You are here:   Faith > Jesus in the Eyes of Josephus
 

For Josephus, the James episode serves to illustrate the violent career of the high priest Ananus. In the gubernatorial vacuum — the procurator Festus (60-62 CE) was already dead and the incoming Albinus (62-64) still on his way — Ananus attempted to flex his political muscles. He brought his opponents, James "and certain others", before the Sanhedrin and sentenced them to be stoned for transgressing the Law. The fair-minded and strictly observant representatives of the ruling classes — no doubt the leading Pharisees who opposed Ananus and his heartless Sadducees — were outraged and appealed to King Agrippa II. Agrippa, who had been granted the privilege to appoint and dismiss high priests by the emperor Claudius, promptly sacked Ananus, a mere three months after his elevation to office.


Fraternal love: Jesus and his brother, James (right) 

Josephus's notice possesses all the appearances of authenticity. It lacks New Testament parallels that might have inspired a forger. Moreover, the church fathers, Origen (185-254) and Eusebius (260-340), not only attest to the existence of the passage, but also assert that Josephus saw in the fall of Jerusalem divine punishment for the murder of James. Unfortunately, no surviving Josephus manuscript contains such a statement and its authenticity is doubtful. 

Christian tradition presents a substantially different version of James's killing. According to the second-century chronicler of the early church, Hegesippus, James was pushed from the parapet of the Temple but survived the fall and the subsequent stoning. 

Finally, he was clubbed to death. Josephus's interest is wholly centred on Ananus's misconduct and has nothing to say about the admirable virtues heaped on the victim by Hegesippus: James "the Righteous" was holy from birth, was teetotal and vegetarian, never cut his hair or beard and shunned cosmetic oil and bath water. Compared to this, the sober picture of Josephus appears all the more believable.

As a final comment, Josephus's identification of James as "the brother of Jesus called Christ" would have made no sense unless there was an earlier mention of Jesus in Antiquities. The Testimonium Flavianum is likely to be this prior reference.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Tyler Smith
December 20th, 2009
2:12 AM
The solution Prof. Vermes arrives at in this article re: the Testimonium Flavium is well-reasoned, but is at the end of the day only a best guess. We might also consider the equally likely possibility that Josephus wrote about Jesus as a false messiah in terms like those he used for Theudas and "the Egyptian," but that his evaluation was cleaned up by Christian copyists.

Fabio P.Barbieri
December 19th, 2009
1:12 PM
The reference to Jesus attracting to himself "many Greeks" is without Gospel support. Nevertheless, if Josephus knew of a mixed Jewish-Gentile church in Rome, he may have believed that a similar structure existed at the time of Jesus. That is to place an unnecessary hypothesis to explain a statement that is at least tendentious. Greeks certainly did try to meet Jesus (John 12.20-26), an affair that seems to have caused a great deal of fluttering among his followers, and which Jesus himself took as the sign that His day of glorification was coming. What we do not know is whether there were any Greeks (that is, non-Jews) among the thousands of followers of Jesus; but the appearance of these Greeks is certainly no secondary affair. It disconcerts the disciples to the point where Philip feels he has to discuss it with Andrew (both apostles with Greek names) before either of them speaks to Jesus, and it is sandwiched between two tremendous events - the resurrection of Lazarus, and the royal entrance into Jerusalem. The resurrection appearances on the third day, together with the relevant prophecies, are part of the apologetic arsenal of the early church and have nothing to do with Josephus. Certainties are such nice things. Considering that Bowersock has shown, what hardly needed being proved anyway, that the story of Jesus, including death and resurrection, was known in Rome from the seventh decade AD and widely known and imitated in various aspects of middle Roman culture (Glenn Bowersock, Fiction as History, passim), there is absolutely no need to postulate, as you so clearly do, that Josephus must have been ignorant of it. To the contrary, it makes perfect sense as an explanation of why that weird sect of Christians has still (!) not died out: it is because they believe their leader to have performed the paradoxon ergon of rising from the grave.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.