Where in Antiquities Do We Suppose "These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just ..." Appeared?

[Secret Alias]

I am very interested in why both Origen and Eusebius think Josephus had the words "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." What is the best explanation for these words? As far as I can see, these are the possibilities:

1. the words were in a copy of Josephus used by both Origen and Eusebius
2. both Origen and Eusebius mistakenly attribute words written by Hegesippus or some other writer for Josephus
3. Eusebius added the words to a copy of Josephus which wasn't copied or widely circulated
4. some other explanation I haven't thought of in the five seconds it took to type up this OP

Thoughts?

It is worth noting that Eusebius attributes the destruction of Jerusalem to the manner in which Jews treated Jesus:

Such was the reward which the Jews received for their wickedness and impiety, against the Christ of God.

As such that makes the addition unlikely to be on Eusebius's part right?

[Giuseppe]

Hegesippus invented the legend of a carnal brother named James ''the Just'' inspired by a very-much-naive reading of ''brother of Lord'' in Gal 1:19 and in opposition to Marcion (who called ''Just'' but cruel only the Demiurge, just as per Marcion only God is ''good'').

Some Christian scribe saw the coincidential occurrence in an episode of Josephus of three/four things:
1) the adjective ''just'' referred to a Jew named Ananus.
2) the name ''James'' for another Jew.
3) the death of this Jew.
4) the causal link Death of Ananus-->Fall of Jerusalem raised by Josephus.

Against Josephus, this Christian scribe added ''called Christ'', so that then Origen could ''read'' the causal link Death of James Brother of Jesus called Christ ---> Fall of Jerusalem.

[Giuseppe]

The point is that the Christian scribe couldn't tolerate the fact that Josephus called ''a just man'' (and his Death the real cause of a so fatidic event) just the son (or grandson) of the high priest killer of the Gospel Jesus: ANANUS.

In the eyes of the interpolator, a new high priest (and the his death) had to replace the original high priest (and the his death) Ananus as cause of the destruction of Jerusalem. And even that was not sufficient for Origen (who preferred Jesus to his brother as to fatal effects).

[Ulan]

Well, the other thread may be a mess, but I think the suggestions in DCH's and Ben's post here, which includes ideas by Andrew Criddle, make a lot of sense. Which basically means, the answer may stare us into our faces: A connotative contraction of two rather unrelated statements in the text we know.

One of the common ideas behind the dating of our gospels is that they were written as reaction to the destruction of Jerusalem. In this context, it makes sense that authors like Origen tried to find the same idea in other texts, as strained as the process may have been.

[Secret Alias]

I posted this at the other thread (which already confusing enough). So I will also place it here

posting.php?mode=quote&f=3&p=78039

[Bernard Muller]

From http://historical-jesus.info/104.html:
Where would this interpolated passage (in italics here) have been located? Most likely at the end of 'Antiquities', right after book 20, chapter 11, section 1, as follows:
“Now this war began in the second year of the government of Florus, and the twelfth year of the reign of Nero. But then what actions we were forced to do, or what miseries we were enabled to suffer, may be accurately known by such as will peruse those books which I have written about the Jewish war. These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called Christ. For the Jews slew him, although he was a most just man.”

Cordially, Bernard

[MrMacSon]

.
Hegesippus is likely to be a sock-puppet.

Everything we know about Hegesippus comes via Eusebius or, as Peter Kirby has noted, via “Pseudo-Hegesippus,” a Latin text also known as “On the Ruin of the City of Jerusalem” that recycles much material from Josephus’ Jewish Wars, which some scribes have attributed to a “Hegesippus.” -

There is at least one known case of the names “Josephus” and “Hegesippus” being confused, in the direction traveling from Josephus to Hegesippus. That is the text known to be from “Pseudo-Hegesippus,” a Latin text also known as “On the Ruin of the City of Jerusalem” that recycles much material from Josephus’ Jewish Wars, which some scribes have attributed to a “Hegesippus.”

http://peterkirby.com/chasing-hegesippus.html

Peter notes how Clement of Alexandria's Stromata 1.21 credits Josephus for a calculation made after Josephus's time -ie. Josephus could not have made that calculation.

They were constantly, serially rewriting history.

From wikipedia

The date of Hegesippus (Ἅγιος Ἡγήσιππος) (c. 110 – c. April 7, 180 AD[1] is 'insecurely fixed' by the statement of Eusebius that the death and apotheosis of Antinous (130) occurred in Hegesippus' lifetime,[3] and that he came to Rome under Pope St. Anicetus and wrote in the time of Pope St. Eleuterus (Bishop of Rome, c. 174–189).

As Peter has said -

The .. first sure witness to Hegesippus is Eusebius of Caesarea. Take note of the fact, however, that Origen, to whom Eusebius owes much, changed his center of studies from Alexandria to Caesarea. If there was a manuscript falsely attributed to Josephus in Alexandria, which Clement of Alexandria and Origen quote, it or a copy of it could have traveled with Origen to Caesarea so that it could be later quoted by Eusebius. This makes it even more remarkable that Eusebius quotes a passage from Hegesippus that resembles very closely the kind of passage that Origen apparently had in mind for Josephus.

The conclusion that explains this data simply is not hard to reach: this manuscript was falsely attributed to Josephus when it was in Alexandria. It was written by another person, whether that person was a Jew or a Christian (or a Jewish Christian). The false attribution may have been secondary, performed (possibly by a pagan, possibly in that famous library of Alexandria) by mistake after a view of the contents, which would mean that we may not be able to recover the original author’s name. When a copy of the manuscript arrived at Caesarea, either Eusebius or someone before him (such as Pamphilus of Caesarea) realized that this text could not possibly be one written by Flavius Josephus. This led to the invention of a similar-sounding name, Hegesippus, to account for the mistake. (We’ll keep calling him Hegesippus by convention.)

This hypothesis immediately explains two other facts. One fact is that Hegesippus as a boy’s name had become extremely rare in the Roman period ... [the second fact is] the text has such slender attestation after Eusebius despite seemingly wide interest in its ostensible subject, church history. Only one other person ever bothers to reference it directly, a certain sixth century Stephen Gobar (mentioned by Photius) who, for all we know, may have found it in the same place Eusebius left it in Caesarea.

http://peterkirby.com/chasing-hegesippus.html

[John T]

Clearly this is a blatant attempt to get a mulligan, do-overs, my fingers were crossed so it doesn't count, kind of mythicist thing.

Therefore, John T is out on this one.

[John2]

Stephan wrote:

I am very interested in why both Origen and Eusebius think Josephus had the words "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." What is the best explanation for these words? As far as I can see, these are the possibilities:

1. the words were in a copy of Josephus used by both Origen and Eusebius

I pick this option with respect to Origen anyway, and strongly lean towards the idea that he misheard or misunderstood War 4.5.2, which has the words and ideas that Origen mentions but they are applied to Ananus. Would Josephus have said this about Ananus and James?

I should not mistake if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city, and that from this very day may be dated the overthrow of her wall, and the ruin of her affairs, whereon they saw their high priest, and the procurer of their preservation, slain in the midst of their city. He was on other accounts also a venerable, and a very just man ...

Origen Com. Mat. 10:17:

And in such a way among the people did this James shine for his justice that Flavius Josephus ... wishing to demonstrate the cause why the people suffered such great things that even the temple was razed down, said that these things came to pass against them in accordance with the ire of God on account of the things which were dared by them against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ ... he yet testified that the justice of James was not at all small; and he says that even the people supposed they had suffered these things on account of James.

Origen Against Celsus 1.47:

But he himself ... in seeking the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple ... even says ... that these things befell the Jews as vengeance for James the just, who was a brother of Jesus who is called Christ, since they killed him who was most just.

Perhaps another option (but one I don't favor) could be what Josephus says in Ant. 20.9.4 shortly after the James passage in 20.9.1, in the context of increasing violence in Jerusalem:

And from that time it principally came to pass that our city was greatly disordered, and that all things grew worse and worse among us.

[John2]

It's also worth pointing out that Origen doesn't say where he saw this passage, so it wasn't necessarily in the Antiquities. All he does is describe Josephus as the person who wrote the Antiquities in twenty books and say that John the Baptist is mentioned in book eighteen, not that he saw the James passage in question in any of them.

And in such a way among the people did this James shine for his justice that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the Judaic Antiquities in twenty books, wishing to demonstrate the cause why the people suffered such great things ...

For in the eighteenth volume of the Judaic Antiquities Josephus testifies to John as having been a baptist and promised cleansing to those who were baptized. But he himself, though not believing in Jesus as Christ, in seeking the cause of the fall of Jerusalem ...