Dreadnought

Sorry for not responding to this. The dead horse in question is the TF, not Origen, Celsus or any of the other characters mentioned. While they are all dead, they're obviously not horses. I think the sheer desperation in christian efforts to revive the TF speaks volumes. Until anyone manages to address all the problems with it simultaneosuly I'll be this disrespectful of their attempts. Lifting one hoof and claiming that it moved is not enough. Other than that I am sorry if I insulted anyone who didn't want to be insulted.

ynquirer

Origen’s mention of the TF seemingly is an important piece of evidence against the TF, possibly the most important. (I’d appreciate that you say which other one is as important, if you disagree.) In reference to that piece of evidence, I haven’t read just one critique that takes on the crucial paragraph – Contra Celsus bk.1, ch.47 – in context of the whole book 1. Most of them say, “Origen did not mention the TF speaking of Jesus’ miracles; that’s odd, isn’t?,” and such platitudes. This is a first mistake I wished to discuss.

Secondly, there is ample evidence that Origen’s Josephus was not our Josephus. Furthermore, his Josephus was unlikely the original Josephus – I’ve extensively spoken of this above.

Thirdly, there is a clear relation of Origen’s saying that Josephus didn’t believe Jesus as the Christ to Origen’s repetitive mention of the phrase “the brother of Jesus, called the Christ,” which seems to be proof as afforded by Origen that Josephus was not a Christian. The mantra wouldn’t make sense shouldn't a declaration to the contrary look like being implied in Josephus.

ynquirer

Do this mean that you believe both mentions of the word 'Christ' in AJ 18.3.3 and 20.9.1 to be interpolations?

ynquirer

It might be the other way around. Possibly, some discussion preceded Jerome’s Latin and the Syriac translations, as regard the real wording of Josephus. From the fourth century onward, many Christians must have thought it unbelievable for a Jew like Josephus to say that Jesus was the Christ; this was a major argument by Lucas Osiander, in the late 15th century, according to A. Whealy; that still seems only too odd to many people nowadays. And it happens because they think that Rabbinical Judaism, which after AD 135 became the prevalent form of Judaism, was also so in the first century – which is a serious error.

While incurring that error some translators of the late Antiquity might have edited the text, to give it a more “reasonable” appearance. (BTW, translation leaves more room for personal interpretation that mere copy. It is noteworthy that not just one Greek copy contains the reconstruction.)

Roger Pearse

What I think you are suggesting is that the Greek text, from which both worked, may have arisen from interpolation of the genuine "he was the Christ". This is of course possible. The point is that either way this is evidence of a variant at that period. How it comes to arise is another issue.

Not quite sure what you are saying here -- that the Latin/Syriac form is not preserved in Greek? This is so, of course. However it would not be indicative of anything except the power of the standard text to overwrite any other versions.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Chris Weimer

No, I don't believe much of anything. I'll have to look into it more.

Dreadnought

(My bold) My comment was perhaps rash, but just to answer the bolded part I'd still say the strongest evidence against the TF being genuine is the TF itself. Bear in mind that the original comment was made early in the thread. As it transpired you did have a worthwhile discussion (at least so I presume, I've only skimmed through this). Life is just too short for some things and for me this discussion is one of them. No more derails from me. :wave:

PhilosopherJay

Hi All,

We can apply the same rules that we applied in my previous post (#4699424) regarding Eusebius' first James interpolation in Origen's Against Celsus. The results here are also interesting.

These rules were 1) Look for an argument or series of arguments that suddenly interrupts an argument in the text. When you take out the interpolation argument/s, the text should flow much more logically and smoothly. 2) Note contradictions and drastic shifts between the argument/s that has been separated out and the original argument, 3) Note how the separate argument/s contain the language and ideas present in other works by Eusebius.

When we do this, we can 1) see the original text that Eusebius was working from, 2) see what he has put in, 3) and see why he made the interpolation.

In this case, we get a bonus, we find not only that Eusebius has interpolated a passage in Celsus in reference to an interpolation he intended to make in Josephus, but also how he refers to another interpolation that will make into another historian's work: Phlegon's Chronicles.

The second James reference appears in chapter 13 of book 2. (http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...origen162.html). It appears that not only most of chapter 13 is an interpolation by Eusebius, but all of chapter 14 is an interpolation too.

Here is the point of interpolation:

chapter 13: This Jew of Celsus continues, after the above, in the following fashion: "Although he could state many things regarding the events of the life of Jesus which are true, and not like those which are recorded by the disciples, he willingly omits them." What, then, are those true statements, unlike the accounts in the Gospels, which the Jew of Celsus passes by without mention? Or is he only employing what appears to be a figure of speech, in pretending to have something to say, while in reality he had nothing to produce beyond the Gospel narrative which could impress the hearer with a feeling of its truth, and furnish a clear ground of accusation against Jesus and His doctrine? And he charges the disciples with having invented the statement that Jesus foreknew and foretold all that happened to Him;...
[Eusebius' interpolated material]...
chapter 15:
Celsus continues: "The disciples of Jesus, having no undoubted fact on which to rely, devised the fiction that he foreknew everything before it happened;"
[another Eusebius interpolation]

First note how smoothly the text flows when we take out the interpolated material by Eusebius and read it straight through:

n reality he had nothing to produce beyond the Gospel narrative which could impress the hearer with a feeling of its truth, and furnish a clear ground of accusation against Jesus and His doctrine? And he charges the disciples with having invented the statement that Jesus foreknew and foretold all that happened to Him; Celsus continues: "The disciples of Jesus, having no undoubted fact on which to rely, devised the fiction that he foreknew everything before it happened;"

Origen is simply telling us what Celsus did ("he charges the disciples with having invented...) and then he quotes the passage in which he did it ("Celsus continues: "The disciples of Jesus having no undoubted fact on which to rely, devised the fiction...).

Celsus' argument is a quoquo tu (you too) argument. Celsus accuses the disciples of making things up about Jesus because they don't have any facts. Origen says that Celsus, through his Jew, was pretending to know (negative) things about Jesus but actually has no facts more than what's in the gospels.

One can debate if this is a good argument or not, but the argument only makes sense when Origen provides the quote after explaining what Celsus has done. Separating Origen's judgement on what Celsus did from the words of Celsus destroys the effectiveness of the argument.

Here is the argument that Eusebius put in that disrupts Origen's argument:

but the truth of this statement we shall establish, although Celsus may not like it, by means of many other predictions uttered by the Saviour, in which He foretold what would befall the Christians in after generations. And who is there who would not be astonished at this prediction: "Ye shall be brought before governors and kings for My sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles;" and at any others which He may have delivered respecting the future persecution of His disciples? For what system of opinions ever existed among men on account of which others are punished, so that any one of the accusers of Jesus could say that, foreseeing the impiety or falsity of his opinions to be the ground of an accusation against them he thought that this would redound to his credit, that he had so predicted regarding it long before? Now if any deserve to be brought, on account of their opinions, before governors and kings, what others are they, save the Epicureans, who altogether deny the existence of providence? And also the Peripatetics, who say that prayers are of no avail, and sacrifices offered as to the Divinity? But some one will say that the Samaritans suffer persecution because of their religion. In answer to whom we shall state that the Sicarians, on account of the practice of circumcision, as mutilating themselves contrary to the established laws and the customs permitted to the Jews alone, are put to death. And you never hear a judge inquiring whether a Sicarian who strives to live according to this established religion of his will be released from punishment if he apostatizes, but will be led away to death if he con tinues firm; for the evidence of the circumcision is sufficient to ensure the death of him who has undergone it. But Christians alone, according to the prediction of their Saviour, "Ye shall be brought before governors and kings for My sake," are urged up to their last breath by their judges to deny Christianity, and to sacrifice according to the public customs; and after the oath of abjuration, to return to their homes, and to live in safety. And observe whether it is not with great authority that this declaration is uttered: "Whosoever therefore shall confess Me before men, him will I confess also before My Father who is in heaven. And whosoever shall deny Me before men," etc. And go back with me in thought to Jesus when He uttered these words, and see His predictions not yet accomplished. Perhaps you will say, in a spirit of incredulity, that he is talking folly, and speaking to no purpose, for his words will have no fulfilment; or, being in doubt about assenting to his words, you will say, that if these predictions be fulfilled, and the doctrine of Jesus be established, so that governors and kings think of destroying those who acknowledge Jesus, then we shall believe that he utters these prophecies as one who has received great power from God to implant this doctrine among the human race, and as believing that it will prevail. And who will not be filled with wonder, when he goes back in thought to Him who then taught and said, "This Gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles," and beholds, agreeably to His words, the Gospel of Jesus Christ preached in the whole world under heaven to Greeks and Barbarians, wise and foolish alike? For the word, spoken with power, has gained the mastery over men of all sorts of nature, and it is impossible to see any race of men which has escaped accepting the teaching of Jesus. But let this Jew of Celsus, who does not believe that He foreknew all that happened to Him, consider how, while Jerusalem was still standing, and the whole Jewish worship celebrated in it, Jesus foretold what would befall it from the hand of the Romans. For they will not maintain that the acquaintances and pupils of Jesus Himself handed down His teaching contained in the Gospels without committing it to writing, and left His disciples without the memoirs of Jesus contained in their works. Now in these it is recorded, that "when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed about with armies, then shall ye know that the desolation thereof is nigh." 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 dear, on account of Jesus Christ the Son of God.

CHAP. XIV.

Celsus, however, accepting or granting that Jesus foreknew what would befall Him, might think to make light of the admission, as he did in the case of the miracles, when he alleged that they were wrought by means of sorcery; for he might say that many persons by means of divination, either by auspices, or auguries, or sacrifices, or nativities, have come to the knowledge of what was to happen. But this concession he would not make, as being too great a one; and although he somehow granted that Jesus worked miracles, he thought to weaken the force of this by the charge of sorcery. Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events (although falling into confusion about some things which refer to Peter, as if they referred to Jesus), but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions. So that he also, by these very admissions regarding foreknowledge, as if against his will, expressed his opinion that the doctrines taught by the fathers of our system were not devoid of divine power.


As previously noted in post #4688304 in this thread, this argument that Jesus predicted the future is similar to what we find in Eusebius' Church History (3.7)

Note that Eusebius is really coaching Origen here on how he should conduct the argument:

For they will not maintain that the acquaintances and pupils of Jesus Himself handed down His teaching contained in the Gospels without committing it to writing, and left His disciples without the memoirs of Jesus contained in their works....

Celsus, however, accepting or granting that Jesus foreknew what would befall Him, might think to make light of the admission, as he did in the case of the miracles, when he alleged that they were wrought by means of sorcery; for he might say that many persons by means of divination, either by auspices, or auguries, or sacrifices, or nativities, have come to the knowledge of what was to happen. But this concession he would not make, as being too great a one; and although he somehow granted that Jesus worked miracles, he thought to weaken the force of this by the charge of sorcery....

What has happened is this. Celsus argued that the disciples fabricated Jesus' foreknowledge. Origen argued that Celsus does not have outside evidence from the gospel to back up this and other charges against Jesus. Eusebius recognized that this does not refute Celsus' charges, but simply makes the same equally unproveable charge against Celsus. For Eusebius the ability of Jesus, Christians and Jewish prophets to see the future is the rational and scientific reason to have faith in Christianity. He wrote the many books of the Demonstratio specifically to prove this. That is why, he rushes in at the mention of the idea that the disciples fabricated Jesus' foreknowledge, and he presents his proofs, not even caring that he is interrupting and destroying Celsus' own argument in the process.

Now Celsus is arguing that Celsus has no proof that the disciples made up the predictions by Jesus; while Eusebius is arguing that there is proof that Jesus' predictions are true. However, this line of argument does not address the question at issue that the disciples made up the predictions and put them in Jesus' mouth. Eusebius seems to recognize this and reassures Origen, "For they will not maintain that the acquaintances and pupils of Jesus Himself handed down His teaching contained in the Gospels without committing it to writing, and left His disciples without the memoirs of Jesus contained in their works." But, in fact, that "they did commit it" to writing is precisely what Celsus is maintaining. They committed it to writing by making it up. Eusebius has already written his "demonstatio" at this point in which he proves the honesty of the disciples, so he is not even thinking that anyone can accuse the disciples of dishonesty. But if we assume this argument is by Origen and not Eusebius, and Origen believes that Celsus cannot question the honesty of the disciples, why is he bothering to say that Celsus has no evidence on how the disciples came up with their writings? It is like saying "Ben has no evidence when he states that I didn't write the Iliad," and "Ben would never say that I didn't write the Iliad." The second argument contradicts the first one.


What is equally interesting is that he ends by citing two works, one by a Jewish author Josephus and one by a pagan author, Phlegon.

Just as Eusebius recites the same James passage allegedly in Josephus cited here, in his History; Eusebius recites the same passage allegedly in Phlegon regarding the eclipse cited here in his Chronicles (as quoted by Jerome)


(http://www.textexcavation.com/phlegontestimonium.html)
In the fourth year, however, of Olympiad 202,* an eclipse of the sun happened, greater and more excellent than any that had happened before it; at the sixth hour, day turned into dark night, so that the stars were seen in the sky, and an earthquake in Bithynia toppled many buildings of the city of Nicaea.

We find the same interpolated passages in both this work and Eusebius with the same explaination that they provided the evidence against their wills. One is reminded of Eusebius' writing in H.E.(9:9) :

And yet Constantine and Licinius, the advocates of peace and piety, had written him to permit this, and had granted it to all their subjects by edicts and ordinances. But this most impious man did not choose to yield in this matter until, being driven by the divine judgment, he was at last compelled to do it against his will.

Here the divine will that compelled Josephus and Phlegon to write in support of the gospel tales is certainly acting through Eusebius' hand.


To sum up, in the second James passage, we find that it interrupts another argument in a blindsided way that no rational ancient writer would ever do to himself, it contradicts the original argument, and it contains texts, claims, references and arguments that Eusebius repeats elsewhere. The second James reference in Against Celsus is a Eusebean interpolation as is the first.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

ynquirer

I just suggest that lectio difficilior potior still is a main principle of textual criticism. Which is the lectio difficilior in this case?

Roger Pearse

If you can offer an objective reason for one or the other, please do. But I am somewhat averse to the unthinking application of these axioms, since this one in particular would treat every corruption as original.

All the best,

Roger Pearse