Yeah, I'm happy with this idea. Props to Peter.
But regarding
Origen's confusion, I'm still thinking that it
does have something to do with Josephus (as I note in Peter's comment section), given that we know for sure he
did know Josephus, and I'm unaware of any other indications that he knew Hegesippus (unlike for Clement), and because I think what he says about James resembles what Josephus says about Ananus in War 4.5.2 much more than what Hegeippus says about James,
and what Josephus says about Ananus' associate Jesus could have given Origen the impression that Josephus "did not accept our Jesus to be Christ."
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 ... Jesus was also joined with him, and ... he was inferior to him upon the comparison ...
Cf. Origen Against Celsus 1.47 and Com. Mt. 10.17:
But he himself [Josephus], though not believing in Jesus as 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 things happening to the people, since they killed the prophecied Christ, even says, being unwillingly not far from the truth, that these things befell the Jews as vengeance for James the just, who was a brother of Jesus who is called Christ, since they killed him who was most just.
And in such a way among the people did this James shine for his justice that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the Judaic Antiquities in twenty books, wishing to demonstrate the cause why the people suffered such great things that even the temple was razed down, said that these things came to pass against them in accordance with the ire of God on account of the things which were dared by them against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wondrous thing is that, although he did not accept our Jesus to be Christ, he yet testified that the justice of James was not at all small; and he says that even the people supposed they had suffered these things on account of James.
Look how many "hits" there are between these accounts versus Hegesippus, which has only one "hit" (that James was a "just man") and only says that
the next thing of note (
https://books.google.com/books?id=e-m0A ... on&f=false) after James was killed is that Vespasian besieged Jerusalem (which happened in 69 CE) and (
unlike what Origen thought about Josephus) very clearly that "Jesus is the Christ."
Hegesippus EH 2.23.18:
18. And one of them, who was a fuller, took the club with which he beat out clothes and struck the just man on the head. And thus he suffered martyrdom. And they buried him on the spot, by the temple, and his monument still remains by the temple. He became a true witness, both to Jews and Greeks, that Jesus is the Christ. And immediately Vespasian besieged them.
There's nothing here about people thinking Jerusalem fell because of James or anything that would give Origen the impression that Hegesippus "did not accept our Jesus as Christ."
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.