Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Actually, Josephus does blame the destruction of the city on the death of one specific person: <drum roll> The execution of Ananus son of Ananus by the Idumean contingent after the Rebels let them in the city gates in defiance of Ananus. Once they got in, they rounded up the HP and his cronies, and had them executed publicly. See War 4.314-320 (5.1-2).

Since Ananus son of Ananus is the subject of Ant 20:200, where he tries a Jacob brother of a certain Jesus, Ananus becomes the middle term in any solution. Hint, folks, find a way to explain it in a way that recognizes that whatever Origen read, was actually in a pericope from War 4 about Ananus and his entourage's confrontation with Jacob son of Sosa, and how it backfired on Ananus.

FWIW, Josephus used to admire Ananus at the time he wrote War, but in the meantime before Antiquities was completed, he learned from correspondence from Agrippa II (someone who had representatives of his tetrarchy in Jerusalem at the time of the revolt) that Ananus had ordered a hit on him to terminate his governorship over Galilee. By the time he wrote Ant book 20, Joe had realized his "buddy" had used him like a pawn and then tried to kill him to leverage power, and his opinion of Ananus naturally changed for the worse.

Anyhow, there was no Greek question mark symbol at that time, so a later Christian read this passage, saw the note and thought "This must be about this James the brother of Jesus" thinking it meant brother of Jesus Christ. But instead of picking up on the fact the note was asking a question "Is this the same man ...?" he naturally understood it to be a statement of fact: "This is the man on whose account the city was destroyed (referring it to James the brother of Jesus, not Ananus)! Origen may have found this mss in his master's library and imagined it may have been Josephus' own handwritten note to himself.

Otherwise, in Antiquities and Life Josephus also talks a lot about what went wrong with events of his day that brought the Romans down on them, and his main beef was with the so called 4th Philosophy. He believed that the introduction of the concept of "No Ruler but God" around the time of Archelaeus' exile had doomed the nation to ignore the sage advice of the aristocrats (like Joe himself), who would have continued under a Herodian client king or even Roman governor.

See the table I created that compares Josephus with several Christian writers on the subject of the 4th philosophy (also pharisees, saduccees, essenes, therapeutae). It is evident that Hippolytus and Epiphanius had really butchered 1st century Judean movements, so they are not really trustworthy sources in my opinion.

DCH

Ken,

It sounds like you are now withdrawing what you were granting earlier: ... Is that correct?

I granted something arguendo. Had discussion continued about what can be concluded under that assumption, then I would happily have continued, but so far that discussion hasn't resumed.

As the parenthetical matter immediately following the grant arguendo illustrated, there are other seriously possible alternatives. I stated that again in the second post.

Like any arguendo assumption, the scope of the assumption coincides with the life of the discussion of the argument for which it was assumed.

Paul the Uncertain wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 5:03 pm Ken,

It sounds like you are now withdrawing what you were granting earlier: ... Is that correct?

I granted something arguendo. Had discussion continued about what can be concluded under that assumption, then I would happily have continued, but so far that discussion hasn't resumed.

As the parenthetical matter immediately following the grant arguendo illustrated, there are other seriously possible alternatives. I stated that again in the second post.

Like any arguendo assumption, the scope of the assumption coincides with the life of the discussion of the argument for which it was assumed.

Blather.

You wrote:

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.).

And then:

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.

So I quoted two passages from Origen in which he claims Josephus testified to James' great righteousness. That is not found in Josephus, but it is found in Hegesippus, and that **is** evidence that he confused one author for another (or attributed material found in one author to another, which is the same thing).

I didn't derail the discussion. You did.

"Blather" was a responsive and truthful answer to your question. I posted to follow up on the point made by a different poster. Since you have moved on past his point, and have declined the invitation to revisit it, I withdraw.

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 2:11 pmAs I see it, you are arguing that Origen could plausibly have associated two different passages in Josephus - one about James and another about the destruction of the temple

Yes. But keep in mind that those passages are fairly close to each other in Book XX. The cause of the destruction of the city and the temple is in Chapter 8.5, the passage about James is in Chapter 9.1.

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 2:11 pmBut 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.

I agree. But so what? It doesn't impact my point, which is that Origen tells us more about what the writer (whether Josephus or Hegesippus) was writing about. This is:


Does Hegessipus explicitly give the cause for the fall of Jerusalem and the temple? No. But Josephus does. Who is Origen remembering here?

Does it make sense to think that Hegessipus is writing "against his will" in making the link? No. But it makes sense for Origen to think Josephus did.

It may be that there was an early tradition linking the death of James and the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, perhaps by Jewish Christians like the Ebionites. Christians reading Hegessipus would see that link. But then so Christians like Origen could see the same link in the works of Josephus. It doesn't have to be one or the other, it can be both.

Where the "Hegessipus alone" hypothesis loses strength is that it doesn't explain Origen's comment that the writer was "seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple". That can be found only in Josephus, at least from the extant texts.

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 2:01 am

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2024 2:11 pmAs I see it, you are arguing that Origen could plausibly have associated two different passages in Josephus - one about James and another about the destruction of the temple

It may be that there was an early tradition linking the death of James and the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, perhaps by Jewish Christians like the Ebionites. Christians reading Hegessipus would see that link. But then so Christians like Origen could see the same link in the works of Josephus. It doesn't have to be one or the other, it can be both.

Where the "Hegessipus alone" hypothesis loses strength is that it doesn't explain Origen's comment that the writer was "seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple". That can be found only in Josephus, at least from the extant texts.

GakuseiDon,

Before I address the remainder of your post, would you address the point I made about the righteousness of James:


and:


If we are concerned with extant texts and what they literally say, what Origen says Josephus says about the great righteousness of James could not have come from Josephus but could have come from Hegesippus (as it is literally attested there). Do you agree with me on that?

Best,

Ken

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 4:05 amIf we are concerned with extant texts and what they literally say, what Origen says Josephus says about the great righteousness of James could not have come from Josephus but could have come from Hegesippus (as it is literally attested there). Do you agree with me on that?

Sure. It could have come from Hegesippus, though both Origen and Hegesippus are probably drawing from a common tradition. James was mentioned by Papias and Clement of Alexandria as well as some apocryphal gospels, so stories about him had probably been circulating since the time of Paul. I'd imagine that Origen was well aware of the reputation for righteousness that James had, and had that in mind when he read Josephus.

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 4:35 am

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 4:05 amIf we are concerned with extant texts and what they literally say, what Origen says Josephus says about the great righteousness of James could not have come from Josephus but could have come from Hegesippus (as it is literally attested there). Do you agree with me on that?

Sure. It could have come from Hegesippus, though both Origen and Hegesippus are probably drawing from a common tradition. James was mentioned by Papias and Clement of Alexandria as well as some apocryphal gospels, so stories about him had probably been circulating since the time of Paul. I'd imagine that Origen was well aware of the reputation for righteousness that James had, and had that in mind when he read Josephus.

Thanks for the reply. Yes, we could hypothesize the existence of traditions that would support our hypotheses better than the extant texts we actually have, and I admit there is a non-zero (perhaps I should say non-negligible) chance that there were such traditions, but I'm making the case with the extant text of Hegesippus (and I believe your analysis was based on comparison with extant texts).

I have previously argued that, as James is not referred to the Just (or the Righteous) in the New Testament or any other demonstrably early text (I persist in thinking GThomas is a second century work), James probably received the title as part of a Christian explanation for why God waited for 40 years after the Jews had Jesus put to death before destroying Jerusalem. James, the righteous was in Jerusalem and that protected the city until the Jews (or Jewish leaders) killed him. I argued this is the meaning behind Hegesippus story in the thread to which I linked above.

But as a follow up question, when you posit that Origen was probably well aware of the reputation for righteousness James had, and mention Papias, Clement, and some apocryphal stories, do you you know of any pre-Origen source besides Hegesippus that states not just that James was Righteous, or that he was seen as Righteous by Christians, but explicitly states that he had such a reputation among the Jewish people as a whole (as Hegesippus repeatedly states)?

https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ ... ippus.html

Best,

Ken

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 5:50 amThanks for the reply. Yes, we could hypothesize the existence of traditions that would support our hypotheses better than the extant texts we actually have, and I admit there is a non-zero (perhaps I should say non-negligible) chance that there were such traditions, but I'm making the case with the extant text of Hegesippus (and I believe your analysis was based on comparison with extant texts).

Hegesippus himself points to earlier traditions:


My interest in James is because I believe he was part of the "original" Christians, which IMHO later became the Ebionites. The Ebionites apparently revered James, and I think it is safe to assume they had their own traditions about him. Origen was aware of the Ebionites. I don't think it is unreasonable to assume Origen knew something about those traditions about James, as did Hegesippus.

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 5:50 amI have previously argued that, as James is not referred to the Just (or the Righteous) in the New Testament or any other demonstrably early text (I persist in thinking GThomas is a second century work), James probably received the title as part of a Christian explanation for why God waited for 40 years after the Jews had Jesus put to death before destroying Jerusalem. James, the righteous was in Jerusalem and that protected the city until the Jews (or Jewish leaders) killed him. I argued this is the meaning behind Hegesippus story in the thread to which I linked above.

It's possible, I guess. So Hegesippus is writing pious fiction when he wrote that James "has been universally called the Just, from the days of the Lord down to the present time"?

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 5:50 amBut as a follow up question, when you posit that Origen was probably well aware of the reputation for righteousness James had, and mention Papias, Clement, and some apocryphal stories, do you you know of any pre-Origen source besides Hegesippus that states not just that James was Righteous, or that he was seen as Righteous by Christians, but explicitly states that he had such a reputation among the Jewish people as a whole (as Hegesippus repeatedly states)?

No, working from extant texts, Hegesippus seems to have been the first to explicitly state that AFAIK.

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 1:05 pm

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 5:50 amThanks for the reply. Yes, we could hypothesize the existence of traditions that would support our hypotheses better than the extant texts we actually have, and I admit there is a non-zero (perhaps I should say non-negligible) chance that there were such traditions, but I'm making the case with the extant text of Hegesippus (and I believe your analysis was based on comparison with extant texts).

Hegesippus himself points to earlier traditions:

James, the Lord's brother, succeeds to the government of the Church, in conjunction with the apostles. He has been universally called the Just, from the days of the Lord down to the present time... He alone was permitted to enter the holy place

G-Don,

Thanks for the reply. I'll respond to this below, where you ask if this is pious fiction.

My interest in James is because I believe he was part of the "original" Christians, which IMHO later became the Ebionites. The Ebionites apparently revered James, and I think it is safe to assume they had their own traditions about him. Origen was aware of the Ebionites. I don't think it is unreasonable to assume Origen knew something about those traditions about James, as did Hegesippus.

I think that's plausible and hold a similar theory myself. I think the Jerusalem Church Paul visited in Galatians was very different from Pauline Christianity and there may indeed be institutional continuity between the law-observant Jerusalem church and the later law observant (Jewish Ebionites). I would hesitate to simply equate the Jerusalem church with the later Ebioites because the mentions we have of the Ebionites are later and they almost certainly underwent some changes over time, particularly after the destruction of Jerusalem. I think, for example, that the so-called Ebionite gospel did not exist at the time Paul visited Jerusalem and may be post-70 and maybe a reaction to other gospels in circulation.

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 5:50 amI have previously argued that, as James is not referred to the Just (or the Righteous) in the New Testament or any other demonstrably early text (I persist in thinking GThomas is a second century work), James probably received the title as part of a Christian explanation for why God waited for 40 years after the Jews had Jesus put to death before destroying Jerusalem. James, the righteous was in Jerusalem and that protected the city until the Jews (or Jewish leaders) killed him. I argued this is the meaning behind Hegesippus story in the thread to which I linked above.

It's possible, I guess. So Hegesippus is writing pious fiction when he wrote that James "has been universally called the Just, from the days of the Lord down to the present time"?

Yes, Hegesippus is writing pious fiction. I cannot rule out the possibility that he had an earlier source for his pious fiction (i.e., there is a greater than zero chance that someone else originated it), but he is writing pious fiction. Two pieces of evidence for this:

1) Both the fact that James is never called 'the Just' in the New Testament and the fact that neither you nor I know of any text in which Jews called him the Just (or even that Christians before Hegesippus claimed that they did) would seem to conflict with the claim that James was *universally* called 'the Just'.

2) The other piece of evidence was in the thread to which I linked:


According to Hegesippus, James has taken over the role of High Priest of the Jerusalem temple, so either he was the High Priest (and we have pretty good records of the succession of High Priests in Josephus) or the Jews just decided that James was so righteous (and we have no evidence of this apart from Hegesippus) they would just set aside the Torah and let James go into the sanctuary to pray for them. The more reasonable conclusion would be that this is pious fiction.

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 5:50 amBut as a follow up question, when you posit that Origen was probably well aware of the reputation for righteousness James had, and mention Papias, Clement, and some apocryphal stories, do you you know of any pre-Origen source besides Hegesippus that states not just that James was Righteous, or that he was seen as Righteous by Christians, but explicitly states that he had such a reputation among the Jewish people as a whole (as Hegesippus repeatedly states)?

No, working from extant texts, Hegesippus seems to have been the first to explicitly state that AFAIK.
[/quote]

Thanks answering the question. I hope to return to this thread soon, but I have some pressing matters to deal with.

Best,

Ken