Origen 1, Scholars 0

[Peter Kirby]

The OP and its conclusion especially were written quickly.

It's good to see you here posting!

It's clear that Origen is familiar with, at least, the tradition of James being called 'the Just.' He did not get this from Josephus. (We might also suppose that Hegesippus did not invent the appellation 'the just' personally.)

There are still enough grounds to see Origen reading into the comments of Ant. 20.9.1 that James was well regarded by the people (a detail I mentioned above from memory)

I apologize for any confusion arising from the incomplete OP.

[Peter Kirby]

The thesis, then, is that Origen read these things into Josephus with the basic elements of Christian tradition already in his head and finding the elements that we find incongruous (the righteousness of James, the consequence of the fate of Jerusalem as punishment for his death) into the things Josephus actually says (the people were most equitable were offended at the actions of the bold tempered Ananus, the events that followed as a consequence, chiefly that Ananus lost his grip on power directly, worsened the situation irrevocably).

The alternate theses:

1. Origen read an interpolation with all of this very explicit (sometimes supported by Doherty and Viklund)
2. Origen read Hegesippus exclusively and mistook it for Josephus (so Carrier)

Are thus rejected. And the 'gold standard' explanation

3. Origen conflated Josephus and Hegesippus as belonging to the same author, confusedly.

Is rendered unnecessary, although strictly possible of course.

In any case, the statements stand there for Origen to 'misread'. Perhaps I could have highlighted this more clearly with more than a dashed off OP.

PS: an interesting fact is that a church father, in similar fashion, John Damascene if I remember right, says that Josephus attributed the fall of Jerusalem to John the Baptist.

[MrMacSon]

In addition to the citations in Ken's post, there's also

Origen, Against Celsus 2.13.

"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 in reality, as the truth makes dear, on account of Jesus Christ the Son of God."

[Peter Kirby]

Yes thank you for copying them into the thread here.

The heart of the question here regards references from interested parties made out of memory.

Our focus on having all the various texts before our eyes is valuable but also slightly misleading if we do not allow for distortion particularly according to the assumptions and perspective of the one making the reference.

I shall make all of this easier on the eyes on another occasion.

[MrMacSon]

Is it possible that Origen's texts were redacted to align with Josephus's? If so, is it likely?

[Peter Kirby]

Yes. No.

[MrMacSon]

The alternate theses:

1. Origen read an interpolation with all of this very explicit (sometimes supported by Doherty and Viklund)
2. Origen read Hegesippus exclusively and mistook it for Josephus (so Carrier)

Are thus rejected. And the 'gold standard' explanation

3. Origen conflated Josephus and Hegesippus as belonging to the same author, confusedly.

Is rendered unnecessary, although strictly possible of course.

I was surprised to find more on Carrier's 2012 paper

• Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200
  the Journal of Early Christian Studies Vol. 20, No. 4; pp. 489-514

Despite the Abstract saying

• "Analysis of the evidence from the works of Origen, Eusebius, and Hegesippus concludes that the reference to "Christ" in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200 is probably an accidental interpolation or scribal emendation and that the passage was never originally about Christ or Christians."

The discussion or conclusion says

• "Origen never claims that his material originated from the AJ, and Eusebius could not find it anywhere in Josephus’s writings either, so he simply quoted Origen, but passed it off as a Josephan quotation" -

"It is more probable that the phrase, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, the name for whom was James,” originated in an accidental interpolation in the Caesarean library, than that it came from Josephus’s hand. ... we have no evidence that the phrase was ever in Josephus, as the silence of Luke-Acts, Origen, and every other author, including Hegesippus (whose account shows no knowledge of the events related in AJ 20.200), suggests. Origen does not quote Josephus when he, in three places, uses the phrase “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ,” because in none of these places does he quote or refer to other Josephan material (be it a distinctive construction like “the name for whom was James,” or content particular to AJ 20.200). Rather, he uses a story clearly found only in the Christian author Hegesippus, who also relates a story unknown to Luke and, therefore, probably a second-century invention, as its internal absurdities further suggest. Origen never claims that his material originated from the AJ, and Eusebius could not find it anywhere in Josephus’s writings either, so he simply quoted Origen, but passed it off as a Josephan quotation. Eusebius is the first to notice any mention of Christ in AJ 20.200; unlike Origen, he is the first to quote it; he is the first to declare it a reference to the same James. It seems highly likely, then, that τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ (“who was called Christ”) is an accidental scribal interpolation or innocent emendation, and never appeared in the original text of Josephus."

I can't fathom how or why Carrier says what he does there ...

[MrMacSon]

PS: an interesting fact is that a church father, in similar fashion, John Damascene if I remember right, says that Josephus attributed the fall of Jerusalem to John the Baptist.

For the record -

Jerome, Illustrious Men.

"Josephus records the tradition that this James was of so great sanctity and reputation among the people that the downfall of Jerusalem was believed to be on account of his death."

[Ken Olson]

There is also the theory advocated by Sabrina Inowlocki of the University of Lausanne that Origen is paraphrasing a genuine passage from Josephus that has been expunged from the manuscripts, "Did Josephus Ascribe the Fall of Jerusalem to the Murder of James, the brother of Jesus?" Revue de Etudes Juives 70, 1-2 janvier-juin 2011, 21-49.

SUMMARY
A Christian tradition connects the destruction of Jerusalem to the murder of James
the Just, brother of Jesus. One of its earliest and most explicit occurrences is found
in Origen, on no fewer than three occasions. Origen ascribes this tradition to Josephus.
In this paper, I explore the possibility that Origen may have paraphrased an
authentic passage of Josephus, which is no longer extant. A close reading of the
evidence in Origen shows that, contrary to some scholars’ opinion, Origen did provide
references to Josephus when dealing with this passage. The passage in question
would have made sense in the logic of Josephus’ Antiquities. Moreover, other passages
in the Antiquities closely parallel the contested paraphrase, which suggests that
it may well have belonged to this work. By way of conclusion, it can be said that if
patristic testimonies on early Judaism and Christianity should always be read critically,
they should not be systematically rejected either.

[MrMacSon]

A close reading of the evidence in Origen shows that, contrary to some scholars’ opinion,
Origen did provide references to Josephus when dealing with this passage.

Sabrina Inowlocki (2011) "Did Josephus Ascribe the Fall of Jerusalem to the Murder of James, the brother of Jesus?"

• Revue de Etudes Juives 70, 1-2; 21-49.

It certainly seems that way (if the Origen passages are original to Origen).

Moreover, other passages in the Antiquities closely parallel the contested paraphrase,
which suggests that it may well have belonged to this work. ibid

The fuller Antiquities 20.9.1-4 supports that.