FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-06-2011, 11:08 PM   #21
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorkosigan View Post
I think it might be better to see what Origen says here in CC I. Earl's statement that there is a "lost reference" is thereby clearer.

From the New Advent site:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04162.htm
  • I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, that the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who lived no great length of time after John and Jesus. For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after 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 calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless— being, although against his will, not far from the truth— that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),— the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine. If, then, he says that it was on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason to say that it happened on account (of the death) of Jesus Christ, of whose divinity so many Churches are witnesses, composed of those who have been convened from a flood of sins, and who have joined themselves to the Creator, and who refer all their actions to His good pleasure.

And CC II
  • 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 clear, on account of Jesus Christ the Son of God.

Matthew Commentary 10:
  • And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James.

It seems difficult to avoid concluding that Origen possessed an interpolated copy of Josephus in which Jerusalem is destroyed on account of James' execution.

Also, to follow Carr's thought, nowhere does Origen say in which chapter this "lost reference" appears. Perhaps Origen is simply lying or has confused Josephus with some other writer, such as Hegesippus.

Vorkosigan
I am thinking Origen stretched the truth when he claimed that James had any connection to the fall of the temple or the fall of Jerusalem, since that was his known interest, as Steven Carr pointed out, and it may also explain why Origen does not cite the chapter of Josephus where he found James. Origen's claim about James was not actually borne out in Josephus.
ApostateAbe is offline  
Old 07-06-2011, 11:12 PM   #22
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
.....You seem to think there is an account of James being in the "inner circle"? I don't see that in either Origen or Josephus, so maybe you can point that out. I see James as being an outsider but a leader of a popular threatening cult.
We have the Jesus story by gMark which was assumed to be written BEFORE "Antiquities of the Jews" and the story of Jesus is quite devastating.

1. Jesus spoke in parables so that the Jews would NOT be converted. Mark 4

2. Jesus was NOT known as Christ by the Jews. Mark 8

3. Jesus did NOT first tell his disciples he was Christ it was Peter who FIRST told the disciples that Jesus was the Christ. Mark 8

4. Jesus commanded his disciples to tell no man he was Christ. Mark 8

5. When Jesus was arrested the disciples abandoned Jesus. Mark 14

6. Peter denied ever knowing Jesus. Mark14

7. The visitors to the tomb fled and did Not say anything . Mark 16.

The Jesus story crashed.

Reality Check: Based on gMark, the Jews did NOT call Jesus the Christ. Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 is a forgery.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 07-06-2011, 11:58 PM   #23
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
...
You are making the ad hoc proposition of interpolation a little more plausible than Vorkosigan and Earl Doherty proposed, and yet it seems to remain an implausible unevidenced ad hoc proposition.
How often do people have to go through the elements that make this phrase improbable? Repeating the terms ad hoc, unevidenced, and implausible just shows that you have not been paying attention.

Quote:
Why not just believe that Josephus actually wrote that?
Why not just accept what people tell you like any gullible naif?

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
If you think that this was a reference to the brother of someone named Jesus called the Messiah (or maybe the Anointed or the Oily), perhaps you could answer the question I posed above. What connects this Jesus, who was the brother of a member of the inner circle in Jerusalem, to a peasant wisdom teacher in Galilee 33 years before this, who was so obscure no one bothered to write about him at the time? How old was James? How did he get from Galilee to Jerusalem? How did he make it into the inner circle of the group that got the Romans to crucify his brother as a low rent blasphemer?
What connects this Jesus, who was the brother of a member of the inner circle in Jerusalem, to a peasant wisdom teacher in Galilee 33 years before this, who was so obscure no one bothered to write about him at the time?

By being his brother? If you take the silence as relevant, then you need to explain further. Why would you expect anybody but Christians to write about Jesus and why would you expect such writings would remain with us today?
You miss my point. If Josephus wrote about a James the brother of Jesus called Christ in the context of Jerusalem in 63 CE, why would you think that this Jesus was the same Jesus who was crucified in 30 CE? What would Josephus have meant by Christ, given that he was not a Christian?

Quote:
...

How did he make it into the inner circle of the group that got the Romans to crucify his brother as a low rent blasphemer?

You seem to think there is an account of James being in the "inner circle"? I don't see that in either Origen or Josephus, so maybe you can point that out. I see James as being an outsider but a leader of a popular threatening cult.
Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. (24) Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.
James was important enough for Ananus to convene the Sanhedrin and get him and some friends stoned for being law breakers, and important enough for others to protest this. How did he get there from being a Galilean fisherman who thought his brother was crazy? The whole story does not hang together.
Toto is offline  
Old 07-07-2011, 01:26 AM   #24
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 3,397
Default

I'm not sure that one needs to posit a lost passage in Josephus. I think an innocent gloss, based on confusion stemming from the writings of Origen, pretty much explains Ant. 20.
dog-on is offline  
Old 07-07-2011, 01:29 AM   #25
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: England
Posts: 5,629
Default

CHAUCER
Josephus mentions this in a way that indicates this Jesus was more famous than his brother James (Josephus identifies others by reference to more famous brothers elsewhere).

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post

You seem to think there is an account of James being in the "inner circle"? I don't see that in either Origen or Josephus, so maybe you can point that out. I see James as being an outsider but a leader of a popular threatening cult.
So popular he had to be identified by reference to his more famous brother, who was sadly too obscure for anybody at the time to write about.

And why would Josephus call James 'the Just'?
Steven Carr is offline  
Old 07-07-2011, 02:37 AM   #26
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Carr View Post
CHAUCER
Josephus mentions this in a way that indicates this Jesus was more famous than his brother James (Josephus identifies others by reference to more famous brothers elsewhere).

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post

You seem to think there is an account of James being in the "inner circle"? I don't see that in either Origen or Josephus, so maybe you can point that out. I see James as being an outsider but a leader of a popular threatening cult.
So popular he had to be identified by reference to his more famous brother, who was sadly too obscure for anybody at the time to write about.
...too obscure for Philo to write about in his own time. Those arguments from silence need to be put in proper perspective. Philo is the only writer exactly contemporary to Jesus whose writings still exist, and he doesn't write about John the Baptist, either. Though the cult of John the Baptist certainly grew sizably enough to get a notice from Josephus. I know that I bring up that point very frequently, and it is difficult to explain why it keeps getting ignored.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Carr View Post
And why would Josephus call James 'the Just'?
He wouldn't. That is what Origen would call James.
ApostateAbe is offline  
Old 07-07-2011, 02:53 AM   #27
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
...
You are making the ad hoc proposition of interpolation a little more plausible than Vorkosigan and Earl Doherty proposed, and yet it seems to remain an implausible unevidenced ad hoc proposition.
How often do people have to go through the elements that make this phrase improbable? Repeating the terms ad hoc, unevidenced, and implausible just shows that you have not been paying attention.
Huh. I thought I was paying plenty of attention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Why not just accept what people tell you like any gullible naif?
So, my question was, "Why not just believe that Josephus actually wrote that?" My question stands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
You miss my point. If Josephus wrote about a James the brother of Jesus called Christ in the context of Jerusalem in 63 CE, why would you think that this Jesus was the same Jesus who was crucified in 30 CE? What would Josephus have meant by Christ, given that he was not a Christian?
Plausibly,"Christ" was at the time of Josephus a title for Jesus that was well-known among the audience of Josephus. Yeah, Josephus was probably not happy about that. I think that sufficiently explains why Josephus wrote "called Christ" or "nicknamed Messiah," not simply "Christ."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Quote:
...

How did he make it into the inner circle of the group that got the Romans to crucify his brother as a low rent blasphemer?

You seem to think there is an account of James being in the "inner circle"? I don't see that in either Origen or Josephus, so maybe you can point that out. I see James as being an outsider but a leader of a popular threatening cult.
Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. (24) Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.
James was important enough for Ananus to convene the Sanhedrin and get him and some friends stoned for being law breakers, and important enough for others to protest this. How did he get there from being a Galilean fisherman who thought his brother was crazy? The whole story does not hang together.
When the Christian cult of James got big enough and annoying enough, then he became a target, much in the same way as Jesus or John the Baptist, I would suppose. I don't see the need for James to be reputedly part of any "inner circle" in order for the account to make sufficient sense. Would you like to correct that error?
ApostateAbe is offline  
Old 07-07-2011, 03:02 AM   #28
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: England
Posts: 5,629
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Carr View Post
And why would Josephus call James 'the Just'?
He wouldn't. That is what Origen would call James.
I thought Origen was quoting Josephus.Turns out that he isn't....

And why reference James to his more 'famous' brother, when this brother wasn't famous?
Steven Carr is offline  
Old 07-07-2011, 03:15 AM   #29
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Carr View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post

He wouldn't. That is what Origen would call James.
I thought Origen was quoting Josephus.Turns out that he isn't....
When Origen references a specific writing of Josephus and in that context uses some (not all) of the same specific phrasings as Josephus, then it counts as a quote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Carr View Post
And why reference James to his more 'famous' brother, when this brother wasn't famous?
Jesus wasn't famous enough in his own time to be mentioned by Philo. Nor was John the Baptist, though the figure of John the Baptist grew after his time corresponding to the growth of his cult, much like Jesus, and both figures are mentioned by Josephus (or their interpolators?). I want you to remember that point. Remember it, please, because it is very relevant. I keep on bringing it up, and it keeps on getting ignored.
ApostateAbe is offline  
Old 07-07-2011, 03:25 AM   #30
avi
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Location: eastern North America
Posts: 1,468
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe
He wouldn't. That is what Origen would call James.
Origen ???

Are you certain of that?

Can you please provide a link to Origen's Greek manuscript?? Oh, I see. Ok, well then, how about a link to the translation in Latin. Oh. Well, then, how about a link to Tertullian.....

****

The claims that James was called "the Just", derive from Clement of Alexandria, (according to Eusebius), Hegesippus (according to Eusebius and Jerome), and two tracts by unidentified authors, cited by Jerome:

Gospel according to the Hebrews--main canon of the Ebionists and Nazarenes;

Gospel of Thomas (Nag Hammadi)--aka "fiction of Heretics" according to Eusebius;

Hey Abe, you want to try your big dog trick with me? I am thoroughly unconvinced, though I will grant Chaucer plus one for excellent writing.

Why doesn't Origen cite TF? Who was the guy complaining about massive interpolation, in the third century? Was that Origen???

Chaucer is hanging his "reality check" on Josephus. I hope someone can explain to me how a Jewish priest, leader of an insurrection against the Romans, could somehow compose any text sympathetic to a group of traitors to his beloved Judaism.... I simply find it much easier to attribute the supposed references to "Jesus the Christ" to Christian manipulation decades after the fact....

avi
avi is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:09 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.