Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TedM · 07-07-2011, 08:36 PM

Earl Doherty has a thought-provoking analysis of Jesus-related passages in Josephus at the following link:

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp16.htm#Jerome

I'm particularly interested in his comments on the what he refers to as the 'lost reference' to James, first referenced in our surviving documents by Origen around 250AD:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doherty

We must conclude that the lost reference, with its view that God punished the Jews for the murder of James the Just, is a Christian product and an interpolation into a manuscript of Josephus. Hegesippus, as noted, implies a view of this sort among Christians in the mid-second century. But there is a very telling corollary to this. Why did those mid-second century Christians not impute the calamity to God’s punishment for the death of Jesus instead of James, since to subsequent writers, including Origen, this seemed obvious?

The explanation is simple. The need to interpret the destruction of Jerusalem would have developed early, no doubt well before Hegesippus. At such a time, an historical Jesus and historical crucifixion had not yet been invented, or at least would not have been widely disseminated under the influence of an evolving understanding of the Gospels. Thus the idea that the destruction of Jerusalem was a consequence of the execution of Jesus would not yet have arisen in the broader Christian world. Instead, James the Just, head of a prominent sect in Jerusalem which believed in a spiritual Christ, supposedly murdered by the Jewish high priest just before the War, would have been the natural, and perhaps only candidate available. And although the idea of an historical Jesus was well under way by Hegesippus’ time, the force of the original tradition about James’ death might still have been operating, to be supplanted by the concept of Jesus’ role only subsequently. As we have noted, it was not long after Hegesippus that we see the changeover, beginning with Melito.

This implies that the ‘lost reference’ must have been inserted into manuscripts of Josephus at a relatively early period, certainly within the first half of the second century. Much later than that, and the copyist would almost certainly have reflected Origen’s view—that the fall of Jerusalem was due to the death of Jesus, not of James.

My question: Is there good reason to believe or disbelieve that within the first half of the second century Christians had interpolated the 'lost reference' to James into Josephus' works? That is, within 50-75 years of them having been written?

Quote:

Why was the “lost reference” lost? Some suggest it may have been removed because of Origen’s complaint, but in that case it is much more likely that it would have been changed to reflect that complaint. That is, we would find the reference saying that it was on account of the death of Jesus, rather than of James, that Jerusalem fell. However, the better explanation would be that the “lost reference,” being an interpolation, was made only in certain manuscript lines (perhaps only one), probably of Jewish War and probably in the east, and that these lines died out.

How likely is it that an early Christian interpolation of the 'lost reference' that would apparently have survived at least 100 years to around 250AD (the approx date Origen wrote Contra Celsum and his Commentary on Matthew)--and MAYBE another 50-75 years to the time of Eusebius, who appears to quote from it--simply 'died out' after that time? at a time in which Christianty was rapidly gaining influence? What about the possibility that anti-James forces removed it (ie there was a need by some to show that Peter was the first church leader as opposed to James).

Quote:

Once the reference’s imitation (if that’s what it was) became interpolated into Antiquities 20, it would have undergone its own fate, in this case surviving and spreading westward into all copies of the latter document. If that second interpolation was Eusebius’ product, he would have been, as noted earlier, in the best position to ensure its propagation.

Earl earlier notes that Eusebius attributes (but doesn't locate) the following quote to Josephus:

Quote:

These things happened to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, called Christ, for the Jews slew him, although he was a most just man.”

How likely is it that Eusebius, having quote Josephus as above, interpolated an 'imitation' of the lost reference into Antiquities 20 without referring to James as 'James the Just', and without referring to James as a 'just man', and without referring to the idea that the razing of the temple or even the destruction of Jerusalem happened as a result of either the murder of James, or the murder of Jesus, called Christ?

Ted

Doug Shaver · 07-08-2011, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

My question: Is there good reason to believe or disbelieve that within the first half of the second century Christians had interpolated the 'lost reference' to James into Josephus' works? That is, within 50-75 years of them having been written?

Both, or neither.

If by "believe" you mean "regard as certain," I don't think that is justified with respect to any hypothesis about what Josephus originally wrote, or what was changed and when it was changed, if it has any relevance to Christian origins. Some hypotheses can of course be dismissed as prima facie implausible, but having done that, we're still left with a few live options, any one of which a reasonable person may accept as long as he does not insist that it's the only one having any credibility at all.

aa5874 · 07-08-2011, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

....My question: Is there good reason to believe or disbelieve that within the first half of the second century Christians had interpolated the 'lost reference' to James into Josephus' works? That is, within 50-75 years of them having been written? ....

From the very writings of Origen we know that "Antiquities of the Jews" was most likely interpolated AFTER the writing of Celsus' "True Discourse".

Celsus argued that Jesus was an ordinary man with a human father and Origen argued that Jesus was born of the Holy Ghost. See "Against Celsus" 1

Celsus did NOT use "Antiquities of the Jews" 20.9.1 but claimed Jesus was the son of Panthera.

Once, Josephus did describe Jesus as an ordinary man then Christian writers who claimed Jesus was born of the Holy Ghost would have had to address that major problem.

Any claim by the well-known Josephus that Jesus was an ordinary man since 93/94 CE would have UNDERMINED the veracity of ALL Christians writers.

No Christian writer claimed "Antiquities of the Jews" 20.9.1 was about an ordinary man and No known skeptic used "Antiquities of the Jews" 20.9.1 to argue against the claim that Jesus was born of the Holy Ghost.

The interpolation of "Antiquities of the Jews" 20.9.1 was most likely done AFTER Celsus "True Discourse".

TedM · 07-08-2011, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

My question: Is there good reason to believe or disbelieve that within the first half of the second century Christians had interpolated the 'lost reference' to James into Josephus' works? That is, within 50-75 years of them having been written?

Both, or neither.

If by "believe" you mean "regard as certain," I don't think that is justified with respect to any hypothesis about what Josephus originally wrote, or what was changed and when it was changed, if it has any relevance to Christian origins. Some hypotheses can of course be dismissed as prima facie implausible, but having done that, we're still left with a few live options, any one of which a reasonable person may accept as long as he does not insist that it's the only one having any credibility at all.

Um..a little obtuse there Doug. Are you saying it is not at all unlikely that Josephus' works were interpolated by a Christian within 50-75 years?

andrewcriddle · 07-09-2011, 01:56 AM

I think the most sensible analysis of Eusebius' references to James; is that his quotation of the passage as found in our copies of Josephus is what his text of Josephus read, whereas his quotation in the form found in Origen is based entirely on what Origen said.

IE Eusebius' text of Josephus already had the passage about James found in our copies, but did not have a pasage in which the death of James is explicitly linked to the fall of Jerusalem.

Andrew Criddle

Doug Shaver · 07-09-2011, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Are you saying it is not at all unlikely that Josephus' works were interpolated by a Christian within 50-75 years?

I would word it as "not improbable." If that strikes you as a distinction without a difference, I won't argue the point.

Huon · 07-11-2011, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

I think the most sensible analysis of Eusebius' references to James; is that his quotation of the passage as found in our copies of Josephus is what his text of Josephus read, whereas his quotation in the form found in Origen is based entirely on what Origen said.

IE Eusebius' text of Josephus already had the passage about James found in our copies, but did not have a pasage in which the death of James is explicitly linked to the fall of Jerusalem.

Andrew Criddle

Eusebius Book II Chapter 23.
The Martyrdom of James, who was called the Brother of the Lord.

3. The manner of James' death has been already indicated by the above-quoted words of Clement, who records that he was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple, and was beaten to death with a club. But Hegesippus, who lived immediately after the apostles, gives the most accurate account in the fifth book of his Memoirs. He writes as follows:

<snip>

19. These things are related at length by Hegesippus, who is in agreement with Clement. James was so admirable a man and so celebrated among all for his justice, that the more sensible even of the Jews were of the opinion that this was the cause of the siege of Jerusalem, which happened to them immediately after his martyrdom for no other reason than their daring act against him.

20. Josephus, at least, has not hesitated to testify this in his writings, where he says, "These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the Christ. For the Jews slew him, although he was a most just man."

Of course, Hegesippus quoted by Eusebius, and Josephus also quoted by Eusebius ... :grin:

aa5874 · 07-11-2011, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

....How likely is it that Eusebius, having quote Josephus as above, interpolated an 'imitation' of the lost reference into Antiquities 20 without referring to James as 'James the Just', and without referring to James as a 'just man', and without referring to the idea that the razing of the temple or even the destruction of Jerusalem happened as a result of either the murder of James, or the murder of Jesus, called Christ?

Ted

It is most amazing that even so-called Scholars do NOT even bring to our attention that Josephus did write the REASON for the destruction of the Jewish Temple.

In his earlier writing, "Wars of the Jews", the REASON for the Fall of the Temple and the destruction of Jerusalem is documented.

"Wars of the Jews" 6.5.4

Quote:

4. Now if any one consider these things, he will find that God takes care of mankind, and by all ways possible foreshows to our race what is for their preservation; but that men perish by those miseries which they madly and voluntarily bring upon themselves; for the Jews, by demolishing the tower of Antonia, had made their temple four-square, while at the same time they had it written in their sacred oracles, "That then should their city be taken, as well as their holy house, when once their temple should become four-square.....

In "Wars of the Jews" 6.5.4 Josephus had EARLIER given the REASON for the destruction of the Temple and the CITY.

The destruction had NOTHING whatsoever to do with any character called James, it was because of the SHAPE of the Temple.

Origen and Eusebius only tend to confirm that "Antiquities of the Jews" 20.9.1 was manipulated and cannot be accepted as reliable at all.

It is so remarkable and significant that we have the words of Josephus that BLATANTLY contradicts Origen and Eusebius.

"Antiquities of the Jews" 20.9.1 is now a forgery from every possible angle.

andrewcriddle · 07-11-2011, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

20. Josephus, at least, has not hesitated to testify this in his writings, where he says, "These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the Christ. For the Jews slew him, although he was a most just man."

Of course, Hegesippus quoted by Eusebius, and Josephus also quoted by Eusebius ... :grin:

As I said, I think Eusebius is using here Origen's quotation/paraphrase/interpretation of Josephus.

Andrew Criddle

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

07-09-2011, 01:56 AM	#5
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	I think the most sensible analysis of Eusebius' references to James; is that his quotation of the passage as found in our copies of Josephus is what his text of Josephus read, whereas his quotation in the form found in Origen is based entirely on what Origen said. IE Eusebius' text of Josephus already had the passage about James found in our copies, but did not have a pasage in which the death of James is explicitly linked to the fall of Jerusalem. Andrew Criddle

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.