Toto

Ken Olson has a post on CrossTalk regarding his article "Eusebius and the Testamonium Flavium," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61/2 (1999) 305 - 322, which might be of interest to those who have followed this issue. He states that his "thinking has progressed a great deal", and it seems to have progressed towards greated assuredness that Eusebius wrote the TF.

In this post he states that he thinks the later mention of James the "Brother of Jesus" in the Antiquities is inauthentic and has been tampered with by a Christian forger.

rlogan

That was nicely done. Thank you Toto. I had wondered who would call the Christians a "tribe" and the answer is - Eusebius!

"and he calls Christians a "tribe" (HE 3.3.3) as well as a
nation and a race."

I liked too reversing the order of the two completely bogus Josephus entries.

Edited to add: I mean reversing the order of consideration.

Toto

I expect that he will be writing more. I wonder if this is his PhD thesis.

spin

If you'll note Olson corrects his lapse re James, saying it was #3, ie mostly authentic, but tampered with by xians, not #4, that it was completely inauthentic.


spin

Vinnie

Grondin beat me too it. I was going to go post on there a few questions about Origin writing 200-250:

Commentary on Matthew.

And also:

Contra Celsus 1.47.

It is only logical to begin with the shorter reference which recieves external attestation in the first half of the third century (200 - 250).

Forgery had to come before Origen.

Vinnie

Attonitus

I agree. The use of the word phulon referred to the Christians it is a perfect match for a forgery in Josephus, this would never have used that word to refer a sect.

spin

I don't think you are reading either text correctly, Vinnie, though Grondin makes sure you're not alone. Origen doesn't cite from Josephus, he merely refers to his text. Look for example of the context of the first reference to James, specifically after his reference to Paul's words in Galatians. Now tell me, what can you glean from Origen's words as to what he derives from Josephus? Which are Origen's "marginal notes"?

Sifting through the wanderings in the quote from Contra Celsus, the main thought regarding James is to explain the disasters which betook the Jews. Here are Origen's words again with the basic content of what he got from Josephus with his own commentary in "plum":

[Josephus], 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).

And once again the Galatians verse about James is cited here as well. If we follow the principal sentence we can come to Josephus's contribution.

Is Origen claiming anything more?


spin

Vinnie

I don't see how the first quote could any more explicitly attest to the validity of Josephus on this aside from a direct citation and exact quotation but even then you could assert Origen altered it.
The second does confirm it as well. I think your are incorrectly reading Origen's clear knowledge of the text out of Josephus. The text is right there and plainly says what it does:

"that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the "Antiquities of the Jews" in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, 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 who is called Christ.

Origen even adds

"And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James. "

I don't see how this could be any more clearly an allusion to the now extant text of Josephus. On this basis alone would proably expect Josephus to have mentioned something baout Jesus even if his works were lost. Also, what of the "so called Christ in Origen". Translators bias? Does he commonly use that terminology to refer to Jesus?

If you can offer a different translation of Origen that maybe catches its original nuance more appropriately I will listen but in so far as that translation accurately represents Origen's statements, it appears to authenticate that passage from A.J. Its a dead issue.

Vinnie

spin

Origen doesn't quote from the passage. He alludes to it, after referring to Paul's statement about James the brother of the Lord. There is no question of Origen altering Josephus, he's just referring to him, while adding his own commentary.[/QUOTE]

Again there is no quoting from AJ 18. There is only eisegesis on your part.

Yup, that's basically what Origen wrote alright, but he's not quoting Josephus, is he?? Isn't it just you who is confusing Origen's impromptu commentary on Josephus with the original words?

Yup, that's Origen again, and note what he says Josephus gave testimony about: "that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James." Origen found no sign that Josephus accepted Jesus known as Christ, but does that imply that Josephus even mentioned Jesus? Sorry, no.

This is because you are reading Origen not for what he actually says. Show me what Origen actually cites verbatim from Josephus.

I showed you the principal sentence of the Contra Celsus passage. Jesus was not mentioned in it. What we have is a series of asides which does not reflect any text from Josephus and which probably came from Origen as his means of explanation.

Origen has already showed where his interest lay with his reference to Paul and Galatians in both passages. He imports Jesus into his text from there.

First the phrase "so-called" is a mistranslation in the Flavian Testimony. It should probably simply be "named" or "called". To comment on the original words, we have to see the underlying Greek on this expression in Origen, though I don't have a copy. If you can get a copy of the Greek we can look at it and comment further.

I think you are simply wrong, Vinnie, because you want Origen to be citing from Josephus, when he plainly isn't. The best you can hope for is that he is citing him as a recollection from a confused memory, but that seems hardly likely.


spin

Vinnie

think you are simply wrong, Vinnie, because you want Origen to be citing from Josephus, when he plainly isn't.

Just reverse all that and you have my response.

Vinnie