|
Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
09-24-2011, 06:45 PM
|
#1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mondcivitan Republic
Posts: 2,550
|
Origen only knew Ant 20:200ff & not the TF
Back in the TF thread, I noted that mss issues make the question of the priority of Eusebius' Demonstration of the Gospel (DE) over the Ecclesiastical History (EH) inconclusive. I suggested that the existence of the TF prior to Eusebius might be settled by an examination of Origen's citations of Josephus' works.
At that time I gave English Translations of the three passages in Origen mentioning James and the destruction of Jerusalem. However, it bugged the heck out of me that the English translations (all early to mid 19th century I think) seemed to be vague and frankly, not a little corny. Now I'm not claiming to be an expert in Greek, although I've had some preliminary courses in it waaaay back between 1976 and 1978. Using the Greek text at Ben Smith's TextExcavation website (which appears to be the same as that in Migne's Patrology, which believe it or not is available online), I looked each word up in the NT, LXX and the "Apostolic Fathers" using BibleWorks for the grammatical form and definition, and at times looked up the gloss in a printed interlinear NT, and from this I made a crib translation to see if the 19th century ET was accurately representing the Greek. The result is given lower down in the post. The problem is that Origen never directly says that he has read anything about Jesus resembling the TF, but mentions what Josephus says about John the Baptist (Against Celsus 1.47a, citing Ant. 18.5.2 = 116-119) and James the Just (Against Celsus 1.47b-d; Against Celsus 2.13; On Matthew 13.55, all referring to things said of James in Ant. 20.9.1 = 200-203). The question to ask is whether anything about Jesus in these allusions appears to be based on the TF as we have it in Ant 18, or if it can all be explained by Ant 20 (and maybe the Gospels) alone.
I've underlined what is most definitely NOT said about James in the received text of Ant 20:200-203. I've bolded what is indeed said of James or his brother Jesus called christ in Ant 20, and italicized what is said of Jesus that does NOT appear in Ant 20. It seems to me that the underlined text comes from War 4.5.2 in the passages about Ananus and Jesus being killed and their dead bodies flung from the city wall into the valley below, and the opinion he rendered there that Ananus' death was the tipping point at which the city was doomed to destruction. This is why I think a marginal gloss referring to the deaths of Ananus and the chief priest Jesus was either interpreted by Origen as comments made by Josephus himself about that James brother of Jesus, or it had been interpolated into the text itself of Origen's copy. It does appear that his copy of Any 20 did say "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, meaning we have to explain what "christ" meant in that context (maybe "next in line" for the high priestly dignity, i.e., Jesus son of Damneus). The italicized text, on the other hand, seems to reflect the story about Jesus in the gospel of Luke specifically. The phrase "having killed the prophesized christ" could be an allusion to TF's "the divine prophets having said both these things and myriads of other wonders concerning him," although the more likely origin in my opinion is a paraphrase of Luke 24:20 "and how our chief priests and rulers delivered him up unto a judgment of death and crucified him" & 27 "And, beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he [Jesus] interpreted for them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." I am particularly intrigued by the phrase "Christ of God" and "our Jesus is Christ." Is "Christ of God" used elsewhere in early Christian literature (besides Luke 9:20 and 23:35 or Ignatius Trallians long form 7.3) before Origen's time? Why does he say "our Jesus is Christ"? DCH |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
09-24-2011, 08:53 PM
|
#2 | |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
|
I think it is derived from one of the most important Psalms. Justin references it all the time:
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
09-25-2011, 10:56 AM
|
#3 | |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mondcivitan Republic
Posts: 2,550
|
Quote:
For this reason John, the herald of the Word, besought men to make themselves ready against the coming of the Christ Of God.Clement again, in The Stromata Bk 2 ch 22: And openly and expressly the apostle, in the first Epistle to the Corinthians says, "Be ye followers of me, as also I am of Christ," in order that that may take place. If ye are of me, and I am of Christ, then ye are imitators of Christ, and Christ of God. Assimilation to God, then, so that as far as possible a man becomes righteous and holy with wisdom he lays down as the aim of faithI hesitate to include the longer Greek form of Ignatius Letter to the Trallians 7.3: For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ of God?Otherwise I cannot find it used in other pre-Nicene Christian writers. On the other hand, after Origen's time it makes frequent appearance in Eusebius' works: Demonstration of the Gospel 1.1.10: How well I realize, therefore, that it is usual for all those who have been accurately taught that our Lord and savior Jesus is truly himself the Christ of God [τὸν Χριστὸν τοῦ θεοῦ] to persuade them to suppose first that they have believed about him not otherwise than in accord with the prophetic testimonies concerning him, and then this very thing, even to propose to all those with whom they might get into a debate that it is not easily, by demonstration, that the proposition is able to be believed.and again in Against Marcellus (cited by Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, Bk 2 Ch 21: And thus they (the disciples after Pentecost) declared unto all men the Christ of GodMartyrs of Palestine 10.2: On the eleventh day of the month Audynaeus, which is the third before the Ides of January, in the same city of Caesarea, Peter an ascetic, also called Apselamus, from the village of Anea, on the borders of Eleutheropolis, like purest gold, gave noble proof by fire of his faith in the Christ of God.or Eusebius' Church History Bk 1.3.12: And therefore, although he did not possess like honors with those whom we have mentioned [who might be anointed in some sense, such as kings or priests], he is called Christ more than all of them. And as himself the true and only Christ of God, he has filled the whole earth with the truly august and sacred name of Christians, committing to his followers no longer types and images, but the uncovered virtues themselves, and a heavenly life in the very doctrines of truth.1.5.6-8: 6 If any one should assert that all those who have enjoyed the testimony of righteousness, from Abraham himself back to the first man, were Christians in fact if not in name, he would not go beyond the truth. 7 For that which the name indicates, that the Christian man, through the knowledge and the teaching of Christ, is distinguished for temperance and righteousness, for patience in life and manly virtue, and for a profession of piety toward the one and only God over all--all that was zealously practiced by them not less than by us. 8 They did not care about circumcision of the body, neither do we. They did not care about observing Sabbaths, nor do we. They did not avoid certain kinds of food, neither did they regard the other distinctions which Moses first delivered to their posterity to be observed as symbols; nor do Christians of the present day do such things. But they also clearly knew the very Christ of God; for it has already been shown that he appeared unto Abraham, that he imparted revelations to Isaac, that he talked with Jacob, that he held converse with Moses and with the prophets that came after.1.9.10: 1 IT was in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius, according to the evangelist, and in the fourth year of the governorship of Pontius Pilate, while Herod and Lysanias and Philip were ruling the rest of Judea, that our Saviour and Lord, Jesus the Christ of God, being about thirty years of age, came to John for baptism and began the promulgation of the Gospel.3.4.5-7: 5 [When the Jewish war broke out] three million souls, were shut up in Jerusalem "as in a prison," to use his own words. For it was right 6 that in the very days in which they had inflicted suffering upon the Saviour and the Benefactor of all, the Christ of God, that in those days, shut up "as in a prison," they should meet with destruction at the hands of divine justice.3.6.32: 32 Such [intense suffering in the final days before Jerusalem fell to the Romans] was the reward which the Jews received for their wickedness and impiety, against the Christ of God.3.27.1: The evil demon, however, being unable to tear certain others [the Ebionites] from their allegiance to the Christ of God, yet found them susceptible in a different direction, and so brought them over to his own purposes ...8.9.5: And we beheld the most wonderful ardor [among the martyrs], and the truly divine energy and zeal of those who believed in the Christ of God.8.11.2: There was another man of Roman dignity named Adauctus, of a noble Italian family, who had advanced through every honor under the emperors, so that he had blamelessly filled even the general offices of magistrate, as they call it, and of finance minister. Besides all this he excelled in deeds of piety and in the confession of the Christ of God, and was adorned with the diadem of martyrdom. He endured the conflict for religion while still holding the office of finance minister.10.2.1: 1 All men, then, [on the defeat of Maximinus by Consrtantine & Licinius] were freed from the oppression of the tyrants, and being released from the former ills, one in one way and another in another acknowledged the defender of the pious to be the only true God. And we especially who placed our hopes in the Christ of God had unspeakable gladness, and a certain inspired joy bloomed for all of us,10.4.12: [The Son of the all-gracious Father] saves us, both anciently and now, by his beneficent zeal, beyond the expectation of any one, even of ourselves, and imparts liberally of the Father's benefits,- he who is the giver of life and light, our great Physician and King and Lord, the Christ of God.Life of Constantine 1.29: the Christ of God appeared to him [Constantine] in his Sleep, and commanded him to use in his Wars a Standard made in the Form of the Cross.3.2: And what miracle was ever more marvelous than the virtues of this our emperor, whom the wisdom of God has vouchsafed as a gift to the human race? For truly he maintained a continual testimony to the Christ of God with all boldness, and before all menI'm not getting hits on Augustine or Chrystostom. It seems to me, an average Joe, that "Christ of God" was heavily used by Eusebius, and had special meaning for him. Did he borrow from Origen, or has Eusebius' use of the phrase somehow infected the redaction and transmission of Origen's work Against Celsus? FWIW, Against Celsus is the only work of Origen that has come to us in the original Greek (the rest are fragments from other works or heavily censored Latin translations (i.e, made to conform to orthodoxy when it came to his Platonised conception of the preexistence and transmigration of souls). DCH |
|
|
|
|
09-25-2011, 01:36 PM
|
#4 |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,435
|
I'm afraid that I have to vigorously object to any assumption that Origen witnesses to a reference to Jesus in Ant. 20. The latter context is entirely missing in Origen's three references to the death of James, and their common phrase, "the brother of Jesus called Christ" does not tell us that both were in existence in Origen's time, or that the Ant. 20 phrase was not a later interpolated echo of whatever passage Origen may have been referring to. In fact, it is very suspicious that Origen, though taking the trouble to mention his own death of James passage (unidentified), does not at some point also mention the Ant. 20 reference to the supposedly same event, something which Eusebius does; one brings on reference to the other in H.E. II, 23. Origen's references cannot be used to testify to the Ant. 20 passage as known to Origen or existing at his time. This is a vast mistake that is commonly made. I discuss this whole question in Jesus: Neither God Nor Man, p.577f. Like the Testimonium in Ant. 18, Eusebius is our first witness to the Antiquities 20 reference to Jesus.
Eusebius witnesses to the fact that the two passages he is discussing (Origen's and Ant. 20) are two distinct passages, even if both supposedly relate to the death of James. (He does not identify the location of the former either, and may have been entirely relying on Origen.) Nor is there any reason to presume that somehow Origen is referring to a bastardized version of Ant. 20 which surfaces nowhere else, containing a reference to James' murder being the cause of the fall of Jerusalem. This passage referred to by Origen is commonly referred to as the "lost reference", judged possibly as having been in his copy of Jewish War, unless Origen is mistaken (he does not claim to be directly quoting) and no such passage existed or is being confused with something perhaps in Hegesippus now lost. Nor, as I argue in my book, can such a 'lost reference' possibly be authentic to Josephus. My own view is that this lost reference was found elsewhere or had been inserted before Origen into Josephus, and Eusebius, knowing of it too, or else relying on Origen's 'quote' of it, then went to Ant. 20 and assuming that its "James" was James the Just and this was another reference to the murder of the Christian James, inserted the clarifying "brother of Jesus called Christ" (taking the phrase from Origen or the lost reference) and transformed Ant. 20 into a second reference to Jesus in Josephus. (Or if Josephus had already said "brother of Jesus" meaning Jesus, son of Damneus, added only the "called Christ" as clarification.) Of course, it is highly likely that Eusebius himself was responsible for the first reference, the TF in Ant. 18. If not him, then some other interpolator not long before him (i.e., post-Origen). Earl Doherty |
|
|
|
09-25-2011, 07:07 PM
|
#5 | ||||
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mondcivitan Republic
Posts: 2,550
|
Quote:
Just keep in mind that what I think was the source of the "James as cause of destruction" theme was a marginal gloss alluding to War 4.5.2 (315-320). There Josephus definitely does attribute the destruction to the death of Ananus at the hands of the Idumeans during the revolt. The talk about it being divine punishment probably comes from War 4:286-288 286 [After the chief priests close the doors to the city to deny the Idumeans entry, and Jesus the priest behind Ananus in rank made a speech to them from the wall asking them to just go home] there broke out a prodigious storm in the night, with the utmost violence, and very strong winds, with the largest showers of rain, with continued lightnings, terrible thunderings, and amazing concussions and bellowing of the earth, that was in an earthquake.So any proposed marginal gloss was almost like a little dissertation, covering the deaths of Ananus and Jesus at the hands of the Idumeans, the speech of Jesus from the wall, and how the Idumeans feared they had prompted God's anger by seeking to enter the city by force of arms. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
This doesn't mean, though, that I don't think Josephus has undergone some sort of modification. I believe a modification has been made to the point at which Pilate assumed his office in Judea (from 19 CE to 26 CE), probably in order remove any support for the date Maximinian's Acts of Pilate attributed to Jesus' suffering (21 CE). That being said, there are at least multiple internal grounds that support this latter proposal. DCH |
||||
|
|
|
09-25-2011, 09:52 PM
|
#6 | |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: USA, Missouri
Posts: 3,070
|
DCH, this falls into 'speculation' territory, but you may or may not find it to be of interest:
http://christiancadre.org/member_con..._josephus.html Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
09-25-2011, 10:27 PM
|
#7 |
|
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
|
There is little hope that Origen knew the passage about James in AJ 20.200. The only thing that can possibly be derived is the phrase "brother of Jesus called christ". Nothing else is anywhere near connected. Origen's material is much more likely a synopsis of the Hegesippus material preserved in Eusebius EH 2.23, where all the necessary notional elements are to be found. Origen knows nothing about Josephus's contextualization of the death of James (and neither does Hegesippus), but he does know Hegesippus's attribution of the destruction of the fall of Jerusalem to the death of James. The name Hegesippus was confused in antiquity with Josephus.
Eusebius, in his turn, takes the Origen material from the longer passage in CC and attributes it to Josephus, placing the AJ 20.200 Ananus/James material immediately after it as another passage from Josephus. Eusebius neither recognized the Origen material as 20.200 nor considered it the work of Origen. We can know that the material is by Origen and that it is morely derived from Hegesippus, who Origen confuses with Josephus. One can follow the progress from Hegesippus's James "the brother of the lord" (ie Gal 1:19) known as Just, to Origen's first version in the Commentary on Matthew, where he picks up the phrase "Jesus called christ" and gives "James the brother of Jesus called christ". He then improves on it in CC, by adding the epithet "Just". This looks little like the phrase now found in AJ20.200, compare "James the Just, brother of Jesus called christ" with "the brother of Jesus called christ James by name". When a scribe checks out AJ 20.200 he finds the defining phrase about James missing, so adds it in the margin, ie "the brother of Jesus called christ" and a subsequent scribe inserted it in the text, placing the descriptor before the subject, as the descriptor is more important and provides the inappropriate word order we now find. There is no good reason to think Origen got his material from AJ 20.200 and Eusebius doesn't recognize that option, though aJ 20.200 gained the phrase "brother of Jesus called christ" before the time of Eusebius. |
|
|
|
09-26-2011, 06:03 AM
|
#8 |
|
Contributor
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
|
delete
|
|
|
|
09-26-2011, 07:05 AM
|
#9 | |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 2,579
|
Quote:
Best, Jiri |
|
|
|
|
09-26-2011, 09:36 AM
|
#10 |
|
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
|
For those in need of what Eusebius cited of Hegesippus in E.H. 2.23, click "Show"
N/A Note the end of 18, which says after James's murder, "And immediately Vespasian besieged them." The juxtaposition makes obvious the connection between the death of James and the siege of Jerusalem (hence its fall), though if you didn't get the point, Eusebius adds: James was so admirable a man and so celebrated among all for his justice, that the more sensible even of the Jews were of the opinion that this was the cause of the siege of Jerusalem, which happened to them immediately after his martyrdom for no other reason than their daring act against him. |
|
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
