Freethought & Rationalism Archive

PhilosopherJay · 08-08-2007, 10:51 AM

Hi Ben,

This is certainly more than two cents worth. It is exactly correct. We cannot think of Origen as merely making up stuff from Paul to support his position. This would have done him little good, as we have to assume that copies of Paul were in wide circulation by then and people would have only been puzzled by the reference to a statement by Paul which isn't in Paul.

Therefore we can conclude that the phrase "not so much on account of their relationship by blood or of their common upbringing as on account of his ethics and speech." is giving the opinion of the author himself.

But this presents another problem. It appears here merely as an aside. It is a simple correction to a simple erroneous belief by a simple statement. Yet, it is much too important an issue to be the subject of such a simple aside. It is as if I were to say, "and by the way George Bush II is not the real son of George Bush I, but he was simply adopted into the family because his ideas were so similar to the first George Bush." Such a fantastic statement without citation of authority makes the writer look like a fool.

Therefore, one has to wonder why Celsus does not give any authority for this incredible statement, apparently in contradiction to Paul's simple statement that he met James, the Brother of the Lord.

The answer to this problem comes when we remember that Eusebius had control over Origen's texts and Eusebius is the first to give us the idea that
James, the Brother of the Lord, is James the Just.

(Church History: 2. 23. 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."
21. And the same writer records his death also in the twentieth book of his Antiquities in the following words: "But the emperor, when he learned of the death of Festus, sent Albinus to be procurator of Judea. But the younger Ananus, who, as we have already said, had obtained the high priesthood, was of an exceedingly bold and reckless disposition. He belonged, moreover, to the sect of the Sadducees, who are the most cruel of all the Jews in the execution of judgment, as we have already shown.

Note the emphasis on James being "a most just man". Let us go back to Eusebius' earlier mention of James at the beginning

1. But after Paul, in consequence of his appeal to Cæsar, had been sent to Rome by Festus, the Jews, being frustrated in their hope of entrapping him by the snares which they had laid for him, turned against James, the brother of the Lord, to whom the episcopal seat at Jerusalem had been entrusted by the apostles. The following daring measures were undertaken by them against him.
2. Leading him into their midst they demanded of him that he should renounce faith in Christ in the presence of all the people. But, contrary to the opinion of all, with a clear voice, and with greater boldness than they had anticipated, he spoke out before the whole multitude and confessed that our Saviour and Lord Jesus is the Son of God. But they were unable to bear longer the testimony of the man who, on account of the excellence of ascetic virtue and of piety which he exhibited in his life, was esteemed by all as the most just of men, and consequently they slew him. Opportunity for this deed of violence was furnished by the prevailing anarchy, which was caused by the fact that Festus had died just at this time in Judea, and that the province was thus without a governor and head.

Eusebius wants to show the continuity of the Jewish Church and by that means show the continuity of the Roman Church. The problem is that James is the "brother of the Lord." This suggest that family considerations, a bloodline was the most important thing to succession. This presents a political problem. Constantine could not claim a direct bloodline in order to become the sole emperor. (wikipedia: Under the Tetrarchy, Constantine's succession was of dubious legitimacy. While Constantius as senior emperor could "create" a new caesar, Constantine's (or, his troops') claim to the title of augustus ignored the system of succession established in 305.) His claim has to be based on the fact that he was the best man for the job -- the most "just."
Eusebius wants to show that James became the head of the Church because he was the most just, not because he was related to Jesus by family or blood.

Since this is an ideogram of Eusebius, we have to explain why it is suddenly appearing in a work by Origen. Since we have no evidence that it was a common idea in the time of Origen and we know that Origen cites no authority for such a controversial idea, it raises the possibility that the passage is a forgery by Eusebius. He does not need to cite an authority for such a controversial idea, he already has done so, or shortly will do so, in his "Church History."

Once we see this, it is not hard to grasp that Eusebius has interpolated the entire paragraph regarding Josephus into Origen's work. He reads Origen's answer to Celsus that the Jew in Celsus does not recognize Jesus' miracles and would have by the fact of his being a Jew, and he realizes that he has a better argument to lend to Origen. He has Josephus, a Jew who wrote in Jesus' time period. He thinks, "Wouldn't it be wonderful if the Jew recognized that Jesus did miracles." Here we can see the very beginnings of the TF in Eusebius' mind.

But before we or Eusebius gets to that, we have to follow him in his path of changing both the texts of Origen and Josephus.

The key original statements is that Eusebius works from are the idea that the killing of the High Priest Johnathan led to the overthrow of Jerusalem and the fact that James Damneus the brother of Jesus Damneus was assassinated in the time of Festus.

Let us suppose that Eusebius changes James Damneus into James, brother of the lord. The next change he intends to make is to change the killing of the High Priest Johnathan (an act blamed for the destruction of Jerusalem) into a reference to the killing of James.

He writes about this change in his "Church History" (2. 23. 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) and he writes about it in Origen.

Eusebius goes through with the first change and changes James the brother of Jesus Damneus to James, the brother of the Lord, but something happens after this; he never makes the second change. Apparently after making the first change -- Jesus damneus into the Lord --he decides if he is going to change history, he should be bold and not play around or be subtle. It is at this point that he decides to put in the TF or at least change a passage that originally referred to a miracle worker into the TF.

This hypothesis explains why we get the odd reference to James being the cause of the destruction of Jerusalem in both the "Church History" and in Origen's "Against Celsus". Instead of two forgers in Christian History (an unknown forger adding James as the cause of destruction of Jerusalem, and another adding the TF, this hypothesis has the advantage of only allowing one forger and explains why he made the changes he did.

To sum up, Eusebius had a James Bloodline vs James Authority-from-Justice" problem. It is was a major problem and issue for Eusebius but never a problem for Origen. The fact that we find it suddenly in Origen points towards Eusebius' forgery of the passage.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

What are we to make of this? In close proximity to Origin talking about stuff being in Josephus that isn't in Josephus, we have him talking about stuff in Paul which isn't in Paul.

I think the actual paraphrase (and it is a paraphrase, not a quotation, since it the φησιν is followed up with the infinitive of indirect discourse) of Paul ends at κυριου:

Τον δε Ιακωβον τουτον ο Ιησου γνησιος μαθητης Ϊαυλος φησιν εωρακεναι ως αδελφον του κυριου....

And Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he saw this James as a brother of the Lord....

The rest follows as an Origenic comment on Paul, not a Pauline comment on himself:

...ου τοσουτον δια το προς αιματος συγγενες η την κοινην αυτων ανατροφην οσον δια το ηθος και τον λογον.

[Paul says this] not so much on account of their relationship by blood or of their common upbringing as on account of his ethics and speech.

My two cents.

Ben.

ynquirer · 08-08-2007, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Once we see this, it is not hard to grasp that Eusebius has interpolated the entire paragraph regarding Josephus into Origen's work. He reads Origen's answer to Celsus that the Jew in Celsus does not recognize Jesus' miracles and would have by the fact of his being a Jew, and he realizes that he has a better argument to lend to Origen. He has Josephus, a Jew who wrote in Jesus' time period. He thinks, "Wouldn't it be wonderful if the Jew recognized that Jesus did miracles." Here we can see the very beginnings of the TF in Eusebius' mind.

But before we or Eusebius gets to that, we have to follow him in his path of changing both the texts of Origen and Josephus.

(Emphasis added.)

The text in bold type is an obvious error:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Contra Celsus 1.28

... he introduces a Jew, who enters into a personal discussion with Jesus, and speaks in a very childish manner, altogether unworthy of the grey hairs of a philosopher, let me endeavour, to the best of my ability, to examine his statements, and show that he does not maintain, throughout the discussion, the consistency due to the character of a Jew. For he represents him disputing with Jesus, and confuting Him, as he thinks, on many points; and in the first place, he accuses Him of having "invented his birth from a virgin," and upbraids Him with being "born in a certain Jewish village, of a poor woman of the country, who gained her subsistence by spinning, and who was turned out of doors by her husband, a carpenter by trade, because she was convicted of adultery; that after being driven away by her husband, and wandering about for a time, she disgracefully gave birth to Jesus, an illegitimate child, who having hired himself out as a servant in Egypt on account of his poverty, and having there acquired some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves, returned to his own country, highly elated on account of them, and by means of these proclaimed himself a God."

(Emphasis added.)

So, what is the quid pro quo?

PhilosopherJay · 08-08-2007, 01:08 PM

Hi Ynquirer,

Thanks for pointing this out.

I should have said, "He reads Origen's answer to Celsus that the Jew in Celsus does not recognize Jesus' miracles as being from a God"

This distinction between ordinary miracles (magic) and miracles from God (holy magic) is an important one and we see it in the TF. Here again, it appears, we see how Eusebius was influenced by reading this passage in Origen's reply to Celsus to formulate the TF. Celsus claims Jesus as an ordinary magician. In the TF, Eusebius is responding by suggesting that this was common view of him (miracle-worker), but not the correct one.

Also, please note in my post that the line, "Therefore, one has to wonder why Celsus does not give any authority for this incredible statement" should read, ""Therefore, one has to wonder why Origen does not give any authority for this incredible statement."

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

Quote:

Once we see this, it is not hard to grasp that Eusebius has interpolated the entire paragraph regarding Josephus into Origen's work. He reads Origen's answer to Celsus that the Jew in Celsus does not recognize Jesus' miracles and would have by the fact of his being a Jew, and he realizes that he has a better argument to lend to Origen. He has Josephus, a Jew who wrote in Jesus' time period. He thinks, "Wouldn't it be wonderful if the Jew recognized that Jesus did miracles." Here we can see the very beginnings of the TF in Eusebius' mind.

But before we or Eusebius gets to that, we have to follow him in his path of changing both the texts of Origen and Josephus.

(Emphasis added.)

The text in bold type is an obvious error:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Contra Celsus 1.28

... he introduces a Jew, who enters into a personal discussion with Jesus, and speaks in a very childish manner, altogether unworthy of the grey hairs of a philosopher, let me endeavour, to the best of my ability, to examine his statements, and show that he does not maintain, throughout the discussion, the consistency due to the character of a Jew. For he represents him disputing with Jesus, and confuting Him, as he thinks, on many points; and in the first place, he accuses Him of having "invented his birth from a virgin," and upbraids Him with being "born in a certain Jewish village, of a poor woman of the country, who gained her subsistence by spinning, and who was turned out of doors by her husband, a carpenter by trade, because she was convicted of adultery; that after being driven away by her husband, and wandering about for a time, she disgracefully gave birth to Jesus, an illegitimate child, who having hired himself out as a servant in Egypt on account of his poverty, and having there acquired some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves, returned to his own country, highly elated on account of them, and by means of these proclaimed himself a God."

(Emphasis added.)

So, what is the quid pro quo?

Ben C Smith · 08-08-2007, 01:36 PM

Hi, Jay.

If I understand you correctly, you believe that Eusebius forged everything to do with Jesus or James in the text of Josephus, right? And then he also forged the Origenic references to Josephus on James, right?

So is it the case you think that all of the following is Eusebius inserting things into Origen? I just want to get a handle on how far you think the forgery went.

Origen, On Matthew 17:

Και ολην γε την φαινομενην αυτου εγγυτατω συγγενειαν εξευτελιζοντες εφασκον το· Ουχ η μητηρ αυτου λεγεται Μαριαμ, και οι αδελφοι αυτου Ιακωβος και Ιωσηφ και Σιμων και Ιουδας; και αι αδελφαι αυτου ουχι πασαι προς ημας εισιν; ωιοντο ουν αυτον ειναι Ιωσηφ και Μαριας υιον. τους δε αδελφους Ιησου φασι τινες ειναι, εκ παραδοσεως ορμωμενοι του επιγεγραμμενου κατα ∏ετρον ευαγγελιου η της βιβλου Ιακωβου, υιους Ιωσηφ εκ προτερας γυναικος συνωκηκυιας αυτω προ της Μαριας.

And disparaging the whole of what appeared to be his nearest kindred, they said: Is not his mother called Mary, and his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us? They supposed therefore that he was the son of Joseph and Mary. But some, depending on a tradition of the gospel inscribed according to Peter, or of the book of James, say that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph from a former wife, married to him before Mary.

....

Ιακωβος δε εστιν ουτος ον λεγει ∏αυλος ιδειν εν τη προς Γαλατας επιστολη, ειπων· Ετερον δε των αποστολων ουκ ειδον ει μη Ιακωβον τον αδελφον του κυριου. επι τοσουτον δε διελεμψεν ουτος ο Ιακωβος εν τω λαω επι δικαιοσυνη ως Φλαβιον Ιωσηπον αναγραψαντα εν εικοσι βιβλιοις την Ιουδαικην αρχαιολογιαν, την αιτιαν παραστησαι βουλομενον του τα τοσαυτα πεπονθεναι τον λαον ως και τον ναον κατασκαφηναι, ειρηκεναι κατα μηνιν θεου ταυτα αυτοις απηντηκεναι δια τα εις Ιακωβον τον αδελφον Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου υπ αυτων τετολμημενα. και το θαυμαστον εστιν οτι, τον Ιησουν ημων ου καταδεξαμενος ειναι Χριστον, ουδεν ηττον Ιακωβω δικαιοσυνην εμαρτυρησε τοσαυτην. λεγει δε οτι και ο λαος ταυτα ενομιζε δια τον Ιακωβον πεπονθεναι. και Ιουδας εγραψεν επιστολην ολιγοστιχον μεν, πεπληρωμενην δε των της ουρανιου χαριτος ερρωμενων λογων, οστις εν τω προοιμιω ειρηκεν· Ιουδας Ιησου Χριστου δουλος, αδελφος δε Ιακωβου. περι δε Ιωσηφ και Σιμονος ημεις ουδεν ιστορησαμεν.

But James is this one whom Paul says that he saw in the epistle to the Galatians, saying: But I did not see any of the other apostles except James the brother of the Lord. And in such a way among the people did this James shine for his justice that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the Judaic Antiquities in twenty books, wishing to demonstrate the cause why the people suffered such great things that even the temple was razed down, said that these things came to pass against them in accordance with the ire of God on account of the things which were dared by them against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wondrous thing is that, although he did not accept our Jesus to be Christ, he yet testified that the justice of James was not at all small; and he says that even the people supposed they had suffered these things on account of James. And Jude wrote an epistle short in lines but full of the healthy words of the grace of heaven, he who in the preface has said: Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James. But concerning Joseph and Simon we have nothing to relate.

Origen, Against Celsus 1.47:

Εν γαρ τω οκτωκαιδεκατω της Ιουδαικης αρχαιολογιας ο Ιωσηπος μαρτυρει τω Ιωαννη ως βαπτιστη γεγενημενω και καθαρσιον τοις βαπτισαμενοις επαγγελλομενω. ο δ αυτος, καιτοι γε απιστων τω Ιησου ως Χριστω, ζητων την αιτιαν της των Ιεροσολυμων πτωσεως και της του ναου καθαιρεσεως, δεον αυτον ειπειν οτι η κατα του Ιησου επιβουλη τουτων αιτια γεγονε τω λαω, επει απεκτειναν τον προφητευομενον Χριστον, ο δε και ωσπερ ακων ου μακραν της αληθειας γενομενος φησι ταυτα συμβεβηκεναι τοις Ιουδαιοις κατ εκδικησιν Ιακωβου του δικαιου, ος ην αδελφος Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου, επειδηπερ δικαιοτατον αυτον οντα απεκτειναν. τον δε Ιακωβον τουτον ο Ιησου γνησιος μαθητης ∏αυλος φησιν εωρακεναι ως αδελφον του κυριου, ου τοσουτον δια το προς αιματος συγγενες η την κοινην αυτων ανατροφην οσον δια το ηθος και τον λογον. ειπερ ουν δια Ιακωβον λεγει συμβεβηκεναι τοις Ιουδαιοις τα κατα την ερημωσιν της Ιερουσαλημ, πως ουχι ευλογωτερον δια Ιησουν τον Χριστον τουτο φασκειν γεγονεναι; ου της θειοτητος μαρτυρες αι τοσαυται των μεταβαλοντων απο της χυσεως των κακων εκκλησιαι και ηρτημενων του δημιουργου και παντ αναφεροντων επι την προς εκεινον αρεσκειαν.

For in the eighteenth volume of the Judaic Antiquities Josephus testifies to John as having been a baptist and promised cleansing to those who were baptized. But he himself, though not believing in Jesus as Christ, in seeking 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 things happening to the people, since they killed the prophecied Christ, even says, being unwillingly not far from the truth, that these things befell the Jews as vengeance for James the just, who was a brother of Jesus who is called Christ, since they killed him who was most just. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he saw this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood or of their common upbringing as on account of his ethics and speech. If, therefore, he says that the things surrounding the desolation of Jerusalem befell the Jews on account of James, how is it not more reasonable to say that it happened on account of Jesus the Christ?

Origen, Against Celsus 2.13:

Τουτο γαρ ηρξατο μεν ετι Νερωνος βασιλευοντος, παρετεινε δε εως της Ουεσπασιανου ηγεμονιας, ου ο υιος Τιτος καθειλε την Ιερουσαλημ, ως μεν Ιωσηπος γραφει, δια Ιακωβον τον δικαιον, τον αδελφον Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου, ως δε η αληθεια παριστησι, δια Ιησουν τον Χριστον του θεου.

For this [siege] began while Nero was still being king, and it lasted until the leadership of Vespasian, whose son Titus destroyed Jerusalem, as Josephus writes, on account of James the just, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, but, as the truth demonstrates, [actually] on account of Jesus the Christ of God.

Thanks.

Ben.

Roger Pearse · 08-08-2007, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

Yet, the line of reasoning that a writer commits a mistake . . . ought to be used as a line of last resort.

Excuse me? A writer should be presumed inerrant until proven otherwise?

I'm not sure how we live, if we presume that every statement made to us is false until we can prove otherwise. Perhaps you have some means to live along these lines, but, candidly, I think not.

In reality we all work along the lines that most people are telling the truth unless we have a concrete reason to suppose otherwise. I think that all we are saying here is that we shouldn't do differently just because the person speaks on paper.

I suspect that anyone who disagrees would be forced to the only alternative; to live as if whatever we find convenient is true while using this sort of argument to ignore whatever we find inconvenient.

To utter a truism that all men are liars is only useful if it can become the basis for a way of life, rather than just an excuse to ignore ad hoc one man whom we happen to dislike.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

gurugeorge · 08-08-2007, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

What are we to make of this? In close proximity to Origin talking about stuff being in Josephus that isn't in Josephus, we have him talking about stuff in Paul which isn't in Paul.

I think the actual paraphrase (and it is a paraphrase, not a quotation, since it the φησιν is followed up with the infinitive of indirect discourse) of Paul ends at κυριου:

Τον δε Ιακωβον τουτον ο Ιησου γνησιος μαθητης Ϊαυλος φησιν εωρακεναι ως αδελφον του κυριου....

And Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he saw this James as a brother of the Lord....

The rest follows as an Origenic comment on Paul, not a Pauline comment on himself:

...ου τοσουτον δια το προς αιματος συγγενες η την κοινην αυτων ανατροφην οσον δια το ηθος και τον λογον.

[Paul says this] not so much on account of their relationship by blood or of their common upbringing as on account of his ethics and speech.

My two cents.

Ben.

Hmm, curious. Out of interest, what's the warrant for translating it as "not so much" rather than simply "not"?

Ben C Smith · 08-08-2007, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Hmm, curious. Out of interest, what's the warrant for translating it as "not so much" rather than simply "not"?

The word ου is not. The word pair τοσουτον... οσον relates two phrases so as to mean as much... as or so much... as.

Ben.

PhilosopherJay · 08-08-2007, 08:40 PM

Hi Ben,

Thanks for all this material to work with.

We can be quite precise about what Eusebius adds. It is almost always a digression from the main argument of the original author and always involves one of his great themes, which we find in his own writings. When we remove it, the text always flows smoother and in quite another direction.

Of the text you cited of Origen on Matthew, I believe that Eusebius did not write the first text. This is from Origen's own hand:

And disparaging the whole of what appeared to be his nearest kindred, they said: Is not his mother called Mary, and his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us? They supposed therefore that he was the son of Joseph and Mary. But some, depending on a tradition of the gospel inscribed according to Peter, or of the book of James, say that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph from a former wife, married to him before Mary.

There is nothing here that strongly suggests to me that Origen is not writing this. The use of the phrase "what appeared to be" gives me pause and makes me go, " hmmm," but I can't find a good reason not to attribute it to Origen. Perhaps someone else can.

Of the second text cited, I contend that only the following has been added by Eusebius:

But James is this one whom Paul says that he saw in the epistle to the Galatians, saying: But I did not see any of the other apostles except James the brother of the Lord. And in such a way among the people did this James shine for his justice that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the Judaic Antiquities in twenty books, wishing to demonstrate the cause why the people suffered such great things that even the temple was razed down, said that these things came to pass against them in accordance with the ire of God on account of the things which were dared by them against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wondrous thing is that, although he did not accept our Jesus to be Christ, he yet testified that the justice of James was not at all small; and he says that even the people supposed they had suffered these things on account of James.

the last lines are from Origen's hand:

And Jude wrote an epistle short in lines but full of the healthy words of the grace of heaven, he who in the preface has said: Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James. But concerning Joseph and Simon we have nothing to relate.

Of the text you cited from Origen's Against Celsus, 1.47, all are from Eusebius.

As far as Against Celsus, 2.13, not only this but a great deal before this is a Eusebean interpolation:

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.

Compare this writing with what Eusebius writes in his own name in Church History (3.7)

"It is fitting to add to these accounts the true prediction of our Saviour in which he foretold these very events. His words are as follows: "Woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day; For there shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be." The historian, reckoning the whole number of the slain, says that eleven hundred thousand persons perished by famine and sword, and that the rest of the rioters and robbers, being betrayed by each other after the taking of the city, were slain. But the tallest of the youths and those that were distinguished for beauty were preserved for the triumph. Of the rest of the multitude, those that were over seventeen years of age were sent as prisoners to labor in the works of Egypt, while still more were scattered through the provinces to meet their death in the theaters by the sword and by beasts. Those under seventeen years of age were carried away to be sold as slaves, and of these alone the number reached ninety thousand. These things took place in this manner in the second year of the reign of Vespasian, in accordance with the prophecies of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, who by divine power saw them beforehand as if they were already present, and wept and mourned according to the statement of the holy evangelists, who give the very words which be uttered, when, as if addressing Jerusalem herself, he said: "If thou hadst known, even thou, in this day, the things which belong unto thy peace! But now they are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a rampart about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, and shall lay thee and thy children even with the ground." And then, as if speaking concerning the people, he says, "For there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." And again: "When ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh."If any one compares the words of our Saviour with the other accounts of the historian concerning the whole war, how can one fail to wonder, and to admit that the foreknowledge and the prophecy of our Saviour were truly divine and marvellously strange.

Note that in both cases after talking about four fulfilled predictions by Jesus, Eusebius gives the same final prediction. "When ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh."[/I] In both cases, he is using Josephus as his proof.

The counterargument here is that Eusebius has been so impressed by Origen's style of argument that he has copied it. This would be more plausible if Origen's text did not flow so much smoother when Eusebius' interpolations are taken out.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Hi, Jay.

If I understand you correctly, you believe that Eusebius forged everything to do with Jesus or James in the text of Josephus, right? And then he also forged the Origenic references to Josephus on James, right?

So is it the case you think that all of the following is Eusebius inserting things into Origen? I just want to get a handle on how far you think the forgery went.

Origen, On Matthew 17:

Και ολην γε την φαινομενην αυτου εγγυτατω συγγενειαν εξευτελιζοντες εφασκον το· Ουχ η μητηρ αυτου λεγεται Μαριαμ, και οι αδελφοι αυτου Ιακωβος και Ιωσηφ και Σιμων και Ιουδας; και αι αδελφαι αυτου ουχι πασαι προς ημας εισιν; ωιοντο ουν αυτον ειναι Ιωσηφ και Μαριας υιον. τους δε αδελφους Ιησου φασι τινες ειναι, εκ παραδοσεως ορμωμενοι του επιγεγραμμενου κατα ∏ετρον ευαγγελιου η της βιβλου Ιακωβου, υιους Ιωσηφ εκ προτερας γυναικος συνωκηκυιας αυτω προ της Μαριας.

And disparaging the whole of what appeared to be his nearest kindred, they said: Is not his mother called Mary, and his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us? They supposed therefore that he was the son of Joseph and Mary. But some, depending on a tradition of the gospel inscribed according to Peter, or of the book of James, say that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph from a former wife, married to him before Mary.

....

Ιακωβος δε εστιν ουτος ον λεγει ∏αυλος ιδειν εν τη προς Γαλατας επιστολη, ειπων· Ετερον δε των αποστολων ουκ ειδον ει μη Ιακωβον τον αδελφον του κυριου. επι τοσουτον δε διελεμψεν ουτος ο Ιακωβος εν τω λαω επι δικαιοσυνη ως Φλαβιον Ιωσηπον αναγραψαντα εν εικοσι βιβλιοις την Ιουδαικην αρχαιολογιαν, την αιτιαν παραστησαι βουλομενον του τα τοσαυτα πεπονθεναι τον λαον ως και τον ναον κατασκαφηναι, ειρηκεναι κατα μηνιν θεου ταυτα αυτοις απηντηκεναι δια τα εις Ιακωβον τον αδελφον Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου υπ αυτων τετολμημενα. και το θαυμαστον εστιν οτι, τον Ιησουν ημων ου καταδεξαμενος ειναι Χριστον, ουδεν ηττον Ιακωβω δικαιοσυνην εμαρτυρησε τοσαυτην. λεγει δε οτι και ο λαος ταυτα ενομιζε δια τον Ιακωβον πεπονθεναι. και Ιουδας εγραψεν επιστολην ολιγοστιχον μεν, πεπληρωμενην δε των της ουρανιου χαριτος ερρωμενων λογων, οστις εν τω προοιμιω ειρηκεν· Ιουδας Ιησου Χριστου δουλος, αδελφος δε Ιακωβου. περι δε Ιωσηφ και Σιμονος ημεις ουδεν ιστορησαμεν.

But James is this one whom Paul says that he saw in the epistle to the Galatians, saying: But I did not see any of the other apostles except James the brother of the Lord. And in such a way among the people did this James shine for his justice that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the Judaic Antiquities in twenty books, wishing to demonstrate the cause why the people suffered such great things that even the temple was razed down, said that these things came to pass against them in accordance with the ire of God on account of the things which were dared by them against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wondrous thing is that, although he did not accept our Jesus to be Christ, he yet testified that the justice of James was not at all small; and he says that even the people supposed they had suffered these things on account of James. And Jude wrote an epistle short in lines but full of the healthy words of the grace of heaven, he who in the preface has said: Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James. But concerning Joseph and Simon we have nothing to relate.

Origen, Against Celsus 1.47:

Εν γαρ τω οκτωκαιδεκατω της Ιουδαικης αρχαιολογιας ο Ιωσηπος μαρτυρει τω Ιωαννη ως βαπτιστη γεγενημενω και καθαρσιον τοις βαπτισαμενοις επαγγελλομενω. ο δ αυτος, καιτοι γε απιστων τω Ιησου ως Χριστω, ζητων την αιτιαν της των Ιεροσολυμων πτωσεως και της του ναου καθαιρεσεως, δεον αυτον ειπειν οτι η κατα του Ιησου επιβουλη τουτων αιτια γεγονε τω λαω, επει απεκτειναν τον προφητευομενον Χριστον, ο δε και ωσπερ ακων ου μακραν της αληθειας γενομενος φησι ταυτα συμβεβηκεναι τοις Ιουδαιοις κατ εκδικησιν Ιακωβου του δικαιου, ος ην αδελφος Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου, επειδηπερ δικαιοτατον αυτον οντα απεκτειναν. τον δε Ιακωβον τουτον ο Ιησου γνησιος μαθητης ∏αυλος φησιν εωρακεναι ως αδελφον του κυριου, ου τοσουτον δια το προς αιματος συγγενες η την κοινην αυτων ανατροφην οσον δια το ηθος και τον λογον. ειπερ ουν δια Ιακωβον λεγει συμβεβηκεναι τοις Ιουδαιοις τα κατα την ερημωσιν της Ιερουσαλημ, πως ουχι ευλογωτερον δια Ιησουν τον Χριστον τουτο φασκειν γεγονεναι; ου της θειοτητος μαρτυρες αι τοσαυται των μεταβαλοντων απο της χυσεως των κακων εκκλησιαι και ηρτημενων του δημιουργου και παντ αναφεροντων επι την προς εκεινον αρεσκειαν.

For in the eighteenth volume of the Judaic Antiquities Josephus testifies to John as having been a baptist and promised cleansing to those who were baptized. But he himself, though not believing in Jesus as Christ, in seeking 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 things happening to the people, since they killed the prophecied Christ, even says, being unwillingly not far from the truth, that these things befell the Jews as vengeance for James the just, who was a brother of Jesus who is called Christ, since they killed him who was most just. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he saw this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood or of their common upbringing as on account of his ethics and speech. If, therefore, he says that the things surrounding the desolation of Jerusalem befell the Jews on account of James, how is it not more reasonable to say that it happened on account of Jesus the Christ?

Origen, Against Celsus 2.13:

Τουτο γαρ ηρξατο μεν ετι Νερωνος βασιλευοντος, παρετεινε δε εως της Ουεσπασιανου ηγεμονιας, ου ο υιος Τιτος καθειλε την Ιερουσαλημ, ως μεν Ιωσηπος γραφει, δια Ιακωβον τον δικαιον, τον αδελφον Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου, ως δε η αληθεια παριστησι, δια Ιησουν τον Χριστον του θεου.

For this [siege] began while Nero was still being king, and it lasted until the leadership of Vespasian, whose son Titus destroyed Jerusalem, as Josephus writes, on account of James the just, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, but, as the truth demonstrates, [actually] on account of Jesus the Christ of God.

Thanks.

Ben.

ynquirer · 08-09-2007, 05:04 AM

Hi PhilosopherJay,

Your interpretation that everything that is in Eusebius, if found in an earlier writer, must be deemed Eusebius’ interpolation sounds counterintuitive, that is, stretched too far and hardly believable. We are used to think the other way around, in other words, that the later writer quotes the earlier. If this is a general rule, why must we waive it for Eusebius, so oddly singled out?

Have, for instance, these three paragraphs:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isaiah 2:4

He shall judge between the nations,
and shall decide for many peoples;
and they shall beat their swords into plowshares,
and their spears into pruning hooks;
nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
neither shall they learn war any more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joel 3:10-12

Proclaim this among the nations:
Prepare war,
stir up the mighty men.
Let all the men of war draw near,
let them come up.
Beat your plowshares into swords,
and your pruning hooks into spears;
let the weak say, "I am a warrior."
Hasten and come,
all you nations round about,
gather yourselves there.
Bring down thy warriors, O LORD.
Let the nations bestir themselves,
and come up to the valley of Jehosh'aphat;
for there I will sit to judge
all the nations round about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Micah 4:3

He shall judge between many peoples,
and shall decide for strong nations afar off;
and they shall beat their swords into plowshares,
and their spears into pruning hooks;
nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
neither shall they learn war any more

Usually, Joel and Micah are assumed to quote Isaiah. According to your logic, however, it was Micah who interpolated a theme he liked into both Isaiah and Joel. If not, why do you endorse such assumption for Eusebius, while you don’t for Micah?

(BTW hypothetical motivation is not enough. Micah may be shown to be hypothetically motivated to forge both Isaiah and Joel.)

PhilosopherJay · 08-09-2007, 06:15 AM

Hi Ynquirer,

I am not suggesting that interpolation is a general rule for explaining similarity of text. One has to look at the specific circumstances involved to determine if writer "A" has copied writer "B" or writer "A" has interpolated words into writer "B".

In the case of Eusebius, from ancient times to modern, he has been suspected of interpolations. I find the evidence for this quite positive and it solves a great deal of other independent problems. For example, in this particular case at hand, we do not have to imagine that a Christian forger interpolated a statement about the death of James being responsible for the destruction of Jerusalem into Josephus and somehow this interpolation disappeared after being read and mentioned by Origen in Alexandria in the Third century and Eusebius in Caesarea in the Fourth century.

Incidentally, while I diisagree with your solution to the set of problems posed at the start of the thread, I must say that you are to be congratulated for pointing out the important nature of the set of problems which many previous writers have missed.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

Hi PhilosopherJay,

Your interpretation that everything that is in Eusebius, if found in an earlier writer, must be deemed Eusebius’ interpolation sounds counterintuitive, that is, stretched too far and hardly believable. We are used to think the other way around, in other words, that the later writer quotes the earlier. If this is a general rule, why must we waive it for Eusebius, so oddly singled out?

Have, for instance, these three paragraphs:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Isaiah 2:4

He shall judge between the nations,
and shall decide for many peoples;
and they shall beat their swords into plowshares,
and their spears into pruning hooks;
nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
neither shall they learn war any more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Micah 4:3

He shall judge between many peoples,
and shall decide for strong nations afar off;
and they shall beat their swords into plowshares,
and their spears into pruning hooks;
nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
neither shall they learn war any more

Usually, Joel and Micah are assumed to quote Isaiah. According to your logic, however, it was Micah who interpolated a theme he liked into both Isaiah and Joel. If not, why do you endorse such assumption for Eusebius, while you don’t for Micah?

(BTW hypothetical motivation is not enough. Micah may be shown to be hypothetically motivated to forge both Isaiah and Joel.)

08-08-2007, 01:36 PM	#14
Ben C Smith Veteran Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Midwest Posts: 4,787	Hi, Jay. If I understand you correctly, you believe that Eusebius forged everything to do with Jesus or James in the text of Josephus, right? And then he also forged the Origenic references to Josephus on James, right? So is it the case you think that all of the following is Eusebius inserting things into Origen? I just want to get a handle on how far you think the forgery went. Origen, On Matthew 17: Και ολην γε την φαινομενην αυτου εγγυτατω συγγενειαν εξευτελιζοντες εφασκον το· Ουχ η μητηρ αυτου λεγεται Μαριαμ, και οι αδελφοι αυτου Ιακωβος και Ιωσηφ και Σιμων και Ιουδας; και αι αδελφαι αυτου ουχι πασαι προς ημας εισιν; ωιοντο ουν αυτον ειναι Ιωσηφ και Μαριας υιον. τους δε αδελφους Ιησου φασι τινες ειναι, εκ παραδοσεως ορμωμενοι του επιγεγραμμενου κατα ∏ετρον ευαγγελιου η της βιβλου Ιακωβου, υιους Ιωσηφ εκ προτερας γυναικος συνωκηκυιας αυτω προ της Μαριας. And disparaging the whole of what appeared to be his nearest kindred, they said: Is not his mother called Mary, and his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us? They supposed therefore that he was the son of Joseph and Mary. But some, depending on a tradition of the gospel inscribed according to Peter, or of the book of James, say that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph from a former wife, married to him before Mary. .... Ιακωβος δε εστιν ουτος ον λεγει ∏αυλος ιδειν εν τη προς Γαλατας επιστολη, ειπων· Ετερον δε των αποστολων ουκ ειδον ει μη Ιακωβον τον αδελφον του κυριου. επι τοσουτον δε διελεμψεν ουτος ο Ιακωβος εν τω λαω επι δικαιοσυνη ως Φλαβιον Ιωσηπον αναγραψαντα εν εικοσι βιβλιοις την Ιουδαικην αρχαιολογιαν, την αιτιαν παραστησαι βουλομενον του τα τοσαυτα πεπονθεναι τον λαον ως και τον ναον κατασκαφηναι, ειρηκεναι κατα μηνιν θεου ταυτα αυτοις απηντηκεναι δια τα εις Ιακωβον τον αδελφον Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου υπ αυτων τετολμημενα. και το θαυμαστον εστιν οτι, τον Ιησουν ημων ου καταδεξαμενος ειναι Χριστον, ουδεν ηττον Ιακωβω δικαιοσυνην εμαρτυρησε τοσαυτην. λεγει δε οτι και ο λαος ταυτα ενομιζε δια τον Ιακωβον πεπονθεναι. και Ιουδας εγραψεν επιστολην ολιγοστιχον μεν, πεπληρωμενην δε των της ουρανιου χαριτος ερρωμενων λογων, οστις εν τω προοιμιω ειρηκεν· Ιουδας Ιησου Χριστου δουλος, αδελφος δε Ιακωβου. περι δε Ιωσηφ και Σιμονος ημεις ουδεν ιστορησαμεν. But James is this one whom Paul says that he saw in the epistle to the Galatians, saying: But I did not see any of the other apostles except James the brother of the Lord. And in such a way among the people did this James shine for his justice that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the Judaic Antiquities in twenty books, wishing to demonstrate the cause why the people suffered such great things that even the temple was razed down, said that these things came to pass against them in accordance with the ire of God on account of the things which were dared by them against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wondrous thing is that, although he did not accept our Jesus to be Christ, he yet testified that the justice of James was not at all small; and he says that even the people supposed they had suffered these things on account of James. And Jude wrote an epistle short in lines but full of the healthy words of the grace of heaven, he who in the preface has said: Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James. But concerning Joseph and Simon we have nothing to relate. Origen, Against Celsus 1.47: Εν γαρ τω οκτωκαιδεκατω της Ιουδαικης αρχαιολογιας ο Ιωσηπος μαρτυρει τω Ιωαννη ως βαπτιστη γεγενημενω και καθαρσιον τοις βαπτισαμενοις επαγγελλομενω. ο δ αυτος, καιτοι γε απιστων τω Ιησου ως Χριστω, ζητων την αιτιαν της των Ιεροσολυμων πτωσεως και της του ναου καθαιρεσεως, δεον αυτον ειπειν οτι η κατα του Ιησου επιβουλη τουτων αιτια γεγονε τω λαω, επει απεκτειναν τον προφητευομενον Χριστον, ο δε και ωσπερ ακων ου μακραν της αληθειας γενομενος φησι ταυτα συμβεβηκεναι τοις Ιουδαιοις κατ εκδικησιν Ιακωβου του δικαιου, ος ην αδελφος Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου, επειδηπερ δικαιοτατον αυτον οντα απεκτειναν. τον δε Ιακωβον τουτον ο Ιησου γνησιος μαθητης ∏αυλος φησιν εωρακεναι ως αδελφον του κυριου, ου τοσουτον δια το προς αιματος συγγενες η την κοινην αυτων ανατροφην οσον δια το ηθος και τον λογον. ειπερ ουν δια Ιακωβον λεγει συμβεβηκεναι τοις Ιουδαιοις τα κατα την ερημωσιν της Ιερουσαλημ, πως ουχι ευλογωτερον δια Ιησουν τον Χριστον τουτο φασκειν γεγονεναι; ου της θειοτητος μαρτυρες αι τοσαυται των μεταβαλοντων απο της χυσεως των κακων εκκλησιαι και ηρτημενων του δημιουργου και παντ αναφεροντων επι την προς εκεινον αρεσκειαν. For in the eighteenth volume of the Judaic Antiquities Josephus testifies to John as having been a baptist and promised cleansing to those who were baptized. But he himself, though not believing in Jesus as Christ, in seeking 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 things happening to the people, since they killed the prophecied Christ, even says, being unwillingly not far from the truth, that these things befell the Jews as vengeance for James the just, who was a brother of Jesus who is called Christ, since they killed him who was most just. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he saw this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood or of their common upbringing as on account of his ethics and speech. If, therefore, he says that the things surrounding the desolation of Jerusalem befell the Jews on account of James, how is it not more reasonable to say that it happened on account of Jesus the Christ? Origen, Against Celsus 2.13: Τουτο γαρ ηρξατο μεν ετι Νερωνος βασιλευοντος, παρετεινε δε εως της Ουεσπασιανου ηγεμονιας, ου ο υιος Τιτος καθειλε την Ιερουσαλημ, ως μεν Ιωσηπος γραφει, δια Ιακωβον τον δικαιον, τον αδελφον Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου, ως δε η αληθεια παριστησι, δια Ιησουν τον Χριστον του θεου. For this [siege] began while Nero was still being king, and it lasted until the leadership of Vespasian, whose son Titus destroyed Jerusalem, as Josephus writes, on account of James the just, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, but, as the truth demonstrates, [actually] on account of Jesus the Christ of God. Thanks. Ben.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.