gstafleu

I was suggesting a spiritual rather than a carnal cage match .
I noticed how for example your disentangling of the vairous Mariae (I quite enjoyed that) has a soupcon of the Eisenmanesque about it .

Gerard

Ben C Smith

I missed where Origen fits into this scenario. Did Eusebius forge Against Celsus?

The infancy gospel of James, while not speaking specifically of a James the just, does have a fellow named James, from Jerusalem, who is clearly portrayed as a Christian leader of some sort. Did Eusebius invent this figure?

Ben.

spin

Gosh, I'm starting to develop a lot of respect for this Eusebius guy. In my books he used to be a church hack, hardly able to understand what some of his sources actually meant, but now I keep hearing that he was some kind of literary genius. I guess it must be correct!

(As to GThom, fragments have been found at Oxyrhynchus, P.Oxy.1 from the 2/3rd c., and P.Oxy.654 & 655 3rd c. according to the palaeography.)


spin

gstafleu

Depends on whom you ask, I think . Actually I don't know what JR theory holds about it, but I'm pretty sure that in MM theory even if Eusebius didn't forge the whole thing then he did interpolate to his heart's content.

BTW, going by what Jay posted a little while ago, I don't think he has a problem with a James in general, just with the specific figure of James the Just as he appears in Eusebius. So the question pretty specifically focuses on the words "James the Just" I think.

Gerard

Ben C Smith

He must have been an incompetent genius. Has so much trouble making up his mind whether the apocalypse of John should be considered canonical or not that he gives it two mutually incompatible classifications, but according to some here he wrote the thing himself.

In this case, Eusebius must have forged the gospel of Thomas, too, with all its gnostic leanings that he himself despised. He did this, no doubt, to put us off his trail as the greatest literary mastermind in history....

Ben.

Gamera

I dont think there's any issue that the Gospel of Thomas is written in a tradition totally outside Eusebius' influence. It is probably earlier, but even if it's not, nobody can persuasively argue it has anything to do with Eusebius. Eusebius wouldn't have been caught dead with a copy of the GoT.

Gamera

And a hyperactive genius, apparently creating forgeries of numerous works just so he could disagree with them.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Gerard,

I tend to go with the interpolation theory. If we find enough evidence to credit him with the interpolation of the TF in "Antiquities," the next question is "Was this a one time thing, or part of a series of interpollations?" Hopefully, the book contains enough evidence to suggest that putting new passages in old text was his general method of working (although as in the case of 1 Clement to the Corinthians, he could write an entire forged workwhen the need arose)

Looking at the main Origen passage about James the Just is really interesting:

Against Celsus Book 1 Chapter XLVII.

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 Antiquities76 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.77 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.78 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.



In the first sentence Celsus brings up the case of John the Baptist in the writings of Josephus because Celsus "represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist".

This doesn't make any sense. Origen is arguing that Celsus' Jew accepted John the Baptist and therefore by quoting a Jew, Josephus, as accepting John the Baptist, Origen is supporting Celsus. It is fairly clear that the first sentence contains an error. It should read the opposite of how it reads now. Instead of saying, that Celsus "represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist," it should read, "Celsus represents the jews as not accepting somehow John as a Baptist." Only in the later case would it make sense to go to a Jewish source.

Besides the botched beggining to the paragraph, we should note that the paragraph completely changes the subject from an argument that Origen is making in the paragraphs before 47 and after 47. His argument before and after that paragraph is that the Jew in Celsus would have accepted the story of the dove descending on Christ during his Baptism without witnesses besides John the Baptist. Paragraph 47 interupts that argument to raise a completely different issue. The new argument appears to be that Celsus has portrayed the Jew as not believe there was a John the Baptist, but that Josephus, a Jew who lived in the First century, does believe there was a John the baptist. But that argument is quickly abandoned for another, completely new argument -- that Josephus was mistaken about James being the cause of the Jew's destruction.

Writers do sometimes interupt their own arguments to present unrelated arguments. However, it may also be regarded as a mark of an interpolation.

We should look at the passage that Origen tells us was in Celsus (1:41):

And it is a Jew who addresses the following language to Him whom we acknowledge to be our Lord Jesus: "When you were bathing," says the Jew, "beside John, you say that what had the appearance of a bird from the air alighted upon you." And then this same Jew of his, continuing his interrogations, asks, "What credible witness beheld this appearance? or who heard a voice from heaven declaring you to be the Son of God? What proof is there of it, save your own assertion, and the statement of another of those individuals who have been punished along with you? "

The writer of 47 says, "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." Since the Jew in Celsus has already granted John to be a witness for Jesus, what is the point of bringing in Josephus to act as a witnessing Jew who supports the credibility of John? There simply is no point. The author of the surrounding paragraphs is responding to what Celsus says, the author of paragraph 47 is not responding at all.

Now notice also in paragraph 41 that it says that John "was another of those individuals who have been punished along with" Jesus. Thus Celsus implies that we can't trust John because he was a Christian and died as a Christian with Jesus. The response that celsus should make is to quote Josephus in chapter 18 to prove that John was a Jew, not a Christian and that he died as a Jew, upholding Jewish laws against the Jewish King Herod. But as soon as Josephus and John are mentioned, the author of paragraph 47 suddenly pulls a switch and substitutes James for John. The subsequent argument that Josephus got it wrong and Jerusalem died on account of Jesus, not James, is totally out of place, having nothing to do with Origen's argument against Celsus.

From this analysis, plus what we know about Eusebius' interpolation of the TF, I would say that Eusebius has done two things. He taken an actual reference that Origen made to Josephus and John, and shifted its position. It now dramatically interupts Origen's argument, whereas, it probably followed it in the original. Secondly, he has changed a paragraph that was about John and somebody else in Josephus to a paragraph about James and Jesus.

When Eusebius made his interpolation into Josephus, I believe he did it because Josephus had spoken about Simon Magus. As I believe I mention in my book, Eusebius changed a passage speaking against Simon Magus into a testimonium for Jesus.

According to the Clementine Homilies Simon Magus was a follower of John. I believe it likely that this information tying Simon and John together reflects some kind of historical reality (although I think it was John who was the follower of Simon). Josephus perhaps mentioned this relationship between John and Simon. Origen possibly also mentioned this relationship between John and Simon while quoting Josephus and refuting the idea that John was a Christian like Jesus. This made it necessary for Eusebius to change the paragraph in Origen. He cleverly put in his story about Josephus claiming that James was the cause of the destruction of Jerusalem.

At some point Eusebius abandoned his idea of interpolating this particular James story into Josephus and instead made the changes he did make.

Please keep in mind that Eusebius was the slave of Pamphilius and Pamphilius catalogued over 600 works of Origen (History, book 6), very likely having transported Origen's library to Caesarea. If he had the originals to work from, making interpolations into them would have been no problem for Eusebius.

To sum up, I believe paragraph 47 is an interpolation by Eusebius into Origen.

Now, in regards to where Eusebius got the idea that Josephus would claim that Jerusalem was destroyed on account of James, we may look to the Second Apocalypse of James:

and he allows me to hear. And play your trumpets, your flutes and your harps of this house. The Lord has taken you captive from the Lord, having closed your ears, that they may not hear the sound of my word. Yet you will be able to pay heed in your hearts, and you will call me 'the Just One.' Therefore, I tell you: Behold, I gave you your house, which you say that God has made - that (house) in which he promised to give you an inheritance through it. This (house) I shall doom to destruction and derision of those who are in ignorance. For behold, those who judge deliberarate [...]."

On that day all the people and the crowd were disturbed, and they showed that they had not been persuaded. And he arose and went forth speaking in this manner. And he entered (again) on that same day and spoke a few hours. And I was with the priests and revealed nothing of the relationship, since all of them were saying with one voice, 'Come, let us stone the Just One.' And they arose, saying, 'Yes, let us kill this man, that he may be taken from our midst. For he will be of no use to us.'

In this Second or Third century Gnostic work, James is killed after declaring that he will doom the Temple. Thus the destruction of the temple is tied to the death of James. Now, it is possible that this work is taking from Josephus the relationship of James and the Temple. It may be that there originally was such a paragraph in Josephus. However, I believe it much more likely that Eusebius is getting his source about James and the temple from the Second Apocalypse of James. He plans on inserting the story in Josephus and that is why he changes Origin's texts to reflect that intended change. For some reason, he abandoned that plan for the more simple one of changing James Damneus to James, the brother of Jesus.

If we assume that the James/Temple text was in Origen before Eusebius, we must explain why Eusebius never comments on the passage. I am unable to come up with one.



Warmly,

Philosopher Jay