Do all Roads Lead to Eusebius: Antiquities 20.200

[Chrissy Hansen]

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:

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

[Peter Kirby]

-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).

Origen and the manuscripts of Ant. 20.200 themselves would be the simplest answer to the question.

[MrMacSon]

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.
< omitted >
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.

I find Photius, Bibliotheca fol. 238 having, "James, the brother of the Lord," cribbing this language from Gal. 1:19, to be interesting, because the Greek for "the brother [of]" in both Gal 1:19 and in the textus receptus of Antiquities 20.200 are the same, thus:

Gal 1:19:

..................................................Ἰάκωβον, τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ Κυρίου

Ant. 20.200 in part:

καθίζει συνέδριον κριτῶν καὶ παραγαγὼν εἰς αὐτὸ τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ, Ἰάκωβος ὄνομα αὐτῷ, καί τινας ἑτέρους

I know Photius lived late - in 9th century AD/CE - but perhaps he is preserving something significant(?)
(and, of course, parallelomania is not often a significant thing, but it's not always a bad thing)


Also in Photius, Bibliotheca fol. 238 - before, "James, the brother of the Lord" - is,

Agrippa the Great, reigned over the Jews, says Josephus, by filling them with his favours. It was to please them, apparently, that he killed with the sword James the brother of John, and that he tried to kill Peter, the leader of the Apostles, but he failed in his intention. https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/phot ... ca.htm#238

It'd be interesting to see the original language, especially if it is in Greek (as is likely(?))

---

---

fwiw,

Photius, Bibliotheca fol. 238:

After Phadus, as governor of Judaea, Cumanus was sent; after him, who had been recalled to Rome to answer a charge, Felix was sent; after him, it was Festus, then Albinus, then finally Florus. It was during the second year of his administration, because of the excessive sufferings which he inflicted on the Jews, that the war between the Jews and the Romans began; Nero was in the twelfth year of his reign.

Ananias, son of Ananias, took the office of high priest after having stripped Joseph of it; he was bold, daring and bold to the extreme; he was, indeed, a follower of the sect of the Sadducees and those were hard in their judgements and inclined to every audacity. Thus, this Ananias, when Festus had died in Judaea, and before Albinus had entered office, assembled the Sanhedrin on his own authority and accused James, the brother of the Lord, and others with him, of disobeying the laws and he ordered their death by stoning. On top, the most moderate Jews and king Agrippa himself, deeply affected, drove him out after three years of office and put in his place Jesus son of Damn{a}e{u}s.

It was after the death of Aaron, brother of Moses, that his sons, and their descendants after them, followed one another in the office of high priest, because there was in force an ancestral law which prohibited whoever was not of the blood of Aaron to obtain the office of high priest. So there were, from Aaron to Phanases which was elected high priest during the war by the Jews in revolt, eighty-three years. Then, during the passage to the desert, during which the tabernacle was manufactured, to the temple which king Solomon built, there were thirteen high priests who exercised the office until their death.

https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/phot ... ca.htm#238

compared to Antiquities 20.200:

[197] Hearing of the death of Festus, Caesar sent Albinus as procurator to Judea. And the king deposed Joseph from the high priesthood and passed on that dignity to the son of Ananus, himself also called Ananus. [198] They call this elder Ananus a most fortunate man, for after he himself had held that dignity for a long time, his five sons all served as high priest to God, which has never happened to any of our previous high priests. [199] But this younger Ananus, who, as we have said, assumed the high priesthood, was a notably bold and audacious man and he belonged to the Sadducee sect which, as we have already shown, was the strictest of all the Jews in judging offenders. [200] With Festus dead and Albinus only on his way, Ananus thought he had now a good opportunity to act on this. He assembled a judiciary Sanhedrin and brought before them James, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, and some others, and after condemning them as lawbreakers, gave them over to be stoned. [201] The fairest of the citizens and those most upset at the breaking of the laws, disliked this being done and sent to the king, asking him to stop Ananus from acting like this in future, as what he had already done was not right. [202] Some of them also went to meet Albinus as he was on his way from Alexandria, to tell him that Ananus had wrongfully assembled a Sanhedrin without his consent. [203] Albinus agreed with this and wrote in anger to Ananus threatening to punish him for doing this. So king Agrippa deposed him from the high priesthood, after he had ruled for only three months, and appointed Jesus, the son of Damnaeus, as high priest.

[204] When Albinus reached Jerusalem, he made every effort to ensure that the country could have peace, by doing away with many of the Sicarii. [205] The former high priest, Ananias, became ever more prominent and was much liked and esteemed by the citizens, and with his great hoard of money he constantly showered gifts on Albinus and the high priest. [206] But he had very evil servants, who joined up with the most reckless people and went to the threshing-floors and took away by force the tithes of the priests, beating anybody who would not hand them over. [207] The other chief priests acted similarly, as did their servants, and nobody could stop them, so that priests who previously used to be supported from those tithes, died for lack of food.

https://www.biblical.ie/page.php?fl=jos ... /AJGk20#09

There is significant difference between the two accounts in the paragraph after the reference to Jesus ben Damnaeus.

---

Also

. James, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ,

may be 'unnecessarily different' to:

. τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ, Ἰάκωβος ὄνομα αὐτῷ,

Perhaps the English should be:

. the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, James was the name of him

(??)

[MrMacSon]

Also in Photius, Bibliotheca fol. 238 - before, "James, the brother of the Lord" - is,

Agrippa the Great, reigned over the Jews, says Josephus, by filling them with his favours. It was to please them, apparently, that he killed with the sword James the brother of John, and that he tried to kill Peter, the leader of the Apostles, but he failed in his intention. https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/phot ... ca.htm#238

That sentence immediately after that^ is,

Agrippa, wearing a robe embroidered with silver, spoke to the people and, while he listened without rejecting the words of the crowd which outrageously pushed flattery to the roof of impiety, he was punished at once; indeed, there came to him a violent pain in the belly and he died five days later; it was in the fifty-fourth year of his age and in the seventh of his reign.

which corresponds to Antiquities 19.344-50 (as a 'potted summary' of it):

343 When Agrippa had reigned for three years over all Judea, he came to the city of Caesarea, which was formerly called Strato's Tower, where he held shows in honour of Caesar, when he heard that a festival was being held to make vows for his safety, bringing together a large crowd of officials and the men of rank of his province. 344 On the second day of the games he wore a robe all made of silver, of wonderful texture, and came into the theatre early in the morning, a time when the silver of his robe glowed in the rays of the rising sun, and shone so brightly as to fill with awe those who looked directly at him. 345 Soon his flatterers cried out from various places, though not for his good, that he was a god. They added, "Be merciful to us, for though up to now we have reverenced you only as a man, from now on we shall confess that you are above mortal nature." 346 The king did not rebuke them or reject their flattery as impious. But later he looked up and saw an owl sitting on a rope above his head and immediately understood that this bird was an omen of bad news, as it had once brought him the message of good news, and he felt an ache around his heart. An intense pain arose in his belly that severely affected him from the start. 347 Looking up at his friends he said, "This god, as you call me, is now commanded to depart this life; for that is how Fate punishes the lying words you said to me just now, and I whom you called immortal, am sentenced to death. But I have to accept what God decrees, for we have by no means fared badly, but lived in splendid good fortune." 348 As he said this, he gasped with pain and he was quickly carried into the palace, and the rumour went round that he was about to die. 349 Straight away the people with their wives and children put on sackcloth, according to their ancestral law and prayed for the king's recovery and all was full of mourning and lamentation. The king lay in a lofty bedchamber and as he saw them lying prostrate on the ground below, he could not help weeping. 350 After five days tormented the pain in his belly, he departed this life, in the fifty-fourth year of his age and the seventh year of his reign.

There is nothing preceding Antiquities 19.344 that refers to a James.

The rest of Bibliotheca fol. 238 is a potted summary of the rest of Antiquities 19 and of Ant. 20

[DrSarah]

Quick question: Why would Eusebius have wanted to make this interpolation?

[Ken Olson]

Quick question: Why would Eusebius have wanted to make this interpolation?

DrSarah,

You could look at my previous response to you on this:

Dr. Sarah,

4) The theory I am proposing is that Eusebius, who was looking for a passage in his manuscript of the Antiquities for the passage about James that Origen was talking about, found Antiquities 20.200, and glossed it with the identifier 'the brother of Jesus who was called Christ" which he had found in Origen. I do not know how James was identified in Ant. 20.200 before that.

[Snip]

3) Eusebius glosses other quotations of Josephus for the benefit of his Christian readers. When quoting a passage from Josephus on the Hasmoneans, Eusebius adds: 'who are called the Maccabees'.

The citation for the Hasmonean / Maccabees things is here:

I've previously suggested on this forum that Eusebius glossing James as the brother of Jesus who was called Christ so that his readers would be able to identify the man put to death in Ant. 20.200 as the Christian James is similar to his glossing the Hasmoneans with 'the ones who were called the Maccabees" for the benefit of his Christian readers. When quoting Josephus Ant. 20.247-249 in Demonstratio 8.2, he adds the identifier just so his Christian readers will know to identify the Hasmoneans with the Maccabees, not for some important Christological reason.

Best,

Ken

[Giuseppe]

I am not able to find where is the expression οὗτοι δὲ ἦσαν οἱ καλούμενοι Μακκαβαῖοι. In Eusebius's H.E.? Or in Antiquities?

Thank you in advance.

[Ken Olson]

I am not able to find where is the expression οὗτοι δὲ ἦσαν οἱ καλούμενοι Μακκαβαῖοι. In Eusebius's H.E.? Or in Antiquities?

Thank you in advance.

I've previously suggested on this forum that Eusebius glossing James as the brother of Jesus who was called Christ so that his readers would be able to identify the man put to death in Ant. 20.200 as the Christian James is similar to his glossing the Hasmoneans with 'the ones who were called the Maccabees" for the benefit of his Christian readers. When quoting Josephus Ant. 20.247-249 in Demonstratio 8.2, he adds the identifier just so his Christian readers will know to identify the Hasmoneans with the Maccabees, not for some important Christological reason.

Eusebius' quotation of Josephus Antiquities 20.247-29 (not book 18) adds the identification 'and these were called the Maccabeans' to Josephus' text, presumably because he thought his Christian readers might not have known who the Hasmoneans were and needed the clarification.

And these events happened concurrently
and fulfilled the prediction, "The Unction shall be cast out, and there is no judgment in it."
Josephus, himself a Hebrew, is sufficient evidence of this, giving the history of those times in the
Eighteenth Book of the Archaeology of the Jews:

"Herod was then made king by the Romans, but did no longer appoint High-Priests out of the
family of Asamonaeus, and these were called Maccabeans, but made certain men to be so that
were of no eminent families, but only of the Hebrew race, excepting that he gave that dignity to
Aristobulus; for he made this Aristobulus, the son of Hyrcanus, high priest, and took his sister
Mariamne to wife, aiming at winning the goodwill of the people through their memory of
Hyrcanus. Yet did he afterwards, out of his fear lest they should all bend their inclinations
to Aristobulus, put him to death in Jericho, and that by contriving to have him suffocated while
swimming, as I have already related. But after this man he never entrusted the High Priesthood to
the descendants of Hyrcanus. Archelaus also acted like his father Herod in the appointment of
the High-Priests, as did also the Romans, who took the government over the Jews into their
hands afterwards." [Eusebius, Demontratio Evangelica 8.2, trans W.J. Ferrar 2.132]

Best,

Ken

PS I am taking this from Sabrina Inowlocki, Eusebius and the Jewish Authors (2006)

[Chrissy Hansen]

So I found a few more references, all of which also go back to Eusebius (directly or via intermediary):

Suda, s.v. Ἰώσηπος, iota 503 here is quoting from the Greek translation (verbatim) of Jerome's De Viris Illustribus 13.

Jerome, Adversus Jovinianum 1.39 [PG 23.277–78] (reliant on either Eusebius or Origen, probably the former)

[DrSarah]

Quick question: Why would Eusebius have wanted to make this interpolation?

DrSarah,

You could look at my previous response to you on this:

Good point; I do owe you a couple of responses which I need to get to. Meanwhile, answering this:

Dr. Sarah,

4) The theory I am proposing is that Eusebius, who was looking for a passage in his manuscript of the Antiquities for the passage about James that Origen was talking about, found Antiquities 20.200, and glossed it with the identifier 'the brother of Jesus who was called Christ" which he had found in Origen. I do not know how James was identified in Ant. 20.200 before that.

[Snip]

3) Eusebius glosses other quotations of Josephus for the benefit of his Christian readers. When quoting a passage from Josephus on the Hasmoneans, Eusebius adds: 'who are called the Maccabees'.

The citation for the Hasmonean / Maccabees things is here:

I've previously suggested on this forum that Eusebius glossing James as the brother of Jesus who was called Christ so that his readers would be able to identify the man put to death in Ant. 20.200 as the Christian James is similar to his glossing the Hasmoneans with 'the ones who were called the Maccabees" for the benefit of his Christian readers. When quoting Josephus Ant. 20.247-249 in Demonstratio 8.2, he adds the identifier just so his Christian readers will know to identify the Hasmoneans with the Maccabees, not for some important Christological reason.

Best,

Ken

That still leaves us with the questions of a) why Origen would have thought the ‘called Christ’ phrase was in Josephus, and b) why Eusebius would have bothered to add it. I mean, even if he was puzzled by not finding the phrase Origen had cited, it seems unlikely that he’d have reacted by assuming it had to be there and misquoting the entire passage on the assumption that that phrase should be there. The natural reaction would have been for him to think that Origen made a mistake.

The exception to that, of course, would be if Eusebius was also working from some other source of information about the identity of this particular James; just as he knew from elsewhere that the Hasmoneans were called the Maccabees, so he knew from elsewhere that the James put to death in this incident was Jesus’s brother. I think that’s unlikely as an explanation, because of the unlikelihood of Eusebius referring to Jesus as ‘Jesus who was called Christ’ (when Eusebius believed that he was Christ), but it’s worth considering if we want to cover all bases. Of course, that particular theory is interesting in light of the frequency with which mythicists try to use interpolation explanations for the line in Josephus; if Eusebius had some other source of information that the James put to death was Jesus’s brother, then that would still be evidence pointing away from mythicism.