Freethought & Rationalism Archive

gstafleu · 11-01-2006, 05:42 PM

Well, Jay Raskin's book The Evolution of Christs and Christianities has arrived in my mailbox with a solid thunk. A hefty tome of over 600 pages, full of interesting stuff. One such interesting stuff we find on page 52:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay Raskin

When we analyze the character of James the Just, who exists nowhere before or after Eusebius [...]

This gasted my flabbers a little, I always thought that James the Just was a well established figure. If Jay is right, this opens the possibility that Robert Eisenman has devoted some also quite hefty tomes to Eusebogus.

So I thought I'd ask this distinguished forum: is Jay right, and is James the Just only known via Eusebius?

I know that Paul e.g. refers to a "James the brother of the Lord," but he does not say "James the Just."

Gerard

Toto · 11-01-2006, 06:23 PM

Josephus refers to a James, but does not label him James the Just, and it seems that later Christians identified him with James the Brother of the Lord.

There are a number of references to James in the NT, but it's not clear if they all reference the same James, or if that James is James the Just.

Hegesippus refers to a James, but I think that Raskin assumes that Eusebius invented Hegesippus, and I don't know if that James is called James the Just.

"James the Just" was referred to in the Gospel of Thomas, if that is considered history.

gstafleu · 11-01-2006, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Hegesippus refers to a James, but I think that Raskin assumes that Eusebius invented Hegesippus, and I don't know if that James is called James the Just.

I think he is. But in any case, if we only know Hegesippus through Eusebius that would still count as Eusebogus.

Gerard

hatsoff · 11-01-2006, 07:47 PM

The Lord said, "James, do not be concerned for me or for this people. I am he who was within me. Never have I suffered in any way, nor have I been distressed. And this people has done me no harm. But this (people) existed as a type of the archons, and it deserved to be destroyed through them. But [...] the archons, [...] who has [...] but since it [...] angry with [...] The just [...] is his servant. Therefore your name is "James the Just". You see how you will become sober when you see me. And you stopped this prayer. Now since you are a just man of God, you have embraced me and kissed me. Truly I say to you that you have stirred up great anger and wrath against yourself. But (this has happened) so that these others might come to be."
--1st Apocalypse of James, c. 180-250

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.
--Origin, Against Celsus, Book I, chapter XLVII (c. 203-255)

I don't know what that guy was talking about if he thinks the character James, or his nickname "the Just," was an invention of Eusebius. Maybe you could provide a larger quote.

spin · 11-01-2006, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

I thought I'd ask this distinguished forum: is Jay right, and is James the Just only known via Eusebius?

Origen uses the term "James the Just" twice in related passages, Contra Celsus 1.47 and 2.13, both referring to the James passage in Josephus AJ 20.9.1.

spin

gstafleu · 11-02-2006, 07:13 AM

So we have James the Just in Origen's Contra Celsum. Do we have a source for Contra Celsum outside Eusebius?

Same question for 1st Apocalypse of James of course.

If the answer to either of those is "yes," Jay Raskin will have to make an MM-like claim that Eusebius managed to alter the then extant MSs.

Gerard

Ben C Smith · 11-02-2006, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

So I thought I'd ask this distinguished forum: is Jay right, and is James the Just only known via Eusebius?

I have quite a few references to James on my James page. Most of the references either come through Eusebius one way or another or are the NT references that everybody likes to debate. But some are independent, such as the gospel of Thomas reference, the gospel of the Hebrews reference, and that from the infancy gospel of James, though in this latter the title James the just is not used; rather, a James of Jerusalem is cited as having given the history.

Ben.

hatsoff · 11-02-2006, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

So we have James the Just in Origen's Contra Celsum. Do we have a source for Contra Celsum outside Eusebius?

Same question for 1st Apocalypse of James of course.

If the answer to either of those is "yes," Jay Raskin will have to make an MM-like claim that Eusebius managed to alter the then extant MSs.

Gerard

This is one of those "anything is possible" arguments. 1-AJa comes from the Nag Hammadi library, the manuscript itself dating from the third or fourth century AD, and the original text probably descending from the late second century. Could Eusebius' have invented the nickname "James the Just" in time for it to have worked its way into the Nag Hammadi sect? Maybe, but, really, what are the odds of that? The same goes for Origen's Against Celsus, the mss. evidence for which is all apparently based on a late-fourth century Vatican ms. Could Eusebius have invented Origen, or forged one of his works?

Anything is possible, but there's no compelling reason to believe it. Likewise, this author, unless his quote has been taken out of context, seems pretty off-the-wall in his scholarship, if it can so be called.

At any rate, even if Eusebius invented it, as this author claims, there are plenty of references *after* his time, which is in contradiction with his next claim. And that's one might huge "if."

Malachi151 · 11-02-2006, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatsoff

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.
--Origin, Against Celsus, Book I, chapter XLVII (c. 203-255)

I don't know what that guy was talking about if he thinks the character James, or his nickname "the Just," was an invention of Eusebius. Maybe you could provide a larger quote.

By the way, regarding this quote by Origen, I have a question.

Quote:

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.

Where it says "(called Christ)", is that something that Origen added on his own to clarify the quote as he thought that it read, or is that thought that have been in the text by Josephus originally?

Secondly, if Josephus thought that Jesus was called Christ, then why would he think that the destruction of Judea was because of the death of James, and not Jesus?

Thirdly, I think that this argument applies against the historicity of "Jesus Christ".

See here the apologist argument:

http://www.tektonics.org/gk/josephusvsmarkjbapt.html

Quote:

# Josephus places John's execution in 35 AD -- way too late for what the Gospels report. Take this objection with a grain of salt: It contains an assumption, namely, that because Joe reports the war with Aretas right after he records the execution of John, that this means that he is reporting that the war took place soon after the execution. But this assumption is gratuitous, and as Hoehner points out [126n], "The Jews felt that God's revenge did not always occur immediately at the time of the misdeed..." The death of Antiochus was regarded as a judgment for his profanation of the Temple, though he died three years after the event; Pompey died in 48 BC, 15 years after he profaned the Holy of Holies, but it was still regarded as a judgment for that act (Jos. Ant. 14.71-2; Ps. Sol. 2:30-5), and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 was thought by some to be a judgment for the execution of a high priest who lived in the 50s (Jos. Ant. 20.160-7).

Which begs the question, if the story of Jesus were really true, then why wouldn't the Jews themselves have attributed the destruction of Judea to the killing of Jesus (called Christ), instead of to some James guy?

Would not the Jews of Judea looked back in retrospect and said "Oh damn, maybe we really did kill the Messiah, CRAP!".

An explanation for why they didn't do this, of course, is that it never happened in the first place.

PhilosopherJay · 11-02-2006, 10:42 AM

Hi Hatsoff et al,

I did want to clarify the reference regarding Eusebius inventing James the Just. Here it it is in the book in context:

...The statement “there were two Jameses: one called the Just, who was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple and was beaten to death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded" is entirely an invention of Eusebius. He is inserting it in Clement to back up the description of James’ death at the temple that he relates from the writings of Hegessipus.
We are actually dealing with two simultaneous inventions here. Eusebius has invented the character of James the Just, the lead character in the tale and he has invented the historian Hegessipus to tell the tale. The invention of James the Just reflects Eusebius’s desire to rewrite the Acts of the Apostles, while the invention of Hegessipus reflects his desire to rewrite the history of Josephus.
When we analyze the character of James the Just, who exists nowhere before or after Eusebius, we find four clear sources.

The character created by Eusebius in his description of the martyrdom of James is different from the historical figure of James, the First century Jewish leader of the Sons of God cult. It is this Eusebean character who does not exist (live and die) anywhere but in the text of Eusebius. The four sources I refer to are 1) Stephen from Acts, 2) Josephus' James, brother of Jesus Damneus, 3) Josephus' High Priest Ananus, and 4) Eusebius' own earlier work creating a Jerusalem Church.
The book suggests that the actual James cult worshipped a heavenly version of Joshua of Nun (also known as Joshua the Anointed/Jesus Christ). If he was known as the brother of the lord, it was most likely an honorary title and if he was called James the Just, it was probably a designation started by Gnostics in the Second century.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatsoff

This is one of those "anything is possible" arguments. 1-AJa comes from the Nag Hammadi library, the manuscript itself dating from the third or fourth century AD, and the original text probably descending from the late second century. Could Eusebius' have invented the nickname "James the Just" in time for it to have worked its way into the Nag Hammadi sect? Maybe, but, really, what are the odds of that? The same goes for Origen's Against Celsus, the mss. evidence for which is all apparently based on a late-fourth century Vatican ms. Could Eusebius have invented Origen, or forged one of his works?

Anything is possible, but there's no compelling reason to believe it. Likewise, this author, unless his quote has been taken out of context, seems pretty off-the-wall in his scholarship, if it can so be called.

At any rate, even if Eusebius invented it, as this author claims, there are plenty of references *after* his time, which is in contradiction with his next claim. And that's one might huge "if."

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

11-01-2006, 06:23 PM	#2
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Josephus refers to a James, but does not label him James the Just, and it seems that later Christians identified him with James the Brother of the Lord. There are a number of references to James in the NT, but it's not clear if they all reference the same James, or if that James is James the Just. Hegesippus refers to a James, but I think that Raskin assumes that Eusebius invented Hegesippus, and I don't know if that James is called James the Just. "James the Just" was referred to in the Gospel of Thomas, if that is considered history.

11-01-2006, 07:47 PM	#4
hatsoff Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Rockford, IL Posts: 740	The Lord said, "James, do not be concerned for me or for this people. I am he who was within me. Never have I suffered in any way, nor have I been distressed. And this people has done me no harm. But this (people) existed as a type of the archons, and it deserved to be destroyed through them. But [...] the archons, [...] who has [...] but since it [...] angry with [...] The just [...] is his servant. Therefore your name is "James the Just". You see how you will become sober when you see me. And you stopped this prayer. Now since you are a just man of God, you have embraced me and kissed me. Truly I say to you that you have stirred up great anger and wrath against yourself. But (this has happened) so that these others might come to be." --1st Apocalypse of James, c. 180-250 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. --Origin, Against Celsus, Book I, chapter XLVII (c. 203-255) I don't know what that guy was talking about if he thinks the character James, or his nickname "the Just," was an invention of Eusebius. Maybe you could provide a larger quote.

11-02-2006, 07:13 AM	#6
gstafleu Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: London, Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,719	So we have James the Just in Origen's Contra Celsum. Do we have a source for Contra Celsum outside Eusebius? Same question for 1st Apocalypse of James of course. If the answer to either of those is "yes," Jay Raskin will have to make an MM-like claim that Eusebius managed to alter the then extant MSs. Gerard

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.