Toto

If it is a similar turn of phrase and is not a coincidence, there are multiple possible explanations. A scribe could have inserted the phrase into Josephus based on a marginal note that was based on Origen's words. A later scribe could have inserted the phrase into both Josephus and Origen, as a way of explaining who this James was.

Serious historians do not become dogmatic on a contested point based on a few phrases in documents that are highly likely to have become corrupted or forged for ideological purposes. Serious historians look at a variety of evidence and see how the pieces fit together.

Vivisector

I'll look forward to this, since I often wonder if there is anything new under the sun where this topic (and several others) are concerned. It will be especially interesting if he deals conclusively with the issues raised by Origen's text.

Cheers,

V.

spin

For anyone interested I've just posted a blog entry with an old analysis of the significance of Origen's reference to Josephus and James.

Vivisector

Thanks, Spin.

Cheers,

V.

GakuseiDon

In a way, Josephus does infer this. The sequence is this. Josephus writes in 9.1:

... 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... 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...

... 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.

So the death of James leads to Jesus, the son of Damneus, to become high priest. Not much further on, in 9.4, Josephus writes:

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... 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.

So the death of James leads to Jesus the son of Damneus to be high priest; he is replaced by Jesus son of Gamaliel, and the high priests start bickering, leading to political intervention, which led to things growing worse and worse.

Of course Josephus didn't put the blame of this on the death of James directly, but Origen might well have inferred from Josephus that things getting worse had its origin in the death of James and the sequence of events started by "the most equitable of the citizens". In fact, if we replace "punishment for" with "consequence of", then Origen would be accurately reflecting Josephus:

"in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple ... [Josephus] says nevertheless (being, although against his will, not far from the truth) that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for consequence of the death of James the Just, who was a brother of the Jesus who was called Christ, since they killed him despite his being supremely just."

Then we see the elements in Josephus: the "most equitable of the citizens" being uneasy about this breach in the law of killing James and others, resulting in the replacement of the high priest, which later caused the squabbling, which "from that time it principally came to pass that our city was greatly disordered, and that all things grew worse and worse among us".

I'm not saying that the original read "consequence of" (not fair to replace words willy-nilly to support a reading) or that Josephus himself had this in mind, but Origen, looking at the text from his later Christian perspective, and perhaps influenced by later tradition around James, might have 'read between the lines' to think that Josephus 'against his will' provided support for such a view. Indeed, Origen writing that Josephus was claiming this 'against his will' perhaps implies that Origen understands that he is inferring this from Josephus rather than reporting something Josephus himself believed.

(ETA) In fact, it's interesting that Origen writes that Josephus is writing "in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple". Surely Origen didn't mean that Josephus wrote that James was killed, and this lead directly to the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple. The inference was that the death of James was pivotal in what came after, and I think a case could be made that this can be extracted from Josephus (even if Josephus didn't have this in mind himself).

spin

In BJ 4.318, Josephus says that "the capture of the city began with the death of Ananas; and that 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." Josephus does in fact make a proclamation about a death leading to the fall of Jerusalem, but he made in in BJ and about Ananas. Origen has got the information garbled, probably from his source who was not Josephus, but had probably referred to Josephus's account of the death of James and a reference to Ananas and there was confusion.

Minimalist

That's quite a stretch, Don. Especially as Josephus in War of the Jews states unequivocally while speaking of violence by the various Zealot factions within the temple itself:

Josephus, fine Jew that he was was accustomed to a 'god' who was so inept that he needed to bring in foreign invaders to handle the actual work for him!

http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/war-5.htm

GakuseiDon

To repeat: I'm not saying that Josephus believed it.

GakuseiDon

I can't believe that I'm the first to go down this road, but some more on this: Josephus makes his comment about James in Book 20, Chapter 9.1.

A little earlier, in Book 20, Chapter 8.5, Josephus wrote:

... the robbers ... slew certain of their own enemies, and were subservient to other men for money; and 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.

In Book 20, Chapter 9.1, Josephus refers to how James "and others" were stoned, and how "those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens" were "the most uneasy at the breach of the laws". Origen doesn't mention "the others", concentrating on James.

So Origen -- intentionally or unintentionally -- confabulated 8.5 and 9.1 to come up with his view that the unfair death of James contributed to God rejecting Jerusalem and the Temple. He may have genuinely believed that Josephus 'against his will' inferred exactly that.

Doug Shaver

An interesting hypothesis. It would hardly be the only time Christians put 2 and 2 together and got 22.