Did Josephus say that Jesus was called Chrēstos?

[Ken Olson]

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.

Let me give the Greek:

Ιακωβος δε εστιν ουτος ον λεγει Παυλος ιδειν εν τη προς Γαλατας επιστολη ειπων· Ετερον δε των αποστολων ουκ ειδον ει μη Ιακωβον τον αδελφον του κυριου. επι τοσουτον δε διελεμψεν ουτος ο Ιακωβος εν τω λαω επι δικαιοσυνη ως Φλοβιον Ιωσηπον αναγραψαντα εν εικοσι βιβλιοις την Ιουδαικην αρχαιολογιαν, την αιτιαν παραστησαι βουλομενον του τα τοσαυτα πεπονθεναι τον λαον ως και τον ναον κατασκαφηναι, ειρηκεναι κατα μηνιν θεου ταυτα αυτοις απηντηκεναι δια τα εις Ιακωβον τον αδελφον Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου υπ αυτων τετολμημενα. και το θαυμαστον εστιν οτι, τον Ιησουν ημων ου καταδεξαμενος ειναι Χριστον, ουδεν ηττον Ιακωβω δικαιοσυνην εμαρτυρησε τοσαυτην. λεγει δε οτι και ο λαος ταυτα ενομιζε δια τον Ιακωβον πεπονθεναι. και Ιουδας εγραψεν επιστολην ολιγοστιχον μεν, πεπληρωμενην δε των της ουρανιου χαριτος ερρωμενων λογων, οστις εν τω προοιμιω ειρηκεν· Ιουδας Ιησου Χριστου δουλος, αδελφος δε Ιακωβου. περι δε Ιωσηφ και Σιμονος ημεις ουδεν ιστορησαμεν. (Origen, Commentary on Matthew 10.17)

Here is a partial sentence from the story in Hegesippus (Eusebius HE 2.23.10):

ἡμεῖς γὰρ μαρτυροῦμέν σοι καὶ πᾶς ὁ λαὸς ὅτι δίκαιος εἶ

For we and the whole people testify to you that you are righteous

Do you see any of the three words (in any form): people, witness, righteous in the two passages from Josephus under discussion? And if not, are you willing to claim that this agreement between Origen and Hegesippus is a coincidence?

G-Don, of course, is making an argument about how Origen could have interpreted Josephus if he knew Hegesippus (or the story we know from Hegesippus). Do you think the case stands without that?

Best,

Ken

[Paul the Uncertain]

And if not, are you willing to claim that this agreement between Origen and Hegesippus is a coincidence?

Of course not. Origen and Hegesippus are both Christian apologists who may be presumed familiar with Christian traditions about first-generation saints, martyrs, and family members of Jesus. Eusebius tells us Clement of Alexandria agrees with Hegesippus - four apologists, one opinion, zero happenstance.

G-Don, of course, is making an argument about how Origen could have interpreted Josephus if he knew Hegesippus (or the story we know from Hegesippus). Do you think the case stands without that?

Yes.

Let us accept arguendo G'don's reading of Origen as claiming that Josephus discussed James's character. That is an admissible but not obligatory reading of Origen's recital of his own opinion about James.

We are having this discussion because Origen reports reading something in Josephus that is not in Josephus. In Josephus, the stated reason for God setting the Romans upon the city was not the death of Jesus's brother (Antiquities 20.8.5). Origen is not alone in misremembering Josephus's teachings, Jerome did, too.

The explanation of how Jerome recalled Josephus as claiming that the "temple voices" occurred when Jesus died need not depend on what words any specific author used when writing about what occurred at the time of Jesus's death.

The human mind is capable of combining ideas about two independent situations (what Josephus said about events in the 60's and what Mathhew among others wrote about different events in the 30's) to imagine an alternative history in which events from different times occurred simultaneously, as Jerome describes (Letters 46.4 https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001046.htm ) and the entirety of which Jerome attributes to one and only one of his sources.

G'don's hypothesis is one branch of a family of hypotheses in which Origen combines actual and recognizable features of Josephus with elements of Christian tradition. To this G'don conjoins a further claim about Origen misinterpreting part of what he read. Other people choose a different branch of the same family where a no longer extant note in the margin of Origen's copy of Antiquities helped him stumble.

Maybe so, and in each case everyone is free to assess for themselves whether the gain in specificity is worth the unavoidable decrease in credibility. But it is obvious that a person can misremember their reading without having misinterpreted it in the first place, and that a person can integrate their memory of their reading, whether accurate or faulty, with other ideas they entertain.

----------------------
Disclaimers: This post responds to a posting on the open board, which therefore was offered to the community at large for asynchronous consideration and reply. No expectation of a response to this post attaches, but all courteous replies are welcome. Any assumption discussed arguendo is not thereby endorsed by the author.

[Peter Kirby]

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.

Let me give the Greek:

Ιακωβος δε εστιν ουτος ον λεγει Παυλος ιδειν εν τη προς Γαλατας επιστολη ειπων· Ετερον δε των αποστολων ουκ ειδον ει μη Ιακωβον τον αδελφον του κυριου. επι τοσουτον δε διελεμψεν ουτος ο Ιακωβος εν τω λαω επι δικαιοσυνη ως Φλοβιον Ιωσηπον αναγραψαντα εν εικοσι βιβλιοις την Ιουδαικην αρχαιολογιαν, την αιτιαν παραστησαι βουλομενον του τα τοσαυτα πεπονθεναι τον λαον ως και τον ναον κατασκαφηναι, ειρηκεναι κατα μηνιν θεου ταυτα αυτοις απηντηκεναι δια τα εις Ιακωβον τον αδελφον Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου υπ αυτων τετολμημενα. και το θαυμαστον εστιν οτι, τον Ιησουν ημων ου καταδεξαμενος ειναι Χριστον, ουδεν ηττον Ιακωβω δικαιοσυνην εμαρτυρησε τοσαυτην. λεγει δε οτι και ο λαος ταυτα ενομιζε δια τον Ιακωβον πεπονθεναι. και Ιουδας εγραψεν επιστολην ολιγοστιχον μεν, πεπληρωμενην δε των της ουρανιου χαριτος ερρωμενων λογων, οστις εν τω προοιμιω ειρηκεν· Ιουδας Ιησου Χριστου δουλος, αδελφος δε Ιακωβου. περι δε Ιωσηφ και Σιμονος ημεις ουδεν ιστορησαμεν. (Origen, Commentary on Matthew 10.17)

Here is a partial sentence from the story in Hegesippus (Eusebius HE 2.23.10):

ἡμεῖς γὰρ μαρτυροῦμέν σοι καὶ πᾶς ὁ λαὸς ὅτι δίκαιος εἶ

For we and the whole people testify to you that you are righteous

Do you see any of the three words (in any form): people, witness, righteous in the two passages from Josephus under discussion? And if not, are you willing to claim that this agreement between Origen and Hegesippus is a coincidence?

G-Don, of course, is making an argument about how Origen could have interpreted Josephus if he knew Hegesippus (or the story we know from Hegesippus). Do you think the case stands without that?

This is a good question and one that I need to look into further. Unlike other possible responses, any response that I make will interpret you more correctly, as asking if Origen knew "the story" of the death of James in a form close to what is known from Hegesippus.

In particular, asking whether Origen was aware of an earlier reference to "the people" who "testified" that James was just/righteous.

[Paul the Uncertain]

Unlike other possible responses, any response that I make will interpret you more correctly, as asking if Origen knew "the story" of the death of James in a form close to what is known from Hegesippus.

I didn't interpret the other poster's questions that way because nobody has claimed here that Origen was ignorant of Hegesippus's writings. Conversely, I have yet to see anybody claim here in as many words that Origen was ignorant of Christian tradition about James except for what he read in Hegesippus. (Although I acknowledge that I often skim posts from our resident ambassador from Carrier's realm.)

Eusebius tells us that Hegesippus and Clement agree about James. Some people think that Origen may have been familiar with Clement's work. We don't have the pertinent work of Clement anymore, so we do not know whether or not Clement ever used such words as people, testify, or just(ice) when discussing James.

To have a reputation requires that people testify to it, and James's reputation according to tradition was for justice or righteousness. Nevertheless, I suppose Clement could have avoided all three concepts when discussing James and suppose further that maybe Origen couldn't have come up with commonly used words for any of those concepts on his own when he discussed James. That Origen did come up with commonly used words for those concepts doesn't seem very strong evidence that he needed Hegesippus to the exclusion of all other antecedents to supply the concepts or vocabulary, IMO.

[John2]

It can't be proven, but I think Origen could have known about James via Clement (who was in agreement with Hegesippus). And I think he (and Clement) could have known Hegesippus. But I think it probably goes deeper than that. What do all these sources have in common and that we know called James "the Just" and Jesus' brother? The Gospel of the Hebrews. So I would suggest that all these guys (Clement, Origen, Hegesippus) talk the same kind of talk about James because they all knew the Gospel of the Hebrews.

[Peter Kirby]

It can't be proven, but I think Origen could have known about James via Clement (who was in agreement with Hegesippus). And I think he (and Clement) could have known Hegesippus. But I think it probably goes deeper than that. What do all these sources have in common and that we know called James "the Just" and Jesus' brother? The Gospel of the Hebrews. So I would suggest that all these guys (Clement, Origen, Hegesippus) talk the same kind of talk about James because they all knew the Gospel of the Hebrews.

It's an intriguing possibility for a source that hypothetically (or is it better than that?) could have a statement about James being known as just.

There are statements that the text has reference to James, right?

[Peter Kirby]

I didn't interpret the other poster's questions that way because nobody has claimed here that Origen was ignorant of Hegesippus's writings.

The correct interpretation of Ken's question is that it was directed specifically to me.

And I had already tendered a skeptical point of view in that regard.

And I am also content to attempt to continue the conversation as being (primarily) between Ken and me.

[Paul the Uncertain]

You're the boss.

[John2]

It can't be proven, but I think Origen could have known about James via Clement (who was in agreement with Hegesippus). And I think he (and Clement) could have known Hegesippus. But I think it probably goes deeper than that. What do all these sources have in common and that we know called James "the Just" and Jesus' brother? The Gospel of the Hebrews. So I would suggest that all these guys (Clement, Origen, Hegesippus) talk the same kind of talk about James because they all knew the Gospel of the Hebrews.

It's an intriguing possibility for a source that hypothetically (or is it better than that?) could have a statement about James being known as just.

There are statements that the text has reference to James, right?

If I understand what you are asking, there is a reference to James being called the Just in Jerome's citation of the Gospel of the Hebrews in Ill. Men 2. But in the spirit of Origen possibly reading things into Josephus, maybe Jerome read things into the Gospel of the Hebrews (since he knew Hegesippus via Eusebius). Maybe that becomes clearer in Jerome's Latin (offhand I'm assuming that's what he wrote here), but here is a translation of it.

The Gospel also which is called the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and which I have recently translated into Greek and Latin and which also Origen often makes use of, after the account of the resurrection of the Saviour says, but the Lord, after he had given his grave clothes to the servant of the priest, appeared to James (for James had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour in which he drank the cup of the Lord until he should see him rising again from among those that sleep) and again, a little later, it says 'Bring a table and bread,' said the Lord. And immediately it is added, He brought bread and blessed and broke and gave to James the Just and said to him, 'my brother eat your bread, for the son of man is risen from among those that sleep.'

[John2]

Painter has a slightly different translation (the one above is from the Catholic Encyclopedia), but like in the above, it appears that Jerome is directly citing the Gospel of the Hebrews (or that Painter reads Jerome that way):

And a resurrection appearance to James is consistent with Paul, who says that James had seen the resurrected Jesus.

And immediately it is added: He took the bread, blessed it and brake it and gave it to James the Just and said to him: My brother, eat thy bread, for the Son of Man is risen from among them that sleep.


https://www.google.com/books/edition/Ju ... frontcover

Edited to add that this translation that Painter uses comes from New Testament Apocrypha, vol 1 pg. 165.