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

[Paul the Uncertain]

Origen probably did at sometime encounter Book 20 of Josephus's Antiquities. Origen correctly reports that Josephus wrote that God allowed the sack of Jerusalem in retribution for the death of somebody other than Jesus. Origen also correctly remembers Josephus writing something about somebody named James being condemned to death. Both ideas are found near each other in Book 20.

Where Origen messes up is that the retribution was for high priest Jonathan's and others' deaths, not this James's and his co-defendants'. Some of us think Origen also mixed up the James in Josephus with the Christian saint James the Just, but so far, Origen has majority opinion on his side.

A lingering question is whether or not Origen also claims to have read about James's character and reputation in Josephus. Richard Carrier, to name one, thinks so, and proposes that Origen's actual error was to read Hegesippus and wrongly identify that author as Josephus.

The post dissents from "wrong author" and the weaker "second specific source for James's character" views. It is unclear whether Origen claims that Josephus wrote anything more about James than his death, God's retribution, and possibly James's brother's religious role.

Even if Origen was claiming more, he refers only to terse generic descriptions of James's virtue and good name such as comport with general Christian tradition that any apologist might plausibly teach. Thus, no specific Christian author is strongly indicated as a principal source for Origen's report instead of Josephus nor as the provider of a uniquely privileged supplement to Josephus's narratives of divine retribution and legalistic mischief.

https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/202 ... -josephus/

[Peter Kirby]

A lingering question is whether or not Origen also claims to have read about James's character and reputation in Josephus.

Even if Origen was claiming more, he refers only to terse generic descriptions of James's virtue and good name such as comport with general Christian tradition that any apologist might plausibly teach.

So did Origen say something?

If there is a "terse generic description of James's virtue and good name," did Origen suggest that Josephus wrote of it?

[GakuseiDon]

The issue is treating Origen as though he were quoting Josephus instead of Origen 'reading between the lines'. It's reasonable to assume that Origen had read both of the key works by Josephus as well as the works of Hegesippus. He already knew that James the Just had a great reputation for righteousness; he didn't have to extract that from Josephus. Indeed he would have assumed that that would have been known to Josephus, much as apologists read the Paul of the Pauline epistles into Acts and vice versa.

Origen wrote in Against Celsus, Book 1, Chapter 67:
https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ ... en161.html

Now this writer, 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, 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. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine.

First, look at the blue highlighted section. Did Paul write that about James? No, apparently not. Origen is reading into it. Should we assume that Origen is quoting Paul here? No, I don't think so. Often we on this board import ideas from one text about a person into another text where it appears the texts are referring to the same person, with various levels of legitimacy and logic. That's what I see Origen doing there.

What about what Josephus actually wrote? In Book XX of Antiquities, Section 8.5, Josephus gives the cause for why these disasters against Jerusalem and the temple occur. Then, a few paragraphs later, Josephus writes about James. First, for the cause for the disasters:

Section 8.5

... the robbers ... slew certain of their own enemies, and were subservient to other men for money; and 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

"Brought the Romans upon us" - keep that in mind.

Then, a few paragraphs later, Josephus makes the comment about James:

Section 9.1

But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, (23) who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim ofjudges, 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. (24) Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

My argument: 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. The citizens called on the Romans (Albinus, Procurator of Judea) and this starts a series of events where things get "worse and worse" (Section 9.4), ending with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.

Now, of course I'm not saying Josephus had James in mind for the consequences. But Origen, 'knowing' all about the righteousness of James from earlier texts, has picked up the threads of Josephus to weave a view of history that incorporates Hegesippus and other Christian traditions.

Again: this is nothing I don't see people on this board do all the time, including me.

[Peter Kirby]

Good post. A question regarding:

It's reasonable to assume that Origen had read both of the key works by Josephus as well as the works of Hegesippus.

While it's reasonable to assume that Origen read the Antiquities (given the reference), is it equally so for the Wars?

Is there any specific indication other than this passage regarding Origen reading the works of Hegesippus?

Or are you saying that, given who Origen is, and what these works were, it's just reasonable to assume that he would have read them, independent of any specific indications? If so, why?

[GakuseiDon]

Good post. A question regarding:

It's reasonable to assume that Origen had read both of the key works by Josephus as well as the works of Hegesippus.

While it's reasonable to assume that Origen read the Antiquities (given the reference), is it equally so for the Wars?

To be honest, there are some quotes from The Jewish Wars that I thought were interesting, so I decided to "assume that Origen read both". I'll quote that part at the end. But no, I can't back up that assumption. My points earlier are just based off Antiquities.

Is there any specific indication other than this passage regarding Origen reading the works of Hegesippus?

Not that I'm aware of, but my point just assumes that Origen, as a well educated scholar, had picked up about James the Just from some earlier source, probably Hegesippus.

----

As to my 'mystery' quote: in the Jewish Wars, Josephus writes about how the death of Ananus (who is the father of the Ananus who killed James) was considered the start of the war. It doesn't necessarily add to my points in my earlier post, so I left it out. But there are echoes there of the tradition of James:

But the rage of the Idumeans was not satiated by these slaughters; but they now betook themselves to the city, and plundered every house, and slew every one they met; and for the other multitude, they esteemed it needless to go on with killing them, but they sought for the high priests, and the generality went with the greatest zeal against them; and as soon as they caught them they slew them, and then standing upon their dead bodies, in way of jest, upbraided Ananus with his kindness to the people, and Jesus with his speech made to them from the wall. Nay, they proceeded to that degree of impiety, as to cast away their dead bodies without burial, although the Jews used to take so much care of the burial of men, that they took down those that were condemned and crucified, and buried them before the going down of the sun.

I should not mistake if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city, and that from this very day may be dated the overthrow of her wall, and the ruin of her affairs, whereon they saw their high priest, and the procurer of their preservation, slain in the midst of their city. He was on other accounts also a venerable, and a very just man; and besides the grandeur of that nobility, and dignity, and honor of which he was possessed, he had been a lover of a kind of parity, even with regard to the meanest of the people; he was a prodigious lover of liberty, and an admirer of a democracy in government; and did ever prefer the public welfare before his own advantage, and preferred peace above all things; for he was thoroughly sensible that the Romans were not to be conquered.

He also foresaw that of necessity a war would follow, and that unless the Jews made up matters with them very dexterously, they would be destroyed; to say all in a word, if Ananus had survived, they had certainly compounded matters; for he was a shrewd man in speaking and persuading the people, and had already gotten the mastery of those that opposed his designs, or were for the war. And the Jews had then put abundance of delays in the way of the Romans, if they had had such a general as he was. Jesus was also joined with him; and although he was inferior to him upon the comparison, he was superior to the rest; and I cannot but think that it was because God had doomed this city to destruction, as a polluted city, and was resolved to purge his sanctuary by fire, that he cut off these their great defenders and well-wishers, while those that a little before had worn the sacred garments, and had presided over the public worship; and had been esteemed venerable by those that dwelt on the whole habitable earth when they came into our city, were cast out naked, and seen to be the food of dogs and wild beasts. And I cannot but imagine that virtue itself groaned at these men's case, and lamented that she was here so terribly conquered by wickedness. And this at last was the end of Ananus and Jesus.

Whether this is relevant to how Origen thought that Josephus viewed James is impossible to know, but there are interesting coincidences.

[MrMacSon]

As to my 'mystery' quote: in the Jewish Wars, Josephus writes about how the death of Ananus (the father of the Ananus who killed James) was considered the start of the war ["the beginning of the destruction of the city"] ... there are echoes there of the tradition of James:

[314] But the rage of the Idumeans was not satiated by these slaughters; but they now betook themselves to the city, and plundered every house, and slew every one they met; and for the other multitude, they esteemed it needless to go on with killing them, but they sought for the high priests, and the generality went with the greatest zeal against them; and as soon as they caught them they slew them, and then standing upon their dead bodies, in way of jest, upbraided Ananus with his kindness to the people, and Jesus with his speech made to them from the wall. Nay, they proceeded to that degree of impiety, as to cast away their dead bodies without burial, although the Jews used to take so much care of the burial of men, that they took down those that were condemned and crucified, and buried them before the going down of the sun.

I should not mistake if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city, and that from this very day may be dated the overthrow of her wall, and the ruin of her affairs, whereon they saw their high priest, and the procurer of their preservation, slain in the midst of their city. He was on other accounts also a venerable, and a very just man; and besides the grandeur of that nobility, and dignity, and honor of which he was possessed, he had been a lover of a kind of parity, even with regard to the meanest of the people; he was a prodigious lover of liberty, and an admirer of a democracy in government; and did ever prefer the public welfare before his own advantage, and preferred peace above all things; for he was thoroughly sensible that the Romans were not to be conquered.

He also foresaw that of necessity a war would follow, and that unless the Jews made up matters with them very dexterously, they would be destroyed; to say all in a word, if Ananus had survived, they had certainly compounded matters; for he was a shrewd man in speaking and persuading the people, and had already gotten the mastery of those that opposed his designs, or were for the war. And the Jews had then put abundance of delays in the way of the Romans, if they had had such a general as he was. Jesus was also joined with him; and although he was inferior to him upon the comparison, he was superior to the rest; and I cannot but think that it was because God had doomed this city to destruction, as a polluted city, and was resolved to purge his sanctuary by fire, that he cut off these their great defenders and well-wishers, while those that a little before had worn the sacred garments, and had presided over the public worship; and had been esteemed venerable by those that dwelt on the whole habitable earth when they came into our city, were cast out naked, and seen to be the food of dogs and wild beasts. And I cannot but imagine that virtue itself groaned at these men's case, and lamented that she was here so terribly conquered by wickedness. And this at last was the end of Ananus and Jesus.

Whether this is relevant to how Origen thought that Josephus viewed James is impossible to know, but there are interesting coincidences.

That passage is from Jospehus's B.J. 4. 314-25

Previously,

[236] ... the approach of the Idumeans was known to [Ananus]; for as he knew of it before they came, he ordered the gates to be shut against them, and that the walls should be guarded. Yet did not he by any means think of fighting against them, but, before they came to blows, to try what persuasions would do. Accordingly, Jesus [the son of Gamalas], the eldest of the high priests next to Artanus, stood upon the tower that was over against them, and said thus:

"Many troubles indeed, and those of various kinds, have fallen upon this city, yet in none of them have I so much wondered at her fortune as now, when you are come to assist wicked men, and this after a manner very extraordinary; for I see that you have come to support the vilest of men against us, and this with so great alacrity, as you could hardly put on the like, in case our metropolis had called you to her assistance against barbarians.

And if I had perceived that your army was composed of men like unto those who invited them, I had not deemed your attempt so absurd; for nothing does so much cement the minds of men together as the alliance there is between their manners. But now, for these men who have invited you: if you were to examine them one by one, every one of them would be found to have deserved ten thousand deaths; for the very rascality and offscouring of the whole country, who have spent in debauchery their own substance, and, by way of trial beforehand, have madly plundered the neighboring villages and cities, in the upshot of all, have privately run together into this holy city.

They are robbers, who by their prodigious wickedness have profaned this most sacred floor, and who are to be now seen drinking themselves drunk in the sanctuary, and expending the spoils of those whom they have slaughtered upon their unsatiable bellies.

As for the multitude that is with you, one may see them so decently adorned in their armor, as it would become them to be had their metropolis called them to her assistance against foreigners. What can a man call this procedure of yours but the sport of fortune, when he sees a whole nation coming to protect a sink of wicked wretches? I have for a good while been in doubt what it could possibly be that should move you to do this so suddenly; because certainly you would not take on your armor on the behalf of robbers, and against a people of kin to you, without some very great cause for your so doing.

But we have an item that the Romans are pretended, and that we are supposed to be going to betray this city to them; for some of your men have lately made a clamor about those matters; and have said they are come to set their metropolis free. Now we cannot but admire at these wretches in their devising such a lie as this against us; for they knew there was no other way to irritate against us men that were naturally desirous of liberty, and on that account the best disposed to fight against foreign enemies, but by framing a tale as if we were going to betray that most desirable thing, liberty. But you ought to consider what sort of people they are that raise this calumny, and against what sort of people that calumny is raised, and to gather the truth of things, not by fictitious speeches, but out of the actions of both parties; for what occasion is there for us to sell ourselves to the Romans, while it was in our power not to have revolted from them at the first, or when we had once revolted, to have returned under their dominion again, and this while the neighboring countries were not yet laid waste?

Whereas it is not an easy thing to be reconciled to the Romans, if we were desirous of it, now they have subdued Galilee, and are thereby become proud and insolent; and to endeavor to please them at the time when they are so near us, would bring such a reproach upon us as were worse than death.

As for myself, indeed, I should have preferred peace with them before death; but now we have once made war upon them, and fought with them, I prefer death, with reputation, before living in captivity under them.

But further, whether do they pretend that we, who are the rulers of the people, have sent thus privately to the Romans, or hath it been done by the common suffrages of the people? If it be ourselves only that have done it, let them name those friends of ours that have been sent, as our servants, to manage this treachery. Hath anyone been caught as he went out on this errand, or seized upon as he came back? Are they in possession of our letters?

How could we be concealed from such a vast number of our fellow citizens, among whom we are conversant every hour, while what is done privately in the country is, it seems, known by the zealots, who are but few in number, and under confinement also, and are not able to come out of the temple into the city. Is this the first time that they are become sensible how they ought to be punished for their insolent actions? For while these men were free from the fear they are now under, there was no suspicion raised that any of us were traitors. But if they lay this charge against the people, this must have been done at a public consultation, and not one of the people must have dissented from the rest of the assembly; in which case the public fame of this matter would have come to you sooner than any particular indication. But how could that be?

Must there not then have been ambassadors sent to confirm the agreements? And let them tell us who this ambassador was that was ordained for that purpose. But this is no other than a pretense of such men as are loath to die, and are laboring to escape those punishments that hang over them; for if fate had determined that this city was to be betrayed into its enemies' hands, no other than these men that accuse us falsely could have the impudence to do it, there being no wickedness wanting to complete their impudent practices but this only, that they become traitors.

And now you Idumeans are come hither already with your arms, it is your duty, in the first place, to be assisting to your metropolis, and to join with us in cutting off those tyrants that have infringed the rules of our regular tribunals, that have trampled upon our laws, and made their swords the arbitrators of right and wrong; for they have seized upon men of great eminence, and under no accusation, as they stood in the midst of the market-place, and tortured them with putting them into bonds, and, without bearing to hear what they had to say, or what supplications they made, they destroyed them. You may, if you please, come into the city, though not in the way of war, and take a view of the marks still remaining of what I now say, and may see the houses that have been depopulated by their rapacious hands, with those wives and families that are in black, mourning for their slaughtered relations; as also you may hear their groans and lamentations all the city over; for there is nobody but hath tasted of the incursions of these profane wretches, who have proceeded to that degree of madness, as not only to have transferred their impudent robberies out of the country, and the remote cities, into this city, the very face and head of the whole nation, but out of the city into the temple also; for that is now made their receptacle and refuge, and the fountain-head whence their preparations are made against us.

And this place, which is adored by the habitable world, and honored by such as only know it by report, as far as the ends of the earth, is trampled upon by these wild beasts born among ourselves. They now triumph in the desperate condition they are already in, when they hear that one people is going to fight against another people, and one city against another city, and that your nation hath gotten an army together against its own bowels. Instead of which procedure, it were highly fit and reasonable, as I said before, for you to join with us in cutting off these wretches, and in particular to be revenged on them for putting this very cheat upon you; I mean, for having the impudence to invite you to assist them, of whom they ought to have stood in fear, as ready to punish them.

But if you have some regard to these men's invitation of you, yet may you lay aside your arms, and come into the city under the notion of our kindred, and take upon you a middle name between that of auxiliaries and of enemies, and so become judges in this case. However, consider what these men will gain by being called into judgment before you, for such undeniable and such flagrant crimes, who would not vouchsafe to hear such as had no accusations laid against them to speak a word for themselves. However, let them gain this advantage by your coming.

But still, if you will neither take our part in that indignation we have at these men, nor judge between us, the third thing I have to propose is this, that you let us both alone, and neither insult upon our calamities, nor abide with these plotters against their metropolis; for though you should have ever so great a suspicion that some of us have discoursed with the Romans, it is in your power to watch the passages into the city; and in case any thing that we have been accused of is brought to light, then to come and defend your metropolis, and to inflict punishment on those that are found guilty; for the enemy cannot prevent you who are so near to the city.

But if, after all, none of these proposals seem acceptable and moderate, do not you wonder that the gates are shut against you, while you bear your arms about you."

[270] Thus spake Jesus; yet did not the multitude of the Idumeans give any attention to what he said, but were in a rage, because they did not meet with a ready entrance into the city. The generals also had indignation at the offer of laying down their arms, and looked upon it as equal to a captivity, to throw them away at any man's injunction whomsoever.

But Simon, the son of Cathlas, one of their commanders, with much ado quieted the tumult of his own men, and stood so that the high priests might hear him, and said as follows:

"I can no longer wonder that the patrons of liberty are under custody in the temple, since there are those that shut the gates of our common city 1 to their own nation, and at the same time are prepared to admit the Romans into it; nay, perhaps are disposed to crown the gates with garlands at their coming, while they speak to the Idumeans from their own towers, and enjoin them to throw down their arms which they have taken up for the preservation of its liberty. And while they will not intrust the guard of our metropolis to their kindred, profess to make them judges of the differences that are among them; nay, while they accuse some men of having slain others without a legal trial, they do themselves condemn a whole nation after an ignominious manner, and have now walled up that city from their own nation, which used to be open to even all foreigners that came to worship there.

We have indeed come in great haste to you, and to a war against our own countrymen; and the reason why we have made such haste is this, that we may preserve that freedom which you are so unhappy as to betray. You have probably been guilty of the like crimes against those whom you keep in custody, and have, I suppose, collected together the like plausible pretenses against them also that you make use of against us; after which you have gotten the mastery of those within the temple, and keep them in custody, while they are only taking care of the public affairs.

You have also shut the gates of the city in general against nations that are the most nearly related to you; and while you give such injurious commands to others, you complain that you have been tyrannized over by them, and fix the name of unjust governors upon such as are tyrannized over by yourselves.

Who can bear this, your abuse of words, while they have a regard to the contrariety of your actions, unless you mean this, that those Idumeans do now exclude you out of your metropolis, whom you exclude from the sacred offices of your own country? One may indeed justly complain of those that are besieged in the temple, that when they had courage enough to punish those tyrants whom you call eminent men, and free from any accusations, because of their being your companions in wickedness, they did not begin with you, and thereby cut off beforehand the most dangerous parts of this treason.
But if these men have been more merciful than the public necessity required, we that are Idumeans will preserve this house of God, and will fight for our common country, and will oppose by war as well those that attack them from abroad, as those that betray them from within. Here will we abide before the walls in our armor, until either the Romans grow weary in waiting for you, or you become friends to liberty, and repent of what you have done against it."

[283] And now did the Idumeans make an acclamation to what Simon had said; but Jesus went away sorrowful, as seeing that the Idumeans were against all moderate counsels, and that the city was besieged on both sides ... But the shame that would attend them in case they returned without doing any thing at all, so far overcame that their repentance, that they lay all night before the wall, though in a very bad encampment; for there broke out a prodigious storm in the night, with the utmost violence, and very strong winds, with the largest showers of rain, with continued lightnings, terrible thunderings, and amazing concussions and bellowings of the earth, that was in an earthquake.

These things were a manifest indication that some destruction was coming upon men, when the system of the world was put into this disorder; and any one would guess that these wonders foreshowed some grand calamities that were coming.

[288] Now the opinion of the Idumeans and of the citizens was one and the same. The Idumeans thought that God was angry at their taking arms, and that they would not escape punishment for their making war upon their metropolis. Ananus and his party thought that they had conquered without fighting, and that God acted as a general for them; but truly they proved both ill conjectures at what was to come ... Ananus gave the guards in the cloisters leave to go to sleep; while it came into the heads of the zealots to make use of the saws belonging to the temple, and to cut the bars of the gates to pieces. The noise of the wind, and that not inferior sound of the thunder, did here also conspire with their designs, that the noise of the saws was not heard by the others.

[305] THIS advice pleased the Idumeans, and they ascended through the city to the temple. The zealots were also in great expectation of their coming, and earnestly waited for them. When therefore these were entering, they also came boldly out of the inner temple, and mixing themselves among the Idumeans, they attacked the guards ... the outer temple was all of it overflowed with blood; and that day, as it came on, they saw eight thousand five hundred dead bodies there.

[314] But the rage of the Idumeans was not satiated by these slaughters; but they now betook themselves to the city, and plundered every house, and slew every one they met ...

Also:

[193] By these motives Ananus encouraged the multitude to go against the zealots, although he knew how difficult it would be to disperse them, because of their multitude, and their youth, and the courage of their souls; but chiefly because of their consciousness of what they had done, since they would not yield, as not so much as hoping for pardon at the last for those their enormities. However, Ananus resolved to undergo whatever sufferings might come upon him[self], rather than overlook things, now they were in such great confusion. So, the multitude cried out to him, to lead them on against those whom he had described in his exhortation to them, and every one of them was most readily disposed to run any hazard whatsoever on that account. https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/te ... tion%3D193

And there's this note:

this Ananus, the best of the Jews at this time, and the high priest, who was so very uneasy at the profanation of the Jewish courts of the temple by the zealots, did not however scruple the profanation of the "court of the Gentiles;" as in our Savior's days it was very much profaned by the Jews; and made a market-place, nay, a "den of thieves," without scruple, Matthew 21:12, 13; Mark 11:15-17. Accordingly, Josephus himself, when he speaks of the two inner courts, calls them both hagia or holy places; but, so far as I remember, never gives that character of the court of the Gentiles. See B.V. ch. 9. sect. 2. https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/te ... tion%3D196

---

eta: Josephus B.J./War 4.151-5, 158-61:

151 The populace was ready to rise against them [the brigands], roused by Ananus, the oldest of the high priests. He was a very prudent man and might perhaps have saved the city if only he could have escaped the hands of those scheming against him. These men made the temple of God their stronghold and place of refuge, to avoid the troubles they feared from the people, so the sanctuary had now become a den and centre of tyranny. 152 They also mixed irony with their injuries, which was even more intolerable than their actions. 153 To test the people's subjection and to show their own power, they decided to cast lots for assigning the high priesthood, which, as already said, was meant to descend by succession within a family. 154 To justify it they claimed an ancient precedent for deciding by lot, but in truth it undermined a firm law and was a ruse to seize authority, by presuming to appoint officers just as they pleased.

155 After this they sent for one of the priestly tribes, called Eniachin, and cast lots for a high priest. By chance the lot fell so as to most plainly prove their abuse, for it chose a man called Phannias, son of Samuel, of the village of Aphtha, a man not only unworthy of the high priesthood, but who did not rightly know what the high priesthood was! ...

158 Unable to bear the insolence of this any longer the people were united in wanting to destroy that tyranny. 159 In this they were encouraged by Gorion, son of Josephus, and Symeon, son of Gamaliel, who went among them whether in groups or individually, urging them to bear it no longer, but to punish these blights on their freedom and cleanse the temple of its bloody polluters. 160 The best esteemed of the high priests, Jesus the son of Gamalas and Ananus the son of Ananus, also bitterly reprimanded the people at their assemblies, for their sloth, and roused them against the Zealots. 161 This was the name they went by, as though they were zealous for good works and not rather zealous for the worst actions and unparallelled in doing them!

[Paul the Uncertain]

@Peter

So did Origen say something?

If there is a "terse generic description of James's virtue and good name," did Origen suggest that Josephus wrote of it?

Because Origen is paraphrasing, it is impossible to say for sure whether or not Origen imputes his "terse generic description of James's virtue and good name" to Josephus. Some readers have taken Origen's remarks that way, other readers have not.

And then there's your word suggest. Maybe. Origen is trying to persuade as well as to inform. Plus, since he's working from memory, Origen may not confidently recall how much Josephus said about James's character. Suggestive ambiguity may have seemed the smart way to use Josephus persuasively.

@G'don

Good posts. Thank you.

We seem to be in agreement that Origen is paraphrasing not quoting Josephus (acknowledging that the majority view is that "called Christ" is exceptionally a direct quote).

Now, of course I'm not saying Josephus had James in mind for the consequences. But Origen, 'knowing' all about the righteousness of James from earlier texts, has picked up the threads of Josephus to weave a view of history that incorporates Hegesippus and other Christian traditions.

I think it's simpler than that. First, because the issue before us from Carrier and others is narrow: what relationship exists between Origen and Josephus? That's a question of personal memory, which leads to the second point. Human long-term memory is not documentary: what is stored are cues, what is recalled is constructed from those cues, a possible world that fits the cues.

Origen all but surely did weave some comprehensive view of history for himself consistent with Christian traditions. Whether that can be mapped back faithfully onto any part of received Josephus is fraught. We are having this discussion because Origen's memory failed him. It seems to me at best speculative that his memory would nevertheless be reliable about Josephus's account of the events from the trial in 62 to the fall of Jerusalem.

I also do not think that Josephus, real or recalled, had much to do with the formation of Origen's views about the supernatural aspects surrounding the outcome of the Jewish rebellion. Origen says straight up that he and Josephus disagree about why Jerusalem fell. In Origen's own view, Jerusalem was toast based on events of the 30's. In Josephus's view, Jerusalem was doomed based on events in the late 50's. Of course they agree that things were bad and getting worse from the 60's to the end.

Not that I'm aware of, but my point just assumes that Origen, as a well educated scholar, had picked up about James the Just from some earlier source, probably Hegesippus.

I see no reason to privilege Hegesippus as an influence on Origen. Eusebius says Clement of Alexandria and Hegesippus agree about James. And that's just two authors.

Origen lived and taught in Alexandia, and later Origen lived and taught in Palestine. Clement of Alexandria's works escaped Origen's notice? There were no traces of local legends about the first leader of the Jerusalem church in the library of a nearby territory? Could be. I wouldn't bet the farm on either one, but that's just me.

As you point out, Paul, too, partly informed Origen's conception of James. How many cooks need to be identified before one is entitled to dissent from naming any one cook chef de cuisine? At what point can Origen's sources be described as Christian tradition without special mention of the author whom Eusebius happened to like and may or may not have quoted fairly?

[Ken Olson]

The post dissents from "wrong author" and the weaker "second specific source for James's character" views. It is unclear whether Origen claims that Josephus wrote anything more about James than his death, God's retribution, and possibly James's brother's religious role.

Even if Origen was claiming more, he refers only to terse generic descriptions of James's virtue and good name such as comport with general Christian tradition that any apologist might plausibly teach. Thus, no specific Christian author is strongly indicated as a principal source for Origen's report instead of Josephus nor as the provider of a uniquely privileged supplement to Josephus's narratives of divine retribution and legalistic mischief.

https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/202 ... -josephus/

I have three questions for you.

First, when you say that 'he refers only to terse generic descriptions of James's virtue and good name such as comport with general Christian tradition that any apologist might plausibly teach' do you mean that Origen has intermingled his own interpretations of events based on material he might have gotten from general Christian tradition with his claim as to what Josephus wrote?

Second, with regard to Origen, Contra Celsum 1.47:

Εβουλομην δ αν Κελσω, προσωποποιησαντι τον Ιουδαιον παραδεξαμενον πως Ιωαννην ως βαπτιστην βαπτιζοντα τον Ιησουν, ειπειν οτι το Ιωαννην γεγονεναι βαπτιστην, εις αφεσιν αμαρτηματων βαπτιζοντα, ανεγραψε τις των μετ ου πολυ του Ιωαννου και του Ιησου γεγενημενων. εν γαρ τω οκτωκαιδεκατω της ιουδαικης αρχαιολογιας ο Ιωσηπος μαρτυρει τω Ιωαννη ως βαπτιστη γεγενημενω και καθαρσιον τοις βαπτισαμενοις επαγγελλομενω. ο δ αυτος, καιτοι γε απιστων τω Ιησου ως Χριστω, ζητων την αιτιαν της των Ιεροσολυμων πτωσεως και της του ναου καθαιρεσεως, δεον αυτον ειπειν οτι η κατα του Ιησου επιβουλη τουτων αιτια γεγονε τω λαω, επει απεκτειναν τον προφητευομενον Χριστον ο δε και ωσπερ ακων ου μακραν της αληθειας γενομενος φησι ταυτα συμβεβηκεναι τοις Ιουδαιοις κατ εκδικησιν Ιακωβου του δικαιου, ος ην αδελφος Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου, επειδηπερ δικαιοτατον αυτον οντα απεκτειναν.

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.

Are you saying the underlined text here is, in effect, and explanatory comment by Origen that he did not intend to be read as part of his paraphrase of Josephus, which immediately preceded it (in bold)? Also, I take it you do not think Origen wrote: the brother of Jesus called Christ.

Third, with regard to Origen, Commentary on Matthew 10.17 (commenting on Matt 13.55):

Ιακωβος δε εστιν ουτος ον λεγει Παυλος ιδειν εν τη προς Γαλατας επιστολη ειπων· Ετερον δε των αποστολων ουκ ειδον ει μη Ιακωβον τον αδελφον του κυριου. επι τοσουτον δε διελεμψεν ουτος ο Ιακωβος εν τω λαω επι δικαιοσυνη ως Φλοβιον Ιωσηπον αναγραψαντα εν εικοσι βιβλιοις την Ιουδαικην αρχαιολογιαν, την αιτιαν παραστησαι βουλομενον του τα τοσαυτα πεπονθεναι τον λαον ως και τον ναον κατασκαφηναι, ειρηκεναι κατα μηνιν θεου ταυτα αυτοις απηντηκεναι δια τα εις Ιακωβον τον αδελφον Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου υπ αυτων τετολμημενα. και το θαυμαστον εστιν οτι, τον Ιησουν ημων ου καταδεξαμενος ειναι Χριστον, ουδεν ηττον Ιακωβω δικαιοσυνην εμαρτυρησε τοσαυτην. λεγει δε οτι και ο λαος ταυτα ενομιζε δια τον Ιακωβον πεπονθεναι. και Ιουδας εγραψεν επιστολην ολιγοστιχον μεν, πεπληρωμενην δε των της ουρανιου χαριτος ερρωμενων λογων, οστις εν τω προοιμιω ειρηκεν· Ιουδας Ιησου Χριστου δουλος, αδελφος δε Ιακωβου. περι δε Ιωσηφ και Σιμονος ημεις ουδεν ιστορησαμεν.

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

Is your explanation for the underlined text that Origen interpreted Josephus writing (as he misremembered it) that 'these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things they had dared to do against James' is a testimony from Josephus to James great righteousness?

Thanks,

Ken

[Paul the Uncertain]

Greetings, Ken

First, when you say that 'he refers only to terse generic descriptions of James's virtue and good name such as comport with general Christian tradition that any apologist might plausibly teach' do you mean that Origen has intermingled his own interpretations of events based on material he might have gotten from general Christian tradition with his claim as to what Josephus wrote?

Yes as to source. Because Origen only paraphrases Josephus, the reader can't know how much of Origen's own general view about James's character is also being imputed to Josephus's writings. That measure of ambiguity is not unusual for paraphrases.

Either way, what Origen says about James's character when discussing what he recalls reading in Josephus is neither detailed nor specific. Origen provides no examples of what James did or refrained from doing that earned his acclaim, nor does he say that Josephus provided any such information.

Second, with regard to Origen, Contra Celsum 1.47:

(-snip-)
... 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.

Are you saying the underlined text here is, in effect, and explanatory comment by Origen that he did not intend to be read as part of his paraphrase of Josephus, which immediately preceded it (in bold)?

The reader can't know whether Origen remembers (wrongly) reading the underlined clause in Josephus or not. The particular clause asserts something that Origen himself believes, but also something that he believes Josephus to have believed.

Also, I take it you do not think Origen wrote: the brother of Jesus called Christ.

Origen did write that; I have low confidence that Josephus wrote that.

Third, with regard to Origen, Commentary on Matthew 10.17 (commenting on Matt 13.55):

(-snip-)
... 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

Is your explanation for the underlined text that Origen interpreted Josephus writing (as he misremembered it) that 'these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things they had dared to do against James' is a testimony from Josephus to James great righteousness?

As before, I don't know. It does seem to me that one admissible interpretation of the underlined clause in context is that Origen meant that Josephus's testimony took the form of attributing a disaster to God's displeaure with James's death and implying "that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James."

(The last bit is a reasonable inference from received Josephus's remark that God wanted to make the people wiser by the temple and city calamities.)

[Ken Olson]

The issue is treating Origen as though he were quoting Josephus instead of Origen 'reading between the lines'. It's reasonable to assume that Origen had read both of the key works by Josephus as well as the works of Hegesippus. He already knew that James the Just had a great reputation for righteousness; he didn't have to extract that from Josephus. Indeed he would have assumed that that would have been known to Josephus, much as apologists read the Paul of the Pauline epistles into Acts and vice versa.

Origen wrote in Against Celsus, Book 1, Chapter 67:
https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ ... en161.html

Now this writer, 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, 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. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine.

First, look at the blue highlighted section. Did Paul write that about James? No, apparently not. Origen is reading into it. Should we assume that Origen is quoting Paul here? No, I don't think so. Often we on this board import ideas from one text about a person into another text where it appears the texts are referring to the same person, with various levels of legitimacy and logic. That's what I see Origen doing there.

What about what Josephus actually wrote? In Book XX of Antiquities, Section 8.5, Josephus gives the cause for why these disasters against Jerusalem and the temple occur. Then, a few paragraphs later, Josephus writes about James. First, for the cause for the disasters:

Section 8.5

... the robbers ... slew certain of their own enemies, and were subservient to other men for money; and 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

"Brought the Romans upon us" - keep that in mind.

Then, a few paragraphs later, Josephus makes the comment about James:

Section 9.1

But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, (23) who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim ofjudges, 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. (24) Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

My argument: 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. The citizens called on the Romans (Albinus, Procurator of Judea) and this starts a series of events where things get "worse and worse" (Section 9.4), ending with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.

Now, of course I'm not saying Josephus had James in mind for the consequences. But Origen, 'knowing' all about the righteousness of James from earlier texts, has picked up the threads of Josephus to weave a view of history that incorporates Hegesippus and other Christian traditions.

Again: this is nothing I don't see people on this board do all the time, including me.

GakuseiDon,

Sorry it's taken so long to get back to you on this. Earlier discussion here:

viewtopic.php?p=164830#p164830

The connection between Origen's claim that Josephus 'in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple' and Ant. 20.8.5 / 20.165-166 is an interesting one and the Ant. 20.8.5 could plausibly be the source of Origen's remarks.

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? 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?

Best,

Ken