jjramsey

Actually, it does change it, dramatically. Since, as I said before, the passage without the telltale phrase "brother of Jesus called christ" is hardly recognizable as anything related to what Origen discussed, there isn't a real hint that the James in the passage should have anything to do with the James mentioned by Origin. It's not as if a Christian is necessarily going to assume that a reference to James must be a reference to that James, since it (or really, Jacob) was a common name. Furthermore, it's quite a jump to presume that a Christian who did make that connection would choose Origen's rarely used phrasing rather than the more common Christian phrasings "James the Just" or "James the brother of the Lord." But again, all this has been pointed out before.

Ok, your turn to huff and puff and say I'm desperate, partisan, or whatever other content-free invective you want to use in your table-pounding. :Cheeky:

spin

Where else does Josephus deal with James and what happened to him? There's not much choice.


spin

jjramsey

That objection might be valid if a scribe were deliberately combing through Josephus' works looking for some scrap of connection to Origen. It doesn't help if a scribe is simply going about the business of copying. In the latter case, for your scenario to work, the scribe is going to have to start out reading Josephus and then see something that triggers a memory of Origen. The catch is that there is no obvious trigger in Josephus' work that would call Origen to mind.

spin

You are not responding with what I said earlier in mind. I mentioned two simple steps: a scribe makes the connection with James through Origen's treatment while reading and so adds a marginal comment; a later scribe treats it as an omission.

Josephus tells us this James was executed by stoning and that the more substantial citizenry thought it was unjust and asked Agrippa to stop Ananus from so acting in the future, an unjustly executed James, having all the hallmarks of James the just. Origen had acknowledged knowing of Josephus's dealing with James three times (whether that acknowledgement meant that Origen had a copy of Josephus is irrelevant here), so someone who knew Origen's works might be interested, having found where Josephus mentioned James, to note the fact.


spin

Amaleq13

I haven't changed anything. You are the one contradicting the text. The text says Paul wasn't known by face but only by reputation to the assemblies of Judea in Christ. You asserted the exact opposite.

"He claims to have harassed messianic groups in Judea"

He is clearly claiming to have harassed others and been known for it by groups in Judea.

Offering a solution to a problem you manufactured? Peddle your snake oil elsewhere.

spin

Piffle.

"[O]thers"? Umm, when are you going to read what the text says?? The groups in Judea specifically say "harassing us". Just read what it says, huh?

You are in denial, now refusing even to see your problem. :Cheeky:

You're trying to wring meaning out of another verse that isn't transparent to you.

spin

jjramsey

And your scenario hits a snag on the first part: a scribe making the connection to Origen. That especially holds if the scribe is being, well, a scribe, and is copying as he is reading. Again, Origen mentions none of these details mentioned by Josephus, so Josephus offers no trigger to jog the memory of a scribe as he is copying.

It was also pointed out by Ben C Smith in an earlier thread that the second part is not so trivial, since a later scribe couldn't have simply plugged in the marginal text, since the text with the supposed interpolation cut out is ungrammatical.

There is also the not so small matter of the state of the supposedly uninterpolated text. I already mentioned one problem just above. Also, if Josephus is going by his usual habit, then he has already given James some disambiguating identifier, which not only would have to be replaced in order to do the interpolation, but also would hinder an association of this James with the one that Origen mentioned. If you propose that there was no such identifier, then you either have to account for why that is or write it off as a fluke.

To summarize, your scenario requires several steps, all of them problematic:

1. Origen coins the phrasing "brother of Jesus called Christ" himself, inspired by Matthew's phrasing. Difficulties:
   1. In spite of the phrasing supposedly being inspired by Matthew's usage he does not use "Jesus called Christ" when discussing the part of Matthew where the phrasing is used, but rather when discussing a part of Matthew several chapters away.
   2. In spite of the phrasing supposedly not being related to Josephus, the phrasing is only used by Origen in his three references to Josephus involving James. Your resolution of this apparent coincidence, that is, Origen copied and pasted twice from his earlier work, has its own difficulty: Origen's wordings in the later two references are not very similar to his first one.
2. A scribe makes a marginal note. Difficulties:
   1. Origen mentions none of the specifics that Josephus mentioned with regard to this James, so there are no key details to easily jog the memory of a scribe just reading along in Josephus. A scribe would have to go out of his way to look for the connection.
   2. If the uninterpolated text has no clause to tell the reader who this James is (e.g. saying he's a son of someone well-known or previously mentioned, or that he is the leader of some group) then Josephus has done something very un-Josephan. If the text does have such a clause, then that would inhibit recognition by the scribe.
3. A later scribe inserts the marginal note into the text. Difficulties: The marginal note cannot be simply inserted into the text. If there is no clause identifying James, then the text must be rejiggered to make room for the marginal note. If there is an identifying clause, then a scribe must remove it and replace it with what is in the marginal note.

And all this to overcome what? A nonexistent difficulty about Josephus being unwilling to use the neutral phrasing "Jesus called Christ." This is the sort of clumsiness that puts the mythicists in disrepute.

Amaleq13

Excellent description of your argument so far!!

Yes, it makes sense that they considered the assemblies in Christ outside Judea to be part of the larger whole. Seems obvious to me. :huh:

You clearly want "Judea" to be understood as a general reference to all of Palestine but, since indirect harassment from a distance is not consistent with the text (why bother mentioning that they only knew his reputation?) and just an absurd concept in general, we can conclude that the more specific meaning of the word was intended. Contrary to your snake oil pitch, this creates no problems whatsoever and makes perfect sense.

I can't decide, though, if it is more absurd than suggesting someone could persecute then join a group without knowing the beliefs of the group. That's a tough call.

According to you, Paul persecuted a group of messianists in Judea but he did so indirectly and from a distance but without really knowing what they believed even though he subsequently decided to accept their beliefs.

That is just not a credible scenario and that is putting it mildly.

Just think about what it says, huh?

Yes, that is typically the next step in the SOP of the snake oil salesman.

You've created a problem that simply does not exist. The text differentiates between being harassed in person and knowing about a person's reputation for harassment. The text specifically identifies the location of the assemblies that only knew him by reputation for a reason (ie differentiation). Both facts quite clearly require that Paul harassed groups in person and outside Judea. It makes no sense, otherwise.

Your suggestion of some sort of long-distance, indirect harassment is simply sophistic avoidance of admitting the implausibility of your position.

KnightWhoSaysNi

The formal debate is now complete. GakuseiDon and Malachi151 may post here now if they wish to.

KWSN, FD Moderator

Mythra

I enjoyed reading this debate - alot. I thought both participants did a nice job in presenting their case.

However, a nagging thought kept bothering me as I read. Why does only one of them have to be right? Perhaps they both are. In fact, that seems the most sensible of all to me. (admittedly just an interested amateur). But still -I haven't seen anything that would exclude the possibility of there having been a Jesus, of whom only sketchy information was known. Perhaps the only thing people knew for sure is that he talked about the arrival of the kingdom of god, he pissed off the Pharisees, and got himself crucified.

Particularly after the destruction of Jerusalem, there may have been no way for anyone else to find out any more information about Jesus. But he remained a figure that was a popular topic of discussion. And a figure that spawned a couple of different groups that claimed a heritage from him.

Then along comes Saul / Paul with some far-out ideas. Ideas that eminated straight from his head - much like Joseph Smith - basically a creative genius.

And along comes the author of Mark's gospel. Who knew the sketchy details of Jesus, but there was simply not enough there to make a good story. And perhaps his intent was to create a story - a literary allusion as Malachi calls it - and blend the story in with what was known about Jesus.

And the remainder of the scenario pretty much matches the MJ position.

Would this be considered a basic outline of the FJ position? Forgive me for being so poorly read on the subject - I'm working on that. But surely this basic outline is already discussed to death somewhere - either here or in several decent books. If anyone has any references along these lines, I'd greatly appreciate a referral.

Or, is there some data I'm missing that would make this scenario ludicrous? If so, please point it out to me. I do my best learning while simultaneously being called foolish.