Freethought & Rationalism Archive

PhilosopherJay · 09-20-2011, 08:01 PM

Hi Vivisector,

Here is Origen's statement on James in On Matthew: 10:17"

Quote:

[A] 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. [B1] And in such a way among the people did this James shine for his justice [C] that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the Judaic Antiquities in twenty books, [D] wishing to demonstrate the cause why the people suffered such great things that even the temple was razed down, [E1] 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. [F] And the wondrous thing is that, although he did not accept our Jesus to be Christ, [B2] he yet testified that the justice of James was not at all small; [E2] and he says that even the people supposed they had suffered these things on account of James.

Here is Origen in Against Celsus 1.47

Quote:

[C] 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. [F] But he himself, though not believing in Jesus as Christ, [D] in seeking the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, [G1] 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, [E1] 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, [B] since they killed him who was most just. [A] 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. [E2] If, therefore, he says that the things surrounding the desolation of Jerusalem befell the Jews on account of James, [G2] how is it not more reasonable to say that it happened on account of Jesus the Christ?

Origen in Celsus 2:13

Quote:

[E1] For this [siege] began while Nero was still being king, and it lasted until the leadership of Vespasian, whose son Titus destroyed Jerusalem, [C] as Josephus writes, [E2] on account of James the just, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, [G] but, as the truth demonstrates, [actually] on account of Jesus the Christ of God.

Origen must be getting his comment about Ananus causing the destruction of the city from "War" 4.5.2.

Quote:

I should not mistake if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city, and that from this very day may be dated the overthrow of her wall, and the ruin of her affairs, whereon they saw their high priest, and the procurer of their preservation, slain in the midst of their city. He was on other accounts also a venerable, and a very just man;

Compare this to Antiquities 18.5.2

Quote:

Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness (δικαιοσυνη ) towards one another, and piety towards God… Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him.

If Origen had confused James with John than we could say that this was simply a slip of pen. However, three different times, Origen says that something written about Ananus by Josephus was written about James by Josephus. How do you confuse something said in one book about Ananus, the man who puts James to death, as being something said about James in another book? We can imagine that Origen wished that he had read "James" instead of "Ananus" and as often happens to all of us, we remember what we wish instead of what was. This seems a possible explanation.

However, Eusebius entirely destroys this explanation by writing (e.h. 2:23.21):

Quote:

“Josephus 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 who is called (the) Christ. For the Jews slew him, although he was a most just man.’ ”

Origen could have remembered it wrong, but not both Eusebius and Origen. This makes it most probable that there was an interpolation in the manuscripts of Josephus that no longer exists.

Earl Doherty does a nice analysis of this here.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisector

Hi, Jay.

It seems that at least some of your argument hinges on how Origen uses his materials - in this case, Josephus. I have tried to to make the case in my blog how Origen seems to have been quite capable of great selectivity and creativity in this regard; here with Origen representing Josephus as stating that James's death brought about the fall of Jerusalem, here with Origen apparently revising Paul on the issue of James as a brother of Jesus, and here with Origen correcting the prophet Ezekiel where he perceived Ezekiel as referring to David (rather than Jesus) as Christ. Based on the little I know, I wouldn't be surprised if Origen followed Josephus with respect to baptism for purification (because it's what Josephus presumably wrote) but added, of his own initiative, baptism's role in remission of sins (because this is what Origen himself knew to be the true case). It seems to me that, for Origen's witness to be supportive of this hypothesis, one would have to demonstrate Origen's fidelity to the texts he cites.

Cheers,

V.

maryhelena · 09-20-2011, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

See "Against Apion" by Josephus.

Please see:

Dreams and Dream Reports in the Writings of Josephus:A Traditio-Historical Analysis,Robert K Gnuse (or via: amazon.co.uk).....

No, I don't want FLAWED OPNION based on IMAGINATION. I want SOURCES of antiquity that support your claim that Josephus may have invented John the Baptist.

I REFERRED to "AGAINST APION" so that you would be able to have an idea of the things that APION may have questioned in the writings of Josephus.

There is NO indication in the 2 books of "Against Apion" that Apion suggested that John the Baptist was an Invention, prophetic or not.

OK - aa5874 - out with the historical evidence that a character referenced as John the Baptist - in Antiquities - is a historical figure. Unless you can do that - I'm free to think otherwise.....:huh:

You seem to be dreaming your history of John the Baptist and still accuse Josephus of doing the very same thing.

Wrong, aa5874 - I have no history for John the Baptist......:huh:

Quote:

You simply cannot show that Josephus invented John the Baptist.

And you can't show that he did not.....:huh:

Quote:

The DATA you need to make such a claim cannot be found anywhere in Extant sources of antiquity.

Please, stop dreaming.

Likewise, aa5874.............

Vivisector · 09-21-2011, 07:23 AM

Hi again, Jay.

Complicateder and complicateder. Appreciate the follow-up. Will slog through Doherty's material (agree with you - very thorough) when I find an extra week.

Cheers,

V.

PhilosopherJay · 09-21-2011, 08:14 AM

One part of my reconstruction now seems absurd to me. That is the part where Salome asks for the head of Aretas. There is no real motivation for it. It is clear that the story only makes sense if Salome asks for the head of Aretas' daughter.
It also makes more sense because simply sending Aretas' daughter home would not have triggered a war. Divorce was common and although Aretas would not have been pleased to have his daughter back again, he could always marry her to some other royal personage. Divorce was not a casus belli. It was not Marc Antony's divorce of Augustus' daughter Octavia that caused the war between Antony and Augustus, it was the reading of Antony's will, leaving everything to the foreigner Cleopatra that caused the war.
Rather than imagine that the divorce caused the war, we can imagine that Aretas' daughter was the cause of war only if Herod had put her to death under the spell of Salome.

Thus we may reconstruct the original passage this way:

Quote:

n the meantime, a quarrel, whose origin I shall relate, arose between Aretas, King of Petra, and Herod. The tetrarch Hreod had taken the daughter of Aretas as his wife and had now been married to her for a long time. When starting out for Rome, he lodged with his half-brother Herod, who was born of a different mother, namely, the daughter of Simon the high priest. Falling in love with Herodias, the wife of this half-brother—she was a daughter of their brother Aristobulus and sister to Agrippa the Great--, he brazenly broached to her the subject of marriage. She accepted and pledged herself to make the transfer to him as soon as he returned from Rome. It was stipulated that he must oust the daughter of Aretas. The agreement made, he set sail for Rome.

On his return after transacting his business in Rome, he found his wife had gotten wind of the transaction and had discovered everything. She said, "It is not lawful to marry your brother's wife."

She asked him to send her away to Machaerus (a fortress), which was on the boundary between the territory of Aretas and that of Herod. Some time earlier she herself had dispatched messengers to Machaerus, which was at that time subject to her father, so that when she arrived all preparations for her journey had been made by the governor. She was would thus be able to start for Arabia as soon as she arrived, being passed from one governor to the next as they provided transport. So she speedily reached her father and told would speedily reach her father and tell him what Herod planned to do.

She was a good woman and had exhorted the Jews to lead righteous lives, to practice justice towards their fellows and piety towards God. Herod feared Aretas' daughter, knowing that she was a righteous and holy woman, and kept her safe. When he heard her, he was much perplexed; and yet he heard her gladly. Aretas daughter said to Herod, "It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife." Herod became alarmed.
Eloquence that had so great an effect on mankind might lead to some form of sedition, Herod decided therefore that it would be much better to strike first and get rid of her before her work led to an uprising, than to wait for an upheaval, get involved in a difficult situation and see his mistake.

He had Aretas daughter arrested at Machaerus and put in chains.

And Herodias had a grudge against her and wanted to kill her. But she could not. But an opportunity came when Herod on his birthday gave a banquet for his courtiers and officers and the leading men of Galilee. For when Herodias' daughter came in and danced, she pleased Herod and his guests; and the king said to the girl, "Ask me for whatever you wish, and I will grant it."And he vowed to her, "Whatever you ask me, I will give you, even half of my kingdom."And she went out, and said to her mother, "What shall I ask?" And she said, "The head of Aretas' daughter." And she came in immediately with haste to the king, and asked, saying, "I want you to give me at once the head of Aretas' daughter on a platter." And the king was exceedingly sorry; but because of his oaths and his guests he did not want to break his word to her. And immediately the king sent a soldier of the guard and gave orders to bring her head. He went and beheaded her in the prison, and brought her head on a platter, and gave it to the girl; and the girl gave it to her mother...

Aretas made this the start of a quarrel. There was also a dispute about boundaries in the district of Gabalis. Troops were mustered on each side and they were now at war, but they dispatched others as commanders instead of going themselves. In the ensuing battle, the whole army of Herod was destroyed when some refugees, who had come from the tetrarchy of Philip and had joined Herod’s army, played him false.
yet the verdict of the Jews was that the destruction visited upon Herod’s army was a vindication of Aretas' daughter, since God saw fit to inflict such a blow on Herod.

if this reconstruction is correct, it was the killing of Aretas' daughter that led Jews to believe that Herod's defeat was divine justice. John the Baptist was simply substituted for Aretas' daughter. The substitution was made in Josephus' text and part of the substitution was cut and placed in the Gospel of Mark and later copied into Matthew.

The name of Aretas' daughter was purposefully erased from the text.

This reconstruction, if accurate, suggests that the interpolations into Josephus were an early and ongoing process.

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

09-21-2011, 07:23 AM	#13
Vivisector Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: KY Posts: 415	Hi again, Jay. Complicateder and complicateder. Appreciate the follow-up. Will slog through Doherty's material (agree with you - very thorough) when I find an extra week. Cheers, V.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.