I'll leave G'don to argue the significance of the specific passage he mentions.Ken Olson wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2024 4:06 am
(-snip-)
It seems that you are saying that, in light of Christian traditions Origen knew, including the tradition recorded in Hegesippus, Origen could have taken the bit about the most 'equitable citizens' 'disliked what was done' in Ant. 20.200 as referring to James' known righteousness. My question is, if Origen knew the Hegesippus tradition, do we need to suppose that he was looking at the bit about the most equitable citizens at all when he already has the tradition recorded in Hegesippus. Do we need both? It seems to me that we need the theory that Origen knew a Christian tradition about James' reputation for great righteousness (i.e., the tradition recorded in Hegesippus), but we don't need the theory that he interpreted 'the most equitable citizens ... disliked what was done' as being about James righteousness in order to explain why Origen wrote about James being distinguished for his justice. Would you agree?
Your inquiry raises an uncertainty management issue. There is no "theory" that Origen believes there is a Christian tradition that has more expositors than Hegesippus alone. Origen discusses Paul's description of James the Just as the Lord's brother as an expression of Paul's estimate of James's character (Against Celsus 1.47, immediately following the passage about what Josephus supposedly wrote).
We seem to be on the verge of a microconsensus (You, G'don and I; perhaps others) that Origen actually did read at some time the portion of Antiquities that covers the events of 58-62 CE. If so, whether we "need" to do so or not, it is reasonable for G'don to consider what role the aftermath of James's trial according to Josephus played in Origen's report. Origen plainly discusses some of his thoughts about the aftermath of the trial. That is not "theory," either.
In the interest of full disclosure, some years ago I blogged about the possible role of the material in received Josephus that appears between God's retribution and the trial. That is material that is not tied to James, but which does fall in that portion of the text we seem near ageement that Origen read and which expresses ideas of justice, grievance, and cause of conflict.
(Antiquities 20.8.8 and 9; the one referring to the mistreatment of the low-ranking priests and the other to the trimming of Jewish rights)
https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/201 ... o-do-that/
The end point of the quotes in the blog post was the passage that G'don now points to. Although the argument I made then is distinct from G'don's argument now, there is enough resemblance that G'don and I would likely get thumbed up or down together.