Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 10:18 pmOrigen doesn't specify the exact point in "Josephus" where he quoted the James Passage, hence in that case the argument is even more strong, that he was confusing Hegesippus with Josephus.

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 2:23 am

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 10:18 pmOrigen doesn't specify the exact point in "Josephus" where he quoted the James Passage, hence in that case the argument is even more strong, that he was confusing Hegesippus with Josephus.

While not specifying the exact point, Origen does imply where he gets his idea from within Josephus's Antiquities: somewhere around where Josephus is seeking after the cause of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.

Origen wrote in Contra Celsus Book 1: https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ ... en161.html

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

So does Josephus write about the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple? Yes! And it is not that far above the James passage in 9.1.

Antiquities Book XX Chapter 8.5

... Felix persuaded one of Jonathan's most faithful friends, a citizen of Jerusalem, whose name was Doras, to bring the robbers upon Jonathan [the High Priest], in order to kill him ... and [the robbers] slew others, not only in remote parts of the city, but in the temple itself also; for they had the boldness to murder men there, without thinking of the impiety of which they were guilty. And this seems to me to have been the reason why God, out of his hatred of these men's wickedness, rejected our city; and as for the temple, he no longer esteemed it sufficiently pure for him to inhabit therein, but brought the Romans upon us, and threw a fire upon the city to purge it; and brought upon us, our wives, and children, slavery, as desirous to make us wiser by our calamities.

There we see Josephus' reason for the destruction of the city and the temple, not that far above from where the James passage is located. I don't think it is a coincidence. There is nothing in Hegessipus where he seeks after the fall of the city and the temple.

I believe that Origen is 'reading between the lines', as he does elsewhere. People in power were using evil men to kill people throughout the city and in the temple itself resulting in God abandoning the city and the temple. James was killed by a person in power. Origen drew the connection.

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 4:42 amSorry, I don't need postulating a 'reading between the lines' by Origen when I have already a Hegesippus (i.e. a Josephus) mentioning explicitly, pace Michael_BG, the causal link "death of James ---> siege of Jerusalem".

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 12:15 pmDoes Hegesippus? No.

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 12:15 pm

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 4:42 amSorry, I don't need postulating a 'reading between the lines' by Origen when I have already a Hegesippus (i.e. a Josephus) mentioning explicitly, pace Michael_BG, the causal link "death of James ---> siege of Jerusalem".

But Hegesippus doesn't do that explicitly either. Either way, Origen is reading into the text to make the connection. But to me, the key is the claim by Origen that the writer is "seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple". Josephus explicitly has a statement to that effect, not that far above the James passage. Hegesippus doesn't have anything like that.

Does Josephus seek after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the temple? Yes, explicitly! Does Hegesippus? No. Do either of them explicitly make the connection of James' death with the fall? No. In either scenario, Origen is reading into the text. It's just that there is more reason to see that Origen is reading into Josephus AFAICS.

But I contend that Origen could not plausibly have read the fragment of Hegesippus otherwise than as implying that the siege of Vespasian was brought about by what the Jews did to James.

Paul the Uncertain wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 2:53 pm

But I contend that Origen could not plausibly have read the fragment of Hegesippus otherwise than as implying that the siege of Vespasian was brought about by what the Jews did to James.

Putting aside that the statement may be a transitional remark by Eusebius and never seen by Origen. Let's assume not. Then in those possible worlds, Hegesippus probably agrees with Josephus that God allowed the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple because of the murder of somebody other than the Christians' Jesus. Let's assume further that Origen retained Hegesippus's insinuation, interpreted it as causal (and not temporal, and not a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, etc.).

That's all the more reason for Origen to remember that Josephus said what he did, and misremember about whom Josephus said it. That's not evidence that he confused one author with another.

Paul the Uncertain wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 4:23 pm Maybe it is deja vu.

But I don't think we've cleared up G'don's objection, and maybe before we gallop off in a different direction, we should nail down the most important point, that Josephus does in fact attribute the destruction of the city and temple to a vengeful deity moved to wrath by murder in the Temple, and so far as we know, Hegesippus doesn't. In particular, assuming we are still reading Hegesippus when we read somebody's oblique remark about Vespasian, that remark most certainly can be read acausally. One thing happened, then another thing happened. That's all that's on the page - and the page is Eusebius's.

Putting aside that the statement may be a transitional remark by Eusebius and never seen by Origen. Let's assume not. Then in those possible worlds, Hegesippus probably agrees with Josephus that God allowed the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple because of the murder of somebody other than the Christians' Jesus. Let's assume further that Origen retained Hegesippus's insinuation, interpreted it as causal (and not temporal, and not a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, etc.).