Origen 1, Scholars 0

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Origen 1, Scholars 0

Post by Peter Kirby »

Giuseppe wrote:Some Objection.

The phrase that Peter put in bold here:
And now Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, became the successor of Jesus, the son of Damneus, in the high priesthood, which the king had taken from the other; on which account a sedition arose between the high priests, with regard to one another; for they got together bodies of the boldest sort of the people, and frequently came, from reproaches, to throwing of stones at each other. But Ananias was too hard for the rest, by his riches, which enabled him to gain those that were most ready to receive. Costobarus also, and Saulus, did themselves get together a multitude of wicked wretches, and this because they were of the royal family; and so they obtained favor among them, because of their kindred to Agrippa; but still they used violence with the people, and were very ready to plunder those that were weaker than themselves. And from that time it principally came to pass that our city was greatly disordered, and that all things grew worse and worse among us.
may well describe simply the effect of immediately previous fact (in original Josephus'logic):
Costobarus also, and Saulus, did themselves get together a multitude of wicked wretches, and this because they were of the royal family; and so they obtained favor among them, because of their kindred to Agrippa; but still they used violence with the people, and were very ready to plunder those that were weaker than themselves.
So it would be very forced for Origen to derive his loved causal link ''James/Fall of Jerusalem'' from more lilely Josephus link ''Costobarus & Saul/Fall of Jerusalem''.
1) Your interpretation of Josephus is not nearly as good as you think. Both yours and Origen's is 'very forced' and very motivated.

2) There are also earlier comments than this in the text about the disorder occuring (with the sicarii growing in number), and you have completely skipped over the logic of the passage itself (it was the appointment of Jesus son of Gamaliel, in the immediate context, that led to 'sedition').

3) Even if you are right about Josephus, it's all but completely irrelevant. Josephus was dead for 100 years by the time of Origen. The question of this thread is how Origen could have read the text, which is not necessarily how Josephus himself understood the text.

4) You say that Origen interpolated 'called Christ'. It is within the realm of possibility, but the famous phrase really applies here, "it creates more problems than it solves." There's nothing wrong with anyone else who was around to work with the manuscripts in the 2nd/3rd century making this speculative leap. Origen is no more likely than anyone else to have done so, and it explains his ostensible certitude and offense at Josephus better if he hadn't literally put words in his mouth (in more than one meaning).

5) Yes, Origen could have been familiar (before Josephus) with the idea that the death of James was connected with the fall of Jerusalem, although he may or may not have read Hegesippus in order to arrive at such an idea (nor should Hegesippus be assumed its inventor--or, see below, even its tradent).

6) It's amazing that people are so hungry for implausibilities here, scholars and lay included. This is not a very complex or involved matter, once someone has actually read the full passage, read Origen, and tried to understand Origen's perspective. It should not excite us to all these various hypotheses of how the text was altered by this person or in that manner or what was excised or added, et cetera. All of this is completely unnecessary (apart from the interpolation of the reference to "Christ," which can indeed be demonstrated).

7) There are some interesting things occurring in the text of Josephus, as the OP and some of my posts have mentioned, but we ignore them because we're all too excited by the interpolated appearance of "Christ" and so on. It's a very tight, causally-connected narrative that leads from the removal of the younger Ananus to the various circumstances that lead to the disorderly affairs that precipitate the revolt. Josephus also links Ananus to the destruction of the city in the Jewish War, though there he emphasizes his death and not his ousting from office (Jewish War 4.318 - "I should not mistake if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city"). In either case, it is the power vacuum left by the loss of control experienced by Ananus that is the immediate/final cause of all the trouble, in the narrative of Josephus.

8) So, no, Josephus doesn't himself connect the death of this "James" to the destruction of the city. That connection can have been made only by a Christian who had read the Antiquities with their own biases firmly in mind, transferring the importance of Ananus and his removal from office to the more-or-less flimsy random circumstance that led to that removal, the execution of a "James" (which in later manuscripts became identified as the brother of Jesus 'called Christ').
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Origen 1, Scholars 0

Post by Peter Kirby »

Thank you for copying this quotation here. The primary touch of similarity is "the Just" and that the people held him to be just. And there's a martyrdom and a connection with the Temple (so far, most of this can be found, highly abbreviated, in Clement of Alexandria's remark also). There also happens to be a reference to the siege of Vespasian, which has itself been misinterpreted in agreement with Eusebian redactional aims by most subsequent readers.

Notably, Hegesippus does not say what Origen says as Origen's most important point here in this context (although they do of course agree in calling James "the just," as do many other texts of the second and third centuries). It is only Eusebius, expanding on Hegesippus after quoting Hegesippus, who says what Origen says. Should we not then conclude that it is Eusebius who is getting this interpretation instead from Origen, who actually says this (unlike Hegesippus, who does not say this in the quote)? We shall see that it is all but completely certain, below.
Hegesippus wrote: ...... Because of his exceeding great justice he was called the Just, and Oblias, which signifies in Greek, 'Bulwark of the people' and 'Justice,' ............... we bear you witness, as do all the people, that you are just ............. You just one, in whom we ought all to have confidence ............. The just man ............. James the Just.' And they began to stone him, for he was not killed by the fall; but he turned and knelt down and said, 'I entreat you, Lord God our Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.' 17. And while they were thus stoning him one of the priests of the sons of Rechab, the son of the Rechabites, who are mentioned by Jeremiah the prophet, cried out, saying, 'Stop. What are you doing? The just one prays for you.' 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.
Remember, from the other thread, that this is in accordance with a tradition that James was entering the temple during the Jewish revolt. Which is not at all the same thing as saying that the destruction of Jerusalem was because of the death of James.

Not least because, once the war/revolt was set in motion, the siege by the Romans was completely assured. And Hegesippus mentions the siege of Vespasian as following after the death of James--he does not mention the destruction of Jerusalem as happening on account of the death of James. Recall that 'Hegesippus' is writing in 5 books. Temporal sequence is going to be part of his narrative, so we shouldn't interpret this last sentence as the 'conclusion' of this passage but rather as the introduction to additional discussion of the Jewish war, which discussion must have been already underway by the time it came to discuss James and his death (which was in the middle of the Jewish war, since the siege of Jerusalem by Vespasian was not the first development of that war, and since James was acting in the temple, which would not have been possible before Ananus and the other high priests / former high priests were dead or driven out of the city).

In short, not only have we failed to read Josephus/Origen very closely, we have also failed to read Hegesippus closely.... I really do believe that this whole misunderstanding of the situation here (by far too many scholars to be excusable) has been motivated primarily by shoddy "reasoning from excerpts" (considered crudely and in isolation) and not a close study of the authors involved, their motivations, and the context of these excerpts.

I will admit that I was guilty of it also, but those who are putting out journal articles (please do not understand that I have you in mind--I love your articles, Ken) should really be more attentive to the details.
Eusebius wrote:These things are related at length by Hegesippus, who is in agreement with Clement. James was so admirable a man and so celebrated among all for his justice, that the more sensible even of the Jews were of the opinion that this was the cause of the siege of Jerusalem, which happened to them immediately after his martyrdom for no other reason than their daring act against him
All of this is Eusebius, who read Origen. Indeed Eusebius read Origen with such enthusiasm, that he took it for certain that Origen's paraphrase from memory must have been an exact quotation of Josephus, and he retroverted the words of Origen as a quotation of Josephus.

Indeed, that we can understand Eusebius to be touched by his reading of Origen here, is indicated by no less firm a fact that he immediately proceeds from making this comment after the passage of Hegesippus to making his retroverted quotation from Origen into the mouth of Josephus.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250102.htm
19. These things are related at length by Hegesippus, who is in agreement with Clement. James was so admirable a man and so celebrated among all for his justice, that the more sensible even of the Jews were of the opinion that this was the cause of the siege of Jerusalem, which happened to them immediately after his martyrdom for no other reason than their daring act against him.

20. Josephus, at least, has not hesitated to testify this in his writings, where he says, These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the Christ. For the Jews slew him, although he was a most just man.
Indeed, we should no longer read the sentence "James was so admirable a man..." as being a statement commenting so much on the passage of Hegesippus as it is a comment on the quote to come from Josephus (see why I say that scholarship has been overly influenced by abruptly terminated excerpts?), which says exactly what Eusebius wants Josephus to say, and which is based on Origen. This is made clear by the fact that Eusebius connects the phrases "the more sensible even of the Jews" and "Josephus, at least." We can thus format the paragraph as follows instead:
James was so admirable a man and so celebrated among all for his justice, that the more sensible even of the Jews were of the opinion that this was the cause of the siege of Jerusalem, which happened to them immediately after his martyrdom for no other reason than their daring act against him. Josephus, at least, has not hesitated to testify this in his writings, where he says, These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the Christ. For the Jews slew him, although he was a most just man.
This is coming from Origen, Against Celsus 1.47:
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
And this comes from Origen's own reference to Josephus from memory, which was of course tainted by his belief in James as 'the just'.

And so the irony is:

We, fools that we are, have read the idea of the destruction of Jerusalem on account of the death of James into Hegesippus though it is not present in the quote of Hegesippus, because that is found in Eusebius, because he read it in Origen, because he thought he could find it in Josephus. Mercy! And then we constructed this idea that Origen must have read Hegesippus instead when forming this idea (not Josephus whom he mentions), which might make more sense if Origen could also read Eusebius afterwards (the way we do) in order to get the 'real meaning' of the quote of Hegesippus, which is of course impossible (since it is Eusebius who has read Origen, not the other way around).

I really do wish I had put a pause on the O.P. so that I could have made all this more explicit, but it does lead to a more lively thread I suppose.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Origen 1, Scholars 0

Post by MrMacSon »

Peter Kirby wrote:2) There are also earlier comments than this in the text about the disorder occurring (with the sicarii growing in number), and you have completely skipped over the logic of the passage itself (it was the appointment of Jesus son of Gamaliel, in the immediate context, that led to 'sedition').
It would be interesting to know whether the "throwing of stones at each other" was literal or figurative ...
Antiquities 20
And now Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, became the successor of Jesus, the son of Damneus, in the high priesthood, which the king had taken from the other; on which account a sedition arose between the high priests, with regard to one another; for they got together bodies of the boldest sort of the people, and frequently came, from reproaches, to throwing of stones at each other.
Peter Kirby wrote:3) Even if you are right about Josephus, it's all but completely irrelevant. Josephus was dead for 100 years by the time of Origen. The question of this thread is how Origen could have read the text, which is not necessarily how Josephus himself understood the text.

4) You say that Origen interpolated 'called Christ'. It is within the realm of possibility, but the famous phrase really applies here, "it creates more problems than it solves." ... Origen is no more likely than anyone else to have done so, and it explains his ostensible certitude and offense at Josephus better if he hadn't literally put words in his mouth (in more than one meaning).
What about Origen's successor Pamphilus, or Pamphilus's successor, Eusebius?

I think these are good points here re the bigger picture -
Peter Kirby wrote:7) There are some interesting things occurring in the text of Josephus, as the OP and some of my posts have mentioned, but we ignore them because we're all too excited by the interpolated appearance of "Christ" and so on. It's a very tight, causally-connected narrative that leads from the removal of the younger Ananus to the various circumstances that lead to the disorderly affairs that precipitate the revolt. Josephus also links Ananus to the destruction of the city in the Jewish War, though there he emphasizes his death and not his ousting from office (Jewish War 4.318 - "I should not mistake if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city". In either case, it is the power vacuum left by the loss of control experienced by Ananus that is the immediate/final cause of all the trouble, in the narrative of Josephus.

8) ... Josephus doesn't himself connect the death of this "James" to the destruction of the city. That connection can have been made only by a Christian who had read the Antiquities with their own biases firmly in mind, transferring the importance of Ananus and his removal from office to the more-or-less flimsy random circumstance that led to that removal, the execution of a "James" (which in later manuscripts became identified as the brother of Jesus 'called Christ').
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Origen 1, Scholars 0

Post by MrMacSon »

Peter Kirby wrote: Remember, from the other thread, that this is in accordance with a tradition that James was entering the temple during the Jewish revolt. Which is not at all the same thing as saying that the destruction of Jerusalem was because of the death of James.

Not least because, once the war/revolt was set in motion, the siege by the Romans was completely assured. And Hegesippus mentions the siege as following after, not the destruction of the Temple/Jerusalem as happening on account of James. Recall that 'Hegesippus' is writing in 5 books. Temporal sequence is going to be part of his narrative, so we shouldn't interpret this last sentence as the 'conclusion' of this passage but rather as the introduction to additional discussion of the Jewish war ...

This post has been a good read.

just to clarify

  • a. Hegesippus mentions the siege as following after, not [during] the destruction of the Temple/Jerusalem as happening on account of James??
    ... or
    b. Hegesippus mentions the siege as following after, not [before[ the destruction of the Temple/Jerusalem as happening on account of James??
[/list]

and re
Peter Kirby wrote:
Notably, Hegesippus does not say what Origen says as his most important point here in this context (although they do of course agree in calling James "the just," as do many other texts of the second and third centuries). It is only Eusebius, expanding on Hegesippus after quoting Hegesippus, who says what Origen says. Should we not then conclude that it is Eusebius who is getting this interpretation instead from Origen, who actually says this (unlike Hegesippus, who does not say this in the quote)? We shall see that it is all but completely certain, below.

Hegesippus wrote: ...... Because of his exceeding great justice he was called the Just, and Oblias, which signifies in Greek, 'Bulwark of the people' and 'Justice,' ............... we bear you witness, as do all the people, that you are just ............. You just one, in whom we ought all to have confidence ............. The just man ............. James the Just.' And they began to stone him, for he was not killed by the fall; but he turned and knelt down and said, 'I entreat you, Lord God our Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.' 17. And while they were thus stoning him one of the priests of the sons of Rechab, the son of the Rechabites, who are mentioned by Jeremiah the prophet, cried out, saying, 'Stop. What are you doing? The just one prays for you.' 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.
"Hegesippus does not say what Origen says as his [Hegesippus's] most important point here in this context" ??


and, back to the beginning of the post -
Peter Kirby wrote: Remember, from the other thread, that this is in accordance with[/color] a tradition that James was entering the temple during the Jewish revolt.[/color] Which is not at all the same thing as saying that the destruction of Jerusalem was because of the death of James.
Though we don't really know which James (??) he asks tentatively ...
.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Mon May 11, 2015 6:03 pm, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Origen 1, Scholars 0

Post by Peter Kirby »

Since they have been quoted piecemeal so far, this quote will gather together some of the relevant quotations for study.

(References in secondary literature that I have found have put these statements in this chronological order. Which includes the idea that the Commentary on Matthew came before Against Celsus for Origen.)

Antiquities 20.9.1-6 ('textus receptus', Whiston's translation)
1. AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. 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 of judges, 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.

2. Now as soon as Albinus was come to the city of Jerusalem, he used all his endeavors and care that the country might be kept in peace, and this by destroying many of the Sicarii. But as for the high priest, Ananias (25) he increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money: he therefore cultivated the friendship of Albinus, and of the high priest [Jesus], by making them presents; he also had servants who were very wicked, who joined themselves to the boldest sort of the people, and went to the thrashing-floors, and took away the tithes that belonged to the priests by violence, and did not refrain from beating such as would not give these tithes to them. So the other high priests acted in the like manner, as did those his servants, without any one being able to prohibit them; so that [some of the] priests, that of old were wont to be supported with those tithes, died for want of food.

3. But now the Sicarii went into the city by night, just before the festival, which was now at hand, and took the scribe belonging to the governor of the temple, whose name was Eleazar, who was the son of Ananus [Ananias] the high priest, and bound him, and carried him away with them; after which they sent to Ananias, and said that they would send the scribe to him, if he would persuade Albinus to release ten of those prisoners which he had caught of their party; so Ananias was plainly forced to persuade Albinus, and gained his request of him. This was the beginning of greater calamities; for the robbers perpetually contrived to catch some of Ananias's servants; and when they had taken them alive, they would not let them go, till they thereby recovered some of their own Sicarii. And as they were again become no small number, they grew bold, and were a great affliction to the whole country.

4. About this time it was that king Agrippa built Cesarea Philippi larger than it was before, and, in honor of Nero, named it Neronlas. And when he had built a theater at Berytus, with vast expenses, he bestowed on them shows, to be exhibited every year, and spent therein many ten thousand [drachmae]; he also gave the people a largess of corn, and distributed oil among them, and adorned the entire city with statues of his own donation, and with original images made by ancient hands; nay, he almost transferred all that was most ornamental in his own kingdom thither. This made him more than ordinarily hated by his subjects, because he took those things away that belonged to them to adorn a foreign city. And now Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, became the successor of Jesus, the son of Damneus, in the high priesthood, which the king had taken from the other; on which account a sedition arose between the high priests, with regard to one another; for they got together bodies of the boldest sort of the people, and frequently came, from reproaches, to throwing of stones at each other. But Ananias was too hard for the rest, by his riches, which enabled him to gain those that were most ready to receive. Costobarus also, and Saulus, did themselves get together a multitude of wicked wretches, and this because they were of the royal family; and so they obtained favor among them, because of their kindred to Agrippa; but still they used violence with the people, and were very ready to plunder those that were weaker than themselves. And from that time it principally came to pass that our city was greatly disordered, and that all things grew worse and worse among us.

5. But when Albinus heard that Gessius Florus was coming to succeed him, he was desirous to appear to do somewhat that might be grateful to the people of Jerusalem; so he brought out all those prisoners who seemed to him to be most plainly worthy of death, and ordered them to be put to death accordingly. But as to those who had been put into prison on some trifling occasions, he took money of them, and dismissed them; by which means the prisons were indeed emptied, but the country was filled with robbers.

6. Now as many of the Levites, (26) which is a tribe of ours, as were singers of hymns, persuaded the king to assemble a sanhedrim, and to give them leave to wear linen garments, as well as the priests for they said that this would be a work worthy the times of his government, that he might have a memorial of such a novelty, as being his doing. Nor did they fail of obtaining their desire; for the king, with the suffrages of those that came into the sanhedrim, granted the singers of hymns this privilege, that they might lay aside their former garments, and wear such a linen one as they desired; and as a part of this tribe ministered in the temple, he also permitted them to learn those hymns as they had besought him for. Now all this was contrary to the laws of our country, which, whenever they have been transgressed, we have never been able to avoid the punishment of such transgressions.
'Hegesippus', 'Memoirs' (quoted in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 2.23.3-19a)
The manner of James' death has been already indicated by the above-quoted words of Clement, who records that he was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple, and was beaten to death with a club. But Hegesippus, who lived immediately after the apostles, gives the most accurate account in the fifth book of his Memoirs. He writes as follows: 4. James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles. He has been called the Just by all from the time of our Saviour to the present day; for there were many that bore the name of James. 5. He was holy from his mother's womb; and he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat flesh. No razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, and he did not use the bath. 6. He alone was permitted to enter into the holy place; for he wore not woolen but linen garments. And he was in the habit of entering alone into the temple, and was frequently found upon his knees begging forgiveness for the people, so that his knees became hard like those of a camel, in consequence of his constantly bending them in his worship of God, and asking forgiveness for the people. 7. Because of his exceeding great justice he was called the Just, and Oblias, which signifies in Greek, 'Bulwark of the people' and 'Justice,' in accordance with what the prophets declare concerning him. 8. Now some of the seven sects, which existed among the people and which have been mentioned by me in the Memoirs, asked him, 'What is the gate of Jesus?' and he replied that he was the Saviour. 9. On account of these words some believed that Jesus is the Christ. But the sects mentioned above did not believe either in a resurrection or in one's coming to give to every man according to his works. But as many as believed did so on account of James. 10. Therefore when many even of the rulers believed, there was a commotion among the Jews and Scribes and Pharisees, who said that there was danger that the whole people would be looking for Jesus as the Christ. Coming therefore in a body to James they said, 'We entreat you, restrain the people; for they are gone astray in regard to Jesus, as if he were the Christ. We entreat you to persuade all that have come to the feast of the Passover concerning Jesus; for we all have confidence in you. For we bear you witness, as do all the people, that you are just, and do not respect persons. 11. Therefore, persuade the multitude not to be led astray concerning Jesus. For the whole people, and all of us also, have confidence in you. Stand therefore upon the pinnacle of the temple, that from that high position you may be clearly seen, and that your words may be readily heard by all the people. For all the tribes, with the Gentiles also, have come together on account of the Passover.' 12. The aforesaid Scribes and Pharisees therefore placed James upon the pinnacle of the temple, and cried out to him and said: 'You just one, in whom we ought all to have confidence, forasmuch as the people are led astray after Jesus, the crucified one, declare to us, what is the gate of Jesus.' 13. And he answered with a loud voice, 'Why do you ask me concerning Jesus, the Son of Man? He himself sits in heaven at the right hand of the great Power, and is about to come upon the clouds of heaven.' 14. And when many were fully convinced and gloried in the testimony of James, and said, 'Hosanna to the Son of David,' these same Scribes and Pharisees said again to one another, 'We have done badly in supplying such testimony to Jesus. But let us go up and throw him down, in order that they may be afraid to believe him.' 15. And they cried out, saying, 'Oh! Oh! The just man is also in error.' And they fulfilled the Scripture written in Isaiah, 'Let us take away the just man, because he is troublesome to us: therefore they shall eat the fruit of their doings.' 16. So they went up and threw down the just man, and said to each other, 'Let us stone James the Just.' And they began to stone him, for he was not killed by the fall; but he turned and knelt down and said, 'I entreat you, Lord God our Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.' 17. And while they were thus stoning him one of the priests of the sons of Rechab, the son of the Rechabites, who are mentioned by Jeremiah the prophet, cried out, saying, 'Stop. What are you doing? The just one prays for you.' 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. 19. These things are related at length by Hegesippus, who is in agreement with Clement.
Clement of Alexandria, Hypotyposes (quoted by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 2.1.4)
But the same writer, in the seventh book of the same work, relates also the following things concerning him: The Lord after his resurrection imparted knowledge to James the Just and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one. But there were two Jameses: one called the Just, who was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple and was beaten to death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded. Paul also makes mention of the same James the Just, where he writes, Other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
Origen, Commentary on Matthew 10.17.
"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."
Origen, Against Celsus 1.47.
"Now this writer [Josephus], 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. If, then, he says that it was on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason to say that it happened on account (of the death) of Jesus Christ, of whose divinity so many Churches are witnesses, composed of those who have been convened from a flood of sins, and who have joined themselves to the Creator, and who refer all their actions to His good pleasure."
Origen, Against Celsus 2.13.
But let this Jew of Celsus, who does not believe that He foreknew all that happened to Him, consider how, while Jerusalem was still standing, and the whole Jewish worship celebrated in it, Jesus foretold what would befall it from the hand of the Romans. For they will not maintain that the acquaintances and pupils of Jesus Himself handed down His teaching contained in the Gospels without committing it to writing, and left His disciples without the memoirs of Jesus contained in their works. Now in these it is recorded, that when you shall see Jerusalem compassed about with armies, then shall you know that the desolation thereof is near. But at that time there were no armies around Jerusalem, encompassing and enclosing and besieging it; for the siege began in the reign of Nero, and lasted till the government of Vespasian, whose son Titus destroyed Jerusalem, on account, as Josephus says, of James the Just, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, but in reality, as the truth makes clear, on account of Jesus Christ the Son of God.
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.23.19b-22 (quoting his invented quotation, from Origen, and also Josephus, with the minor interpolation)
"James was so admirable a man and so celebrated among all for his justice, that the more sensible even of the Jews were of the opinion that this was the cause of the siege of Jerusalem, which happened to them immediately after his martyrdom for no other reason than their daring act against him. Josephus, at least, has not hesitated to testify this in his writings, where he says, 'These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the Christ. For the Jews slew him, although he was a most just man.' And the same writer records his death also in the twentieth book of his Antiquities in the following words: 'But the emperor, when he learned of the death of Festus, sent Albinus to be procurator of Judea. But the younger Ananus, who, as we have already said, had obtained the high priesthood, was of an exceedingly bold and reckless disposition. He belonged, moreover, to the sect of the Sadducees, who are the most cruel of all the Jews in the execution of judgment, as we have already shown. Ananus, therefore, being of this character, and supposing that he had a favorable opportunity on account of the fact that Festus was dead, and Albinus was still on the way, called together the Sanhedrim, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ, James by name, together with some others, and accused them of violating the law, and condemned them to be stoned. But those in the city who seemed most moderate and skilled in the law were very angry at this, and sent secretly to the king, requesting him to order Ananus to cease such proceedings. For he had not done right even this first time. And certain of them also went to meet Albinus, who was journeying from Alexandria, and reminded him that it was not lawful for Ananus to summon the Sanhedrim without his knowledge. And Albinus, being persuaded by their representations, wrote in anger to Ananus, threatening him with punishment. And the king, Agrippa, in consequence, deprived him, of the high priesthood, which he had held threemonths, and appointed Jesus, the son of Damnaeus.'"
Eusebius, HE 3.7.7-9 (possibly informed by Hegesippus)
But it would be right to mention, too, certain facts which bring home the beneficence of all gracious providence, which for forty years after their crime against Christ delayed their destruction. All that times most of the apostles, including James himself, the first bishop of Jerusalem, known as the Lord’s brother, were still alive, and be remaining in the city furnished the place with an impregnable bulwark.
Jerome, Illustrious Men (no doubt influenced by Eusebius and/or Origen)
"Josephus records the tradition that this James was of so great sanctity and reputation among the people that the downfall of Jerusalem was believed to be on account of his death."
PS-- As for the "John" who said Josephus attributed the fall of Jerusalem to John the Baptist, it was John Chrysostom, as Roger Viklund noticed.

https://rogerviklund.wordpress.com/2011 ... so/#_edn16
John Chrysostom writes:

“The Evangelist is very full in making frequent mention of John, and often bearing about his testimony. And this he does not without a reason, but very wisely; for all the Jews held the man in great admiration, (even Josephus imputes the war to his death; and shows, that, on his account, what once was the mother city, is now no city at all, and continues the words of his encomium to great length,) and therefore desiring by his means to make the Jews ashamed, he continually reminds them of the testimony of the forerunner.” (John Chrysostom, Homily 13 on the Gospel of John)
This is referenced by way of support in general for the kind of reading that Origen made of Josephus, for those not able to see it easily without reference to other examples of such interpretation happening in antiquity.

Very interesting--despite extensive familiarity with Josephus' Antiquities and despite referencing Josephus on John the Baptist, and despite saying that Josephus attributed the fall of Jerusalem to the execution of someone else connected with Jesus but not Jesus (James the Just, John the Baptist)--neither Origen nor John Chrysostom reference or quote the passage found in our Josephus in Ant. 18 regarding Jesus.

PPS-- Out of Josephus, Hegesippus, and Clement, the author that preceded Origen that had the account that most likely informed Origen was clearly Josephus, whom Origen clearly references, even though none of them in the text that we have actually say precisely what Origen says. Once again it is completely irrelevant whether Origen were 'right' or 'wrong' in his interpretation of Josephus. The question is only how Origen arrived at his interpretation. Origen was also informed by the idea of James being 'the Just' and lauded for his justice, but he did not have to read Hegesippus to get these ideas.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Origen 1, Scholars 0

Post by Peter Kirby »

Thanks for these questions.
MrMacSon wrote:
Peter Kirby wrote:4) You say that Origen interpolated 'called Christ'. It is within the realm of possibility, but the famous phrase really applies here, "it creates more problems than it solves." ... Origen is no more likely than anyone else to have done so, and it explains his ostensible certitude and offense at Josephus better if he hadn't literally put words in his mouth (in more than one meaning).
What about Origen's successor Pamphilus, or Pamphilus's successor, Eusebius?
It is my opinion that we cause ourselves the fewest problems for understanding what Origen said if we understand that Origen had read a text of the Antiquities that had already received the scribal gloss / minor interpolation of 'called Christ'. This is also intrinsically plausible by itself (that Christian scribes when handling Josephus would have misread this Jesus/James as being Jesus Christ/James the Just the brother of the Lord), so why make matters difficult? In summary, again, the reasons are three-fold:

(1) Origen doesn't refer to James elsewhere as 'the brother of Jesus, who is called the Christ' (in fact, he shows some discomfort with the implications of such a statement for the perpetual virginity of Mary--"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"). So he is an unlikely source for making this phrase up.
(2) Origen seems to have moral certitude that Josephus "did not believe in Jesus as the Christ," which precise phrasing suggests that Origen had read Josephus as referring to "Jesus" but not "as the Christ," which of course is completely understandable if Origen's copy read "the brother of Jesus who is called Christ" (which, pace Giuseppe, is not necessarily 'Christian' and is either neutral or can indeed take on, for Origen, the reading 'so-called'). Origen implicitly corrects Josephus and says that Jesus is the Christ ("but in reality, as the truth makes clear, on account of Jesus Christ the Son of God").
(3) Origen is offended that Josephus should have referenced the death of James but not Jesus as an unjust execution, which makes sense if there were no other mention of Jesus in his Antiquities, but which requires that Origen had already read the Antiquities as referencing his Jesus (in book 20).

I don't understand why we keep prodding the bee hive of further, strained speculation here. There's nothing there but stings for us.
MrMacSon wrote:I think these are good points here re the bigger picture
Thanks.
MrMacSon wrote:It would be interesting to know whether the "throwing of stones at each other" was literal or figurative ...
frequently came, from reproaches, to throwing of stones at each other.
Looks literal to me, since it is a step above 'reproaches' (and plenty of other violence is occurring in this period).
This post has been a good read.
Thanks.
MrMacSon wrote:
And Hegesippus mentions the siege as following after, not the destruction of the Temple/Jerusalem as happening on account of James.
just to clarify
  • a. Hegesippus mentions the siege as following after, not [during] the destruction of the Temple/Jerusalem as happening on account of James??
    ... or
    b. Hegesippus mentions the siege as following after, not [before] the destruction of the Temple/Jerusalem as happening on account of James??
Neither option. To clarify:

* Hegesippus mentions the siege of Jerusalem by Vespasian as following after (temporally) the death of James.
* Hegesippus does not mention the destruction of Jerusalem as happening as punishment (causally) on account of the execution of James.

I.e., in the 5-book source of this quotation, this makes sense as connective material leading, temporally, to the next item in the narrative. It should not be treated as the 'conclusion' of the 'passage' showing the 'reason' for why Jerusalem was under siege. Any idiot knew why Jerusalem was under siege. It was under siege because they were in the middle of a war. And James 'the Just' was 'thrown from a temple' / 'beaten by a club' in the middle of that war, when he was in the habit of 'going into the temple alone', etc.

If Hegesippus wanted to say that the destruction of Jerusalem happened because of the unjust execution of James, as a punishment of God, could he not have done so more directly? By actually saying that? And, if so, would Eusebius not quote that itself? Instead of (or in addition to) quoting a made-up retroversion of a quote from Josephus, based on Origen, which appears to be the best Eusebius has (along with the last sentence interrupting his quotation of Hegesippus).
"Hegesippus does not say what Origen says as his [Hegesippus's] most important point here in this context" ??
('His'=Origen's.)

Origen says (as the most important point here in context) that Josephus says that the destruction of Jerusalem was punishment for what they had done to James the Just. That's Origen's keynote take-away here. And it is not found in Hegesippus. So why do we assume that Origen had to read Hegesippus to get this point, which is not found in Hegesippus? (Answer: we're not always that bright, and we rely on what we've heard from others about abruptly-quoted, hastily-read excerpts.)

Your last question--"which James"--tends to invite us to another distraction from the point of the thread. For Origen, the James in Ant. 20.200 is the same as the James who is the brother of the Lord and is the same as the James who is James the Just. That's what matters in this context. (In fact, I do not believe that the James mentioned in Josephus originally had -anything- to do with Christianity. The interpolation obscured the original sense.)
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Origen 1, Scholars 0

Post by Peter Kirby »

By the way... it is easy enough to understand at least Clement of Alexandria as reading """Hegesippus""" under the name of Josephus (i.e., a name actually on the manuscript), but only if we assume that "Hegesipus" is not an actual name of the author (so nobody read "works of Hegesippus" until the name changed on the manuscript from unidentified to Josephus to Hegesippus), that the original author was indeed Papias (as fits best), and that the fifth book had become separated from his five-volume work and affixed with the name of "Josephus" in a library at Alexandria (by an ignoramus, essentially), which book at least Clement read.

If so, this explains everything in a cinch, but not everyone is ready to take that step apparently, because I've received little verbal support for that thesis.

Maybe the posts where I present it are too long or don't mention the details in an appealing presentation, but here they are again:

http://peterkirby.com/putting-papias-in-order.html
http://peterkirby.com/chasing-hegesippus.html
http://peterkirby.com/that-hegesippus-was-papias.html

Under such a hypothesis, however, Origen wouldn't be "confused" (perhaps mislead, because the manuscript said it was from Josephus) and wouldn't be relying on any extra "interpolations" or "excisions" in the texts of Josephus (other than, as I have to keep qualifying, the obvious ones we know about).

It's even possible that the philological scholar Origen, with his knowledge that Josephus "did not believe in Jesus as the Christ," was responsible for correcting the name on the manuscript [of Papias' fifth book] from "Josephus" to "Hegesippus." But perhaps some first impressions were hard to shake completely, especially after reading Josephus' actual account [and the interpolated 'called Christ'] in book 20 of Antiquities.

But (pace Carrier), even then we'd still need Ant. 20.200 in the received text before Origen's eyes in order to understand Origen intelligibly.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Origen 1, Scholars 0

Post by Giuseppe »

(2) Origen seems to have moral certitude that Josephus "did not believe in Jesus as the Christ," which precise phrasing suggests that Origen had read Josephus as referring to "Jesus" but not "as the Christ," which of course is completely understandable if Origen's copy read "the brother of Jesus who is called Christ" (which, pace Giuseppe, is not necessarily 'Christian' and is either neutral or can indeed take on, for Origen, the reading 'so-called'). Origen implicitly corrects Josephus and says that Jesus is the Christ ("but in reality, as the truth makes clear, on account of Jesus Christ the Son of God").

Would be at this point ''called Christ'' NEUTRAL in a context where it's implicit reading à la Origen the causal link death of James--->Fall of Jerusalem?

I think no, it's not neutral, because it assumes that the interpolator, whoever he is (if Origen or someone before Origen) had not at all a chickenhead (how Doherty called any banal Christian interpolator), but did know perfectly what he was doing:

1) the brother of a so-called Christ - then not THE Christ - is put to death by Ananus.
2) that event led to fall of Jerusalem.
3) therefore: that 'so-called' Christ was really THE Christ.

I.e. same logic, same irony, with ''called Christ'' in mouth of Pilate (see Matthew). Totally beyond the Josephus' true intentions, because they are not important, here.

We already know that Origen was lover of symbols and allegories - and not literalist reading of Gospels -, therefore he is a potential candidate for the irony I see at work in a not neutral but strongly ironic ''called-Christ''.

These Origen's words "but in reality, as the truth makes clear, on account of Jesus Christ the Son of God" betrayed clearly that he saw the same irony I see in ''called Christ''.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Origen 1, Scholars 0

Post by MrMacSon »

Peter Kirby wrote: To clarify:

* Hegesippus mentions the siege of Jerusalem by Vespasian as following after (temporally) the death of James.
Cheers, Mr Pumpkin Eater :mrgreen:
Peter Kirby wrote:I.e., in the 5-book source of this quotation, this makes sense as connective material leading, temporally, to the next item in the narrative. .. Jerusalem ... was under siege because they were in the middle of a war. And James 'the Just' was 'thrown from a temple' / 'beaten by a club' in the middle of that war, when he was in the habit of 'going into the temple alone', etc.
it's good to clarify this.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Origen 1, Scholars 0

Post by Peter Kirby »

Giuseppe wrote:
(2) Origen seems to have moral certitude that Josephus "did not believe in Jesus as the Christ," which precise phrasing suggests that Origen had read Josephus as referring to "Jesus" but not "as the Christ," which of course is completely understandable if Origen's copy read "the brother of Jesus who is called Christ" (which, pace Giuseppe, is not necessarily 'Christian' and is either neutral or can indeed take on, for Origen, the reading 'so-called'). Origen implicitly corrects Josephus and says that Jesus is the Christ ("but in reality, as the truth makes clear, on account of Jesus Christ the Son of God").

Would be at this point ''called Christ'' NEUTRAL in a context where it's implicit reading à la Origen the causal link death of James--->Fall of Jerusalem?

I think no, it's not neutral, because it assumes that the interpolator, whoever he is (if Origen or someone before Origen) had not at all a chickenhead (how Doherty called any banal Christian interpolator), but did know perfectly what he was doing:

1) the brother of a so-called Christ - then not THE Christ - is put to death by Ananus.
2) that event led to fall of Jerusalem.
3) therefore: that 'so-called' Christ was really THE Christ.

I.e. same logic, same irony, with ''called Christ'' in mouth of Pilate (see Matthew). Totally beyond the Josephus' true intentions, because they are not important, here.

We already know that Origen was lover of symbols and allegories - and not literalist reading of Gospels -, therefore he is a potential candidate for the irony I see at work in a not neutral but strongly ironic ''called-Christ''.

These Origen's words "but in reality, as the truth makes clear, on account of Jesus Christ the Son of God" betrayed clearly that he saw the same irony I see in ''called Christ''.
Seems more fanciful than logical....
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Post Reply