Freethought & Rationalism Archive

EarlDoherty · 09-26-2011, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCH

I am still troubled by the fact that Origen does in fact use the phrase "the brother of Jesus who was called Christ," and that that same exact phrase is used in the existing text of Ant 20. I am not aware of any textual variants to Ant 20 that omit "called Christ," as we might expect if it was interpolated into an existing text.

There might be a little question here, in that if Josephus in Antiquities 20 already showed “brother of Jesus” (referring to Jesus, son of Damneus), then Eusebius (or an earlier but post-Origen interpolator or marginal glosser) would only have added “the one called Christ” to clarify the Jesus thought to be referred to. In any case, this would make Origen’s previous interpolator of the lost reference the originator of the phrase which Origen referred to, or even Origen himself if he is paraphrasing something he read, or thought he read, somewhere in Josephus or Hegesippus. Eusebius (or whoever a little before him) simply copied him or the lost reference into Ant. 20, perhaps with Josephus’ partial help in an authentic “brother of Jesus” phrase.

If the latter were the case, I’m not sure that this is at all problematic. Since we don’t have any context or surrounding text for the lost reference indirectly quoted by Origen, we can’t say that “brother of Jesus called Christ” would be anything but natural for what the interpolator was creating (no doubt based on an already developed oral tradition that the fall of Jerusalem had been due to the death of James). “Brother of Jesus” would appear by necessity, and “the one called Christ” suggested, if nothing else, by the identical phrase appearing multiple times in the Gospels, as in Matthew 1:16. If no “brother of Jesus” appeared in the original Ant. 20, Eusebius or some other interpolator simply copied the entire phrase from Origen’s source (or Origen himself) and thus the common phrase is explained. If “brother of Jesus” did appear in the original Ant. 20, then we have a simple coincidence of no great import leading to the commonality of the phrase between Origen and Eusebius’ first ‘witness’ of our extant Ant. 20.

As for there being no textual variants, this is hardly problematic, since our earliest mss of the Antiquities come from centuries later, and we can safely presume that by then a widespread knowledge about those two references to Jesus in Josephus would have led Christian mss copies to reflect their well-known wordings. (This is an established principle in textual criticism.)

I’m not sure how I lost you in saying that Eusebius witnesses to the Origen (supposed) passage and Ant. 20 as two separate passages, since in H.E. II, 23.20, he quotes the lost reference (perhaps courtesy of Origen) and then says, in 23.21 immediately after, “Josephus has also recounted his death in Ant. Book XX…” and proceeds to quote the Ananus/death of James passage as we have it. Ergo, two separate passages. This was also my point in saying that it is telling that, unlike Eusebius doing that very thing here, Origen failed, despite referring to his fall of Jerusalem passage three times, to be led to mention anywhere the other death of James passage in Ant. 20. This, taken with a similar silence on Ant. 20 in every other pre-Eusebian commentator, gives us a situation identical to that regarding the TF: no witness to either of them prior to Eusebius.

Nor does Andrew Criddle’s observation on Origen do much to counter that. He strikes me as grasping at a very thin straw. It’s a resemblance, but hardly such a specific one that needs indicate interdependence. More tellingly, why, since Origen has referred directly to a source in Josephus for his comment on James and the fall of Jerusalem, did he not do the same for this ‘allusion’? Why not back up his statement that

Quote:

and perhaps by these things is indicated a new doubt concerning Him, that Jesus was not a man but something diviner…

with the observation that the respected Jewish historian Josephus had opined this very thing? In fact, I regard Criddle’s point as working in the opposite direction. If anything, it indicates that Origen did NOT know of any version of the TF which contained this sentiment, since if he did, it is incredible that he would not have appealed to it.

Why is it that so many arguments for knowledge of this and that on the part of early Christian writers from Paul on is dependent on so-called allusions rather than on direct statements and attributions?

Earl Doherty

Solo · 09-26-2011, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

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.

I saw that, spin, and there is nothing to for anyone to "get". Eusebius quotes Josephus as a source for linking the martyrdom with the siege of Vespasian. If you continued quoting the passage to the next sentence, you would find Eusebius makes the source of his view explicit:

Quote:

Indeed, Josephus did not hesitate to write: "These things happened to the Jews as retribution for James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, for the Jews killed him despite his great righteousness"

It makes little sense to postulate Hegesippus as the source of the info when Eusebius says plainly it was Josephus who linked the two events, in effect repeating what Origen said of Josephus in CC 1:47.

Best,
Jiri

DCHindley · 09-26-2011, 02:39 PM

Hi Ted,

That early Christians considered Jesus divine, that is, more than a mere man, is unquestioned. Chris Price, actually, makes a good case, but guilds the lilly a bit with the frequent use of op.cit. and ibid.

However, it doesn't help connect or disconnect the TF to Ant 20.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

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

DCHindley · 09-26-2011, 04:34 PM

Spin,

Always nice to hear from you!

Origen obviously read something that he thought was by Josephus that connected the destruction of Jerusalem with the death of James. Nothing like that is in the received text of Josephus' works, and if something resembling it was actually there originally then I am confident that Christian scribes would have retained it, as it would validate the existence of a person mentioned in Acts and Paul's letter to the Galatians.

Origen, in my way of thinking, is not reacting to the context of a passage he believes is about his Savior's brother, but about some statement that he thinks attributes the destruction of the city to his death. All I am saying is that Ant 20:200-203 is about Ananus' recklessness, whose death at the hands of the Idumeans during the Revolt Josephus certainly DID attribute to the consequent destruction of the city, in War book 4.

I do not believe in coincidence. Ananus, not James brother of Jesus, is the middle term. Even James' speech from the parapet of the temple is mirrored by a speech by a high priest Jesus, the man executed by the Idumeans along with Ananus. He had previously given a moving speech on the city wall to the Idumeans below, and was later killed and mocked by them before throwing his body from the temple wall into the valley below.

I think that some sort of marginal commentary that asks "Is this one (meaning Ananus) the one whose death was the cause of the downfall of the city? It would be more fitting that it had been on account of the death of Jesus (the high priest in War 4), on account of the speech on the wall. For on its account (meaning the speech), God was angered against the rebellious ones (the Idumeans, expressed by the great storm that immediately followed the speech), for they then threw him (dead) from the wall."

With many details simply alluded to, it would not take much for a Christian to misinterpret the whole thing to mean "This one (James the brother of Jesus) is the one whose death was the cause of the downfall of the city. It would be more fitting that it had been on account of the death of Jesus (the Christ of God), on account of the speech [of James] on the wall. For on its account (meaning the speech), God was angered against the rebellious ones (the Jews, destroyed by Vespasian's army), for they then threw him (alive) from the wall."

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

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.

spin · 09-26-2011, 10:35 PM

Yo DCH!

I also don't believe that it is a coincidence both Josephus (BJ 4) and Origen give cause for the fall of Jerusalem to the death of an individual, but the connection has clearly been mediated. That mediation seems to come--at least partly--through the work of Eusebius's Hegesippus. (Talking about a 5 book work in Latin--presumably a translation--on the Jewish War, the Jewish Encyclopedia says of its author, another Hegesippus, 'The name is merely a corruption of "Josephus"'.) If the names Hegesippus and Josephus could be confused, then Origen seems to have made a mistake working from memory, going from book 18 of Josephus to his memory of Hegesippus, for it is Hegesippus who supplies the narrative content as well as the elements necessary for Origen to construct the phrase "James the brother of Jesus called christ". Hegesippus is the candidate for connecting the priest that Josephus also mentions to James. If you feel the need to explain Origen's James story to the destruction of Jerusalem, you also have to explain the implicit connection in Hegesippus, who covers all of Origen's material before him.

ph2ter · 09-27-2011, 03:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

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:

B. Origen

Origen does not recount the Testimonium, though he is aware of the passage referring to James and states that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Messiah. But Andrew Criddle, guest-blogging at Hypotyposeis, raised the possibility that Origen’s Commentary on Matthew reveals his awareness of the Testimonium. The possibility was first raised by renowned Josephan scholar William Whiston in an Appendix to his Complete Works of Josephus.

At Book 10, Chapter 17, Origen comments on Matthew 13:54-56:

He came to His hometown and began teaching them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, "Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers? Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?

After discussing theories about Jesus’ brothers, Origen quotes refers to Josephus and quotes his reference to “James, the brother of Jesus.” Right after quoting Josephus, Origen states:

and perhaps by these things is indicated a new doubt concerning Him, that Jesus was not a man but something diviner, inasmuch as He was, as they supposed, the son of Joseph and Mary, and the brother of four, and of the others--the women--as well, and yet had nothing like to any one of His kindred, and had not from education and teaching come to such a height of wisdom and power.

The reference to Jesus not being a man but something diviner brings to mind the Testimonium’s statement, “if it be lawful to call him a man.” Making a literary contact more likely is that Origen has already explicitly quoted Josephus and that it is here that Origen remarks that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Christ. The latter statement has been taken by many to indicate that Origen knew of a version of the Testimonium that expressed skepticism of Jesus’ messianic claim. Thus, as noted by Criddle, “It does in fact seem plausible IMO that Origen, expounding a Gospel passage about the implications for his identity of Jesus' words and works, is alluding to the passage in the TF where the words and works of Jesus make it questionable whether he should be called a man.”

It could be suspected that the author of the sentence: “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure" was aware of Matthew 13:54:
"and coming to his own country he taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, "Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works?".

The same author was also aware of the note in 'Commentary on Matthew' of Origen 10.17 which comments Matthew 13:54:
"And perhaps by these things is indicated a new doubt concerning Him, that Jesus was not a man but something diviner".

The interpolator lived after Origen. His name was most probably Eusebius.

Solo · 09-27-2011, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I... don't believe that it is a coincidence both Josephus (BJ 4) and Origen give cause for the fall of Jerusalem to the death of an individual, but the connection has clearly been mediated. That mediation seems to come--at least partly--through the work of Eusebius's Hegesippus. (Talking about a 5 book work in Latin--presumably a translation--on the Jewish War, the Jewish Encyclopedia says of its author, another Hegesippus, 'The name is merely a corruption of "Josephus"'.) If the names Hegesippus and Josephus could be confused, then Origen seems to have made a mistake working from memory, going from book 18 of Josephus to his memory of Hegesippus, for it is Hegesippus who supplies the narrative content as well as the elements necessary for Origen to construct the phrase "James the brother of Jesus called christ". Hegesippus is the candidate for connecting the priest that Josephus also mentions to James. If you feel the need to explain Origen's James story to the destruction of Jerusalem, you also have to explain the implicit connection in Hegesippus, who covers all of Origen's material before him.

The 'mediated connection' through Hegesippus is in someone's head only. Both, Origen and Eusebius name Josephus as the source of information that the war was the Jews' comeuppance for killing James the Just. Origen invokes Josephus in CC 1.47 which agrees with HE 2.23 but the idea does not appear in any known Josephus text of Antiquities. 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.

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'.

There is no evidence whatever that the link is supplied by a presumed passage in Hegesippus relating to the Roman siege but withheld by Eusebius. The fact that Eusebius mentions it after the Hegesippus account does not connect it to that passage. The link is made explicit by the quoted passage in Josephus later in the paragraph which also qualifies the the siege as happening "just after" the killing of James. The year of the appointment of Albinus, 62 CE, was six years before Vespasian's siege. So the connection between the two events need not have been as strong in Hegesippus' mind as in the later chronicler's.

In conclusion, there is no proof to the assertion that Origen relied on Hegesippus who he mistook for Josephus but a fairly strong argument against such an idea provided by Eusebius.

Jiri

spin · 09-27-2011, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I... don't believe that it is a coincidence both Josephus (BJ 4) and Origen give cause for the fall of Jerusalem to the death of an individual, but the connection has clearly been mediated. That mediation seems to come--at least partly--through the work of Eusebius's Hegesippus. (Talking about a 5 book work in Latin--presumably a translation--on the Jewish War, the Jewish Encyclopedia says of its author, another Hegesippus, 'The name is merely a corruption of "Josephus"'.) If the names Hegesippus and Josephus could be confused, then Origen seems to have made a mistake working from memory, going from book 18 of Josephus to his memory of Hegesippus, for it is Hegesippus who supplies the narrative content as well as the elements necessary for Origen to construct the phrase "James the brother of Jesus called christ". Hegesippus is the candidate for connecting the priest that Josephus also mentions to James. If you feel the need to explain Origen's James story to the destruction of Jerusalem, you also have to explain the implicit connection in Hegesippus, who covers all of Origen's material before him.

The 'mediated connection' through Hegesippus is in someone's head only.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Both, Origen and Eusebius name Josephus as the source of information that the war was the Jews' comeuppance for killing James the Just.

Eusebius's source is Origen's version of "Josephus", which seems to me to be a summary of Hegesippus, so listing Eusebius as an independent source is not at all helpful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Origen invokes Josephus in CC 1.47 which agrees with HE 2.23 but the idea does not appear in any known Josephus text of Antiquities.

Same issue of Eusebius using Origen as his source.

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

There is no evidence whatever that the link is supplied by a presumed passage in Hegesippus relating to the Roman siege but withheld by Eusebius.

The connection is plainly there as I indicated. Immediately after the death of James Vespasian began to besiege the city. If this was not the intention of Hegesippus, it is an easy connection to make from the text cited by Eusebius.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

The fact that Eusebius mentions it after the Hegesippus account does not connect it to that passage.

Eusebius citing the passage of Hegesippus is merely what acquaints us with the existence of the prior account of the death of James the brother of the lord who was called "Just", available to Origen with all elements necessary to write his synopsis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

The link is made explicit by the quoted passage in Josephus later in the paragraph which also qualifies the the siege as happening "just after" the killing of James. The year of the appointment of Albinus, 62 CE, was six years before Vespasian's siege. So the connection between the two events need not have been as strong in Hegesippus' mind as in the later chronicler's.

These guys were not historians. Eusebius cites Hegesippus as saying specifically that Vespasian besieged Jerusalem "immediately" (ευθυς) after the death and burial of James (2.23.18). It's there in the text attributed to Hegesippus. You seem not to take note of the fact. Hegesippus may or may not have actively made the connection, but he certainly relates the death of James to the start of the siege, by having one immediately following the other.

TedM · 09-27-2011, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ph2ter

It could be suspected that the author of the sentence: “Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure" was aware of Matthew 13:54:
"and coming to his own country he taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, "Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works?".

The same author was also aware of the note in 'Commentary on Matthew' of Origen 10.17 which comments Matthew 13:54:
"And perhaps by these things is indicated a new doubt concerning Him, that Jesus was not a man but something diviner".

The interpolator lived after Origen. His name was most probably Eusebius.

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

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

EarlDoherty · 09-27-2011, 10:59 AM

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.

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

Earl Doherty

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

09-26-2011, 10:35 PM	#15
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Yo DCH! I also don't believe that it is a coincidence both Josephus (BJ 4) and Origen give cause for the fall of Jerusalem to the death of an individual, but the connection has clearly been mediated. That mediation seems to come--at least partly--through the work of Eusebius's Hegesippus. (Talking about a 5 book work in Latin--presumably a translation--on the Jewish War, the Jewish Encyclopedia says of its author, another Hegesippus, 'The name is merely a corruption of "Josephus"'.) If the names Hegesippus and Josephus could be confused, then Origen seems to have made a mistake working from memory, going from book 18 of Josephus to his memory of Hegesippus, for it is Hegesippus who supplies the narrative content as well as the elements necessary for Origen to construct the phrase "James the brother of Jesus called christ". Hegesippus is the candidate for connecting the priest that Josephus also mentions to James. If you feel the need to explain Origen's James story to the destruction of Jerusalem, you also have to explain the implicit connection in Hegesippus, who covers all of Origen's material before him.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.