Origen 2, Scholars 0. Origen as author of ''called Christ''

[Giuseppe]

So Peter

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1540#p35189

and I agree totally with the his beautiful conclusion:

Do we really know that Origen needed anything else to make the statements that he did? It may be a strong reading, but.... it's enough right here. No need to posit lost interpolations or confusion with Hegesippus.

Note that Peter realizes that point, differently from NPL Allen, who writes in his thesis:

As extant works of Josephus do not make reference to the destruction of the Temple as being caused by James’ death. It might be assumed that either Origen is manufacturing a narrative or more likely he is referring to some now lost source that was also quoted by, inter alia, Eusebius at a later date.

(p. 294, source: https://www.google.it/url?sa=t&source=w ... Hi-1MgKVTA )

Peter has shown in his analysis that :

1) there was not a now lost source mentioning the causal link James'death/fall of Jerusalem.

2) freely, Origen ''read'' the link ''death of James ----> fall of Jerusalem'' in Antiquities 20:200.


But I want to add other facts to make best the analysis of Peter.

Allen rightly describes Peter's view when he writes:

Kirby (2014a) makes a compelling (albeit circumstantial), argument that Origen, far from fabricating and/or embellishing Josephus in COM, X, 17 / 5268 – 5269; Cels. I, 47 and Cels. II, 13 (ut supra, Section 4.2), is innocently attributing too much data to Josephus as his source. Furthermore, Origen displays the same kind of reaction to Josephus in his writings as when quoting Hegesippus. Therefore it follows that Origen probably thinks that they are the same source.

(p. 301, my bold)


My view differs from Peter's insofar I think that not only Origen is not innocently attributing too much data to Josephus, but Origen himself inserted ''called Christ'' in order to be able to describe better Josephus as one claiming precisely the causal link ''death of James ---> fall of Jerusalem''.

My evidence for this is described in the following links:

1) Origen's point about the implicit Christian irony behind ''called Christ'':

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2938&start=30#p65275

2) Origen's point about the implicit Christian irony behind the emphasis on Josephus as not-Christian:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2938&start=30#p65276


This is the sequence of events in my view:

1) Hegesippus is the first to invent a legend about the causal link ''death of James---->Fall of Jerusalem''

2) Origen is the first to interpolate ''called Christ'' in Antiquities 20.200, so to reiterate in a more explicit form the Hegesippus's point basing on Josephus.

3) Therefore Origen is also the forger of the Baptist Passage. Note that the point 2 and the point 3 corroborate each other

POSSIBLE CRITICISMS:

I think that the weakest point of the my thesis is only the fact that Hegesippus imagined already, before Origen, a legend about the implicit causal link: death of James ---> fall of Jerusalem.

The coincidence that just a guy named James (obviously: the son of Damneus) could serve so provvidentially for Origen ''to confirm'' the Hegesippus's legend (by interpolating ''called Christ'') seems a great, maybe impossible, coincidence.

Against this criticism, I can answer in three alternative ways:

1) Origen interpolated the entire line ''the brother of Jesus called Christ, named James'' and not only merely ''called Christ'' (the same idea of Allen), or...

2) Origen was so fortunate that he found a guy described only as ''the brother of Jesus, named James'' in Josephus, Antiquities 20:200 and he inserted only ''called Christ'', or...

3) Richard Carrier is simply right that Origen found a guy described as: ''the brother of Jesus son of Damneus, named James'' and he replaced ''son of Damneus'' with ''called Christ''. In this case, Origen was not so fortunate, after all.

[MrMacSon]

I wonder if "called Christ" is a slight transformation of Chréstos [χρηστός]; which had often been a descriptor/adjective ('good, or 'useful', or maybe 'kind'), but had become increasingly commonly used as a name, especially of freedmen (slaves) cf. Christus [Χρίστος ](an or the 'anointed one', previously literally anointed).

[MrMacSon]

... I can answer in three alternative ways:

1) Origen interpolated the entire line ''the brother of Jesus called Christ, named James'' and not only merely ''called Christ'' (the same idea of Allen), or...

2) Origen was so fortunate that he found a guy described only as ''the brother of Jesus, named James'' in Josephus, Antiquities 20:200 and he inserted only ''called Christ'', or...

3) Richard Carrier is simply right that Origen found a guy described as: ''the brother of Jesus son of Damneus, named James'' and he replaced ''son of Damneus'' with ''called Christ''. In this case, Origen was not so fortunate, after all.

I think called Christ could well be independent of Jesus ben Damneus, which is later in the section of Antiq 9,3,1 [20.200].

[Giuseppe]

It is curious that, well before Allen and independently from him, I came already to the conclusion that Origen was the probable author of "called Christ".

I should thank again Peter because he realized my point :

I understand. Thank you.

No worries.

I also think I understand you a bit better now--and yes, if it is as you say, and it is a deliberate interpolation (esp. if by Origen, although I don't think so), then we could read the author as having formulated it "skeptically" as words for Josephus (i.e., "the so-called"), in parallel to other constructions (like, as you note, for Pilate).

source: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1540&start=40#p35288

Now it is time to re-examine the possibility raised by me and Allen about Origen as the probable forger of "called Christ" in Josephus.

In whilethime, I see that then Peter did ignore the anti-Celsus point of Origen when the latter wrote that it is *rational* to infer from Josephus's "mention" of the causal link "death of James------>fall of Jerusalem" the even more "favorite" causal link "death of the so-called Christ------>fall of Jerusalem" (proving that the so-called Christ was really THE Christ).

[Bernard Muller]

I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, 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 18th 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.

After having mentioned Josephus as a "witness" for John the Baptist (and baptizing for the remission of sins, according to the gospels), Origen followed through on Josephus and commented on another thing he found in Josephus' works. That is about gospels/Paul's_epistles figures: James and his brother Jesus. Origen was obviously happy these twosome were also found in Josephus' works:

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, ...

I also note that Origen was not happy about Josephus (rather an interpolator of Josephus' Antiquities) said about Jerusalem being destroyed because of James being killed by Jews. Origen would have greatly preferred to see Jesus' crucifixion as the cause of the fall of Jerusalem. That tells me Origen was not the originator of the interpolation, including "called Christ".

I do not see any irony between "Jesus called Christ" and "not believing in Jesus as the Christ".
Origen read gMatthew and that gospel has Pilate also using the same expression: "Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?'" (27:17)
"Jesus called Christ" and "Jesus the Christ" do not mean the same thing. The former can be said by a pagan or Jew who does not believe Jesus is the Christ.

Cordially, Bernard

[austendw]

Peter has shown in his analysis that :
...
2) freely, Origen ''read'' the link ''death of James ----> fall of Jerusalem'' in Antiquities 20:200.

The trouble for me is that talking of "the death of James" slightly disguises the actual details of the death of James as related by Origen. Origen actually says:

Flavius Josephus... 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 (COM, X, 17 / 5268 – 5269)

and

[Josephus]... says... that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James ... the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. (Cels 1.47)

"The things which they dared to do against James" isn't even remotely derived from the account in Josephus, where only one "thing" is done to James: Ananus executes him, and after popular outrage loses the High Priesthood - a different scenario entirely. But these words to accord with Hegesippus. Can Origen really have been simply over-interpreting Josephus? I can't see it. He is conflating Josephus with Hegesippus.

In Commentary on Matthew Origen even says "and he [Josephus] says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James" - but Josephus wrote nothing of the sort anywhere, as far as we know or is likely. I'm not sure where he got that from.

...but Origen himself inserted ''called Christ'' in order to be able to describe better Josephus as one claiming precisely the causal link ''death of James ---> fall of Jerusalem''.

But how does that interpolation succeed in achieving that? Josephus doesn't say anything to really justify the claim, even with the words "called Christ" added. Surely if Origen wanted to indulge in a bit of forgery, it would have made sense for him to forge something along the lines of "and because of this, the Jews believed that Jerusalem was destroyed" rather than adding something so oblique that we are all still debating the issue.

3) Richard Carrier is simply right that Origen found a guy described as: ''the brother of Jesus son of Damneus, named James'' and he replaced ''son of Damneus'' with ''called Christ''. In this case, Origen was not so fortunate, after all.

I have to say I beleive that the "James son of Damnaeus" theory, which Carrier and many others seem so fond of, is actually very problematic - and doesn't solve any of the textual problems whatsoever.

[Giuseppe]

"The things which they dared to do against James" isn't even remotely derived from the account in Josephus, where only one "thing" is done to James: Ananus executes him, and after popular outrage loses the High Priesthood - a different scenario entirely.

What you are missing is that Origen is going to confute Celsus where Celsus was claiming that Jesus was not vindicated by God against his killers, differently from Dyonisus, Perseus, Apollos, etc. At contrary, Origen claims, God punished the Jews because the Jews killed Christ and (via Ananus) his brother, just as God punished Herod because Herod killed John.

[Giuseppe]

Note that there is evidence that in general Origen loved to read his theology behind the ''literal'' fact. He is inviting Celsus to do the same, not only by reading allegorically the Gospels where the Gospels seem too much embarrassing when they are read literally (as Celsus accuses often), but also by reading the same Josephus with Christian lens where Josephus would be making a point that goes to the benefit of Christianity.

[Giuseppe]

I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, 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 18th 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.

After having mentioned Josephus as a "witness" for John the Baptist (and baptizing for the remission of sins, according to the gospels), Origen followed through on Josephus and commented on another thing he found in Josephus' works. That is about gospels/Paul's_epistles figures: James and his brother Jesus. Origen was obviously happy these twosome were also found in Josephus' works:

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, ...

I also note that Origen was not happy about Josephus (rather an interpolator of Josephus' Antiquities) said about Jerusalem being destroyed because of James being killed by Jews. Origen would have greatly preferred to see Jesus' crucifixion as the cause of the fall of Jerusalem. That tells me Origen was not the originator of the interpolation, including "called Christ".

This is the great fallacy of seeing Origen as if he was writing for us. Really, he was going to confute the aggressive Celsus, not to do a commentary of Josephus. Therefore Origen had a precise interest to quote Josephus against Celsus. Therefore the minimal sign of embarrassment by Origen about what Josephus referred would be in support of the his enemy Celsus. If Origen had shown himself as ''not happy'' before the mention of James, then Celsus would have taken advantage easily of the his embarrassment. Therefore there is really not embarrassment by Origen. At contrary, Origen is so much happy for the mention of James, that he continues to infer from the causal link ''death of James ---> fall of Jerusalem", the his more favorite causal link ''death of Christ---->fall of Jerusalem''.

In this way he has proved, against Celsus, that God punished all the enemies of John, James and Jesus: Herod and the Jews.

I do not see any irony between "Jesus called Christ" and "not believing in Jesus as the Christ".
Origen read gMatthew and that gospel has Pilate also using the same expression: "Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?'" (27:17)
"Jesus called Christ" and "Jesus the Christ" do not mean the same thing. The former can be said by a pagan or Jew who does not believe Jesus is the Christ.

I disagree strongly with this your opinion.

Note that Origen was aware of the ironical theological point behind ''called Christ'' of Matthew 27:17:

That the judge would, without any hesitation, have set Him at liberty if He had offered a defence, is clear from what is related of him when he said, "Which of the two do ye wish that I should release unto you, Barabbas or Jesus, who is called Christ?" and from what the Scripture adds, "For he knew that for envy they had delivered Him." Jesus, however, is at all times assailed by false witnesses, hand, while wickedness remains in the world, is ever exposed to accusation. And yet even now He continues silent before these things, and makes no audible answer, but places His defence in the lives of His genuine disciples, which are a pre-eminent testimony, and one that rises superior to all false witness, and refutes and overthrows all unfounded accusations and charges.

(Against Celsus, I, 2)

The Origen's argument is CLEARLY that the simple presence of ''called Christ'' on the mouth of Pilate confirms that Pilate himself suspected that Jesus was innocent (and therefore he was THE Christ and not only a ''so-called'' Christ).

Only a Christian may do the following implication:

Pilate used the construct ''called Christ'' ---> therefore Pilate ''would, without any hesitation, have set Him at liberty if He had offered a defence''

As with Pilate, so for Josephus.

So the same ''logic'' is applied by Origen on Josephus:

Josephus used the construct ''called Christ'' in Antiquit.20:200 ---> therefore Josephus would, without any hesitation, have recognized Him as THE Christ if only he had realized the causal link ''death of Christ---->Fall of Jerusalem'' (deriving it from the causal link ''death of James---->Fall of Jerusalem'').

[Giuseppe]

And now I describe my argument to consider Origen as the probable forger of "called Christ":

1) in Matthew 27:17 "called Christ" gives a ironic point behind his mention by the Pagan Pilate: just a "so-called Christ" results to be THE Christ. A precedent is therefore introduced, for the Christian irony behind the (only apparent) use of the construct by a Pagan.

2) the probability that a not-Christian uses the costruct "called Christ" and at the same time gives to a Christian the possibility of seeing something of similar to the specific Christian irony of the point 1, has to be considered a priori a very low probability. An authentic miracle, so much it's improbable.

3) the fact that the same Christian

1) alludes to (an apparent) not-Christian use of the construct "called Christ"

AND

2) at the same time infers a theological point from the not-Christian use of that construct

...has to make virtually improbable the real not-Christian use of "called Christ".

3) the fact described in the point 2 is evident in the Origen's mention of the James passage in Josephus.

4) from the point 2 it follows that two alternative possibilities have to be preferred BY NEED:

A) Origen inserted deliberately "called Christ" in Ant. 20:200.

or

B) accidentally, before Origen, an innocent Christian scribe inserted "called Christ" in Ant. 20:200.

The possibility B is excluded because it requires the improbable coincidence that a late Christian (Origen) finds already in Josephus the accidental glossa "called Christ" that serves PERFECTLY to infer his ironical theological point (à la Matthew 27:17). It is like to a win on lottery. It is like to imagine that Origen found in Josephus ***precisely*** what served to his apology against Celsus.


5) therefore, the more probable explanation is that the same Christian interpolated deliberately "called Christ" in Antiquities 20:200 and alluded to it to infer the implicit irony of a theological point.

That Christian is Origen. ▭