Origen 1, Scholars 0

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Origen 1, Scholars 0

Post by Peter Kirby »

Antiquities 20.9.1-4
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.
Notice the progression in the story, which we cut off prematurely all too often:

(a) The priesthood is given by Agrippa to the fifth and last son of the wealthy elder Ananus, himself named Ananus. (Ananas=Ananias)
(b) As a Sadducee, he was "very rigid" and "formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law."
(c) But he was thought to have convened the Sanhedrin illegally (apparently Roman law--without the consent of the procurator Albinus), so the "most equitable of the citizens" took offense.
(d) Albinus threatened to kill the younger Ananus as a result, and king Agrippa installed "Jesus, son of Damneus" as the high priest, thus letting the king save the life of the younger Ananus from the threats of the procurator (for whatever reason, I never noticed this before). The king apparently favors the younger Ananus.
(e) Albinus the procurator starts "destroying many" (taking captive, apparently, as well as killing, perhaps) sicarii.
(f) The younger Ananus used his family's wealth to win the favor of (B-R-I-B-E) the new high priest (Jesus ben Damneus), essentially puppeting this upstart, and also the Roman procurator Albinus.
(g) Thus retaining control over the high priesthood in all but name (and apparently deposed high priests could be called high priest still), the younger Ananus has servants constantly in the temple absconding with the tithes, and his son Eleazar is physically present as 'governor of the temple'.
(h) The sicarii, who were being beat back by the procurator, ransom back their men by taking Eleazar and others belonging to this Ananus.
(i) Thus "they were again become no small number, they grew bold, and were a great affliction to the whole country" -- and this, narratively, because they keep ransoming servants to Ananus, which is because Ananus has servants in the temple taking tithes because he's not officially high priest, which is because Ananus had to be deposed after the populace became angry at what he and the Sanhedrin had done to James.
(j) Jesus ben Gamaliel installed. Either Agrippa is taking a bribe from more than one hand, or Jesus ben Damneus was too green to last.
(k) Last but not least, and I repeat:
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.
Do we really know that Origen needed anything else to make the statements that he did? It may be a strong reading, but.... it's enough right here. No need to posit lost interpolations or confusion with Hegesippus.
"... 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 »

Care to spell out the specific statements of Origen you're referring to? and context?
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Origen 1, Scholars 0

Post by Giuseppe »

Origen was 'reading' clearly the causal link ''death of James-->fall of Jerusalem'' basing on Josephus (clearly with exageration more than Josephus, because for the latter the real cause was the rivarly between priests and not the single death of James), without no need to have read Hegesippus before about that link. But what move you to believe that ''called Christ'' is authentic?

Reading Hegesippus seems however a necessary step for Origen in order to raise that point, because Hegesippus was the previous inventor of legend of a brother of Jesus named James the Just, IN REACTION TO MARCION. Without Hegesippus quoting James the Just, Origen had no mean to ''read'' with christian eyes that link 'death of James--->fall of Jerusalem'' making it more explicit than in Hegesippus.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Origen 1, Scholars 0

Post by Giuseppe »

Hegesippus, who explictly writes against Marcion, would have been regarded by the latter as one of ‘those who defended the Jewish belief’ and united the Gospel with the Law and the Prophets’. Hegesippus’ quote ‘leaves no room for Paul as an authority’.
In his History of the Church from the beginning of the fourth century, Eusebius gives a few details about Hegesippus: H wrote in the seventies or eighties of the second century and was a convert from the Hebrews, probably of Samaritan background. Hegesippus, indeed, displays some considerable Samaritan knowledge, but combines it with a high esteem for the Jewish origins of the churches, especially the ones from Jerusalem. But he is equally bold in criticizing Judaic Pharisaism and Sadduceism, and also Samaritan Christianity. Moreover, he sees Samaritan Christianity as paving the way for Marcion’s teaching and the separation between Judaism and Christianity. To Hegesippus the parting of the ways between Judaism and Christianity was an inner-Hebrew dispute between a Pharisaic and a Pharisaic-Samaritan Christianity. In clear counter-position to Marcion, whose message he sees as a kind of Samaritan rejection of the Jews and their temple, Hegesippus reconnects the Church’s beginnings firmly with Jerusalem and the Temple, and roots the young community deeply in the wider family of Jesus and his brother James.
Against, but also partly aknowledging Marcion, Hegesippus paints James as ‘the Just’ who was announced by the prophets, carries all the Marcionite ascetic ideals (no wine, a vegetarian, no cutting of hair, no perfumes, no bathing) and makes people believe in the resurrection and judgement. He is portrayed like a Jewish-Christian alternative to the Pauline Marcion: Jesus’ earthly family counts against Paul’s visionary authority of the Risen Christ.
(Markus Vinzent, Christ’s resurrection in Early Christianity and the Making of the New Testament, Ashgate 2011, p.99-100, my bold)

Before, the prof Vinzent, talking about the Papias’use of 1 Peter against Marcion, wrote:

Moreover, 1 Peter calls Christ ‘the Just’, who has suffered ‘for the unjust’, an allusion to and summary of Isaiah (53:1-12), and also a clear stance against Marcion, who equated the ‘Just’ with the God of the Jews to distinguish him from the true God of Love.
(ibid. p. 98, my bold)
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Origen 1, Scholars 0

Post by Peter Kirby »

MrMacSon wrote:Care to spell out the specific statements of Origen you're referring to? and context?
I was called to bed abruptly. It should be straightforward however. They are in the middle of my 'testimonium flavianum' page. If you care to, you can copy and paste them here.

Posted from my phone.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Origen 1, Scholars 0

Post by Peter Kirby »

I clearly do not read 'called Christ' as authentic to Josephus.... BTW.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Origen 1, Scholars 0

Post by Ulan »

Regarding "Christ", was that still a valid title for a high priest at Josephus' time? In that sense, a Jesus called Christ may refer to a high priest in name only, with someone else holding the reins.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Origen 1, Scholars 0

Post by Peter Kirby »

The point of this thread is that there is *no need to assume* that Origen was confused when attributing this to Josephus (or to assume that Josephus must have had more than we currently find there in order for Origen to make the statements he does).

It is perfectly comprehensible, on a sympathetic reading of Origen, that he could have made his claim about Josephus after reading the 20th book as we have it. We might claim that Origen were 'wrong', but that is not the same as claiming he was confused or reading something else.

Lest we forget, Origen attributes this plainly to Josephus, in Contra Celsus and his Commentary on Matthew. And before complicated and speculative ideas of transfer from Origen to Josephus, a full series of words found in the interpolated Ant. is found in the reference, matching that to which Origen refers, and in a manner that was not characteristic of the way Origen identifies James.

A minor point is that one of the quotes specifically mentions the people, as are found in the passage of Ant 20. And another one refers to the Antiquities specifically. He does not make a large quote or mention the book exactly, suggesting a reference from memory....

Like all the references I am making just now.....

I will copy the quotes for convenience here later if nobody else has.

A presence of this reference also helps to explain the certitude and phrasing of Origen's remark that Josephus 'did not believe in Jesus as the Christ', as Origen could have leant on the phrasing of Ant 20.200 as we have it to think he 'believed in Jesus' at all, just not as 'the Christ'.

It is indeed all but completely certain that the case is very simple and straightforward. The only thing that holds us back is that Origen says that Josephus attributes the fall of Jerusalem to the death of this James, ' for they slew him, though he was a just man'. We don't remember this as being in Josephus and are quick to convict Origen. But most of us have read Josephus too hastily or in abruptly terminated excerpts and have neglected to take notice of the features of the passage that would explain Origen's statements.

I can't say the same thing any more ways,... If it is not now clear, it never will be.

Of course Origen read widely. If he did not read Hegesippus also (which still has general plausibility), he may be assumed to be familiar with the basic idea or story in early Christianity.

This, along with the absence of any other mention of Jesus in his Ant, can explain why Origen was primed for this kind of reading of Josephus. All the same, we must reject most categorically those ideas according to which Origen based his statement on something other than and without reading what we find in Ant 20.... Such as suggested as a serious possibility by Doherty/Carrier and the first edition of my Test. essay. Such reasoning is faulty.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Origen 1, Scholars 0

Post by Peter Kirby »

Ulan wrote:Regarding "Christ", was that still a valid title for a high priest at Josephus' time? In that sense, a Jesus called Christ may refer to a high priest in name only, with someone else holding the reins.
No, this is not really a plausible option for first century Jewish use of 'Christ'. . . let alone Josephus. . .
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1277
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Origen 1, Scholars 0

Post by Ken Olson »

Peter Kirby asked:
Do we really know that Origen needed anything else to make the statements that he did?
I think we've discussed this before, but just as a reminder:

Origen Contra Celsum 1.47
I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John, who baptized Jesus, as a baptist, that the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who lived no great length of time after John and Jesus. For in the eighteenth book of his ANTIQUITIES OF THE JEWS Josephus bears witness to John as having been a baptist and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now he himself, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put Christ to death, who was a prophet, nevertheless says, being albeit against his will not far from the truth, that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the just, who was a brother of Jesus called Christ, the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. [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 Jesus Christ? Of his divinity so many churches are witnesses, composed of those who have been convened from a flood of sins and have joined themselves to the creator, and who refer all their actions to his good pleasure.
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.
Hegsippus, as given in Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 2.23.3-19
3. 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. 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
Post Reply