Origewn Josephus and James

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Origewn Josephus and James

Post by andrewcriddle »

This thread is a response to issues raised in the recent thread on the authenticity of the Josephus reference to James the brother of Jesus called Christ, but I thought (optimistically ?) that it deserved its own thread.

Origen says in book 1 of Contra Celsus
I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, that the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who lived no great length of time after John and Jesus. For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless — being, although against his will, not far from the truth— that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ), — the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, 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.
Similar claims later in Contra Celsus and in the Commentary on Matthew.

This is puzzling. It is very difficult to interpret our standard text of Josephus as linking the judicial murder of James to the fall of Jerusalem. I am going to suggest that instead of our text of Josephus James the brother of Jesus (called Christ) Origen's text had been glossed to read (as he claims ) James the Just the brother of Jesus (called Christ) .

a/ This is what Origen claims his text reads.
b/ it is a very plausible Christian gloss.
c/ most importantly, if Origen's Josephus read this, then the killing of James the Just by the religious authorities can be understood as the shedding of righteous blood that brings about the fall of Jerusalem. Origen following Matthew understands the death of Jesus in this way. And if his Josephus read James the Just then he could misunderstand Josephus as assigning the significance to the death of James that Origen assigns to the death of Jesus.

Andrew Criddle
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Origewn Josephus and James

Post by Secret Alias »

And the Just could be derived from an identification of James as a Sadducee which would be a large group where many many Jacobs would be found.
Post Reply