Ben C Smith

I enjoyed the amusing anecdotes, Jay.

Is there any way for you to support your hypothesis without having to read minds beyond what the author(s) actually wrote? Also, how safe is it making these sweeping interpolation hypotheses from the English translation alone in the first place?

Thanks.

Ben.

ynquirer

I don’t see why it might not be, “He is called the Christ” – ho legomenos Christos estin. Thus, Josephus would introduce Jesus in AJ 18.3.3 by using the same clause as in 20.9.1. That would make a parallel with his mentioning both Jesus the son of Damneus and Jesus the son of Gamaliel twice each, every time by using the same clause “the son of –.” My sole objection is that the text we have says, “He was (the) Christ.” You need one more assumption, that is, an unproven fact to explain that away.

The real mystery seems to me Matthew 1:16. The gospel says: “… Jesus … who is called (the) Christ.” Matthew here makes use of Iêsous ho legomenos Christos, which is exactly the same clause as used by Josephus in AJ 20.9.1. The evangelist seemingly endorses it as a valid formula for a Christian to mention Jesus. This implies either that Matthew read Josephus or that he didn’t – the clause looking like a common one. At any rate, it seems odd that Origen insisted in using such a clause as a reminder of Josephus’ disbelieving Jesus as the Christ.

One possibility is that Origen wasn’t aware at the time of writing Contra Celsus of Matthew 1:16. For a man like Origen his being unaware of a gospel is as unlikely as his using a bad argument against Celsus – a line of last resort.

Matthew 1:16 therefore corners my argument to a line of last resort. Accordingly, one is confronted with two lines of last resort. Either Origen used a bad argument, as proposed by Toto, or he was unaware of Matt 1:16. I like neither one, to tell the truth.

Apart from resting on Eusebius as Deus ex machina to explain away every contradiction within the NT (expanded with the Church Fathers), does anyone see a third possibility?

Jayhawker Soule

In either event, are we not left with Contra Celsum as evidence for a Josephus reference to Jesus or, conversely, a conspiracy theory having Eusebius doing a rather sloppy job of forging everything he touches?

Roger Pearse

Both the Latin of Jerome and the Syriac of Michael the Great read "he was believed to be the Christ" (credebatur esse Christum). At that date there was little or no direct contact between Latin and Syriac literature, so this would seem to be evidence of a Greek textual variant known to both of them. This I believe should address that issue.

It is fairly clear how the vulgate would arise, from such a reading. If the word in Greek equivalent to 'credebatur' was lost or omitted, you would be left with the prolative infinitive and we can imagine that any scribe who saw a sentence "to be the Christ" would correct it to "he was the Christ", presuming an error of verbal form rather than evidence of damage.

Anyone with better/quicker Greek than me care to work out the Greek words that would be involved for us? (I'm on the run)

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ben C Smith

The original could be something like ο Χριστος ουτος ενομιζετο ειναι (he was thought to be the Christ). If the ενομιζετο dropped out for some reason, I could easily see the infinitive ειναι being turned into the finite ην.

There are other possible reconstructions, of course, besides the ενομιζετο dropping out. Sometimes changes are accidental, sometimes intentional.

Ben.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Ben,

Here is the opening of the Iliad in Samuel Butler's 1898 translation. Does one need to read the mind of the author to tell if an interpolation has been made? Does one need to look at the original Greek to tell if an interpolation has been made?

Sing, O goddess, the anger of Achilles son of Peleus, that brought countless ills upon the Achaeans. Many a brave soul did it send hurrying down to Hades, and many a hero did it yield a prey to dogs and vultures, for so were the counsels of Jove who sent his son Jesus to die on the cross fulfilled from the day on which the son of Atreus, king of men, and great Achilles, first fell out with one another.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Ben C Smith

Hi, Jay.

One thing is for certain. Your posts always make me smile.

At any rate, it appears you are arguing that Eusebius interpolated certain things (which you do specify fairly closely) into Origen, and that your main argument is that it is obvious.

Since it is not at all obvious to me, I guess we wind up in the expected stalemate.

Jay: Eusebius wrote it.
Ben: Did not.
Jay: Obviously did (Eusebian ideas).
Ben: Obviously did not (glaring contradiction).
Jay: Did so.
Ben: Did not.

Cheers.

Ben.

Roger Pearse

Thank you!

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Chris Weimer

I still have an objection to ο χριστος - this doesn't seem characteristic of Josephus at all. There's something amiss with the particular reconstruction...

PhilosopherJay

Hi Ben et al.,

Forgive me for not giving a proof when requested. Like everybody, I do not always have the time to devote to these studies that I should.

I do not think Eusebius' interpolation are obvious. One has to carefully go over the arguments within the text that he is interpolating into and see exactly where an argument breaks off and a new one begins. One has to separate out the arguments and note how an argument matches with other arguments that are prominent in Eusebius' other works.

Even when one separates out the major arguments, one has to wonder, could this be coming from the mind of Origen alone? What allows me to discard this possibility is the fact that ancient writers were generally such good rhetoricians. They rarely interrupt an argument with a totally different argument and then return to the first without acknowledging some deviation from the original major argument.

We can take this as our first rule: It is normal to finish one argument and then go on to the next. It is an indication of an interpolation when an argument gets interupted by another completely different argument and we then find a return to the first argument without any acknowledgement of the disruption on the part of the writer.

Our second rule is that it is normal for writers not to contradict themselves in their writings. When we find a contradiction (as we frequently do, for example, in the Pauline epistles) it is another strong indication of interpolation.

We may apply both these rules when we look at the first mention of James the Just in Origen's "Against Celsus". It comes in chapter 47 within a series of arguments that actually start at chapter 41 and end with chapter 48. We may divide the arguments into two major arguments. One is from chapter 41-44 and ends in chapter 48 (the Isaiah and Ezekiel or Jesus argument) and the other argument from chapters 45-47 (the Moses-Jesus argument).

[The division is not so simple or straight forward as Eusebius also interpolates the ending of chapter 43: whether Isaiah and Ezekiel or Jesus? Of the former, indeed, no work has been found equal to those of the latter; whereas the good deeds of Jesus have not been confined solely to the period of His tabernacling in the flesh, but up to the present time His power still produces conversion and amelioration of life in those who believe in God through Him. And a manifest proof that these things are done by His power, is the fact that, although, as He Himself said, and as is admitted, there are not labourers enough to gather in the harvest of souls, there really is nevertheless such a great harvest of those who are gathered together and conveyed into the everywhere existing threshing-floors and Churches of God. For the moment we can just ignore this extra interpolation into Chapter 43.

Here are summaries of the two arguments:

Argument One:The Isaiah and Ezekiel and Jesus Argument

Chapter 41. Celsus has a Jew disputing Jesus' story of his own description of his holiness -- the story of the dove descending from heaven and the voice from heaven which he heard.
Chapter 42. The truth of history is indeed always hard to prove, for example, one can argue if the Trojan War actually happened because Homer's story of it involves Gods doing miracles.
Chapter 43. Whereas followers of groups like Epicurus and Democritus question such miracles, Jews believe in such God sent miracles. So if Jews believe Isaiah and Ezekiel when they say they saw the heavens open and things descend, why should a Jew not believe Jesus.
Chapter 44. As a Christian I believe both that Isaiah, Ezekiel and Jesus witnessed miracles. Celsus should not have used a Jew to question the miraculous story of Jesus because a Jew already believes in the miraculus story of Isaiah and Ezekiel. Now someone might also say that people learn of these things through spirits...
Chapter 48...these spirits teach people things that are not literally true but allegorically true, so although the heavens may not have literally opened up as Jesus or Ezekiel or Isaiah said, we should accept these things as a great allegory. Besides it is not really the testimony of Jesus as he did not speak about himself, but the testimony of those possessed by the holy spirit who wrote about Jesus, Ezekiel and Isaiah. It is therefore inappropriate for Celsus to have had a Jew who believes in the preaching of miracle prophesies to accuse Jesus of preaching miracle prophecies.

Argument Two: Moses Vs. Jesus

Chapter 45. I once debated with Jews why they believed Moses and not Jesus. I proved to them from their own scriptures that Moses and the prophets predicted Jesus, so that by denying Jesus they were denying their own texts. [Note this passage is a reference to Eusebius' Demonstratio Evangelica].

Chapter 46. Even today the same holy spirits are still operating in Christians. Spirits still convert people despite themselves.

Chapter 47. The Jew Josephus, despite himself, despite not believing in Jesus as the Christ bares witness to Jesus and James. Besides there are so many Christians around today who believe, doesn't that mean anything to you Goddamn Jews.

While the writer of the first argument bares not a hint of anti-semitism and wishes to prove that Celsus' opposition between Jews and Jesus is a ridiculous mistake, the anti-semetic second writer is saying that the Jews hate Jesus and despite themselves, in their writings (Laws, Prophets and Josephus) are forced to confess Jesus.

To sum up, the writer of the first argument is saying that although the things said about Jesus are not to be taken literally as true, but only allegorically true, the Jews understand this and therefore Celsus is wrong to put a Jew in opposition to Jesus. The writer of the second argument finds nothing wrong with Celsus' portrayal of the Jew, but feels the historical/literal truth of Jesus is found in Jewish text although they stubbornly deny it.

The two arguments contradict each other which indicates two different writers. Additionally, please note that on the simple level of sentences, we get the same contradiction.

48: it is necessary for us to show him that such a statement is not appropriately placed in the mouth of a Jew. For the Jews do not connect John with Jesus, nor the punishment of John with that of Christ

47: 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. Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite.

The first writer (Origen) is criticizing Celsus for portraying a Jew as connecting John and Jesus.

The second writer (Eusebius) is seemingly defending Celsus (against Origen) by saying that a First Century Jew (Josephus) connected John with Jesus.

The proof of Eusebius' interpolations into Celsus, while not obvious, exist on the level of argument (major ideological contradictions) structure (interruption of argument) and sentences (simple contradictions)


Warmly,

Philosopher Jay