Mr. Logic

Wow, that is some amazing data. I thought that James was killed by the Romans.
Humm! Anyway, I rejected James as scripture, two years before hearing of Luther's rejection of same.
Luther didn't even know that James was the Bro. of Jesus, or that he was head of the Judaizers in Jerusalem.
When Paul went to Jerusalem in Acts 21, it is an eye opening thing. The Converts there a in the thousands, Great, but they were ALL ZEALOUS FOR THE LAW, and 2. They had a problem with someone who taught grace by faith, and it sure wasn't James. So the idea that the Jews later had a prob. with James is interesting to say the least.
Thanks for that

Layman

How about the possibility that Origen's claim was based on an already corrupted/embellished version of Josephus' description of James' death? Is this a variation on No. 2?

spin

We are back once again with the James passage! Again eking out from other sources that Josephus must have indicated that the death of James was thought to have been the cause of the war and destruction to come. It's not my place to tell you to forget it, though I think you should, but I think I should point out why you're wrong. Let's go back to Whiston's Josephus to get the context:

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, 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. 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; 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.

You'll note that it is Ananus who is responsible for the death of this James. The same Ananus we learn about in BJ 4.318 (4.5.2), when Josephus writes regarding his death:

I should not be wrong in saying that the capture of the city began with the death of Ananus; and the overthrow of the walls and the downfall of the Jewish state dated from the day on which the Jews beheld their high priest, the captain of their salvation, butchered in the heart of [Jerusalem].

This is followed by a long eulogy on Ananus.

Here in BJ, Josephus has just attributed the fall of Jerusalem to the murder of Ananus. By the time he wrote the AJ account of the death of James his view of Ananus seems to have been a little more tempered. However, the notion that Josephus would suddenly, after having placed the fall of Jerusalem on Ananus, attribute it now to James seems incredible, especially when such a claim would require major surgery to the AJ passage.

It is much more reasonable to see that someone got their wires crossed when dealing with the reports by Josephus and shifted the claim we see in BJ from Ananus to James on seeing the James report in AJ, especially seeing as Ananus is mentioned here. Had Josephus really made the claim about James, one would expect a eulogy on James such as the one we see for Ananus in BJ. He didn't write one. The claim that Josephus said that the death of James was the cause of the ensuing troubles is painfully bogus.

Origen himself may have been responsible for the error, though whatever the case it was probably his comments which were the source of all the subsequent scribblings on the matter.

I have pointed out in the past that we should be able to see in Origen's references to the Josephus passage what exactly Josephus wrote and what Origen wrote.

Origen tells us plainly that Josephus didn't believe that Jesus was the messiah, yet the current version of the James passage has the syntactically awkward comment about Jesus, "(the brother of) Jesus called Christ". If this comment was originally in the passage what would make Origen think that Josephus didn't believe that Jesus was the messiah?

Let's look at the second reference to Josephus and James in CC:

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 dear, on account of Jesus Christ the Son of God.

What did Origen get from Josephus to deserve the latter's name being mentioned here? It's obviously the error I have already pointed out. The only other possibility is the reference to James as the brother of Jesus called christ. This however doesn't warrant the mention of Josephus. Besides this passage calls James "James the Just" (Iakwbou tou dikaiou) an epithet not found in today's Josephus passage and Origen doesn't use the contorted syntax found in the passage which places Jesus before James. It should be clear that the reason for Josephus's name being mentioned here is because of the mistaken belief that Josephus attributed the destruction of Jerusalem, not to Ananus, but to James.

Working from the current state of Josephus's passage, we come to the third reference by Origen in his Commentary on Matthew, 17, in which Origen writes:

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.

This was written before Origen started adding "the Just" to James's name. Note again, no use of the Josephan passage's convoluted syntax, no talk of "the brother of Jesus called christ, named James".

The last sentence is a wonder in itself. Josephus "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." The current Josephus passage says nothing of the sort. We are just getting another rehearsal of the encomium for Ananus in BJ displaced onto James.

For the Josephus passage to say what people read Origen as wanting it to say, it would require a major rewrite. However, this wouldn't be necessary if one were to realize that the un-Josephus "brother of Jesus called christ" was clearly not written by Josephus. Origen tells us that Josephus doesn't believe that Jesus was the messiah. In fact Josephus doesn't hold the notion, apparently repudiating it when dealing with Vespasian and his fulfillment of the "prophecies". Josephus has not used any of the references from the LXX which refer to christos and the term only appears in the two bogus references to Jesus.

What we see in the James passage is a scribal insertion based probably indirectly on Origen's comments and the original merely has a report that Ananus "assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them [one] James and some others".

As I said, I can't tell you to forget about the error regarding James, but it would do you all good.


spin

Roger Pearse

Interestingly the so-called Old Slavonic Josephus is actually material from Josephus embedded in an Old Slavonic composition, the Three Captures of Jerusalem. Most of the latter portion is from the Jewish War.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ben C Smith

Your comments are all interesting, and appreciated. They do not seem to be aimed at my own view, given this sentence (and others).

Ben.

S.C.Carlson

This is a fascinating observation. Has it been written up anywhere else?

Stephen

spin

You're right. They were aimed at trying to deal with the OP.

I agree 1/ is out. 2/ doesn't explain the evidence. 3/ doesn't deal with the problem.

What we have (ie James's death being the cause of the fall) doesn't come directly from the text, but a transferal of information regarding Ananus from BJ to James as read in AJ. Then there's the reading back of the brother stuff into AJ.


spin

Ben C Smith

This is the part I think your theory has the most trouble explaining.

Ben.

spin

Then I guess no cross-fertilization happened in the nt literature. Like I mean marginalia finishing up in the text. All it takes is one scribe to make the connection between what Origen's thoughts were and the passage in AJ, then writing it in the margin, and another later scribe includes the marginalia. This seems like par for the course.


spin

Ben C Smith

Oh, I think it did.

Which words, exactly, do you think were in the margin?

Ben.