Did Josephus say that Jesus was called Chrēstos?

[Peter Kirby]

Is this a reminder that I should address your theory that Ant 20.200 originally read chrestus more fully?

I guess this is!

I enjoy your learning from you, and your depth of knowledge in this area is well-known.

[Ken Olson]

Is this a reminder that I should address your theory that Ant 20.200 originally read chrestus more fully?

I guess this is!

I enjoy your learning from you, and your depth of knowledge in this area is well-known.

Peter,

Yes, sorry. I think your proposal deserves serious consideration and I still have to plead that I do not have time to write one right now. (Same with Origen's knowledge of the James story known to us from Hegesippus, AKA the James-who-was-thrown-down-from-the-temple-story).

Best,

Ken

[Peter Kirby]

(Same with Origen's knowledge of the James story known to us from Hegesippus, AKA the James-who-was-thrown-down-from-the-temple-story).

I might be ready to put aside this hypothesis after seeing the way GakuseiDon addresses it.

One difficulty with the idea that I have suggested in this regard is that Origen appears to be quite certain on the point that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as the Christ, yet, on the other hand, I would assume that would likely be contraindicated in a text of Hegesippus (who I assume did believe in Jesus as the Christ).

Of course, I wouldn't mind seeing how you address that issue, but the current thread here holds more interest for me now.

[Peter Kirby]

Here was that post from GakuseiDon:

The issue is treating Origen as though he were quoting Josephus instead of Origen 'reading between the lines'. It's reasonable to assume that Origen had read both of the key works by Josephus as well as the works of Hegesippus. He already knew that James the Just had a great reputation for righteousness; he didn't have to extract that from Josephus. Indeed he would have assumed that that would have been known to Josephus, much as apologists read the Paul of the Pauline epistles into Acts and vice versa.

Origen wrote in Against Celsus, Book 1, Chapter 67:
https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ ... en161.html

Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after 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 to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless--being, although 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 a brother of Jesus (called Christ),--the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine.

First, look at the blue highlighted section. Did Paul write that about James? No, apparently not. Origen is reading into it. Should we assume that Origen is quoting Paul here? No, I don't think so. Often we on this board import ideas from one text about a person into another text where it appears the texts are referring to the same person, with various levels of legitimacy and logic. That's what I see Origen doing there.

What about what Josephus actually wrote? In Book XX of Antiquities, Section 8.5, Josephus gives the cause for why these disasters against Jerusalem and the temple occur. Then, a few paragraphs later, Josephus writes about James. First, for the cause for the disasters:

Section 8.5

... 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

"Brought the Romans upon us" - keep that in mind.

Then, a few paragraphs later, Josephus makes the comment about James:

Section 9.1

But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, (23) who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim ofjudges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, 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; 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. (24) 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.

My argument: Origen, having formed an opinion about James based on Hegesippus and others, decided that the reason "the most equitable of the citizens" had "disliked what was done" was because of James' known righteousness. The citizens called on the Romans (Albinus, Procurator of Judea) and this starts a series of events where things get "worse and worse" (Section 9.4), ending with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.

Now, of course I'm not saying Josephus had James in mind for the consequences. But Origen, 'knowing' all about the righteousness of James from earlier texts, has picked up the threads of Josephus to weave a view of history that incorporates Hegesippus and other Christian traditions.

Again: this is nothing I don't see people on this board do all the time, including me.

[Peter Kirby]

Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after 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 to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless--being, although 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 a brother of Jesus (called Christ),--the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine.

If this is the explanation of how Origen wrote this reference, then this would also be an explanation for the appearance of the phrases "brother of Jesus (called Christ)" and "brother of the Lord" here in Origen, i.e., that the former came from Josephus and the latter from Paul. Given the positive likelihood of this explanation, the theory in this thread (which would allow Origen to find something very much like this written in Josephus) is arguably a better hypothesis than the theories that involve an interpolation, rather than a correction, at this point.

There would of course still be an open question as to whether Origen witnessed a nomen sacrum, Christos, or Chrestos at this point in the text. And the theory of this thread would have to contend with the theory that the original text was a form of Christos, which I have argued against not on the basis of the manuscripts or citations but with reference to the arguments of the OP against this particular word being in Josephus. My arguments here were different than yours (it would seem) because my focus is on the way Josephus presents himself to non-Jewish readers, especially his patrons.

An implication of this theory, which does not involve any other reference in Josephus, is that Josephus could have written the name "Jesus the one called Chrestos" without providing an earlier narrative or explanation about him. Previously I was uncomfortable with that implication (as witnessed in my essay on the Testimonium Flavianum), but today I would consider this to be plausible and consider my earlier stance here to have been poorly judged.

[Ken Olson]

Here was that post from GakuseiDon:
[ Snipped]
My argument: Origen, having formed an opinion about James based on Hegesippus and others, decided that the reason "the most equitable of the citizens" had "disliked what was done" was because of James' known righteousness. The citizens called on the Romans (Albinus, Procurator of Judea) and this starts a series of events where things get "worse and worse" (Section 9.4), ending with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.

Now, of course I'm not saying Josephus had James in mind for the consequences. But Origen, 'knowing' all about the righteousness of James from earlier texts, has picked up the threads of Josephus to weave a view of history that incorporates Hegesippus and other Christian traditions.

Again: this is nothing I don't see people on this board do all the time, including me.

Peter,

Kind of busy right now and don't have time to write a long post. Are you granting (as G-Don seems to be) that Origen knew the James-the-Just-who was-thrown-from-the temple-and-beaten-to-death-with-a-fuller's-club story from Hegesippus or another Christian source, or do I have to establish that?

Best,

Ken

[Peter Kirby]

Here was that post from GakuseiDon:
[ Snipped]
My argument: Origen, having formed an opinion about James based on Hegesippus and others, decided that the reason "the most equitable of the citizens" had "disliked what was done" was because of James' known righteousness. The citizens called on the Romans (Albinus, Procurator of Judea) and this starts a series of events where things get "worse and worse" (Section 9.4), ending with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.

Now, of course I'm not saying Josephus had James in mind for the consequences. But Origen, 'knowing' all about the righteousness of James from earlier texts, has picked up the threads of Josephus to weave a view of history that incorporates Hegesippus and other Christian traditions.

Again: this is nothing I don't see people on this board do all the time, including me.

Peter,

Kind of busy right now and don't have time to write a long post. Are you granting (as G-Don seems to be) that Origen knew the James-the-Just-who was-thrown-from-the temple-and-beaten-to-death-with-a-fuller's-club story from Hegesippus or another Christian source, or do I have to establish that?

I guess I am not certain that Origen knew that story. I would not mind knowing better how we could say that he did.

[Peter Kirby]

It's clear enough that Origen knew of the name "James the Just" and a reputation for justice from Christian tradition.

[Ken Olson]

Peter,

Kind of busy right now and don't have time to write a long post. Are you granting (as G-Don seems to be) that Origen knew the James-the-Just-who was-thrown-from-the temple-and-beaten-to-death-with-a-fuller's-club story from Hegesippus or another Christian source, or do I have to establish that?

I guess I am not certain that Origen knew that story. I would not mind knowing better how we could say that he did.

Origen refers to James as the Just in all of his references to James and the misfortunes of the Jews and Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple in 70 CE:

And this James is the one whom Paul says he saw in the epistle to the Galatians, saying: But I did not see any other of the apostles except James the brother of the Lord. 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. And Jude wrote an epistle short in lines but full of the healthy words of heaven; in the preface he has said: Jude, servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James. But concerning Joseph and Simon we have nothing to relate. (Origen, Commentary on Matthew 10.17, discussing Matt 13.55)

I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John, who baptized Jesus, as a baptist, that the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who lived no great length of time after John and Jesus. 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 Justt, 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. [Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine.] If, then, he says that it was on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason to say that it happened on account of Jesus Christ? (Origen, Contra Celsum 1.47).

But at that time there were no armies around Jerusalem, encompassing and enclosing and besieging it; for the siege began in the reign of Nero and lasted till the government of Vespasian, whose son Titus destroyed Jerusalem on account, as Josephus says, of James the just, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, but, as the truth makes dear, really on account of Jesus the Christ of God. (Origen, Contra Celsum 2.13).

So:

1) The surviving manuscripts of Josephus never call James the Just or speak of his righteousness.

2) We will set aside Sabriina Inowlocki's theory (shared by one or two others) that the manuscripts of Josephus at one time contained a passage such as Origen describes attributing the destruction of the temple and the capture of Jerusalem to the death of James as unlikley.

3) Neither our manuscripts of Josephus nor any other ancient Jewish source calls James the Just. We will presume Origen had a Christian source for the appellation of the Just to James.

4) We find in the quotation of Hegesippus preserved in Eusebius HE 2.23: 'He has been called the Just by all from the time of our Saviour to the present day; for there were many that bore the name of James.'

5) Despite the claim of Hegesippus/Eusebius, we have no record of anyone other than Christians calling James the Just. Nor do we find James ever called the Just in the New Testament. The most reasonable inference we can make is that Hegesippus is exaggerating and James was not called the Just by all from Jesus time to his own.

6) If we look for Christian sources that do refer to James as the Just that can plausibly be dated before Origen, these are: Hegesippus, as preserved in Eusebius; Clement of Alexandria (also preserved in Eusebius, HE 2.12-4); the Gospel of Thomas, Logia 12; and the fragment from the Hebrew Gospel used by the Nazarenes quoted in Jerome, De Viris Illustribus 2. (Does anyone know of any other known sources?)

Are you with me so far?

Best,

Ken

ETA: The First and Second Apocalypses of James from Nag Hammadi refer to James as the Just.

[Peter Kirby]

Peter,

Kind of busy right now and don't have time to write a long post. Are you granting (as G-Don seems to be) that Origen knew the James-the-Just-who was-thrown-from-the temple-and-beaten-to-death-with-a-fuller's-club story from Hegesippus or another Christian source, or do I have to establish that?

I guess I am not certain that Origen knew that story. I would not mind knowing better how we could say that he did.

Origen refers to James as the Just in all of his references to James and the misfortunes of the Jews and Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple in 70 CE:

And this James is the one whom Paul says he saw in the epistle to the Galatians, saying: But I did not see any other of the apostles except James the brother of the Lord. 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. And Jude wrote an epistle short in lines but full of the healthy words of heaven; in the preface he has said: Jude, servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James. But concerning Joseph and Simon we have nothing to relate. (Origen, Commentary on Matthew 10.17, discussing Matt 13.55)

I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John, who baptized Jesus, as a baptist, that the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who lived no great length of time after John and Jesus. 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 Justt, 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. [Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine.] If, then, he says that it was on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason to say that it happened on account of Jesus Christ? (Origen, Contra Celsum 1.47).

But at that time there were no armies around Jerusalem, encompassing and enclosing and besieging it; for the siege began in the reign of Nero and lasted till the government of Vespasian, whose son Titus destroyed Jerusalem on account, as Josephus says, of James the just, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, but, as the truth makes dear, really on account of Jesus the Christ of God. (Origen, Contra Celsum 2.13).

So:

1) The surviving manuscripts of Josephus never call James the Just or speak of his righteousness.

2) We will set aside Sabriina Inowlocki's theory (shared by one or two others) that the manuscripts of Josephus at one time contained a passage such as Origen describes attributing the destruction of the temple and the capture of Jerusalem to the death of James as unlikley.

3) Neither our manuscripts of Josephus nor any other ancient Jewish source calls James the Just. We will presume Origen had a Christian source for the appellation of the Just to James.

4) We find in the quotation of Hegesippus preserved in Eusebius HE 2.23: 'He has been called the Just by all from the time of our Saviour to the present day; for there were many that bore the name of James.'

5) Despite the claim of Hegesippus/Eusebius, we have no record of anyone other than Christians calling James the Just. Nor do we find James ever called the Just in the New Testament. The most reasonable inference we can make is that Hegesippus is exaggerating and James was not called the Just by all from Jesus time to his own.

6) If we look for Christian sources that do refer to James as the Just that can plausibly be dated before Origen, these are: Hegesippus, as preserved in Eusebius; Clement of Alexandria (also preserved in Eusebius, HE 2.12-4); the Gospel of Thomas, Logia 12; and the fragment from the Hebrew Gospel used by the Nazarenes quoted in Jerome, De Viris Illustribus 2. (Does anyone know of any other known sources?)

Are you with me so far?

Best,

Ken

ETA: The First and Second Apocalypses of James from Nag Hammadi refer to James as the Just.

Yes, I am.

It's clear enough that Origen knew of the name "James the Just" and a reputation for justice from Christian tradition. This tradition is sufficiently diffuse that I am not sure if it has to be derived from a (particular) Christian source (text).

I believe that Josephus did not call James "the Just" and likewise set aside Inowlocki's theory.

Less clear is who the "historical James" was and how he was understood by contemporaries (the references from Paul and in Mark being rather brief), but I am willing to assume that the fixed phrase title "James the Just" developed at a later stage, given its absence from the New Testament. It could have been the case that a historical James was respected by some non-Christian peers.

Origen refers to James as the Just in all of his references to James and the misfortunes of the Jews and Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple in 70 CE:

And this James is the one whom Paul says he saw in the epistle to the Galatians, saying: But I did not see any other of the apostles except James the brother of the Lord. 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. And Jude wrote an epistle short in lines but full of the healthy words of heaven; in the preface he has said: Jude, servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James. But concerning Joseph and Simon we have nothing to relate. (Origen, Commentary on Matthew 10.17, discussing Matt 13.55)

The fixed phrase title "James the Just" does not appear in this quote, nor does James as "the Just"; a reference to the righteousness of James (and his reputation for the same) does appear.