Julian

Reading Ben's post with the Greek presented in neat proximity, a rather odd thing struck me. It reads as quite formulaic. That is, the part of about Christ. The quoted paragraphs are reasonably disimilar, as one would expect, yet the Christ utterance reads exactly the same everytime. It reads like a formula or an unimaginative forgery.

More later, work calls. Grrr...

Julian

Julian

Well, I guess I don't have much more to add at the moment. I do think it warrants closer scrutiny, though. Why is there no variation in Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου at all? I would be curious as to other people's thoughts on this usage or, rather, Origen's usage. Would you expect him to say it differently seeing how the other parts in its proximity vary? If not, why?

Julian

ynquirer

Iêsou tou legomenou Christou is the phrase Josephus uses in AJ (20.9.1 or 20:200). The reason why he does so is a need to distinguish this Jesus from three other Jesus, spoken of in ch.9 and 10 of AJ bk.20, namely, Jesus the son of Damneus (204, 213), Jesus the son of Gamaliel (213, 223), and Jesus the son of Josadek (234). A total six mentions of people named Jesus in an eight-paragraph window (20.9.1 to 20.10.1). In all the cases Josephus identifies the man with the phrase “Jesus son of …” Obviously enough, he ignored who Jesus-Christ’s father was. Therefore, he uses the phrase “Jesus called the Christ.”

Origen uses the phrase “Jesus called the Christ” whenever he quotes Josephus, and only when he quotes Josephus (1.47, 2.13), and always in the compound phrase “the brother of Jesus called the Christ.” The reason is clear: Origen wants to quote Josephus verbatim. This literal quotation emphasizes Origen’s denial that Josephus believed Jesus as the Christ. Whoever believes that Jesus was the Christ would not say “Jesus called the Christ,” which denotes hearsay. Therefore, Origen mechanically repeats the same phrase to remind the reader that Josephus did not believe Jesus as the Christ.

Would Origen have taken such pains had a phrase “He was the Christ” not been in AJ 18.3.3?

Ben C Smith

I have an analysis of these three Origenic passages in which I sift out all of the phrases that the three have in common (refer to the analytic text for the lettered text divisions]. This phrase, [τον] αδελφον Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου, is certainly the longest common phrasing between the three passages. Two of the accounts, but not the third, have δια Ιησουν τον Χριστον in common, which would be the second longest phrase.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Hi, Jay.

Two questions.

1. You wrote:

So Eusebius, on your view, inserts two paragraphs into Origen that claim that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as the Christ. Yet Eusebius is also the one who slips a paragraph into Josephus himself, the notorious Testimonium, that has Josephus claiming: He was the Christ (ο Χριστος ουτος ην).

If Eusebius is making Josephus say that Jesus was the Christ, why, on your view, is Eusebius also making Origen claim that Josephus believed no such thing?

2. Eusebius writes of two distinct passages in Josephus that mention both James and Jesus and one more that mentions only Jesus. Let me label these passages A, B, and C.

A: History of the Church 2.23.20:

Αμελει γε τοι ο Ιωσηπος ουκ απωκνησεν και τουτ εγγραφως επιμαρτυρασθαι δι ων φησιν λεξεων· Ταυτα δε συμβεβηκεν Ιουδαιοις κατ εκδικησιν Ιακωβου του δικαιου, ος ην αδελφος Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου, επειδηπερ δικαιοτατον αυτον οντα οι Ιουδαιοι απεκτειναν.

Josephus at any rate did not hesitate to testify this also through his writings, in which he says: But these things happened to the Jews as vengeance for James the just, who was the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. For the Jews killed him even though he was a most just man.

This is nearly verbatim with part of Origen, Against Celsus 1.47, which is found in no extant manuscript of any work of Josephus.

B: History of the Church 2.23.21a:

Ο δ αυτος και τον θανατον αυτου εν εικοστω της αρχαιολογιας δηλοι δια τουτων....

And the same writer records his death also in the twentieth book of the Antiquities through these [words]....

Now follows what we actually do find in book 20 in the extant manuscripts.

C: History of the Church 1.11.7-8:

Ταυτα περι του Ιωαννου διελθων, και του σωτηρος ημων κατα την αυτην του συγγραμματος ιστοριαν ωδε πως μεμνηται· Γινεται δε κατα τουτον τον χρονον Ιησους, σοφος ανηρ, ειγε ανδρα αυτον λεγειν χρη· ην γαρ παραδοξων εργων ποιητης, διδασκαλος ανθρωπων των ηδονη ταληθη δεχομενων, και πολλους μεν των Ιουδαιων, πολλους δε και απο του Ελληνικου επηγαγετο· ο Χριστος ουτος ην. και αυτον ενδειξει των πρωτων ανδρων παρ ημιν σταυρω επιτετιμηκοτος �*ιλατου ουκ επαυσαντο οι το πρωτον αγαπησαντες· εφανη γαρ αυτοις τριτην εχων ημεραν παλιν ζων των θειων προφητων ταυτα τε και αλλα μυρια περι αυτου θαυμασια ειρηκοτων. εις ετι τε νυν των Χριστιανων απο τουδε ωνομασμενον ουκ επελιπε το φυλον.

After going through these things concerning John, [Josephus] also makes mention of our savior in the same work as follows: And there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is necessary to call him a man, for he was a doer of paradoxical works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure, and many of the Jews on the one hand and also many from the Greeks on the other he drew to himself. This man was the Christ. And when, on the accusation of some of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first loved him did not cease to do so. For he appeared to them on the third day, living again, the divine prophets having related both these things and countless other marvels about him. And even till now the tribe of Christians, so named from this man, has not gone extinct.

This is what we actually do find in book 18 of the Antiquities, but before the discussion of John the baptist, not after.

On your view, Eusebius forged all three of these passages, right? And B and C made it into our extant manuscripts, apparently on his authority, right? So why, on your view, did A not make it into the manuscripts, even though it was the only one that Eusebius decided to place on the lips of the esteemed Origen? (Why indeed is that the only one that Eusebius gave to Origen? Why not give him the Testimonium?)

Ben.

Jayhawker Soule

Just to be clear, by "evidence against the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum (TF)" do you mean "evidence that TF was forged in its entirety"?

spin

This thread seems very depressing.



spin

ynquirer

That’s a good question.

Since long, bk.1 ch.47 has been taken on in isolation from the rest of Contra Celsum. Ignoring that Celsus is presented as accepting Jesus’ miracles, many critics have supposed that Origen’s silence on the those parts of the TF dealing with wonders implied a refutation of its entire authenticity; some such criticism is displayed in very recent posts in other threads of the BC&H forum. Now, if one bears in mind Celsus’ position on the issue of miracles then the rejected authenticity would solely apply to the phrase, “He was (the) Christ” and mention of resurrection, as they both appear in AJ 18.3.3.

Jayhawker Soule

Whealey (or via: amazon.co.uk) notes:

Quote:

... Celsus in fact accepted that Jesus performed miracles, although he argued that Jesus used magic and trickery to accomplish them (Cels. 1.39; 1.68). That Jesus performed his miracles through magic was apparently a stock charge of pagans. Like Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea would make a concerted effort to answer this charge.

What are the difficulties in inferring that Origen's Josephus read something like "He was believed to be the Christ"?

PhilosopherJay

Hi Ben,

Thank you so much for these excellent questions and the chance to clarify my position.

Permit me to digress a bit before answering.

Last week, the great Swedish filmmaker Ingmar Bergman died. I really had not thought about him or seen a Bergman movie for many years, but about a week earlier I received a present of a copy of a DVD of La Dolce Vita by the equally famous Italian filmmaker Federico Fellini. In the bonus material was a documentary about Fellini's life which included an interview of both Bergman and Fellini in the mid 1960's. Apparently they were going to direct their next film together, along with the Japanese filmmaker Akira Kurosawa for the Italian producer Dino De Laurentis. Each one was to direct one episode of a trilogy of love stories. In the interview, both Fellini and Bergman expressed their admiration of each other's work and their happiness about working together. Apparently the project fell apart a few weeks after this interview, when Kurosawa became ill and could not leave Japan. Yet, in the documentary footage, there is no hint that the film might not get made. They both accept it as a fact that this is going to be their next project. The documentary footage stands as testimony to the fact that they were quite serious in their intention of working together in the near future. Fellini did end up working with two other famous directors on a trilogy Spirits of Love (1968), but it was about three horror tales, not love tales.

If you think about how somber and serious Bergman is towards Christianity in his films and how sarcastic and lighthearted Fellini is towards the same subject, you wonder what would have been the results of such a collaboration.

I also recently watched a DVD called An Evening with Kevin Smith which documents a question and answer session with the New Jersey filmmaker who made the Catholic/anti-Catholic film Dogma In it he tells a very funny story about his encounter with the film producer Jon Peters, in the mid-1990's. It took place shortly after Smith had come to Hollywood, after the success of his independent film, "Clerks". Hearing that Smith was a comic-book fan, Peters allowed him to read the script for the new "Superman" movie that he was producing. Smith read it and found it awful and (being young and foolish) honestly told Peters his opinion. Peters was astonished and after much discussion and consultation with other studio executives, decided to give Smith the chance to rewrite the Superman script. To Smith it was a dream-come-true. Peters only gave him two rules, Superman was not to wear his costume in the movie (as Peters felt it made him look gay) and in Act III of the script, Superman was to battle a giant, mechanical spider. Smith wrote the desired script and Peters was enthusiastic over it. He gave the new script to his director, Tim Burton (who had directed Batman in 1987). Burton was less enthusiastic and brought in his own scriptwriter. Before too long Burton lost interest in the project and so did Peters. So Smith ended up writing a script for a Superman movie that was never made. The punchline of the story is that about a year later, Kevin Smith went to see the new Jon Peters' movie "Wild, Wild West" which starred Will Smith. Kevin Smith thought it was awful, but he was amused to find that in Act III of the movie, Will Smith fights -- a giant, mechanical spider.

My point in telling these stories is that people have intentions for projects and for whatever reason, they do not always get done. In this case, we find evidence for an intended interpolation by Eusebius, one that he did not make. In this case, we can even give the reason for that the intended interpolation not appearing.

When we find Eusebius writing about James the Just in Origen and in Church History, it is at a point when he intends to make two changes in his copy/copies of Josephus, one in book 18 and one in book 20. At this point in time, he did not have the idea for the TF. The intention for the change is documented in his interpolations in Origen. It is certain that he made the change in book 18, it is unclear if he ever made the change in book 20. If he did, shortly thereafter, he decided to undo it, as that change does not exist in any known copy of Josephus. More likely, after making the simple change to book 18 (brother of Jesus Damneus to brother of the Lord), he had problems deciding on the exact wording to put in book 20 about James. Possibly, at this point, for the first time, he had to consider seriously what a non-believer like Josephus would say about James, the brother of the lord. At this point, the problem for him changed. He probably thought along these lines: if Josephus was to say good things about James the Just, that would make him a believer or possible believer in the divinity to some extent in Jesus, but if he was a believer, or possible believer in Jesus' divinity, why would he not write about Jesus directly instead of Jesus indirectly through James. Eusebius realized that the TF in book 18 would be a more plausible addition to Jospehus than the one he intended in book 20 on James.

The "before" and "after" mix-up suggests that the actual change to the manuscript/s of Josephus were made after he wrote the passage in Church History referring to it.

So the contradiction you have pointed out is a real one, but when we look seriously at our own lives and deeds, we also find that our later deeds often contradict our original intentions, as we encounter unexpected consequences when we put our intentions into action.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay