Josephus, Antiquities 20.200: List's Take

[Chrissy Hansen]

A new paper just dropped from Nicholas List. The first portion of the letter argues that the Antiquities 20.200 passage mentioning "James the brother of Jesus, called Christ" is partly interpolated.

His argument is that the portion λεγομένου Χριστοῦ (called Christ) is quite probably a marginal note that was inserted into the passage at some later point, similar to Carrier, and that the James being mentioned is a brother of Joshua ben Damneus mentioned in 20.203, again similar to Carrier.

His main points are these:

(1) It is not unheard of for Josephus to refer to people merely by brother or father, even brothers/fathers who are only just mentioned and have no prior acknowledgement.

(2) It makes better sense of the passage than assuming that Josephus is inexplicably referring to some figure two books previously (18.63-64).

(3) If James were a relative or somehow related to the other political rivals of Ananus, then it makes more sense of the passage. His death would explain the outrage of said political rivals, rather than some random Christian leader who probably would not have stirred any particular feelings of resentment.

(4) The references in Origen are clearly not exact quotations, but are more typical of Origen's inaccurate paraphrastic style. In fact, his claims about the passage do not align with any known manuscript of Antiquities. As he says, "Origen uses three variations of the phrase in three different contexts; if he is quoting Josephus, at the very least, it is clearly neither verbatim nor in context." (page 23) Posing the "called Christ" portion was an interpolation makes plenty of sense of the evidence.

(5) Whealey's previous contention that a Christian would not use "called Christ" for Jesus he refutes. He specifically takes her to task in a footnote for her unjudicious treatment of Olson's position. (page 26)

(6) He notes that Origen's complaint that Josephus did not consider Jesus the Christ would even be strenghened by removing the "called Christ" portion

He makes others but these are the ones I found the most interesting.

https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/1/article/923167

[Peter Kirby]

His argument is that the portion λεγομένου Χριστοῦ (called Christ) is quite probably a marginal note that was inserted into the passage at some later point, similar to Carrier, and that the James being mentioned is a brother of Joshua ben Damneus mentioned in 20.203, again similar to Carrier.

(1) It is not unheard of for Josephus to refer to people merely by brother or father, even brothers/fathers who are only just mentioned and have no prior acknowledgement.

I think I can reject this particular hypothesis as unlikely, for the same reason as spin: Jesus is identified later (as son of Damneus). It's one thing to identify a person not at all; it's another thing to identify them at the second occasion of mentioning him. The earlier context would also have been highly appropriate (for a "son of"); the person named is described by reference to their brother first.

This is why Carrier suggests as a possible hypothesis that there were two identifications of "son of Damneus," one of which is removed. Yet that removal is also odd as it undermines the gloss idea, which is employed to explain the nature of the proposed change.

The best interpolation hypothesis IMO remains the idea that a certain "James" was mentioned without providing an identifier. That is, if we go with an interpolation hypothesis, that is the one that would seem the most likely and easiest to defend.

[Peter Kirby]

(2) It makes better sense of the passage than assuming that Josephus is inexplicably referring to some figure two books previously (18.63-64).

This is a fair point IMO. It can be taken in a couple directions:

(1) an interpolation hypothesis, such as the one that I just mentioned

(2) a re-evaluation of context available in the 90s of the first century about Christians

If the latter, then there wouldn't necessarily need to be a previous passage.

[Peter Kirby]

(3) If James were a relative or somehow related to the other political rivals of Ananus, then it makes more sense of the passage. His death would explain the outrage of said political rivals, rather than some random Christian leader who probably would not have stirred any particular feelings of resentment.

Painter in Just James has some thoughts on how that hypothetically could have played out (if that's what happened in the 60s CE), in a way that de-emphasizes the Christian part of it.

[Chrissy Hansen]

His argument is that the portion λεγομένου Χριστοῦ (called Christ) is quite probably a marginal note that was inserted into the passage at some later point, similar to Carrier, and that the James being mentioned is a brother of Joshua ben Damneus mentioned in 20.203, again similar to Carrier.

(1) It is not unheard of for Josephus to refer to people merely by brother or father, even brothers/fathers who are only just mentioned and have no prior acknowledgement.

I think I can reject this particular hypothesis as unlikely, for the same reason as spin: Jesus is identified later (as son of Damneus). It's one thing to identify a person not at all; it's another thing to identify them at the second occasion of mentioning him. The earlier context would also have been highly appropriate (for a "son of"); the person named is described by reference to their brother first.

This is why Carrier suggests as a possible hypothesis that there were two identifications of "son of Damneus," one of which is removed. Yet that removal is also odd as it undermines the gloss idea, which is employed to explain the nature of the proposed change.

The best interpolation hypothesis IMO remains the idea that a certain "James" was mentioned without providing an identifier. That is, if we go with an interpolation hypothesis, that is the one that would seem the most likely and easiest to defend.

List actually addresses that in his argument. He argues that since the later section is specifically dealing with Jesus ben Damneus, and in context with the violence which led to Ananus being deposed, it thus makes sense that here James would be identified as the brother of Jesus (the soon-to-be-mentioned), because this would closely tie him as a cause for the problems and rise of political rivalry.

That said, I also think it likelier that there was a James with no identifier.

[Peter Kirby]

(6) He notes that Origen's complaint that Josephus did not consider Jesus the Christ would even be strenghened by removing the "called Christ" portion

There's also my crazy correction hypothesis, which seems a little less crazy every time that I look at it: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=11483

Edited to add: but on that correction hypothesis, I'm not committed to any version of what Origen may be reading (abbreviation, eta, iota). It's really hard to say.

[Peter Kirby]

(5) Whealey's previous contention that a Christian would not use "called Christ" for Jesus he refutes.

Has this been pressed too far in the opposite direction?

Some people now seem to be treating this phrase itself as confessional, not just something that a Christian "would use."

[Chrissy Hansen]

(5) Whealey's previous contention that a Christian would not use "called Christ" for Jesus he refutes.

Has this been pressed too far in the opposite direction?

Some people now seem to be treating this phrase itself as confessional, not just something that a Christian "would use."

Olson lists the following (aside from the Gospels, Matt. 1:16, 27:17; John 4:25, 9:11):

Origen, Contra Celsum 4.28 καὶ Χριστὸς εἶναι λεγόμενος τοῦ ϑεοῦ
Justin Martyr, First Apology 30 τί κωλύει καὶ τὸν παρ’ ἡμῖν λεγόμενον Χριστόν

I have added additionally:

Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica 4.12 ὁ Χριστὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, νικηφόρος λεγόμενος
Eusebius, Generalis elementaria introductio 3.31 αὐτὸς ὁ Χριστὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ ὁ νῦν λεγόμενος
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 32 οὗτος δὲ ὁ ὑμέτερος λεγόμενος Χριστός
Justin Martyr, First Apology 22 Υἱὸς δὲ θεοῦ, ὁ Ιησοῦς λεγόμενος
Ps.-Clement, Homiliae 18.4 τοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς λεγομένου Χριστοῦ

It should be noted that Whealey would object that these have "distancing" language, but this is not the case in the Gospels, as List responds. Nor is it seemingly true of Contra Celsum 4.28, which Whealey ignores.

[Peter Kirby]

(5) Whealey's previous contention that a Christian would not use "called Christ" for Jesus he refutes.

Has this been pressed too far in the opposite direction?

Some people now seem to be treating this phrase itself as confessional, not just something that a Christian "would use."

Olson lists the following (aside from the Gospels, Matt. 1:16, 27:17; John 4:25, 9:11):

Origen, Contra Celsum 4.28 καὶ Χριστὸς εἶναι λεγόμενος τοῦ ϑεοῦ
Justin Martyr, First Apology 30 τί κωλύει καὶ τὸν παρ’ ἡμῖν λεγόμενον Χριστόν

I have added additionally:

Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica 4.12 ὁ Χριστὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, νικηφόρος λεγόμενος
Eusebius, Generalis elementaria introductio 3.31 αὐτὸς ὁ Χριστὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ ὁ νῦν λεγόμενος
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 32 οὗτος δὲ ὁ ὑμέτερος λεγόμενος Χριστός
Justin Martyr, First Apology 22 Υἱὸς δὲ θεοῦ, ὁ Ιησοῦς λεγόμενος
Ps.-Clement, Homiliae 18.4 τοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς λεγομένου Χριστοῦ

It should be noted that Whealey would object that these have "distancing" language, but this is not the case in the Gospels, as List responds. Nor is it seemingly true of Contra Celsum 4.28, which Whealey ignores.

So what's your take?

Is this phrase itself confessional?

[Peter Kirby]

Thanks for sharing the paper.

Given its exploration of the sources, such as the Second Apocalypse of James and the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions, I look forward to reading it when I get a copy or get to a library.