andrewcriddle

I've been thinking about the connection of Origen's statement about Josephus on James and our text of Josephus.

Origen says in Contra Celsum (Similar references in other passages by Origen)

There are IMO three possible explanations for the major differences between this and our text of Josephus

1/ The two are independent Origen's claim is not derived from the text of Josephus and our current text of Josephus is in no way based on what Origen says. This seems possible but unlikely, the two passages agree in such things as calling James the brother of Jesus called Christ.

2/ Origen's claim is a Christian distortion of Josephus but based on something actually in Josephus' text, most simply on our present text of Josephus. IMO this is the most likely.

3/ Our present text of Josephus has been affected by Origen's claim. IMO this is the least likely option. It requires Origen's claim to be rewritten into something less related to Christian concerns.

In fact Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History Book 2 treats Origen's claim as a direct quote from Josephus but one quite distinct from our text of Josephus which he then proceeds to quote. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf....vii.xxiv.html

(It may be worth noting that this claim by Eusebius that Josephus said in so many words that the killing of James caused the fall of Jerusalem appears to have had no effect on the manuscript tradition of Josephus.)

Andrew Criddle

Ben C Smith

This is the most overlooked argument, IMHO, with regard to the James reference. Everybody (to my knowledge, including Eusebius, Jerome, and Syncellus) who quoted the Origenic version of Josephus on the death of James included the most important part, to wit, that Judea fell because of the death of James. The James reference in our extant texts of Josephus omits this central issue, yet is for some reason careful to match the Origenic wording brother of Jesus instead of the more usual brother of the Lord.

Ben.

Doug Shaver

What passage, in our present text of Josephus, do you think Christians distorted into a claim that Jerusalem fell because the Jews killed James?

Steven Avery

Thank you Andrew. Sound thinking.

And I believe the fourth possibility should be added, that there was Josephus material no longer extant (or at least material thought to be from Josephus). The Alexandrine Chronicle indicating such material being in Wars and the Georgius Syncellus text would be part of the evidentiary picture. Also the Eusebius quotation indicates two distinct and separate references from Josephus.

Perhaps Roger or Ben would put together a nice page (if not already done) on the references. Showing the Josephus, Origen and Eusebius quotes and the auxiliary material, nice ducks in a row. Do we have such a page ?

Shalom,
Steven

Ben C Smith

On one of my Testimonium pages I have all three of those.

I have quotes from the Chronicon Paschale and Syncellus on another page that I am still working (very, very slowly) on, and have not yet linked to or publicized. But here are the passages for quick reference.

Chronicon Paschale, century VI or VII:

Ιωσηππος ιστορει εν τω πεμπτω λογω της αλωσεως οτι ετους τριτου Ουεσπασιανου η αλωσις των Ιουδαιων γεγονεν, ως μετα μ ετη της γενομενης παρ αυτων τολμης κατα του Ιησου, εν ω χρονω, φησι, και Ιακωβον τον αδελφον του κυριου κρεμνισθηναι και υπ αυτων αναιρεθηναι λιθοβοληθεντα.

Josephus records in the fifth volume of the Capture that in the third year of Vespasian the capture of the Jews took place, as after 40 years from their daring deed against Jesus, at which time, he says, also James the brother of the Lord was thrown down and murdered by them by being stoned.

George Syncellus (century VIII) writes of Hegesippus:

Ταυτα μεν Ηγησιππος των του καθ ημας ορθου λογου αξιοπιστος συγγραφευς ορθως ιστορει, ω και Ιωσηππος ουκ απαδοντα συμφωνει γραφων ταυτην γενεσθαι την αιτιαν της κατα Ουεσπασιανον αλωσεως Ιουδαιων.

These things Hegesippus, an historian worthy of credit, one of those [who is a follower] of the orthodox word among us, with whom also Josephus agrees, writing what is not in disagreement [with him], that this became the cause of the conquest of the Jews in the time of Vespasian.

Syncellus immediately, then (under the heading Ιωσηππου περι των αυτων, Josephus concerning the same things), writes as follows:

Ταυτα δε συμβεβηκεν Ιουδαιοις κατ εκδικησιν Ιακωβου του δικαιου, ος ην αδελφος Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου, επειδηπερ δικαιοτατον αυτον οντα Ιουδαιοι απεκτειναν.

But these things happened to the Jews as vengeance for James the just, who was the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. For the Jews killed him even though he was a most just man.

Syncellus then goes on, without pause, to give the account of the younger Ananus as given in our extant manuscripts of book 18 of the Antiquities.

Ben.

S.C.Carlson

What work is Capture a reference to? Jewish War? or some other work or epitome of Josephus now lost?

Stephen

Ben C Smith

I am pretty sure it is the Jewish War. Pines lists several titles of this work in note 162 on page 45 that have αλωσις as the main noun.

But my own working theory is that the chronicler may actually have been thinking of the fifth volume of a different work, that of Hegesippus, since Eusebius reports that it was in the fifth volume that Hegesippus described the death of James, including a final note about Vespasian besieging Jerusalem.

The part about 40 years between Jesus and the fall of Jerusalem may be fulfilling the old Christian wish, enunciated by Origen, that Josephus should have attributed the war to the murder of Jesus, not to that of James.

Ben.

andrewcriddle

The passage about James begins a section about behaviour against Jewish Law by leading Jewish groups and individuals which ends
At face value the improper condemnation of James is, as far as Josephus is concerned, a relatively minor element in this list. (The transgression of regulations concerning the Levites seems if anything more important) However an early Christian might interpret things differently.

Andrew Criddle

Ben C Smith

I would add that Josephus himself uses language that would perhaps seem, to a Christian, to tie the punishment of Ananus (for his unlawful actions against James and certain others) with the punishment of the country as a whole:

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. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; 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.

....

Now all this was contrary to the laws of our country, which, whenever they have been transgressed, we have never been able to avoid the punishment of such transgressions.

Ben.

Doug Shaver

You've piqued my interest. I'll have a closer look at that section when time permits.