What did Origen say he read about James’s reputation in Josephus?

[Paul the Uncertain]

(-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?

I'll leave G'don to argue the significance of the specific passage he mentions.

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.

...To this degree did the violence of the seditious prevail over all right and justice… This… became the occasion of the … miseries that befell our nation...

(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.

[Ken Olson]

(-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?

I'll leave G'don to argue the significance of the specific passage he mentions.

Good. I hope he will answer the question I actually asked.

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).

For an Uncertainist, you seem to be awfully dogmatic in your assertions at times. In this case you are ruling my use of the word 'theory' out of court. GakuseiDon is willing to allow that Origen knew Hegesippus, or the tradition that we find recorded in Hegessippus. Origen did not get the idea that James was called the Just from Paul or anywhere else in the New testament. I am wondering about the effects of G-Don's theory (and mine) that Origen knew Hegesippus (or the tradition that was recorded by Hegesippus on what Origen says. Could that be where Orien got the idea that James was called the Just, and was known for his righteousness among the people, and that there was a direct causal connection between the death of James and the misfortunes of the Jews and the siege ofJerusalem.

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.

Origen does not 'plainly discuss some of his thoughts about the aftermath of the trial', or mention a trial with a Sanhedrin of judges at all. It is your theory, or if you prefer, your interpretation, that Origen has in mind Ant. 20.200. I allow that he had read the later book of the Antiquities at some point, but I don't know that he had the man who is brought before the Sanhedrin in Ant. 20.200 in mind at all when he wrote about James the Just in the Commentary of Matthew or Contra Celsum, which is why I am asking the question of G-Don.

Best,

Ken

[Paul the Uncertain]

A note on ground rules: I am the original poster in this thread, and I will post in it as I see fit, subject to the sufferance of our host.

In this case you are ruling my use of the word 'theory' out of court.

You can use any word you like as far as I am concerned. There is no canon of polite discourse under which I am obliged to go along with loaded language, however. Origen has cited another Christian author whose work Origen has connected to James. That is a fact. To call it a theory is blather (your term, get used to seeing it in my replies to you).

GakuseiDon is willing to allow that Origen knew Hegesippus, or the tradition that we find recorded in Hegessippus.

I have not stated otherwise (neither what G'don said nor that he said it). I do not doubt that Origen was acquainted with Hegesippus's work. The thread, however, is about what Origen imputed to Josephus. If G'don believes that something Origen imputed to Josephus privileges Hegesippus over other Christian sources, then he hasn't shared it yet in this thread.

Origen did not get the idea that James was called the Just from Paul or anywhere else in the New testament.

I understand "Christian tradition" to subtend more than the New Testament. And the thread is about what Origen attributed to Josephus. I don't see a strong reason to infer that Origen claims that Josephus used the term James the Just, but if that's your view, then great.

Could that be where Orien got the idea that James was called the Just, and was known for his righteousness among the people, and that there was a direct causal connection between the death of James and the misfortunes of the Jews and the siege ofJerusalem.

Yes, that's interesting, but the on-topic controversy is where Origen got the idea that Josephus made the connection. Origen is clear that doesn't believe that, but rather he believes the connection is a mistake. He believes a non-Christian Palestinian contemporary of James could and did make the mistake based on James's reputation. Where Origen himself got the idea that a Christian saint and martyr had a good reputation with a formulaic epithet to match can't explain what Josephus wrote, and what Josephus wrote is Origen's subject.

which is why I am asking the question of G-Don.

Nothing prevented you from ignoring my post pending G'don's answer. This is an asynchronous medium.

If you want to communicate exclusively with another member, there is a private message facility at this site. What you post on the open board, however, is fair game for any other member to comment upon. Our host remaining willing, of course.

[Ken Olson]

Nothing prevented you from ignoring my post.

My bad.

[Paul the Uncertain]

Just to tie off a point arising:

At Church History 2.23.4, Eusebius quotes Hegesippus as saying that the term James the Just had been in use since the 30's CE:

4. James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles. He has been called the Just by all from the time of our Saviour to the present day; for there were many that bore the name of James.

Eusebius Church History 2.1.3 and 4 seems to quote Clement of Alexandria as using the term James the Just twice. Eusebius cites the lost Hypotyposes

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250102.htm (for all CH Book 2 items)

As usual with Eusebius, he didn't have modern punctuation, and we don't have the texts being cited, so Eusebius may be paraphrasing rather than directly quoting parts of Clement and perhaps parts of Hegesippus.

The supposedly early use of the epithet may have some relevance to the concerns of the thread. Anyone who encountered the term in use would reasonably infer that any James designated "the just" would have a reputation for "justice" without the need for a text to explain that much.

That is also true at "second order." Origen probably knows that Josephus is a younger contemporary of the legendary James. Origen would plausibly believe that Josephus would have known about James being called the Just if the term had been in use for a generation before the events of 58-62 CE. Nothing more would be needed for Origen to infer reasonably that Josephus would believe that James had a reputation for justice in some sense of the word.

[John2]

Origen did not get the idea that James was called the Just from Paul or anywhere else in the New testament.

Origen (and Clement of Alexandria) knew the gospel of the Hebrews and James is called the Just in that ("He [Jesus] took the bread, blessed it and brake it and gave it to James the Just and said to him: My brother, eat thy bread, for the Son of man is risen from among them that sleep").

[GakuseiDon]

I want to ask you about your argument about Ant. 20.200, though: 'Origen, having formed an opinion about James based on Hegesippus and others, decided that the reason "the most equitable of the citizens" had "disliked what was done" was because of James' known righteousness'.

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?

If you mean, do we need specifically that Origen read Hegesippus, then no. My argument was using the assumption by those arguing that Origen had confused Hegesippus with Josephus, therefore the assumption was already made that Origen had read Hegesippus. But other early writers had noted that James was known as "James the Just" from earliest times, so Origen could have picked it up from anywhere. Think of writers on this board. When they refer to "James the Just", do we think "they must have got that from Hegesippus"? No, it is part of the mash of background ideas that comes from reading widely.

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?

I think Josephus's mention of "the most equitable citizens" is very important if I am right that Origen is paraphrasing ideas from Josephus rather than quoting from Josephus (and it's clear Origen does do such things - see my 'Paul' example above).

This is what Origen wrote: "[Josephus], in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple... 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, 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."

These are the elements in Josephus that I believe Origen read to reach that conclusion (cites in my posts above). Josephus writes:

... the robbers ... slew others, not only in remote parts of the city, but in the temple itself also... And this seems to me to have been the reason why God... 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...

Note that the James the Just tradition given by Hegesippus included James being thrown from the temple top, then being stoned to death and buried next to the temple.

Next, the "James" passage in Josephus:

... 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...

The citizens -- 'uneasy' at the death of James (as Origen would see it) -- went to the Romans (Albinus), starting a series of events -- multiple changes in the high priests, with high priest Ananias working with Sicarii and robbers whom came into the city to kill and kidnap, -- which, as Josephus describes, led to things getting 'worse and worse', ending with the Romans coming in in force.

I'll admit it's all very circumstantial, but I don't think logic is outraged by any of it. The "most equitable of the citizens" complaining about the unjustified death of James at the temple (which Josephus doesn't write but which I argue Origen assumed from tradition), with said citizens then going to Albinus to complain, leading to the Romans coming in, is consistent with what Josephus writes about why the city and temple was destroyed.

[John2]

This all works for me, GDon. And I think Hegesippus mentions one of these "most equitable citizens" in EH 2.23.17:

And while they were thus stoning him one of the priests of the sons of Rechab, the son of the Rechabites, who are mentioned by Jeremiah the prophet, cried out, saying, "Stop. What are you doing?"

[GakuseiDon]

This all works for me, GDon. And I think Hegesippus mentions one of these "most equitable citizens" in EH 2.23.17:

And while they were thus stoning him one of the priests of the sons of Rechab, the son of the Rechabites, who are mentioned by Jeremiah the prophet, cried out, saying, "Stop. What are you doing?"

Good pickup, John2! Yes, if Origen was aware of that tradition -- whether from Hegesippus or others -- he may well have seen that parallel in Josephus.

[John2]

Reading your take on Josephus has made some things clearer to me, GDon. While I've always seen James' death in Josephus in its surrounding context of things getting "worse and worse" in Jerusalem and culminating with its fall, I was stuck on the idea that Origen must have misread or misremembered what Josephus says in the Jewish War about Jerusalem falling because of the death of Ananus (since it is so similar), but that's always bothered me because I've yet to see any evidence that Origen knew the Jewish War.

And it's never set right with me that Origen never mentions Hegesippus (regarding James or anything else), so the idea that he confused him with Josephus doesn't satisfy me. Sure, I think Origen could have known Hegesippus, but for a guy like that to not mention a source like that seems weird.

So, what your thread has done is make me see that all Origen needed was the Antiquities (along with the gospel of the Hebrews, which Jerome says Origen "often uses" and calls James "the Just" and Jesus' brother). Everything we need (following your reading of the Antiquities) is in these two writings that we know Origen used. No need to suppose he knew Hegesippus or the Jewish War and explain why he never mentions them, no need to suppose he was confused about anything. Your reading of the Antiquities, along with Origen's familiarity with the gospel of the Hebrews, works for me.