John the Baptist, redivivus of a 2015 article

[GakuseiDon]

My interest in James is because I believe he was part of the "original" Christians, which IMHO later became the Ebionites. The Ebionites apparently revered James, and I think it is safe to assume they had their own traditions about him. Origen was aware of the Ebionites. I don't think it is unreasonable to assume Origen knew something about those traditions about James, as did Hegesippus.

I think that's plausible and hold a similar theory myself. I think the Jerusalem Church Paul visited in Galatians was very different from Pauline Christianity and there may indeed be institutional continuity between the law-observant Jerusalem church and the later law observant (Jewish Ebionites). I would hesitate to simply equate the Jerusalem church with the later Ebioites because the mentions we have of the Ebionites are later and they almost certainly underwent some changes over time, particularly after the destruction of Jerusalem. I think, for example, that the so-called Ebionite gospel did not exist at the time Paul visited Jerusalem and may be post-70 and maybe a reaction to other gospels in circulation.

Yes, I agree with all that. I think the destruction of Jerusalem shook up all the different Christian (as well as Jewish) communities. The Ebionites were the result of what happened to the first Jewish Christians after that event, and I agree we can't assume their later beliefs were a direct continuation of the earlier Jewish Christians.

So Hegesippus is writing pious fiction when he wrote that James "has been universally called the Just, from the days of the Lord down to the present time"?

Yes, Hegesippus is writing pious fiction. I cannot rule out the possibility that he had an earlier source for his pious fiction (i.e., there is a greater than zero chance that someone else originated it), but he is writing pious fiction. Two pieces of evidence for this:
<snipped>
According to Hegesippus, James has taken over the role of High Priest of the Jerusalem temple, so either he was the High Priest (and we have pretty good records of the succession of High Priests in Josephus) or the Jews just decided that James was so righteous (and we have no evidence of this apart from Hegesippus) they would just set aside the Torah and let James go into the sanctuary to pray for them. The more reasonable conclusion would be that this is pious fiction.

That's fine, but for the topic of our discussion I don't think we should confuse what Hegesippus wrote and what really happened.

I think it's fair to say that at some point before Origen there was a claim that James the Just was regarded as righteous by both Jews and Christians. If you like, let's say it originated with Hegesippus. (I don't think so personally; there was about 100 years after the destruction of Jerusalem for legendary claims to evolve around James before they reached Hegesippus). Origen then accepted Hegesippus' claims and viewed Josephus' work through that lens.

This is what Josephus wrote in Antiquities Book XX Chapter 9.1:

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation 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.

Here we see Jewish people protesting about Ananus' treatment of James. If Origen had Hegesippus' story in mind when he read Josephus, I'd argue that he imported the view from Hegesippus that the "most equitable of the citizens" objected to Ananus' actions and disliked what was done because they recognised James' righteousness.

Thanks answering the question. I hope to return to this thread soon, but I have some pressing matters to deal with.

No worries and no hurrys.

[Paul the Uncertain]

I re-enter the thread, confident that its recent progress makes another false accusation of participating in its derailment unlikely.

You are on to something, G'don, when you write

I think it's fair to say that at some point before Origen there was a claim that James the Just was regarded as righteous by both Jews and Christians. If you like, let's say it originated with Hegesippus. (I don't think so personally; there was about 100 years after the destruction of Jerusalem for legendary claims to evolve around James before they reached Hegesippus). Origen then accepted Hegesippus' claims and viewed Josephus' work through that lens.

That is, there is no evidentiary foundation for asserting that Origen's opinion about James rightly being called "the Just" derives exclusively from his having read Hegesippus. It may be so. Hegesippus may be our earliest extant source for the epithet. Somebody may believe in Hegesippus's uniqueness on prioristic grounds, or simply find it expedient to restrict discussion to extant texts.

Peachy, but within most contemporary normative systems for uncertain reasoning, it is at least as likely (and in ordinary probabilistic systems strictly more likely) that Origen's source is "Christian traditions familiar to Origen" as "exclusively Hegesippus." You have also mentioned in earlier postings that Hegesippus seems aware of earlier relevant traditions, including Christian traditions, which can only enhance the probabilistic advantage of the less specific claim.

Under the cicumstances, even under an "extant texts only" regime, the impersonally valid observation in the last paragraph is normative, on topic, and a fact worthy of mention, if only as a sensible prerequisite to agreement to a restriction on the scope of the discussion.

[Giuseppe]

That is, there is no evidentiary foundation for asserting that Origen's opinion about James rightly being called "the Just" derives exclusively from his having read Hegesippus.

once we consider Origen's view as a view affected by Hegesippus, then that is sufficient to deny that the James read possibly in Josephus by Origen (for example: the James stoned by Ananus) was the same James meant by the "tradition" ended in Hegesippus. The two Jameses are mutually exclusive: only one of them is "the Just".

Idem with John the Baptist: once we consider the Origen's description as a description different from what we find in Josephus, then we should deny that Origen is a witness of the presence of that description in Josephus. It is not simply a case where we limit ourselves to suspend the judgement. We have to claim positively that Origen wasn't quoting Josephus but a different source. Since it is virtually impossible that the Origen's memory was half right about a quote (on John the Baptist) but entirely wrong, only a microsecond after, about another quote (on James). Very probably the two quotes come exclusively from the same source: Hegesippus.

[Giuseppe]

I think at this point that the passage read by Origen in Hegesippus about John the Baptist is lost forever to us. It is not the same passage about John the Baptist that, after Origen, has been interpolated in Josephus, book 18 of Antiquities.

The difference is too much great, between what the passage in the current version of Josephus says today about John the Baptist and what the passage quoted by Origen says about John the Baptist. Just as great as the difference between Hegesippus and Josephus about James.

ADDENDA: Nothing prohibits to consider the entire passage of Antiquities 20:200 about James being a post-Origen interpolation in Josephus.

[Paul the Uncertain]

once we consider Origen's view as a view affected by Hegesippus, then that is sufficient to deny that the James read possibly in Josephus by Origen (for example: the James stoned by Ananus) was the same James meant by the "tradition" ended in Hegesippus. The two Jameses are mutually exclusive: only one of them is "the Just".

Maybe sufficient, but certainly not necessary. Any Christian tradent interested in James and contemporary with Origen could have played whatever role Hegesippus may have played in the affair, if any.

Idem with John the Baptist: once we consider the Origen's description as a description different from what we find in Josephus, then we should deny that Origen is a witness of the presence of that description in Josephus. It is not simply a case where we limit ourselves to suspend the judgement. We have to claim positively that Origen wasn't quoting Josephus but a different source. Since it is virtually impossible that the Origen's memory was half right about a quote (on John the Baptist) but entirely wrong, only a microsecond after, about another quote (on James). Very probably the two quotes come exclusively from the same source: Hegesippus.

Origen doesn't claim to quote what Josephus wrote about John. In both cases, John and James, Origen mashes up content that we find today in the received Antiquities,

John practised Baptism.
God destroyed the city and temple in retribution for the crime of murder not involving the Christian Jesus.

with Christian traditions that do or might conflict with our received text:

John's baptism was for the remission of sins (which does conflict).
James the Just was assassinated under color of law in or around the Temple (which might conflict; I believe it does conflict).

Origen did the "same thing" in both cases. As Jerome would later do that "same thing" with the "temple voices" and the Crucifixion, as Bart Ehrman would do something striking similar in our time with Pliny the Younger's "Christian" and "fire brigade" letters to Trajan.

[Giuseppe]

In both cases, John and James, Origen mashes up content that we find today in the received Antiquities,

John practised Baptism.
God destroyed the city and temple in retribution for the crime of murder not involving the Christian Jesus.

with Christian traditions that do or might conflict with our received text:

John's baptism was for the remission of sins (which does conflict).
James the Just was assassinated under color of law in or around the Temple (which might conflict).

He did the "same thing" in both cases.

My objections:

• 1) the information that
  
  
  God destroyed the city and temple in retribution for the crime of murder not involving the Christian Jesus.
  
  ...is not a not-Christian information in Origen, since the death of the brother of Jesus (Christ) is enough to involve Jesus (Christ) and his father YHWH.

• 2) the information that "John practised baptism" is unfortunately too reduced to persuade us that the quote was from Josephus. It is an information all found in nuce in the epitet 'the Baptist' given to John.
  
  The conflict with the second information:
  
  
  John's baptism was for the remission of sins
  
  ...is sufficient to reject the entire source of Origen about John the Baptist as not Josephian.

[GakuseiDon]

... once we consider the Origen's description as a description different from what we find in Josephus...

But that's my point: I don't think we can. Arguably everything that Origen writes about what Josephus wrote in Antiquities can be found in Josephus, assuming that Origen is "reading between the lines". While on the other hand, there are some things that are missing in Hegesippus (the seeking after the cause of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.)

The idea that Origen is misremembering Hegesippus when he writes about Josephus presupposes that Origen has read Hegesippus. That's where he gets the idea that James the Just was revered by Jews and Christians alike (if he didn't get the idea from other Christian traditions) He then reads that back into why the citizens of Josephus' time objected to the death of James: they revered him. And Josephus suggests that things snowballed from there (things "became worse and worse"), when high priests were replaced and robbers came in to kill people.

[Paul the Uncertain]

My objections:

• 1) the information that
  
  
  God destroyed the city and temple in retribution for the crime of murder not involving the Christian Jesus.
  
  ...is not a not-Christian information in Origen, since the death of the brother of Jesus (Christ) is enough to involve Jesus (Christ) and his father YHWH.

You need to state your objection more clearly. God's retribution against Jerusalem is in Antiquities book 20, and is in general agreement with other statements Josephus made elsewhere about why Jerusalem fell. Obviously, Josephus does not associate his God with the Christian Jesus, and it is no objection that Origen, when reading what Josephus wrote about the Jewish God, would make that association.

• 2) the information that "John practised baptism" is unfortunately too reduced to persuade us that the quote was from Josephus. It is an information all found in nuce in the epitet 'the Baptist' given to John.

Again, you need to state your objection. Origen does not claim to quote Josephus, nor does he, so far as we can tell.

The conflict with the second information:

John's baptism was for the remission of sins

...is sufficient to reject the entire source of Origen about John the Baptist as not Josephian.[/list]

Your say-so alone suffices for you to reject whatever you like. Rejection of an uncertain proposition is a free choice.

[Paul the Uncertain]

On a point arising: G'don

But that's my point: I don't think we can. Arguably everything that Origen writes about what Josephus wrote in Antiquities can be found in Josephus, assuming that Origen is "reading between the lines". While on the other hand, there are some things that are missing in Hegesippus (the seeking after the cause of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.)

I believe that in recent exchanges with another poster, you conceded far too readily the disputable claim that Origen attributed everything he wrote about James to having read it in Josephus. I concur there are arguments to be made based on "reading between the lines," and you made some well enough, IMO. I just think you ought to have reserved the threshold issue (= pointed out the uncertainty with some remark that your discussing the parallels between Origen's report and Josephus's text does not concede what of such material Origen attributed to Josephus).

[Giuseppe]

You need to state your objection more clearly. God's retribution against Jerusalem is in Antiquities book 20

I disagree on this point. In my opinion, God's retribution against Jerusalem is not in Antiquities book 20. At least: not by connecting the destructive effect with the death of only a prominent man.

Again, you need to state your objection. Origen does not claim to quote Josephus, nor does he, so far as we can tell.

again I disagree. Origen seems to be really interested to resume Josephus, given that he gives even the specifics (18° book of Antiquities).

Ken Olson said that the fact that Origen wrote that Josephus didn't believe that Jesus was the Christ is not evidence of Origen knowing an original Testimonium Flavianum. In virtue of the same reason, I claim that the fact that Origen wrote that the John's baptism purified the sins is not evidence of Origen knowing the same Baptist Passage that we read today in Josephus, where we read rather the opposite.