{"title":"重温正义者詹姆斯之死","authors":"Nicholas List","doi":"10.1353/earl.2024.a923167","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Abstract:</p><p>Based on the testimony of Josephus (<i>Jewish Antiquities</i> 20.197–203), most scholars place the death of James, the brother of Jesus in 62 c.e. This article breaks with this consensus, arguing that the reference to Jesus \"called Christ\" in <i>Jewish Antiquities</i> 20.200 is a later Christian interpolation. If it can be shown that the Josephan account was not originally about James, the early Christian leader, then James's death cannot be linked to the high priesthood of Ananus in 62 c.e. It also means that if any of the historical circumstances surrounding James's death can be recovered, they must be sought in the Christian narratival accounts of early antiquity. After reviewing the complex source-critical relations between the James tradition in Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, the <i>Second Apocalypse of James</i>, and the Pseudo-Clementine <i>Recognitions</i>, and establishing the earliest independent form of the tradition, I argue that the narrative logic of the martyrdom account depends on at least two minimal historical likelihoods: 1) that James was in fact killed; and 2) that his death occurred shortly before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 c.e.</p></p>","PeriodicalId":44662,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Death of James the Just Revisited\",\"authors\":\"Nicholas List\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/earl.2024.a923167\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Abstract:</p><p>Based on the testimony of Josephus (<i>Jewish Antiquities</i> 20.197–203), most scholars place the death of James, the brother of Jesus in 62 c.e. This article breaks with this consensus, arguing that the reference to Jesus \\\"called Christ\\\" in <i>Jewish Antiquities</i> 20.200 is a later Christian interpolation. If it can be shown that the Josephan account was not originally about James, the early Christian leader, then James's death cannot be linked to the high priesthood of Ananus in 62 c.e. It also means that if any of the historical circumstances surrounding James's death can be recovered, they must be sought in the Christian narratival accounts of early antiquity. After reviewing the complex source-critical relations between the James tradition in Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, the <i>Second Apocalypse of James</i>, and the Pseudo-Clementine <i>Recognitions</i>, and establishing the earliest independent form of the tradition, I argue that the narrative logic of the martyrdom account depends on at least two minimal historical likelihoods: 1) that James was in fact killed; and 2) that his death occurred shortly before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 c.e.</p></p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44662,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/earl.2024.a923167\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/earl.2024.a923167","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
摘要:根据约瑟夫的证词(《犹太古迹》20.197-203),大多数学者将耶稣的兄弟雅各之死定在公元前62年。本文打破了这一共识,认为《犹太古迹》20.200中提到的耶稣 "被称为基督 "是后来基督教的插叙。如果可以证明约瑟夫的记载最初并不是关于早期基督教领袖雅各的,那么雅各之死就不能与公元前 62 年阿纳努斯的大祭司职位联系起来。这也意味着,如果可以恢复任何有关雅各之死的历史情况,就必须在古代早期基督教的叙事性记载中寻找。在回顾了赫格西普斯(Hegesippus)、亚历山大的克莱门特(Clement of Alexandria)、《雅各第二启示录》(Second Apocalypse of James)和《伪克莱门特公认书》(Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions)中雅各传统之间复杂的来源批判关系,并确定了该传统最早的独立形式之后,我认为殉难记载的叙事逻辑至少取决于两种最基本的历史可能性:1)雅各确实被杀;2)他的死发生在公元 70 年耶路撒冷陷落前不久。
Based on the testimony of Josephus (Jewish Antiquities 20.197–203), most scholars place the death of James, the brother of Jesus in 62 c.e. This article breaks with this consensus, arguing that the reference to Jesus "called Christ" in Jewish Antiquities 20.200 is a later Christian interpolation. If it can be shown that the Josephan account was not originally about James, the early Christian leader, then James's death cannot be linked to the high priesthood of Ananus in 62 c.e. It also means that if any of the historical circumstances surrounding James's death can be recovered, they must be sought in the Christian narratival accounts of early antiquity. After reviewing the complex source-critical relations between the James tradition in Hegesippus, Clement of Alexandria, the Second Apocalypse of James, and the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions, and establishing the earliest independent form of the tradition, I argue that the narrative logic of the martyrdom account depends on at least two minimal historical likelihoods: 1) that James was in fact killed; and 2) that his death occurred shortly before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 c.e.
期刊介绍:
The official publication of the North American Patristics Society (NAPS), the Journal of Early Christian Studies focuses on the study of Christianity in the context of late ancient societies and religions from c.e. 100-700. Incorporating The Second Century (an earlier publication), the Journal publishes the best of traditional patristics scholarship while showcasing articles that call attention to newer themes and methodologies than those appearing in other patristics journals. An extensive book review section is featured in every issue.