Sabrina INOWLOCKI University of Lausanne

DID JOSEPHUS ASCRIBE THE FALL OF TO THE MURDER OF JAMES, BROTHER OF ?

RÉSUMÉ

Une tradition chrétienne établit un lien entre la destruction de Jérusalem et le meurtre de Jacques le Juste, frère de Jésus. L’une de ses attestations les plus anciennes et les plus explicites est citée pas moins de trois fois par Origène. Celui-ci l’attribue à Josèphe. Dans cette étude, nous allons considérer l’hypothèse selon laquelle Origène aurait paraphrasé un passage authentique de Josèphe, qui ne serait plus présent dans les versions actuelles de cet auteur. Un examen attentif du texte d’Origène montre que, contrairement à l’opinion de certains savants, il n’est pas dénué de référence aux Antiquités juives. Il trouve par ailleurs sa place dans la logique générale de cet ouvrage. D’autres passages des Antiquités juives présentent des parallèles étroits avec le texte sur Jacques, ce qui renforce d’autant la probabilité de son appartenance à la version originelle du livre de Josèphe. En conclusion, si l’on peut dire que les témoignages des Pères sur le judaïsme et le christianisme de leur époque doivent être toujours lus de manière critique, ils ne doivent pas être systématiquement rejetés pour autant.

SUMMARY

A Christian tradition connects the destruction of Jerusalem to the murder of James the Just, brother of Jesus. One of its earliest and most explicit occurrences is found in , on no fewer than three occasions. Origen ascribes this tradition to Jose- phus. In this paper, I explore the possibility that Origen may have paraphrased an authentic passage of Josephus, which is no longer extant. A close reading of the evidence in Origen shows that, contrary to some scholars’ opinion, Origen did pro- vide references to Josephus when dealing with this passage. The passage in question would have made sense in the logic of Josephus’ Antiquities. Moreover, other pas- sages in the Antiquities closely parallel the contested paraphrase, which suggests that it may well have belonged to this work. By way of conclusion, it can be said that if patristic testimonies on early and should always be read criti- cally, they should not be systematically rejected either.

The fall of Jerusalem and its Temple is undeniably an event of dramatic theological importance for both and .1 For the former, it led

1. The bibliography on this topic is vast. See, e.g., S. G. F. BRANDON, The Fall of Jerusa-

Revue des études juives, 170 (1-2), janvier-juin 2011, pp. 21-49. doi: 10.2143/REJ.170.1.2126639

994323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd4323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd 2121 331/08/111/08/11 13:2913:29 22 DID JOSEPHUS ASCRIBE THE FALL OF JERUSALEM TO THE MURDER OF JAMES?

to the necessity of reshaping the foundations of Judaism itself. For the latter, it constituted theological proof both for their supersessionist claims and for the truth of Jesus’ as expressed, e.g., in Matthew 24: 2. In the early centuries of the Common Era, the claim that the fall of Jeru- salem in 70 fulfilled biblical prophecies was often combined with the claim that the destruction of the city and its Temple was a divine punishment against the Jews for their murder of Jesus. This argument is well known. Less popular is the tradition which connects the destruction of the city to the murder of James the Just, brother of Jesus.2 One of its earliest and most explicit occurrences is found in Origen, on no fewer than three occasions.3 Origen ascribes this tradition to Josephus. The question of the relation between Josephus and Christianity has kept scholars busy over centuries.4 The original text of Josephus may occasion-

lem and the Christian . A Study of the Effects of the Jewish Overthrow of A.D. 70 on Christianity, London, 1951; H. NIBLEY, « Christian Envy of the Temple », Jewish Quarterly Review 50, 1950-1960, 97-123, 229-240, reprinted in Mormonism and Early Christianity, vol. 4 in The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, Salt Lake City, 1987, 391-434; B. REICKE, “Synoptic Prophecies on the Destruction of Jerusalem,” in D. E. AUNE (ed.), Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature, Essays in Honor of A. P. Wikgren, Leiden (Suppl. To N. Test. 33), 1997, 121-134; H.-M. DÖPP, Die Deutung der Zerstörung und des Zweiten Tempels in Jahre 70 in der ersten drei Jahrunderten nach Christum, Tübingen, 1998; J. HAHN (Hrsg.), Zerstörungen des Jerusalemer Tempels. Geschehen – Wahrnehmung – Bewältigung, Tübingen, 2002. 2. On this early Christian figure, see, e.g. R. A. LIPSIUS, Die apokryphen Apostelgeschich- ten und Apostellegenden II. 2, Braunschwieg, 1884, 238-257; K.L. CARROLL, “The Place of James in the Early Church,” BJRL 44, 1961, 49-67; R.B. WARD, “Jame of Jerusalem,” RestQ 16, 1973, 174-190; R.B. WARD, “James of Jerusalem in the Two First Centuries,” ANRW II. 26. 1, 1992, 779-812; P.-A. BERNHEIM, Jacques, frère de Jésus, Paris, 1996; R. H. EISENMAN, James the Brother of Jesus: Recovering the True History of Earliest Christianity, London, 1997; J. PAINTER, Just James. The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition, Columbia, 1997; Br. CHILTON and J. NEUSNER (eds.), The Brother of Jesus. James the Just and His Mission, Louisville, 2001; H. SHANKS and B. WITHERINGTON, The Brother of Jesus. New York, 2003; Br. CHILTON and Cr. EVANS (eds.), The Missions of James, Peter, and Paul. Tensions in Early Christianity, Leiden-Boston (SNT 115), 2005. For a complete bibliography on James, see the excellent critical studies by M. MYLLYKOSKI, “James the Just in History and Tradition: Per- spectives of Past and Present Scholarship (Part I and II),” CBR 5-6, 2006-2007, 73-122 and 11-98. 3. Bibliography on this topic is extensive. See e.g., E. SCHÜRER, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, Rvd. Edition, F. MILLAR, G. VERMES, and M. GOODMAN, I, Edinburgh, 1973-1987, 428-441; J. P. MEIER, A Marginal Jew. Rethinking the , I, New York, 1991, 55-68; J. CARLETON PAGET, “Some Observations on Josephus and Christianity,” JTS 52, 2001, 539-624; Recently K. A. OLSON, “ and the Testimonium Flavianum,” CBQ 61, 1999, 305-322; S. INOWLOCKI, Eusebius and the Jewish Authors. His Citation Technique in an Apologetic Context, Boston-Leiden (AJEC 64), 2006, 207. 4. See, e.g., A. WHEALEY, Josephus on Jesus; The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times, Berlin, 2003; S. BARDET, Le Testimonium Flavianum. Examen historique, enjeux historiographiques, Paris, 2002.

994323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd4323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd 2222 331/08/111/08/11 13:2913:29 DID JOSEPHUS ASCRIBE THE FALL OF JERUSALEM TO THE MURDER OF JAMES? 23

ally have looked different from the one we have for the manuscript tradition of Josephus as it has reached us is highly problematic. We have no manu- scripts of books XVIII to XX of the Antiquities earlier than the tenth centu- ry.5 Unfortunately, it is precisely in book XX that Josephus’ testimony on James occurs. It is considered by most scholars as authentic.6 Yet in the text as we have it, it is not said that James’ murder was the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and its Temple. The passage about James ascribed to Josephus by Origen has been rejected by most as spurious.7 Yet a few scholars have supported its authenticity.8 Unfortunately, none of them have offered extensive and detailed treatment of the problem. Consequently, their arguments have not found support.9 In this paper, I will take a fresh look at the evidence. I will suggest that the authenticity of the passage should not be rejected at once. I will attempt to show that the arguments against the authenticity of the passage ascribed to Josephus fall short when the Greek text of Origen is closely analyzed. I will conclude with an hypothesis on the reception and transformation of this text in early Christianity.

5. Cf. H. SCHRECKENBERG, Die Flavius-Josephus-Tradition in Antike und Mittelalter, Leiden, 1972; L.H. FELDMAN, Josephus and Modern Scholarship, New York, 1984; CAR- LETON PAGET, “Some Observations on Josephus and Christianity.” 6. For a recent study of the passage in its Jewish Context, see J. MCLAREN, “Ananus, James, and Earliest Christianity. Josephus’ Account of the Death of James,” JTS 52, 2001, 1-25. Nevertheless, some scholars also reject the authenticity of the passage on James as spurious: e.g., T. RAJAK, Josephus: the and his Society, London, 1983, 131, n. 33 and OLSON, “Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum.” 7. E.g. Z. BARAS, “The Testimonium Flavianum and the Martyrdom of James,” in L. H. FELDMAN and G. HATA (Eds.), Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, Detroit, 1987, 338-348; CARLETON PAGET, “Some Observations on Josephus and Christianity,” 550. K. Olson has argued – unconvincingly in my opinion – that the James mentioned in Josephus is not the same as the Christian mentioned in some Christian sources (OLSON, “Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum,” 314-319). For critical remarks, see CARLETON PAGET, “Some Observations on Josephus and Christianity,” 547-548. M. E. HARDWICK, Josephus as an His- torical Source in Patristic Literature Through Eusebius, Atlanta (Brown Judaic Studies 128), 1989, 60 is content to say that “Perhaps Origen’s text of the Antiquities contains a Christian gloss on the pericope or possibly Origen is for the gloss.” 8. R. GIROD, ORIGÈNE, Commentaire sur l’Évangile selon Matthieu, R. G. Ed. and Transl., I, Paris (SC 162), 1970, 114-116; BERNHEIM, Jacques, frère de Jésus, 330-332, who follows S.G.F. BRANDON, “The Death of James the Just: A New Interpretation,” in Studies in Mysti- cism and Presented to Gershom G. Scholem, Jerusalem, 1967, 57-69. 9. See e.g. BARAS, “The Testimonium Flavianum and the Martyrdom of James,” 338-348, who has defined Girod’s suggestion as an “unacceptable assumption”; see also CARLETON PAGET, “Some Observations on Josephus and Christianity,” 550.

994323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd4323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd 2323 331/08/111/08/11 13:2913:29 24 DID JOSEPHUS ASCRIBE THE FALL OF JERUSALEM TO THE MURDER OF JAMES?

Origen’s Testimonies

In the Contra Celsum and the Commentary on Matthew, Origen claims to cite a passage from Josephus in which the latter would have presented the Jews’ murder of James, brother of Jesus, as the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and its Temple. For convenience, I have placed in bold type the passages in which Origen (supposedly) quotes Josephus.

Contra Celsum I. 47 ¨O d’ aûtóv, kaítoi ge âpist¬n t¬ç ˆIjsoÕ Üv Xrist¬ç, hjt¬n t®n aîtían t±v t¬n ¨Ierosolúmwn ptÉsewv kaì t±v toÕ naoÕ kaqairésewv, déon aûtòn eîpe⁄n ºti ™ katà toÕ ˆIjsoÕ êpiboul® toútwn aîtía gégone t¬ç la¬ç, êpeì âpékteinan tòn profjteuómenon Xristón· ö dè kaì ¿sper ãkwn oû makràn t±v âljqeíav genómenóv fjsi taÕta sumbebjkénai to⁄v ˆIoudaíoiv kat’ êkdíkjsin ˆIakÉbou toÕ dikaíou, Ωv ¥n âdelfòv ˆIjsoÕ toÕ legoménou XristoÕ, êpeidßper dikaiótaton aûtòn ∫nta âpékteinan. Now this writer (Josephus), although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the tem- ple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless - being, although against his will, not far from the truth - that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ), - the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice.10

This passage is set in a polemical context: Origen challenges Josephus’ claim that the murder of James caused the destruction of Jerusalem. He emphasizes Josephus’ rejection of Jesus as christos but nevertheless finds his testimony worthy of being quoted. If the passage in bold is indeed a paraphrase/citation from “Josephus”, the text quoted mentioned James as the Just and as “the brother of Jesus called Christ”. The question whether the last bit of the sentence on James being most just is Origen’s or Josephus’ remains open.

Contra Celsum II. 13 Gégraptai d® ên aûto⁄v tò ÊOtan dè ÷djte kuklouménjn üpò strato- pédwn t®n ¨Ierousalßm, tóte gn¬te ºti ≠ggisen ™ êrßmwsiv aût±v. Kaì

10. ORIGEN, Contra Celsum I. 47. Translation by H. CHADWICK, ORIGEN. Contra Celsum, Cambridge, 1953.

994323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd4323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd 2424 331/08/111/08/11 13:2913:29 DID JOSEPHUS ASCRIBE THE FALL OF JERUSALEM TO THE MURDER OF JAMES? 25

oûdam¬v tóte ¥n stratópeda perì t®n ¨Ierousal®m kukloÕnta aût®n kaì periéxonta kaì poliorkoÕnta. ToÕto gàr ≠rzato mèn ∂ti Nérwnov basileúontov paréteine dè ∏wv t±v OûespasianoÕ ™gemoníav· oœ ö uïòv Títov kaqe⁄le t®n ¨Ierousalßm, Üv mèn ˆIÉsjpov gráfei, dià ˆIákwbon tòn díkaion, tòn âdelfòn ˆIjsoÕ toÕ legoménou XristoÕ, Üv dè ™ âlßqeia parístjsi, dià ˆIjsoÕn tòn Xristòn toÕ qeoÕ. Now in these it is recorded, that “when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed about with armies, then shall ye know that the desolation thereof is nigh.” But at that time there were no armies around Jerusalem, encompassing and enclosing and besieging it; for the siege began in the reign of , and lasted till the govern- ment of , whose son destroyed Jerusalem, on account, as Jose- phus says, of James the Just, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, but, as the truth makes clear, on account of Jesus, Christ of God.11

Contra Celsum II. 13 provides the shortest account. It is set in a chapter which aims to show Jesus’ prophetic ability to foresee the future. Luke 21: 20 is cited in order to demonstrate that Jesus announced the fall of Jerusa- lem. Once again, Origen emphasizes the contradiction between Josephus’ statement and the truth, namely that the murder of Jesus Christ triggered the destruction of Jerusalem. The Temple of Jerusalem, Josephus’ disbelief, and details about the calamities that befell the Jews are absent from this passage. The mention of Jerusalem by name as well as the mention of truth indicates that II. 13 is closest to I. 47 (rather than to Matt. X. 17), in which these words appear in the same context. As in Contra Celsum I. 47, James is said to be the Just, the brother of Jesus called Christ. As we shall see now, these two testimonies significantly differ from that of the In Matthaeum.

Commentary in Matt. X. 17 ˆEpì tosoÕton dè diélamcen oœtov ö ˆIákwbov ên t¬ç la¬ç êpì dikaiosúnjÇ Üv Flábion ˆIÉsjpon ânagrácanta ên e÷kosi biblíoiv t®n ˆIoudaflk®n ârxaiologían, t®n aîtían parast±sai boulómenon toÕ tà tosaÕta peponqénai tòn laòn Üv kaì tòn naòn kataskaf±nai, eîrjkénai katà m±nin qeoÕ taÕta aûto⁄v âpjntjkénai dià tà eîv ˆIákwbon tòn âdelfòn ˆIjsoÕ toÕ legoménou XristoÕ üp’ aût¬n tetolmjména. Kaì tò qaumastón êstin ºti, tòn ˆIjsoÕn ™m¬n oû katadezámenov e˝nai Xristón, oûdèn ¯tton ˆIakÉbwç dikaiosúnjn êmartúrjse tosaútjn. Légei dè ºti kaì ö laòv taÕta ênómihe dià tòn ˆIákwbon peponqénai. And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the “” in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things

11. ORIGEN, Contra Celsum II. 13. Transl. CHADWICK, slightly modified.

994323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd4323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd 2525 331/08/111/08/11 13:2913:29 26 DID JOSEPHUS ASCRIBE THE FALL OF JERUSALEM TO THE MURDER OF JAMES?

happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James.12

This passage and Contra Celsum I. 47 bear significant similarities and differences. As in Contra Celsum I. 47, Josephus’ status as competent his- torian is emphasized in the claim that he sought the cause of the Jews’ misfortunes. Both passages emphasize that Josephus did not recognize that Jesus was christos. However, this fact is mentioned in the Contra Celsum in order to explain Josephus’ mistake, while, in the Commentary, it is used in order to stress Josephus’ acknowledgement of James’ extraordinary right- eousness. Other differences deserve attention. Firstly, the vocabulary used by Origen is different. In Contra Celsum I. 47, the Jews’ misdeed against James is labelled êkdíkjsin, and in the Commentary on Matthew, tà tetolmj- ména. James’ righteousness is stressed in both passages, but in a different way: in Contra Celsum I. 47, Origen says that James was killed “even though he was most just” (dikaiótaton aûtòn ∫nta), while in the Com- mentary, Josephus’ acknowledgement of James’ righteousness is said to be amazing (tò qaumastón êstin – perhaps a quotation of John 9: 30). Only in the Commentary does the Homeric expression “wrath of God” (katà m±nin qeoÕ) occur. Secondly and more importantly, in the Commentary, Origen does not point to Josephus’ mistake (connecting Jerusalem to James rather than to Jesus). He is content enough to show that despite his dis- belief, he acknowledged James’ righteousness and presented the Jews’ suffering and the destruction of the Temple as the consequence of the murder of James, brother of Jesus. On the contrary, in Contra Celsum I. 47, he claims that Josephus, even though he was close to the truth, did not find the real cause of the fall of Jerusalem and its Temple, namely, the Jews’ plot against Christ. Significantly, in the Commentary, Origen does not ascribe to Josephus the use of the name James the just: he only mentions the appellation James brother of Jesus called Christ. Last but not least, in the Commentary, the attribution of the destruction of Jerusalem to the mur- der of James is not only ascribed to Josephus: according to Origen, Josephus would have ascribed it to “the people” (ö laóv). I will come back to this shortly.

12. Comm. in Matt. X. 17. Transl. A. MENZIES.

994323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd4323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd 2626 331/08/111/08/11 13:2913:29 DID JOSEPHUS ASCRIBE THE FALL OF JERUSALEM TO THE MURDER OF JAMES? 27

This brief analysis indicates that a) out of the three passages, the Com- mentary is less polemical towards Josephus than the Contra Celsum; b) significant lexical differences distinguish the Commentary from the Contra Celsum; c) there is no word for word citation, whether the passage is authen- tic or not. Origen seems to be paraphrasing out of memory: the lexical dif- ferences between the two passages suggest that he presents the general idea of a passage, which he rephrases with his own words. However, there is one exception: the formula “James brother of Jesus called Christ” occurs in the three passages. It happens to occur also in Josephus’ Antiquities XX. 200. This suggests that this formula is a quotation from Josephus. Before going back to this in more detail, I shall turn to the arguments presented against the authenticity of Josephus’ disputed testimony.

Origen’s citations of Josephus

In addition to the absence of the passage from the manuscripts of Jose- phus (to which I will turn shortly), the rejection of the disputed Josephan passage is based on the absence of exact reference to Josephus in Origen.13 Yet this argument does not seem valid when it is examined in the light of Origen’s citations of Josephus. A. J. Carriker, in his book on the library of Eusebius, convincingly sug- gests that Origen brought Josephus’ writings with him from Alexandria to Caesarea.14 W. Mizugaki writes in an article on Origen’s use of Josephus that “Origen is thoroughly versed in Josephus’ works”.15 He knew all of them except the Vita. He explicitely mentions Josephus eleven times. This reveals the authority of Josephus as a historical source in Origen’s eye for the latter is no name-dropper, as D. T. Runia has shown, for example, in relation to his use of .16 In addition to the passages cited above, Origen refers to the Against (called by Origen Peri archaiotètos) in Contra Celsum I. 16 and IV. 11 on the antiquity of the Jews and of , but he does not give the number of the book; At I. 47, before the passage examined above, Origen mentions the eight-

13. See bibliography in note 7. 14. J. CARRIKER, The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea, Boston-Leiden (S.VigChris 67), 2003, 158-159. 15. W. MIZUGAKI, “Origen and Josephus,” in L. H. FELDMAN and G. HATA (eds.), Jose- phus, Judaism, and Christianity, 325-337. 16. D. T. RUNIA, Philo in Early Christian Literature. A Survey, Assen-Minneapolis (CRINT 3), 1993, 161.

994323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd4323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd 2727 331/08/111/08/11 13:2913:29 28 DID JOSEPHUS ASCRIBE THE FALL OF JERUSALEM TO THE MURDER OF JAMES?

eenth book of the Antiquities in relation to . In his other works, he generally gives the title of the Josephan work from which he quotes.17 How- ever, in his Commentary on Lamentations, fr. 115, l. 1 he does not provide any title, probably because he mentioned the title of the War (which he refers to as Peri halôseôs) just before in the same passage.18 The same phenomenon may explain why, in Contra Celsum I. 47 he does not provide the title of the work from which he paraphrases the passage on James: he has referred to the Antiq- uities a few lines before. When he appeals to Josephus at II. 13, he might not feel the need to repeat a reference which he gave in the previous book, all the more since II. 13 is in fact a summary of I. 47. Therefore, Origen did provide a reference for the passage on James. The Antiquities were mentioned in the same chapter, just before he deals with James. Moreover, it is worth noting that Origen does mention the title of Josephus’ work when he presents the passage on James in the Commentary on Matthew: Üv Flábion ˆIÉsjpon ânagrácanta ên e÷kosi biblíoiv t®n ˆIoudaflk®n ârxaiologían is usually translated “as Flavius Josephus, who wrote the of the Jews in twenty books, … said that these things happened to them…”.19 Yet this could also be translated “as Flavius Josephus, when he wrote the Archaeology of the Jews in twenty books …”. Translated as a time clause, the participle provides a reference to Josephus’ Antiquities. The fact that “Origen’s treatment of Josephus assumes a certain amount of knowledge about Josephus on the part of his readers and a situation in which Josephus’ works are within easy reach [this refers to Contra Celsum I. 16 and IV. 11]”20 suggests that his paraphrase is rather faithful to the text of Josephus he had. Since Origen tends to avoid citations21, the fact that the passage in question is only paraphrased does not indicate that it is a fake. Thus Origen may have in fact referred to the Antiquities as the source for the passage on James.

The place of James in Josephus’ Antiquities

James is usually perceived as a figure of nascent Christianity in Jerusalem and is studied in the context of early Christianity. As such, some find it dif-

17. Fr. In Jeremiam (in catenis) 14, l. 4 (reference to the tenth book of the Antiquities); In Lamentationes 105, l. 7; 109, l. 7; Selecta in Psalmos, Ps. 73, v. 5, l. 4 (references to the War, called Peri haloseôs). 18. In Lamentationes 105, l. 7; 109, l. 7. 19. Cf. transl. MENZIES. 20. MIZUGAKI, “Origen and Josephus,” 330. 21. A. von HARNACK, “Der kirchengeschichtliche Ertrag der exegetischen Arbeiten des Origenes,” Part 2, TU 42/4, Leipzig, 1919, 50; MIZUGAKI, “Origen and Josephus,” 331.

994323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd4323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd 2828 331/08/111/08/11 13:2913:29 DID JOSEPHUS ASCRIBE THE FALL OF JERUSALEM TO THE MURDER OF JAMES? 29

ficult to imagine that Josephus the Jew would have associated the brother of Jesus and leader of the Jerusalem Church and the fall of the city. Yet Josephus’ testimony on James as preserved in the Antiquities is of major historical importance. It reads as follows: ö dè neÉterov ‰Ananov, Ωn t®n ârxierwsúnjn ∂famen eîljfénai, qrasùv ¥n tòn trópon kaì tolmjt®v diaferóntwv, aÿresin dè metßÇei t®n Sad- doukaíwn, oÿper eîsì perì tàv kríseiv Ömoì parà pántav toùv ˆIoudaíouv, kaqÑv ≠dj dedjlÉkamen. †te d® oŒn toioÕtov øn ö ‰Ananov, nomísav ∂xein kairòn êpitßdeion dià tò teqnánai mèn F±ston, ˆAlb⁄non d’ ∂ti katà t®n ödòn üpárxein, kaqíhei sunédrion krit¬n kaì paragagÑn eîv aûtò tòn âdelfòn ˆIjsoÕ toÕ legoménou XristoÕ, ˆIákwbov ∫noma aût¬ç, kaí tinav ëtérouv, Üv paranomjsántwn katjgorían poijsámenov paré- dwke leusqjsoménouv. ºsoi dè êdókoun êpieikéstatoi t¬n katà t®n pólin e˝nai kaì perì toùv nómouv âkribe⁄v baréwv ≠negkan êpì toútwç kaì pémpousin pròv tòn basiléa krúfa parakaloÕntev aûtòn êpiste⁄lai t¬ç ˆAnánwç mjkéti toiaÕta prássein· mjdè gàr tò pr¬ton ôrq¬v aûtòn pepoijkénai. tinèv d’ aût¬n kaì tòn ˆAlb⁄non üpantiáhousin âpò t±v ˆAlezandreíav ödoiporoÕnta kaì didáskousin, Üv oûk êzòn ¥n ˆAnánwç xwrìv t±v êkeínou gnÉmjv kaqísai sunédrion. ˆAlb⁄nov dè peisqeìv to⁄v legoménoiv gráfei met’ ôrg±v t¬ç ˆAnánwç lßcesqai par’ aûtoÕ díkav âpeil¬n. kaì ö basileùv ˆAgríppav dià toÕto t®n ˆArxierwsúnjn âfelómenov aûtòn ãrzanta m±nav tre⁄v ˆIjsoÕn tòn toÕ Damnaíou katéstjsen. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the , who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled a of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusa- tion against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priest- hood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.22

22. AJ XX. 200. Transl. W. WHISTON, The New Complete Works of Josephus, Michigan, 1999, slightly modified.

994323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd4323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd 2929 331/08/111/08/11 13:2913:29 30 DID JOSEPHUS ASCRIBE THE FALL OF JERUSALEM TO THE MURDER OF JAMES?

This passage is considered authentic by most scholars.23 The only piece which has raised dispute is the reference to James as being the brother of Jesus called Christ.24 Discussions on this subject are endless and numerous arguments have been offered both for and against the authenticity of this appellation. I do not intend to re-examine this intricate problem in detail. Suffice it to say that I accept the authenticity of this reference. Both Jacob and Jesus were very common names. Josephus needed to clarify to whom these names referred (just as Origen and Eusebius later on). Moreover, I accept the argument that the significance of the expression “who is called Christ” is exaggerated and is not typical of early Christian usage.25 In my view, the fact that Origen ascribes to Josephus the claim that James was “the brother of Jesus called Christ” and yet says that Josephus did not accept Jesus as being the Christ confirms that the expression “called Christ” was not necessarily a Christian interpolation. If the whole expression “James the brother of Jesus called Christ” is indeed authentic, then it supports the authenticity of the passage quoted by Origen, since it is found in no place other than in Josephus. As far as Josephus’ presentation of James’ so-called martyrdom is con- cerned, in an analysis of Josephus’ passage in the Antiquities, J. McLaren has rightly emphasized that the figure of James in Josephus should not be studied through the lense of later Christian testimonies.26 It should be ana- lyzed in the context of Josephus’ Antiquities. In this work, James appears as a public figure of first century Judaean society, involved in “the machina- tions of Jewish society in Jerusalem”.27 As McLaren has pointed out, each of the actors of this passage represents a political faction in Jerusalem. The text as we have it in the manuscripts reflects the prominent role of James in Jerusalem.28 Thus the opposition between Ananus, his opponents, and James should not be seen in religious terms as opposing Jews and Christians, or Sadducees and . Its nature was essentially political.29 Ananus, a representative

23. See note 3. 24. See bibliography, e.g., in G. A. WELLS, Did Jesus Exist?, London, 1986, 11. 25. E.g., MEIER, A marginal Jew, I, 58. 26. MCLAREN, “Ananus, James, and Earliest Christianity,” 25. 27. MCLAREN, “Ananus, James, and Earliest Christianity.” See before him, e.g., K. L. CARROLL, “The Place of James in the Early Church,” BJRL 44, 1961, 49-67; R. B. WARD, “James of Jerusalem,” RestQ 16, 1973, 174-190, and Id., “James of Jerusalem in the First Two Centuries,” ANRW II. 26. 1, 779-812. 28. See MCLAREN, “Ananus, James, and Earliest Christianity.” This is also the case in some NT texts: Gal. 1:18; 2:9 (in which James is one of the “columns”, a terminology which certainly refers to the Temple); Luke-Acts 12: 17; 15: 13-21; 21: 18. 29. Ibid., 18-19.

994323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd4323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd 3030 331/08/111/08/11 13:2913:29 DID JOSEPHUS ASCRIBE THE FALL OF JERUSALEM TO THE MURDER OF JAMES? 31

of the Sadducees, had acted illegally, and he was accused before the Roman governor by representatives of rival factions which were trying to impose their power in Jerusalem. Neither Ananus nor James are really important in Antiquities XX. 200: that which is at stake is rather the general political atmosphere, and the political troubles which led to the fall of the city. This is clearly expressed by Josephus at XX. 214: after narrating different conflicts and outbursts of violence, including the James episode, he concludes: “And from that time it principally came to pass that our city was greatly disordered, and that all things grew worse and worse among us”. Contrary to that which one may think, if Josephus’ alleged passage was indeed authentic, it would not have dramatically changed the general tone and content of Antiquities XX. Especially if it is the people (as I will argue) who thought that James’ murder triggered the fall of the city. It could have been used to dramatize Ananus’ misdeed as well as the unstability of the political climate at the time. The reference to the people and the connection they made between the fall of the city and James’ death would only confirm the view that James was seen by Josephus as some kind of leader, a view already present in the extant text. It would have reinforced the idea that all the conditions leading to the disaster of 70 CE were already present a few years before the great revolt broke out. Thus the alleged passage on James could have fitted well in the climate of increasing tension created by Jose- phus at the very end of the Antiquities. In addition to the argument presented above, it is important to note that both supporters and opponents to the authenticity of Josephus’ alleged claim have found important parallels between Origen’s paraphrase and other Jose- phan passages. For instance, Z. Baras30, who rejects Origen’s testimony as spurious, connects this passage to Antiquities XI. 297-305: ˆApoqanóntov dè toÕ ârxieréwv ˆEleasíbou t®n ârxierwsúnjn ˆIÉdav ö pa⁄v aûtoÕ diedézato. teleutßsantov dè kaì toútou t®n tim®n ˆIwánnjv uïòv øn aûtoÕ parélaben, di’ Ωn kaì BagÉsjv ö stratjgòv toÕ [ãllou] ˆArtazérzou tòn naòn êmíanen kaì fórouv êpétaze to⁄v ˆIoudaíoiv, prìn tàv kaqjmerinàv êpiférein (5) qusíav üpèr ârnòv ëkástou tele⁄n aûtoùv djmosíaç draxmàv pentßkonta. toútou dè t®n aîtían toiaútjn sunébj genésqai· âdelfòv ¥n t¬ç ˆIwánnjÇ ˆIjsoÕv· toútwç fílwç tugxánonti ö BagÉsjv üpésxeto t®n ârxierwsúnjn parézein. âpò taútjv oŒn t±v pepoiqßsewv ˆIjsoÕv ên t¬ç na¬ç dienexqeìv t¬ç ˆIwánnjÇ parÉzunen tòn âdelfòn ¿st’ aûtòn ânele⁄n kaì dià t®n ôrg®n tjlikoÕto âsébjma dr¢sai kat’ âdelfoÕ tòn ˆIwánnjn ên t¬ç ïer¬ç Üv deinòn ¥n kaì próte- ron, Üv mßte par’ ÊElljsin mßte parà barbároiv Ömòn oÀtwv kaì âse-

30. BARAS, “The Testimonium Flavianum and the Martyrdom of James,” 338-348.

994323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd4323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd 3131 331/08/111/08/11 13:2913:29 32 DID JOSEPHUS ASCRIBE THE FALL OF JERUSALEM TO THE MURDER OF JAMES?

bèv ∂rgon gegonénai. tò méntoi qe⁄on oûk ©méljsen, âllà kaì ö laòv di’ aût®n t®n aîtían êdoulÉqj kaì ö naòv êmiánqj üpò Per. When Eliashib the high priest was dead, his son Judas succeeded in the high priesthood; and when he was dead, his son John took that dignity; on whose account it was also that Bagoses, the general of another Artaxerxes’s army, polluted the temple, and imposed tributes on the Jews, that out of the public stock, before they offered the daily sacrifices, they should pay for every lamb fifty . Now Jesus was the brother of John, and was a friend of Bagoses, who had promised to procure him the high priesthood. In confidence of whose support, Jesus quarreled with John in the temple, and so provoked his brother, that in his anger his brother slew him. Now it was a horrible thing for John, when he was high priest, to perpetrate so great a crime, and so much the more horrible, that there never was so cruel and impious a thing done, neither by the nor Barbarians. However, God did not neglect its punishment, but the people were on that very account enslaved, and the temple was polluted by the Persians. Now when Bagoses, the general of Artaxerxes’s army, knew that John, the high priest of the Jews, had slain his own brother Jesus in the temple, he came upon the Jews immediately, and began in anger to say to them: “Have you had the impudence to perpetrate a murder in your temple?” And as he was aiming to go into the temple, they forbade him so to do; but he said to them, “Am not I purer than he that was slain in the temple?” And when he had said these words, he went into the temple. Accordingly, Bagoses made use of this pretense, and punished the Jews seven years for the murder of Jesus.31

Baras suggested that this passage led Origen to think that Josephus should have corrected his view on the fall of Jerusalem. But this is rather specula- tive. I would rather propose that this passage is important because some of its motifs closely parallel the retributive logic at work in Josephus’ supposed account of James’ death, especially as it occurs at Contra Celsum II. 13 in which Titus is mentioned: these motifs include the murder perpetrated by the high priest, the punishment implemented by the general of a foreign army, and the collective suffering of the Jews which follows. This is also true of the next passage: As R. Girod has noted32, an impor- tant testimony is provided in Antiquities XVIII. 116-117: Tisì dè t¬n ˆIoudaíwn êdókei ôlwlénai tòn ¨JrÉdou stratòn üpò toÕ qeoÕ kaì mála dikaíwv tinuménou katà poin®n ˆIwánnou toÕ êpikalou- ménou baptistoÕ. kteínei gàr d® toÕton ¨JrÉdjv âgaqòn ãndra kaì to⁄v ˆIoudaíoiv keleúonta âret®n êpaskoÕsin kaì tà pròv âllßlouv dikaiosúnjÇ kaì pròv tòn qeòn eûsebeíaç xrwménoiv baptism¬ç suniénai·. Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and com-

31. Transl. WHISTON. 32. GIROD, ORIGÈNE, Commentaire sur l’Évangile selon Matthieu, 115-116.

994323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd4323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd 3232 331/08/111/08/11 13:2913:29 DID JOSEPHUS ASCRIBE THE FALL OF JERUSALEM TO THE MURDER OF JAMES? 33

manded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism.33

This passage is generally considered to be authentic.34 It offers precisely the same kind of deuteronomic logic as the one ruling the passage on James: John the Baptist plays, as it were, James’ role, and Herod’s army that of Jerusalem. As in the allegedly Josephan passage in Origen, a Judaean entity is destroyed by God’s will as a retributive punishment for an evil deed com- mitted against the figure of a “just” individual. The similarities between both texts suggest that Josephus may have authored the excerpt quoted by Origen. Along the same line, the of Onias in Antiquities XIV. 22-2535: ˆOnían dé tina ∫noma díkaion ∫nta kaì qeofil±, Ωv ânombríav potè oΔsjv jΔzato t¬ç qe¬ç lÕsai tòn aûxmòn kaì genómenov êpßkoov ö qeòv œsen, krúcanta ëautòn dià tò t®n stásin ör¢n îsxuràn êpiménousan, ânaxqénta eîv tò stratópedon t¬n ˆIoudaíwn ©zíoun, Üv ∂pause t®n ânombrían eûzámenov, ÿn’ oÀtwv âràv q±Ç katà ˆAristoboúlou kaì t¬n sustasiast¬n aûtoÕ. êpeì dè ântilégwn kaì paraitoúmenov êbiásqj üpò toÕ plßqouv, stàv mésov aût¬n e˝pen· „√ qeè basileÕ t¬n ºlwn, êpeì oï met’ êmoÕ sunest¬tev sòv d±móv êstin kaì oï poliorkoúmenoi dè ïere⁄v soí, déomai mßte katà toútwn êkeínoiv üpakoÕsai mßte kat’ êkeínwn ° oœtoi parakaloÕsin eîv télov âgage⁄n.“ kaì tòn mèn taÕt’ eûzámenon peristántev oï ponjroì t¬n ˆIoudaíwn katéleusan. ¨O dè qeòv taútjv aûtoùv paraxr±ma êtimwrßsato t±v Ömótjtov kaì díkjn eîseprázato toÕ ˆOníou fónou … Now there was one, whose name was Onias, a righteous man he was, and beloved of God, who, in a certain drought, had prayed to God to put an end to the intense heat, and whose prayers God had heard, and had sent them rain. This man had hid himself, because he saw that this sedition would last a great while. However, they brought him to the Jewish camp, and desired, that as by his prayers he had once put an end to the drought, so he would in like manner make imprecations on Aristobulus and those of his faction. And when, upon his refusal, and the excuses that he made, he was still by the multitude com- pelled to speak, he stood up in the midst of them, and said, “O God, the King of the whole world! since those that stand now with me are thy people, and those that are besieged are also thy priests, I beseech thee, that thou wilt neither hearken to the prayers of those against these, nor bring to effect what these pray against those.” Whereupon such wicked Jews as stood about him, as soon as he had made this prayer, stoned him to death. But God punished them imme- diately for this their barbarity, and took vengeance of them for the murder of Onias…36

33. Transl. WHISTON. 34. The secondary literature on the subject is the same as the one on the Testimonium Flavianum: cf. note 3. 35. I wish to thank Ken Olson for drawing my attention to this passage. 36. Transl. WHISTON.

994323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd4323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd 3333 331/08/111/08/11 13:2913:29 34 DID JOSEPHUS ASCRIBE THE FALL OF JERUSALEM TO THE MURDER OF JAMES?

Again, the theodicy found in this passage is closely reminiscent of Jose- phus’ alleged passage on James (as well as that of Hegesippus). Strikingly, like James, Onias is described as righteous (díkaion) and is stoned by the Judaeans. For Josephus, this immediately triggered God’s revenge against them. Therefore, Josephus’ passage on James as reported by Origen presents motifs that are closely similar to other Josephan passages. The three excerpts cited above show that, in similar contexts, Josephus did not hesitate to give a theological twist to the political and historical events he was reporting. Obviously, the scenario at work in these passages may be no more than a topos. It could be the result of the influence of the Deuteronomistic history or of the motif of the suffering just on Josephus. Yet this does not invalidate the argument: even if these texts reveal the influence of Deuteronomistic theodicy or the motif of the suffering just, the fact that the same scenario appears as a pattern in the same work supports that it may also have been used in relation to James.

An alternative explanation: the portrayal of Ananus in the War

If Josephus only mentions James in the Antiquities, Ananus also appears in the Life37 and the War. The passage of War IV. 318-325 is worth quoting in full: oûk ån ämártoimi d’ eîpÑn älÉsewv ãrzai t±Ç pólei tòn ˆAnánou qána- ton, kaì âp’ êkeínjv t±v ™mérav ânatrap±nai tò te⁄xov kaì diafqar±nai tà prágmata ˆIoudaíoiv, ên ¯Ç tòn ârxieréa kaì ™gemóna t±v îdíav swtjríav aût¬n êpì mésjv t±v pólewv e˝don âpesfagménon. ¥n gàr d® tá te ãlla semnòv än®r kaì dikaiótatov. kaì parà tòn ∫gkon t±v te eûgeneíav kaì t±v âzíav kaì ¯v e˝xe tim±v ©gapjkÑv tò îsótimon kaì pròv toùv tapeinotátouv, fileleúqeróv te êktópwv kaì djmokratíav êrastßv, pró te t¬n îdíwn lusitel¬n tò koin±Ç sumféron âeì tiqémenov kaì perì pantòv poioúmenov t®n eîrßnjn· ãmaxa gàr ≠Çdei tà ¨Rwmaíwn· proskopoúmenov d’ üp’ ânágkjv kaì tà katà tòn pólemon, ºpwv, eî m® dialúsainto ˆIouda⁄oi, dezi¬v diaférointo. kaqólou d’ eîpe⁄n, h¬ntov ˆAnánou pántwv ån dielúqjsan· deinòv gàr ¥n eîpe⁄n te kaì pe⁄sai tòn d±mon, ≠dj dè êxeiroÕto kaì toùv êmpodíhontav· Æ polemoÕntev pleís- tjn ån trib®n ¨Rwmaíoiv parésxon üpò toioútwç stratjg¬ç. paréheukto d’ aût¬ç kaì ö ˆIjsoÕv, aûtoÕ mèn leipómenov katà súgkrisin, proúxwn dè t¬n ãllwn. âll’ o˝mai katakrínav ö qeòv Üv memiasménjv t±v pólewv âpÉleian kaì purì boulómenov êkkaqarq±nai tà †gia toùv ântexomé- nouv aût¬n kaì filostorgoÕntav periékopten. oï dè prò ôlígou t®n

37. Vita 193-196.

994323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd4323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd 3434 331/08/111/08/11 13:2913:29 DID JOSEPHUS ASCRIBE THE FALL OF JERUSALEM TO THE MURDER OF JAMES? 35

ïeràn êsq±ta perikeímenoi kaì t±v kosmik±v qrjskeíav katárxontev proskunoúmenoí te to⁄v êk t±v oîkouménjv parabállousin eîv t®n pólin, êrrimménoi gumnoì borà kun¬n kaì qjríwn êbléponto. aût®n êp’ êkeínoiv stenázai to⁄v ândrási dok¬ t®n âretßn, ôlofuroménjn ºti tosoÕton Øttjto t±v kakíav. âllà [gàr] tò mèn ˆAnánou kaì ˆIjsoÕ télov toioÕton âpébj. I should not mistake if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city, and that from this very day may be dated the overthrow of her wall, and the ruin of her affairs, whereon they saw their high priest, and the procurer of their preservation, slain in the midst of their city. He was on other accounts also a venerable, and a very just man; and besides the grandeur of that nobility, and dignity, and honor of which he was possessed, he had been a lover of a kind of parity, even with regard to the meanest of the people; he was a prodigious lover of liberty, and an admirer of a democracy in govern- ment; and did ever prefer the public welfare before his own advantage, and preferred peace above all things; for he was thoroughly sensible that the Romans were not to be conquered. He also foresaw that of necessity a war would follow, and that unless the Jews made up matters with them very dexter- ously, they would be destroyed; to say all in a word, if Ananus had survived, they had certainly compounded matters; for he was a shrewd man in speaking and persuading the people, and had already gotten the mastery of those that opposed his designs, or were for the war. And the Jews had then put abundance of delays in the way of the Romans, if they had had such a general as he was. Jesus was also joined with him; and although he was inferior to him upon the comparison, he was superior to the rest; and I cannot but think that it was because God had doomed this city to destruction, as a polluted city, and was resolved to purge his sanctuary by fire, that he cut off these their great defend- ers and well-wishers, while those that a little before had worn the sacred gar- ments, and had presided over the public worship; and had been esteemed ven- erable by those that dwelt on the whole habitable earth when they came into our city, were cast out naked, and seen to be the food of dogs and wild beasts. And I cannot but imagine that virtue itself groaned at these men’s case, and lamented that she was here so terribly conquered by wickedness. And this at last was the end of Ananus and Jesus.38

The reason why Josephus’ description of Ananus in the War so greatly differs from the description in the Antiquities cannot be dealt with in detail here.39 Suffice it to say that this passage may suggest that Origen’s Josephus or Origen himself conflated or confused the testimony of the War and that of the Antiquities, so that the portrayal of ‘Ananus the Just’ was transferred on James. The references to the end of Jerusalem and Ananus’ ability to save the city are especially striking. So is the description of Ananus as being dikaiotatos, just as James in Origen’s Contra Celsum I. 47. The association

38. Transl. WHISTON. 39. See MCLAREN, “Ananus, James, and Earliest Christianity.”

994323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd4323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd 3535 331/08/111/08/11 13:2913:29 36 DID JOSEPHUS ASCRIBE THE FALL OF JERUSALEM TO THE MURDER OF JAMES?

of Iakôbos and Ièsous in a passage dealing with the fall of the city could easily have led to a confusion in a Christian’s mind. However, Josephus’ insistance on Ananus’ political and military ability does not fit James’ portrayal: one can hardly see why one would have asso- ciated James the Just with Ananus. Moreover, in order to support this hypothesis, one needs to explain the process through which Ananus, James’ murderer in the Antiquities, became the model for the brother of Jesus. To the best of my knowledge, no such explanation is available. Finally, Hegesip- pus’ testimony is clearly independent from War IV. 318-325. Yet he also connects James’ murder to the siege of the city. This indicates that there was a Christian tradition associating James and Jerusalem that was independant of Josephus. The two Apocalypses of James from Nag Hammadi also attests to this tradition.40 Therefore, although it is tempting to connect this passage to Josephus’ alleged citation in Origen, it is difficult to establish the depend- ency of the latter upon the former.

Josephus, Hegesippus, Origen, and Eusebius on James’ death

In addition to “Josephus”, Hegesippus also connected James’ murder to the siege of Jerusalem.41 Indeed, in his Memoirs, quoted by Eusebius, Hegesippus said: kaì ∂qacan aûtòn êpì t¬ç tópwç parà t¬ç na¬ç, kaì ∂ti aûtoÕ ™ stßlj ménei parà t¬ç na¬ç. mártuv oœtov âljq®v ˆIoudaíoiv te kaì ÊElljsin gegénjtai ºti ˆIjsoÕv ö Xristóv êstin. kaì eûqùv Oûespasianòv poliorke⁄ aûtoúv. And they buried him (James) on the spot, by the Temple, and his monument still remains by the Temple. He became a true witness, both to Jews and Greeks, that Jesus is the Christ. And immediately afterwards Vespasian besieged them.42

The use of the term eûqúv is generally taken as indicating Hegesippus’ intention to connect James’ death and the fall of the city.43 This led some to

40. E.g. I Apoc. James XXXVI. 19; II Apoc. James LIX. 21. For the debate on the literary dependancy between these two writings, Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, and the Pseudo- Clementines, see the bibliography in MYLLYLOSKI, part II, 63-83. 41. On which see, e.g., F. S. JONES, “The Martyrdom of James in Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, Christian Apocrypha Including Nag Hammadi: A Study of the Textual Rela- tions,” SPSBL 1990, 322-335. 42. HE II. 23. 18. Transl. A. CUSHMAN MCGIFFERT, retrieved from http://www.ccel.org/fathers2. 43. On Hegesippus’ testimony on James, see O. IRSAI, “The Church of Jerusalem: From the ‘Church of the Circumcision’ to the ‘Church of the Gentiles’,” in Y. TSAFRIR and S. SAFRAI (eds.), The History of Jerusalem: The Roman and Byzantine Periods (70-638 CE), Jerusalem, 1999, 61-114 (Hebrew).

994323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd4323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd 3636 331/08/111/08/11 13:2913:29 DID JOSEPHUS ASCRIBE THE FALL OF JERUSALEM TO THE MURDER OF JAMES? 37

think that Origen’s paraphrase of Josephus resulted from a confusion, delib- erate or not, with Hegesippus.44 At any rate, Eusebius agreed with Hegesippus and, for the first time, Hegesippus’ testimony and Josephus’ alleged passage were explicitly asso- ciated in the Historia Ecclesiastica45: oÀtw dè ãra qaumásióv tiv ¥n kaì parà to⁄v ãlloiv †pasin êpì dikaiosúnjÇ bebójto ö ˆIákwbov, Üv kaì toùv ˆIoudaíwn ∂mfronav dozáhein taútjn e˝nai t®n aîtían t±v paraxr±ma metà tò martúrion aûtoÕ poliorkíav t±v ¨Ierousalßm, ∞n di’ oûdèn ∏teron aûto⁄v sumb±nai Æ dià tò kat’ aûtoÕ tolmjqèn ãgov. âmélei gé toi ö ˆIÉsjpov oûk âpÉknjsen kaì toÕt’ êggráfwv êpimartúrasqai di’ ˜n fjsin lézewn· taÕta dè sumbébjken ˆIoudaíoiv kat’ êkdíkjsin ˆIakÉbou toÕ dikaíou, Ωv ¥n âdelfòv ˆIjsoÕ toÕ legoménou XristoÕ, êpeidßper dikaiótaton aûtòn ∫nta oï ˆIouda⁄oi âpékteinan. These things are related at length by Hegesippus, who is in agreement with Clem- ent. James was so admirable a man and so celebrated among all for his justice, that the more sensible even of the Jews were of the opinion that this was the cause of the siege of Jerusalem, which happened to them immediately after his martyr- dom for no other reason than their daring act against him.46 Josephus, at least, has not hesitated to testify this in his writings, where he says: These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the Christ. For the Jews slew him, although he was a most just man.47

The passage quoted by Eusebius is generally (and rightfully) dismissed as inauthentic because Eusebius does not give the exact reference to Jose- phus, as he usually does.48 As Chadwick has noted49, Eusebius seems to have turned Origen’s paraphrase of Josephus (as given at Contra Celsum I. 47) into a quotation in direct speech.50 But if Eusebius misused Origen’s

44. On this point, see B. GUSTAFSSON, “Eusebius’ Principles in Handling His Sources,” Studia Patristica 4, 1961, 437 (429-441); R.M. GRANT, “Eusebius, Josephus and the Fate of the Jews,” SBL Seminar Papers 17, 1979, 69-86 (75-76); É. NODET, Baptême et résurrection, le témoignage de Josèphe. Josèphe et son temps 2., Paris, 1999, 41-43. 45. HE II. 23. 20. 46. HE II. 23. 19-20. Transl. CUSHMAN MCGIFFERT. 47. Ibid. 48. See, e.g., GIROD, ORIGÈNE, Commentaire sur l’Évangile selon Matthieu, 115. See my Eusebius and the Jewish Authors, 188-189; 194-195. Yet in some other cases too, it may be argued that Eusebius omitted exact references to Josehus in the HE: See my Eusebius and the Jewish Authors, 219. 49. CHADWICK, ORIGEN. Contra Celsum, 43, n. 2, followed by GRANT, “Eusebius, Josephus and the Fate of the Jews,” 105; S. MASON, Josephus and the New Testament, Peabody, 1992, 16; BARAS, “The Testimonium Flavianum and the Martyrdom of James,” 338-348; OLSON, “Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum,” 318-319 also accepts this hypothesis. 50. Therefore, I would reject Hardwick’s contention that there once was a corpus of tradi- tions related to James that was used by Origen, Hegesippus and Eusebius. See HARDWICK, Josephus as an Historical Source, 84; 122.

994323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd4323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd 3737 331/08/111/08/11 13:2913:29 38 DID JOSEPHUS ASCRIBE THE FALL OF JERUSALEM TO THE MURDER OF JAMES?

and Josephus’ autorities and texts, there is no evidence that Origen did the same with Hegesippus and Josephus. Moreover, if Hegesippus really wished to connect the martyrdom of James and the fall of the city, he did so in a rather allusive manner. In con- trast, the passage ascribed to Josephus by Origen is much more explicit, and in fact quite different from that of Hegesippus: he connects the miseries of the Jews much more directly to the murder of James. Finally, the importance of Josephus as a historical witness in Origen’s work is noteworthy as well as the fact that Origen quotes the passage not less than three times. Therefore, it seems doubtful that Origen simply con- fused Hegesippus and Josephus. If the name Iosippos has been turned into Hegesippos in the Pseudo-Hegesippus re-writing of Josephus, could the same confusion have been made the other way around? It seems unlikely. Moreover, if one compares Hegesippus’ testimony with the passage from Origen which is closest to it (Contra Celsum II. 13), one important differ- ence must be noted: Josephus’ alleged testimony connects the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus to James’ murder (ö uïòv Títov kaqe⁄le t®n ¨Iero- usalßm); in contrast, Hegesippus associates James’ martyrdom to the beginning of the siege by Vespasian (Oûespasianòv poliorke⁄ aûtoúv). Thus there is no reason to think a priori that Origen confused Hegesippus and Josephus. There are even less reasons to suspect that Origen felt free to expand, not to say to tamper with, Hegesippus’ testimony. I would suggest that Origen’s testimony should be read differently. Instead of considering that he confused Hegesippus with Josephus, ascribing to the latter a passage which belonged to theformer, it is perhaps wiser to consider that Hegesippus’ account reflects an early Judaean tradition which originally also occurred in Josephus. If, as is suggested for example by S. Mimouni51, the tradition of James’ martyrdom may be as early as 70 (with a terminus ante quem around 135), the tradition of the fall of Jerusalem as a punishment for James’ death, which immediately follows it, may date back to the same period. The fact that this tradition appears in Hegesippus does not necessarily entail that Josephus could not be aware of it and include it in his work.

Why would Josephus’ passage on James and Jerusalem have been expurged from the Antiquities?

The main argument against the authenticity of Origen’s paraphrase of Josephus lies in the absence of the passage in Josephus’ manuscripts. One

51. S. Cl. MIMOUNI et P. MARAVAL, Le christianisme des origines à Constantin, Paris, 2006, 172.

994323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd4323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd 3838 331/08/111/08/11 13:2913:29 DID JOSEPHUS ASCRIBE THE FALL OF JERUSALEM TO THE MURDER OF JAMES? 39

might say that had Josephus really made such a claim, the Christians would not have dismissed such a Jewish piece on early Christianity. Indeed, it is often said that Josephus owes his literary survival to the Testimonium Fla- vianum. Yet I do not think that Christian copyists would undoubtedly have copied this passage. I would rather suggest that it disappeared because of the problematic reception of the figure of James in mainstream Christianty. As Painter has emphasized, “because James is the leading figure of the mission directed to the nation of Israel, his dominant role has been obscured in texts that assume the centrality of the mission to the nations.”52 The dominant Christianity that emerged in the second century would be the one that obscured James’ role in Josephus. The Christian embarrassement con- cerning the brethren of Jesus and the virginity of Mary also played a role in this process.53 Moreover, the figure of James was appropriated by in some ‘Gnostic’ circles.54 This is not in itself contradictory with the importance of James as a figure of Jewish Christianity. It rather indicates that James remained prom- inent in Christian circles which were increasingly marginalized. This explains why Christians who would see themselves as orthodox would not have wanted to promote the view that the theological punishment of the Jews par excellence was linked to James. As time went by and as mainstream Christianity was emerging, the connection between the siege of Jerusalem and Jesus became more and more crucial in the theological-his- torical rhetoric of the , reaching a peak in Eusebius’ Historia ecclesiastica. Strikingly, in several passages, Origen feels free to connect the fall of Jerusalem and the murder of Jesus without appealing to Josephus.55 This may indicate that Origen somehow felt compelled to mention an argument which circulated but with which he did not agree. It may suggest that in some circles, the connection between the fall of Jerusalem and James’ mar- tyrdom enjoyed some popularity in the time of Origen. This could have endangered the status of Jesus Christ, whose rejection and became associated with the fall of Jerusalem. The tradition reported by Origen may have been all the more dangerous that it made more sense than the association with Jesus’ murder for two

52. J. PAINTER, “Who was James? Footprints as a Means of Identification,” in Br. CHILTON and J. NEUSNER (eds.), The Brother of Jesus. James the Just and His Mission, 59-60. 53. PAINTER, “Who was James? Footprints as a Means of Identification,” 12-24. See also Painter’s monograph: Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition. 54. On which see PAINTER, Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition, ch. 6-8. 55. E.g. Contra Celsum IV. 22; Comm. in Matth. XXXII-LIX; Hom. Jos. 17:1; De Princ. IV. 1. 3.

994323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd4323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd 3939 331/08/111/08/11 13:2913:29 40 DID JOSEPHUS ASCRIBE THE FALL OF JERUSALEM TO THE MURDER OF JAMES?

reasons: Firstly, James seems to have been closely associated to Jerusalem and the Temple, as is shown by Hegesippus’ testimony; Secondly, because James’ death was closer in time to the siege than Jesus’ death. This clearly embarrassed Origen, and later Eusebius. Both explained away this chrono- logical gap by saying that forty (or forty-two) years had been allowed to the Jews in order to repent for their crime against the Lord. But, according to them, the Jews did not repent, and thus underwent the miseries that were well known to the Christians.56 Alternatively, it may also be that an early local tradition associating James and the fall of Jerusalem and its Temple was recuperated by some Christians and applied to Jesus. Josephus’ testimony would be a witness of this older tradition, which should consequently be situated very early after the destruc- tion of the city. In the process of the construction of Christian , this tradition would have been appropriated and used in the rhetoric of superses- sion. Reading Hegesippus as presenting James’ martyrdom as the cause of the siege supports this scenario.57 It may also attest to the existence of a Jewish Christian tradition associating the death of James and the fall of Jeru- salem, if we believe Eusebius’ testimony on his Jewish Christian origins.58 If, as the history of the Testimonium Flavianum indicates, the manuscripts of Josephus have indeed been interpolated by Christians some time between Origen and Eusebius, it is possible that the passage on James ascribed to Josephus by Origen was expurgated at the same period for the reasons I mentioned earlier in this paper. Thus James’ importance in the first Jerusa- lemite Church and the tradition of his death as the cause of the fall of the city may have undergone some kind of damnatio memoriae. Yet as paradoxical as it may seem, simultaneously, Christian historiogra- phers such as Hegesippus and, later, Eusebius, were anxious to establish an ‘orthodox’ apostolic tradition. In this perspective, they became interested in recovering the ‘original’ apostolic tradition and hence information on the first bishops.59 Eusebius, perhaps as Hegesippus, sought to recover for Christian “orthodoxy” early Christian figures that had been appropriated by “heretic” circles. It is in this context that the figure of James was recon- structed and, to some extent, exalted by these authors.

56. ORIGEN, Contra Celsum IV. 22; EUSEBIUS, HE III. 7. 9. 57. On these early Jerusalemite traditions about James, see IRSAI, “The Church of Jerusa- lem: From the ‘Church of the Circumcision’ to the ‘Church of the Gentiles’,” 61-114 (Hebrew). 58. HE IV. 22. 59. Cf. IRSAI, “The Church of Jerusalem: From the ‘Church of the Circumcision’ to the ‘Church of the Gentiles’.”

994323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd4323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd 4040 331/08/111/08/11 13:2913:29 DID JOSEPHUS ASCRIBE THE FALL OF JERUSALEM TO THE MURDER OF JAMES? 41

A tentative reconstruction of Josephus’ passage

If one accepts that Josephus may have mentioned an association between James’ death and the destruction of the city and its Temple, one may ask in which manner this assertion was phrased by Josephus, and where it was located. I have pointed out that the Commentary On Matthew is less polemical than the Contra Celsum in its treatment of Josephus’ paraphrase. In the Commentary, Josephus’ testimony is mainly used in order to glorify one of Jesus’ family members, namely James, rather than to criticize it. For this reason, I would suggest that it is in this text, rather than in the Contra Cel- sum, that Origen provides the account closest to Josephus’ now lost testi- mony. In the Commentary (X. 17), Origen presents two Josephan “quotations”, which follow one another. The first one (a) is more extensive than the sec- ond (b), which closely parallels the first one in a more concise manner: a) ˆEpì tosoÕton dè diélamcen oœtov ö ˆIákwbov ên t¬ç la¬ç êpì dikaiosúnjÇ Üv Flábion ˆIÉsjpon ânagrácanta ên e÷kosi biblíoiv t®n ˆIoudaflk®n ârxaiologían, t®n aîtían parast±sai boulómenon toÕ tà tosaÕta peponqénai tòn laòn Üv kaì tòn naòn kataskaf±nai, eîrjkénai katà m±nin qeoÕ taÕta aûto⁄v âpjntjkénai dià tà eîv ˆIákwbon tòn âdelfòn ˆIjsoÕ toÕ legoménou XristoÕ üp’ aût¬n tetolmjména. Kaì tò qaumastón êstin ºti, tòn ˆIjsoÕn ™m¬n oû kata- dezámenov e˝nai Xristón, oûdèn ¯tton ˆIakÉbwç dikaiosúnjn êmar- túrjse tosaútjn. b) Légei dè ºti kaì ö laòv taÕta ênómihe dià tòn ˆIákwbon peponqénai.

The fact that Origen repeats Josephus’ claim (in b) deserves attention. In the first part of the passage (a), Josephus’ testimony is exalted because of Josephus’ alleged insistance on James’ righteousness. The last sentence (b) repeats and summarizes the first part. Significantly, in (b), it is not only Josephus who says that the death of James triggered the siege of Jerusalem, but also the people, who thought they underwent those miseries because of James: “He says that even the people [or: the people too] thought that they underwent this suffering because of James”. Thus the kai intensifies the clause. It is worth noting that Origen ascribes the association between James and Jerusalem to the people only in this short and repetitive sentence which is clumsily appended to the end of the passage on James. As I pointed out earlier, James is not presented here as “the just”, even though his righteousness (dikaiosunè) is mentioned.

994323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd4323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd 4141 331/08/111/08/11 13:2913:29 42 DID JOSEPHUS ASCRIBE THE FALL OF JERUSALEM TO THE MURDER OF JAMES?

The passage is reminiscent of that on John the Baptist: in both cases, it is not Josephus who connects the murder of a prominent figure to a military disaster, but other people. In the passages from Origen examined above, the term laos occurs several times, always to designate the Jews. Therefore, I would suggest that if the passage is authentic, the association between James and Jerusalem was ascribed by Josephus to other people, perhaps the people of Jerusalem. One more element should be taken into consideration. In Contra Celsum I. 47, I have pointed out that Origen claims that Josephus connected the fall of the city and James’ death “as if against his will”. To what does this expression refer? Either it means that Josephus, although he did not accept Jesus as a messiah, nevertheless acknowledged the connection between the Jews’ misfortunes and their murder of a Christian figure; or it may hint that it is not Josephus himself, but others, who reported this argument (cf. Com- mentary X. 17). A passage from ’s De uiris illustribus may support this hypothesis. As I have mentioned earlier, it is generally accepted that Eusebius’ citation of Josephus’ contested passage in the Historia Ecclesiastica has been taken from Origen rather than the manuscripts of Josephus. It is also well known that Jerome’s Lives of Illustrious Men is largely based on Eusebius’ Historia Eclesiastica. He himself acknowledges his debt in the preface of this work. His life of James60 owes much to Historia Ecclesiastica II. 23: the same sources appear in the same order (Hegesippus, Clement, and Josephus) and the same testimonies are quoted. Yet when it comes to Josephus, Jerome does not ascribe the association between James and the fall of Jerusalem to Josephus, as Eusebius confidently did: Tradit idem Iosephus, tantae eum sanctitatis fuisse et celebritatis in populo, ut propter eius necem, creditum sit subversam esse Hierosolymam. This same Josephus records the tradition that this James was of so great sanc- tity and reputation among the people that the downfall of Jerusalem was believed to be on account of his death.61 (My italics.)

Interestingly, the account given in Jerome’s life of James seems to echo Origen’s Commentary rather than the Contra Celsum. As the Commentary, it ascribes the connection between James and the fall of Jerusalem to a rumour rather than to Josephus himself. This is all the more striking since, in his life of Josephus, like Eusebius, he ascribes this claim to Josephus himself:

60. Lives of Illustrious Men II (PG 23, 642). 61. Translation by E. CUSHING RICHARDSON, retrieved from http://www.ccel.org/fathers2.

994323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd4323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd 4242 331/08/111/08/11 13:2913:29 DID JOSEPHUS ASCRIBE THE FALL OF JERUSALEM TO THE MURDER OF JAMES? 43

Hic in decimo octavo Antiquitatum libro manifestissime confitetur, propter magnitudinem signorum Christum a Pharisaeis interfectum, et Ioannem Bap- tistam vere prophetam fuisse, et propter interfectionem Jacobi apostolic diru- tam Hierosolymam. In the eighteenth book of his Antiquities, he most openly acknowledges that Christ was slain by the Pharisees on account of the greatness of his miracles, that John the Baptist was truly a prophet, and that Jerusalem was destroyed because of the murder of James the apostle.62

It may be that in the life of James, Jerome used Origen’s Commentary, while, in the life of Josephus, he used Eusebius’ own summary of Origen, Hegesippus, and Josephus. Indeed, Jerome’s account is phrased in a way that is very similar to Eusebius, HE II. 23. 19.63 But it may also be that Jerome knew of Josephus’ alleged passage through a testimony other than that of Origen or that he chose Origen’s version in the Commentary because he knew of the passage through another testimony. It is unlikely that such a testimony would have been Josephus’ manuscripts because by the time of Eusebius, the passage seems to have already vanished. But he may have known it through another witness. For all these reasons, I would suggest that it may well be that Josephus’ alleged passage in Origen should not be so easily discarded as being inauthentic. If authentic, Josephus’ passage must have been brief, since Josephus’ narrative of the incident as we have it is fairly brief too. The question arises as to whether Josephus described James as righteous because James’ right- eousness is mentioned in all three Origenian accounts. The is probably our earliest witness for the appellation “James the Just”.64 The fact that James became known as “the Just” among some Christian groups does not necessarily exclude that he was also known to a member of the Judaean Jewish élite as “James the Just”. Moreover, in the accounts of Onias and John the Baptist from the Antiquities which parallel the passage on James, both figures are praised as being righteous: Onias is said to be dikaios65, and John the Baptist is said to have encouraged the practice of dikaiosunè.66 Although Origen’s testimonies must be read criti- cally, I do not think that he would have tampered with Josephus’ text by simply adding this element. He may have slightly expanded on Josephus’

62. Lives of Illustrious Men 13 (PG 23, 662). Translation by CUSHING RICHARDSON. 63. Yet he omitted Eusebius’ reference to “the more sensible of the Jews”. 64. Gospel of Thomas 12. I assume here a date no later than 120 CE, cf. recently A. D. DECONICK, Recovering the Original Gospel of Thomas: A History of the Gospel and Its Growth, London, 2005, who dates what she calls the “kernel” to the 50’s. 65. AJ XIV. 22-25. 66. AJ XVIII. 16-17.

994323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd4323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd 4343 331/08/111/08/11 13:2913:29 44 DID JOSEPHUS ASCRIBE THE FALL OF JERUSALEM TO THE MURDER OF JAMES?

testimony for apologetic reasons by rephrasing his account in his own way. However, his insistance in the two longest ones (Contra Celsum I. 47 and Commentary X. 17) on Josephus’ acknowledgement of James’ righteousness should lead us to trust that “James the Just” or James’ righteousness occurred in the text he ascribes to Josephus. As I have pointed out earlier, the expression “the brother of Jesus who is called Christ” appears both in the three paraphrases in Origen and in Jose- phus’ phrasing. This makes it unlikely that the expression has been added by Origen. Thus it was certainly part of the passage known to Origen. Regarding the location of the passage, it has been suggested that it may have appeared in War VI. 5. 3: Origen’s assertion that Josephus was looking for the cause of the disaster of 70 has been interpreted as a reference to a passage other than Antiquities XX. 200; War VI. 5. 3 being the only Jose- phan passage in which there are messianic overtones, it has been located there.67 However, I think that Origen’s reference to Josephus seeking the cause of the destruction is an overall interpretation of Josephus’ project in the War and in the relevant parts of the Antiquities. Origen’s reference to Josephus’ project is no more than a way to insist on Josephus’ authority as an historian. Moreover, I would argue that it cannot have happened in the War because, as I have suggested earlier, Origen in fact provides references to Josephus, and these are to the Antiquities. In addition, placing this passage in a context which does not deal with James would give too much signifi- cance to this episode in Josephus. I assume the passage could only have been part of the account of James’ death in Antiquities XX. 200, for it is the only one where James is men- tioned. Therefore, it may be reasonably located at XX. 200-203, either directly after the mention of the stoning (XX. 201) or at the end of the episode, where Ananus is said to have been replaced by Jesus son of Dam- naeus (XX. 203). Indeed, in the parallel passages of the Antiquities exam- ined above, the punishment is mentioned either before the episode is nar- rated (AJ XIV. 22-25), or afterwards (AJ XIV. 22-25; XVIII. 116-117). It seems more logical to assume that the structure of the text was similar to that of the account of John the Baptist, because it does not reflect Josephus’ opinion, but ascribes a tradition to “some Jews”. Thus after the account of Ananus’ misdeed and replacement by Jesus as a high priest, there could have been a short excursus on James and the fall of the city. This excursus would have started with the mention that the people thought that the miseries

67. See the outline of the arguments provided at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ testimonium.html.

994323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd4323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd 4444 331/08/111/08/11 13:2913:29 DID JOSEPHUS ASCRIBE THE FALL OF JERUSALEM TO THE MURDER OF JAMES? 45

endured during the war, among which the fall of the city and its Temple, were due to the murder of this James, the brother of Jesus called Christ, and a most just man. In this context, Josephus’ reference to James’ murder and the fall of the city would have served to dramatize the role played by inter- nal conflicts among the Jerusalemite élites in the defeat in 70. The passage would be in tune with Josephus’ opinion “that it was a seditious temper of our own that destroyed it [], and that they were the among the Jews who brought the Roman power upon us, who unwillingly attacked us, and occasioned the burning of our holy temple.”68

The Christian Reception of Josephus’ testimony

Before I turn to the conclusions, I wish to return briefly to the Christian nachleben of the association between James and Jerusalem. If my hypoth- esis is correct, Origen is our earliest witness for Josephus’ association between the destruction of Jerusalem and the murder of James. Later authors freely used Josephus’ alleged account, also deriving it from Eusebius rather than from Origen. This can be seen, for instance, from , a seventh century work which is indebted to Eusebius’ works: ˆIÉsjppov ïstore⁄ ên t¬ç pémptwç lógwç t±v älÉsewv ºti ∂touv trítou OûespasianoÕ ™ †lwsiv t¬n ˆIoudaíwn gégonen, Üv metà m´ ∂tj t±v genoménjv par’ aût¬n tólmjv katà toÕ ˆIjsoÕ· ên ˜ç xrónwç, fjsí, kaì ˆIákwbon tòn âdelfòn toÕ kuríou kaì êpískopon ¨Ierosolúmwn genóme- non üp’ aût¬n krjmnisq±nai kaì üp’ aût¬n ânaireq±nai liqoboljqénta. Josephus recounts in the fifth book of the Capture that the capture of the Jews took place on the third year of [the reign of] Vespasian, around forty years after their daring act against Jesus. In this time, he says, James too, the brother of the Lord and bishop of Jerusalem, was thrown down by them (the Jews) and killed by them by stoning.69

This passage is a summary in which Eusebius’, Hegesippus’, and Jose- phus’ accounts are conflated. Yet it was probably made on the basis of Eusebius, HE II. 23, in which all these testimonies are grouped for the first time. Although the passage presents James’ martyrdom and the “capture of the Jews” as chronologically simultaneous, the chronicler strongly implies that the fall of the city is in fact connected to the death of Jesus, which hap- pened forty years “before their (the Jews’) daring act against him.” Jose-

68. War I. 9. Translation WHISTON. 69. Chronicon Paschale, p. 463 (L. DINDORF, Chronicon Paschale). My translation.

994323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd4323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd 4545 331/08/111/08/11 13:2913:29 46 DID JOSEPHUS ASCRIBE THE FALL OF JERUSALEM TO THE MURDER OF JAMES?

phus’ alleged passage on James is not referred to by the chronicler, either because it has already been erased from the manuscripts a few centuries later, or because he did not wish to mention it. The second solution is more likely as he was familiar with Eusebius’ HE, in which it was cited. Thus in the seventh century, there still was some embarrassment about a possible connection between the siege of Jerusalem and James’ death. Along the same line, M. Brossard-Dandré70 has shown that the notice on James in the collection of Pseudo-Abdias (ninth century?), in which the testimonies on James of the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions and of Euse- bius are juxtaposed, aims to demonstrate the failure of James’ Christianity in contrast to Paul. Interestingly, in his Chronography, George Syncellus (c. 800), after citing Hegesippus’ testimony, goes on to quote Josephus (who is explicitly named). But he has added to Josephus’ extant passage (AJ XX. 200-203) Josephus’ alleged passage (as given by Eusebius, HE II. 23. 20, who drew it from Origen, CC I. 47); he placed it under Josephus’ name, before the citation of the extant passage. There is no doubt that his source was Eusebius, HE II. 23. 19-24. But unlike Eusebius, which separated Josephus’ alleged testimony from his extant account of James with a reference to AJ XX, George Syncellus presented the two passages as if they were one. The whole passage on James was introduced with a reference to Vespasian and the cause of the halôsis which is reminiscent of the Chronicon Paschale. Thus in George Syncellus’ Chronography, Josephus’ alleged passage became (once again) part and parcel of AJ XX. Eusebius’ authority was, in his eyes, stronger than the issues raised by the figure of James. Later on, Josephus’ alleged claim is transmitted, for instance, by James of Voragine (thirteenth century) in his Golden Legend (“Life of St James the Minor, apostle”). Apparently aware of the contradiction between the association of the fall of Jerusalem with James and the association with Jesus, this author presents Josephus’ alleged testimony, but, like Origen, he insists that, more than James’ death, it is Jesus’ death which triggered the destruction of Jerusalem. These later accounts reveal the ambiguity of the Christian attitude towards the association between James’ martyrdom and the fall of Jerusalem. On the one hand, this claim, which enjoyed authority thanks to its attribution to Josephus, was inserted by some Christian writers into their Christian history.

70. M. BROSSARD-DANDRÉ, “Abdias et ses sources. Actes apocryphes d’un apôtre apocry- phe,” in S. Cl. MIMOUNI et C. MACRIS (ed.), Apocryphité. Histoire d’un concept transversal aux du livre. En hommage à P. Geoltrain, Turnhout (Bibliothèque des Hautes Études – religieuses 113), 2002, 229-242.

994323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd4323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd 4646 331/08/111/08/11 13:2913:29 DID JOSEPHUS ASCRIBE THE FALL OF JERUSALEM TO THE MURDER OF JAMES? 47

On the other, some of them (even Origen, and after him, Eusebius, and the Chronicon Paschale) seem to have been embarrassed about it. The fact that it is not commonly attested, and might even have been expunged from the manuscripts of Josephus, is striking. In this respect, it must be noted that, to the best of my knowledge, the testimony appears nowhere, not even in the Middle Ages, without a reference to Josephus. More than a care for exact- ness, this indicates that the Christian authors were not willing to fully inte- grate such a claim into their own tradition. Therefore, whether authentic or inauthentic, Josephus’ alleged passage on James and the fall of Jerusalem made its way through ancient and medieval Christian literature, albeit with some reluctance. It must be noted that it is especially and chroniclers who were interested in this passage. This can be explained by the fact that their suspicion about the figure of James could be overcome by their willingness to recover the “historical facts” of the early Church history, however biased this endeavour may have been. From this point of view, it is perhaps surprising that Origen, who was not particularly interested in these issues, mentions the passage no less than three times. The reason for its presence in Commentary X. 17 can be easily explained: Origen wished to give a laudatory account of Jesus’ siblings, and Josephus’ alleged passage provided him with an account on the justice of James. In the CC, however, he cites it on two different occasions in order to polemicize against it. Thus there may have been some polemics around the claim allegedly made by Josephus, which, as I have suggested, could explain its disappearance from the manuscripts.

Conclusion

In this paper, I suggested that a fresh look should be taken at Origen’s paraphrase of a supposedly spurious passage of Josephus. I explored the possibility that in the CC and Matt., Origen may have paraphrased an authentic passage of Josephus, which is no longer extant. The arguments I presented are as follows: 1) There are good reasons for which Josephus’ alleged testimony would have been expurgated from the manuscripts: the marginalization of the figure of James in dominant Chris- tianity as well as the growing importance of the connection between Jesus’ death and the fall of Jerusalem as a divine punishment for the Jews are the main ones. 2) A close reading of the evidence in Origen shows that, contrary to some scholars’ opinion, Origen did provide references to Josephus when dealing with this passage. 3) The passage in question would have made

994323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd4323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd 4747 331/08/111/08/11 13:2913:29 48 DID JOSEPHUS ASCRIBE THE FALL OF JERUSALEM TO THE MURDER OF JAMES?

sense in the logic of Josephus’ Antiquities. Moreover, other passages in the Antiquities closely parallel the contested paraphrase, which suggests that it may well have belonged to this work. If one accepts the authenticity of the passage, a close reading of the evi- dence in Origen suggested that the latter paraphrased, rather than cited faith- fully, Josephus’ wording. Yet at least one expression (“wrath of God”) is typical of Josephus’ usage while it does not occur in Origen. Origen’s tes- timonies seem to indicate that James’ justice was mentioned in Josephus’ alleged passage, but probably not the appellation “James the Just”. Through an analysis of the context in which the paraphrase was inserted in Origen, I suggested that Matt. X. 17 reflected more faithfully Origen’s source. I proposed that the claim about James and Jerusalem made in Josephus’ alleged passage was in fact ascribed by Josephus to other people. In other words, it is a tradition related by Josephus, not Josephus’ own claim. Some later Christian authors (Eusebius, Jerome) reported this view. Although there is no proof, it seems likely that this passage, provided that it be authentic, occurred after the mention of the stoning of James (AJ XX. 201). The examination of the evidence in Origen indicated that the latter was polemicizing against Josephus’ alleged passage, which supports its authen- ticity. Hegesippus’ testimony either reflects the existence of an early Jeru- salemite tradition also known to Josephus, according to which the murder of James triggered the fall of Jerusalem; or it suggests that Hegesippus used Josephus’ alleged passage. This tradition, I suggested, was appropriated by emerging mainstream Christianity to the profit of the figure of Jesus, while the figure of James was gradually rejected. An analysis of later testimonies on Josephus’ alleged passage indicates that even in the Byzantine period, the connection between James’ death and the fall of Jerusalem still embarrassed some people. It also shows that, although Origen was the first one to deal with this subject, Eusebius’ account, which was based on Origen, proved to be much more influential. In sum, if it cannot be proved irrefutably that Josephus’ alleged passage on James and Jerusalem is authentic, it can nevertheless be argued that it is plausible. Even though it may have been spurious, the evidence in Origen seems to indicate that it was neither a forgery nor a mistake made by Origen himself, or by a Christian belonging to “the great Church”. Indeed, it was too crucial a testimony for them to be confused about it, and, moreover, it seems to have been subject to rejection and embarrassment, which excludes the hypothesis of a forgery. Although it is rarely mentioned in Christian literature, Josephus’ alleged passage on James was transmitted through the centuries because such a testimony on the so-called brother of Jesus and one

994323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd4323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd 4848 331/08/111/08/11 13:2913:29 DID JOSEPHUS ASCRIBE THE FALL OF JERUSALEM TO THE MURDER OF JAMES? 49

of the first could not be omitted altogether. By way of conclusion, I wish to emphasize the methodological conse- quences of this enquiry. If patristic testimonies on early Judaism and Chris- tianity should always be read critically, they should not be systematically rejected either. The analysis of the context and related documents is crucial in this respect. Moreover, just as it is irrelevant to study the roots of Christianity outside of the context of early , the contrary is also true to some extent: the fact that Josephus was a Judean Jew of priestly descent should not automatically entail the inauthenticity of a tradition later appropriated by Christianity. What is at stake from a methodological point of view is less the presence of such traditions in his writings than the interpretation of the evidence. In the case of James, the danger would be to read Josephus through Hegesippus. Josephus’ perception of James was obviously very different from that of Hegesippus, due to the difference of their respective chrono- logical, political, and cultural contexts. But this does not mean that Josephus could not have related a tradition about James and his importance in some Jerusalemite circles.

Sabrina INOWLOCKI [email protected]

994323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd4323_REJ_2011-1-2_03_Inowlocki.indd 4949 331/08/111/08/11 13:2913:29