Roger Pearse

I seem to remember reading once a scholarly article discussing the question of quotation in antiquity. It said something along the lines of this: that exact quotation was discouraged, that it was better to change the quotation slightly, to give it point, as that proved you were remembering it (you cultured chap!) and weren't just getting a slave to look it up. A cultural thing, in other words.

Unfortunately I did not note the article, and may not have remembered the idea accurately. If anyone knows what I am talking about, I'd love to find it again.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

the_cave

Andrew: well, it could have been added by Pamphilus.

But, if Origen is just working from memory, that could explain any discrepancies, wherever he read it.

What do you think about Rivka Nir's comments on the Christian nature of the passage?


spin: You're right, Origen on James comes from Hegesippus, not Josephus. But that doesn't mean he didn't have access to Antiquities.


Roger: interesting question. I don't know myself, but if Origen was indeed writing quckly, that could explain it. FWIW I've read that Eusebius frequently misquotes his sources.

spin

I wouldn't know about the Hegesippus claim (Hegesippus, incidentally has been seen as a corruption of "Josephus"), but Origen's words show that not only did he not specifically read what Josephus says (three times, as he mentioned the death of James three times), he has lots of material that doesn't come from Josephus, such as James the Just.

Origen's comments however may have been the cause for a marginal note at 20.200 in someone's copy of the Antiquities, which subsequently crept into the text. "Ananas... brought before them a man James by name (ie named James) and certain others..." the text may have read. Add to that in the margin from Origen, "the brother of Jesus called christ". Followed by a copyist who took it as an omission and inserted it to read "Ananas... brought before them the brother of Jesus called christ James by name and certain others...".


spin

the_cave

But why? Josephus mentions a James in Ant. 20. Maybe Origen made the connection with his other information on James (which I think probably came from Hegesippus, whom Origen confuses with Josephus), or maybe he didn't. But nothing in Ant. 20 contradicts what Origen said about James. So Origen wouldn't have seen a problem. He was just talking about the other information he had on James. He could ignore Ant. 20, because there was nothing to talk about--James is mentioned, he was sentenced to be stoned, and that's it.

Maybe Origen didn't read Ant. 20, or didn't read Ant. at all, ok--but again, if Origen knew that Josephus discussed John the Baptist in Antiquities, would he really have failed to try and read it himself? And who would he have heard it from?

Maybe, but it could have been anyone who'd read Origen, or Hegesippus for that matter--Pamphilus, for example (Mike Duncan from badrhetoric.com has suggested this).

spin

Sad thing is that Origen gives no sign of having read the passage.

If the Hegesippus connection is correct, it would be sufficient for Origen to have found a comment from that source which alluded to AJ. This is a common enough procedure that you find quite alive today here on this forum, in which someone finds a reference mentioned in a text and the reference is passed along without mention to the source text that the passer-on had used to derive the reference. It means that the reference need never have been consulted, as is often the case here.

For clarity, I didn't intend that it was Origen himself, but that his writings were the source.


spin

the_cave

Exactly.

What source? Hegesippus? Origen didn't get his information about John from Hegesippus; only his information about James. I'm asking where he got his information about John.

If it was Hegesippus who alluded to Antiquities, then Origen is confusing the author of a reference to Josephus with Josephus himself. How could Origen have simultaneously thought that Josephus (i.e. Hegesippus) was referring to his own writings (i.e. Antiquities)? Is it really plausible that he was that confused?

But regardless, even if Origen got his information about John in Antiquities from Hegesippus, why wouldn't Origen have tried to look it up? That's my real question. Origen was a smart guy. A reference to John in Josephus would have been quite juicy. If he didn't have the text already, Alexandria was just down the coast.

(Note that if Hegesippus is the source for Origen's claim, then we have second-century evidence for the John passage in Josephus, which is even better than third-century Origen.)

DCHindley

Spin,

I agree that some sort of marginal note has influenced the transmission of this text. Zee clues, see, are theese: 1) Origen asserts that Jerusalem was destroyed on account of the murder of James the Just. 2) Josephus states that Jerusalem was destroyed on account of the murder of Ananus (Wars of the Jews 4:318). 3) Ant 20:200 has a James and Ananus in the same story.

I'm sorry, but Ananus is the middle term, not James!

A) Josephus (Ant 20:200) originally spoke of a James (without the "brother of Jesus the one called christ" or at very least without "called the christ") tried and executed by Ananus.
B) A copyist recalled Josephus' praise of Ananus in JW 4:318, and the contrast with the mean spirited portrait of Ananus in Ant 20:200, makes the comment "Can this be the one on whose account Jerusalem was destroyed?" C) A Christian, reading that note in the margin, misinterprets it and thinks this must refer to James the Just of Christian legend. He amends the text to make it so.

This is complicated by Hegesippus, who may have independently created a tradition that Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans on account of James' death, by trying to "one up" Josephus, who said Galilean tetrarch Herod Antipas' defeat at the hand of Aretas IV as due to his having killed John the Baptist, a just man. If Origen had read this kind of Hegesippan romance, he may have been the one to have made the change to his copy of Ant 20 at vs 200, and this became the exemplar for all surviving copies.

Amen, hallelujah!

DCH

aa5874

When did the copyist make the comment, "Can this be the one on whose account Jerusalem was destroyed?"

And what did the Christians and Skeptics say who read Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 before and then after "the Christ" was added by the supposed copyist?

spin

My working theory has been that Origen had access to a catena of citations, in which both the Josephus references were included. This would explain why Origen went from John to James so easily.

This thought has confused me.

All he'd have to do is hop on the I60 and head south.


spin

spin

Yeah, I argued this point quite a while back, that someone had given Origen the wrong idea, confusing the James story with the destruction tradition. The problem is how it happened and I don't find your explanation convincing as is.


spin