Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 06-22-2012, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

ahh, Origen a coupla times and naturally each time regarding Jesus.
<irrelevant portions for current purposes removed>

It's the sort of crap we get out of Van Voorst and even, sadly, Louis Feldman, both of whom work with a notion of simple interpolation of the ilk of the TF, rather than the inclusion into the text of a marginal note perhaps inspired by a misunderstanding of Origen CC 1.47.

"sadly, Louis Feldman." Perhaps the greatest Josephan scholar ever, a classicist with a doctorate from Harvard, who is Jewish, has alas himself become a victim to Spin's insidious "hegemony" by misunderstanding that Origen, in CC 1.47, wasn't using Josephus' words (brother of Jesus, called Christ) but was actually using Christian terminology (or something; maybe unmarked christian structural bracketing).

Quixotic defense of Feldman noted. He was simply in the lists about the wrong thing. Then the hegemony bait and switch. (While you are just being a hegemonic lackey, you'll never really understand the problem.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

Origen, <snip> exist) ...

Have you ever considered the idea of editing your efforts for content value rather than length?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

...and is instead solely relying on AJ 20.200 for his belief about Josephus' opinion of Jesus' christ-status.

There are only two things that might link the two: the name "Josephus" and the phrase "brother of Jesus called christ", which is part of a bigger phrase which has a different word order. The context should tell you that Origen was certainly not referring to 20.200, given the apparently absurd proposition that Josephus claimed the fall of Jerusalem was related to the death of James.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

Either way, he says that the calamaties (or disasters) which befell the Jews were (according to Josephus) the result of the death of "James the Just, who was the brother of Jesus called Christ."

The wording of "brother of Jesus called christ" is virtually identical to Josephus in AJ 20.200.

And easily constructible from the notion that James was the brother of Jesus and the Matthean phrase "Jesus called christ". Considering that Origen first uses the phrase in his commentary on Matthew such a construction is a no-boner.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

The one difference is that "brother" in Origen is in the nominative, rather than the genitive. The "Jesus called Christ" is identical to Josephus.

And Matthew.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

But, as Doherty points out, Josephus never connects the incident with James to the fall of Jerusalem or the Temple. So why think that he is referring to AJ 20.200 at all here?

First, there is the context for all of Origen's use of this phrase "called Christ": Josephus.

And if Josephus happens to be a misunderstanding for Hegesippus (as was done in antiquity) we have a marvelous context for all of Origen's comments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

For example, immediately after he uses the exact wording (brother of Jesus called christ) we find in Josephus, Origen to refer to James as "the brother of the Lord" reflecting Paul's usage (and citing him). Origen then uses the connection between James and Jesus to further push his already strained beyond belief reliance on Josephus for his (Origen's) account of the fall of Jerusalem to Jesus' death. In fact, although Origen refers to James several times in his works, he only uses the phrase "called Christ" after citing Josephus.

And you could restate this if his source was the more likely Hegesippus, who notes that the fall of Jerusalem followed the death of James and who supplies Origen with much of his starting material not found in Josephus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

In other words, he begins with Josephus account of John the Baptist as a starting point (similar to the beginning of the account in the gospels), and then proceeds to use Josephus as evidence that even an unbeliever connected the fall of Jerusalem with the treatment of Christians.

Or from memory proceeds from Josephus to Hegesippus in his confusion of the two names.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

However, as Josephus didn't do any such thing,...

...While Hegesippus indirectly does...

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

...Origen cites the one connection to Christianity in Josephus which he can lay at the feet of a Jewish priest (after all, even if some part of the TF is genuine, it refers to Pilate's execution of Jesus). He uses this little aside in Josephus and links it with Josephus' general condemnation of Jewish actions leading to the fall of Rome, and further uses James' link to Jesus to get the result he wanted in the first place: blaming the Jews for the fall of Jerusalem because of their treatment of Jesus Christ (an unfortunate anti-semiticism which was to continue for century after century).

The fact that Origen doesn't connect Josephus' line about "the brother of Jesus called Christ" with an explicit passage is the norm for ancient references, unfortunately, and only with better historians (Thucydides, even Eusebius to a point) do we usually get a source reference. But, of course, Origen couldn't actually give a source reference, because Josephus was concerned with demonstrating (for his Roman patrons) the fault of the Jews in the downfall of Jerusalem for various reasons, certainly not because of the one instance Origen could find in which Josephus wishes to portray the high priest in a negative light, and uses James to do so.

Editing... editing...

spin · 06-22-2012, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

So, in short, you simply assert that "Origen uses Josephus' wording" (which is blatantly wrong, given that Origen puts the head word first)

He doesn't, actually. You'll notice that "James the Just" is in the genitive, yet "brother" is in the nominative. In other words the name doesn't have any role as head, because Josephus' wording is given in a relative clause, seperated from Origen's use of James' name, as can be clearly seen by
1) The relative hos
2) The change in case

He uses a christian method of talking about James, and then Josephus' in a clearly seperate clause. And in that clause, the word order is an exact match to Josephus.

Quote:

Your original claim that "called christ" is "not a christian phrase" is still merely empty rhetoric that has no substantive evidence at all behind it.

This is pretty amusing, coming from someone who has asserted throughout this thread various linguistic theories apply to his arguments, without a single reference to linguistic research, linguists, or any "substantive evidence at all". You simply make claims about word order and pragmatics and Josephus' styles, combine them with terms from linguistics, and claim it's somehow in line with how these terms are used.

On the other hand, I have quite a bit more. Not just the references to linguistic research demonstrating the inapplicability of your claims concerning word order and structure, but about the designation "called Christ" specifically.

We have, it is true, very few references preserved which refer to Jesus outside of Christian sources, and fewer still which use his first name and the title/last name "Christ". The early sources apart from Josephus use "Christ" and later sources preserved in fragments use Jesus for the most part.

But this does not leave us in a position in which we do not know Christian usage or language. You may have incorrectly used pragmatics and discourse analysis, but these things are actually useful tools, and the fact that from Mattew's use of the phrase on Pilate's lips to the exchange between a Jew and Christian in Dialogue of Timothy and Aquila, the "called Christ" is repeatedly used as a method "outsider's" use.

Yep, that is certainly the conservative christian apologetic. Mt 1:16 is certainly the "outsider's" use, isn't it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

Even better, we DO have hundreds and hundreds of normative methods Christians used to refer to Christ. This is in itself enough to demonstrate through any statistical model with any validity that the few uses of "called Christ" (even without discourse analysis) are not Christian. Then we have a wealth of data demonstrating how scribes altered references to Jesus, from Josephus' Antiquities 18 to the gospels to the the non-canonical literature. And here we find not just virtual complete absence of "called Christ" but in the only instance we DO have the phrase which appears Christian, we see scribes altering it and other quoting it but changing it so that it no longer reads "called Christ."

So, given both the enormity of references to Jesus we possess compared to the virtually complete absence of "called christ", as well as a more than adequate sample of Christian alterations over centuries to references of Jesus (where we find not just a complete lack of such alterations, but corrections to its use), somehow we are suppose to see that Origen, who uses this method only after referring to Josephus, is using his own construction (not Josephus'), and that somehow not only did a scribe insert this into Josephus (and, according to you, in a "marked" way), but also that unlike Matthew 1:16 and Antiquities 18, this construction went from a marginal gloss to an insertion, and nobody ever sought to re-christianize it or remove it? All it would have taken to make this a christian method of referring to Jesus is simply removing "called". This would have made it fit book 18 much better.

I couldn't find any progress in this stuff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

And if it is the result of a marginal gloss from Origen, why does he only use this construction after citing Josephus?

He's working from Hegesippus who he understandably confuses with Josephus. Two of the three are copy-&-pastes. The third, which I take as the original (the one before "the just" gets added to our phrase), is found in his commentary on Matthew where the original "Jesus called christ" is found.

Toto · 06-22-2012, 07:27 PM

Legion - could you say that your "statistics" show that "called Christ" is used by Christian authors putting a reference to Jesus in the mouth of non-Christians? That's what the pattern seems to show.

LegionOnomaMoi · 06-22-2012, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Yep, that is certainly the conservative christian apologetic. Mt 1:16 is certainly the "outsider's" use, isn't it?

Given that this is the sole example (apart from your "analysis" of Origen) in which the construction could be called christian, and the fact that we know that it was edited both in quotations and manuscripts so that it no longer read "Jesus called christ", then yes, as far as christians were concerned, it does. It serves a particular discourse function in Mt. 1:16, but apparently a number of scribes and commentators were unhappy with the construction and changed it.

Quote:

He's working from Hegesippus who he understandably confuses with Josephus. Two of the three are copy-&-pastes. The third, which I take as the original (the one before "the just" gets added to our phrase), is found in his commentary on Matthew where the original "Jesus called christ" is found.

So the fact that Hegesippus writes "James, the brother of the Lord" and it is Eusebius who then relates (after concluding what Hegesippus "reports") what Josephus states doesn't bother you? Or did you confuse what Eusebius writes and what he says Hegesippus wrote? Because he ends what Hegesippus says, and then begins "Josephus indeed also..." (ge toi ho Josepos). If the particles threw you, then at least kai tout' eggraphos epimarturasthai di' hon phesin lexeon should have alerted you that Eusebius was no longer reporting what Hegesippus wrote. So...did you have anything else other than confusing Eusebius first quoting Hegisippus' "James, the brother of the Lord" (ho adelphos tou kuriou Iakobos) in 2.23.4 with Eusebius quoting Josephus in 2.23.20 & 22 (or, possibly Origen in 2.23.20), or was that it?

LegionOnomaMoi · 06-22-2012, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Legion - could you say that your "statistics" show that "called Christ" is used by Christian authors putting a reference to Jesus in the mouth of non-Christians? That's what the pattern seems to show.

No, unfortunately. There are too few examples of this phrase ever to conclude anything other than it isn't something that christians used to describe Jesus and the scribes did not alter texts to add this. We have two instances in Mattew used like this, but in John it is used to "translate" messiah and in Justin it is used to tell others that this is how Christians refer to him ("the one among us called Christ"). There are too few examples to predict how likely it is that christians used the term to reflect non-christian usage. With extraordinarily few exceptions, they just didn't use it at all. Spin has Origen getting it from Hegesippus, but Hegesippus has "brother of the Lord" while Origen reflects what Josephus wrote (as does Eusebius). So with such a small data set, one can't really determine anything to any degree of certainty (at least statistically).

aa5874 · 06-22-2012, 09:26 PM

How long are going to go through this absurd argument that Christians could NOT have written the the Greek word called Christ???

If a Christian Interpolated the writings of Josephus is it NOT obvious to LegionoNoMaMoi that the supposed Christian would write LIKE Josephus???

When a persons FORGES anything thing they make it appear LIKE the original.

This is so basic.

Sometimes it seems to me that LegionOnoMaMoi lacks an understanding of meaning "FORGERY".

DCHindley · 06-22-2012, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Actually, we do have at least one very good reason. Origen three times refers to a passage in Josephus (or at least he thinks it's in Josephus--where, we don't know, since this reference can no longer be found) in which Josephus supposedly said that the fall of Jerusalem was God's punishment on the Jews for the murder of James. That lost passage, according to Origen, contained the phrase "James, the brother of Jesus, called Christ" (though not necessarily in that word order, since Origen is not quoting directly but paraphrasing--note, however, the natural order of the words, which Origen employs all three times, unlike that of Antiquities 20).

Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 (200-203)
20.200 the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James	20.200 τον αδελφον Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου, Ιακωβος ονομα αυτω
Origen, Against Celsus 1.47b-d
b) James the just, who was a brother of Jesus called Christ	b) Ιακωβου του δικαιου, ος ην αδελφος Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου
Origin, Against Celsus 2.13
James the just, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, … Jesus the Christ of God.	Ιακωβον τον δικαιον, τον αδελφον Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου, … Ιησουν τον Χριστον του θεου.
Origen, On Matthew 13.55
b) James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ.	b) Ιακωβον τον αδελφον Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου

These three passages are not so identical.

1) The name James goes from a tack-on to become more prominant (the phrase "(is) his name" drops out).

2) James is called "the Just" in the 2 citations from Against Celsus. Where in the account of Ant 20:200-203 is James ever called "just"?

3) in Against Celsus, Origen further identifies Jesus as the "Christ of God."

Origen keeps adding things about James and Jesus. James is "Just" and Jesus called Christ is really the Christ of God.

Quote:

Antiquities 20 lays the blame on the Roman procurator of Judea Ananus, with prominent Jews objecting to Ananus' action and agitating for his removal.

You may have already figured out that Ananus was the High Priest, not the Procurator, yes?

DCH

LegionOnomaMoi · 06-22-2012, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Here we have Hegesippus providing the material for Origen's phrase "James the brother of Jesus called christ". Hegesippus also places the siege of Jerusalem immediately on the death of James, allowing Origen to make the causal connection from Hegesippus.

<irrelevant stuff removed>

After citing the Hegesippus material Eusebius continues

How did I miss this before? Spin has given Hegesippus credit for a statement that Eusebius never says he made. Eusebius is actually pretty good (especially by the standards of those days) at giving references for his sources. And at least in this instance, he does. He begins a discussion about the death of James with "the manner of the death of James has, on the one hand, already been given above by quoted words of Clement..." However, he then proceeds in 2.23.3 with the account Hegesippus gives. He introduces him as having lived just after the apostles, and says that in his fifth book (or, more literally, recollections) Hegesippus "narrates saying this account" (lit. "manner", referring back to the previous "manner" of the death of James).

Eusebius begins relating what Hegesippus wrote with "the brother of the lord James received leadership of the church with the apostles..." and continues with Hegesippus' account until 2.23.19, where he closes by again naming Hegesippus and saying that "And Hegesippus related these things at length, in agreement indeed with Clement." In 2.23.20, having finished with Hegesippus' account, continues by citing Josephus. He makes it quite clear that he is beginning to refer to another's account. He uses a combination of particles: ge toi. As Denniston (whose work remains the definitive work on Greek particles) notes, toi is rarely combined with another particle except when it comes to ge (kaitoi is another issue). The effect is to increase the emphatic nature of ge with toi, the sense being a bit more than "at any rate" (more akin to "now Josephus indeed has...."). But the point is clear: Eusebius is now beginning to describe what Josephus says, starting with "Now Josephus indeed has not been careless nor shirked from giving witness to this in his writings saying:"

The most important words here, apart from the beginning particles, are how Eusebius closes. As when he introduced Hegesippus and what he wrote, Eusebius again introduces who he is quoting/using by noting first what he is quoting (for Hegesippus, it was his "memoirs", while for Josephus, it is just his "writings") and also using a participial form of the verb "say" to begin to relate what they said. In both cases he also uses a 3rd person verb meaning to "say/report/narrate" such that the result is (for both) something like "narrates X saying..."

Translations are, alas, imperfect. But is is quite clear that, contra Spin, Eusebius is not quoting or referring to anything Hegesippus wrote when he uses the phrase "brother of Jesus called Christ". Hegesippus, according to Eusebius, wrote "brother of the Lord." Eusebius may be quoting Josephus here, or simply Origen, but he is certainly no longer referring to anything Hegesippus wrote.

Addendum: So just to make sure my interpretation of the Greek of Eusebius along with my recollections of collections of early Christian fragments were correct, I went to my library. I have only two books focusing solely on James, the first by Hartin (James of Jerusalem) and not very good. However, he does get devote a section in chapter 4 to James in Eusebius. In that section, he notes how Eusebius begins exactly as I did above with his quotation of Hegesippus, and ends exactly where I said he did (2.23.19). Hartin goes on to say "Following the quotations from Clement and Hegesippus, and his own summary of James' martyrdom, Eusebius adds two quotations he has taken from Josephus." According to Hartin, the first is not found "in any of our existing texts of Josephus' writings". This line is where we read "James the Just, who was the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ..." (quoted from Hartin, p. 126). The second statement is "taken directly from Josephus, and is in close agreement with our editions of Josephus' text."

The Origen, Eusebius, and Hegesippus connection is discussed extensively in Eusebius and the Jewish Authors. On page 144 she states in a footnote that the uses of tauta in 2.23.19 "concludes the citation from Hegesippus".

aa5874 · 06-22-2012, 11:12 PM

If a Christian Fraudster interpolated Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 the interpolator would have used the style found in the works of Josephus .

That is basic.

The phrase "who was called" is found over 40 TIMES in Antiquities of the Jews.

Antiquities 12

Quote:

When he was dead, and had left a young son, who was called Onias

he was at war with Ptolemy Philopater, and with his son, who was called Epiphanes,

He was the son of Simon, who was called The Just: which Simon was the brother of Eleazar, as I said before..

Antiquities 13

Quote:

About this time it was that king Ptolemy, who was called Philometor.....

Now Alexander, who was called Balas...

Antiquities 14

Quote:

....Quintus Metellus, who was called Metellus of Crete..

Antiquities 20

Quote:

he gave the high priesthood to Joseph, who was called Cabi...

Now in gMatthew we find the phrase Jesus who is called Christ.

Matthew 1:16 KJV

Quote:

And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Antiquities of the Jews 20

Quote:

.... the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ,

It is just absurd that a Christian fraudster could NOT have written Jesus who was called Christ by merely copying the phrase from Antiquities.

spin · 06-23-2012, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Here we have Hegesippus providing the material for Origen's phrase "James the brother of Jesus called christ". Hegesippus also places the siege of Jerusalem immediately on the death of James, allowing Origen to make the causal connection from Hegesippus.

<irrelevant stuff removed>

After citing the Hegesippus material Eusebius continues

How did I miss this before? Spin has given Hegesippus credit for a statement that Eusebius never says he made. Eusebius is actually pretty good (especially by the standards of those days) at giving references for his sources. And at least in this instance, he does. He begins a discussion about the death of James with "the manner of the death of James has, on the one hand, already been given above by quoted words of Clement..." However, he then proceeds in 2.23.3 with the account Hegesippus gives. He introduces him as having lived just after the apostles, and says that in his fifth book (or, more literally, recollections) Hegesippus "narrates saying this account" (lit. "manner", referring back to the previous "manner" of the death of James).

Eusebius begins relating what Hegesippus wrote with "the brother of the lord James received leadership of the church with the apostles..." and continues with Hegesippus' account until 2.23.19, where he closes by again naming Hegesippus and saying that "And Hegesippus related these things at length, in agreement indeed with Clement." In 2.23.20, having finished with Hegesippus' account, continues by citing Josephus. He makes it quite clear that he is beginning to refer to another's account. He uses a combination of particles: ge toi. As Denniston (whose work remains the definitive work on Greek particles) notes, toi is rarely combined with another particle except when it comes to ge (kaitoi is another issue). The effect is to increase the emphatic nature of ge with toi, the sense being a bit more than "at any rate" (more akin to "now Josephus indeed has...."). But the point is clear: Eusebius is now beginning to describe what Josephus says, starting with "Now Josephus indeed has not been careless nor shirked from giving witness to this in his writings saying:"

The most important words here, apart from the beginning particles, are how Eusebius closes. As when he introduced Hegesippus and what he wrote, Eusebius again introduces who he is quoting/using by noting first what he is quoting (for Hegesippus, it was his "memoirs", while for Josephus, it is just his "writings") and also using a participial form of the verb "say" to begin to relate what they said. In both cases he also uses a 3rd person verb meaning to "say/report/narrate" such that the result is (for both) something like "narrates X saying..."

Translations are, alas, imperfect. But is is quite clear that, contra Spin, Eusebius is not quoting or referring to anything Hegesippus wrote when he uses the phrase "brother of Jesus called Christ". Hegesippus, according to Eusebius, wrote "brother of the Lord." Eusebius may be quoting Josephus here, or simply Origen, but he is certainly no longer referring to anything Hegesippus wrote.

Addendum: So just to make sure my interpretation of the Greek of Eusebius along with my recollections of collections of early Christian fragments were correct, I went to my library. I have only two books focusing solely on James, the first by Hartin (James of Jerusalem) and not very good. However, he does get devote a section in chapter 4 to James in Eusebius. In that section, he notes how Eusebius begins exactly as I did above with his quotation of Hegesippus, and ends exactly where I said he did (2.23.19). Hartin goes on to say "Following the quotations from Clement and Hegesippus, and his own summary of James' martyrdom, Eusebius adds two quotations he has taken from Josephus." According to Hartin, the first is not found "in any of our existing texts of Josephus' writings". This line is where we read "James the Just, who was the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ..." (quoted from Hartin, p. 126). The second statement is "taken directly from Josephus, and is in close agreement with our editions of Josephus' text."

The Origen, Eusebius, and Hegesippus connection is discussed extensively in Eusebius and the Jewish Authors. On page 144 she states in a footnote that the uses of tauta in 2.23.19 "concludes the citation from Hegesippus".

After wading through all this trying to figure out why LegionOnomaMoi just wrote six apparently useless paragraphs which add nothing nor clarify anything I have to conclude that there is no reason for it all. He hasn't delivered any contradiction. He has just frothed at the mouth for pure exhibitionism. Christ all-fucking-mighty, can't he try to make sense? He whinges about something I said:

Here we have Hegesippus providing the material for Origen's phrase "James the brother of Jesus called christ".

Hegesippus provides the information about "the brother of the lord James... called just", which is sufficient for Origen who was commenting on Matthew where we find Mt 1:16 "Jesus called christ" to construct his "James the brother of Jesus" to which he adds "the just" in the versions in CC.

Six paragraphs, virtually useless.

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

06-22-2012, 07:27 PM	#123
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Legion - could you say that your "statistics" show that "called Christ" is used by Christian authors putting a reference to Jesus in the mouth of non-Christians? That's what the pattern seems to show.

06-22-2012, 09:26 PM	#126
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	How long are going to go through this absurd argument that Christians could NOT have written the the Greek word called Christ??? If a Christian Interpolated the writings of Josephus is it NOT obvious to LegionoNoMaMoi that the supposed Christian would write LIKE Josephus??? When a persons FORGES anything thing they make it appear LIKE the original. This is so basic. Sometimes it seems to me that LegionOnoMaMoi lacks an understanding of meaning "FORGERY".

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.