Did Josephus say that Jesus was called Chrēstos?

[John2]

Good ol' Ben had a thread that is helpful (and has another translation that appears to be a direct citation of the Gospel of the Hebrews (And immediately is added, “He bore bread, and He blessed it, and He broke it, and He gave it to James the Just, and He said to him, ‘My brother, eat your bread, because the Son of Man has resurrected from among those who sleep'”)


viewtopic.php?t=7887


Ben also notes that Luomanen "argues that Jerome did not quote from the Gospel of the Hebrews directly, but rather quoted (part of) this pericope from Origen," which is interesting to consider.

[John2]

I don't know if I buy Luomanen's idea that Jerome's citation of the Gospel of the Hebrews comes from Origen. I'm unable to see where he goes into detail about it on Google Books, since those pages aren't viewable for me, but I'm not following his summary on pg. 168.

Since Jerome refers to Greek as the target language of the translation and also refers to Origen, it is obvious the fragment represents a case where Jerome is relying on a Greek source, probably Origen (see above Chapter 3.3.).


https://www.google.com/books/edition/Re ... frontcover

Without being able to see his argument, I don't understand why he says Greek was Jerome's "target language," when Jerome says he had translated it himself into Greek and Latin. And why would he need Origen when he had the Hebrew original and his own translations?

[John2]

Ben puts it this way in his thread:

Now, it has been often observed that, in On Famous Men, Jerome heavily depends upon proximate sources, especially Eusebius, for his ultimate quotations from Josephus and other writers. Also, in chapter 3 of Recovering Jewish-Christian Sects and Gospels, Petri Luomanen argues that, in the case of the Gospel of the Hebrews in particular, throughout his writings, Jerome had good reason to claim, inaccurately, that he had translated that text into Greek and Latin, when in fact he drew his citations of it from earlier writers, especially from Origen. We note that Origen is, in fact, named in the excerpt at hand as having often used the Gospel of the Hebrews; Luomanen argues that Jerome did not quote from the Gospel of the Hebrews directly, but rather quoted (part of) this pericope from Origen, most of whose works have been lost to us.

I wish I could see this part of Luomanen's book (what I can see starts on page 112, and it's been awhile since I've looked at what I can see of his book, so I could use a general refresher on him).

[John2]

Does Luomanen or anyone else argue that James' title "the Just" in Jerome's citation of the Gospel of the Hebrews comes from Origen? I don't recall seeing anyone suggest this. Maybe we are back to Origen reading into things, in this case the Gospel of the Hebrews. But then we'd have to suppose he knew James was called the Just and such somehow (via common knowledge or from Clement or Hegesippus).

I don't know. But if no one argues that "the Just" in the Gospel of the Hebrews is not original, I suppose we should assume that it is original to the Gospel of the Hebrews. And for me, it would remain the common source that was known to Clement, Origen and Hegesippus and could account for why they all describe James as the Just and such.

[Peter Kirby]

Origen refers to James as the Just in all of his references to James and the misfortunes of the Jews and Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple in 70 CE:

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. And Jude wrote an epistle short in lines but full of the healthy words of heaven; in the preface he has said: Jude, servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James. But concerning Joseph and Simon we have nothing to relate. (Origen, Commentary on Matthew 10.17, discussing Matt 13.55)

The fixed phrase title "James the Just" does not appear in this quote, nor does James as "the Just"; a reference to the righteousness of James (and his reputation for the same) does appear.

Let me give the Greek:

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. (Origen, Commentary on Matthew 10.17)

Here is a partial sentence from the story in Hegesippus (Eusebius HE 2.23.10):

ἡμεῖς γὰρ μαρτυροῦμέν σοι καὶ πᾶς ὁ λαὸς ὅτι δίκαιος εἶ

For we and the whole people testify to you that you are righteous

Do you see any of the three words (in any form): people, witness, righteous in the two passages from Josephus under discussion? And if not, are you willing to claim that this agreement between Origen and Hegesippus is a coincidence?

G-Don, of course, is making an argument about how Origen could have interpreted Josephus if he knew Hegesippus (or the story we know from Hegesippus). Do you think the case stands without that?

Best,

Ken

I still mean to come back to this. Now it's me who is delaying my response to you!

Incidentally, my google searches led me to this old thread. Wow! I forgot I had written any of this.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1540

Revisiting that (and especially your post there) has been helpful.

I have started to put together some thoughts in my head, but laying it all out takes more time.

[Peter Kirby]

For a short while, I was almost persuaded that "He became a true witness, both to Jews and Greeks, that Jesus is the Christ, and immediately Vespasian besieged them." belonged to the wording of Eusebius. More careful study has persuaded me that this suspicion of mine was not correct. Some may still find my thought process here to be of interest, so I can share it.

For one thing, we can know that Hegesippus and Origen (with reference to Josephus) are not the only sources of an idea that would connect the death of James to the First Jewish Revolt somehow. The First Apocalypse of James (from the NHL) has: "When you depart, immediately war will be made with this land. Weep, then, for him who dwells in Jerusalem." A sequence of events that included the death of James, a war in Judea, and sorrow for Jerusalem is expressed here. To me, this indicates a likelihood of a more widespread tradition among Christians about the death of James being shortly before this war and/or shortly before the taking of Jerusalem, reflected variously in the First Apocalypse of James and in Hegesippus. I had momentarily been thinking that perhaps this connection was made only in a narrow literary context that included Origen and Eusebius, but this indicates against that to me. The expression in the First Apocalypse of James is consistent with a death of James that was placed prior to the outbreak of the war (which could have been a few years later).

More importantly, Ken Olson brings out some important connections in understanding the text of Hegesippus, including: why is James called "bulwark of the people" (περιοχὴ τοῦ λαοῦ)? What is the significance of James "begging forgiveness for the people" and the objection later made "Cease, what do ye? The just one prayeth for you"? What is the supposed fulfillment of "therefore they shall eat the fruit of their doings" quoted from Isaiah?

The first question is best explained with reference to another passage of Eusebius (EH 3.7.9)

But it may be proper to mention also those events which exhibited the graciousness of that all-good Providence which held back their destruction full forty years after their crime against Christ — during which time many of the apostles and disciples, and James himself the first bishop there, the one who is called the brother of the Lord, were still alive, and dwelling in Jerusalem itself, remained the surest bulwark of the place (ἕρκος ὥσπερ ὀχυρώτατον). Divine Providence thus still proved itself long-suffering toward them in order to see whether by repentance for what they had done they might obtain pardon and salvation; and in addition to such long-suffering, Providence also furnished wonderful signs of the things which were about to happen to them if they did not repent.

Both words can refer to fortifications or fences:
https://lsj.gr/wiki/%CF%80%CE%B5%CF%81% ... F%87%CE%AE
https://lsj.gr/wiki/%E1%BC%95%CF%81%CE%BA%CE%BF%CF%82

By the way, the translation above obscures some features of the Greek, which suggests that they were "conducting their discussions in the city of Jerusalem itself" (ἐπ' αὐτῆς τῆς Ἱεροσολύμων πόλεως τὰς διατριβὰς ποιούμενοι). There is also a similar reference from Eusebius previously (EH 3.5.3):

But the people of the church in Jerusalem had been commanded by a revelation, vouchsafed to approved men there before the war, to leave the city and to dwell in a certain town of Perea called Pella. And when those that believed in Christ had come there from Jerusalem, then, as if the royal city of the Jews and the whole land of Judea were entirely destitute of holy men, the judgment of God at length overtook those who had committed such outrages against Christ and his apostles, and totally destroyed that generation of impious men.

Eusebius thus has two similar accounts, one emphasizing the apostles and James conducting discussion there, the other emphasizing the flight to Pella. It's not completely clear whether we should understand these accounts in a harmonized way (perhaps even going back to Hegesippus, who may have said something about Pella) or as separate ideas. If they were to be harmonized, then that would possibly shed some light on the passage of Hegesippus about James. On such a reading, where the pending death of James is the only thing preventing a complete absence of holy men in Jerusalem, the rest of the Jerusalem church's holy men (apostles and disciples) would have fled to Pella already, while James stayed behind to pray for the forgiveness of the people in Jerusalem. This reading would interpret "besieged them" to refer more specifically to the siege of Jerusalem, not as a reference to the outbreak of war. The idea that people had gathered together for passover is consistent with such a reading, given that the siege of Jerusalem began around passover (according to Josephus). Of course, attributing this siege to Vespasian instead of Titus would have to be considered an error of the account on this reading (and likely not the only error in the account). The plausibility of such a reading is supported by the later reference made in EH 3.12:

For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph. He also relates that Vespasian after the conquest of Jerusalem gave orders that all that belonged to the lineage of David should be sought out, in order that none of the royal race might be left among the Jews; and in consequence of this a most terrible persecution again hung over the Jews.

Of course, it's just possible that this means "Vespasian after the conquest of Jerusalem [by Titus]," but in either case Vespasian is the subject of the narrative of Hegesippus according to Eusebius, in a story told in close connection to the conquest of Jerusalem. And if the earlier reference forms part of the quotation of Hegesippus, it seems most natural to read Hegesippus as claiming that Vespasian was responsible for the conquest of Jerusalem by siege. This is consistent with what is said immediately before by Eusebius:

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.11.1-2. After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James. They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph.

Eusebius refers to the account of Hegesippus on Symeon becoming bishop again later (Ecclesiastical History, 4.22.4-5). It's unnatural to assume that Eusebius would be the source of a claim that Vespasian conducted the conquest of Jerusalem, given that Eusebius used Josephus and knew that Titus conducted the siege of Jerusalem. This makes it likely that the claim comes from Hegesippus, as something narrated after the death of James. The idea that Hegesippus put the death of James in very close proximity in time to the conquest of Jerusalem makes sense of what Eusebius says above about Symeon becoming the second bishop of Jerusalem, where the decision about who to succeed James is made after the conquest of Jerusalem.

This implies the existence of two different ideas or traditions, one in Hegesippus where the presence of James in Jerusalem delays the siege (during the war), the other found in the First Apocalypse of James where the death of James precedes the outbreak of the war.

Eusebius relies on Josephus and Acts for chronology when contextualizing the death of James (EH 2.23.1-2):

But after Paul, in consequence of his appeal to Cæsar, had been sent to Rome by Festus, the Jews, being frustrated in their hope of entrapping him by the snares which they had laid for him, turned against James, the brother of the Lord, to whom the episcopal seat at Jerusalem had been entrusted by the apostles. The following daring measures were undertaken by them against him.

Leading him into their midst they demanded of him that he should renounce faith in Christ in the presence of all the people. But, contrary to the opinion of all, with a clear voice, and with greater boldness than they had anticipated, he spoke out before the whole multitude and confessed that our Saviour and Lord Jesus is the Son of God. But they were unable to bear longer the testimony of the man who, on account of the excellence of ascetic virtue and of piety which he exhibited in his life, was esteemed by all as the most just of men, and consequently they slew him. Opportunity for this deed of violence was furnished by the prevailing anarchy, which was caused by the fact that Festus had died just at this time in Judea, and that the province was thus without a governor and head.

This indicates further against attributing the words "immediately Vespasian besieged them" to Eusebius, who would have attributed the siege of Jerusalem more directly to Titus and places the death of James prior to the outbreak of the war, following Josephus.

It's also worth noting that the story quoted has a bit about "For all the tribes, with the Gentiles also, are come together on account of the Passover," so, while the purposes of Hegesippus are obscure to us now, apparently he had some interest in portraying James as a witness "both to Jews and Greeks," even though this may also have been an appealing idea to Eusebius too.

As a result, I don't find any substantial reasons to argue that the closing words of the quote don't belong to Hegesippus. They seem consistent with what little we know about Hegesippus and what he wrote. That they are part of the quote is consistent with the phrasing that Eusebius uses to pick up after the quote and with the considerations outlined above.

Perhaps of more interest (even if just to argue against it...?) is a conclusion in favor of an interpretation of Hegesippus according to which he is writing about a death of James that takes place prior to the siege of Jerusalem (and during the war). It's been my impression that attempts to harmonize the chronology of Hegesippus (usually in the form of arguing for the ambiguity of what is written, often with emphasis placed on the reference to "Vespasian" as being to the start of a war instead of the siege of Jerusalem) with other sources have generally been more popular. I suggest that Hegesippus incorrectly attributed the conquest of Jerusalem to Vespasian. It must be admitted that it is difficult to know for sure because of the fragmentary state of the remains of Hegesippus.

This doesn't directly answer you, Ken, but it shows some of my progress along the way to answering.

[Ken Olson]

This doesn't directly answer you, Ken, but it shows some of my progress along the way to answering.

Thank's Peter. I am always interested to read good research on the topic of the possible Christian references in the works of Josephus (a category which includes the John the Baptist passage for most scholars), and am not necessarily awaiting any particular answer.

Good pickup on the First Apocalypse of James.

Best,

Ken

[Peter Kirby]

More importantly, Ken Olson brings out some important connections in understanding the text of Hegesippus, including: why is James called "bulwark of the people" (περιοχὴ τοῦ λαοῦ)? What is the significance of James "begging forgiveness for the people" and the objection later made "Cease, what do ye? The just one prayeth for you"? What is the supposed fulfillment of "therefore they shall eat the fruit of their doings" quoted from Isaiah?

The first question is best explained with reference to another passage of Eusebius (EH 3.7.9)

But it may be proper to mention also those events which exhibited the graciousness of that all-good Providence which held back their destruction full forty years after their crime against Christ — during which time many of the apostles and disciples, and James himself the first bishop there, the one who is called the brother of the Lord, were still alive, and dwelling in Jerusalem itself, remained the surest bulwark of the place (ἕρκος ὥσπερ ὀχυρώτατον). Divine Providence thus still proved itself long-suffering toward them in order to see whether by repentance for what they had done they might obtain pardon and salvation; and in addition to such long-suffering, Providence also furnished wonderful signs of the things which were about to happen to them if they did not repent.

There is also a similar reference from Eusebius previously (EH 3.5.3):

But the people of the church in Jerusalem had been commanded by a revelation, vouchsafed to approved men there before the war, to leave the city and to dwell in a certain town of Perea called Pella. And when those that believed in Christ had come there from Jerusalem, then, as if the royal city of the Jews and the whole land of Judea were entirely destitute of holy men, the judgment of God at length overtook those who had committed such outrages against Christ and his apostles, and totally destroyed that generation of impious men.

In the midst of a bunch of borrowed text from Eusebius and/or Josephus and/or Hegesippus, this material appears in George Monachos:

During the days of the Passover feast, people from all over Judea came to Jerusalem, and they alone were besieged by the Romans in the metropolis, with divine revelation preceding the believers in Christ and the friends, saints, and servants of God. Those who remained were like captives in the dens of the impious and pitiful wilderness, according to their ancient customs, similar to the threefold doomed Sodomites. Concerning the cities of Sodom, the divine Abraham interceded, saying, "Do not destroy the righteous with the wicked, and let the righteous be as the wicked." Therefore, the benevolent God also promised that if ten righteous people were found in Sodom, the city would be spared from His wrath. However, they were not found, and thus they were completely destroyed. Regarding Jerusalem, the prophet Jeremiah lamented, and God said to him again, "Run around, go through the streets of Jerusalem, and see and know and search in its squares. If you find a man, if there is one who does justice, who seeks faithfulness, then I will be merciful to her," says the Lord. But even she has become scarce of this zeal for God, and not at any other time, but in the days of the feast. And quite rightly so, for they should have committed their offenses against the Lord in those days and endured the attempts of Christ-killing.

George Monachos may not have any ancient source for making the connection with Sodom or with Jeremiah 5:1, but the passage does illustrate the kind of logic being stated by Eusebius above:

And when those that believed in Christ had come there from Jerusalem, then, as if the royal city of the Jews and the whole land of Judea were entirely destitute of holy men, the judgment of God at length overtook those who had committed such outrages against Christ and his apostles, and totally destroyed that generation of impious men.

Where the absence of the "holy men" there (because of a "divine revelation preceding the believers in Christ and the friends, saints, and servants of God," mentioned in the NT without specific reference to Pella and in Eusebius as a flight to Pella) allowed for the destruction of Jerusalem.

This essay discusses some of those less specific references in in the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions and Luke 21:20-22.

https://digitalcommons.luthersem.edu/cg ... y_articles

[Peter Kirby]

Photius and Epiphanius provide a couple examples of related expressions about James, which can also be analyzed.

Photius in Bibliotheca, Codex 222, Bekker page 202a, line 22. Any translation errors are my own.

Ὁ δὲ Ἰάκωβος ἐφ' ὅσον ἀρετῆς ὕψος ἀνῆλθε καὶ τίνα παρεῖχεν ὑπόληψιν τῷ τῶν Ἰουδαίων λαῷ, καὶ ἡ κλῆσις ἀναβοᾷ· ὠβλίαν γὰρ αὐτὸν τὸ πλῆθος διὰ τὸ τῆς ἀρετῆς μέγεθος καὶ τὴν πρὸς τὸ θεῖον παρρησίαν, τουτέστι περιοχὴν καὶ σκέπην τοῦ λαοῦ, κατωνόμαζον.

But Jacob, as much as he ascended in the height of virtue and what kind of reputation he had among the Jewish people, and the calling proclaims Oblias, because the multitude admired him due to the greatness of his virtue and his boldness towards the divine, that is, the protection and shelter of the people, they called him.

Photius may have changed emphasis from being "righteous" (δίκαιος) to having "virtue" (ἀρετῆς) idiosyncratically, but Photius was probably aware of James being called the "Just" (δίκαιος) despite this. The reference to "Ἰουδαίων λαῷ" seems an insufficient basis to believe that there is a literary connection between Hegesippus' account (possibly mediated via Eusebius) and Photius, but the references to "ὠβλίαν" (not as widely used of James as δίκαιος is) and especially "περιοχὴν ... τοῦ λαοῦ" (which arguably originated with Hegesippus) make it very likely.

Of course, Photius certainly read Eusebius, which would have introduced him to this quote of Hegesippus. It seems that Photius did not read Hegesippus directly but may have known some other text besides Eusebius referring to Hegesippus, judging from a reference to the third book of Hegesippus in codex 232 (where Photius comments "in I do not know what context").

Epiphanius in Panarion 29 has this account of James:

3,7 But with the transfer of the royal throne the rank of king passed, in Christ, from the physical house of David and Israel to the church. The throne is established in God’s holy church forever, and has both the kingly and the high-priestly rank for two reasons. (8) It has the kingly rank from our Lord Jesus Christ, in two ways: because he is physically descended from King David, and because he is in fact a greater king from all eternity in virtue of his Godhead. But it has the priestly rank because Christ himself is high priest and the founder of the office of the high priests (9) since James, who was called the Lord’s brother and who was his apostle, was immediately made the first bishop. He was Joseph’s son by birth, but was ranked as the Lord’s brother because of their upbringing together.
4,1 For this James was Joseph’s son by Joseph’s < first > wife, not by Mary, as I have said in many other places and dealt with more clearly for you. (2) And moreover I find that he was of Davidic descent because of being Joseph’s son, < and > that he was born a nazirite—for he was Joseph’s first-born, and (thus) consecrated. And I have found further that he also functioned as (high)-priest in the ancient priesthood. (3) Thus he was permitted to enter the Holy of Holies once a year, as scripture says the Law directed the high priests to do. For many before me—Eusebius, Clement and others—have reported this of him. (4) He was allowed to wear the priestly tablet besides, as the trustworthy authors I mentioned have testified in those same historical writings.

Epiphanius must have read at least Eusebius, where he could have encountered the quote of Hegesippus. The only other source mentioned by name here is Clement, who is also mentioned by Eusebius. The quote of Hegesippus may have been part of what informed the reference here to entering "the Holy of Holies," since that quote says that "He alone was permitted to enter into the holy place" and "he was in the habit of entering alone into the temple." The reference to being a "nazirite" in those words isn't found in the quote of Hegesippus, but the content of this assertion is found in the references that are there, i.e. "and he drank no wine nor strong drink" and especially "No razor came upon his head" (cf. Numbers 6:1-6). It's possible that other sources may also have spoken about James entering the holy place of the temple (Epiphanius claims as much). However, the part about James having what appeared to be nazirite vows (even though this detail isn't very widely reported about James) and the reference here to Eusebius make it likely that Epiphanius was aware of the quote of Hegesippus there when writing this.

These are a couple examples where it is possible to reason about whether a source on James is in a literary relationship with the Hegesippus quote about the death of James, even though Hegesippus isn't mentioned explicitly or quoted as such. They can show the kind of reasoning that I would employ to argue that there was such a literary relationship; implicitly, they can reveal to some extent when I would not be able to conclude this.

[Peter Kirby]

Ben Smith created an "Origen on Josephus" page once, which may be an interesting reference.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210616020 ... igjos.html

He calls these "elements" of these passsages:

A. Paul on the brother of the Lord.
B. The justice of James.
C. Josephus and the Antiquities.
D. Demonstrating or seeking the cause.
E. On account of James.
F. Not believing in or accepting Jesus as Christ.
G. On account of Jesus.
H. Concerning the ancientness of the Jews.

And presents these extracts:

Origen, On Matthew 10.17.

[A] Ἰάκωβος δὲ ἐστιν οὗτος ὃν λέγει Παῦλος ἰδεῖν ἐν τῆ πρὸς Γαλάτας ἐπιστολῇ, εἰπών· Ἕτερον δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εἶδον εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου. [B1] ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον δὲ διέλεμψεν οὖτος ὁ Ἰάκωβος ἐν τῷ λαῷ ἐπὶ δικαιοσύνη [C] ὡς Φλάβιον Ἰώσηπον ἀναγράψαντα ἐν εἴκοσι βιβλίοις τὴν Ἰουδαϊκὴν ἀρχαιολογίαν, [D] τὴν αἰτίαν παραστῆσαι βουλόμενον τοῦ τὰ τοσαῦτα πεπονθέναι τὸν λαὸν ὡς καὶ τὸν ναὸν κατασκαφῆναι, [E1] εἰρηκέναι κατὰ μῆνιν θεοῦ ταῦτα αὐτοῖς ἀπηντηκέναι διὰ τὰ εἰς Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ ὑπ᾿ αὐτῶν τετολμημένα. [F] καὶ τὸ θαυμαστόν ἐστιν ὅτι, τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἡμῶν οὐ καταδεξάμενος εἶναι Χριστόν, [B2] οὐδὲν ἧττον Ἰακώβῳ δικαιοσύνην ἐμαρτύρησε τοσαύτην. [E2] λέγει δὲ ὅτι καὶ ὁ λαὸς ταῦτα ἐνόμιζε διὰ τὸν Ἰάκωβον πεπονθέναι.

[A] But James is this one whom Paul says that he saw in the epistle to the Galatians, saying: But I did not see any of the other apostles except James the brother of the Lord. [B1] And in such a way among the people did this James shine for his justice [C] that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the Judaic Antiquities in twenty books, [D] wishing to demonstrate the cause why the people suffered such great things that even the temple was razed down, [E1] 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. [F] And the wondrous thing is that, although he did not accept our Jesus to be Christ, [B2] he yet testified that the justice of James was not at all small; [E2] and he says that even the people supposed they had suffered these things on account of James.

Against Celsus 1.16.

[H] Δυνατὸν γὰρ τὸν βουλόμενον ἀναγνῶναι τὰ γεγραμμένα Φλαυίῳ Ἰωσήπῳ περὶ τῆς τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἀρχαιότητος ἐν δυσίν, ὅπου πολλὴν συναγωγὴν συγγραφέων φέρει μαρτυρούντων τῇ Ἰουδαίων ἀρχαιότητι.

[H] For it is possible for the one who wishes [to do so] to read the writings of Flavius Josephus concerning the ancientness of the Jews, in two [books], where he produces a great collection of historians who testify to the ancientness of the Jews.

Origen, Against Celsus 1.47.

[C] Ἐν γὰρ τῷ ὀκτωκαιδεκάτῳ τῆς Ἰουδαϊκῆς ἀρχαιολογίας ὁ Ἰώσηπος μαρτυρεῖ τῷ Ἰωάννῃ ὡς βαπτιστῇ γεγενημένῳ καὶ καθάρσιον τοῖς βαπτισαμένοις ἐπαγγελλομένῳ. [F] ὁ δ᾿ αὐτός, καίτοι γε ἀπιστῶν τῷ Ἰησοῦ ὡς Χριστῷ, [D] ζητῶν τὴν αἰτίαν τῆς τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων πτώσεως καὶ τῆς τοῦ ναοῦ καθαιρέσεως, [G1] δέον αὐτὸν εἰπεῖν ὅτι ἡ κατὰ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἐπιβουλὴ τούτων αἰτία γέγονε τῷ λαῷ, ἐπεὶ ἀπέκτειναν τὸν προφητευόμενον Χριστόν, [E1] ὁ δὲ καὶ ὥσπερ ἄκων οὐ μακρὰν τῆς ἀληθείας γενόμενός φησι ταῦτα συμβεβηκέναι τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις κατ᾿ ἐκδίκησιν Ἰακώβου τοῦ δικαίου, ὃς ἦν ἀδελφὸς Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ, [B1] ἐπειδήπερ δικαιότατον αὐτὸν ὄντα ἀπέκτειναν. [A] τὸν δὲ Ἰάκωβον τοῦτον ὁ Ἰησοῦ γνήσιος μαθητὴς Παῦλός φησιν ἑωρακέναι ὡς ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου, οὐ τοσοῦτον διὰ τὸ πρὸς αἵματος συγγενὲς ἢ τὴν κοινὴν αὐτῶν ἀνατροφὴν ὅσον διὰ τὸ ἦθος καὶ τὸν λόγον. [E2] εἴπερ οὖν διὰ Ἰάκωβον λέγει συμβεβηκέναι τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις τὰ κατὰ τὴν ἐρήμωσιν τῆς Ἱερουσαλήμ, [G2] πῶς οὐχὶ εὐλογώτερον διὰ Ἰησοῦν τὸν Χριστὸν τοῦτο φάσκειν γεγονέναι;

[C] For in the eighteenth volume of the Judaic Antiquities Josephus testifies to John as having been a baptist and promised cleansing to those who were baptized. [F] But he himself, though not believing in Jesus as Christ, [D] in seeking the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, [G1] 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, [E1] 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, [B1] since they killed him who was most just. [A] Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he saw this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood or of their common upbringing as on account of his ethics and speech. [E2] If, therefore, he says that the things surrounding the desolation of Jerusalem befell the Jews on account of James, [G2] how is it not more reasonable to say that it happened on account of Jesus the Christ?

Origen, Against Celsus 2.13.

Origen, Against Celsus 2.13.
[E1] Τοῦτο γὰρ ἤρξατο μὲν ἔτι Νέρωνος βασιλεύοντος, παρέτεινε δὲ ἕως τῆς Οὐεσπασιανοῦ ἡγεμονίας, οὗ ὁ υἱὸς Τίτος καθεῖλε τὴν Ἱερουσαλήμ, [C] ὡς μὲν Ἰώσηπος γράφει, [E2] διὰ Ἰάκωβον τὸν δίκαιον, τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ, [G] ὡς δὲ ἡ ἀλήθεια παρίστησι, διὰ Ἰησοῦν τὸν Χριστὸν τοῦ θεοῦ.

[E1] For this [siege] began while Nero was still being king, and it lasted until the leadership of Vespasian, whose son Titus destroyed Jerusalem, [C] as Josephus writes, [E2] on account of James the just, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, [G] but, as the truth demonstrates, [actually] on account of Jesus the Christ of God.

Against Celsus 4.11.

[H] Καὶ ὁ βουλόμενός γε ἀναγνώτω τὰ Φλαυΐου Ἰωσήπου περὶ τῆς Ἰουδαίων ἀρχαιότητος δύο βιβλία, ἵνα γνῷ τίνα τρόπον ἀρχαιότερος ἦν Μωϋσῆς τῶν κατὰ χρόνων μακρὰς περιόδους κατακλυσμοὺς καὶ ἐκπυρώσεις φησάντων γίνεσθαι ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ.

[H] And let the one who wishes [to do so] read the two books of Flavius Josephus concerning the ancientness of the Jews, in order that he might know in what way Moses was more ancient than those who say that over long periods of time cataclysms and conflagrations happen in the world.

Ben Smith then has another page on verbal correspondences here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20210427105 ... ephus.html

"Here I lay out the verbal overlaps between these Origenic passages on Josephus. I have divided each passage up according to the scheme detailed on my analytic text page. Any and all verbal overlaps are either italicized, if the overlap is an agreement between two passages, or boldfaced, if it is an agreement between three. Furthermore, I have underlined all agreements between these Origenic texts and the extant text of Josephus, Antiquities 20.9.1 §200, concerning James the brother of Jesus. Accompanying each pair or trio of passages is a simple list, in English translation, of the overlapping words." (you may want to refer to the archived webpage, as his tables are better formatted than mine)

A. Paul on the brother of the Lord:

James, this, Paul, brother of the Lord.

On Matthew 10.17. 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.

Against Celsus 1.47. Τον δε Ιακωβον τουτον ο Ιησου γνησιος μαθητης Παυλος φησιν εωρακεναι ως αδελφον του κυριου, ου τοσουτον δια το προς αιματος συγγενες η την κοινην αυτων ανατροφην οσον δια το ηθος και τον λογον.

B. The justice of James:

Just(ice)

On Matthew 10.17. Επι τοσουτον δε διελεμψεν ουτος ο Ιακωβος εν τω λαω επι δικαιοσυνη.... ...ουδεν ηττον Ιακωβω δικαιοσυνην εμαρτυρησε τοσαυτην.

Against Celsus 1.47. ...επειδηπερ δικαιοτατον αυτον οντα απεκτειναν.

C. Josephus and the Antiquities:

Josephus, in, write(s), the Judaic Antiquities. (and also testifies)

Nota bene: the parallel in wording between "ουδεν ηττον Ιακωβω δικαιοσυνην εμαρτυρησε τοσαυτην" in On Matthew 10.17 and "ο Ιωσηπος μαρτυρει τω Ιωαννη ως βαπτιστη" in Against Celsus 1.47 was omitted by Ben.

On Matthew 10.17. ...ως Φλαβιον Ιωσηπον αναγραψαντα εν εικοσι βιβλιοις την Ιουδαικην αρχαιολογιαν.

Against Celsus 1.47. Εν γαρ τω οκτωκαιδεκατω της Ιουδαικης αρχαιολογιας ο Ιωσηπος μαρτυρει τω Ιωαννη ως βαπτιστη γεγενημενω και καθαρσιον τοις βαπτισαμενοις επαγγελλομενω.

Against Celsus 2.13. ...ως μεν Ιωσηπος γραφει....

D. Demonstrating or seeking the cause:

The cause of, and, the temple, down.

On Matthew 10.17. ...την αιτιαν παραστησαι βουλομενον του τα τοσαυτα πεπονθεναι τον λαον ως και τον ναον κατασκαφηναι....

Against Celsus 1.47. ...ζητων την αιτιαν της των Ιεροσολυμων πτωσεως και της του ναου καθαιρεσεως....

E and G. On account of James and of Jesus:

Jerusalem, these things, to them, on account of James, the just, the brother of Jesus who is called Christ, on account of Jesus the Christ.

On Matthew 10.17. ...ειρηκεναι κατα μηνιν θεου ταυτα αυτοις απηντηκεναι δια τα εις Ιακωβον τον αδελφον Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου υπ αυτων τετολμημενα.... λεγει δε οτι και ο λαος ταυτα ενομιζε δια τον Ιακωβον πεπονθεναι.

Against Celsus 1.47. ...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.... ειπερ ουν δια Ιακωβον λεγει συμβεβηκεναι τοις Ιουδαιοις τα κατα την ερημωσιν της Ιερουσαλημ, πως ουχι ευλογωτερον δια Ιησουν τον Χριστον τουτο φασκειν γεγονεναι;

Against Celsus 2.13. Τουτο γαρ ηρξατο μεν ετι Νερωνος βασιλευοντος, παρετεινε δε εως της Ουεσπασιανου ηγεμονιας, ου ο υιος Τιτος καθειλε την Ιερουσαλημ... δια Ιακωβον τον δικαιον, τον αδελφον Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου ως δε η αληθεια παριστησι, δια Ιησουν τον Χριστον του θεου.

F. Not believing in or accepting Jesus as Christ:

Jesus, Christ.

On Matthew 10.17. Και το θαυμαστον εστιν οτι, τον Ιησουν ημων ου καταδεξαμενος ειναι Χριστον....

Against Celsus 1.47. Ο δ αυτος, καιτοι γε απιστων τω Ιησου ως Χριστω....

H. Concerning the ancientness of the Jews:

The one who wishes, read the, Flavius Josephus, concerning the ancientness of the Jews, two, ancient.

Against Celsus 1.16. Δυνατον γαρ τον βουλομενον αναγνωναι τα γεγραμμενα Φλαυιω Ιωσηπω περι της των Ιουδαιων αρχαιοτητος εν δυσιν, οπου πολλην συναγωγην συγγραφεων φερει μαρτυρουντων τη Ιουδαιων αρχαιοτητι.

Against Celsus 4.11. Και ο βουλομενος γε αναγνωτω τα Φλαυιου Ιωσηπου περι της Ιουδαιων αρχαιοτητος δυο βιβλια, ινα γνω τινα τροπον αρχαιοτερος ην Μωυσης των κατα χρονων μακρας περιοδους κατακλυσμους και εκπυρωσεις φησαντων γινεσθαι εν τω κοσμω.