Did Josephus Ascribe the Fall of Jerusalem to the Murder of James, Brother of Jesus?
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Sabrina INOWLOCKI University of Lausanne DID JOSEPHUS ASCRIBE THE FALL OF JERUSALEM TO THE MURDER OF JAMES, BROTHER OF JESUS? 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 Origen, 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 Judaism and Christianity 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 Jews and Christians.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 331/08/111/08/11 113:293:29 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’ prophecies 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 Church. 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 Jerusalems 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 Historical Jesus, I, New York, 1991, 55-68; J. CARLETON PAGET, “Some Observations on Josephus and Christianity,” JTS 52, 2001, 539-624; Recently K. A. OLSON, “Eusebius 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 331/08/111/08/11 113:293:29 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 Historian 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 martyr 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 the source 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.