rationalskepticism.org

RealityRules wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

RealityRules wrote:So, what is the significance of Origen?

The significance of Origen seems to be that he mentions both Josephus and James:

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 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. And the wondrous thing is that, although he did not accept our Jesus to be 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.

Of course, in current versions of Josephus, there is no such material.

1. There is no 'James the Just' to be found anywhere in Antiquities
2. Josephus doesn't blame the suffering of Judea on the death of anyone named James
3. Josephus does not talk about anyone named James being particularly just

CONCLUSION: Either Origen is mistaken somehow, or the text of Josephus we have today is hopelessly corrupt. Or both.

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 and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these things happening to the people, since they killed the prophecied Christ, even says, being unwillingly not far from the truth, 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. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he saw this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood or of their common upbringing as on account of his ethics and speech. If, therefore, he says that the things surrounding the desolation of Jerusalem befell the Jews on account of James, how is it not more reasonable to say that it happened on account of Jesus the Christ?

Again, what Origen seems to attribute to Josephus is not found in today's versions.

1. Josephus doesn't blame fall of Jerusalem on anyone named James
2. The phrase 'James the Just' does not appear in Josephus anywhere
3. Therefore, Josephus never says 'James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus'

Again - either Origen is wrong, or current text of Josephus is totally corrupted. Or both.

Either way, useless for historians.

If anyone wants to use Origen as a 'witness' to Josephus mentioning James the Just, brother of Jesus Christ will have to accept that the versions of Josephus's Antiquities we have today are utterly corrupted.

You can now plainly see why anyone would prefer to simply make a vague reference to 'Origen' rather than make any detailed examination of Origen. The writings of Origen are evidence that Josephus has been corrupted.

Cheers.

I wonder if both those passages of Origen and Antiquities 20 were corrupted / interpolated by the same person/s.

One interesting aspect is

And the wondrous thing is that, although he did not accept our Jesus to be Christ, he yet testified that *the justice* of James was not at all small ...

One would need to read these passages in the original (Greek?) and 'interpret' their meaning from that.

The significant issue is that "the Just" description is a post NT construct, or at least an exta NT construct, anyway.