Is James the Just found outside Eusebius?

[gstafleu]

Well, Jay Raskin's book The Evolution of Christs and Christianities (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1413497926/internetinfidels/) has arrived in my mailbox with a solid thunk. A hefty tome of over 600 pages, full of interesting stuff. One such interesting stuff we find on page 52:

When we analyze the character of James the Just, who exists nowhere before or after Eusebius [...]

This gasted my flabbers a little, I always thought that James the Just was a well established figure. If Jay is right, this opens the possibility that Robert Eisenman has devoted some also quite hefty tomes to Eusebogus.

So I thought I'd ask this distinguished forum: is Jay right, and is James the Just only known via Eusebius?

I know that Paul e.g. refers to a "James the brother of the Lord," but he does not say "James the Just."

Gerard

[Toto]

Josephus refers to a James, but does not label him James the Just, and it seems that later Christians identified him with James the Brother of the Lord.

There are a number of references to James in the NT, but it's not clear if they all reference the same James, or if that James is James the Just.

Hegesippus refers to a James, but I think that Raskin assumes that Eusebius invented Hegesippus, and I don't know if that James is called James the Just.

"James the Just" was referred to in the Gospel of Thomas, if that is considered history.

[gstafleu]

Hegesippus refers to a James, but I think that Raskin assumes that Eusebius invented Hegesippus, and I don't know if that James is called James the Just.
I think he is. But in any case, if we only know Hegesippus through Eusebius that would still count as Eusebogus.

Gerard

[hatsoff]

The Lord said, "James, do not be concerned for me or for this people. I am he who was within me. Never have I suffered in any way, nor have I been distressed. And this people has done me no harm. But this (people) existed as a type of the archons, and it deserved to be destroyed through them. But [...] the archons, [...] who has [...] but since it [...] angry with [...] The just [...] is his servant. Therefore your name is "James the Just". You see how you will become sober when you see me. And you stopped this prayer. Now since you are a just man of God, you have embraced me and kissed me. Truly I say to you that you have stirred up great anger and wrath against yourself. But (this has happened) so that these others might come to be."
--1st Apocalypse of James, c. 180-250

I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, 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 18th 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 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, 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 the death) of Jesus Christ, of whose divinity so many Churches are witnesses, composed of those who have been convened from a flood of sins, and who have joined themselves to the Creator, and who refer all their actions to His good pleasure.
--Origin, Against Celsus, Book I, chapter XLVII (c. 203-255)

I don't know what that guy was talking about if he thinks the character James, or his nickname "the Just," was an invention of Eusebius. Maybe you could provide a larger quote.

[spin]

I thought I'd ask this distinguished forum: is Jay right, and is James the Just only known via Eusebius?
Origen uses the term "James the Just" twice in related passages, Contra Celsus 1.47 and 2.13, both referring to the James passage in Josephus AJ 20.9.1.


spin

[gstafleu]

So we have James the Just in Origen's Contra Celsum. Do we have a source for Contra Celsum outside Eusebius?

Same question for 1st Apocalypse of James of course.

If the answer to either of those is "yes," Jay Raskin will have to make an MM-like claim that Eusebius managed to alter the then extant MSs.

Gerard

[Ben C Smith]

So I thought I'd ask this distinguished forum: is Jay right, and is James the Just only known via Eusebius?

I have quite a few references to James on my James page (http://www.textexcavation.com/james.html). Most of the references either come through Eusebius one way or another or are the NT references that everybody likes to debate. But some are independent, such as the gospel of Thomas reference, the gospel of the Hebrews reference, and that from the infancy gospel of James, though in this latter the title James the just is not used; rather, a James of Jerusalem is cited as having given the history.

Ben.

[hatsoff]

So we have James the Just in Origen's Contra Celsum. Do we have a source for Contra Celsum outside Eusebius?

Same question for 1st Apocalypse of James of course.

If the answer to either of those is "yes," Jay Raskin will have to make an MM-like claim that Eusebius managed to alter the then extant MSs.

Gerard

This is one of those "anything is possible" arguments. 1-AJa comes from the Nag Hammadi library, the manuscript itself dating from the third or fourth century AD, and the original text probably descending from the late second century. Could Eusebius' have invented the nickname "James the Just" in time for it to have worked its way into the Nag Hammadi sect? Maybe, but, really, what are the odds of that? The same goes for Origen's Against Celsus, the mss. evidence for which is all apparently based on a late-fourth century Vatican ms. Could Eusebius have invented Origen, or forged one of his works?

Anything is possible, but there's no compelling reason to believe it. Likewise, this author, unless his quote has been taken out of context, seems pretty off-the-wall in his scholarship, if it can so be called.

At any rate, even if Eusebius invented it, as this author claims, there are plenty of references *after* his time, which is in contradiction with his next claim. And that's one might huge "if."

[Malachi151]

I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, 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 18th 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 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, 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 the death) of Jesus Christ, of whose divinity so many Churches are witnesses, composed of those who have been convened from a flood of sins, and who have joined themselves to the Creator, and who refer all their actions to His good pleasure.
--Origin, Against Celsus, Book I, chapter XLVII (c. 203-255)

I don't know what that guy was talking about if he thinks the character James, or his nickname "the Just," was an invention of Eusebius. Maybe you could provide a larger quote.

By the way, regarding this quote by Origen, I have a question.

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.

Where it says "(called Christ)", is that something that Origen added on his own to clarify the quote as he thought that it read, or is that thought that have been in the text by Josephus originally?

Secondly, if Josephus thought that Jesus was called Christ, then why would he think that the destruction of Judea was because of the death of James, and not Jesus?

Thirdly, I think that this argument applies against the historicity of "Jesus Christ".

See here the apologist argument:

http://www.tektonics.org/gk/josephusvsmarkjbapt.html

# Josephus places John's execution in 35 AD -- way too late for what the Gospels report. Take this objection with a grain of salt: It contains an assumption, namely, that because Joe reports the war with Aretas right after he records the execution of John, that this means that he is reporting that the war took place soon after the execution. But this assumption is gratuitous, and as Hoehner points out [126n], "The Jews felt that God's revenge did not always occur immediately at the time of the misdeed..." The death of Antiochus was regarded as a judgment for his profanation of the Temple, though he died three years after the event; Pompey died in 48 BC, 15 years after he profaned the Holy of Holies, but it was still regarded as a judgment for that act (Jos. Ant. 14.71-2; Ps. Sol. 2:30-5), and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 was thought by some to be a judgment for the execution of a high priest who lived in the 50s (Jos. Ant. 20.160-7).


Which begs the question, if the story of Jesus were really true, then why wouldn't the Jews themselves have attributed the destruction of Judea to the killing of Jesus (called Christ), instead of to some James guy?

Would not the Jews of Judea looked back in retrospect and said "Oh damn, maybe we really did kill the Messiah, CRAP!".

An explanation for why they didn't do this, of course, is that it never happened in the first place.

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Hatsoff et al,

I did want to clarify the reference regarding Eusebius inventing James the Just. Here it it is in the book in context:

...The statement “there were two Jameses: one called the Just, who was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple and was beaten to death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded" is entirely an invention of Eusebius. He is inserting it in Clement to back up the description of James’ death at the temple that he relates from the writings of Hegessipus.
We are actually dealing with two simultaneous inventions here. Eusebius has invented the character of James the Just, the lead character in the tale and he has invented the historian Hegessipus to tell the tale. The invention of James the Just reflects Eusebius’s desire to rewrite the Acts of the Apostles, while the invention of Hegessipus reflects his desire to rewrite the history of Josephus.
When we analyze the character of James the Just, who exists nowhere before or after Eusebius, we find four clear sources.

The character created by Eusebius in his description of the martyrdom of James is different from the historical figure of James, the First century Jewish leader of the Sons of God cult. It is this Eusebean character who does not exist (live and die) anywhere but in the text of Eusebius. The four sources I refer to are 1) Stephen from Acts, 2) Josephus' James, brother of Jesus Damneus, 3) Josephus' High Priest Ananus, and 4) Eusebius' own earlier work creating a Jerusalem Church.
The book suggests that the actual James cult worshipped a heavenly version of Joshua of Nun (also known as Joshua the Anointed/Jesus Christ). If he was known as the brother of the lord, it was most likely an honorary title and if he was called James the Just, it was probably a designation started by Gnostics in the Second century.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay


This is one of those "anything is possible" arguments. 1-AJa comes from the Nag Hammadi library, the manuscript itself dating from the third or fourth century AD, and the original text probably descending from the late second century. Could Eusebius' have invented the nickname "James the Just" in time for it to have worked its way into the Nag Hammadi sect? Maybe, but, really, what are the odds of that? The same goes for Origen's Against Celsus, the mss. evidence for which is all apparently based on a late-fourth century Vatican ms. Could Eusebius have invented Origen, or forged one of his works?

Anything is possible, but there's no compelling reason to believe it. Likewise, this author, unless his quote has been taken out of context, seems pretty off-the-wall in his scholarship, if it can so be called.

At any rate, even if Eusebius invented it, as this author claims, there are plenty of references *after* his time, which is in contradiction with his next claim. And that's one might huge "if."

[gstafleu]

Hi Jay,

Let's see if I got it this time. There was a historical James, a 1st century Jewish big shot. However, the appellation "James the Just" is an invention by Eusebius and does not indicate this original James, or indicates at best a distorted (by Eusebius) version of the historical James. Moreover, whenever we see "James the Just" we know we are dealing with the Eusebian fiction. Right?

So who do you think Eisenman is talking about? A mixture?

Gerard

[hatsoff]

Where it says "(called Christ)", is that something that Origen added on his own to clarify the quote as he thought that it read, or is that thought that have been in the text by Josephus originally?

First of all, that's a paraphrase, not a quotation. So, in response to your question, we cannot be sure if Origen read "called Christ" as it appears in the Josephus text today, although that seems probable. Or it could just be a coincidence. Heck, or maybe Origen was the one who inserted it into Josephus! Or it could be original. We just don't know. A cursory examination makes me think it was original, though of course a lot of people would argue otherwise.

Secondly, if Josephus thought that Jesus was called Christ, then why would he think that the destruction of Judea was because of the death of James, and not Jesus?

Perhaps because James' death more immediately preceded the revolt. Or perhaps the Gospel accounts were true insofar as the Jews did not like Jesus; meaning they may have warmed up to the Jewish-Christian movement by the time of James' death. Or it could be another reason entirely. Who knows?

[Toto]

Eisenman tried to fit together some pieces of a historical puzzle, and thought he found a "James" at the center of things. But this James was probably a combination of the early Jewish James and the shadow of Eusebius' James. Eisenman assumed that the few references to James meant that he had been written out of the early history, not that Eusebius had added bits later on.

[Malachi151]

First of all, that's a paraphrase, not a quotation. So, in response to your question, we cannot be sure if Origen read "called Christ" as it appears in the Josephus text today, although that seems probable. Or it could just be a coincidence. Heck, or maybe Origen was the one who inserted it into Josephus! Or it could be original. We just don't know. A cursory examination makes me think it was original, though of course a lot of people would argue otherwise.

It doesn't seem to fit into Josephus to me, partly for the reasons I stated.

I would think that "called Christ" was not added by Origen to a copy of Josephus, but that it was the basis for that addition. Whoever the scribe was wanted to clarify who that Jesus was, so the looked for references and found it in Origen, and thus added it to Josephus, innocently enough.

[gstafleu]

Eisenman tried to fit together some pieces of a historical puzzle, and thought he found a "James" at the center of things. But this James was probably a combination of the early Jewish James and the shadow of Eusebius' James. Eisenman assumed that the few references to James meant that he had been written out of the early history, not that Eusebius had added bits later on.
Here on CBC radio, the classical station, they have cage matches: does Schubert beat Schumann in a fair match, that kind of thing. Why am I mentioning this? Because a Raskin-Eisenman cage match would be an interesting thing to watch :).

Gerard

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Toto,

Precisely.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Eisenman tried to fit together some pieces of a historical puzzle, and thought he found a "James" at the center of things. But this James was probably a combination of the early Jewish James and the shadow of Eusebius' James. Eisenman assumed that the few references to James meant that he had been written out of the early history, not that Eusebius had added bits later on.

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Gerard,

I would love to meet him, but I probably would refuse to fight. I owe Eisenman too much.

If I illuminate some areas that he missed, it is only because I am turning his flashlight in a slightly different direction. Without his flashlight we would all be back in the dark.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Here on CBC radio, the classical station, they have cage matches: does Schubert beat Schumann in a fair match, that kind of thing. Why am I mentioning this? Because a Raskin-Eisenman cage match would be an interesting thing to watch :).

Gerard

[Gamera]

Hi Jay,

Let's see if I got it this time. There was a historical James, a 1st century Jewish big shot. However, the appellation "James the Just" is an invention by Eusebius and does not indicate this original James, or indicates at best a distorted (by Eusebius) version of the historical James. Moreover, whenever we see "James the Just" we know we are dealing with the Eusebian fiction. Right?

So who do you think Eisenman is talking about? A mixture?

Gerard

You seem to have ignored Ben's post. James the Just appears in the gospel of Thomas, a gnostic work clearly earlier and unrelated to Eusebius. If your theory is that Eusebius "invented" James the Just, your theory is rebutted.

Regardez:

12 The disciples said to Jesus, "We know that you are going to leave us. Who will be our leader?"
Jesus said to them, "No matter where you are you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being."

[hatsoff]

It doesn't seem to fit into Josephus to me, partly for the reasons I stated.

I would think that "called Christ" was not added by Origen to a copy of Josephus, but that it was the basis for that addition. Whoever the scribe was wanted to clarify who that Jesus was, so the looked for references and found it in Origen, and thus added it to Josephus, innocently enough.

That seems like sound speculation. I happen to like my own interpretation better--after all, it is mine! I suppose we'll never know for sure.

[gstafleu]

You seem to have ignored Ben's post. James the Just appears in the gospel of Thomas, a gnostic work clearly earlier and unrelated to Eusebius. If your theory is that Eusebius "invented" James the Just, your theory is rebutted.
Well, we have a score of "not invented"=2 (I'll count the Gospel of the Hebrews as well), "invented"=N, where N>2. The question is then the position of these two gospels. For example, were they written after Eusebius' (alleged) fabrications had become wider known?

Gerard

[gstafleu]

I would love to meet him, but I probably would refuse to fight.
I was suggesting a spiritual rather than a carnal cage match :).
I owe Eisenman too much.
I noticed how for example your disentangling of the vairous Mariae (I quite enjoyed that) has a soupcon of the Eisenmanesque about it ;).

Gerard

[Ben C Smith]

Well, we have a score of "not invented"=2 (I'll count the Gospel of the Hebrews as well), "invented"=N, where N>2. The question is then the position of these two gospels. For example, were they written after Eusebius' (alleged) fabrications had become wider known?

I missed where Origen fits into this scenario. Did Eusebius forge Against Celsus?

The infancy gospel of James, while not speaking specifically of a James the just, does have a fellow named James, from Jerusalem, who is clearly portrayed as a Christian leader of some sort. Did Eusebius invent this figure?

Ben.

[spin]

I missed where Origen fits into this scenario. Did Eusebius forge Against Celsus?

The infancy gospel of James, while not speaking specifically of a James the just, does have a fellow named James, from Jerusalem, who is clearly portrayed as a Christian leader of some sort. Did Eusebius invent this figure?
Gosh, I'm starting to develop a lot of respect for this Eusebius guy. In my books he used to be a church hack, hardly able to understand what some of his sources actually meant, but now I keep hearing that he was some kind of literary genius. I guess it must be correct!

(As to GThom, fragments have been found at Oxyrhynchus, P.Oxy.1 from the 2/3rd c., and P.Oxy.654 & 655 3rd c. according to the palaeography.)


spin

[gstafleu]

I missed where Origen fits into this scenario. Did Eusebius forge Against Celsus?
Depends on whom you ask, I think :). Actually I don't know what JR theory holds about it, but I'm pretty sure that in MM theory even if Eusebius didn't forge the whole thing then he did interpolate to his heart's content.

BTW, going by what Jay posted a little while ago, I don't think he has a problem with a James in general, just with the specific figure of James the Just as he appears in Eusebius. So the question pretty specifically focuses on the words "James the Just" I think.

Gerard

[Ben C Smith]

Gosh, I'm starting to develop a lot of respect for this Eusebius guy. In my books he used to be a church hack, hardly able to understand what some of his sources actually meant, but now I keep hearing that he was some kind of literary genius. I guess it must be correct!

He must have been an incompetent genius. Has so much trouble making up his mind whether the apocalypse of John should be considered canonical or not that he gives it two mutually incompatible classifications, but according to some here he wrote the thing himself.

In this case, Eusebius must have forged the gospel of Thomas, too, with all its gnostic leanings that he himself despised. He did this, no doubt, to put us off his trail as the greatest literary mastermind in history....

Ben.

[Gamera]

Well, we have a score of "not invented"=2 (I'll count the Gospel of the Hebrews as well), "invented"=N, where N>2. The question is then the position of these two gospels. For example, were they written after Eusebius' (alleged) fabrications had become wider known?

Gerard

I dont think there's any issue that the Gospel of Thomas is written in a tradition totally outside Eusebius' influence. It is probably earlier, but even if it's not, nobody can persuasively argue it has anything to do with Eusebius. Eusebius wouldn't have been caught dead with a copy of the GoT.

[Gamera]

He must have been an incompetent genius. Has so much trouble making up his mind whether the apocalypse of John should be considered canonical or not that he gives it two mutually incompatible classifications, but according to some here he wrote the thing himself.

In this case, Eusebius must have forged the gospel of Thomas, too, with all its gnostic leanings that he himself despised. He did this, no doubt, to put us off his trail as the greatest literary mastermind in history....

Ben.

And a hyperactive genius, apparently creating forgeries of numerous works just so he could disagree with them.

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Gerard,

I tend to go with the interpolation theory. If we find enough evidence to credit him with the interpolation of the TF in "Antiquities," the next question is "Was this a one time thing, or part of a series of interpollations?" Hopefully, the book contains enough evidence to suggest that putting new passages in old text was his general method of working (although as in the case of 1 Clement to the Corinthians, he could write an entire forged workwhen the need arose)

Looking at the main Origen passage about James the Just is really interesting:

Against Celsus Book 1 Chapter XLVII.

I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, 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 18th book of his Antiquities76 of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. 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.77 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.78 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 the death) of Jesus Christ, of whose divinity so many Churches are witnesses, composed of those who have been convened from a flood of sins, and who have joined themselves to the Creator, and who refer all their actions to His good pleasure.



In the first sentence Celsus brings up the case of John the Baptist in the writings of Josephus because Celsus "represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist".

This doesn't make any sense. Origen is arguing that Celsus' Jew accepted John the Baptist and therefore by quoting a Jew, Josephus, as accepting John the Baptist, Origen is supporting Celsus. It is fairly clear that the first sentence contains an error. It should read the opposite of how it reads now. Instead of saying, that Celsus "represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist," it should read, "Celsus represents the jews as not accepting somehow John as a Baptist." Only in the later case would it make sense to go to a Jewish source.

Besides the botched beggining to the paragraph, we should note that the paragraph completely changes the subject from an argument that Origen is making in the paragraphs before 47 and after 47. His argument before and after that paragraph is that the Jew in Celsus would have accepted the story of the dove descending on Christ during his Baptism without witnesses besides John the Baptist. Paragraph 47 interupts that argument to raise a completely different issue. The new argument appears to be that Celsus has portrayed the Jew as not believe there was a John the Baptist, but that Josephus, a Jew who lived in the First century, does believe there was a John the baptist. But that argument is quickly abandoned for another, completely new argument -- that Josephus was mistaken about James being the cause of the Jew's destruction.

Writers do sometimes interupt their own arguments to present unrelated arguments. However, it may also be regarded as a mark of an interpolation.

We should look at the passage that Origen tells us was in Celsus (1:41):

And it is a Jew who addresses the following language to Him whom we acknowledge to be our Lord Jesus: "When you were bathing," says the Jew, "beside John, you say that what had the appearance of a bird from the air alighted upon you." And then this same Jew of his, continuing his interrogations, asks, "What credible witness beheld this appearance? or who heard a voice from heaven declaring you to be the Son of God? What proof is there of it, save your own assertion, and the statement of another of those individuals who have been punished along with you? "

The writer of 47 says, "I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, 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." Since the Jew in Celsus has already granted John to be a witness for Jesus, what is the point of bringing in Josephus to act as a witnessing Jew who supports the credibility of John? There simply is no point. The author of the surrounding paragraphs is responding to what Celsus says, the author of paragraph 47 is not responding at all.

Now notice also in paragraph 41 that it says that John "was another of those individuals who have been punished along with" Jesus. Thus Celsus implies that we can't trust John because he was a Christian and died as a Christian with Jesus. The response that celsus should make is to quote Josephus in chapter 18 to prove that John was a Jew, not a Christian and that he died as a Jew, upholding Jewish laws against the Jewish King Herod. But as soon as Josephus and John are mentioned, the author of paragraph 47 suddenly pulls a switch and substitutes James for John. The subsequent argument that Josephus got it wrong and Jerusalem died on account of Jesus, not James, is totally out of place, having nothing to do with Origen's argument against Celsus.

From this analysis, plus what we know about Eusebius' interpolation of the TF, I would say that Eusebius has done two things. He taken an actual reference that Origen made to Josephus and John, and shifted its position. It now dramatically interupts Origen's argument, whereas, it probably followed it in the original. Secondly, he has changed a paragraph that was about John and somebody else in Josephus to a paragraph about James and Jesus.

When Eusebius made his interpolation into Josephus, I believe he did it because Josephus had spoken about Simon Magus. As I believe I mention in my book, Eusebius changed a passage speaking against Simon Magus into a testimonium for Jesus.

According to the Clementine Homilies Simon Magus was a follower of John. I believe it likely that this information tying Simon and John together reflects some kind of historical reality (although I think it was John who was the follower of Simon). Josephus perhaps mentioned this relationship between John and Simon. Origen possibly also mentioned this relationship between John and Simon while quoting Josephus and refuting the idea that John was a Christian like Jesus. This made it necessary for Eusebius to change the paragraph in Origen. He cleverly put in his story about Josephus claiming that James was the cause of the destruction of Jerusalem.

At some point Eusebius abandoned his idea of interpolating this particular James story into Josephus and instead made the changes he did make.

Please keep in mind that Eusebius was the slave of Pamphilius and Pamphilius catalogued over 600 works of Origen (History, book 6), very likely having transported Origen's library to Caesarea. If he had the originals to work from, making interpolations into them would have been no problem for Eusebius.

To sum up, I believe paragraph 47 is an interpolation by Eusebius into Origen.

Now, in regards to where Eusebius got the idea that Josephus would claim that Jerusalem was destroyed on account of James, we may look to the Second Apocalypse of James:

and he allows me to hear. And play your trumpets, your flutes and your harps of this house. The Lord has taken you captive from the Lord, having closed your ears, that they may not hear the sound of my word. Yet you will be able to pay heed in your hearts, and you will call me 'the Just One.' Therefore, I tell you: Behold, I gave you your house, which you say that God has made - that (house) in which he promised to give you an inheritance through it. This (house) I shall doom to destruction and derision of those who are in ignorance. For behold, those who judge deliberarate [...]."

On that day all the people and the crowd were disturbed, and they showed that they had not been persuaded. And he arose and went forth speaking in this manner. And he entered (again) on that same day and spoke a few hours. And I was with the priests and revealed nothing of the relationship, since all of them were saying with one voice, 'Come, let us stone the Just One.' And they arose, saying, 'Yes, let us kill this man, that he may be taken from our midst. For he will be of no use to us.'

In this Second or Third century Gnostic work, James is killed after declaring that he will doom the Temple. Thus the destruction of the temple is tied to the death of James. Now, it is possible that this work is taking from Josephus the relationship of James and the Temple. It may be that there originally was such a paragraph in Josephus. However, I believe it much more likely that Eusebius is getting his source about James and the temple from the Second Apocalypse of James. He plans on inserting the story in Josephus and that is why he changes Origin's texts to reflect that intended change. For some reason, he abandoned that plan for the more simple one of changing James Damneus to James, the brother of Jesus.

If we assume that the James/Temple text was in Origen before Eusebius, we must explain why Eusebius never comments on the passage. I am unable to come up with one.



Warmly,

Philosopher Jay




Depends on whom you ask, I think :). Actually I don't know what JR theory holds about it, but I'm pretty sure that in MM theory even if Eusebius didn't forge the whole thing then he did interpolate to his heart's content.







BTW, going by what Jay posted a little while ago, I don't think he has a problem with a James in general, just with the specific figure of James the Just as he appears in Eusebius. So the question pretty specifically focuses on the words "James the Just" I think.

Gerard