Origen 1, Scholars 0

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: Origen 1, Scholars 0

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

@GakuseiDon
I don't see the need to think Origen misremembered the passage, if it might be him reading what "really happened" from Josephus's description.
It's not a question of need. The urgent interest in Origen's summary of Josephus's account is to authenticate, if possible, that Josephus wrote that defendant James's brother was Jesus "called Christ." Authentication by Origen is only possible under an assumption of Origen's good faith.

Thus, the interesting assumption for potential authentication is that Origen has read this material and is accurately reporting on what he read so far as he knows. How could Origen possibly have insisted in good faith that Josephus wrote a lot about James and attributed the sack of Jerusalem to James's persecution?

(1) Maybe Origen had a copy of the Antiquities that said so. Maybe, but all our received manuscripts show Josephus saying something very different and at generous length about why God foresook his Temple. Meanwhile, our Josephus has little to say about James except to mention his brother and that he lost his case. This alternative is only sparingly discussable.

(2) Maybe Origen was working from memory, and his memory let him down. This could be like when Jerome's memory failed him while discussing Josephus's version of the "Temple voices" incident (mentioned in the blog pieces already posted) or even more like when Bart Ehrman's memory led him to rewrite a chunk of the Pliny-Trajan correspondence.

Alternative (2) is both interesting and discussable. That's the one I pursued. As always under uncertainty, other scenarios are possible.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2294
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Origen 1, Scholars 0

Post by GakuseiDon »

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Sat Jul 24, 2021 3:21 amThus, the interesting assumption for potential authentication is that Origen has read this material and is accurately reporting on what he read so far as he knows. How could Origen possibly have insisted in good faith that Josephus wrote a lot about James and attributed the sack of Jerusalem to James's persecution?
Origen never wrote that "Josephus wrote a lot about James". This is an example perhaps of what I mean: you are reading Origen and giving what you think he really means. You aren't misremembering him nor confusing his writings with someone else's.

Another example is in the same passage that refers to James: Origen Contra Celsum 1.47:

Now he [Josephus] himself, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking 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 Christ to death, who was a prophet, nevertheless says, being albeit 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.

Where does Origen get that Josephus didn't believe in Jesus as the Christ? Josephus doesn't state that explicitly. Origen infers that from Josephus's writings. I don't think anyone argues that Origen is confusing Josephus with Hegesippus, or that he is misremembering Josephus on that account. There is no need. The assumption that Origen derives it from what Josephus didn't say about Christ is reasonable.
Paul the Uncertain wrote: Sat Jul 24, 2021 3:21 am(2) Maybe Origen was working from memory, and his memory let him down. This could be like when Jerome's memory failed him while discussing Josephus's version of the "Temple voices" incident (mentioned in the blog pieces already posted) or even more like when Bart Ehrman's memory led him to rewrite a chunk of the Pliny-Trajan correspondence.

Alternative (2) is both interesting and discussable. That's the one I pursued. As always under uncertainty, other scenarios are possible.
True enough.
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: Origen 1, Scholars 0

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

Origen never wrote that "Josephus wrote a lot about James".
How true. What Origen wrote, translated verbatim, has already been presented in this thread, without objection. A lot was how I chose to refer to the record of the thread on point.

I don't see any problem with that. I do see a problem with Jerome. I see a problem with Ehrman, too, and I see a similar problem in Origen. You don't see the Origen that way? OK.
The assumption that Origen derives it from what Josephus didn't say about Christ is reasonable.
In part, but also in considerable part because Josephus in other works has quite a bit (I dasn't utter "a lot" again) to say about himself, with special emphasis on his lifelong relationship to Judaism and with fellow Jews. Nowhere in that do we find a confession of his devotion to Christ, nor mention of even a brief affiliation with any Christian body, nor with individual Christians.

Overall

I'm unsure where you and I disagree. I don't find "called Christ" to be especially credible as the words of Josephus. If Origen was simply sharing his personal spin about Jerusalem in the 60's, and we knew that to be true, then that would settle the question of using Origen to authenticate Josephus's use of the phrase.

The hitch is that we don't know that. It is seriously possible nevertheless. The more distinct, seriously possible ways that Origen might be unreliable, the less useful is his report for authentication. So, you've got one way, Peter's got one, Richard Carrier's got one, and even I've got one. If I left somebody out, sorry about that, but come on in, the more the merrier.

Bottom line: Origen is sparingly reliable as an authentication of the phrase. On that we seem to agree.
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2294
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Origen 1, Scholars 0

Post by GakuseiDon »

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Sat Jul 24, 2021 7:29 am
Origen never wrote that "Josephus wrote a lot about James".
How true. What Origen wrote, translated verbatim, has already been presented in this thread, without objection. A lot was how I chose to refer to the record of the thread on point.
My point is that this is an example of what I'm claiming Origen might have done. You wrote, "How could Origen possibly have insisted in good faith that Josephus wrote a lot about James..." A reader reading this at some point in the far future might expect to find an explicit comment in Origen that "Josephus wrote a lot about James", or something similar. But Origen never wrote anything similar to that IIUC. Still, as an interpretation of how Origen used Josephus we understand what you mean.

It seems we can read Origen as an unreliable interpreter of early writings when we want to, but that we insist on him being a dispassionate news reporter of facts at other times. Similarly with Eusebius, etc.
Paul the Uncertain wrote: Sat Jul 24, 2021 7:29 amBottom line: Origen is sparingly reliable as an authentication of the phrase. On that we seem to agree.
I think we do. I'll note that my points above aren't related to the authenticity of "James, the brother of Jesus called Christ" comment.
Post Reply