Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ApostateAbe · 07-06-2011, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

The three references to this passage, with direct word-for-word quotation of the key phrase, are in Origen Contra Celsum I.4, Contra Celsum II:13 and in Commentarium in evangelium Matthaei X.17. In each case he directly quotes the phrase used in Josephus: "αδελφος Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου" ("the brother of that Jesus nicknamed Messiah").

'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),'

Notice that Origen knows exactly where Josephus writes about John the Baptist , but gives no source for his writing about 'James the Just' ( a phrase which does not appear in Josephus), and Origen also copies out a bit of Matthew 1:16 to explain who James the Just was - του λεγομενου Χριστου

When Chaucer claims Origen 'cites' Ant. 20, what he meant to write was that Origen never cites Ant. 20.

No blame attaches to Chaucer. It is an easy mistake to make. Anybody can read the passage and see '18' and misremember it as 20.

Steven Carr, what do you think Origen had in mind when he wrote about Josephus on James? Do you think Origen was just making things up about Josephus or something? It looks to me that Origen had in mind both Antiquities 18 (Josephus on John the Baptist) and Antiquities 20 (Josephus on James). How do you make sense of that writing of Origen?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Incidentally, Origen uses Ant. 18 to refute claims that John the Baptist never existed. '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.'

Rather curiously, Origen fails to rub Celsus's nose in any other passage from Ant. 18 that had to do with the existence of somebody.

I wonder why Origen passed up this opportunity to slam-dunk Celsus and give Apostate Abe another chance to cry 'Owned'.

I am not sure what your expectation of Origen is or why, but I figure it probably wasn't arguing about the existence of anybody, but about the righteousness of such people. Celsus apparently argued that Jesus and Christians were generally evil.

Steven Carr · 07-06-2011, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

If not, then correct me. If so, then explain your reasons of how you know. Because Origen wrote that Josephus wrote that James had a connection to the fall of Jerusalem but actually Josephus actually didn't write that?

Hegesippus wrote that the death of James the Just had a connection to the fall of Jerusalem. This fact is well known.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...egesippus.html

'"Let us stone James the Just."... And shortly after Vespasian besieged Judaea, taking them captive.'

Origen simply can't find the book of Josephus where Josephus says the death of James had a connection to the fall of Jerusalem. Hence he never says which book it was, although he could easily find which book of Josephus mentioned John the Baptist.

ApostateAbe · 07-06-2011, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

If not, then correct me. If so, then explain your reasons of how you know. Because Origen wrote that Josephus wrote that James had a connection to the fall of Jerusalem but actually Josephus actually didn't write that?

Hegesippus wrote that the death of James the Just had a connection to the fall of Jerusalem. This fact is well known.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...egesippus.html

'"Let us stone James the Just."... And shortly after Vespasian besieged Judaea, taking them captive.'

Origen simply can't find the book of Josephus where Josephus says the death of James had a connection to the fall of Jerusalem. Hence he never says which book it was, although he could easily find which book of Josephus mentioned John the Baptist.

I think that is a sensible explanation.

Steven Carr · 07-06-2011, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Josephus was a 25-26 year old aristocratic Jew, quite unsympathetic toward Christians, and a member of the dominant priestly elite.

'Quite unsympathetic toward Christians'.

I had wondered why Josephus kept referring to 'James the Just', as Origen 3 times claimed he did.

He must have been unsympathetic to the extent of giving them glowing nicknames, praising them in unprecedented ways.

Or perhaps Origen isn't quoting Josephus at all?

Vorkosigan · 07-06-2011, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Origen does not in any way witness to a "brother of Jesus, called Christ" in Antiquities 20, let's be clear on that, and his silence witnesses quite the opposite. The first witness to that passage in Antiquities 20 is...(wait for it)...Eusebius! What are the odds?! The 'historian' who provides the first witness to the Testimonium Flavianum is the same who first gives us the death of James as brother of Christ at the hands of Ananus! Prior to Eusebius, every Christian commentator is silent on the two extant references to Jesus allegedly authentic to Josephus.

It almost seems that Eusebius, who wasn't the brightest bulb in the bin, read the Origen passage as inspiration for the "called Christ" interpolation which he himself put in, as Ken Olsen argued that he did with the longer passage. Then readers could point back to Origen and say -- he knew it!!! See!!!

Over the years several individuals have arrived independently at the conclusion that the James killed was indeed the brother of Jesus -- Jesus Damneus, who is referenced further down in that same passage.

Vorkosigan

ApostateAbe · 07-06-2011, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Quote:

Origen does not in any way witness to a "brother of Jesus, called Christ" in Antiquities 20, let's be clear on that, and his silence witnesses quite the opposite. The first witness to that passage in Antiquities 20 is...(wait for it)...Eusebius! What are the odds?! The 'historian' who provides the first witness to the Testimonium Flavianum is the same who first gives us the death of James as brother of Christ at the hands of Ananus! Prior to Eusebius, every Christian commentator is silent on the two extant references to Jesus allegedly authentic to Josephus.

It almost seems that Eusebius, who wasn't the brightest bulb in the bin, read the Origen passage as inspiration for the "called Christ" interpolation which he himself put in, as Ken Olsen argued that he did with the longer passage. Then readers could point back to Origen and say -- he knew it!!! See!!!

You are saying that Origen actually wrote like a blithering idiot, connecting Josephus's attestation of an entirely different James with James the brother of Jesus, and Josephus was corrected by Eusebius so that Origen's arguments wouldn't look so lame. Maybe I didn't get that quite right, so feel free to correct me. Regardless, you can also try to justify how such an explanation is more probable than just believing that Josephus actually wrote "James, the brother of Jesus, called Christ." It looks very much like you are trying to rewrite the evidence to fit your conclusion. If we can make perfect sense of the evidence without weird hypotheses of interpolations or bizarre interpretations, then maybe we should accept it.

mountainman · 07-06-2011, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

The three references and quotes of Josephus's phrase in Origen also show that "nicknamed Messiah" is not an interpolation. That's why scholars (as opposed to bumbling amateur bloggers and self-published hobbyists) all accept that it's genuine.

It shows no such thing. The three quotes of "nicknamed Messiah", as you put it, have nothing to do with Antiquities 20. All three are supposedly references to a now-lost verse somewhere else in Josephus about the death of the Christian James being the cause of the fall of Jerusalem. And that lost reference cannot possibly be authentic to Josephus, as even half a brain's thought will establish, not the least because there is no way Josephus would subscribe to such an idea, or publish it as the view of Jews without qualification if he didn't. Besides, the very idea contradicts the way Josephus presents the death of the James (whoever he was) described in Antiquities 20. That lost reference has to be a Christian interpolation, and since Origen is led to make no reference whatever to a supposedly companion "nicknamed Christ" in Antiquities 20, we can be pretty sure that the latter did not yet exist. That makes the first appearance in Josephus of "brother of Jesus, called Christ" in a passage which is clearly an interpolation.

Origen does not in any way witness to a "brother of Jesus, called Christ" in Antiquities 20, let's be clear on that, and his silence witnesses quite the opposite. The first witness to that passage in Antiquities 20 is...(wait for it)...Eusebius! What are the odds?! The 'historian' who provides the first witness to the Testimonium Flavianum is the same who first gives us the death of James as brother of Christ at the hands of Ananus! Prior to Eusebius, every Christian commentator is silent on the two extant references to Jesus allegedly authentic to Josephus.

I guess only us bumbling amateur bloggers and self-published hobbyists noticed all this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

It almost seems that Eusebius, who wasn't the brightest bulb in the bin, read the Origen passage as inspiration for the "called Christ" interpolation which he himself put in, as Ken Olsen argued that he did with the longer passage. Then readers could point back to Origen and say -- he knew it!!! See!!!

Hi Earl and Vorkosigan,

Here is something additional and perhaps minor that I have noticed ...

There is reason to suspect that the christian Origen is an identity theft of the Platonic Origen by the 'historian' who provides the first witness to the Testimonium Flavianum. The Christian Ammonius is a further example of such Eusebian identity fraud. Doubters should consult in the first instance the WIKI disambiguation pages for the separate Platonists and Christians. There is an essay - free of charge - providing the details of this claim, and the evidence in support.

The reality check is the political situation at the time Eusebius wrote. He wrote in an epoch of newly acquired freedom. He was the Editor-In-Chief of the first codex bibles commissioned by Constantine. I dont trust Eusebius and I suspect him of being guilty of interpolation, pious forgery, identity theft and identity fraud.

Best wishes,

Pete

Toto · 07-06-2011, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...

You are saying that Origen actually wrote like a blithering idiot, connecting Josephus's attestation of an entirely different James with James the brother of Jesus,

Origen wrote from memory, possibly confusing Josephus with Hegesippus, about James. By this time, Christian tradition believed that Jesus had a brother named James, and this James was killed in the 60's, so Origen added an identifier to James, describing him as the brother of Jesus.

Quote:

and Josephus was corrected by Eusebius so that Origen's arguments wouldn't look so lame.

There are many possible ways that "called Christ" could have worked its way into Ant. 20. It could have been a marginal note meant to explain who this James' brother was.

It is not necessary to assume that Origen was an idiot or that Eusebius was covering up for him. They were both working with received Christian legends.

If you think that this was a reference to the brother of someone named Jesus called the Messiah (or maybe the Anointed or the Oily), perhaps you could answer the question I posed above. What connects this Jesus, who was the brother of a member of the inner circle in Jerusalem, to a peasant wisdom teacher in Galilee 33 years before this, who was so obscure no one bothered to write about him at the time? How old was James? How did he get from Galilee to Jerusalem? How did he make it into the inner circle of the group that got the Romans to crucify his brother as a low rent blasphemer?

Vorkosigan · 07-06-2011, 10:30 PM

I think it might be better to see what Origen says here in CC I. Earl's statement that there is a "lost reference" is thereby clearer.

From the New Advent site:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04162.htm

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.

And CC II

But at that time there were no armies around Jerusalem, encompassing and enclosing and besieging it; for the siege began in the reign of Nero, and lasted till the government of Vespasian, whose son Titus destroyed Jerusalem, on account, as Josephus says, of James the Just, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, but in reality, as the truth makes clear, on account of Jesus Christ the Son of God.

Matthew Commentary 10:

And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, 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. 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.

It seems difficult to avoid concluding that Origen possessed an interpolated copy of Josephus in which Jerusalem is destroyed on account of James' execution.

Also, to follow Carr's thought, nowhere does Origen say in which chapter this "lost reference" appears. Perhaps Origen is simply lying or has confused Josephus with some other writer, such as Hegesippus.

Vorkosigan

ApostateAbe · 07-06-2011, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

...

You are saying that Origen actually wrote like a blithering idiot, connecting Josephus's attestation of an entirely different James with James the brother of Jesus,

Origen wrote from memory, possibly confusing Josephus with Hegesippus, about James. By this time, Christian tradition believed that Jesus had a brother named James, and this James was killed in the 60's, so Origen added an identifier to James, describing him as the brother of Jesus.

Quote:

and Josephus was corrected by Eusebius so that Origen's arguments wouldn't look so lame.

There are many possible ways that "called Christ" could have worked its way into Ant. 20. It could have been a marginal note meant to explain who this James' brother was.

It is not necessary to assume that Origen was an idiot or that Eusebius was covering up for him. They were both working with received Christian legends.

You are making the ad hoc proposition of interpolation a little more plausible than Vorkosigan and Earl Doherty proposed, and yet it seems to remain an implausible unevidenced ad hoc proposition. Why not just believe that Josephus actually wrote that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

If you think that this was a reference to the brother of someone named Jesus called the Messiah (or maybe the Anointed or the Oily), perhaps you could answer the question I posed above. What connects this Jesus, who was the brother of a member of the inner circle in Jerusalem, to a peasant wisdom teacher in Galilee 33 years before this, who was so obscure no one bothered to write about him at the time? How old was James? How did he get from Galilee to Jerusalem? How did he make it into the inner circle of the group that got the Romans to crucify his brother as a low rent blasphemer?

What connects this Jesus, who was the brother of a member of the inner circle in Jerusalem, to a peasant wisdom teacher in Galilee 33 years before this, who was so obscure no one bothered to write about him at the time?

By being his brother? If you take the silence as relevant, then you need to explain further. Why would you expect anybody but Christians to write about Jesus and why would you expect such writings would remain with us today?

How old was James?

I don't know. 50? 60?

How did he get from Galilee to Jerusalem?

He walked, I presume.

How did he make it into the inner circle of the group that got the Romans to crucify his brother as a low rent blasphemer?

You seem to think there is an account of James being in the "inner circle"? I don't see that in either Origen or Josephus, so maybe you can point that out. I see James as being an outsider but a leader of a popular threatening cult.

07-06-2011, 10:30 PM	#19
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	I think it might be better to see what Origen says here in CC I. Earl's statement that there is a "lost reference" is thereby clearer. From the New Advent site: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04162.htm 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. And CC II But at that time there were no armies around Jerusalem, encompassing and enclosing and besieging it; for the siege began in the reign of Nero, and lasted till the government of Vespasian, whose son Titus destroyed Jerusalem, on account, as Josephus says, of James the Just, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, but in reality, as the truth makes clear, on account of Jesus Christ the Son of God. Matthew Commentary 10: And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, 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. 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. It seems difficult to avoid concluding that Origen possessed an interpolated copy of Josephus in which Jerusalem is destroyed on account of James' execution. Also, to follow Carr's thought, nowhere does Origen say in which chapter this "lost reference" appears. Perhaps Origen is simply lying or has confused Josephus with some other writer, such as Hegesippus. Vorkosigan

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.