Editing Josephus on Jesus (section)

== "James, the brother of Jesus" passage ==
{{quote box|align=right|width=40%|title=Josephus' reference to James the brother of Jesus|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, 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. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the [[sanhedrin]] of [[shophet|judges]], and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; 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, 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 sanhedrin 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.|source=Flavius Josephus: ''Antiquities of the Jews'' [[wikisource:The Antiquities of the Jews/Book XX#Chapter 9|Book 20, Chapter 9, 1]]<ref>Flavius Josephus: ''Antiquities of the Jews'', [[wikisource:The Antiquities of the Jews/Book XX#Chapter 9|Book 20, Chapter 9, 1]], based on the translation of [[Louis H. Feldman]], The Loeb Classical Library.</ref> For Greek text see [https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=J.+AJ+20.9.1&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0145]}}

In ''Antiquities'' ([[wikisource:The Antiquities of the Jews/Book XX#Chapter 9|Book 20, Chapter 9, 1]]) Josephus refers to the stoning of "[[James the brother of Jesus]]" (James the Just) by order of [[Ananus ben Ananus]], a [[Herodian dynasty|Herodian-era]] [[High Priest of Israel|High Priest]].{{sfn|Harding|2003|p=317}}{{sfn|Painter|2005|pp=134–141}} The James referred to in this passage is most likely the James to whom the [[Epistle of James]] has been attributed.{{sfn|Painter|2005|pp=134–141}}{{sfn|Freedman|Myers|Beck|2000|p=670}}{{sfn|Neale|2003|pp=2–3}} The translations of Josephus' writing into other languages have at times included passages that are not found in the Greek texts, raising the possibility of interpolation, but this passage on James is found in all manuscripts, including the Greek texts.{{sfn|Painter|2005|pp=134–141}}

The context of the passage is the period following the death of [[Porcius Festus]], and the journey to [[Alexandria]] by [[Lucceius Albinus]], the new [[Roman Empire|Roman]] [[Roman Judaea#List of governors (6–135 CE)|Procurator of Judea]], who held that position from AD&nbsp;62 to 64.{{sfn|Painter|2005|pp=134–141}} Because Albinus' journey to Alexandria had to have concluded no later than the summer of AD&nbsp;62, the date of James' death can be assigned with some certainty to around that year.{{sfn|Painter|2005|pp=134–141}}{{sfn|Mitchell|Young|2006|p=297}}{{sfn|Harding|2003|p=317}} The second-century chronicler [[Hegesippus (chronicler)|Hegesippus]] also left an account of the death of James, and while the details he provides diverge from those of Josephus, the two accounts share similar elements.{{sfn|Painter|2004|p=126}}{{sfn|Bauckham|1999|pp=199–203}}{{sfn|Mitchell|Young|2006|p=297}}

Modern scholarship has almost universally acknowledged the authenticity of the reference to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"<ref name=Feldman557 /> ({{lang|grc|τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ, Ἰάκωβος ὄνομα αὐτῷ}}) and has rejected its being the result of later [[Christian interpolation]].{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|p=83}}<ref>[[Richard Bauckham]] states that although a few scholars have questioned this passage, "the vast majority have considered it to be authentic" {{harv|Bauckham|1999|pp=199–203}}.</ref>{{sfn|Feldman|Hata|1987|pp=54–57}}{{sfn|Flavius Josephus|Maier|1995|pp=284–285}}<ref name=refsummary /> Moreover, in comparison with Hegesippus' account of James' death, most scholars consider Josephus' to be the more historically reliable.{{sfn|Painter|2004|p=126}} However, a few scholars question the authenticity of the reference, based on various arguments, but primarily based on the observation that various details in ''[[The Jewish War]]'' differ from it.{{sfn|Habermas|1996|pp=33–37}}

=== Early references ===
==== Origen of Alexandria ====
In the third century, [[Origen of Alexandria]] claimed in two works that Josephus had mentioned James, the brother of Jesus. In Origen's commentary on [[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]], he writes:
{{Blockquote|And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the "Antiquities of the Jews" in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against <strong>James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ</strong>. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James.|''Commentary on Matthew'', [[Wikisource:Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IX/Origen on Matthew/Origen's Commentary on Matthew/Book X/Chapter 17|Book X, Chapter 17]] (emphasis added)}}
In Origen's apologetic work ''[[Contra Celsum]]'', he made a similar remark:
{{Blockquote|Now this writer [Josephus], although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless—being, although against his will, not far from the truth—that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of <strong>James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ)</strong>,—the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice.|''Contra Celsum'', [[Wikisource:Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book I/Chapter XLVII|Book I, Chapter XLVII]] (emphasis added)}}
Many commentators have concluded that Origen is making reference to the "James, the brother of Jesus" passage found in ''Antiquities'', Book 20 here, but there are some problems with this view.{{sfn|Mizugaki|1987}}{{sfn|Painter|2005|p=205}} Origen is attributing statements to Josephus that he never wrote in any of his extant works (such as the claim that the killing of James caused the destruction of the Jerusalem temple),{{sfn|Painter|2005|pp=132–137}} suggesting that he is at least partially confused.

==== Eusebius of Caesarea ====
In [[Wikisource:Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume I/Church History of Eusebius/Book II/Chapter 23|Book II, Chapter 23.20]] of his ''[[Ecclesiastical History (Eusebius)|Ecclesiastical History]]'', Eusebius mentions Josephus' reference to the death of James. Eusebius attributes the following quote to Josephus: "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." However, this statement does not appear in the extant manuscripts of Josephus.{{sfn|Painter|2005|pp=132–137}} Moreover, in Book III, chapter 11, Eusebius states that the conquest of Jerusalem immediately followed the martyrdom of James setting the martyrdom at {{circa|AD&nbsp;70}} rather than the {{circa|AD&nbsp;62}} given by Josephus.<ref>[http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, Book III], ch. 11.</ref><ref>Eddy, Paul R. and Boyd, Gregory A. (2007) The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition. Baker Academic, p. 189</ref>

=== Arguments for authenticity ===
[[Louis Feldman]] states that the authenticity of the Josephus passage on James has been "almost universally acknowledged".<ref>''Josephus, Judaism and Christianity'' by [[Louis H. Feldman]], Gōhei Hata 1997 {{ISBN|90-04-08554-8}} pp. 55–57</ref> Feldman states that this passage, above others, indicates that Josephus did say something about Jesus.<ref name="Feldman, Louis H. p. 56">Feldman, Louis H.; Hata, Gōhei. ''Josephus, Judaism and Christianity''. BRILL. {{ISBN|90-04-08554-8}}. p. 56</ref> Feldman states that it would make no sense for Origen to show amazement that Josephus did not acknowledge Jesus as Christ ([[Wikisource:Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IX/Origen on Matthew/Origen's Commentary on Matthew/Book X/Chapter 17|Book X, Chapter 17]]), if Josephus had not referred to Jesus at all.{{sfn|Feldman|Hata|1987|p=56}} [[Paul L. Maier]] states that most scholars agree with Feldman's assessment that "few have doubted the genuineness of this passage"{{sfn|Flavius Josephus|Maier|1995|pp=284–285}} Zvi Baras also states that most modern scholars consider the James passage to be authentic.{{sfn|Baras|1987|p=341}}

[[File:Jakov brat gospodnji.jpg|thumb|upright=0.85|A thirteenth-century icon of James, Serbian monastery [[Gračanica Monastery|Gračanica]], [[Kosovo]]]]
According to [[Robert E. Van Voorst]] the overwhelming majority of scholars consider both the reference to "the brother of Jesus called Christ" and the entire passage that includes it as authentic.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|p=83}}{{sfn|Van Voorst|2003|p=509}} Van Voorst states that the James passage fits well in the context in the ''Antiquities'' and an indication for its authenticity is the lack of the laudatory language that a Christian interpolator would have used to refer to Jesus as "the Lord", or a similar term.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|pp=83–84}} Van Voorst also states that the use of a neutral term "called Christ" which neither denies nor affirms Jesus as the Messiah points to authenticity, and indicates that Josephus used it to distinguish Jesus from the many other people called Jesus at the time, in the same way that James is distinguished, given that it was also a common name.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|pp=83–84}}

[[Richard Bauckham]] states that although a few scholars have questioned the James passage, "the vast majority have considered it to be authentic", and that among the several accounts of the death of James the account in Josephus is generally considered to be historically the most reliable.{{sfn|Bauckham|1999|pp=199–203}} Bauckham states that the method of killing James by stoning, and the description provided by Josephus via the assembly of the Sanhedrin of judges are consistent with the policies of the Temple authorities towards the early Christian Church at the time.{{sfn|Bauckham|1999|p=231}}

[[Andreas Köstenberger]] considers the James passage to be authentic and states that the James passage attests to the existence of Jesus as a historical person, and that his followers considered him the Messiah. Köstenberger states that the statement by Josephus that some people recognized Jesus as the Messiah is consistent with the grammar of Josephus elsewhere but does not imply that Josephus himself considered Jesus the Messiah. Köstenberger concurs with John Meier that it is highly unlikely for the passage to be a Christian interpolation given that in New Testament texts James is referred to as the "brother of the Lord" rather than the "brother of Jesus", and that a Christian interpolator would have provided a more detailed account at that point.{{sfn|Kostenberger|Kellum|Quarles|2009|pp=104–105}}

Claudia Setzer states that few have questioned the authenticity of the James passage, partly based on the observation that a Christian interpolator would have provided more praise for James.<ref name=Setzer108>''Jewish responses to early Christians'' by Claudia Setzer 1994 {{ISBN|0-8006-2680-X}} pp. 108–109</ref> Setzer states that the passage indicates that Josephus, a Jewish historian writing towards the end of the first century, could use a neutral tone towards Christians, with some tones of sympathy, implying that they may be worthy of Roman protection.<ref name=Setzer108 />

[[John Painter (theologian)|John Painter]] states that nothing in the James passage looks suspiciously like a Christian interpolation and that the account can be accepted as historical. Painter discusses the role of [[Ananus ben Ananus|Ananus]] and the background to the passage, and states that after being deposed as High Priest for killing James and being replaced by [[Jesus son of Damneus|Jesus the son of Damnaeus]], Ananus had maintained his influence within Jerusalem through bribery.{{sfn|Painter|2005|p=136}} Painter points out that as described in the [[Antiquities of the Jews]] ([[wikisource:The Antiquities of the Jews/Book XX#Chapter 9|Book 20, Chapter 9, 2]]) Ananus was bribing both [[Lucceius Albinus|Albinus]] and Jesus the son of Damnaeus so that his men could take the tithes of other priests outside Jerusalem, to the point that some priests then starved to death.{{sfn|Painter|2005|pp=139–142}} Philip Carrington states that there is no reason to question the authenticity of the Josephus passage on James, and elaborates the background by stating that Ananus continued to remain a power within the Jewish circles at the time even after being deposed, and that it is likely that the charges brought against James by Ananus were not only because of his Christian association but because he objected to the oppressive policies against the poor; hence explaining the later indignation of the more moderate Jewish leaders.<ref>''The Early Christian Church: Volume 1, The First Christian Church'' by Philip Carrington 2011 {{ISBN|0-521-16641-1}} Cambridge University Press, pp. 187–189.</ref>

=== Arguments against authenticity ===
[[File:Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus, 1842.djvu|page=7|thumb|upright=0.7|An 1842 copy of Eusebius' ''[[Ecclesiastical History (Eusebius)|Ecclesiastical History]]'']]
A comparative argument made against the authenticity of the James passage by scholars such as [[Tessa Rajak]] is that the passage has a negative tone regarding the High Priest [[Ananus ben Ananus|Ananus]], presenting him as impulsive while in the ''Jewish Wars'' Josephus presents a positive view of Ananus and portrays him as prudent.{{sfn|Eddy|Boyd|2007|pp=128–130}}{{sfn|Feldman|Hata|1987|p=56}}

A textual argument against the authenticity of the James passage is that the use of the term "Christos" there seems unusual for Josephus.{{sfn|Eddy|Boyd|2007|pp=128–130}} An argument based on the flow of the text in the document is that given that the mention of Jesus appears in the ''Antiquities'' before that of John the Baptist, a Christian interpolator may have inserted it to place Jesus in the text before John.{{sfn|Eddy|Boyd|2007|pp=128–130}} A further argument against the authenticity of the James passage is that it would have read well even without a reference to Jesus.{{sfn|Eddy|Boyd|2007|pp=128–130}}

=== Differences with Christian sources ===
Josephus's account places the date of the death of James as AD&nbsp;62.<ref>''International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: A–D'' by Geoffrey W. Bromiley 1979 {{ISBN|0-8028-3781-6}} p. 692</ref> This date is supported by [[Jerome]]'s 'seventh year of the Emperor Nero', although Jerome may simply be drawing this from Josephus.{{sfn|Painter|2005|pp=221–222}} However, James's successor as leader of the Jerusalem church, [[Simeon of Jerusalem|Simeon]], is not, in tradition, appointed till after the [[Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE)|siege of Jerusalem]] in AD&nbsp;70, and Eusebius's notice of Simeon implies a date for the death of James immediately before the siege, i.e. about AD&nbsp;69.{{sfn|Painter|2005|pp=143–145}} The method of death of James is not mentioned in the New Testament.<ref>''The Bible Exposition Commentary: New Testament'' by Warren W. Wiersbe 2003 {{ISBN|1-56476-031-6}} p. 334</ref> However, the account of Josephus differs from that of later works by Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, and Eusebius of Caesarea in that it simply has James stoned while the others have other variations such as having James thrown from the top of the Temple, stoned, and finally beaten to death by a [[fulling|fuller]]{{Sfn|Eddy|Boyd|2007|p=189}} as well as his death occurring during the siege of Jerusalem in AD&nbsp;69.

[[File:Nuremberg chronicles f 096v 1.png|thumb|upright=0.6|left|[[Herod Antipas]] from the [[Nuremberg Chronicle]], 1493]]
[[John Painter (theologian)|John Painter]] states that the relationship of the death of James to the siege is an important [[wikt:theologoumenon|theologoumenon]] in the early church. On the basis of the Gospel accounts it was concluded that the fate of the city was determined by the death there of Jesus. To account for the 35-year difference, Painter states that the city was preserved temporarily by the presence within it of a 'just man' (see also [[Sodom and Gomorrah|Sodom]]); who was identified with James, as confirmed by Origen. Hence Painter states that the killing of James restarted the clock that led to the destruction of the city and that the traditional dating of AD&nbsp;69 simply arose from an over-literal application of the theologoumenon, and is not to be regarded as founded on a historical source.{{sfn|Painter|2005|pp=143–145}} The difference between Josephus and the Christian accounts of the death of James is seen as an indication that the Josephus passage is not a Christian interpolation by scholars such as Eddy, Boyd, and Kostenberger.{{sfn|Eddy|Boyd|2007|p=189}}{{sfn|Kostenberger|Kellum|Quarles|2009|pp=104–105}} [[Géza Vermes]] states that compared to the Christian accounts: "the sober picture of Josephus appears all the more believable".{{sfn|Vermes|2011|p=40}} [[G. A. Wells]], on the other hand, has stated that in view of [[Origen]]'s statements these variations from the Christian accounts may be signs of interpolation in the James passage.<ref>''The Jesus Legend'' by G. A. Wells 1996 {{ISBN|0-8126-9334-5}} pp. 54-55</ref>