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

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.

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

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

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

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

Gamera

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

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

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