The Bishop

I must admit, what puzzles me now is why on earth Origen would have written "Jesus called the Christ" whether he had Josephus in front of him or not. I think, either way, something has happened in transmission. Perhaps it was a later copyist who also had Josephus in front of him alongside his Origen. But it seems to me to introduce sufficient doubt that we could ever resolve the trajectory issue in either direction.

andrewcriddle

I'm not sure how strong an argument this is but if our present texts of Josephus in Antiquities book 20 have been interpolated based on Origen's claims about what Josephus said then I would expect something like 'the brother of Jesus called Christ whose name was James the Just

Such a reading makes Josephus say something much closer to what Origen says Josephus says than our present text does, and it has a basis in some at least of Origen's allusions to Josephus. Eusebius certainly read Origen's allusion to Josephus in that way.

The alternatives may be either a/ to believe that Origen paraphrased in a strongly Christianizing way, a real reference to James the brother of Jesus in Josephus or b/ to argue that Origen made a statement about Josephus on James with no real basis in the text and that Josephus was subsequently interpolated on the basis of Origen but the interpolation was a markedly dechristianized version of what Origen claimed.

Andrew Criddle

Ben C Smith

(How certain are you, BTW, that Against Celsus preceded On Matthew? Is it possible that he came up with this connection of Josephus, James, and Jerusalem in On Matthew and only then brought it into Against Celsus? For the two works date from the same period, I think.)

Agreed.

Agreed. This is in fact one of the several indications that Origen had read some form of Josephus.

Agreed. And Origen is correct about Josephus seeking the cause for the destruction, especially as pertains to book 20. Another indicator that he has read Josephus.

Agreed. Origen thinks that Josephus should have blamed the fall of the holy city on the execution of Jesus.

Agreed. This has to be Origen speaking, since he is still telling us what Josephus ought to have said, which directly implies that his copy of Josephus in fact did not say it. So far you are batting a thousand.

Agreed. Agreed.

Agreed.

Agreed. Another way of describing something that he presents as approximately coming from Josephus would be a paraphrase of Josephus.

However, as much as I agree with your statement, we have a problem here. You specifically and pointedly state:

This is a judgment which you have repeated for me in several posts (all underlining is mine):

Now, while I certainly think it to be the case that Origen was going well beyond the text of Josephus at this point, I am not at all clear on why you think that to be the case. To what are you comparing this Origenic statement? Surely not the extant manuscripts, since they are all so late and possibly stem from a single exemplar dating from after Origen (all underlining is mine):

To be consistent, it is surely your position that to turn to the extant manuscripts (in order to verify that Josephus nowhere blamed the fall of Jerusalem on the death of James) would be a meaningless rehearsal of late evidence. You have not in any way dealt with the relationship between those manuscripts, after all. That they all lack this passage says nothing on your principles, since they may easily represent a single text family. Some Christian scribe, noticing that Origen had explicitly written that Josephus should not have blamed the fall of Jerusalem on the death of James, may well have fulfilled his wish for him and excised the passage, right?

Given that on principle you will not turn to those late manuscripts, then, how have you come to such a firm conclusion that Josephus never wrote what Origen says he wrote, connecting the fall of Jerusalem with the death of James? You seem quite certain.

This, of course, is the question.

Hmmm. Another claim that Origen did not get something from Josephus. I myself have a very clean way of verifying or falsifying whether or not Josephus ever evaluated James as distinguished for his justice: I look at the extant manuscripts. But how do you verify or falsify such a claim, since what the manuscripts say means nothing to you?

I would also like to comment briefly on the structure of the passage as you have laid it out. I think your point-by-point presentation might have obscured some of the arrangement. In the first part of this passage you have ascribed as much as possible to commentary by Origen. And I have agreed with you. From the moment Origen begins to write about what Josephus ought to have said he has been on his own. But before that, in writing of what Josephus did not believe about Jesus and that Josephus was seeking the cause for the events of 70, he was looking at Josephus. And now, after the interlude, we are back to Josephus. So the passage looks like this for me:

For in the eighteenth 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 he himself, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking 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 Christ to death, who was a prophet,

nevertheless says,

being albeit 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 brother of Jesus called Christ, the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice.

The indented and italicized portions are clearly marked off as Origenic comments. To discuss what an author ought to have said is a pretty good sign that the author did not say it, and it is equally clear that Josephus himself probably never said that his words were written against his will; that is an interpretation on the part of Origen.

The rest, however, Origen is claiming as coming in some way from Josephus. He does not claim verbatim exactitude, so we are not authorized to demand it; however, if he should happen to give us some I think we should pay attention.

Origen claims that Josephus wrote about John the baptist in book 18. I can confirm his claim by turning to book 18 in the extant manuscripts. How would you confirm or disconfirm it?

Origen also claims that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as the Christ. This one is trickier because of the Testimonium, but I think you and I agree that Josephus never wrote he was the Christ, at least not as it stands. So here is an instance where both of us take the claim of Origen even over the extant manuscripts.

Origen also claims that Josephus was seeking the cause of the fall of Jerusalem. Again, I can confirm this with the manuscripts. How would you confirm or disconfirm it?

Origen also claims that Josephus found such a cause in the death of James. I doubt this; no such thing appears in the extant manuscripts. But why do you doubt this? We already have a case where we both think Origen was correct despite most of the manuscripts.

Origen also apparently claims that, according to Josephus, James was known for his righteousness. I can disconfirm this statement with the manuscripts. How do you confirm or disconfirm it? What if it was part of the line in which Josephus improperly (according to Origen) referenced the death of James as the cause, and our hypothetical Christian scribe, heeding Origen, excised it along with the rest of the line?

Good question, but how would you know if the manuscripts are off limits to help you decide?

Reading what Josephan passage? What exactly are you comparing to Origen if not those late, meaningless manuscripts?

Wrongly? How would you know?

Yes, that comment is of interest. Not for its own sake, of course, but because it agrees with all those late manuscripts. And because it seems unusual for Origen.

How does the commentator know which phrases Matthew derived from Mark? Is it not by comparing Matthew to the text of Mark? There are always pitfalls, to be sure, but that seems to be the usual way of proceeding.

His main section of comments is clearly marked as what Josephus should have said. How any careful reader could mistake that section for Josephus himself is beyond me. The parts that he actually attributed to Josephus, however, are open to further investigation. But how would we even begin to investigate it without looking to those late manuscripts?

Well, that and the usual comparison of manuscripts.

The extended phrases are not identical. True. But how do the differences affect either basic trajectory?

If Origen got the phrase from Josephus, then he took James and placed him in front of Jesus. If a later interpolator got the phrase from Origen and inserted it into Josephus, then he took James and placed him behind Jesus. How are you determining which of these moves is the one that happened?

These kinds of reversible arguments have cluttered up the synoptic problem for some time, too.

You yourself point out that Origen does use the definite article in this phrase elsewhere (Against Celsus 2.13):

So the definite article is a matter of style.

The same question for the opposite trajectory. Every change that on my view Origen made to Josephus is also a change that on your view an interpolator working from Origen had to make to Origen.

(I do not believe Origen uses the epithet the just in On Matthew 10.17.)

James the just. This one is interesting. On my view, Origen took the plain name of James that he finds in Josephus and glossed it with an honorary epithet known from elsewhere (such as from Hegesippus). On your view, a Christian interpolator took the honorary title James the just from Origen and reduced it to just plain James.

If it surprises you that the Christian Origen should add an honorary title to James, then it should come as a shock you that a Christian interpolator should subtract it.

Want? I for one am stuck with it, regardless of what I want.

There is no need to go into this fundamental disagreement again, at least not in such summary terms.

So taking the phrase Jesus called Christ from Matthew (whom he is not citing) and adding James brother of to it seems to you a perfectly natural thing for Origen to have done. Yet taking the phrase brother of Jesus called Christ from Josephus (whom he is citing) and adding James the just to it seems unnatural to you.

Why is it okay for Origen to modify Matthew but not okay for him to modify Josephus?

How would you know that if not from the manuscripts?

Same question.

He liked the sound of it so much that he decided to use it only when (thrice) referring to Josephus? Why?

Here is the passage (Eusebius, History of the Church 2.23.19-22):

[19] These things are related at length by Hegesippus, who is in agreement with Clement. James was so admirable a man and so celebrated among all for his justice that the more sensible even of the Jews were of the opinion that this was the cause of the siege of Jerusalem, which happened to them immediately after his martyrdom for no other reason than their daring act against him.
[20] Josephus, at least, has not hesitated to testify this in his writings, where he says: These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the Christ. For the Jews slew him, although he was a most just man.
[21] And the same writer also records his death in the twentieth book of his Antiquities in the following words: But the emperor, when he learned of the death of Festus, sent Albinus to be procurator of Judea. But the younger Ananus, who, as we have already said, had obtained the high priesthood, was of an exceedingly bold and reckless disposition. He belonged, moreover, to the sect of the Sadducees, who are the most cruel of all the Jews in the execution of judgment, as we have already shown.
[22] Ananus, therefore, being of this character, and supposing that he had a favorable opportunity on account of the fact that Festus was dead, and Albinus was still on the way, called together the Sanhedrin, and brought before them the brother of Jesus called Christ, James by name, together with some others, and accused them of violating the law, and condemned them to be stoned.

I believe modern commentators base this judgment on the extant manuscripts. I am not certain, however, how you could determine how many passages we are dealing with. For all you could know without consulting those late manuscripts, there were two such passages.

Agreed. Or, perhaps more accurately, he read Origen accurately, since Origen overstated his claim anyway.

I think Michael Turton shows some good instinct on this:

I suspect that is exactly what happened. Except I think the other version is identifiable. The two versions were:

1. The Josephan passage from book 20.
2. The Origenic version of Josephus.

Eusebius could not find in his own copy what Origen had credited Josephus with concerning Jerusalem and James, but he believed Origen anyway. History of the Church 2.23.20 comes, IMHO, not from any manuscript of Josephus, but almost word for word from Origen, Against Celsus 1.47.

Going on memory still works for me. But I am undecided as yet.

The waiter has a customer to please. The historian has no client but the truth.

How astounding the phrase happens to be is not my concern here; that is an aesthetic judgment. I care how likely it is to be original to Origen (no pun intended).

I must have missed your cogent argument against the John the baptist pericope from book 18.

Eusebius was considerably less critical than modern commentators, who are more willing to read Origen as overreaching than Eusebius would have been.

Back to the same blockade. That Josephus just could not have penned those words seems to be your basic argument.

When you turn to textual arguments, you entangle yourself in multiple contradictions and inconsistencies:

1. You insist that the late manuscripts of Josephus are of no use in deciding what was in the copy that Origen used, yet also insist that Origen misrepresented Josephus several times, without explaining how you arrived at that conclusion without referring to those late manuscripts.

2. You think it odd that Origen would modify a phrase from Josephus, then argue that he modified part of that same phrase from Matthew.

3. You regard it as a strike against Josephan origin of the phrase that Origen has added the epithet the just to the name of James, yet you seem fine with the notion that a Christian interpolator removed this epithet for some reason when inserting the phrase into Josephus.

4. You regard every change that Origen would have made to Josephus as a strike against Origen having received the phrase from his copy of Josephus, yet somehow the changes that a later copyist would have had to make to what he found in Origen are kosher for you.

I daresay I do not always follow your logic.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

In the interests of balance, I would like to point out an argument for the James reference that I have come to partially reject. On one of my posts I cited Peter Kirby as follows:

While the argument concerning the non-commital nature of the reference isn't quite conclusive, it is certainly quite suggestive. The significance of the references to "called Christ" in the New Testament is exaggerated. Van Voorst observes:

For the few occurences of the phrase "called Christ" in the New Testament, see Matt 1:16 (Matthew's genealogy, where it breaks the long pattern of only personal names); Matt 27:17, 22 (by Pontius Pilate); John 4:25 (by the Samaritan woman). Twelftree, "Jesus in Jewish Traditions," 300, argues from these instances that "called Christ" is "a construction Christians used when speaking of Jesus" and therefore an indication that this passage is not genuine. He also cites John 9:11, but there the phrase is "called Jesus" and so does not apply to this issue. But if these passages are indicative of wider usage outside the New Testament, "called Christ" tends to come form non-Christians and is not at all typical of Christian usage. Christians would not be inclined to use a neutral or descriptive term like "called Christ"; for them, Jesus is (the) Christ.

The idea that called Christ would principally be a phrase used by nonbelievers, while probably true, does not demonstrate that only a nonbeliever is likely to have had access to the phrase. The gospel passages above were written by believers who were putting those words onto the lips of nonbelievers. If a gospel author can put those words onto the lips of a nonbeliever, then it stands to reason that a later Christian interpolator could put those words onto the lips of the nonbeliever Josephus.

But Van Voorst was correct, of course, to criticize Twelftree here. Since the gospel instances of that phrase are by and large given to nonbelievers, it does not appear to be a particularly Christian phrase. Even the Matthew 1.16 reference does not point to common Christian usage, since after the title line of Matthew 1.1 it serves as the introduction to this man Jesus; hence its open introductory character, Jesus, the one called Christ. That helpfully limits the nature of the inquiry. If the line is an interpolation, then it is an outright forgery made to look like the words of the unbelieving Josephus, not an innocent slip of a gloss into the text.

I think Peter Kirby himself gets it right in his next line:

Furthermore, I note that no extracanonical works in the second century use the phrase "Jesus who is called Christ," even though this would be the period when an interpolation would have to have been made.

The nature of the phrase also helpfully points out that Origen is not very likely to have created it for his own personal usage, except potentially as a first introduction to Jesus in one of his texts (but he does not, in fact, use it that way). By its gospel usages, it was apparently recognized as the kind of phrase that unbelievers would use, and Origen references the unbeliever Josephus each time he uses it. I doubt that is a coincidence.

Ben.

Vorkosigan

Jerome also says Josephus says in book 18 Josephus says that James was so holy that all the Jews thought Jerusalem was destroyed on account of him. There's no reference in Book 18 now, but that is where we find the controversial reference to Jesus. It seems there was another copy of Josephus running around with this claim, and all we have left is the ANT 20.200 reference. Do you think Jerome is also relying on Origen for this claim?

Vorkosigan

S.C.Carlson

Jerome contradicts himself. Though his Illustrious Men entry on Josephus seems to put the reference in Book 18 (confusingly listing it after other material in Book 18), Jerome's entry on James cites book 20. I think his Book 18 claim is just a blunder.

Stephen

Ben C Smith

One the one hand certainty is probably not possible on this matter, and there seem to have been suspicions amongst commentators in the past that some copies of Josephus had something like that in book 18, but on the other hand Jerome is so slavishly dependent on his predecessors so much of the time that any claim of his that matches in any way any claim that preceded him must be held suspect, I think.

Here is the relevant passage (On Famous Men 13):

Here is an hypothesis:

1. A, the bit about the Pharisees and the miracles, is an interpretive development on the part of Jerome of the Testimonium; he says it is in book 18 because the Testimonium is in book 18. Though he worded it clumsily, he did not mean by that autem that Josephus moreover wrote something else again about Christ being killed, but rather that he (Jerome) moreover was about to fill out one of his brief references with a cited text.

2. B, the bit about John the baptist, also comes from book 18, though the prophet part is his own interpretation.

3. C, the bit about James and Jerusalem, comes from Origen and Eusebius, both of whom Jerome was familiar with. Since Eusebius had treated the Origenic passage as distinct from the extant text of Josephus (our phrase in question), so did Jerome. He, of course, had no way of knowing which book it was in (since it was based on an overreading both by and of Origen), so he lumped it in together where he thought it belonged, in book 18, near the Testimonium and John the baptist. He elsewhere cites the real Josephan passage and correctly places it in book 20.

Not 100% sure about any of that, of course.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Hi, spin.

Ken Olson kindly emailed me not long ago to refer me to an old IIDB thread on Origen and Josephus in which he and Peter Kirby (apparently before accepting the James reference in book 20) made some strong points against the phrase in question. You might wish to skim the arguments there for ammunition against my position.

Notably, Olson called attention in that thread to the following passages from Origen.

Against Celsus 1.66:

For the sending of help to him in a very miraculous and unnecessarily public manner would not have been of any service to him, who wished to show that as a man, to whom witness was borne by God, he possessed within that form which was seen by the eyes of men some higher element of divinity, that which was properly the son of God, God the word, the power of God, and the wisdom of God, he who is called the Christ.

Against Celsus 4.28:

But now is Jesus declared to have come for the sake of sinners in all parts of the world, that they may forsake their sin, and entrust themselves to God, being called also, agreeably to an ancient custom of these scriptures, the Christ of God.

These references at least give an Origenic handle on the word called. I do not think Olson adequately addresses the triple Josephan context of the phrase, however, and that is what seems a most powerful argument in its favor, at any rate.

Olson also thinks, as I have suspected, that Origen is melding Josephus and Hegesippus.

Also notably (in light of my question to you about the relative dates of the two works by Origen), Peter Kirby writes:

I do not know the basis of this dating, but if true it would seem more prudent to go through the first passage rather than the second looking for evidence of Origen having interpreted the phrase into existence.

There is also some good discussion of the idea that Christians being caretakers of the text renders the text suspect whenever it mentions Christ.

Enjoy.

Ben.

Chris Weimer

Who is Ken in that thread? One should also note the exchange at crosstalk for some good debate by the actual Ken Olson.

Ben C Smith

Sorry, my words were misleading. Ken Olson himself did not actually participate; he referred me to the thread because Peter Kirby quoted him at length.

Ben.