Josephus and the Murder of James: An Argument Against Some Common Wisdom

HANSEN STUDIES OF BIBLICAL INTEREST VOL. 2 (2025) ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Correspondence should be addressed to Chrissy M. Hansen at [email protected]. ©2025 Chrissy M. Hansen. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction, provided the original author and source are credited. SBI, Volume 2 (2025), pp. 1–19 1 doi: 10.5281/zenodo.17086097 Josephus and the Murder of James: An Argument Against Some Common Wisdom Chrissy M. Hansen University of Nebraska-Kearney ABSTRACT Josephus’ testimonia on the life of Jesus are among the most scrutinized texts in antiquity. Until recently, however, commentators have let the James passage (Ant. 20.200) go relatively unscathed, instead opting to assume authenticity without much comment. This article challenges the consensus viewpoint on the James passage, bringing to light several concerns regarding the style of the passage and its transmission, both of which point to Christian redaction. The article argues instead that Eusebius likely interpolated the passage. Keywords: Josephus, Antiquities, historical Jesus, James, brother of the Lord, Testimonium Flavianum INTRODUCTION While the Testimonium Flavianum has been scrutinized for its origins, endless recensions, and range of potential Christian interpolations, Josephus’ passage on James in Antiquities 20.200 is often regarded as authentic with comparatively little justification. The passage maintains consistent support among academics not because of what it is, but because of what it does not appear to be; it does not adhere to Christian tradition, is not consistent with how Christians referred to Jesus’ siblings, and bears little to no outward signs of interpolative action. By far the most comprehensive support in favor of its authenticity, recently, has come from Alice Whealey and James Carleton Paget. 1 Those who argue against the passage’s authenticity have largely restricted their argumentation to limited data; scholars have neither conducted thorough investigations of the passage and its recensions, nor analyzed wider trends in how Josephus used adelphonyms or other relevant information. 2 1 Alice Whealey, “Josephus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and the Testimonium Flavianum,” in Josephus und das Neue Testament, ed. Christfried Böttrich, Jens Herzer, and Torsten Reiprich (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 73– 116. See also Alice Whealey, Josephus on Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2003), 2–5; and James Carleton Paget, “Some Observations on Josephus and Christianity,” Journal of Theological Studies 52, no. 2 (2001): 539–624. 2 The only exception here has been Nicholas List, “The Death of James the Just Revisited,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 32, no. 1 (2024): 17–44. However, List does not produce any thorough investigation on the function of adelphonymics in Josephus’ work. HANSEN STUDIES OF BIBLICAL INTEREST VOL. 2 (2025) 2 Taking its authenticity largely for granted, most academics have summarily dismissed the growing number of challengers who see this passage as being at least partially interpolated by Christians. 3 I will argue that the passage is much more likely to be inauthentic, and in fact that there is little reason for accepting the entire phrase τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγοµένου Χριστοῦ (“the brother of Jesus, called Christ”) as authentically Josephan. 4 Instead, I propose that on the basis of Origen’s (errant) claims, the passage was interpolated, probably by Eusebius or someone close to his time, and that all resulting quotations and manuscript traditions likely arise from this same Eusebian origin point. This study will also highlight previously undiscussed evidence for interpolation, including a detailed overview of Josephus’ usage of introductory adelphonyms and an analysis of known quotations and usages of the Ant. 20.200 passage throughout Late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages, which scholars have largely neglected. 5 STYLISTIC PROBLEMS IN ANTIQUITIES 20.200 There is one immediately apparent stylistic anomaly in the text: the term Χριστὸς (“Christ”), which is uncharacteristic of Josephus. There is only one other occasion of this word in the textus receptus of Josephus’ Antiquities and that is in the infamous Testimonium Flavianum (Ant. 18.63–64), which was clearly tampered with. Many following John P. Meier, therefore, would contend the mention of Χριστὸς is inauthentic. 6 As William O. 3 For noteworthy scholarship on this, see Ken Olson, “Eusebius and the ‘Testimonium Flavianum’,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61, no. 2 (1999): 305–22; Nicholas P. L. Allen, “Josephus on James the Just? A re-evaluation of Antiquitates Judaicae 20.9.1,” Journal of Early Christian History 7, no. 1 (2017): 1–27; Li Yaming, Lishi shang zhenshi de yesu (Taibei shi: Wunan tushu chuban gufen youxian gongsi, 2017), 41–2. Many of these challenges arise from the “mythicist” crowd; see Raphael Lataster, Questioning the Historicity of Jesus: Why a Philosophical Analysis Elucidates the Historical Discourse (Leiden: Brill, 2019), 199–202; Robert M. Price, Killing History: Jesus in the No-Spin Zone (Amherst: Prometheus, 2014), 243–44; Hermann Detering, Falsche Zeugen: Außerchristliche Jesuszeugnisse auf dem Prüfstand (Aschaffenburg: Alibri Verlag, 2011), 22–29; Léon Herrmann, Chrestos: Témoignages païens et juifs sur le christianisme du premier siècle (Bruxelles: Latomus, 1970), 97–104. 4 This contrasts with others who have proposed partial interpolations of just λεγοµένου Χριστοῦ. See Richard Carrier, “Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 20, no. 4 (2012): 489–514. 5 I will be using online databases, including the Perseus Scaife viewer and Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG). Numbering for TLG sources is per their system. 6 John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: The Roots of the Problem and the Person (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 61– 69. Others aver that the Latin and Syriac/Arabic instances of downplayed language with ‘believed to be the Christ’ indicate it was original. Space does not permit a thorough response, however it should be noted that the Latin tradition all stems from Jerome, see David B. Levenson and Thomas R. Martin, “The Latin Translations of Josephus on Jesus, John the Baptist, and James: Critical Texts of the Latin Translation of the Antiquities and Rufinus’ Translation of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History Based on Manuscripts and Early Printed Editions,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 45 (2014): 1–79 at 25–26. Jerome’s account is possibly contaminated by Pseudo-Hegesippus’ De Excidio 2.12 paraphrase (itself descended from Eusebius, see below), see Richard Matthew Pollard, “The De Excidio of ‘Hegesippus’ and the Reception of Josephus in the Early Middle Ages,” Viator 46.2 (2015): 65–100 at 83. This is noteworthy, as De Excidio probably also depends on Eusebius, see Carson Bay, Biblical Heroes and Classical Culture in Christian Late Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022). Thus, we can discount the Latin transmission. The Syriac/Arabic versions almost HANSEN STUDIES OF BIBLICAL INTEREST VOL. 2 (2025) 3 Walker notes, in cases where we are dealing with an already altered text (in his case the Pauline epistles), the burden of proof for determining an interpolation is significantly reduced. 7 The addition of this questionable language in the James passage justifies pursuing the issue further. If the Testimonium Flavianum reference is inauthentic (or, at the very least, the reference to Jesus as “Christ”), then this unexplained term (Χριστὸς) has no purpose in Ant. 20.200. The term would certainly need some explanation, as Josephus’ gentilic audience 8 would have no understanding of it. 9 Further, as Nicholas List observes, it is strange that Josephus would refer to James by reference to an obscure figure (Jesus) mentioned two books and several hundred lines ago. 10 After having reviewed all of Josephus’ extant works, there is a general trend that appears regarding the formation and usage of adelphonyms. List brought up Josephus’ general use of adelphonyms to justify his argument that the Ant. 20.200 passage originally read “the brother of Jesus, named James,” and that the message of “who was called Christ” was a gloss. 11 For this he cites a few examples, including where a figure is cited by reference to a previously unintroduced brother. However, notably, all of Josephus’ other adelphonyms starkly contrast with the Antiquities 20.200 passage. For instance, List cites 20.137 where Josephus introduces certainly stem from the Syriac of Eusebius, which originally read “he was the Christ.” This, then, must be a later gloss, possibly resulting from the rising influence of Islam, which also accounts for Michael the Syrian and Agapius over-emphasizing the death of Jesus, see Alice Whealey, “The Testimonium Flavianum in Syriac and Arabic,” New Testament Studies 54, no. 4 (2008): 573–90. Obviously, Christians were capable of redacting the “he was the Christ” to sound more natural, as was done in manuscripts of Rufinus’ translation of Historia Ecclesiastica, see Levenson and Martin, “The Latin Translations of Josephus,” 25–26. Martino Diez, “Les antiquités gréco-romaines entre al-Makīn ibn al-ʿAmīd et Ibn Ḫaldūn. Notes pour une histoire de la tradition,” Studia graeco-arabica 3 (2013): 121–40 at 134–35 also notes Al-Makin’s usage and quotation of Agapius. Claudia Setzer, Jewish Responses to Early Christians: History and Polemics, 30–150 C.E. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 211n13 proposes Agapius’ version is just a poor rendering from Syriac to Arabic. We also see evidence of this redaction in Cedrenus’ Compendium Historiarum, which copies George Hamartolos’ Testimonium Flavianum but changes ὁ Χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν to πολλοὺς γὰρ καὶ ἀπὸ Ἑλλήνων ἠγάγετο Χριστός despite copying the passage verbatim up to that point. As such, there is no compelling reason to consider “believed to be the Christ” to be authentic or to prefer it as original over “he was the Christ” (especially since “believed to be the Christ” is lacking in all Greek renditions of the passage). Sozomen, Historia Ecclesiastica 1.1.5 renders it Χριστὸν δὲ περιφανῶς ὀνοµάζει (“he evidently calls him Christ”), however this is a paraphrase and unlike Cedrenus, not an otherwise close quotation. 7 William O. Walker, “The Burden of Proof in Identifying Interpolations in the Pauline Letters,” New Testament Studies 33, no. 4 (1987): 610–18 at 615. 8 For Josephus having a gentilic audience, see Jan N. Bremmer, “Ioudaismos, Christianismos and the Parting of the Ways,” in Jews and Christians – Parting Ways in the First Two Centuries CE? Reflections on the Gains and Losses of a Model, ed. Jens Schröter, Benjamin A. Edsall, and Joseph Verheyden (Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 2021), 57–87 at 70. 9 As evident from early Greco-Roman sources, they often presumed that Χριστὸς/Christus was a name and not a title, see Pliny the Younger, Ep. 10.96; Tacitus, Annals 15.44. Also relevant would be the several references to Jesus by Galen, see Rebecca Flemming, “Galen and the Christians: Texts and Authority in the Second Century AD,” in Christianity in the Second Century: Themes and Developments, ed. James Carleton Paget and Judith Lieu (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), 171–87. Even stronger evidence would be the consistent confusion of Christus with Chrestus, see Walter Shandruk, “The Interchange of ι and η in the Spelling of ΧριστWords in Egyptian Papyri,” Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 47 (2010): 205– 19. 10 List, “The Death of James the Just Revisited,” 21n17. 11 Ibid., 21. HANSEN STUDIES OF BIBLICAL INTEREST VOL. 2 (2025) 4 “Felix Pallans’ brother” (Φήλικα Πάλλαντος ἀδελφὸν). 12 There are two issues here. Firstly, Felix is mentioned first and is the focal point unlike in 20.200, which seems to presume prior knowledge of a character (i.e., the Jesus from the Testimonium Flavianum). Secondly, while Josephus occasionally identifies figures by otherwise unknown persons, he does not introduce a character by their brother, unless their brother was previously introduced. 13 A review of Josephus’ texts produces no exceptions to these trends. To determine any workable parallels to the James passage, I surveyed the whole Antiquities for parallel constructions to Ant. 20.200 and found none. Instead, when adelphonymics are utilized, the pertinent subject figure is either named first, or has been previously introduced (neither of which apply to James). 14 As far as I am aware, there are no parallels for introducing a character for the first time by an adelphonymic and then by the name of the individual in question in Antiquities. One example which List does not consider, is αὐτοῦ ἀδελφῷ ὁµοπατρίῳ ὄντι Ἐλιακείµῳ (“his brother on his father’s side named Eliakim”) in Ant. 10.82. However, this is unlike the passage in Ant. 20.200 for numerous reasons, the biggest being that the subject is performing an act on his own brother, making the reference to his status as brother (coming before the name) natural. Additionally, it would not work to just call him “his brother, Eliakim” because of their complicated familial relationship which required more exposition; Eliakim is introduced prior to this in Antiquities and discussed at length. The only other examples I have found bearing any similarity is Ant. 11.298 which introduces a figure as ἀδελφὸς ἦν τῷ Ἰωάννῃ Ἰησοῦς (“John’s brother Joshua”), but John was previously introduced (11.297). Similarly, 11.302 has Manassess introduced as a brother, 12 Ibid. 13 In fact, I was only able to find one example where a previously unintroduced figure is introduced for the first time by relation to a brother who was named first: Jewish War 1.130 (τὸν ἀδελφὸν τὸν Ἀντιπάτρου Φαλλίωνα). However, in this case, Antipater (the brother Phallion is identified by) was the primary subject and already long introduced. Thus, it differs from Ant. 20.200 significantly. 14 Ant. 1.154 (Sarah’s brother, Lot, named prior); Ant. 2.17, 2.35, 38, 167 (Joseph’s brothers); Ant. 4.21 (Moses’ brother); Ant. 4.152 (grandson of Moses’ brother); Ant. 5.235 (brother named Jotham, who is previously introduced in 5.234); Ant. 6.178 (eldest brother Eliab, introduced in 6.161); Ant. 7.11 (cf. 6.311); Ant. 7.109 (Ἀβεσσαῖον τὸν Ἰωάβου τοῦ ἀρχιστρατήγου ἀδελφὸν); Ant. 11.79 (Zodmiel the brother of Judas); Ant. 11.322 Manasses, a brother of the high priest Judas (Μανασσῆ τοῦ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἀρχιερέως Ἰαδδοῦ ἀδελφόν); Ant. 12.44 only has an adelphonymic in some English translations (ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ Ἐλεάζαρος), where the name Simon is added for clarification; Ant. 12.238 (Joshua brother of Onias, previously introduced in 12.237); Ant. 13.222 has Ἀντιόχου τοῦ Δηµητρίου ἀδελφοῦ; Ant. 13.369 Ἀντίοχος ὁ Σελεύκου ἀδελφὸς; Ant. 13.387 talks of Antiochus and uses an adelphonymic, but only after his name and surname are written (Ἀντίοχος ὁ κληθεὶς Διόνυσος ἀδελφὸς ὢν Φιλίππου); Ant. 14.33 mentions Phallion, the brother of Antipater, but names Phallion first (Φαλλίων ὁ Ἀντιπάτρου ἀδελφός); Ant. 14.121 introduces Phasael and Joseph, and Joseph is later identified with an adelphonymic τὸν ἀδελφὸν τὸν Ἡρώδου Ἰώσηπον (Ant. 14.390) and Phasael is in 15.12 (τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἡρώδου Φασάηλον); Ant. 15.184 introduces Pheroras, and in 16.194 he is identified with the adelphonymic τοῦ βασιλέως ἀδελφὸς Φερώρας and again in 17.257 as τοῦ Ἡρώδου ἀδελφοῦ Φασαήλου; Ant. 18.106 Philip’s death is remarked upon (after he has been discussed frequently) by referring to him as the brother of Herod; Ant. 17.70 has Θευδίωνος µητρὸς Ἀντιπάτρου ἀδελφοῦ; Ant. 18.151 Aristobulus is designated as Agrippa’s brother but again names Aristobulus first and uses a full adelphonymic in 18.273 (Ἀριστόβουλος ὁ Ἀγρίππου τοῦ βασιλέως ἀδελφὸς); Ant. 18.342 has Ἀνιλαῖος ὁ τοῦ Ἀσιναίου ἀδελφὸς; Ant. 20.104 again mentions Herod brother of Agrippa (ὁ τοῦ µεγάλου βασιλέως Ἀγρίππα ἀδελφὸς); Ant. 20.137 Felix brother of Pallans (Φήλικα Πάλλαντος ἀδελφὸν); Ant. 20.148 Germanicus the brother of Caesar (Γερµανικὸς ὁ Καίσαρος ἀδελφός); Ant. 20.225 Aaron brother of Moses (Ἀαρῶνα τὸν Μωυσέως ἀδελφὸν). HANSEN STUDIES OF BIBLICAL INTEREST VOL. 2 (2025) 5 but not with an adelphonym. Ant. 20.75 has τοῦ βασιλέως ἀδελφὸς Μονόβαζος, but Monobazus was already introduced at this point (20.18–20). Ant. 17.225 contains τὸν ἀδελφὸν τὸν Νικολάου Πτολεµαῖον, in which Ptolemy is identified but only after Nicolaus. However, as with the other cases (unlike James), Ptolemy had been previously identified (Ant. 17.195). Expanding beyond Antiquities, the only close and potential counterexample is Jewish War 1.130 τὸν ἀδελφὸν τὸν Ἀντιπάτρου Φαλλίωνα, where Phallion is introduced for the first time. However, unlike the James passage, Phallion is introduced by way of an already known sibling. Thus, using this as a parallel still undermines the authenticity of 20.200 (necessitating a prior Jesus be mentioned, i.e., the dubious Testimonium Flavianum). This singular example demonstrates just how unlikely and awkward this phraseology is for Josephus normally. Even more importantly, in all cases where similar examples occur (i.e., where Josephus introduces a character by first noting their relationship to a sibling), they utilize a previously introduced figure (the brother). As a result, based on Josephus’ usage of adelphonymics, the Ant. 20.200 passage must presume the existence of the Testimonium Flavianum for the adelphonym to make sense; we cannot see the James passage as independent from the known tampering of Antiquities 18.63–64, as it needs the Testimonium to be coherent. THE PROBLEM OF ORIGEN’S TESTIMONY The first time James is mentioned in connection with Josephus is in the works of Origen. In his Contra Celsum and his Commentary on Matthew, Origen refers to a passage on James three times. His claims are, however, suspect. Origen claims that Josephus ascribed the fall of Jerusalem and its capture by Vespasian to the martyrdom of James the brother of Jesus (none of which is in our textus receptus) and appears to loosely paraphrase our specific section: (1) Ἰακώβου τοῦ δικαίου, ὃς ἦν ἀδελφὸς Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγοµένου Χριστοῦ (Origen, Contra Celsum 1.47; Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 2.23.20) [“James the Just, who was the brother of Jesus who is called Christ”] (2) Ἰάκωβον τὸν δίκαιον, τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγοµένου Χριστοῦ (Origen, Contra Celsum 2.13) [James the Just, the brother of Jesus, who is called Christ”) (3) Ἰακώβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγοµένου Χριστοῦ (Origen, Commentary on Matthew 10.17) [“James, the brother of Jesus, who is called Christ”] As List notes, Origen does not quote our textus receptus, but offers a paraphrase which does not align with our text. We can find several variations from the currently received version. Specifically, the name of James is prior to the mention of Jesus in these passages. In two of Origen’s apparent references, he refers to James as “the just/righteous” as well. While some have opined that Origen’s version is potentially authentic and thus our textus receptus is inauthentic, 15 the more prudent solution in my view is that Origen is simply 15 Sabrina Inowlocki, “Did Josephus Ascribe the Fall of Jerusalem to the Murder of James, Brother of Jesus?” Revue des études juives 170, no. 1–2 (2011): 21–49. HANSEN STUDIES OF BIBLICAL INTEREST VOL. 2 (2025) 6 mistaken about the contents of Josephus’ work and was not a careful (or perhaps a disingenuous) peruser of Josephus’ Antiquities. To the contrary, Origen misrepresents Josephus on multiple occasions, which should leave us in doubt that he was familiar with his work at all, or lead us to assume that he was fine with extrapolating upon and adding to Josephus’ words. 16 Both possibilities should give us pause regarding Ant. 20.200. Many aver that Origen would not use the language of λεγοµένου Χριστοῦ or similar for Jesus as it was insufficiently reverent and either implied distance or a potentially negative connotation (denoting Jesus as a “so-called” Messiah). 17 This assumption is invalid, as it implies that ancient Christian authors were not capable of imagining how their interlocutors or non-Christians would talk about Jesus when, in fact, we know that they could and did quite frequently. This very language is utilized in such cases. 18 It should also be noted that Origen uses similar phrasing to describe Jesus as the son of God (καὶ Χριστὸς εἶναι λεγόµενος τοῦ ϑεοῦ) in a purely reverential setting (Contra Celsum 4.28 per Ken Olson). 19 This language is also used in scripture (Matt. 1:16, 27:17; John 4:25, cf. 9:11), which Origen quotes or refers to on numerous occasions. 20 List aptly writes that, “If it was good enough for author of Matthew, it was certainly good enough for a Christian redactor of Josephus.” 21 In fact, given that the phrase so often occurs in Christian literature, there is no reason to think that λεγοµένου Χριστοῦ would make Origen think Josephus questioned Jesus’ status as the Messiah, even though he did. Thus, following List, it would make more sense of 16 Wataru Mizugaki, “Origen and Josephus,” in Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, ed. Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata (Leiden: Brill, 1987), 325–37; Heinz Schreckenberg and Kurt Schubert, Jewish Historiography and Iconography in Early and Medieval Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 57–63. Origen’s imprecise and inaccurate citations are rather frequent. Schreckenberg proposes it was a result of Origen’s dictation style, where he likely had no copy of Josephus in front of him. 17 Whealey, “Josephus,” 111. 18 Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 32 places λεγόµενος Χριστός (here it is derogatory) in the mouth of Trypho; Ps.-Clement, Homiliae 18.4 puts λεγοµένου Χριστοῦ in the mouth of Simon Magus. Alexander, Inventio crucis 4037.27 (TLG) puts ὁ λεγόµενος Χριστὸς in the mouth of Pilate. 19 Olson, “Eusebius and the ‘Testimonium Flavianum’,” 316 also lists Justin Martyr, First Apology 30 where Justin responds to an imaginary critic replying καὶ τὸν παρ’ ἡµῖν λεγόµενον Χριστόν (“whom we call Christ”). In addition to those Olson listed, one can also note Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica 4.12 reverentially has ὁ Χριστὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, νικηφόρος λεγόµενος (“the Christ of God, called victor”). See also Eusebius, Generalis elementaria introductio 3.31. The latter is per Scaife viewer run by Perseus Digital Library. I have also found Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae 17.3a.3–4 (TLG) which utilizes part of Matthew 27:22 to introduce and discuss Jesus (τὸν Ἰησοῦν τὸν λεγόµενον Χριστόν or “Jesus the one called Christ”). 20 Origen, Commentarii in Evangelium Joannis 1.5.29 and 1.21.126 (John 4:25); Origen, Contra Celsum, praef.2 (Matthew 27:22); Origen, Scholia in Matthew 27.11 (Matthew 27:22); Origen, Commentariorum Series in Evangelium Matthaei (Mt. 22.34-27.63), chap. 121 (Matthew 27:22). Numberings are all per Scaife viewer run by Perseus Digital Library. 21 List, “The Death of James the Just Revisited,” 26n39. We can see that other Christian sources also utilized these passages, see Gelasius, Historia Ecclesiastica 2.24.17 (Matthew 1:16); in Suda s.v. Νέρων (nu 254) references John 19:38. The above numberings are per Scaife viewer run by Perseus Digital Library. Using the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, I was also able to find John Chrysostom, Homiliae in Joannem 59.190.38–39 (John 4:25); John Chrysostom, In Samaritanam 59.540.63–64 and 59.541.13 (both referring to John 4:25); Cyrillus, Exposito Psalmos 69.981.33–34 (John 4:25); Cyrillus, Commentarius in Isaiam prophetam 70.1312.18–19 (John 4:25). See also Eustathius, Commentarius in hexaemeron 772.8 (Matthew 1:16); Dialogus Timothei et Aquilae 17.17.1 (Matthew 1:16); Athanasius, Sermo de descriptione deiparae 28.949.30–31 (referencing Matthew 27:17). HANSEN STUDIES OF BIBLICAL INTEREST VOL. 2 (2025) 7 Origen’s claim that Josephus rejected Jesus as the Messiah (Contra Celsum 1.47) to at least omit λεγοµένου Χριστοῦ from the text. 22 This was certainly language which Christians could (and did) place in the mouths of nonbelievers, and this is likewise the context of all three times which Origen refers to this passage in Josephus. The first two occasions occur with the specific goal of countering an anti-Christian polemicist, giving him ample motivation to construct this phraseology. Given this, Origen does not stand as a reliable witness that Ant. 20.200 originally contained any reference to James as “the brother of Jesus called Christ.” The fact that he renders it in three different ways (none of which match our textus receptus), has motive for constructing the phrase, and abused Josephus as a source elsewhere means that Origen is simply unreliable. The insertion of this explanatory note would have likewise been an easy mistake for Origen to make. If there was a figure named “James” (with some other patronymic or title, 23 or more probably standing alone 24 ) in book 20, and it was also not far from the Temple Destruction being mentioned at the end of book 20 (and in fact is part of Josephus’ description of a series of events that led to the Jewish War and the destruction of Jerusalem 25 ), Origen could have easily seen this name and mentally made the connection. This connection would be made even stronger by this James also being stoned, which was consistent with Christian beliefs. 26 As there are only two people named James in all of book 20, and since the first one (20.103) was executed far too early, then 20.200 would have been the only plausible figure. INTERPOLATION AND EUSEBIUS The first author to provide a full quotation of the James passage in context is Eusebius in his Historia Ecclesiastica 2.23.22. However, before discussing this it is worth noting that Eusebius, unlike in our current textus receptus, ascribes to Josephus three separate attestations of Jesus, including two of James the Just. The first reference is cribbed directly from Origen, where Eusebius writes: 22 List, “The Death of James the Just Revisited,” 24n23. 23 Allen, “Josephus on James the Just?” 14 proposes any patronymic could have existed there. Carrier, “Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation,” argues the patronymic “son of Damneus” was present. Both seem unnecessary and perhaps overcomplicate interpolation theories. 24 Josephus was inconsistent in his application of patronymics and similar. For instance, Josephus mentions one Epaphroditus in Ant. 1.8 who receives no other qualifications or identification. Ant. 10.59 mentions an aristocrat named Salloum but provides no further details on who this person was or their connections. As a result, we need not suppose that this James was clearly identified in the text. 25 List, “The Death of James the Just Revisited,” 18–22. 26 Ibid., 32–8. HANSEN STUDIES OF BIBLICAL INTEREST VOL. 2 (2025) 8 ταῦτα δὲ 27 συµβέβηκεν Ἰουδαίοις κατ᾿ ἐκδίκησιν Ἰακώβου τοῦ δικαίου, ὃς ἦν ἀδελφὸς Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγοµένου Χριστοῦ, ἐπειδήπερ δικαιότατον αὐτὸν ὄντα οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι 28 ἀπέκτειναν (Historia Ecclesiastica 2.23.20) These things happened to the Judeans to avenge James the Just, the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. For the Judeans slew him, although he was a most righteous man. [translation mine] This is lifted almost verbatim from Contra Celsum 1.47: ταῦτα συµβε βηκέναι 29 τοῖς 30 Ἰουδαίοις κατ ἐκδίκησιν Ἰακώβου τοῦ δικαίου, ὃς ἦν ἀδελφὸς Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγοµένου Χριστοῦ, ἐπειδήπερ δικαιότατον αὐτὸν ὄντα ἀπέκτειναν. Not finding this in Josephus’ original work, but clearly attempting to produce as many pieces of evidence for the death of James as possible, Eusebius ascribes Origen’s summary to the mouth of Josephus entirely on the former’s authority. 31 After this, Eusebius finally quotes the extant passage more or less as it is contained in our textus receptus: 32 ἅτε δὴ οὖν τοιοῦτος ὢν ὁ Ἄνανος, νοµίσας ἔχειν καιρὸν ἐπιτήδειον διὰ τὸ τεθνάναι µὲν Φῆστον, Ἀλβῖνον δw ἔτι κατὰ τὴν ὁδὸν ὑπάρχειν, καθίζει συνέδριον κριτῶν, καὶ παραγαγὼν εἰς αὐτὸ τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ, τοῦ Χριστοῦ λεγοµένου, Ἰάκωβος ὄνοµα αὐτῷ, καί τινας ἑτέρους, ὡς παρανοµησάντων κατηγορίαν ποιησάµενος, παρέδωκεν λευσθησοµένους. (Josephus apud Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 2.23.22) Thus his character led Ananus to think that he had a suitable opportunity through the fact that Festus was dead and Albinus still on his way. He summoned a council of judges, brought before it the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ, whose name was 27 Origen lacks δὲ. 28 Origen lacks οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. 29 Eusebius combines these two words into συµβέβηκεν. 30 Eusebius lacks τοῖς. 31 Adolf Hilgenfeld, Historisch-kritische Einleitung in das Neue Testament (Leipzig: Feus’s Verlag, 1875), 526 claimed that this pseudo-Josephan passage was in fact authentic and that it was inexplicably deleted from Christian manuscripts. This claim would go on to cause some confusion for later writers. Inowlocki, “Did Josephus Ascribe the Fall of Jerusalem,” regards the Origen passage as having been original. Both positions are unlikely. 32 Cf. the Syriac translation of both passages in William Wright and Norman McLean, eds., The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius in Syriac (Cambridge: University Press, 1898), 104–6. HANSEN STUDIES OF BIBLICAL INTEREST VOL. 2 (2025) 9 James, and some others, on the accusation of breaking the law and delivered them to be stoned. 33 Most differences between these versions are minor textual variations, 34 but Eusebius’ is distinct from Origen’s in one way: the reference to “the brother of Jesus called Christ” occurs prior to the mention of James in Eusebius’ version (and the textus receptus), while Origen’s references always occur after the mention of James, even in his version which is most closely aligned with the textus receptus (Commentary on Matthew 10.17). This is potential evidence that τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγοµένου Χριστοῦ was mobile, i.e., the only static part of the passage was the mention of the name “James.” Origen and Eusebius attribute τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγοµένου Χριστοῦ to Josephus in two different fashions. Both of them locate the only possible figure this could be, i.e., Ant. 20.200, and so ascribe these words to Josephus, but in different places. 35 Origen does so by simply extracting the name James, and then placing the rest afterward, which is also the more natural place to put them (and which he is able to do because he is not quoting the passage directly, but summarizing and expanding it with his own traditional interpretations), while Eusebius puts them prior to James’ name. The reason for this mobility was probably the inclusion of ὄνοµα αὐτῷ (“whose name was”) in the original text followed by καί τινας ἑτέρους (“and some others”), which precluded Eusebius from simply adding τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγοµένου Χριστοῦ immediately after as Origen did. As a result, it had to be added prior, leading to the awkward construction which, as noted before, is not paralleled elsewhere (unless we presume its reliance on the highly questionable Testimonium Flavianum). List already provides evidence that Josephus could refer to otherwise unknown people without clarifying, and so this essentially justifies us in omitting the whole of τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγοµένου Χριστοῦ, adelphonym and all. 36 Eusebius certainly had no qualms about adding information to Josephus to secure identifications and was not always careful in his representations of his source either. 37 Additionally, adding these kinds of brief explanatory notes was not unheard of for Eusebius. 33 Translation from Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History, ed. and trans. Kirsopp Lake, 2 vols. (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1926), 1:177. 34 In Eusebius, Χριστοῦ comes before λεγοµένου while in Josephus it is reversed. The only other difference is that Eusebius writes παρέδωκεν while Josephus has παρέδωκε. These constitute the only differences. 35 Origen previously mentions in Contra Celsum 1.47 John the Baptist and explicitly mentions that this reference is in book 18 of Antiquities. Thus, the mention of James afterward would be inferred to come after this. There is no one named Jacob/James in book 19 (or book 18), thus it must be book 20, where there are two figures mentioned as such. One is the son of Judas the Galilean (20.102). Thus, the only possibility that remains would be the James of 20.200. 36 Notably, this would also still work with ὄνοµα αὐτῷ where people and places are often named standalone with this or some similar variant accompanying it (Ant. 1.284; 3.39; 3.54; 3.299; 4.82; 4.161; 4.174; 5.182; 5.207; 5.323; 6.14; 6.32; 6.45; 6.133; 6.171). A prime parallel is Ant. 11.198 using ὄνοµα αὐτῷ in full to introduce Mordecai (cf. 18.196). 37 To bolster this point, there are other occasions where Eusebius misrepresents Josephus. Olson, “Eusebius and the ‘Testimonium Flavianum’,” 318–9 lists other examples of Eusebius also attributing false information to Josephus, such as the notion that the fall of Jerusalem occurred at Passover (which Josephus never says). Whealey, “Josephus,” 109 is forced to admit that Eusebius does misrepresent Josephus, and even lists an additional example (109n99). HANSEN STUDIES OF BIBLICAL INTEREST VOL. 2 (2025) 16 (3) Subsequent scribes all resort to Eusebius for this passage afterward, which is then incorporated into our manuscript traditions. The Latin tradition was probably a result of contamination with Rufinus’ translation of Eusebius’ Historia Ecclesiastica. Meanwhile, the Greek traditions all trace back to Eusebius, either directly or through an intermediary. This thesis has the benefit of explaining all available data regarding the James passage without resorting to the overly complex theories of other critics, which suggest some kind of marginal gloss insertion or similar. 68 Instead, all available evidence indicates this could have come about by Eusebius directly. Similarly, there is no need to explain James as being related to the figure Jesus ben Damneus mentioned in 20.203 through some convoluted use of adelphonymics. If my theory is correct, then, James (and the nameless others) are denizens who were subjected to the extreme punishments of Ananus. Who they were, specifically, is unimportant for Josephus’ narrative, as he was more interested in illustrating the harshness of Ananus’ rule and his upsetting the sensibilities of the respected citizens (Ant. 20.201). Given this, I propose omitting the whole of τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγοµένου Χριστοῦ. Now if one does not find the negative case compelling, I believe there are still enough problems listed that the positive case is sufficiently prevented from being found probable. None of the justifications for the “authentic” side stand up to scrutiny. Appealing to the manuscript evidence is faulty, as all quotations and references to the James passage past Eusebius also rely on Eusebius’ authority. Further, the phrase λεγοµένου Χριστοῦ is frequently found in Christian texts, both in reverential and non-reverential settings (especially in cases where Christian scribes imagine what nonbelievers would write). The argument that they would not refer to James as “the brother of Jesus” out of adherence to the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity is fallacious, 69 as it presumes that all Christians (A) would have treated the virginity of Mary the same, which is untrue as many did not hold to her perpetual virginity (Eusebius himself does not outwardly attest to his own adherence to this 70 ), and (B) that they went around performing all interpolations with intense piety that ought be reflected in said interpolations. Neither should be accepted flatly. Because we already know that Antiquities was altered by Christian scribes, we are at least justified in taking an agnostic position; we simply cannot tell whether this portion of text is authentic or not. Given Josephus’ usage of adelphonyms, this gives us even more reason to tie Ant. 20.200 to a passage with known Christian tampering. Given this, the burden of proof is now on those who assert authenticity to defend it, as we have ample reasons to dismiss their position. This has ramifications for biblical studies and beyond, as this removes Josephus from giving any reliable early attestation to the life of Jesus or to the martyrdom of James, leaving only the unreliable later Church Traditions as evidence of James’ death. 68 List, ‘The Death of James the Just Revisited’; Allen, ‘Josephus on James the Just?’; Carrier, ‘Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation’. 69 Whealey, “Josephus,” 111–5 makes this argument unconvincingly. 70 Which Whealey is forced to concede, see Whealey, “Josephus,” 113. HANSEN STUDIES OF BIBLICAL INTEREST VOL. 2 (2025) 17 BIBLIOGRAPHY Allen, Nicholas P. L. “Josephus on James the Just? A re-evaluation of Antiquitates Judaicae 20.9.1.” Journal of Early Christian History 7, no. 1 (2017): 1–27. Bay, Carson. Biblical Heroes and Classical Culture in Christian Late Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022. Bowman, Steven B. Sepher Yosippon: A Tenth-Century History of Ancient Israel. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2022. Bremmer, Jan N. “Ioudaismos, Christianismos and the Parting of the Ways.” In Jews and Christians – Parting Ways in the First Two Centuries CE? Reflections on the Gains and Losses of a Model, edited by Jens Schröter, Benjamin A. Edsall, and Joseph Verheyden, 57– 87. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 2021. Carrier, Richard. “Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 20 (2012): 489–514. de Boor, Carl. Georgii Monachi Chronicon. 2 vols.; Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1904. Detering, Hermann. Falsche Zeugen: Außerchristliche Jesuszeugnisse auf dem Prüfstand. Aschaffenburg: Alibri Verlag, 2011. DeVore, David J. “On the Fourth-Century Reception of Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History.” Church History 92, no. 3 (2023): 644–50. Diez, Martino. “Les antiquités gréco-romaines entre al-Makīn ibn al-ʿAmīd et Ibn Ḫaldūn. Notes pour une histoire de la tradition.” Studia graeco-arabica 3 (2013): 121–40. Flemming, Rebecca. “Galen and the Christians: Texts and Authority in the Second Century AD.” In Christianity in the Second Century: Themes and Developments, edited by James Carleton Paget and Judith Lieu, 171–87. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. Herrmann, Léon. Chrestos: Témoignages païens et juifs sur le christianisme du premier siècle. Bruxelles: Latomus, 1970. Hilgenfeld, Adolf. Historisch-kritische Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Leipzig: Feus’s Verlag, 1875. HANSEN STUDIES OF BIBLICAL INTEREST VOL. 2 (2025) 18 Inowlocki, Sabrina. “Did Josephus Ascribe the Fall of Jerusalem to the Murder of James, Brother of Jesus?” Revue des études juives 170, no. 1/2 (2011): 21–49. Kertsch, Manfred. “Patristische Miszellen.” Vigiliae Christianae 42, no. 4 (1988): 395– 400. Lataster, Raphael. Questioning the Historicity of Jesus: Why a Philosophical Analysis Elucidates the Historical Discourse. Leiden: Brill, 2019. Levenson, David B. and Thomas R. Martin. “The Latin Translations of Josephus on Jesus, John the Baptist, and James: Critical Texts of the Latin Translation of the Antiquities and Rufinus’ Translation of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History Based on Manuscripts and Early Printed Editions.” Journal for the Study of Judaism 45 (2014): 1–79. Li, Yaming. Lishi shang zhenshi de yesu. Taibei shi: Wunan tushu chuban gufen youxian gongsi, 2017. List, Nicholas. “The Death of James the Just Revisited.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 32, no. 1 (2024): 17–44. Mallan, Christopher T. “The Historian John Zonaras: Some Observations on His Sources and Methods.” In Sources et modèles des historiens anciens, edited by Olivier Devillers and Breno Battistin Sebastiani, 353–66. Bordeaux: Ausonius, 2018. Meier, John P. A Marginal Jew: The Roots of the Problem and the Person. New York: Doubleday, 1991. Mizugaki, Wataru. “Origen and Josephus.” In Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, edited by Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata, 325–37. Leiden: Brill, 1987. Molinier-Arbo, Agnès. “Crime et châtiment des Juifs. Réminiscences d’Eusèbe de Césarée dans les histoires du pseudo-Hégésippe.” Revue des études latines 99 (2021): 161–81. Niebuhr, Barthold Georg, ed. Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae: Georgius Syncellus Volumen I. Bonnae: Impensis ed. Weberi, 1829. Olson, Ken. “Eusebius and the ‘Testimonium Flavianum’.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61, no. 2 (1999): 305–22. Paget, James Carleton. “Some Observations on Josephus and Christianity.” Journal of Theological Studies 52, no. 2 (2001): 539–624. HANSEN STUDIES OF BIBLICAL INTEREST VOL. 2 (2025) 19 Pollard, Richard Matthew. “The De Excidio of ‘Hegesippus’ and the Reception of Josephus in the Early Middle Ages.” Viator 46.2 (2015): 65–100. Price, Robert M. Killing History: Jesus in the No-Spin Zone. Amherst: Prometheus, 2014. Rothschild, Clare K. “Echoes of a Whisper: The Uncertain Authenticity of Josephus’ Witness to John the Baptist.” In Ablution, Initiation, and Baptism: Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity, edited by David Hellhom, 1.255–90. 3 vols; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2011. Schreckenberg, Heinz and Kurt Schubert. Jewish Historiography and Iconography in Early and Medieval Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Schürer, Emil. A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Christ, translated by John MacPherson. 2 vols; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1896. Schwartz, Eduard, ed. Eusebius Werke: Zweiter Band. 2 vols.; Leipzig: J. C. Henrichs, 1903. Setzer, Claudia. Jewish Responses to Early Christians: history and Polemics, 30–150 C.E. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994. Shandruk, Walter. “The Interchange of ι and η in the Spelling of ΧριστWords in Egyptian Papyri.” Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 47 (2010): 205–19. Walker, William O. “The Burden of Proof in Identifying Interpolations in the Pauline Letters.” New Testament Studies 33, no. 4 (1987): 610–18. Whealey, Alice. Josephus on Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2003. ———. “Josephus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and the Testimonium Flavianum.” In Josephus und das Neue Testament, edited by Christfried Böttrich, Jens Herzer, and Torsten Reiprich, 73–116. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. ———. “The Testimonium Flavianum in Syriac and Arabic.” New Testament Studies 54, no. 4 (2008): 573–90. Wright, William and Norman McLean, eds. The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius in Syriac. Cambridge: University Press, 1898.