The Uncertaintist has presented several posts about Origen’s belief that Josephus had attributed the fall of Jerusalem to God’s retribution for the killing of James the Just (link). In fact, Josephus had attributed the disaster of 70 CE to God’s retribution for different killings in or near the Temple beginning with the assassination of the high priest Jonathan in 58 CE (Antiquities 20.8.5 link).
Josephus also wrote about a Sanhedrin trial held in 62 CE where the defendants including someone named James were condemned to die. All our source manuscripts identify this James as the brother of “Jesus called Christ,” that is, James the Just. Received Josephus says nothing about God avenging James’s death.
Both Jonathan’s and James’s stories appear in the same Book 20 of Josephus’s Antiquities, only several hundred words apart. Origen apparently misremembered what he’d read in Antiquities Book 20, blending two stories to create a new story that conforms with Christian traditions about James the Just.
What is at stake in the mix-up is that Origen is the earliest witness to Josephus having identified James as the brother of the Christian Jesus. Origen would thus confirm the antiquity of a rare non-devotional attestation that Jesus and his brother were real men who actually lived in First Century Palestine.
Since the Fourth Century, some readers have interpreted Origen’s writing as telling us that Josephus also discussed James’s character and reputation. No such discussion appears in the received Josephus.
In our own day, some readers propose that Origen claimed to have read about James’s character and reputation in Josephus because Origen mistook some other author’s work for Josephus’s. Richard Carrier, for example (link), thinks that Origen recalls a passage that was actually from Hegesippus.
The chief finding of this post is that there is considerable uncertainty about whether Origen claimed that Josephus wrote anything about James’s character. Even reading Origen that way, Origen would be saying that he’d read a few unspecific praises of James. That is, pious factoids that Origen himself probably believed based on Christian traditions too generic to implicate any particular textual source.
Origen teaches us that this martyred saint James was a virtuous person, deserving of his epithet as a man of justice. James’s contemporaries who knew of him would probably also know of this reputation. Josephus was a contemporary of anyone tried in 62 CE by Josephus’s colleagues. Origen clearly believed that Josephus wrote about James the Just and therefore believed that Josephus knew of James.
There are three occasions when Origen mentions reading about James the Just in Josephus. Considering each in turn:
The shorter mention in Against Celsus (2.13): Identifying James
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 clear, on account of Jesus Christ the Son of God. (link)
That statement says nothing about the character or reputation of James, but highlights the difficulty of interpreting what Origen tells his reader about what words Josephus wrote to identify James.
Probably the most common interpretation is that Origen claims to have read Jesus called Christ, but is not claiming to have read the term James the Just in Josephus. That construction is based on what agrees with the received text. Carrier’s position comports with the mirror image interpretation. Carrier thinks Origen is recalling the writing of Hegesippus, so what best agrees with that text is yes to James the Just and no to Jesus called Christ.
Some people doubt the authenticity of the received Jesus called Christ but believe that Origen is recalling Josephus as best he can. Support for their position would come from no to both identifying noun phrases.
Eusebius appears to believe that Origen meant that both phrases appeared in his copy of Josephus. In Eusebius’s Church History (2.23.20, link), quoting without naming Origen (Against Celsus 1.47, see the next section of this post),
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.”
All four possible pairs of choices to include or to exclude the Just and called Christ are attested. The ambiguity cannot be resolved by syntactical means because a paraphraser is allowed unfettered discretion to mix tokens of their personal understanding in with their description of what they’ve read. For example, the first sentence of this post could be read to say that Origen believed Josephus used the phrase “James the Just.” Your ob’d correspondent makes no such claim, but breaks no rules.
The longer mention in Against Celsus (1.47): Characterizing James
Now this writer, … in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, … says … that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ), the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice.
(Link. Omitted material states Origen’s own theory that Jesus’s wrongful death caused Jeruslem’s fall. Eusebius agrees with Origen about that, and it would be remarkable if Hegesippus disagreed.)
Enough has been said about the phrase James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ). “Although he was a man most distinguished for his justice” is a comment about James’s character or reputation or both.
Given the ambiguities of natural language and the latitude allowed to paraphrase, Origen might be reciting his own viewpoint about James to explain why God would punish someone for executing him. However, as was quoted in the previous section, Eusebius seems to interpret both epithet and character comment as Origen’s claims about what he read in Josephus.
Just as there was uncertainty surrounding the identifying noun phrases, there is also uncertainty whether or not Origen says here that Josephus praised James’s character or reputation. Even granting the affirmative, what specific authoritative source would Origen need to propose that someone writing about a man Origen calls “James the Just” might mention some distinction for justice?
The mention in the Commentary on Matthew’s Gospel (10.17): Being moved by James
And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that 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. (link)
Removing for clarity those portions which are undisputed and those which can be reconciled with the received Josephus as statements about Jesus or about deaths other than James’s, this resolves to
And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that Flavius 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.
“And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise” is something Origen believes and serves here as his explanation for why Josephus wrote what Origen recalls reading about James and for the people’s understanding of their being punished by God.
That people thought that divine retribution had occurred is reasonable for Origen or anyone to infer from Josephus’s remark that God had made the Jewish people wiser by these calamities (Antiquities 20.8.5 ending, link). God was teaching a lesson; it is unsurprising that his people would learn what God taught them.
More ambiguous is the statement “he gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great.” Testimony could be read as saying that Josephus wrote that about James. It could instead be read in concert with the opening clause “And to so great a reputation …” as stating that the attribution of Jerusalem’s fall to James was in and of itself testimony to James’s great righteousness.
Those two readings are not mutually exclusive. Long-term memory is partially driven by inferences made during recall. Origen believes Josephus knows his older contemporary and what his fellow Jews thought about James’s reputation. Something about James led Josephus to conclude that James’s death was of such special interest to God as to destroy Jerusalem because of it. It would be unsurprising to Origen, therefore, if Josephus had mentioned James’s reputation, perhaps sufficiently unsurprising as to misremember the text as including some such mention.
Conclusion
Origen clearly remembers Josephus writing that God allowed the Romans to destroy Jerusalem in instructive retribution for somebody’s death, somebody who was not Jesus. Josephus did write that. Origen errs to identify Josephus’s featured victim as James the Just instead of Jonathan the high priest.
In paraphrasing what he remembers reading, Origen the Christian apologist mentions a few elements of Christian tradition about James the Just. Whether Origen is attributing these remarks to Josephus is at best unclear.
Even if Origen were claiming that Josephus wrote about James’s character and reputation, what does Origen say that Josephus wrote? James the Christian saint was in some unspecified ways righteous, just, and well-known for these qualities. No Christian source has a monopoly on these ideas.
Origen wrote about what he read in Josephus’s Antiquities Book 20 from memory. Origen’s recollection failed on a single crucial point: whom did Josephus say God avenged? This failure suffices to explain why Origen reported what he did. Anything else Origen wrote about James’s character while describing Josephus’s writings falls within the latitude afforded to paraphrasers to explain another person’s work with references to their own understandings.
=======
Image: Detail from “Titus’s Conquest of Jerusalem,” 15th Century, Vienna Master of Mary of Burgundy, https://www.mskgent.be/en/collection/1958-aehttps://www.mskgent.be/en/collection/1958-ae
The Uncertaintist 