Origen 1, Scholars 0

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: Origen 1, Scholars 0

Post by perseusomega9 »

Did Peter just find the historical Jesus?
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.

Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.
-Giuseppe
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Origen 1, Scholars 0

Post by Giuseppe »

Peter Kirby wrote:The thesis, then, is that Origen read these things into Josephus with the basic elements of Christian tradition already in his head and finding the elements that we find incongruous (the righteousness of James, the consequence of the fate of Jerusalem as punishment for his death) into the things Josephus actually says (the people were most equitable were offended at the actions of the bold tempered Ananus, the events that followed as a consequence, chiefly that An an us lost his grip on power directly, worsened the situation irrevocably).
Origen says that Josephus is not Christian because he doesn't identify the original ''brother of Jesus, James by name'' as ''brother of Jesus CALLED CHRIST, James by name'', even if Josephus himself ''did identify'' - according to Origen's reading & 'logic' - the causal link ''death of James ---> Fall of Jerusalem''.

Therefore maybe the accidental interpolation of ''CALLED CHRIST'' was not so ''accidental'' (à la Carrier view). It was made from someone in order to make Josephus a Christian (the only 'problem' for Origen) and to make more explicit the presumed 'causal' link.

Who was that someone? It's possible he was the same Eusebius, so to remove what Origen didn't like (the fact that Josephus wasn't Christian) ?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Origen 1, Scholars 0

Post by Giuseppe »

No. The only possible explanation is that the interpolation ''called Christ'' occurred before Origen or with Origen, at this point.

But I cannot prove this.

At same time, How does Peter to remove at all the concrete possibility that ''James'' was son of Damneus?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Origen 1, Scholars 0

Post by Giuseppe »

Peter wrote:

I clearly do not read 'called Christ' as authentic to Josephus.... BTW.

But after it seems that he's saying exactly the contrary. :D
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Origen 1, Scholars 0

Post by Giuseppe »

Peter, can you derive your conclusions, please?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Origen 1, Scholars 0

Post by Giuseppe »

Some Objection.

The phrase that Peter put in bold here:
And now Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, became the successor of Jesus, the son of Damneus, in the high priesthood, which the king had taken from the other; on which account a sedition arose between the high priests, with regard to one another; for they got together bodies of the boldest sort of the people, and frequently came, from reproaches, to throwing of stones at each other. But Ananias was too hard for the rest, by his riches, which enabled him to gain those that were most ready to receive. Costobarus also, and Saulus, did themselves get together a multitude of wicked wretches, and this because they were of the royal family; and so they obtained favor among them, because of their kindred to Agrippa; but still they used violence with the people, and were very ready to plunder those that were weaker than themselves. And from that time it principally came to pass that our city was greatly disordered, and that all things grew worse and worse among us.
may well describe simply the effect of immediately previous fact (in original Josephus'logic):
Costobarus also, and Saulus, did themselves get together a multitude of wicked wretches, and this because they were of the royal family; and so they obtained favor among them, because of their kindred to Agrippa; but still they used violence with the people, and were very ready to plunder those that were weaker than themselves.
So it would be very forced for Origen to derive his loved causal link ''James/Fall of Jerusalem'' from more lilely Josephus link ''Costobarus & Saul/Fall of Jerusalem''.
Origen can do this fool apologetical reading only because he knew Hegesippus and his clear causal link death of James ---> Fall of Jerusalem. Was basically knowledge of Hegesippus'story to move Origen to read allegorically ''called Christ'' where that construct wan't there.

''called Christ'' was put by Origen into text of Josephus to describe the ironic paradox:

The death of the brother of Christ only apparently such (''so-called Christ'' has a similar nuance of doubt in mouth of Pilate, with a lot of implicit irony), causing the same fall of Jerusalem, confirms that the ''so-called Christ'' (not believed as such from Josephus) *ironically* was really THE Christ (contra Josephus' view).

I see a theological motive behind that construct ''called Christ'' as big as a house ! :roll:
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Origen 1, Scholars 0

Post by Giuseppe »

I think more and more that Origen himself was the interpolator of ''called Christ'' or better the inspirer of a later interpolator (at this point no more accidental).

What is the probability that by pure coincidence a Jew non-Christian historic as Josephus - or in his place a Christian scribe by pure accident - did a point paradoxically and ironically so favorable to the fool apologetical logic of an Origen and a Hegesippus (that a so-called Christ - not really the Christ for Josephus - turned out to be , all things at the end, THE Christ) ?

Answer: 0.00%. :P

That interpolation was deliberate!
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8025
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Origen 1, Scholars 0

Post by Peter Kirby »

Giuseppe wrote:No. The only possible explanation is that the interpolation ''called Christ'' occurred before Origen or with Origen, at this point.

But I cannot prove this.

At same time, How does Peter to remove at all the concrete possibility that ''James'' was son of Damneus?
Giuseppe wrote:Peter wrote:

I clearly do not read 'called Christ' as authentic to Josephus.... BTW.

But after it seems that he's saying exactly the contrary. :D
Giuseppe wrote:Peter, can you derive your conclusions, please?
You apparently don't know me at all, Giuseppe, and you are all too eager to attribute things to me that I have never said. (The same appears to have happened in the other thread on Marcion also. Apparently we could use a few more actual traditional interpreters around these parts, so we have less of this "friendly fire.")

I haven't said 'the contrary' for quite some years. As far as I'm concerned, Josephus never refers to any 'Christ' at all, so-'called' or otherwise. It is indeed an interpolation, as I said upthread and in my online essay and blog. The OP doesn't concern itself with that especially because it's not exactly the point of the brief OP, but yes, don't fret, it's an interpolation.
At same time, How does Peter to remove at all the concrete possibility that ''James'' was son of Damneus?
Simple. He doesn't. :wtf:

Also, this observation in the OP:
(d) Albinus threatened to kill the younger Ananus as a result, and king Agrippa installed "Jesus, son of Damneus" as the high priest, thus letting the king save the life of the younger Ananus from the threats of the procurator (for whatever reason, I never noticed this before). The king apparently favors the younger Ananus.
Would lend some support to that 'concrete possibility', in that an agreement between Albinus and Agrippa to install Jesus son of Damneus in place of Ananus son of Ananus (instead of killing the younger Ananus) makes sense as an alternative once we no longer view this "Jesus son of Damneus" as a random candidate for the high priesthood and instead view his appointment (and Ananus' sacking) as recompense for his brother's death.

This is further supported by the implication that "Jesus son of Damneus" is very green and spineless, as if his family were not among those that were used to the opportunity of holding the high priesthood, because he gets immediately twisted around to Ananus' will and then sacked a year later.
(f) The younger Ananus used his family's wealth to win the favor of (B-R-I-B-E) the new high priest (Jesus ben Damneus), essentially puppeting this upstart, and also the Roman procurator Albinus.
(j) Jesus ben Gamaliel installed. Either Agrippa is taking a bribe from more than one hand, or Jesus ben Damneus was too green to last.
I would suggest that the original might have read:

τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τινος, Ἰάκωβος ὄνομα αὐτῷ, καί τινας ἑτέρους

Thus this Jesus is first introduced here, as essentially a 'random' person to the world of nobility, as just a 'certain Jesus'. He is not first mentioned by his patronym, but that (if it has any real meaning at all) supports the idea that it's not particularly important and that he was not, before the incident, particularly important.

Which, before the time of the exegete Origen, had received a scribal gloss, which Origen read as part of the text:

τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ, Ἰάκωβος ὄνομα αὐτῷ, καί τινας ἑτέρους

Other hypotheses are possible, but, in general, they do not abide by Ockham's razor as well, and several of them involve severe implausibilities & improbabilities. (The nearest cousin of this suggestion, which has "Jesus" identified three times as "Jesus, son of Damneus" in the text, not just the two we know, isn't all that bad.)
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8025
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Origen 1, Scholars 0

Post by Peter Kirby »

perseusomega9 wrote:Did Peter just find the historical Jesus?
:wtf:
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8025
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Origen 1, Scholars 0

Post by Peter Kirby »

Ken Olson wrote:There is also the theory advocated by Sabrina Inowlocki of the University of Lausanne that Origen is paraphrasing a genuine passage from Josephus that has been expunged from the manuscripts, "Did Josephus Ascribe the Fall of Jerusalem to the Murder of James, the brother of Jesus?" Revue de Etudes Juives 70, 1-2 janvier-juin 2011, 21-49.
SUMMARY
A Christian tradition connects the destruction of Jerusalem to the murder of James
the Just, brother of Jesus. One of its earliest and most explicit occurrences is found
in Origen, on no fewer than three occasions. Origen ascribes this tradition to Josephus.
In this paper, I explore the possibility that Origen may have paraphrased an
authentic passage of Josephus, which is no longer extant. A close reading of the
evidence in Origen shows that, contrary to some scholars’ opinion, Origen did provide
references to Josephus when dealing with this passage. The passage in question
would have made sense in the logic of Josephus’ Antiquities. Moreover, other passages
in the Antiquities closely parallel the contested paraphrase, which suggests that
it may well have belonged to this work. By way of conclusion, it can be said that if
patristic testimonies on early Judaism and Christianity should always be read critically,
they should not be systematically rejected either.
I appreciate taking notice of this variation on the theme.

And this is just the sort of thing the thread aims to show as completely unnecessary and proceeding from false assumptions.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Post Reply