Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vorkosigan · 07-17-2011, 02:29 AM

Quote:

I think TedM's observation about no Christian leaving out a connection between John the Baptist and Jesus is a profound one.

It is, like all arguments from incredulity, merely an expression of distaste, and completely invalid.

The TF as we have it is an interpolation. That is what the 300 year silence around it, the fact that it is found plug-n-play in different Josephus books, etc etc etc. The fact is a (presumably) Christian interpolator did write that passage, and left out JBap.

Vorkosigan

TedM · 07-17-2011, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Quote:

I think TedM's observation about no Christian leaving out a connection between John the Baptist and Jesus is a profound one.

It is, like all arguments from incredulity, merely an expression of distaste, and completely invalid.

The TF as we have it is an interpolation. That is what the 300 year silence around it, the fact that it is found plug-n-play in different Josephus books, etc etc etc. The fact is a (presumably) Christian interpolator did write that passage, and left out JBap.

Vorkosigan

You've missed the focus here Vork. It wasn't on the idea that a TF was written without referencing the JTB passage. It was that a JTB passage was written without referencing Jesus. If a Christian interpolated the TF he may not have mentioned JTB. If a Christian interpolated the JTB passage it is a lot less likely that he would have not mentioned Jesus. That was the point I made and that Jay was referencing.

TedM · 07-17-2011, 10:59 PM

Hi Jay,

Although I agree that the passage is a diversion from the particular surrounding topic (although related in general ways), I don't see any good reason to believe that Eusebius wrote it: First, if he were a conniving man who was quite aware and sensitive to the 'conspiracy theory' and wanted to show it to be false by interpolating JTB in Josephus--thus creating the occasion to reference it later in the works of Origen as an interpolation, why in the world would he not have trumpeted that very thing since Celsus was arguing for that same conspiracy theory? That is, why didn't he say something along the lines of:

"Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer did not mention Jesus in connection with John, for Jews do not hold that John knew Jesus, in contrast to the Jewish man you have contrived."

I don't know why Origen didn't say it here, but if Eusebius interpolated it after first interpolating JTB, he surely would have delivered the punch line!

Secondly, if he interpolated the entire passage, why would have have interpolated such a passage about James the Just that he clearly takes issue with due to the absence of a proper credit given to Jesus, and then not even have included that passage in his own version of Josephus' writings? And, why not improve the version in both places to give Jesus credit for prophesying the destruction of Jerusalem? It just doesn't make sense.

While I grant that the passage doesn't fit very well in the context, in the absence of a better reason for Eusebius to have interpolated this particular passage other than that of assuming Eusebius wouldn't hesitate to do so because of another questionable assumption (that he interpolated the TF), I see no good reason to conclude that he actually did so, and I see good reasons to conclude that he did not.

I really see no reason any Christian would have interpolated it, and would conclude that Origen simply got a bit off track. He is rather wordy and his style looks to me to have included an awful lot of tangents and ideas somewhat related to his main points. In this case he may have been so taken aback at the James passage that when he first mentions Josephus he couldn't have helped commenting on the James passage to inject his own opinions about Jesus as having been a prophet (which WAS related to the discussion)...dunno..

Ted

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Vorkosigan,

There is something very odd about the passage you cited. If we look at what Origen is responding to, we see that the statement on Josephus, John the Baptist and James the Just is completely alien to the argument that Origen makes just prior and just after.

Quote:

CHAP. XLVI.

For the law and the prophets are full of marvels similar to those recorded of Jesus at His baptism, viz., regarding the dove and the voice from heaven. And I think the wonders wrought by Jesus are a proof of the Holy Spirit's having then appeared in the form of a dove, although Celsus, from a desire to cast discredit upon them, alleges that He performed only what He had learned among the Egyptians. And I shall refer not only to His miracles, but, as is proper, to those also of the apostles of Jesus. For they could not without the help of miracles and wonders have prevailed on those who heard their new doctrines and new teachings to abandon their national usages, and to accept their instructions at the danger to themselves even of death. And there are still preserved among Christians traces of that Holy Spirit which appeared in the form of a dove. They expel evil spirits, and perform many cures, and foresee certain events, according to the will of the Logos. And although Celsus, or the Jew whom he has introduced, may treat with mockery what I am going to say, I shall say it nevertheless,--that many have been converted to Christianity as if against their will, some sort of spirit having suddenly transformed their minds from a hatred of the doctrine to a readiness to die in its defence, and having appeared to them either in a waking vision or a dream of the night. Many such instances have we known, which, if we were to commit to writ ing, although they were seen and witnessed by ourselves, we should afford great occasion for ridicule to unbelievers, who would imagine that we, like those whom they suppose to have invented such things, had ourselves also done the same. But God is witness of our conscientious desire, not by false statements, but by testimonies of different kinds, to establish the divinity of the doctrine of Jesus. And as it is a Jew who is perplexed about the account of the Holy Spirit having descended upon Jesus in the form of a dove, we would say to him, "Sir, who is it that says in Isaiah, 'And now the Lord hath sent me and His Spirit? In which sentence, as the meaning is doubtful--viz., whether the Father and the Holy Spirit sent Jesus, or the Father sent both Christ and the Holy Spirit--the latter is correct. For, because the Saviour was sent, afterwards the Holy Spirit was sent also, that the prediction of the prophet might be fulfilled; and as it was necessary that the fulfilment of the prophecy should be known to posterity, the disciples of Jesus for that reason committed the result to writing.

CHAP. XLVII.

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. If, then, he says that it was on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason to say that it happened on account (of the death) of Jesus Christ, of whose divinity so many Churches are witnesses, composed of those who have been convened from a flood of sins, and who have joined themselves to the Creator, and who refer all their actions to His good pleasure.

CHAP. XLVIII.

Although the Jew, then, may offer no defence for himself in the instances of Ezekiel and Isaiah, when we compare the opening of the heavens to Jesus; and the voice that was heard by Him, to the similar cases which we find recorded in Ezekiel and Isaiah, or any other of the prophets, we nevertheless, so far as we can, shall support our position, maintaining that, as it is a matter of belief that in a dream impressions have been brought before the minds of many, some relating to divine things, and others to future events of this life, and this either with clearness or in an enigmatic manner,--a fact which is manifest to all who accept the doctrine of providence; so how is it absurd to say that the mind which could receive impressions in a dream should be impressed also in a waking vision, for the benefit either of him on whom the impressions are made, or of those who are to hear the account of them from him?

At the end of 46, Origen makes the argument that the Jew in Celsus should understand that the sending of the Holy Ghost is in fulfillment of a prophecy in Isaiah. At the beginning of 48, Origen argues that the Jew in Celsus should understand that the opening of the heavens was recorded in Ezekial and Isaiah.

In other words, Origen is arguing that the Jew character in Celsus is a poor representation of a Jew, because a Jew would understand the the opening of the heavens and the dove coming down from heaven is based on Jewish scripture. Thus we have

1. Argument against a specific statement in Celsus using Hebrew Scriptures as evidence
2. Two arguments involving John the baptist and James the Just having nothing to do with anything Celsus has said. But about controversial passages in Josephus.
3. Continuation of the argument against the specific statement in Celsus using Hebrew Scriptures as evidence that we find in 1.

Passage 47 is a complete interruption of the argument that Origen is making. While Origen is talking about John the Baptist in paragraph 46, he is not talking about the the testimony of Josephus which is what paragraph 47 is about.

Imagine reading in a Newspaper article:

1. President Obama proposed a deal on raising the debt ceiling
2. He offered to cut spending in certain programs
3. President Obama is from Kenya
4. In return Republicans would agree to tax hikes on wealthy Americans.

We would immediately see #3 as an interpolation.
This is structured the same way.

Why should we assume that Eusebius would interpolate the works of Josephus, but hesitate to interpolate other works?

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

PhilosopherJay · 07-18-2011, 07:47 AM

Hi Ted M.,

Thank you for the good and serious criticisms. Also, thank you for this quote:

Quote:

"Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer did not mention Jesus in connection with John, for Jews do not hold that John knew Jesus, in contrast to the Jewish man you have contrived."

This is Eusebius with his ever-guilty conscious telling us exactly why he did not associate Jesus with John when he interpolated the John passage in Josephus. He needed to keep Josephus as a Jew to be an independent witness to John, James and Jesus.

Note also that Origen says that Josephus witnesses John "as promising purification to thos who underwent the rite." This matches what we have in Eusebius' "demonstratio evangelica":

Quote:

"Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist; for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism. For so the washing would be (b) acceptable to Him."

It doesn't match what is in the current Josephus and "Church History." We may imagine two interpolaters, one before Origen and Eusebius, or we could imagine Eusebius correcting his own interpolation, but not correcting his earlier works like "demonstratio" and the interpolations in "Against Celsus"

The James passage is a little bit more problematical. I think the solution lies in the idea that there was once an interpolation that said that the killing of James was the cause of the war.

My hypothesis is that Eusebius originally sought to substitute the killing of Judas the Galilean with the killing of James the Just. After making the substitution, he interpolated the passage about the killing of James the Just in Origen to back it up. (If another copy of Josephus was found with the original Judas the Galilean killing in it, Eusebius could always say, "look Origen knew about the forged passage, it wasn't me who did it.")
After a time, he must have gotten uneasy about the passage. To say that Jews rose up because of James or Jesus is to blame them for the defeat in the War. He realized this and decided that if he was going to forge something, it should be about Jesus. He erased the passage about the death of James causing the war (originally, Judas the Galilean) and substituted the TF, which says nothing about Jesus' followers and the War, only that they were faithful down to the time when Josephus wrote. He forgot to take the reference out of the Origen material or he had sent it out before hand to see if anybody would question him about it. Once out, he couldn't recall it and just let it stand.

I wish I could give a simpler hypothesis, but people often do change their plans and we have to try to understand the actions of people based on a rational evaluation of evidence and people.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Hi Jay,

Although I agree that the passage is a diversion from the particular surrounding topic (although related in general ways), I don't see any good reason to believe that Eusebius wrote it: First, if he were a conniving man who was quite aware and sensitive to the 'conspiracy theory' and wanted to show it to be false by interpolating JTB in Josephus--thus creating the occasion to reference it later in the works of Origen as an interpolation, why in the world would he not have trumpeted that very thing since Celsus was arguing for that same conspiracy theory? That is, why didn't he say something along the lines of:

"Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer did not mention Jesus in connection with John, for Jews do not hold that John knew Jesus, in contrast to the Jewish man you have contrived."

I don't know why Origen didn't say it here, but if Eusebius interpolated it after first interpolating JTB, he surely would have delivered the punch line!

Secondly, if he interpolated the entire passage, why would have have interpolated such a passage about James the Just that he clearly takes issue with due to the absence of a proper credit given to Jesus, and then not even have included that passage in his own version of Josephus' writings? And, why not improve the version in both places to give Jesus credit for prophesying the destruction of Jerusalem? It just doesn't make sense.

While I grant that the passage doesn't fit very well in the context, in the absence of a better reason for Eusebius to have interpolated this particular passage other than that of assuming Eusebius wouldn't hesitate to do so because of another questionable assumption (that he interpolated the TF), I see no good reason to conclude that he actually did so, and I see good reasons to conclude that he did not.

I really see no reason any Christian would have interpolated it, and would conclude that Origen simply got a bit off track. He is rather wordy and his style looks to me to have included an awful lot of tangents and ideas somewhat related to his main points. In this case he may have been so taken aback at the James passage that when he first mentions Josephus he couldn't have helped commenting on the James passage to inject his own opinions about Jesus as having been a prophet (which WAS related to the discussion)...dunno..

Ted

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Vorkosigan,

{snip}

TedM · 07-18-2011, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Ted M.,

Thank you for the good and serious criticisms. Also, thank you for this quote:

Quote:

"Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer did not mention Jesus in connection with John, for Jews do not hold that John knew Jesus, in contrast to the Jewish man you have contrived."

This is Eusebius with his ever-guilty conscious telling us exactly why he did not associate Jesus with John when he interpolated the John passage in Josephus. He needed to keep Josephus as a Jew to be an independent witness to John, James and Jesus.

I think this is an 'oops' on your part Jay, unless I've missed something. That quote was something I made up to demonstrate what I think Eusebius WOULD HAVE INCLUDED if he had interpolated it, but did not. It is the first argument I made above against Eusebius interpolation.

Quote:

Note also that Origen says that Josephus witnesses John "as promising purification to thos who underwent the rite." This matches what we have in Eusebius' "demonstratio evangelica":

Quote:

"Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist; for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism. For so the washing would be (b) acceptable to Him."

It doesn't match what is in the current Josephus and "Church History."

I'm very lost about what you are saying because I'm not seeing a mismatch. Here's current Josephus:

Quote:

2. Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness

Your quote above doesn't mention purification, and neither does Eusebius, but Origen does mention it. But that is because it is in Josephus! There is no difference in any of the 3 copies that I am seeing. What I am missing here?

Quote:

The James passage is a little bit more problematical. I think the solution lies in the idea that there was once an interpolation that said that the killing of James was the cause of the war.

But, Eusebius could could have changed Origen and his own copy as he saw fit, right? Yet, he didn't.

Quote:

My hypothesis is that Eusebius originally sought to substitute the killing of Judas the Galilean with the killing of James the Just. After making the substitution, he interpolated the passage about the killing of James the Just in Origen to back it up. (If another copy of Josephus was found with the original Judas the Galilean killing in it, Eusebius could always say, "look Origen knew about the forged passage, it wasn't me who did it.")
After a time, he must have gotten uneasy about the passage. To say that Jews rose up because of James or Jesus is to blame them for the defeat in the War. He realized this and decided that if he was going to forge something, it should be about Jesus. He erased the passage about the death of James causing the war (originally, Judas the Galilean) and substituted the TF, which says nothing about Jesus' followers and the War, only that they were faithful down to the time when Josephus wrote. He forgot to take the reference out of the Origen material or he had sent it out before hand to see if anybody would question him about it. Once out, he couldn't recall it and just let it stand.

I wish I could give a simpler hypothesis, but people often do change their plans and we have to try to understand the actions of people based on a rational evaluation of evidence and people.

This is sphaghetti, Jay. I know people are inconsistent but how can we possibly make an argument that holds water on the basis of inconsistency? Your theory of course could be right but I see little reason to think that it is...

You've done a lot more research than I have into these things, I think, so I need to just ask you: Why do we have to conjecture Eusebius COMPLETE interpolation at almost every turn when that requires an awful lot of untangling..WHEN there are relatively few inconsistencies with the idea that the JTB passage was roughly as is from the get go, there was an early James the Just passage, Origen quoted from both, and Eusebius did nothing to either one? It seems a lot simpler, and IMO more logical.

EVEN IF Eusebius interpolated all or part of the TF, I just see no compelling reason to conclude that he interpolated the Josephus JTB passage or the JTB/James passage in Origen. The ONLY thing I think that shows a Christian hand in those 2 passages is the wording regarding purification of the body, but I see no reason to conclude that it was Eusebius who put it in as we can reasonably assume that any number of scribes may have added in a 'correction/clarification' to make it more consistent with their understanding of Jesus' sinlessness.

I must move on. 2 more issues:

1. Should we expect Origen to have mentioned a neutral or hostile passage about Jesus, since he seemed very interested in mentioning the JTB and James the Just passage?

2. Doug's review of C. Price's argument against silence and for partial interpolation of TF

Thanks, Ted

PhilosopherJay · 07-18-2011, 11:02 AM

Hi TedM.

I did make a mistake, reading "did" for "didn't in your post.
I'm overworked and was trying to respond too quickly.

Thanks for this.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Ted M.,

Thank you for the good and serious criticisms. Also, thank you for this quote:

This is Eusebius with his ever-guilty conscious telling us exactly why he did not associate Jesus with John when he interpolated the John passage in Josephus. He needed to keep Josephus as a Jew to be an independent witness to John, James and Jesus.

I think this is an 'oops' on your part Jay, unless I've missed something. That quote was something I made up to demonstrate what I think Eusebius WOULD HAVE INCLUDED if he had interpolated it, but did not. It is the first argument I made above against Eusebius interpolation.

I'm very lost about what you are saying because I'm not seeing a mismatch. Here's current Josephus:

Your quote above doesn't mention purification, and neither does Eusebius, but Origen does mention it. But that is because it is in Josephus! There is no difference in any of the 3 copies that I am seeing. What I am missing here?

But, Eusebius could could have changed Origen and his own copy as he saw fit, right? Yet, he didn't.

Quote:

My hypothesis is that Eusebius originally sought to substitute the killing of Judas the Galilean with the killing of James the Just. After making the substitution, he interpolated the passage about the killing of James the Just in Origen to back it up. (If another copy of Josephus was found with the original Judas the Galilean killing in it, Eusebius could always say, "look Origen knew about the forged passage, it wasn't me who did it.")
After a time, he must have gotten uneasy about the passage. To say that Jews rose up because of James or Jesus is to blame them for the defeat in the War. He realized this and decided that if he was going to forge something, it should be about Jesus. He erased the passage about the death of James causing the war (originally, Judas the Galilean) and substituted the TF, which says nothing about Jesus' followers and the War, only that they were faithful down to the time when Josephus wrote. He forgot to take the reference out of the Origen material or he had sent it out before hand to see if anybody would question him about it. Once out, he couldn't recall it and just let it stand.

I wish I could give a simpler hypothesis, but people often do change their plans and we have to try to understand the actions of people based on a rational evaluation of evidence and people.

This is sphaghetti, Jay. I know people are inconsistent but how can we possibly make an argument that holds water on the basis of inconsistency? Your theory of course could be right but I see little reason to think that it is...

You've done a lot more research than I have into these things, I think, so I need to just ask you: Why do we have to conjecture Eusebius COMPLETE interpolation at almost every turn when that requires an awful lot of untangling..WHEN there are relatively few inconsistencies with the idea that the JTB passage was roughly as is from the get go, there was an early James the Just passage, Origen quoted from both, and Eusebius did nothing to either one? It seems a lot simpler, and IMO more logical.

EVEN IF Eusebius interpolated all or part of the TF, I just see no compelling reason to conclude that he interpolated the Josephus JTB passage or the JTB/James passage in Origen. The ONLY thing I think that shows a Christian hand in those 2 passages is the wording regarding purification of the body, but I see no reason to conclude that it was Eusebius who put it in as we can reasonably assume that any number of scribes may have added in a 'correction/clarification' to make it more consistent with their understanding of Jesus' sinlessness.

I must move on. 2 more issues:

1. Should we expect Origen to have mentioned a neutral or hostile passage about Jesus, since he seemed very interested in mentioning the JTB and James the Just passage?

2. Doug's review of C. Price's argument against silence and for partial interpolation of TF

Thanks, Ted

TedM · 07-18-2011, 12:00 PM

No problem Jay--I've done that many times in the past here. But, I've rarely seen you do this..please feel no obligation to respond quickly to me--I welcome slow responses to keep me from being glued here..

Ted

TedM · 09-16-2011, 04:35 PM

I have responded to Doug's post regarding the Christopher Price article on a partial TF in a new thread found here:

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....84#post6923884

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

07-18-2011, 12:00 PM	#87
TedM Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: USA, Missouri Posts: 3,070	No problem Jay--I've done that many times in the past here. But, I've rarely seen you do this..please feel no obligation to respond quickly to me--I welcome slow responses to keep me from being glued here.. Ted

09-16-2011, 04:35 PM	#88
TedM Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: USA, Missouri Posts: 3,070	I have responded to Doug's post regarding the Christopher Price article on a partial TF in a new thread found here: http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....84#post6923884

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.