Vivisector

A couple of quick points:

1. Origen wasn't known for making mistakes of this sort. He gets my vote as one of ancient Christianity's best critical thinkers.
2. If we're talking about the TF, then perhaps we should work in the opposite direction; if it's authentic, why is it that it's not until the fourth century that we see someone using it for apologetic purposes when people such as Origen and Justin Martyr would have so obviously found it helpful? The absence of "criticism" seems much easier to explain (the original passage, if any, simply didn't say much one way or the other on points of Christian doctrine) than the absence of approval.

This is setting aside the myriad arguments against *any* part of the TF being authentic, let alone the current reading, as discussed here, for example.

Regards,

V.

the_cave

Alright, fair enough. I'll do my best deal with the implications.

One claim, as I take it, is that if the Tacitus passage is authentic, then Tacitus made a rather obvious historical mistake.

Well, perhaps only the sentence with "Christus" in it is an interpolation. This would save Tacitus from making a mistake. (It would also separate it from the Josephus passage.) And maybe the specific description of their torments was also an interpolation...

However, it turns out some texts read "Chrestians" for "Christians". So was the passage even originally about Christians? (Van Voorst as I recall claims they meant the same thing.)

But if the passage was originally about "Chrestians" can we even argue that it's a Christian interpolation anymore? If not, then where else would the interpolation come from?

Do you have a source that explains this? I would be happy to read it.

Amaleq13

Not with references to the specific passages but he mentions several rebels and their well-deserved consequences at the hands of the Romans. In addition, IIRC, he attributes the fall of Jerusalem to the rebellion movement as a whole starting with 6CE.

andrewcriddle

This is a stronger theme in the 'Jewish War' than the 'Antiquities', which tends to blame the fall of Jerusalem on the sins and failings of the Jewish leadership.

Sympathetic portrayals of John the Baptist Jesus and James would be more clearly inconsistent with Josephus's agenda in the 'War' than they are in the 'Antiquities'

Andrew Criddle

bfniii

this is beside the point. people often make decisions that lack pertinent information. origen may be correct based on limited information. just because he didn't reference 18.3.3 doesn't mean he wasn't aware of it or didn't believe that it was authentic.
mine too. unfortunately, our "votes" have no effect on objective fact.
christian apologists from the time of origen and later may have felt that the passage was so well-known and/or self explanatory as to not merit further mention. additionally, if it wasn't controversial then, there would be no reason to mention or defend it. we see origen write the contra celsus. why? because he was providing an apology to a criticism. if no critcism is apparent, why provide the apology? none is needed.
i don't think christian doctrine is the issue. it seems that necessity is the issue. for example, in the fallout of the clinton administration, we see books about the character of politicians. but we don't see that same topic regarding either of the bush presidents because their administrations reflected different circumstances. why don't we see a book about bush's fidelity? it's not necessary right now.

Amaleq13

That is what I meant when I referred to his story being "exaggerated". I don't understand how considering James a contemporary with personal knowledge is relevant. If we assume that to be true as well as Paul's brief mention, I see nothing unlikely about the notion that experiencing a Risen Christ could result in a dramatic change in view about his deceased brother.

Given my doubts that James was actually the brother of Jesus, I also see no problem with assuming that such an experience could be powerful enough for a highly devout Jew to embrace completely the beliefs of this radical new sect.

Some indication that Hegesippus' believed James needed rehabilitation. For example, mentioning (per Mark's story) that he had originally considered Jesus crazy.

Just so we're clear, I'm suggesting the references to Jesus have been added by a Christian scribe. The TF is a total and deliberate fabrication but the short references is, IMO, more likely an incorporated gloss.

I've been thinking about Origen's "prophet" and it seems to me that this could be nothing more than his own notion of what Josephus believed about Jesus given only "brother of Jesus called Christ". In other words, I'm leaning toward accepting Andrew's (I think it was his) idea that Origen has simply misinterpreted the extant brief reference. He knows Josephus didn't accept Jesus as the Messiah but, noting that he did not feel compelled to add anything negative, feels free to assume that Josephus accepted Jesus as a prophet.

gregor

bnii
I'm not an apologist. I'm a critical thinker applying the "most reasonable explanation" approach to issues. I could "what if" just about anything into existence.

We have hundreds of examples of Xian modification of texts (frequently biblical texts), so it wasn't unheard of to modify works. As for Origen, what is the most reasonable explanation - that should be the goal, not what fits a presupposition of fidelity.

Amaleq13

Thanks for that important clarification.

With the exception of the TF, are there any "sympathetic potrayals" in 'Antiquities'?

IIRC, doesn't he describe John the Baptist in a way that would not lend itself to categorizing him as a messianic rebel?

andrewcriddle

An assassination attempt against Herod the Great is treated sympathetically in Book 15 chapter 8

(An attempt to remove a golden eagle from the temple is recounted reasonably sympathetically in Book 17 chapter 6 although this has a parallel in 'Wars; Book 1 chapter 33 and is more a demonstration than an insurrection. )

Andrew Criddle

bfniii

i believe you are a critical thinker. however, absence of evidence contraverting the TF hardly seems to be the "most reasonable explanation". would you not agree that this calls into question the motive behind such a position?

the passages admitted into Biblical canon were only those known to be true and non-contradictory to other Biblical passages. i realize this is a debate for another thread but since you mentioned it, i responded.

speaking of presupposition, just because origen didn't mention 18.3.3 doesn't mean that he didn't believe it to be true or didn't believe it to be authentic.