So, I have been conducting some research on the James 20.200 passage (which I am working on a paper about arguing it is inauthentic). One thing I decided to do (because I can't find anyone else who has done it) is trace all the different iterations of the "brother of Jesus, called Christ" bit in ancient authors to see where all of these quotations arise from.
Here are the sources I have turned up that contain a reference to this in some capacity:
-Origen, Contra Celsum 1.48, 2.13 and Commentary on Matthew 10.17 (unreliable, Origen consistently misrepresents Josephus, no evidence he even had a manuscript of Antiquities nearby).
-Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 2.23.20 and 2.23.22. Here Eusebius shows duplicity. He first ascribes Origen's statements to Josephus as a pseudo-Josephan quote. Then he quotes the passage in full from Antiquities as found in our textus receptus with only minor deviations.
After this turns up a rather interesting phenomenon. All of the other quotations or references to this passage can be traced back to Eusebius.
-Jerome, De Viris Illustribus 2 and 13 alludes to it twice. On one occasion, however, he demonstrates he clearly knows Eusebius as he puts Clement and Josephus together. The only previous author to do this is Eusebius. Jerome also admits to using Josephus throughout De Viris Illustribus.
-Rufinus, trans. of Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 2.23.20 and 2.23.22 also has this passage (we'll come back to Rufinus below)
-George Hamartolos, Chronicon (using Boor's edition) has the legendary passage which he clearly cribs directly from Eusebius as he includes a few different terms that are absent in Origen. These include δὲ after ταῦτα (the former is absent in Origen, present in E), and also has Ἰουδαῖοι before ἀπέκτειναν (absent in Origen, present in E) and makes the same combination of συμβέβηκεν which Eusebius renders from Origen’s συμβε βηκέναι. He also includes some other surrounding language from Eusebius as well: φησι before ταῦτα, for instance.
-John Zonaras, Epitome 6.17 but this also almost certainly derives from Eusebius, whom he uses frequently. Notably, Zonaras uses the version directly quoted from Antiquities: τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ, Ἰάκωβος ὄνομα αὐτῷ.
-Sepher Yosippon in one manuscript has an appendix on Josephus, but this is derived from Jerome's De Viris Illustribus. Steven Bowen has done a recent English edition which is excellent for those curious.
-Chronicon Paschale's reference is probably derived also from Eusebius, as Whealey has pointed out.
-Cedrenus, Compendium is copying from Hamartolos. This is clear because Hamartolos introduces the James passage with φησὶ γὰρ Ἰακώβου, which Cedrenus also copies identically.
-George Syncellus, Chronography is likewise using Eusebius. He quotes both Eusebius' pseudo-Josephan passage and also the Ant. 20.200. Like Hamartolos, he also includes the combination of συμβέβηκεν, the addition of δὲ after ταῦτα, and the addition of Ἰουδαῖοι before ἀπέκτειναν.
The only possible non-Eusebian version I have found thus far could be the Latin Antiquities which reads:
I would include Photius, Bibliotheca fol. 238 here, but he does not actually attest to the passage as we have it. Instead he writes "James, the brother of the Lord" cribbing this language from Gal. 1:19. It is unknown whether he read our specific language, or whether he (on the basis of others) is assuming that this James mentioned in 20.200 was Jesus' brother, but using an uninterpolated text which lacked this language. We simply don't know, so Photius is worthless here.
Here are the sources I have turned up that contain a reference to this in some capacity:
-Origen, Contra Celsum 1.48, 2.13 and Commentary on Matthew 10.17 (unreliable, Origen consistently misrepresents Josephus, no evidence he even had a manuscript of Antiquities nearby).
-Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 2.23.20 and 2.23.22. Here Eusebius shows duplicity. He first ascribes Origen's statements to Josephus as a pseudo-Josephan quote. Then he quotes the passage in full from Antiquities as found in our textus receptus with only minor deviations.
After this turns up a rather interesting phenomenon. All of the other quotations or references to this passage can be traced back to Eusebius.
-Jerome, De Viris Illustribus 2 and 13 alludes to it twice. On one occasion, however, he demonstrates he clearly knows Eusebius as he puts Clement and Josephus together. The only previous author to do this is Eusebius. Jerome also admits to using Josephus throughout De Viris Illustribus.
-Rufinus, trans. of Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 2.23.20 and 2.23.22 also has this passage (we'll come back to Rufinus below)
-George Hamartolos, Chronicon (using Boor's edition) has the legendary passage which he clearly cribs directly from Eusebius as he includes a few different terms that are absent in Origen. These include δὲ after ταῦτα (the former is absent in Origen, present in E), and also has Ἰουδαῖοι before ἀπέκτειναν (absent in Origen, present in E) and makes the same combination of συμβέβηκεν which Eusebius renders from Origen’s συμβε βηκέναι. He also includes some other surrounding language from Eusebius as well: φησι before ταῦτα, for instance.
-John Zonaras, Epitome 6.17 but this also almost certainly derives from Eusebius, whom he uses frequently. Notably, Zonaras uses the version directly quoted from Antiquities: τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ, Ἰάκωβος ὄνομα αὐτῷ.
-Sepher Yosippon in one manuscript has an appendix on Josephus, but this is derived from Jerome's De Viris Illustribus. Steven Bowen has done a recent English edition which is excellent for those curious.
-Chronicon Paschale's reference is probably derived also from Eusebius, as Whealey has pointed out.
-Cedrenus, Compendium is copying from Hamartolos. This is clear because Hamartolos introduces the James passage with φησὶ γὰρ Ἰακώβου, which Cedrenus also copies identically.
-George Syncellus, Chronography is likewise using Eusebius. He quotes both Eusebius' pseudo-Josephan passage and also the Ant. 20.200. Like Hamartolos, he also includes the combination of συμβέβηκεν, the addition of δὲ after ταῦτα, and the addition of Ἰουδαῖοι before ἀπέκτειναν.
The only possible non-Eusebian version I have found thus far could be the Latin Antiquities which reads:
However, the Latin translators infamously are known to have cribbed Rufinus' translation of the Testimonium Flavianum and the John the Baptist passage. And on comparison, I think it can be argued that while they probably did not lift his translation wholesale, they very possibly had it in mind or there was some kind of contamination from Rufinus:Ananus autem iunior cum pontificatum suscepisset, erat uehementer asperrimus et audax secta Saduceus qui circa iudicia sunt ultra omnes Iudaeos ualde crudeles, sicuti iam declarauimus. Cum ergo huius sectae Ananus esset, credens se inuenisse tempus oportunum, Festo mortuo, et Albino in itinere constituto, concilium fecit iudicum, et quosdam deducens ad semetipsum inter quos et fratrem Ihesu, qui dicitur Christus, nominee Iacobum, quasi contra legem agentes accusans, tradidit lapidandos. Qui autem uidebantur esse moderatissimi ciuitatis, et circa legis integritatem habere sollicitudinem, grauiter hoc tulere; miseruntque latenter ad regem rogantes eum, ut scriberet Anano, ne talia perpetraret, cum neque prius recte fecisset.
These are all of the versions of the James passage which I can find so far. If anyone knows of any others, let me know. However, it appears to me that the James passage can be quite plausibly explained as a Eusebian interpolation since all quotations of it, particularly the version that is put in Ant. 20.200 always seems to go back to Eusebius.Ananias autem iunior, quem pontificatum suscepisse supra diximus, protervus admodum et insolens moribus haeresim defendebat Sadducaeorum, qui in iudiciis crudeliores ceteris Iudaeis videntur, sicut iam supra ostendimus. Hie insolentiae suae tempus datum credens ex morte Festi consessum iudicum convocat et introducit in medium fratrem Iesu, qui dicitur Christus, Iacobum nomine, et alios quam plurimos, quos velut contra legem gerere incusans tradidit lapidandos. Quod facinus si qui ex civibus modestior fliit et aequi ac legis observantior, gravissime tulit. Qui etiam occulte legationem ad Caesarem mittunt, orantes eum scribere Ananiae, ne haec agat, quia nee prius huiuscemodi facinora recte commiserit.
I would include Photius, Bibliotheca fol. 238 here, but he does not actually attest to the passage as we have it. Instead he writes "James, the brother of the Lord" cribbing this language from Gal. 1:19. It is unknown whether he read our specific language, or whether he (on the basis of others) is assuming that this James mentioned in 20.200 was Jesus' brother, but using an uninterpolated text which lacked this language. We simply don't know, so Photius is worthless here.
Statistics: Posted by Chrissy Hansen — Wed Apr 10, 2024 8:58 pm