spin

In no sense. I read what Paul says. You can't be accused of that.

Then you persist in staying off topic...
Ummm, translate?

Perhaps it might dawn on you the significance of cutting and pasting in this regard. He coins the phrase "James the brother of Jesus called christ" which he reuses twice.

Don't be so quick to cut and run. Note how it was inserted to put Jesus before the subject of the discourse. Obviously a christian insertion and not simply to clarify which James it was otherwise it would have been "James the brother of Jesus called christ".

It was probably in an anthology of quotations and Origen was not using Josephus directly at all. The anthology referred to James, just as it referred to John the Baptist.

Of course "brother of Jesus called christ" is an interpolation in AJ 20 and it would do you good to read my first contribution to that thread. However, it's irrelevant to the topic of historicity from the earliest materials.

Your response is irrelevant, as is so frequent. Josephus knows much about many people the Romans knew little to nothing about and was prepared to tell them about those people.

Ending by still avoiding the basic topic and hiding behind a ridiculous interpretation of Josephus. When you stop playing parlor preacher let us all know.

Now while you muddle around with your defense of the apparent christian interpolation defining James, you might like to show how you would get back before the time of Paul's revealed Jesus to a real Jesus, when neither Paul nor his proselytes needed a real Jesus.


spin

Amaleq13

[QUOTE=spin;4991325]He claims to have harassed messianic groups in Judea, tais ekklhssiais ths ioudaias tais en xristw.

"Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia; And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ: But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed." (Gal 1:21-23,KJV)

Individual collections of believers, perhaps, but clearly belonging to the same specific messianic group and not in Judea.

Must be the remembering that is the problem.

:angel:

spin

Of course ioudaia is geographical and that's given as where the messianic groups were. Verse 21 says where Paul went. Verses 22-23 are talking about Judea. It follows on from the fact that he saw no-one other than Cephas and James, but the Judean groups heard and glorified god.

Ever the pot looking for a kettle. :wave:


spin

Lógos Sokratikós

I think it's possible that both an HJ did exist and that he didn't. It's not that important for me, since (a) in the west people generally don't wonder or debate if Siddharta Gautama (Buddha) existed or not, so it's all a religions tug-o-war, and (b) I've never heard of any similar heated debate about Socrates, especially because the Socrates people generally regard is to a certain length Plato's "version", so... Amici Plato, Iesus et Socrates, sed magis amica veritas!

jjramsey

Which doesn't deal with the problem that in the absence of the supposed interpolation, the paragraph in question doesn't stand out as related to what Origen wrote, so there isn't much motive to "fix" the passage to making it closer to what Origen described.

spin

I'm impressed at just how tenaciously you hang on to this desperate position of yours. You know Origen certainly wasn't quoting from the passage that interests you so much. There is nothing in it about Josephus thinking that James's death brought about the destruction of Jerusalem. You know that Origen first wrote his comment about Josephus in his commentary on Matthew where we find the phrase "Jesus called christ", which makes up three of the four words that have you in thrall. The fourth word "brother" is nothing special in itself and easily fits a descriptive phrase about James being the brother of Jesus and from Matthew that Jesus was called christ, hence an easy trajectory for "James, the brother of Jesus called christ". Origen goes even further calling him "James the just", which also isn't in Josephus. So, you shape your argument to ignore anything that Origen says about Josephus that is not in Josephus now. You show no means of saying from Origen what Origen got from the Josephus passage. Yet you know by reductionism that "the brother of Jesus called christ" must have come from Josephus, despite the artificiality of the phrase in its current location in Josephus, ie that Jesus and a qualification of Jesus come before the subject of the passage.

The comment that Origen wrote, if we look at the version you will tend to cite from Contra Celsus, I have analysed to show what he wrote here for example and the rest of the thread. You've offered not a skerrick of anything new. Please read it and then come back with some new criticism. And if you must pursue the subject open a thread. It has nothing to do with this and you have let fall any pretense of talking to the subject of this thread.


spin

Amaleq13

But not where Paul claims to have "harrassed" anyone and not just some "messianic groups".

jjramsey

Which, as I pointed out, makes it less likely for a scribe to associate the passage with Origen and interpolate accordingly.

And this would have a lot more force if Origin used the phrase "Jesus called christ" when discussing the passage in Matthew that contained it, rather that when discussing a passage in Matthew several chapters away.

As had been pointed out by Ben C Smith, your original claim on this matter, that "the Jewish familial relationship always has some grammatical antecedent, either a) name or b) description" was demonstrably false, and your amendation, that the antecedent be someone that Josephus mentioned prior, rather than a grammatical antecedent, was ad hoc.

No kidding. I wasn't trying to be new, but was deliberately alluding to an old bad argument of yours--which is what started this whole tangent.

I'd say that the old threads on the matter are enough to show the weaknesses in your position.

spin

When it's already been signaled by Origen? It's enough that interest has been stirred for someone to add a marginal comment, which a later scribe included.

The suggestion is sufficient.

Of course you didn't check the situation out. That's obvious by your partisan acceptance.

You've certainly said nothing new -- that's true. You've certainly been deliberate. You've certainly been off-topic. You've certainly shown no new insight. And you've certainly wasted both our time, achieving nothing.

And you've certainly shown no judgment on the issue you were so tangential about. It's been entertaining. :wave:


spin

spin

Where does the text say Paul harassed people, if not Judea when it says the "assemblies of Judea"?

How do you understand tais ekklhsiais ths ioudaias tais en xristw -- if that's what we're alluding to?

Isn't the fact that the assemblies had only heard the important issue? that the one-time bad guy is now apparently one of them?

Isn't Paul's discourse built on the separation: that it wasn't until after a secret visit to Jerusalem and the rumor of his change and his self-imposed "exile" in the diaspora that finally he presented himself publicly in Jerusalem?

Which groups do you have in mind?


spin