Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Malachi151 · 12-28-2006, 04:06 AM

Can someone give the exact Greek for:

"the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"

as well as some discussion of the possible ways to interpret the section that is here translated as "who was called Christ"?

Ben C Smith · 12-28-2006, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Can someone give the exact Greek for:

"the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James"

as well as some discussion of the possible ways to interpret the section that is here translated as "who was called Christ"?

Here is the Greek:

...καθιζει συνεδριον κριτων και παραγαγων εις αυτο τον αδελφον Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου, Ιακωβος ονομα αυτω, και τινας ετερους....

...he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges and brought before them the brother of Jesus called Christ, James was his name, and some others....

As for possible ways to interpret Jesus called Christ, it could mean any of the following:

Jesus the so-called Christ (called that, but not really), with a sneer.
Jesus called Christ (that is simply what he is called, as a matter of fact).
Jesus, the one called Christ because that indeed is who he is.

Many who think the phrase is Josephan prefer the first; many who think the phrase is an interpolation prefer the third. Personally, I like the second.

Ben.

Malachi151 · 12-28-2006, 07:36 AM

Great. Another question (I hope I'm not being a pest): What about Origen's citation of this, how exactly does it read?

Quote:

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
- Against Celsus; Origen

How does this passage read? Why does it have parenthesis around the words (called Christ)? Is there something in the Greek that gives a special indication here?

Malachi151 · 12-28-2006, 08:08 AM

I have another question about Origin's reading of Book XX as well.

Origen says that Jerusalem was destroyed because of the killing of James the Just, who was the brother of Jesus Christ.

I've read 20 and I see where he gets this idea, but is the James that was crucified the same James in the passage about Jesus?

Quote:

2. Then came Tiberius Alexander as successor to Fadus; he was the son of Alexander the alabarch of Alexandria, which Alexander was a principal person among all his contemporaries, both for his family and wealth: he was also more eminent for his piety than this his son Alexander, for he did not continue in the religion of his country. Under these procurators that great famine happened in Judea, in which queen Helena bought corn in Egypt at a great expense, and distributed it to those that were in want, as I have related already. And besides this, the sons of Judas of Galilee were now slain; I mean of that Judas who caused the people to revolt, when Cyrenius came to take an account of the estates of the Jews, as we have showed in a foregoing book. The names of those sons were James and Simon, whom Alexander commanded to be crucified. But now Herod, king of Chalcis, removed Joseph, the son of Camydus, from the high priesthood, and made Ananias, the son of Nebedeu, his successor. And now it was that Cumanus came as successor to Tiberius Alexander; as also that Herod, brother of Agrippa the great king, departed this life, in the eighth year of the reign of Claudius Caesar. He left behind him three sons; Aristobulus, whom he had by his first wife, with Bernicianus, and Hyrcanus, both whom he had by Bernice his brother's daughter. But Claudius Caesar bestowed his dominions on Agrippa, junior.

3. Now while the Jewish affairs were under the administration of Cureanus, there happened a great tumult at the city of Jerusalem, and many of the Jews perished therein. But I shall first explain the occasion whence it was derived. When that feast which is called the passover was at hand, at which time our custom is to use unleavened bread, and a great multitude was gathered together from all parts to that feast, Cumanus was afraid lest some attempt of innovation should then be made by them; so he ordered that one regiment of the army should take their arms, and stand in the temple cloisters, to repress any attempts of innovation, if perchance any such should begin; and this was no more than what the former procurators of Judea did at such festivals. But on the fourth day of the feast, a certain soldier let down his breeches, and exposed his privy members to the multitude, which put those that saw him into a furious rage, and made them cry out that this impious action was not done to approach them, but God himself; nay, some of them reproached Cumanus, and pretended that the soldier was set on by him, which, when Cumanus heard, he was also himself not a little provoked at such reproaches laid upon him; yet did he exhort them to leave off such seditious attempts, and not to raise a tumult at the festival. But when he could not induce them to be quiet for they still went on in their reproaches to him, he gave order that the whole army should take their entire armor, and come to Antonia, which was a fortress, as we have said already, which overlooked the temple; but when the multitude saw the soldiers there, they were affrighted at them, and ran away hastily; but as the passages out were but narrow, and as they thought their enemies followed them, they were crowded together in their flight, and a great number were pressed to death in those narrow passages; nor indeed was the number fewer than twenty thousand that perished in this tumult. So instead of a festival, they had at last a mournful day of it; and they all of them forgot their prayers and sacrifices, and betook themselves to lamentation and weeping; so great an affliction did the impudent obsceneness of a single soldier bring upon them.

This to me screws the whole thing, because if Origen thinks that this James is the cause of the destruction of the temple, then this James clearly can't be "James the Just", the brother of Jesus Christ, because he is the son of Judas. So, this whole business is just a big mess and Origen seems utterly confused.

Ben C Smith · 12-28-2006, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Great. Another question (I hope I'm not being a pest): What about Origen's citation of this, how exactly does it read?

How does this passage read? Why does it have parenthesis around the words (called Christ)? Is there something in the Greek that gives a special indication here?

I do not know about the parentheses. Origen cites this passage thrice: On Matthew 10.17; Against Celsus 1.47; and Against Celsus 2.13. Here are the citations, in that order:

...ειρηκεναι κατα μηνιν θεου ταυτα αυτοις απηντηκεναι δια τα εις Ιακωβον τον αδελφον Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου υπ αυτων τετολμημενα.

[Josephus] said that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus called Christ.

...φησι ταυτα συμβεβηκεναι τοις Ιουδαιοις κατ εκδικησιν Ιακωβου του δικαιου, ος ην αδελφος Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου.

[Josephus] says 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.

...δια Ιακωβον τον δικαιον, τον αδελφον Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου.

...on account of James the just, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ.

These passages are not unproblematical. On the one hand, Origen is plainly paraphrasing, and he offers details that are not found in our extant texts of Josephus (such as the vengeance on Jerusalem for his death). On the other hand, the brother of Jesus called Christ line is exact in all three cases, leading one to believe that at least in that phrase Origen has remembered or quoted something consistently.

Ben.

Ben C Smith · 12-28-2006, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

I have another question about Origin's reading of Book XX as well.

Origen says that Jerusalem was destroyed because of the killing of James the Just, who was the brother of Jesus Christ.

I've read 20 and I see where he gets this idea, but is the James that was crucified the same James in the passage about Jesus?

This to me screws the whole thing, because of Origen thinks that this James is the cause of the destruction of the temple, then this James clearly can't be "James the Just", the brother of Jesus Christ, because he is the son of Judas. So, this whole business is just a big mess and Origen is utterly confused.

James the son of Judas is a different James. There were, as Clement of Alexandria assures us, a lot of men named James.

Incidentally, I have read book 20 too, and I do not think Origen really gets his notion that Jerusalem fell on account of James from that book. I think that Origen has confused Josephus with Hegesippus, probably helped along by certain other parallel details in Josephus, such as the death of John the baptist being to blame for the defeat of Herod.

It is a mess, and Origen is, I think, confused, but I think the development is traceable.

Ben.

S.C.Carlson · 12-28-2006, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

I think that Origen has confused Josephus with Hegesippus, probably helped along by certain other parallel details in Josephus, such as the death of John the baptist being to blame for the defeat of Herod.

Also compounding the confusion is that Hegesippus was often used as Greek equivalent to Joseph(us), much like Simon vs. Symeon, and Jason vs. Jesus.

gstafleu · 12-28-2006, 11:44 AM

Is it just me, or does the exact repetition of Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου have a formulaic, ritualistic tone about it?

Gerard Stafleu

Malachi151 · 12-29-2006, 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

Also compounding the confusion is that Hegesippus was often used as Greek equivalent to Joseph(us), much like Simon vs. Symeon, and Jason vs. Jesus.

Just to back this up:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07195a.htm

Can someone explain what this is saying by the way? Was there a 4th century Hegesippus as well, who was the translator of Jewish War?

Ben C Smith · 12-29-2006, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Just to back this up:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07195a.htm

Can someone explain what this is saying by the way? Was there a 4th century Hegesippus as well, who was the translator of Jewish War?

There may have been people from century IV named Hegesippus, but I doubt the author this Catholic Encyclopedia article is discussing was one of them. He seems to have been called Hegesippus as a corruption of Josephus.

Also, I myself would not call him a translator. True, he took much of the Greek of Josephus and turned it into a Latin history, but he did much more than that; the Excidio is not at all a one-to-one translation of Josephus but rather an historical work in its own right. (For example, the author refers to Josephus as one of his sources.) It is available in English translation online at (where else?) the Tertullian Project.

Ben.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-28-2006, 04:06 AM	#41
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	Can someone give the exact Greek for: "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" as well as some discussion of the possible ways to interpret the section that is here translated as "who was called Christ"?

12-28-2006, 11:44 AM	#48
gstafleu Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: London, Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,719	Is it just me, or does the exact repetition of Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου have a formulaic, ritualistic tone about it? Gerard Stafleu

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.