Ben C Smith

I think I should mention that whenever I say that I think Origen got information about the death of James from Hegesippus I am very much open to the possibility that he got said information as mediated through Clement. It is not necessarily necessary to suppose that Origen had accessed Hegesippus directly, though that is also possible (if Hegesippus was available to Clement, why not also to a bookworm like Origen?).

Ben.

Ben C Smith

I made a similar point with spin; the called Christ statements from Matthew are nowhere near the point of commentary.

Ben.

Minimalist

My apologies if this issue has been discussed before, I'm new here, but:

Paul: Galatians 1-19

Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews


Why does it seem as if everyone accepts this as an indication of a blood relation? It could just as easily be a title. The pope is called "Holy Father" but the term is not meant literally. Monasteries are full of "brothers" but they are not related. Convents are full of "sisters" and they answer to "mother superior." The fact is that these people are not at all above styling themselves as some sort of family group.

Who is to say that "James" might not have just been the head of the local gnostic branch of the Jerusalem Jesus Club and styled himself "brother of the lord" for political purposes?

andrewcriddle

IF the reference to Jesus called Christ in our text of Josephus were an interpolation ultimately based on Origen, then it seems likely that our text would have ended up reading Our text of Josephus by lacking the Just here is less Christian than two out of three of Origen's allusions.

Andrew Criddle

spin

It's already bad enough, but you're really trying to make this complicated:

τον αδελφον Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου, Ιακωβος ο δικαιος ονομα αυτω, και τινας ετερους

But that won't do because his name wasn't Ιακωβος ο δικαιος, but Ιακωβος, so you'll need even further explanation in the statement.

Besides, once you've got Ιακωβος ο δικαιος, why do you need τον αδελφον Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου, when we know which James because of the epithet? (Oh, that's right, it's there because it mentions Jesus, so by hook or by crook it goes in. It doesn't matter what sort of contortions one goes through. But you haven't topped Jn 4:1-3 yet though as an intrusive gloss.)

And our scribe predominantly knew the Commentary on Matthew?

Whatever the case it should be clear that Origen's comments are not derived from Josephus. The best face-saving is that he conflated Josephus with Hegesippus, retaining most of what Hegesippus's content and five or six words supposedly from Josephus, but only referring to Josephus. Origen is somewhat confused, isn't he? How confused? Perhaps he simply mixed Josephus and Hegesippus up, mentioning Josephus by name instead of Hegesippus. The latter can be derived from the former and was so derived. So, knowing that both mentioned James, Origen only would have remembered the reference to Josephus. He certainly doesn't remember the content -- except perhaps a verbatim phrase??


spin

andrewcriddle

I agree that the brother of Jesus called Christ whose name was James the Just would be a clear Christian gloss, it is unlikely that Josephus would have written this.

I was suggesting that, as a Christian gloss, it is a more likely one than our current text.
Possibly.

However
a/ subsequent writers alluding to what Origen says Josephus says seem to be using the pasage from Contra Celsus.
b/ The emphasis on the righeousness of James in the commentary on Matthew would very possibly have had an effect on the text if Josephus had been glossed on the basis of that commentary.

Andrew Criddle

Mr. Logic

Why would he call James, Jesus' Brother, if they were all Brothers in that sense? He was obviously the literal Brother of Jesus and the evidence show that he was also the Head of the Jerusalem Church, which means head of the Judaizers. A different kind of Christianity than Paul taught.
You mention Gal.1 Well this is a very eye opening chapter!

In this chapter we see Paul give stern warning that if even an Angel from Heaven preach another Gospel, it isn't alright! He will be accursed! So why does he say it that way? Because it is his way of saying "I don't care if he is Jesus' Brother, he is preaching a false Gospel (One of Law, rather than grace). I am not kidding, for he goes on to mention James as you have already stated. Remember when some Jews were making a big deal about Jesus' Mother and Brothers visiting? This is normal because Jews of that day were heavy into Nepotism! Jesus wasn't! There is a book out by a Jewish Scholar on James. The good thing is that it shows that James is much diff. than Paul, but it takes the side of James. This is a bias view. The Author believes that Jesus would have picked his own Brother, rather than Paul.

He doesn't know Jesus of scripture, he assumes that Jesus the Jew would think like him!
It is no wonder to me that the Jews who accepted Jesus UNDER LAW, honored James, and for one reason! He was the physical Brother!
Hope this helps!

spin

You cannot second guess how someone should modify texts, compared with the current state of the text. That sort of argument is probably just witchdoctory.

If we were to go by either Origen (in CC) or Eusebius we'd have a different text from the one we have today. They claim to be representing Josephus, yet it's not the current text. Has the text been modified since they saw it, removing the "the Just" and changing the syntax?

Just goes to show that they probably had never seen the original text. Maybe just a catena of useful quotes, which underwent changes such as some of the quotes in the gospels.

Unless of course scribe #1 simply lifted the relevant phrase ("the brother of Jesus called christ") from the commentary, having heard that the Josephus passage was known by Origen, and placed it in the margin, while later scribe #2 inserted the marginal note.


spin

JoeWallack

JW:
This reminds me of my Jewrassic Pork Thread regarding where, if anywhere, the placement of the replacement of the Legion demon from man, to swine to water took place in the mind of "Mark":

1) Origen, early 3rd century, testifies that most Gospels said "Gerasenes" for the location and a few said "Gadarenes". By Implication Origen was not aware of any textual support for "Gergesenes".

2) Origen comments that Gergesenes was the intended location, without any textual support, because Gergesenes would avoid error and Origen's implication is that Gergesenes is close in spelling so the explanation is a Transmission error.

3) The earliest Textual evidence is P75 for "Luke", 3rd century, which has Gerasenes.

4) Eusebius, early 4th century, confirms Origen's Textual observation that per the Manuscripts the location is Gerasenes. Eusebius also confirms Origen's commentary that the location of the story was Gergesenes.

5) The 4th century textual evidence, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, says Gerasenes.

6) Translators, who are Forced to choose a different word than the Greek original start using "Gergesenes".

7) The 1st Sinaiticus Editor, 4th -5th century, leaves Gerasenes. The 2nd Sinaiticus Editor, 7th century, Edits to Gergesenes. The Sinaiticus Text type, A, is the Textual territory of Origen.

8) Apparently, sometime between the 5th and 7th century, Greek copies of "Mark" started to replace Gerasenes with Gergesenes. This is supported by all extant evidence, Manuscript and Patristic.

9) The logical explanation is first Translations relied on Origen's commentary, as confirmed by Eusebius, to use Gergesenes. Gradually, Greek copyists used the supposed evidence of these translations and Origen's commentary to change the Greek to Gergesenes.

10) The earliest Markan texts with Gergesenes than are not a Byzantine tradition that is just not extant but the extant Alexandrian tradition which Created the change for all textual families and was started by it's very own Origen's commentary. Sinaitcus, with its documented history of change here, is the missing link and smoking gun. Preserved precisely for the recognition of its early Exemplar status and supposed necessary corrections.



Joseph

ELOQUENCE, n.
The art of orally persuading fools that white is the color that it appears to be. It includes the gift of making any color appear white.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Cege

Did Josephus actually refer to emperor Vespasian as messiah and/or Christ, or is that only a misnomer I've glanced on the Internet?

(I apologize if I missed the answer to this question in the posts of this thread)