John the Baptist, redivivus of a 2015 article

[GakuseiDon]

dup

[GakuseiDon]

Origen doesn't specify the exact point in "Josephus" where he quoted the James Passage, hence in that case the argument is even more strong, that he was confusing Hegesippus with Josephus.

While not specifying the exact point, Origen does imply where he gets his idea from within Josephus's Antiquities: somewhere around where Josephus is seeking after the cause of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.

Origen wrote in Contra Celsus Book 1: https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ ... en161.html

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 temple, 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

So does Josephus write about the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple? Yes! And it is not that far above the James passage in 9.1.

Antiquities Book XX Chapter 8.5

... Felix persuaded one of Jonathan's most faithful friends, a citizen of Jerusalem, whose name was Doras, to bring the robbers upon Jonathan [the High Priest], in order to kill him ... and [the robbers] slew others, not only in remote parts of the city, but in the temple itself also; for they had the boldness to murder men there, without thinking of the impiety of which they were guilty. And this seems to me to have been the reason why God, out of his hatred of these men's wickedness, rejected our city; and as for the temple, he no longer esteemed it sufficiently pure for him to inhabit therein, but brought the Romans upon us, and threw a fire upon the city to purge it; and brought upon us, our wives, and children, slavery, as desirous to make us wiser by our calamities.

There we see Josephus' reason for the destruction of the city and the temple, not that far above from where the James passage is located. I don't think it is a coincidence. There is nothing in Hegessipus where he seeks after the fall of the city and the temple.

I believe that Origen is 'reading between the lines', as he does elsewhere. People in power were using evil men to kill people throughout the city and in the temple itself resulting in God abandoning the city and the temple. James was killed by a person in power. Origen drew the connection.

[Giuseppe]

Origen doesn't specify the exact point in "Josephus" where he quoted the James Passage, hence in that case the argument is even more strong, that he was confusing Hegesippus with Josephus.

While not specifying the exact point, Origen does imply where he gets his idea from within Josephus's Antiquities: somewhere around where Josephus is seeking after the cause of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.

Origen wrote in Contra Celsus Book 1: https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ ... en161.html

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 temple, 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

So does Josephus write about the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple? Yes! And it is not that far above the James passage in 9.1.

Antiquities Book XX Chapter 8.5

... Felix persuaded one of Jonathan's most faithful friends, a citizen of Jerusalem, whose name was Doras, to bring the robbers upon Jonathan [the High Priest], in order to kill him ... and [the robbers] slew others, not only in remote parts of the city, but in the temple itself also; for they had the boldness to murder men there, without thinking of the impiety of which they were guilty. And this seems to me to have been the reason why God, out of his hatred of these men's wickedness, rejected our city; and as for the temple, he no longer esteemed it sufficiently pure for him to inhabit therein, but brought the Romans upon us, and threw a fire upon the city to purge it; and brought upon us, our wives, and children, slavery, as desirous to make us wiser by our calamities.

There we see Josephus' reason for the destruction of the city and the temple, not that far above from where the James passage is located. I don't think it is a coincidence. There is nothing in Hegessipus where he seeks after the fall of the city and the temple.

I believe that Origen is 'reading between the lines', as he does elsewhere. People in power were using evil men to kill people throughout the city and in the temple itself resulting in God abandoning the city and the temple. James was killed by a person in power. Origen drew the connection.

Sorry, I don't need postulating a 'reading between the lines' by Origen when I have already a Hegesippus (i.e. a Josephus) mentioning explicitly, pace Michael_BG, the causal link "death of James ---> siege of Jerusalem".

«Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem».

[GakuseiDon]

Sorry, I don't need postulating a 'reading between the lines' by Origen when I have already a Hegesippus (i.e. a Josephus) mentioning explicitly, pace Michael_BG, the causal link "death of James ---> siege of Jerusalem".

But Hegesippus doesn't do that explicitly either. Either way, Origen is reading into the text to make the connection. But to me, the key is the claim by Origen that the writer is "seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple". Josephus explicitly has a statement to that effect, not that far above the James passage. Hegesippus doesn't have anything like that.

Does Josephus seek after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the temple? Yes, explicitly! Does Hegesippus? No. Do either of them explicitly make the connection of James' death with the fall? No. In either scenario, Origen is reading into the text. It's just that there is more reason to see that Origen is reading into Josephus AFAICS.

[Giuseppe]

Does Hegesippus? No.

again: the expression "Immediately Vespasian besieged Jerusalem" in Hegesippus is too much tranchant to not vehicle a sense of cause-effect in relation to the death of James. Its sense is simple and clear and especially short.
In Josephus the explanation of the cause-effect is extended on the entire book. For Josephus, even Judas the Galilean (!!!) can be considered the cause of the War. Without Judas the Galilean, there is not the Fourth Philosophy founded by him, and without the Fourth Philosophy there is not the war. And without the war, there is not the destruction.

Sic stantibus rebus, why should Origen focus on Josephus and not, much more simply, on Hegesippus, about James?

[Ken Olson]

Sorry, I don't need postulating a 'reading between the lines' by Origen when I have already a Hegesippus (i.e. a Josephus) mentioning explicitly, pace Michael_BG, the causal link "death of James ---> siege of Jerusalem".

But Hegesippus doesn't do that explicitly either. Either way, Origen is reading into the text to make the connection. But to me, the key is the claim by Origen that the writer is "seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple". Josephus explicitly has a statement to that effect, not that far above the James passage. Hegesippus doesn't have anything like that.

Does Josephus seek after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the temple? Yes, explicitly! Does Hegesippus? No. Do either of them explicitly make the connection of James' death with the fall? No. In either scenario, Origen is reading into the text. It's just that there is more reason to see that Origen is reading into Josephus AFAICS.

GakusieDon,

I do not think you are reading the extract of Hegesippus about James and Vespasian's siege correctly. I wrote about this in response to Peter Kirby on this forum here:

viewtopic.php?p=35384#p35384

As I see it, you are arguing that Origen could plausibly have associated two different passages in Josephus - one about James and another about the destruction of the temple

But I contend that Origen could not plausibly have read the fragment of Hegesippus otherwise than as implying that the siege of Vespasian was brought about by what the Jews did to James.

Best,

Ken

[Paul the Uncertain]

But I contend that Origen could not plausibly have read the fragment of Hegesippus otherwise than as implying that the siege of Vespasian was brought about by what the Jews did to James.

Putting aside that the statement may be a transitional remark by Eusebius and never seen by Origen. Let's assume not. Then in those possible worlds, Hegesippus probably agrees with Josephus that God allowed the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple because of the murder of somebody other than the Christians' Jesus. Let's assume further that Origen retained Hegesippus's insinuation, interpreted it as causal (and not temporal, and not a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, etc.).

That's all the more reason for Origen to remember that Josephus said what he did, and misremember about whom Josephus said it. That's not evidence that he confused one author with another.

[Ken Olson]

But I contend that Origen could not plausibly have read the fragment of Hegesippus otherwise than as implying that the siege of Vespasian was brought about by what the Jews did to James.

Putting aside that the statement may be a transitional remark by Eusebius and never seen by Origen. Let's assume not. Then in those possible worlds, Hegesippus probably agrees with Josephus that God allowed the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple because of the murder of somebody other than the Christians' Jesus. Let's assume further that Origen retained Hegesippus's insinuation, interpreted it as causal (and not temporal, and not a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, etc.).

Yes, let's.

That's all the more reason for Origen to remember that Josephus said what he did, and misremember about whom Josephus said it. That's not evidence that he confused one author with another.

Déjà Vu (I think we've had this conversation before).

So Origen says:

And this James is the one whom Paul says he saw in the epistle to the Galatians, saying: But I did not see any other of the apostles except James the brother of the Lord. And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the Antiquities of the Jews 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 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. (Commentary on Matthew 10.17).

and:

I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John, who baptized Jesus, as a baptist, that the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who lived no great length of time after John and Jesus. For in the eighteenth book of his Antiquities of the Jews Josephus bears witness to John as having been a baptist and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now he himself, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put Christ to death, who was a prophet, nevertheless says, being albeit 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 [Contra Celsum 1.47].

Why does Origen say that Josephus gave testimony to the righteousness of James or says he was a man most distinguished for his justice?

Best,

Ken

[Paul the Uncertain]

Maybe it is deja vu.

But I don't think we've cleared up G'don's objection, and maybe before we gallop off in a different direction, we should nail down the most important point, that Josephus does in fact attribute the destruction of the city and temple to a vengeful deity moved to wrath by murder in the Temple, and so far as we know, Hegesippus doesn't. In particular, assuming we are still reading Hegesippus when we read somebody's oblique remark about Vespasian, that remark most certainly can be read acausally. One thing happened, then another thing happened. That's all that's on the page - and the page is Eusebius's.

[Ken Olson]

Maybe it is deja vu.

But I don't think we've cleared up G'don's objection, and maybe before we gallop off in a different direction, we should nail down the most important point, that Josephus does in fact attribute the destruction of the city and temple to a vengeful deity moved to wrath by murder in the Temple, and so far as we know, Hegesippus doesn't. In particular, assuming we are still reading Hegesippus when we read somebody's oblique remark about Vespasian, that remark most certainly can be read acausally. One thing happened, then another thing happened. That's all that's on the page - and the page is Eusebius's.

It sounds like you are now withdrawing what you were granting earlier:

Putting aside that the statement may be a transitional remark by Eusebius and never seen by Origen. Let's assume not. Then in those possible worlds, Hegesippus probably agrees with Josephus that God allowed the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple because of the murder of somebody other than the Christians' Jesus. Let's assume further that Origen retained Hegesippus's insinuation, interpreted it as causal (and not temporal, and not a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, etc.).

is that correct?

Best,

Ken