Origen 1, Scholars 0

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Origen 1, Scholars 0

Post by Giuseppe »

In order to claim that, you should prove the concrete possibility that a Josephus could write calmly ''called Christ'' (if really that expression, as you say, is not christian a priori) totally ignoring that years later some Christian reader, by pure coincidence (=not probable], would do a ironic point exactly on that nuance of doubt implicit in ''so-called Christ''.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Origen 1, Scholars 0

Post by Peter Kirby »

Giuseppe wrote:In order to claim that, you should prove the concrete possibility that a Josephus could write calmly ''called Christ'' (if really that expression, as you say, is not christian a priori) totally ignoring that years later some Christian reader, by pure coincidence (=not probable], would do a ironic point exactly on that nuance of doubt implicit in ''so-called Christ''.
This is tiresome. I am again misrepresented, it seems.

And the point you are trying to make approaches the incomprehensible, if it is not just so completely invalid that the reasoning seems impenetrable. I am guessing that you have made both very basic errors of interpretation and very basic errors regarding the concept of probability, but it is hard to be completely sure about precisely what errors are being made here with the level of clarity in the exposition.

I am not sure we need to waste any more words over your lack of understanding or mine here.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Origen 1, Scholars 0

Post by MrMacSon »

Peter Kirby wrote: Any idiot knew why Jerusalem was under siege. It was under siege because they were in the middle of a war. And James 'the Just' was 'thrown from a temple' / 'beaten by a club' in the middle of that war, when he was in the habit of 'going into the temple alone', etc.
It looks like a few "James texts' align with this. There might be some interesting ties between them and Josephus?
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Origen 1, Scholars 0

Post by Giuseppe »

excuse me, Peter. I apologize.
The point is that I do not know still why you feel interpolated ''called Christ'', or why you prefer reading ''the brother of Jesus, James by name'' than ''the brother of Jesus, called Christ, James by name''.
Until here, I agree in all with your analysis of Josephus and Origen, etc. Only, it seems to my eyes that for you there is a fifty-fifty between authenticity and interpolation about ''called Christ'', even if you claim before that you are clearly for interpolation. Can you describe better and shortly why do you lean pro interpolation in Ant. 20:200 ? Thank you.

Question: can ''called Christ'' be a interpolation even if it is seen as neutral by his Christian author?

My answer: Yes, only under condition for example that ''called Christ'' was a accidental interpolation.
But IF the interpolation was deliberate by a Christian hand, THEN ''called Christ'' makes an ironic point with his nuance of doubt, and we would translate better it as ''so-called Christ''.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Origen 1, Scholars 0

Post by Peter Kirby »

Giuseppe wrote:excuse me, Peter. I apologize.
The point is that I do not know still why you feel interpolated ''called Christ'', or why you prefer reading ''the brother of Jesus, James by name'' than ''the brother of Jesus, called Christ, James by name''.
Until here, I agree in all with your analysis of Josephus and Origen, etc. Only, it seems to my eyes that for you there is a fifty-fifty between authenticity and interpolation about ''called Christ'', even if you claim before that you are clearly for interpolation. Can you describe better and shortly why do you lean pro interpolation in Ant. 20:200 ? Thank you.
http://earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html
Doherty mentions the anomalous character of the reference to "Jesus who is called Christ" in Josephus:
In the Antiquities 20 reference we actually have a double identification: one for James, that he was Jesus' brother, the second for Jesus, that he was the one called the Christ. But would Josephus have been likely to offer this identification for Jesus? First of all, it implies that the historian had explained just what "the Christ" was at some previous point. (His readership was a Greco-Roman one, who would not be expected to have much familiarity with the idea.) The fact is, he has not, and certainly not in the Antiquities 18 passage, where the declaration "He was the Messiah" is rejected as a later and obvious Christian insertion.
Moreover, the entire Jewish tradition of messianic expectation is a subject Josephus seems to avoid, for he nowhere else describes it, not even in connection with the rebellious groups and agitators in the period prior to the Jewish War. (His one clear reference to the messianic "oracles" of the Jews, the object of whom he claims was Vespasian [Jewish War 6.5.4], is in a different book, and is dealt with in very cursory fasion.) This silence and apparent reluctance would seem to preclude the likelihood that Josephus would introduce the subject at all, especially as a simple aside, in connection with Jesus. (p. 218)

Doherty suggests that a more likely reference would identify Jesus by his crucifixion under Pilate. Another possibility is that Josephus would not refer to Jesus at all but rather make use of a more traditional patrilineal reference.

Concerning the reference to Jesus as the one called Christ, Steve Mason explains that Josephus would not have assumed his readership to understand the term:

First, the word "Christ" (Greek christos) would have special meaning only for a Jewish audience. In Greek it means simply "wetted" or "anointed." Within the Jewish world, this was an extremely significant term because anointing was the means by which the kings and high priests of Israel had been installed. The pouring of oil over their heads represented their assumption of God-given authority (Exod 29:9; 1 Sam 10:1). The same Hebrew word for "anointed" was mashiach, which we know usually as the noun Messiah, "the anointed [one]." Although used in the OT of reigning kings and high priests, many Jews of Jesus' day looked forward to an end-time prophet, priest, king, or someone else who would be duly anointed.
But for someone who did not know the Jewish tradition, the adjective "wetted" would sound most peculiar. Why would Josephus say that this man Jesus was "the Wetted"? We can see the puzzlement of Greek-speaking readers over this term in their descriptions of Christianity: Jesus' name is sometimes altered to "Chrestus" (Suetonius, Claudius 25.4), a common slave name that would amke better sense, and the Christians are sometimes called "Chrestians."

Since Josephus is usually sensitive to his audience and pauses to explain unfamiliar terms or aspects of Jewish life, it is very strange that he would make the bald assertion, without explanation, that Jesus was "Christ."

The fact that the term "Christ" appears only in Ant. 18.3.3 and here in 20.9.1 seems to do little to suggest the authenticity of the phrase. It has been often observed that Josephus avoided the subject of messianic expectation. Crossan states:

The more important point, however, is that neither there nor anywhere else does Josephus talk about messianic claimants. He makes no attempt to explain the Jewish traditions of popular kingship that might make a brigand chief or a rural outlaw think not just of rural rebellion but of regal rule. The reason is, of course, quite clear and was seen already. For Josephus, Jewish apocalyptic and messianic promises were fulfilled in Vespasian. It is hardly likely, that Josephus would explain too clearly or underline too sharply the existence of alternative messianic fulfillments before Vespasian, especially from the Jewish lower classes. (The Historical Jesus, p. 199)
Even in the passage where Josephus seems to describe Vespasian as the fulfillment of the messianic oracles, Josephus does not make use of the term "Christ."

Steven Carr supplies a reason for doubting the authenticity of the reference to Jesus:
How does Josephus refer back to people he has previously mentioned in those days when books had no indexes? Here he is going back two books, so readers will need more than a casual reference.
Judas of Galilee was first mentioned in 'Wars of the Jews' Book 2 Section 118 'Under his administration, it was that a certain Galilean , whose name was Judas , prevailed with his countrymen to revolt ; and said they were cowards if they would endure to pay a tax to the Romans , and would, after God , submit to mortal men as their lords.'

Josephus refers to him again in Book 2 Section 433 as follows '"In the meantime one Manahem, the son of Judas , that was called the Galilean (who was a very cunning sophister, and had formerly reproached the Jews under Quirinius , that after God they were subject to the Romans )" - considerable detail is included.

In Wars, Book 7 Section 533 we read about Judas again - "... Eleazar, a potent man, and the commander of these Sicarii, that had seized upon it. He was a descendant from that Judas who had persuaded abundance of the Jews , as we have formerly related , not to submit to the taxation when Quirinius was sent into Judea to make one; ...' . So a change of book causes Josephus to say 'as formerly related'.

Judas was also in Antiquities 18 'Yet was there one Judas , a Gaulonite, of a city whose name was Gamala, who, taking with him Sadduc, a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to a revolt , who both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty'.

Josephus referred back to Judas in Antiquities 20 'the sons of Judas of Galilee were now slain; I mean that Judas who caused the people to revolt, when Quirinius came to take an account of the estates of the Jews, as we have shown in a foregoing book .'

So Josephus usually put in detail and when he referred back from Ant. 20 to Ant. 18, he reminded the reader that it was in a different book. None of these factors apply to Josephus's reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20. A Christian interpolator would naturally need not need to supply such detailed back-references. His readers would know exactly who Jesus called the Christ was.

This kind of consideration weighs especially against those who have removed the reference to "Christ" from the passage on Jesus. Those who see the 20.9.1 reference as being explained earlier in 18.3.3 should, at a minimum, consider the likelihood that the original Testimonium would likely have to contain the term "Christ" (the "credabatur esse Christus" type of reference), which would make some sense out of the reference in the later book as well as the reference to Christians being named after him. It presumes that the reference in 20.9.1 was intended to be a cross-reference to an earlier place. Even with this improvement to the reconstruction of a Testimonium, this argument has some value, given the parallels drawn to the way Josephus refers back to another book in other cases. This argument does not apply to those who see the 20.9.1 reference as the sole authentic mention of Jesus, but the next one does.

Finally, it has been argued the identification of James by way of mentioning Jesus presupposes that Josephus had previously mentioned Jesus, while there are several arguments that Josephus did not write any part of the famous Testimonium. This argument is important if not singularly decisive. It must be said, however, that Josephus may not have intended this identification to serve as a reference to an earlier passage. The general plausibility of such an identification without any earlier reference is established from the similar example in Wars of the Jews 2.247 (see above). However, it is questionable to attempt to compare Christ to Pallas in the historical context of a first century Roman audience. Pallas, with his secular fame in Roman society, needed no explanation. Josephus, in his desire to provide the historical backdrop of Judea prior to the revolt, would have provided an explanation in the appropriate place for anybody mentioned in his narrative "who is called Christ" who is significant enough to serve as a well-understood identifier. If this Jesus who is called Christ is assumed to be a name well-known to his audience, it would be remiss for Josephus in his role as a historian to decide to pass over his life in silence, given that Jesus was not, like Pallas, a politician in Rome who would be unconnected to his narrative but instead a Jewish leader in Judea under Tiberius when Pilate was prefect who would find a place in the Jewish Antiquities of Josephus. (Even if it were a deliberate purpose of Josephus to omit mention of Christians or Jesus that explains the absence of an earlier passage, then that same purpose makes such a reference in the 20th book of the Jewish Antiquities counter-productive to his aims.) Whether we want to say that Jesus were not well-known or that he were, in either case, it is more likely that Josephus would have given an earlier account of Jesus, given the later reference, than that he would not.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Origen 1, Scholars 0

Post by Giuseppe »

I understand. Thank you.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Origen 1, Scholars 0

Post by Peter Kirby »

Giuseppe wrote:I understand. Thank you.
No worries.

I also think I understand you a bit better now--and yes, if it is as you say, and it is a deliberate interpolation (esp. if by Origen, although I don't think so), then we could read the author as having formulated it "skeptically" as words for Josephus (i.e., "the so-called"), in parallel to other constructions (like, as you note, for Pilate).
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Origen 1, Scholars 0

Post by Peter Kirby »

MrMacSon wrote:
Peter Kirby wrote: Any idiot knew why Jerusalem was under siege. It was under siege because they were in the middle of a war. And James 'the Just' was 'thrown from a temple' / 'beaten by a club' in the middle of that war, when he was in the habit of 'going into the temple alone', etc.
It looks like a few "James texts' align with this. There might be some interesting ties between them and Josephus?
Offhand, I do believe that Josephus talks about stuff happening in the temple during the war. I'd have to look it up. I don't think he mentions "our" James the Just.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Origen 1, Scholars 0

Post by andrewcriddle »

This old thread http://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/sho ... 70f-2.html is possibly of interest.

Andrew Criddle
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Origen 1, Scholars 0

Post by Peter Kirby »

andrewcriddle wrote:This old thread http://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/sho ... 70f-2.html is possibly of interest.

Andrew Criddle
Thanks, Andrew. Apparently Ben C. Smith and S. C. Carlson found it interesting also. You also mention Steve Mason in that thread, who is one of the principal scholars on Josephus (along with Louis Feldman) in recent memory.
Andrew Criddle wrote:There are IMO three possible explanations for the major differences between this and our text of Josephus

1/ The two are independent Origen's claim is not derived from the text of Josephus and our current text of Josephus is in no way based on what Origen says. This seems possible but unlikely, the two passages agree in such things as calling James the brother of Jesus called Christ.

2/ Origen's claim is a Christian distortion of Josephus but based on something actually in Josephus' text, most simply on our present text of Josephus. IMO this is the most likely.

3/ Our present text of Josephus has been affected by Origen's claim. IMO this is the least likely option. It requires Origen's claim to be rewritten into something less related to Christian concerns.
Andrew Criddle wrote:
Doug Shaver wrote:What passage, in our present text of Josephus, do you think Christians distorted into a claim that Jerusalem fell because the Jews killed James?
The passage about James begins a section about behaviour against Jewish Law by leading Jewish groups and individuals which ends
Now all this was contrary to the laws of our country, which, whenever they have been transgressed, we have never been able to avoid the punishment of such transgressions.
At face value the improper condemnation of James is, as far as Josephus is concerned, a relatively minor element in this list. (The transgression of regulations concerning the Levites seems if anything more important) However an early Christian might interpret things differently.
Ben C. Smith wrote:I would add that Josephus himself uses language that would perhaps seem, to a Christian, to tie the punishment of Ananus (for his unlawful actions against James and certain others) with the punishment of the country as a whole:
But as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

....

Now all this was contrary to the laws of our country, which, whenever they have been transgressed, we have never been able to avoid the punishment of such transgressions.
S. C. Carlson wrote:
Andrew Criddle wrote:At face value the improper condemnation of James is, as far as Josephus is concerned, a relatively minor element in this list. (The transgression of regulations concerning the Levites seems if anything more important) However an early Christian might interpret things differently.
This is a fascinating observation. Has it been written up anywhere else?
Andrew Criddle wrote:Steve Mason says something similar in "Josephus and the New Testament" p 14 of the 1st edition.
This [Origen's claim] is a considerable distortion.... He [Josephus] does express horror at the unlawful treatment of James but does not isolate this episode as a reason for the destruction. Rather it is one of a number of infractions, including the bestowal of unprecedented privileges on the Levites (!) that he lists as causes of the later punishment.
Andrew Criddle
S. C. Carlson wrote:OK, it's p. 15 in the second edition. It's close, but what really made your observation fascinating is the tie-in to AJ 20.218 (πάντα δ’ ἦν ἐναντία ταῦτα τοῖς πατρίοις νόμοις, ὧν παραβαθέντων οὐκ ἐνῆν μὴ οὐχὶ δίκας ὑποσχεῖν).
Andrew Criddle wrote:I've been reading in context the passage in Jewish War about the death of Ananus leading to the fall of Jerusalem and I don't think Josephus means to say that God caused or permitted the fall of Jerusalem because of his righteous anger over the murder of Ananus.

(Obviously it is easier to read Josephus that way than to read him as saying that the cause was God's righteous anger over the death of James but I don't think it is what Josephus means.)

The death of Ananus (and his colleague Jesus) causes the fall of Jerusalem through secular causation by leaving the revolt in the hands of incompetent bloodthirsty fanatics. In fact in book 4.323 Josephus claims not that the anger of God against Jerusalem was brought about by the nurder of Ananus but that the anger of God against Jerusalem brought about the death of Ananus with its dreadful consequences.

In general in BJ Josephus relates the anger of God against Jerusalem to atrocities blasphemies religious irregularities associated directly with the temple. Although the text of 4.314-318 is not unambiguous Ananus seems to have been murdered outside the temple and it might not qualify as a cause of God's anger (as distinct from a result.)
This suggests that we should expand the quotation of Josephus even more, for the context of book 20 that Origen would have before him:
5. But when Albinus heard that Gessius Florus was coming to succeed him, he was desirous to appear to do somewhat that might be grateful to the people of Jerusalem; so he brought out all those prisoners who seemed to him to be most plainly worthy of death, and ordered them to be put to death accordingly. But as to those who had been put into prison on some trifling occasions, he took money of them, and dismissed them; by which means the prisons were indeed emptied, but the country was filled with robbers.

6. Now as many of the Levites, (26) which is a tribe of ours, as were singers of hymns, persuaded the king to assemble a sanhedrim, and to give them leave to wear linen garments, as well as the priests for they said that this would be a work worthy the times of his government, that he might have a memorial of such a novelty, as being his doing. Nor did they fail of obtaining their desire; for the king, with the suffrages of those that came into the sanhedrim, granted the singers of hymns this privilege, that they might lay aside their former garments, and wear such a linen one as they desired; and as a part of this tribe ministered in the temple, he also permitted them to learn those hymns as they had besought him for. Now all this was contrary to the laws of our country, which, whenever they have been transgressed, we have never been able to avoid the punishment of such transgressions.
I see that you also had previously arrived at the same observations as I did recently on Ant. 18.112:

http://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/sho ... 23b-2.html

http://peterkirby.com/a-conjectural-cor ... ephus.html
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Post Reply