephus to only once – and then only in passing – refer to an individual, without explaining who this was. Josephus would normally not write this way and this fact therefore tells against authenticity. His style was on the contrary thorough and he was careful with the logical consistency of his statements. Stephen Carr gives a few samples of how Josephus normally identified individuals – the first time he mentioned them as well as the subsequent times. Judas the Galilean may serve as an example. Josephus writes about him in book 18 and book 20 of the Antiquities of the Jews, accidentally the books where also Jesus is mentioned. In book 18 he writes:

”Now Cyrenius, a Roman senator … had been consul, and … came himself into Judea … to take an account of their substance … Yet was there one Judas, a Gaulonite, of a city whose name was Gamala, who, taking with him Sadduc, a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to a revolt, who both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty.” (Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 18:1:1)[211]

Josephus continues his description of Judas for a while. When he again mentions the same Judas in Book 20, he writes the following:

“… the sons of Judas of Galilee were now slain; I mean of that Judas who caused the people to revolt, when Cyrenius came to take an account of the estates of the Jews, as we have showed in a foregoing book.” (Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 20:5:2)[212]

Josephus thus normally informed his readers both at length and in detail, so they would know who he had in mind. Especially in cases where the last reference occurred much earlier, such as in an earlier book, Josephus would make an effort to remind the reader by at least superficially summarize the episode and, as in this case, he might also indicate that the previous account was in an earlier book. The fact that the text neither provides an adequate description of who Christ is (if this is the first time he is mentioned), or there is an in-depth feedback made to a previous description of this Christ (if this is the second time he is mentioned; i.e. after the Testimonium), suggests that Josephus is not the author. As Carr says, there was obviously no need for a Christian interpolator “to supply such detailed back-references”.[213] And one might add that there perhaps was not yet a Testimonium to refer back to at the time the amendment was made – then probably before Origen wrote in the 240’s.

To my knowledge there is only one additional example in the extant Josephus literature which resembles the identification of James and Jesus. In the Jewish War 2:247 Josephus tells about “Felix, the brother of Pallas”.[214] This Pallas is not mentioned elsewhere in the Jewish War, and Josephus consequently does not identify him. Josephus probably made no mistake as he later in the Antiquities of the Jews 18:7:1 also talks about the same Pallas without identifying him. But through other authors we know quite a lot about this Marcus Antonius Pallas. He was a Greek freedman of “royal blood” who became an esteemed secretary during the reigns of Emperor Claudius and Emperor Nero. The latter, however, had him executed. He is said to have been one of the richest men in Rome at the time.[215]

Obviously Josephus regarded him as such a “celebrity” that he felt no need to explain to his readers who this Pallas was. In any case, this is a rare exception and it of course throws a shadow of doubt on also the reference to Jesus in the James passage; that a rare exception happens to coincide with precisely the passage which is suspected to be forged.

Accordingly, we are supposed to believe that Josephus in precisely the two passages about Jesus has departed from his normal practice of linking passages together, by 1) not referring back to the right paragraph in the sentence immediately following upon the Testimonium, and 2) not identifying the person by refraining from informing the reader who this Christ in the James passage was.

Roger Viklund, 2011-03-27

This is part 3a of the translation of my treatise Jesuspassagerna hos Josefus – en fallstudie into English.

Den svenska texten.

III. The brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James

The James passage in Josefus

Antiquities of the Jews 20:200

Jesus is referred to once more in Josephus and this only in passing in the same work where also the Testimonium occurs. In the twentieth and final book of the Antiquities of the Jews (20:200), Josephus recounts the story of how the Jewish high priest Ananus, son of Ananus, was removed from his office because he executed “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others.”

Josephus tells us that when the Roman procurator of Judea, Festus, dies (in 62 CE), Emperor Nero sends Albinus to Judea to become Festus’ successor. In the vacuum that arises, the high priest Ananus takes the opportunity to form an accusation against “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others” as breakers of the law, and then delivers them to be stoned. But some people get outraged by this act, complain to King Agrippa II and send a delegation to meet Albinus. He condemns Ananus’ action whereupon King Agrippa takes the high priesthood from him and makes Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest. The key paragraph reads in William Whiston’s translation:

“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. 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.” (Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 20:200–203)[207]

The paragraph deals accordingly not primarily with the death of James, but with Ananus being removed from the high priesthood, because he exceeded his authorities by killing James and some others, and that Jesus, the son of Damneus, was appointed new high priest.

The designation Messiah

The fact that Jesus in the James passage is identified as the one “who was called Christ” is usually cited as evidence of Josephus having written the passage. The argument presented is that if a Christian would have added the part on Jesus, he would have written that Jesus was Christ and not just was called Christ. But apart from the fact that Josephus in the phrase “who was called Christ” (tou legomenou Christou or τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ) uses an oblique (declined) case, it is the same expression as in both John 4:25 and Matthew 1:16: “of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.”[208] The phrase is found in a similar form in Matthew two more times, then in 27:17 and 27:22; and the author of the Gospel of Matthew has Pilate both times designating Jesus as that “Jesus who is called Christ”.[209] The manner of letting a non-Christian witness identify Jesus as the one who was “called Christ” can accordingly be traced back to the Gospels. This would reasonably imply that it would not have felt unnatural for a Christian person with knowledge of the Gospel accounts to designate Jesus as the one called Christ, if he later found that Josephus ought to have mentioned Jesus.

The so-called Christ. Sometimes the phrase ton adelfon Iêsou tou legomenou Christou is translated as “the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ”. It is thus not translated into “who was called Christ” but rather into “the so-called Christ”. This result in an even greater dissociation from the understanding that Jesus would be Christ and thus makes it more likely that Josephus could have written this sentence. But there is really no need to translate the text in that way, even if it is possible if the context would require this.

The reason this translation is proposed at all, is a peculiarity of the Greek language, where as in this case a definite article ton not only precedes “brother” (adelfon), thus forming “the brother”, but also an additional definite article tou precedes “was called” (legomenou). This could then be understood as if legomenou “was called” also should be expressed in the definite form as “the so-called”. However, this way of constructing sentences, then by repeating a definite article before a determinative adjective when it follows the noun it complements, is quite normal in Greek. This is normal, and it does not mean that the adjective is necessarily meant to be in the definitive form. In this case legomenou (was called) is a determinative adjective (it is actually a participle but is used as an adjective) to the noun Iêsou (Jesus).[210] In the New Testament similar expressions are not typically translated into “the so-called” but “is called” or “was called”. This also applies to all the four times when the term is used in connection to Jesus (Matthew 1:16, 27:17, 27:22 and John 4:25).

When the Greek tou legomenou in these passages was translated into Latin in the Versio Vulgata, it was translated into qui dicitur (except in Matthew 1:16, where the synonymous expression qui vocatur was used), which means “is called”. Also Rufinus in his translation of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History and Cassiodorus in his translation of Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews translate this into qui dicitur. “The brother who is [was] called Christ” is normally expressed as ton adelphon tou legomenou Christou in Greek, with no connotation of questioning the legitimacy of the designation of Christ.

No more than the Greek tou legomenou, does the Latin qui dicitur question the validity of the denomination. I have therefore decided to use the straightforward translation “who was called Christ.”

One thing that tells against the genuineness of the two passages on Jesus, that is the Testimonium and the paragraph that identifies James as “the brother of Jesus called Christ”, is the presence of the word Christ/Messiah in both passages. In the first passage it is said that “he was the Christ” and in the second that he “was called Christ”. As previously pointed out in Josephus’ and other Jews’ view of the Messianic concept, the word Christ (the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Messiah) never appears in Josephus other than just on the two occasions when Jesus is mentioned. This fact indicates that Josephus rather not liked to discuss the Messianic concept which was so associated with the uprisings among the Jews. This in turn suggests that these passages were later insertion made by a Christian hand. Only once does Josephus actually appoint someone to have been the long-awaited Messiah; albeit indirectly and then the Emperor Vespasian. But not even on this occasion does he use the word Messiah.

This is part 2t of the translation of my treatise Jesuspassagerna hos Josefus – en fallstudie into English.

Den svenska texten.

II. Testimonium Flavianum

The table of contents

Almost all Greek and Latin manuscripts of the Antiquities of the Jews begin with a somewhat sketchy list of the content of the book.[201] From at least the time of the Greek historian Polybius (c. 200–120 BCE), lists that are comparable to tables of contents have been made, although the practice varied. There is evidence to suggest that the authors themselves in at least some cases put together such lists. In other cases, they can be made by later editors.[202] The Testimonium as well as the passage on James are missing in the Greek table of contents to the Antiquities of the Jews. To be sure also many more sections are missing from the table of contents, and in the following footnote the table of contents to the entire chapter 18 is reproduced.[203] However, if it is not written in the second or third century, but instead during the Christian era (the early fourth century and later), this is an infallible sign that the Testimonium and also the passage on James did not appear in the Antiquities of the Jews at the time, since then reasonably they should have been mentioned. However, according to Henry St. John Thackeray the composition of the table of contents suggests that the author was a Jew and that he maybe was not living long after Josephus.[204]

The argument that the list reflects Jewish interests and therefore was written by a Jew works on the other hand vice versa too, since the absence of the Christian passages instead may indicate that these, and especially the Testimonium, were missing when the list was made.

Since the list also is present in all Latin manuscripts, which are based on the translation made in the sixth century, it indicates that the table of contents is old. But it also bears traces which reflect more than one variant reading, and it therefore seems to have been compiled, or possibly edited, at a somewhat later time and then accordingly not made at the time of Josephus or shortly afterwards.[205]

Even if the table of contents was made very early and by a non-Christian, such a crucial passage in Josephus as the Testimonium should still have been referred to if it was there.[206]

And this concludes section 2, Testimonium Flavianum.

Roger Viklund, 2011-03-25

This is part 2r of the translation of my treatise Jesuspassagerna hos Josefus – en fallstudie into English.

Den svenska texten.

II. Testimonium Flavianum

The Church Fathers’ knowledge of the Testimonium

The Jewish War and the Slavonic Josephus with their respective additions

Josippon

Also the Jews created a legendary historical account in Hebrew based on Josephus. That work is called Josippon and is believed to have been written in the tenth century. It depicts the universal history from the time of Adam onwards. Josippon’s main source is probably Pseudo-Hegesippus, which as we know is a Latin paraphrase of Josephus’ Jewish War. In addition, the author uses a number of other sources, among them the Latin versions of the Bible and the Antiquities of the Jews, but then only the first 16 chapters.[185] It is therefore entirely logical that the Testimonium, which is found in Book 18 of the Antiquities of the Jews, is missing in Josippon; and it is hardly – as Alice Whealey argues – due to the fact that the Jewish writer or some later copyist having excluded the Testimonium because they must have assumed that Josephus could not have written the passage in question.[186] But passages about Jesus have also been added to some manuscripts of Josippon, where some things are quite similar to what we find in the Slavonic Josephus, while other passages reflect the traditions found in the Talmud:

“In these days there were many fights and great quarrels in Judea between the Pharisees and the lawless ones in Israel who went after Jesus, the son of Pandera the Nazarene, who performed great wonders in Israel until the Pharisees overpowered him and hanged him on a tree.”[187]

Roger Viklund, 2011-03-23