Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Solo · 09-27-2011, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

There are two facts which are crucial to understanding the realistic possibilities:

1) Origen does not quote but paraphrase Josephus. Ergo, Eusebius' quote in 2:23 linking the siege to James' murder is not directly relying on Origen as source but apparently on a similarly interpolated Josephan text which has not been preserved.

This does not explain why the principal datum from Origen is the relation of the murder to the fall of Jerusalem, which has nothing to do with Josephus who attributes it elsewhere to the death of Ananus. It is not difficult to construe the connection from Hegesippus.

Unless you want to assume that Eusebius only pretended to quote from Josephus, where in reality he assembled the statement from several Josephan ideas in Origen which the latter misattributed, the far better explanation is that both writers worked from an interpolated text of the Antiquities which is unknown to us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

2) Eusebius clearly separates Hegesippus and Josephus in his writing. Josephus' witness of the link is valuable to Eusebius because he is one of the 'sensible Jews'.

That tells us nothing about Origen's possible use of Hegesippus, which is the point, not the fact that Eusebius sees them as separate sources.

But here you have to assume - again - that Eusebius, seeing the text of both Josephus and Hegesippus, missed the misattribution by Origen, or fraudulently stayed silent about it. Both of them are long shots, IMO.

Jiri

TedM · 09-27-2011, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

1. Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Christ
2. there was some doubt about Jesus having only been a man, and not something more 'diviner'.

1. Amply indicated by Josephus' declaration that Vespasian was the promised 'Messiah' of Jewish prophecy.

amply indicated in the TF also.

Quote:

2. If you had the backing of a famous Jewish historian for this sentiment, would you fail to mention that?

I'm not Origen. It is worth noting, perhaps, that Origin didn't quote Josephus in his passages about James, JTB, or possibly Jesus. It reads as though he is recalling the passages from memory--maybe even second hand (?). He seems to be recalling a few main points:

For JTB: purification for those who underwent the rite
For James: righteous, brother of Christ, killed, war blamed on his murder, and not Jesus'
For Jesus: not the true Christ, but perhaps not a man either(more speculative)

Is it accurate to assume Origen had a copy of Josephus before him when he wrote these things?

PhilosopherJay · 09-27-2011, 11:32 AM

This thread has some great ideas and lots of important points. I should probably start a new thread with this point, but it also fits in well with what people are saying here. If moderators want to move this to a new thread, please feel free to do so.

I think I have discovered another Christian interpolation in Josephus. I believe that Jesus, son of "Damneus" has been substituted for Jesus "son of Gamaliel" in 20.9.1.

It is odd that we encounter the High Priest Jesus, son of Damneus in book 20 of Antiquities and we only learn that he was made high priest and then replaced by Jesus, son of Gamaliel: On the other hand, Josephus gives us lots of information about the High Priest Jesus, son of Gamaliel.

Josephus "Life"

Quote:

He then sent his brother Simon, and Jonathan, the son of Sisenna, and about a hundred armed men, to Jerusalem, to Simon, the son of Gamaliel, (16) in order to persuade him to induce the commonalty of Jerusalem to take from me the government over the Galileans, and to give their suffrages for conferring that authority upon him. This Simon was of the city of Jerusalem, and of a very noble family of the sect of the Pharisees, which are supposed to excel others in the accurate knowledge of the laws of their country. He was a man of great wisdom and reason, and capable of restoring public affairs by his prudence, when they were in an ill posture. He was also an old friend and companion of John; but at that time he had a difference with me. When therefore he had received such an exhortation, he persuaded the high priests, Ananus, and Jesus the son of Gamala, and some others of the same seditious faction, to cut me down, now I was growing so great,

41.

Quote:

Now, as my father wrote me an account of this, (for Jesus the son of Gamala, who was present in that council, a friend and companion of mine, told him of it...

Wars.

Quote:

4.3.9 The best esteemed also of the high priests, Jesus the son of Gamalas, and Ananus the son of Ananus when they were at their assemblies, bitterly reproached the people for their sloth, and excited them against the zealots; for that was the name they went by, as if they were zealous in good undertakings, and were not rather zealous in the worst actions, and extravagant in them beyond the example of others.

Antiquties.

Quote:

20.9.4 And now Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, became the successor of Jesus, the son of Damneus, in the high priesthood, which the king had taken from the other; on which account a sedition arose between the high priests, with regard to one another; for they got together bodies of the boldest sort of the people, and frequently came, from reproaches, to throwing of stones at each other.

I think we can assume that high priest Jesus the son of Gamaliel is the same as the high priest Jesus, the son of Gamala, and Jesus the son of Gamalas.

Josephus even compares Ananus with Jesus, son of Gamaliel in Wars 4.5.2,
"Jesus was also joined with him; and although he was inferior to him upon the comparison, he was superior to the rest"

It is clear that Josephus was well acquainted with both Ananus and Jesus, son of Gamaliel and saw a competition between them. While he considered Jesus, son of Gamaliel his friend and Ananus subject to bribe-taking, he had a deep respect for Ananus' leadership abilities.

If we look at the two sentences where we find the word "Damneus," we see that both make more sense if Gamaliel was there.

In 20.9.1-2, Josephus tells us that Ananus bribed Jesus to become his friend/client, even after killing his brother.

Quote:

Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

Quote:

2. Now as soon as Albinus was come to the city of Jerusalem, he used all his endeavors and care that the country might be kept in peace, and this by destroying many of the Sicarii. But as for the high priest, Ananias (25) he increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money: he therefore cultivated the friendship of Albinus, and of the high priest [Jesus], by making them presents;

In "Wars" and "Life," we see that Ananus and Jesus, son of Gamaliel seem to have this type of working relationship.

The only other reference to Jesus Damneus comes here:

Quote:

20.9.4. And now Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, became the successor of Jesus, the son of Damneus, in the high priesthood, which the king had taken from the other; on which account a sedition arose between the high priests, with regard to one another; for they got together bodies of the boldest sort of the people, and frequently came, from reproaches, to throwing of stones at each other. But Ananus was too hard for the rest, by his riches, which enabled him to gain those that were most ready to receive.

The beginning of this makes no sense: And now Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, became the successor of Jesus, the son of Damneus, in the high priesthood, which the king had taken from the other. The term "the other" seems to refer to Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, but the King did not take away the High Priesthood from Jesus, the son of Gamaliel and given it to Jesus, the son of Damneus, He took it from Ananus and gave it to Jesus. The sentence does make sense if it originally read:

Quote:

And now Ananus, the son of Ananus, became the successor to Jesus, the Son of Gamaliel, in the high priesthood, which the king had taken from the other.

Only if Jesus, son of Gamaliel, was meant, instead of Damneus is the reference does the narrative make sense. Josephus would have gotten the information about the bribes directly from his friend Jesus, son of Gamaliel.

My conclusion is that there was no high priest named Jesus, son of Damneus, but that the text in Josephus originally referred to Jesus, son of Gamaliel, in the two references where Damneus is now mentioned.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

spin · 09-27-2011, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

This does not explain why the principal datum from Origen is the relation of the murder to the fall of Jerusalem, which has nothing to do with Josephus who attributes it elsewhere to the death of Ananus. It is not difficult to construe the connection from Hegesippus.

Unless you want to assume that Eusebius only pretended to quote from Josephus, where in reality he assembled the statement from several Josephan ideas in Origen which the latter misattributed, the far better explanation is that both writers worked from an interpolated text of the Antiquities which is unknown to us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

That tells us nothing about Origen's possible use of Hegesippus, which is the point, not the fact that Eusebius sees them as separate sources.

But here you have to assume - again - that Eusebius, seeing the text of both Josephus and Hegesippus, missed the misattribution by Origen, or fraudulently stayed silent about it. Both of them are long shots, IMO.

Neither of your claimed assumptions are based on my stated views.

There is no "pretense" in Eusebius thinking Origen was citing some unknown passage of Josephus. He simply reads Origen to mean the the words are derived from Josephus, though they aren't. Origen on the other hand is apparently confusing Hegesippus with Josephus, when he summarizes H. There is no reason for Eusebius to see any direct connection between The text of Hegesippus and the passage he cites from Origen. The passing of the tradition from Hegesippus's text to what Origen writes is a variety of Chinese Whisper: the tradent transforms the transmitted tradition in retelling. Someone who sees both need not perceive that one is derived from the other.

We, on the other hand, are aware of the processes and have sufficient of the texts of Josephus easily available on computer to see that Origen doesn't get his information from Josephus, though Hegesippus provides all the information content found in Origen. While Josephus tells us nothing about James other than he was an ok sorta guy who got killed by Ananus, Hegesippus provides all the background information. Josephus has already attributed the fall of Jerusalem to the death of Ananus. He doesn't change the story to James. Hegesippus has that story.

PhilosopherJay · 09-27-2011, 09:38 PM

Hi all,

Here is something which I think is of major importance.

DCHindley made the terrific point that the line found in Origen and Eusebius about Josephus saying that the death of James was the cause of the destruction of Jerusalem and he should have said the death of Jesus was the cause could be transferred to Ananus and Jesus, son of Gamaliel from War 4.9
It was Jesus who made the speech to the Idumeans from the wall of the Temple.

Now consider this quotation from the Babylonian Talmud which is about Jesus (Joshua) son of Gamaliel and has an identical form:

Quote:

Talmud (Bab. B. 21 a): "If any one has merit, and deserves that his name should be kept in remembrance, it is Joshua, the son of Gamaliel. Without him the law would have fallen into oblivion in Israel. For they used to rest on this saying of the law (Deu 11:19), 'Ye shall teach them.' Afterwards it was ordained that masters be appointed at Jerusalem for the instruction of youth, as it is written (Isa 2:3), 'Out of Zion shall go forth the law.' But even so the remedy was not effectual, only those who had fathers being sent to school, and the rest being neglected. Hence it was arranged that Rabbis should be appointed in every district, and that lads of sixteen or seventeen years should be sent to their academies. But this institution failed, since every lad ran away if he was chastised by his master. At last Joshua the son of Gamaliel arranged, that in every province and in every town schoolmasters be appointed, who should take charge of all boys from six or seven years of age."

This, is strong support for the idea that originally someone wanted to transfer credit for the destruction of Jerusalem from the death of Ananus to the death of Jesus/Joshua, son of Gamaliel. The Talmud tells us that this Jesus actually saved the laws and that if anybody has merit and his name should be remembered, it is James.

The Christians took over the line of thought that Jesus was more important than Gamaliel, and simply substituted Jesus of Nazareth for Jesus ben Gamaliel.

The question remains how Ananus originally became James?

Warrnly,

Jay Raskin

aa5874 · 09-27-2011, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi all,

Here is something which I think is of major importance.

DCHindley made the terrific point that the line found in Origen and Eusebius about Josephus saying that the death of James was the cause of the destruction of Jerusalem and he should have said the death of Jesus was the cause could be transferred to Ananus and Jesus, son of Gamaliel from War 4.9
It was Jesus who made the speech to the Idumeans from the wall of the Temple.

Now consider this quotation from the Babylonian Talmud which is about Jesus (Joshua) son of Gamaliel and has an identical form:

Quote:

Talmud (Bab. B. 21 a): "If any one has merit, and deserves that his name should be kept in remembrance, it is Joshua, the son of Gamaliel. Without him the law would have fallen into oblivion in Israel. For they used to rest on this saying of the law (Deu 11:19), 'Ye shall teach them.' Afterwards it was ordained that masters be appointed at Jerusalem for the instruction of youth, as it is written (Isa 2:3), 'Out of Zion shall go forth the law.' But even so the remedy was not effectual, only those who had fathers being sent to school, and the rest being neglected. Hence it was arranged that Rabbis should be appointed in every district, and that lads of sixteen or seventeen years should be sent to their academies. But this institution failed, since every lad ran away if he was chastised by his master. At last Joshua the son of Gamaliel arranged, that in every province and in every town schoolmasters be appointed, who should take charge of all boys from six or seven years of age."

This, is strong support for the idea that originally someone wanted to transfer credit for the destruction of Jerusalem from the death of Ananus to the death of Jesus/Joshua, son of Gamaliel. The Talmud tells us that this Jesus actually saved the laws and that if anybody has merit and his name should be remembered, it is James.

The Christians took over the line of thought that Jesus was more important than Gamaliel, and simply substituted Jesus of Nazareth for Jesus ben Gamaliel.

The question remains how Ananus originally became James?

Warrnly,

Jay Raskin

It is NOT any strong evidence at all. The passage make ZERO mention of the Fall of the Temple.

One cannot do history from imagination.

There is absolutely no need to alter, add, or remove characters from the writings of Josephus.

It is the the contents of Josephus that should be analysed not what is IMAGINED.

No one alters Plutarch's "Romulus" or Philo's "On Embassy to Gaius".

ph2ter · 09-27-2011, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Do you too subscribe to the 'Eusebius interpolated passages into Origen' theory?

It doesn't matter.

Quote:

If we do not accept that idea, which I do not, then we have two references by Origen that could conceivably tie back to the TF:
1. Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Christ

Simple deduction from generally known information that Josephus was not a Christian.

Quote:

2. there was some doubt about Jesus having only been a man, and not something more 'diviner'.

You think that Josephus doubted that Jesus was only a man? What could he possibly think that Jesus was except a man, knowing that he did not believe that he was the Messiah?

spin · 09-28-2011, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

DCHindley made the terrific point that the line found in Origen and Eusebius about Josephus saying that the death of James was the cause of the destruction of Jerusalem

Eusebius depends on Origen for the claim, thinking that what Origen wrote was directly derived from Josephus and not the work of Origen and is therefore not an independent source.

The most useful thing we get out of Eusebius here--beside the Hegesippus quote--is the fact that Eusebius doesn't recognize Origen's supposed quote from Josephus. All the modern pundits try to use Origen to demonstrate that the reference in AJ 20.200 is kosher. However, Eusebius, knowing and citing that piece of Josephus immediately afterwards as from AJ 20, does not make that connection, but treats it as an unknown fragment of Josephus.

So, not only does it show how Eusebius sloppily cited Origen as though it were Josephus, it shows that the connection between AJ 20:200 and CC 1.47 is a modern misunderstanding. Origen doesn't know the content of AJ 20.200 (other than perhaps the vague reference to James). And back to that other useful thing Eusebius did, ie citing Hegesippus, he provides a likely major source for Origen's comments in Comm.Mt. 10.17, CC 1.47 & 2.13. The first mention in Comm.Mt. gets the phrase "Jesus called christ" from Mt.1:16, which Origen uses instead of "the lord", hence not "brother of the lord", but "brother of Jesus called christ".

PhilosopherJay · 09-28-2011, 07:33 AM

Hi aa5874,

Josephus has compared Ananus to Jesus, son of Gamaliel. He thinks that Ananus is the better man, but Jesus is the second greatest man. The question is why would somebody say that Josephus should have said that the destruction of Jerusalem was the result of the death of James [Gamaliel], when Josephus should have said the destruction was he result of Jesus' death

The answer to this question is given in the Talmud:

Quote:

Talmud (Bab. B. 21 a): "If any one has merit, and deserves that his name should be kept in remembrance, it is Joshua, the son of Gamaliel. Without him the law would have fallen into oblivion in Israel.

What are the chances that a reference to Joshua/Jesus, the son of Gamaliel would give us a clear answer to the question of why he was more important than Ananus/James? While the murders of Ananus/James and Jesus/Joshua, son of Gamaliel was a terrible thing, Jesus/Joshua with his reform of the Jewish educational system, actually saved the Mosaic Law. This is an argument that backs up the claim that Jerusalem was destroyed on account of the death of Jesus rather than Ananus/James, or at least that Josephus should have said so.

The fact that the fall of the temple is not mentioned is irrelevant. What is important is that the Talmud shows that some Jews held Joshua, the son of Gamaliel, in the highest esteem. That is the reason that they felt Josephus was wrong to place Gamaliel above him and blame the destruction of Jerusalem on Gamaliel.

As far as changing the text of Josephus, this statement currently in Josephus makes no sense and could not have been written by Josephus as it now stands, "

Quote:

20.9.4. And now Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, became the successor of Jesus, the son of Damneus, in the high priesthood, which the king had taken from the other

The statement is telling us that the King took the high priesthood from Jesus the son of Gamaliel, when Josephus has just finished telling us that the King took the high priesthood from the son of Ananus. The statement only makes sense when changed to "And now the son of Ananus became the successor of Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, in the high priesthood, which the King had taken from the other.

If we find in a history of the Russian Revolution a statement that the Czar overthrew the socialists in 1917, we can be reasonably certain that the writer meant to say that the socialists overthrew the Czar in 1917.

To leave the text uncorrected and senseless helps nobody and keeps us from understanding what Josephus really wrote.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi all,

Here is something which I think is of major importance.

DCHindley made the terrific point that the line found in Origen and Eusebius about Josephus saying that the death of James was the cause of the destruction of Jerusalem and he should have said the death of Jesus was the cause could be transferred to Ananus and Jesus, son of Gamaliel from War 4.9
It was Jesus who made the speech to the Idumeans from the wall of the Temple.

Now consider this quotation from the Babylonian Talmud which is about Jesus (Joshua) son of Gamaliel and has an identical form:

Quote:

Talmud (Bab. B. 21 a): "If any one has merit, and deserves that his name should be kept in remembrance, it is Joshua, the son of Gamaliel. Without him the law would have fallen into oblivion in Israel. For they used to rest on this saying of the law (Deu 11:19), 'Ye shall teach them.' Afterwards it was ordained that masters be appointed at Jerusalem for the instruction of youth, as it is written (Isa 2:3), 'Out of Zion shall go forth the law.' But even so the remedy was not effectual, only those who had fathers being sent to school, and the rest being neglected. Hence it was arranged that Rabbis should be appointed in every district, and that lads of sixteen or seventeen years should be sent to their academies. But this institution failed, since every lad ran away if he was chastised by his master. At last Joshua the son of Gamaliel arranged, that in every province and in every town schoolmasters be appointed, who should take charge of all boys from six or seven years of age."

This, is strong support for the idea that originally someone wanted to transfer credit for the destruction of Jerusalem from the death of Ananus to the death of Jesus/Joshua, son of Gamaliel. The Talmud tells us that this Jesus actually saved the laws and that if anybody has merit and his name should be remembered, it is James.

The Christians took over the line of thought that Jesus was more important than Gamaliel, and simply substituted Jesus of Nazareth for Jesus ben Gamaliel.

The question remains how Ananus originally became James?

Warrnly,

Jay Raskin

It is NOT any strong evidence at all. The passage make ZERO mention of the Fall of the Temple.

One cannot do history from imagination.

There is absolutely no need to alter, add, or remove characters from the writings of Josephus.

It is the the contents of Josephus that should be analysed not what is IMAGINED.

No one alters Plutarch's "Romulus" or Philo's "On Embassy to Gaius".

Vivisector · 09-28-2011, 08:03 AM

Origen is perhaps not getting the "credit" that he's due. He states that Josephus "did not believe in Jesus as the Christ," a position that I can't find supported in any text or near-contemporaneous writer. He represents Ezekiel as referring to David as the Christ, when it seems (to me, at least) to be a stretch to read this into Ezekiel. He says that Paul regarded James as "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," a view with absolutely no support in the Pauline corpus. All of this suggests that Origen was quite capable of inferring much more from a text than meets the eye, in which case it would be unsurprising to find it difficult to identify verbatim (or even close) agreement between Origen and the text to which he's presumably referring.

As a general question, does Origen ever refer to Hegesippus by name or convincingly refer to anything that he wrote (leaving aside the issue at hand)?

Cheers,

V.

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

09-28-2011, 08:03 AM	#30
Vivisector Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: KY Posts: 415	Origen is perhaps not getting the "credit" that he's due. He states that Josephus "did not believe in Jesus as the Christ," a position that I can't find supported in any text or near-contemporaneous writer. He represents Ezekiel as referring to David as the Christ, when it seems (to me, at least) to be a stretch to read this into Ezekiel. He says that Paul regarded James as "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," a view with absolutely no support in the Pauline corpus. All of this suggests that Origen was quite capable of inferring much more from a text than meets the eye, in which case it would be unsurprising to find it difficult to identify verbatim (or even close) agreement between Origen and the text to which he's presumably referring. As a general question, does Origen ever refer to Hegesippus by name or convincingly refer to anything that he wrote (leaving aside the issue at hand)? Cheers, V.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.