As there has been a lot of conflicting analysis over the TF, there needs to be similar scrutiny over the Jamesian testimony of the brother of Jesus called Christ in AJ 20.200.In the second version with TF without "He was the messiah" Jesus must be deduced from two passages. But here you have to read the entire Ant.
Supposedly our earliest witness. However, it is highly doubtful that Origen actually read any of AJ. Here is the principal citation from Origen (Contra Celsus 1.47) which contains the reference to John the Baptist and James:
| I would like to have told Celsus, when he represented the Jew as in some way accepting John as a baptist in baptizing Jesus, that a man who lived not long after John and Jesus recorded that John was a baptist who baptized for the remission of sins. For Josephus in the eighteenth book of the Jewish antiquities bears witness that John was a baptist and promised purification to people who were baptized. The same author, although he did not believe in Jesus as Christ, sought for the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple. He ought to have said that the plot against Jesus was the reason why these catastrophes came upon the people, because they had killed the prophesied Christ; however, although unconscious of it, he is not far from the truth when he says that these disasters befell the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, since they had killed him who was a very righteous man. This is the James whom Paul, the true disciple of Jesus, says that he saw, describing him as the Lord's brother, not referring so much to their blood-relationship or common upbringing as to his moral life and understanding. If therefore he says that the destruction of Jerusalem happened because of James, would it not be more reasonable to say that this happened on account of Jesus the Christ? |
But let's break it up into two parts. First,
| I would like to have told Celsus, when he represented the Jew as in some way accepting John as a baptist in baptizing Jesus, that a man who lived not long after John and Jesus recorded that John was a baptist who baptized for the remission of sins. For Josephus in the eighteenth book of the Jewish antiquities bears witness that John was a baptist and promised purification to people who were baptized. |
This first section tells us about John from AJ 18, indicating Josephus said that "John was a baptist who baptized for the remission of sins." Yet Josephus - AJ 18.117 (18.5.2) - states that those seeking baptism "must not employ it to gain pardon for whatever sins they committed, but as a consecration of the body..." It's difficult to see that Origen got the idea that John baptized for the remission of sins from Josephus. He provides the sketchiest information about John from Josephus. In fact, all he really knows is that Josephus mentioned John in AJ 18. There is no sign that he had actually read AJ 18. It would seem that Origen has at best secondary knowledge of what Josephus says about John, knowledge that mostly isn't from Josephus at all.
Then we arrive at the second part. Introducing the James material Origen notes that Josephus "did not believe in Jesus as Christ", but has no problem citing what Josephus says where it helps support his religious needs. Yet, despite his willingness to use unfriendly sources, Origen shows no knowledge of the Testimonium Flavianum, even though there is no reason to leave out such a testimony - if it were there - to support his religious purpose. If Origen had actually read AJ 18, his words here would be strong circumstantial evidence against the existence of the TF, for he knows how to use unfriendly sources, so there would be no apparent reason for him to have omitted it. I doubt though that he did read AJ 18, just as it is unlikely he read AJ 20.200.
But moving on to what Origen says about James,
- 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 James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus called Christ,--...
However, in his other major book, the Jewish War, BJ 4.318 (4.5.2), Josephus explains that the fall of Jerusalem was owing to the death of Ananus.
| I should not be wrong in saying that the capture of the city began with the death of Ananus; and the overthrow of the walls and the downfall of the Jewish state dated from the day on which the Jews beheld their high priest, the captain of their salvation, butchered in the heart of [Jerusalem]. |
Origen obviously didn't get this material about James - much of which are his opinions - from AJ. In fact the only thing that apologetic scholars point to in Origen's statement supposedly derived from Josephus is the phrase "James the Just, who was the brother of Jesus called Christ". This "Jesus called Christ" is a phrase used three times in Matthew and it should be remembered that Origen wrote a commentary on Matthew in which he uses the phrase "James the brother of Jesus called Christ" (10.17). We've established that it is unlikely Origen actually read the passage that includes James, so it is improbable that he knew the phraseology that we see today in AJ 20.200.
However, in antiquity the name "Josephus" was confused a number of times with "Hegesippus" and in fact a later manipulated translation of Josephus was ascribed to a Hegesippus. There was a Christian writer named Hegesippus who wrote a passage preserved by Eusebius (EH 2.23.18) about "James the brother of the Lord" in which Hegesippus describes the martyrdom of James, which finishes, "He became a true witness, both to Jews and Greeks, that Jesus is the Christ. And immediately Vespasian besieged them." Immediately following the martyrdom of James, Vespasian fell upon Jerusalem.
Here is material that reflects what Origen thinks Josephus wrote, by someone whose name was confused with Josephus. Origen is a very poor witness to the information that people want him to have witnessed.
If we return to AJ 20.200 - which is part of a passage describing the mischief that the high priest Ananus got up to before the new Roman procurator Albinus arrived - we learn that Ananus "brought before [the Sanhedrin] the brother of Jesus called Christ, James by name, together with some others, and accused them of violating the law, and condemned them to be stoned." That's all Josephus says about this James!
We don't know what Origen thought he was referring to, but this is the Josephan phrase"
| ton adelfon Iesou tou legomenou xristou Iakobos onoma auto (the brother of Jesus called Christ James by name) |
And is what Origen wrote,
| Iakobou tou dikaiou os hn adelfos Iesou tou legomenou xristou (James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus called Christ) |
The same elements are present but the structure is significantly different. Origen's phrase doesn't support any knowledge of what Josephus wrote about James. We have to wait for a witness until Eusebius cites the James passage in EH 2.23.22.
Origen is no help to us in our attempts to discover the veracity of the reference of the James in 20.200 as "the brother of Jesus called Christ".
The Josephan phrase, ton adelfon Iesou tou legomenou xristou Iakobos onoma auto is rather ugly syntax as compared to the phrases used by Origen. It highlights the notion that the text deals with the brother of Jesus called Christ before mentioning this James James. Why is the phrase structured as it is?
It's as though the original text talked of Ananus bringing before the Sanhedrin "a man named James and certain others" and a scribe thought this must have been "the brother of Jesus called Christ" mentioned by Origen, adding it into the text. Because the phrase about Jesus was more important than James, he inserted it before James.
However the text of AJ 20.200 came to be as it is today, it would seem Origen didn't know the passage, so cannot help us evaluate it.
Statistics: Posted by spin — Thu Nov 28, 2024 11:56 pm