Ganging up On Josephus James Ganghymn Style. The Argument Against Josephus James.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1584
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Searching For Clues At The Scene Of The Crime

Post by JoeWallack »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXWvKDSwvls

JW:
The best bad arguments so far:

1) The Argument From Silence

2) The Argument From Context

The next best bad argument is The Argument From the Origen/Eusebius (mis)Connection:

It's generally agreed that the TF is not what Josephus wrote so the question is how to get from whatever Josephus originally wrote to the TF. The combination of Age and lack of Credibility of Christianity means that in absolute terms no conclusion can be proven or even demonstrated to be likely. We are reduced to relative conclusions. Which conclusion is most likely
compared to other conclusions. In this situation the "unclear" conclusion is usually a good candidate.

Even though I have never seen anyone else even mention this I think what follows is the best bad explanation (guess):

Eusebius' take on Origen's related commentary, parallels in [Red]:

Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book X)
17. The Brethren of Jesus.

And the saying, " Whence has this man this wisdom[1]," Matthew 13:54 indicates clearly that there was a great and surpassing wisdom in the words of Jesus worthy of the saying, "lo, a greater than Solomon is here." Matthew 12:42 And He was wont to do greater miracles[3] than those wrought through Elijah and Elisha, and at a still earlier date through Moses and Joshua the son of Nun.[7] And they spoke, wondering, (not knowing that He was the son of a virgin, or not believing it even if it was told to them, but supposing that He was the son of Joseph the carpenter,) "is not this the carpenter's son?" Matthew 13:55 And depreciating the whole of what appeared to be His nearest kindred, they said, "Is not His mother called Mary? And His brethren, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us?" Matthew 13:55-56 They thought, then, that He was the son of Joseph and Mary. But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or "The Book of James," that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honour of Mary in virginity to the end, so that that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word which said, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you," Luke 1:35 might not know intercourse with a man after that the Holy Ghost came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first-fruit among men of the purity which consists in chastity, and Mary among women; for it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first-fruit of virginity. And James is he whom Paul says in the Epistle to the Galatians that he saw, "But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." Galatians 1:19 And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the "Antiquities of the Jews" in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ,[5] he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James. And Jude, who wrote a letter of few lines, it is true, but filled with the healthful words of heavenly grace, said in the preface, "Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ and the brother of James." Jude 1 With regard to Joseph and Simon we have nothing to tell; but the saying, "And His sisters are they not all with us," Matthew 13:56 seems to me to signify something of this nature— they mind our things, not those of Jesus, and have no unusual portion of surpassing wisdom as Jesus has. And perhaps by these things is indicated a new doubt concerning Him, that Jesus was not a man[2] but something diviner, inasmuch as He was, as they supposed, the son of Joseph and Mary, and the brother of four, and of the others— the women— as well, and yet had nothing like to any one of His kindred, and had not from education and teaching come to such a height of wisdom and power. For they also say elsewhere, "How knows this man letters having never learned?[4]" John 7:15 which is similar to what is here said. Only, though they say these things and are so perplexed and astonished, they did not believe, but were offended in Him; as if they had been mastered in the eyes of their mind by the powers which, in the time of the passion, He was about to lead in triumph on the cross.[6]
Now looking at the TF:

Testimonium Flavianum
  • 3.3 Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man[1],

    if it be lawful to call him a man;[2]

    for he was a doer of wonderful works,[3]

    a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure.[4]

    He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles.

    He was [the] Christ.[5]

    And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day;[6]

    as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.[7]

    And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
Note that most of the basic assertians in the TF have related counterparts in Origen's commentary. One possibility is that due to Origen's invocation of Josephus:
Flavius Josephus, who wrote the "Antiquities of the Jews" in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ,[5] he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James
Eusebius takes literary license to assume that there is an implication that per Origen Josephus wrote directly about Jesus and that Origen's surrounding information was fair game as to what to include. This also helps explain why Jerome has "thought to be" instead of "was" the Christ. Original Eusebius also had "thought to be" because that was the implication from Origen.

Another possibility is that there were comments in the margin of Origen's copy of Josephus either put there by Origen or someone in between that Eusebius inherited from Origen at Caesarea and Eusebius added them into the text. For those who need points sharply explained, the best literary clue before Eusebius' TF is Origen and physically Origen/Eusebius were at the exact same scene of the crime.

Add to this Origen's related comment in Contra Celsus 1.47:
For in the eighteenth volume of the Judaic Antiquities Josephus testifies to John as having been a baptist and promised cleansing to those who were baptized. [F] But he himself, though not believing in Jesus as Christ, [D] in seeking the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, [G1] whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these things happening to the people, since they killed the prophecied Christ, [E1] even says, being unwillingly not far from the truth, that these things befell the Jews as vengeance for James the just, who was a brother of Jesus who is called Christ, [B1] since they killed him who was most just. [A] Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he saw this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood or of their common upbringing as on account of his ethics and speech. [E2] If, therefore, he says that the things surrounding the desolation of Jerusalem befell the Jews on account of James, [G2] how is it not more reasonable to say that it happened on account of Jesus the Christ?
JW:
Note the conclusions by Origen:
  • 1) Josephus should have said "Jesus" instead of "James."
    2) It's more reasonable to have said "Jesus" than "James".
Of course it's always better to look at the original language but there are a few possibilities here based on the above to explain how to get from Josephus to the TF. The range:
  • 1) During transmission someone interprets 1) and 2) to possibly mean that the TF is what Josephus originally meant.

    Verses (at the other end)

    2) Eusebius understands exactly what Origen and Josephus meant but edits it to the TF because Josephus is not Scripture and Eusebius prefers having and giving what he thinks Josephus should have written rather than what he thinks Josephus wrote.
Note that the above is primarily referring to the TF but if there is something to it then it also potentially helps explain the "James" HDJ reference.


Josephus
  • Flounder: Do you think that's gonna work?

    Otter: Hey, it's gotta work better than the truth.
The New Porphyry
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: Ganging up On Josephus James Ganghymn Style. The Argument Against Josephus James.

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

Personally, I think one of the better arguments for the inauthenticity of the James mention is the compound faultiness of its authentications by Origen and Eusebius.

Origen gets everything else wrong about Josephus's treatment of James, but somehow for many observers this doesn't cast doubt that Origen got the phrase (called Christ) letter-perfect.

Eusebius makes things worse. He doesn't cite Origen, but rather states as a fact Origen's false claim that Josephus attributed the fall of city and Temple to James's misfortune. This is not only a false characterization of Josephus's position, but one that is contradicted in book 20 of the Antiquities at 164-166.

Origen (and so Eusebius) gets partial credit from a soft grader: Josephus did say in as many words that Jerusalem fell as divine retribution for a number of killings, a spree which did not include the killing of Jesus. But Josephus said nothing about the killing of James being part of the divine motivation.

Some thoughts on these issues, including reflections on how Eusebius could knowingly insert Origen's phrase into what is otherwise a direct quotation (if that is what he did; like Joe, I wasn't there) are presented here:

https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/202 ... -the-just/

In closing, even though we the living will never know what Josephus wrote, we can address the question whether there is good reason to believe that he wrote that James was the brother of Jesus called Christ. Nobody can answer for anybody else, but it is at least admissible, in my opinion, to recognize the evidence in favor of the proposition as murky and meager.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2806
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Ganging up On Josephus James Ganghymn Style. The Argument Against Josephus James.

Post by andrewcriddle »

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Tue Aug 09, 2022 7:29 am Personally, I think one of the better arguments for the inauthenticity of the James mention is the compound faultiness of its authentications by Origen and Eusebius.

Origen gets everything else wrong about Josephus's treatment of James, but somehow for many observers this doesn't cast doubt that Origen got the phrase (called Christ) letter-perfect.

Eusebius makes things worse. He doesn't cite Origen, but rather states as a fact Origen's false claim that Josephus attributed the fall of city and Temple to James's misfortune. This is not only a false characterization of Josephus's position, but one that is contradicted in book 20 of the Antiquities at 164-166.

Origen (and so Eusebius) gets partial credit from a soft grader: Josephus did say in as many words that Jerusalem fell as divine retribution for a number of killings, a spree which did not include the killing of Jesus. But Josephus said nothing about the killing of James being part of the divine motivation.

I suggested in another thread that IF Origen's text of Josephus was interpolated to read not James but James the Just then ir would explain Origen's belief that Josephus regarded the death of James (the spilling of the blood of the righteous one) as the cause of the fall of Jerusalem.

Andrew Criddle
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1222
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Ganging up On Josephus James Ganghymn Style. The Argument Against Josephus James.

Post by Ken Olson »

andrewcriddle wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 8:35 am I suggested in another thread that IF Origen's text of Josephus was interpolated to read not James but James the Just then ir would explain Origen's belief that Josephus regarded the death of James (the spilling of the blood of the righteous one) as the cause of the fall of Jerusalem.

Andrew Criddle
Yes, that's possible. What makes it a better explanation than supposing that Origen really read in his manuscript of Josephus 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?

Or that Origen misremembered what was in another source, such as Hegessippus, and attributed it to Josephus? And then Eusebius or someone else glossed Ant. 20.220 with the words the brother of Jesus called Christ?

It seems you are sill granting that someone interpolated the text of Antiquities 20.200 (for which we have no evidence in the manuscripts) and that Origen misreported what was in it. So what do you see as the advantages of your theory over others?

Best,

Ken
Last edited by Ken Olson on Sat Aug 13, 2022 8:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2806
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Ganging up On Josephus James Ganghymn Style. The Argument Against Josephus James.

Post by andrewcriddle »

Ken Olson wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 9:07 am
andrewcriddle wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 8:35 am
I suggested in another thread that IF Origen's text of Josephus was interpolated to read not James but James the Just then ir would explain Origen's belief that Josephus regarded the death of James (the spilling of the blood of the righteous one) as the cause of the fall of Jerusalem.

Andrew Criddle
Yes, that's possible. What makes it a better explanation than supposing that Origen really read in his manuscript of Josephus 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?

Or that Origen misremembered what was in another source, such as Hegessippus, and attributed it to Josephus? And then Eusebius or someone else glossed Ant. 20.220 with the words the brother of Jesus called Christ?

It seems you are sill granting that someone interpolated the text of Antiquities 20.200 (for which we have no evidence in the manuscripts) and that Origen misreported what was in it. So what do you see as the advantages of your theory over others?

Best,

Ken
[/quote]
IMHO the addition of the phrase the just is more likely than the wholesale rewriting of Josephus to explicitly say that the death of James caused the fall of Jerusalem.
In order to have Origen mean Hegesippus one requires a/ that Origen repeatedly misattributed his reference, b/ that he misquoted it (Hegesippus refers to James the Lord's brother) c/ that he misquoted it in a way that made it more plausible as something Josephus might say.

Andrew Criddle
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: Ganging up On Josephus James Ganghymn Style. The Argument Against Josephus James.

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

@Ken and @Andrew

The issue of the thread as I understand it is to suggest what circumstances, if any, would cast doubt on the received identification of some James as the brother of Jesus called Christ at Antiquities 20.200.

The circumstance I recently proposed for examination is partly grounded upon the observation that Origen is correct about the contents of Antiquities 20 insofar as his report implies that the (received) text attributes the fall of Jerusalem and its temple to divine retribution for the unjust killing of person or persons other than the Jesus of the Christians. Origen errs, insofar as it bears on the received text, chiefly in that Josephus did not mention the James sentenced to death in 62 CE as one of those persons.

Origen does not claim to quote Josephus verbatim, and so makes no claim about the presence of the term James the Just in whatever text he read. Since neither does it appear in the received text of Antiquities, nor is it inherently unusual for a Christian to use the term sua sponte, I don't see how reverse engineering Origen's use of the term advances the inquiries of this topic.

Eusebius, not Origen, is the first person known to claim that the phrase Jesus called Christ is authentic Josephus. Eusebius may well have gotten the phrase from Origen, but Origen did not claim that those were Josephus's very words.

I am not a great fan of Occam's Razor, but if a reader who shows every sign of working from memory makes a recognizable hash of a text, then I don't see the case for any other specific text being involved such as a now lost corrupted copy of Antiquities 20 or the reader's confusion of Antiquities 20 with some specific version of the passion of James when more than one is known to exist. These are possibilities, of course, and they cannot be eliminated, so as always, the teaching of Occam's Razor is uncertain.

Read a text + don't check the text before expounding upon it fully explains a resulting hash. Popular examples include Ehrman's "Letter 10 of Pliny the Younger" or Jerome's displacement of the Temple Voices incident to coincide with the crucifixion of Jesus. An amusing contemporary variety of the phenomenon goes under the searchable rubric of "Mandela Effect."

This is how human long-term memory works: unreliably, but often not entirely unrelated to the matter recalled. Ehrman didn't read a corrupted copy of Pliny's correspondence, nor Jerome a corrupted copy of Josephus's War. There is no foundation for doubt that both of them crafted a version of these works in their own heads that didn't exist until sometime after they read the works in standard editions.

Other views are possible, as I happily acknowledge.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1222
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Ganging up On Josephus James Ganghymn Style. The Argument Against Josephus James.

Post by Ken Olson »

andrewcriddle wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 9:20 am IMHO the addition of the phrase the just is more likely than the wholesale rewriting of Josephus to explicitly say that the death of James caused the fall of Jerusalem.

Andrew Criddle
(I've been meaning to get back to this thread for a while now, but other things kept popping up.)

What I was really asking was what assumptions underlie your opinion. You seem to hold that, even if we conclude that the manuscripts have been altered in a particular passage and we find that it is necessary to emend it, we should emend it as little as possible (i.e., stick as closely as possible to the extant manuscripts). This runs counter to how, for instance, A. E. Housman formulates the process of emendation:

The merits essential to a correction are those without which it cannot be true, and closeness to the mss is not one of them; the indispensable things are fitness to the context and propriety to the genius of the author. The question whether the error presupposed was great or small is indeed a question to be asked, but it is the last question. [M. Manilii Astronomicon Liber Quintus, recensvit et enarravit A. E. Housman (1937) xxxv].

Now I think that there might well be reasons not to emend the manuscripts of Ant. 20.200 according to what Origen reports Josephus wrote about James (as advocated by Sabrina Inowlocki et al.). Nonetheless, Origen is the earliest external witness to Josephus having said anything at all about James, so that has to be considered as evidence to be weighed. Factors that weigh against emending the manuscripts to read as Origen said they did would include:

(1) The unlikelihood that Josephus wrote that the people attributed the destruction of the temple to the killing of James and bore witness to James’ great righteousness.
(2) The even greater unlikelihood that Christians would have felt the need to remove the testimony to James’ righteousness and the attribution of the fall of the temple to the killing of James from all the manuscripts, presumably because (as Origen attests) they believed Josephus ought to have said it was the murder of Jesus was the reason for the destruction of the temple. It not very plausible to think that they would correct the Antiquities by omitting the killing of James as the cause of the destruction of the temple but not add that the killing of Jesus was the true cause.
(3) Origen may well have been mistaken in his recollection; indeed, the way he narrates what he believes Josephus wrote about James (in indirect speech) suggests that it is a paraphrase and he did not have the text in front of him at the time.
In order to have Origen mean Hegesippus one requires a/ that Origen repeatedly misattributed his reference, b/ that he misquoted it (Hegesippus refers to James the Lord's brother) c/ that he misquoted it in a way that made it more plausible as something Josephus might say.
I think you are on weaker ground here than on your first objection.

a/ Is misattributing a reference less plausible than misattributing a good deal of content to a reference? It seems to me the two are equally plausible in general and in this case misattributing the reference provides a (much) better explanation of the content.

Repeatedly misattributing a reference is common. Bart Ehrman (to borrow Paul the Uncertain’s example) repeatedly cites Pliny’s letter to Trajan inquiring about the proper way to deal with accused Christians as Letter 10, when in fact it is Letter 96 from Book 10 of Pliny’s collected letters. I say repeatedly because Ehrman did not only make this error in Did Jesus Exist? (2012, p. 52), but also in the first through sixth editions of his textbook The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (1997, p. 370; 2016, p. 497; interestingly, the latter has the correct citation in to 10.96 on the following page, where the topic is presented in an inset box). It is not a particularly large error, but Ehrman made it repeatedly over a course of two decades. It is not unusual for a writer to repeatedly misattribute a reference either because he relies on faulty memory or re-uses material he has previously written without checking the original source.

b/ Origen is misquoting his source whether that source is Josephus or Hegesippus. But what he says is a a much more reasonable summary of what’s in Hegesippus than what’s in Josephus.

c/ Origen’s summary is more plausible as something Josephus might have said than is the full account in Hegesippus largely because it’s a summary, and, as such, is briefer. There are fewer implausible items mostly because there are fewer items. It’s still not particularly plausible as something Josephus wrote. And Origen is not giving a plausible summary of what is in Antiquities 20.197-203/20.9.1.

Best,

Ken
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1222
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Ganging up On Josephus James Ganghymn Style. The Argument Against Josephus James.

Post by Ken Olson »

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Thu Aug 11, 2022 11:08 am @Ken and @Andrew

The issue of the thread as I understand it is to suggest what circumstances, if any, would cast doubt on the received identification of some James as the brother of Jesus called Christ at Antiquities 20.200.

The circumstance I recently proposed for examination is partly grounded upon the observation that Origen is correct about the contents of Antiquities 20 insofar as his report implies that the (received) text attributes the fall of Jerusalem and its temple to divine retribution for the unjust killing of person or persons other than the Jesus of the Christians. Origen errs, insofar as it bears on the received text, chiefly in that Josephus did not mention the James sentenced to death in 62 CE as one of those persons.
True, but perhaps oversimplified.
Origen does not claim to quote Josephus verbatim, and so makes no claim about the presence of the term James the Just in whatever text he read. Since neither does it appear in the received text of Antiquities, nor is it inherently unusual for a Christian to use the term sua sponte, I don't see how reverse engineering Origen's use of the term advances the inquiries of this topic.
Perhaps your criticism was aimed more at Andrew than me, because I don’t think it applies to my case very well. As I have noted on this forum before, Hegesippus does not simply call James ‘the Just’, but writes:

επι τοσουτον δε διελεμψεν ουτος ο Ιακωβος εν τω λαω επι δικαιοσυνη ως Φλοβιον Ιωσηπον

And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise that Flavius Josephus

Josephus Ant. 20.297-203 does not contain the word δίκαιος, ‘just’ or ‘righteous’, in any of its forms, nor the word λαός ‘people’. Hegesippus, in the excerpt from his work quoted by Eusebius in HE 2.23, uses δικαιος in various forms 11 times, always of James, and λαός 5 times, including the statement:

ημεις γαρ μαρτυρουμεν σοι και πας ο λαος, οτι δικαιος ει ,

for we bear witness to you, and [so do] all the people, that you are righteous

http://www.textexcavation.com/james.html

I would agree with you to the extent that Origen is not claiming to quote Josephus’ words or to be making any verbatim use of them. The places where he does have verbatim similarity with other texts about James still require explanation though.
Eusebius, not Origen, is the first person known to claim that the phrase Jesus called Christ is authentic Josephus. Eusebius may well have gotten the phrase from Origen, but Origen did not claim that those were Josephus's very words.
Agreed.
I am not a great fan of Occam's Razor, but if a reader who shows every sign of working from memory makes a recognizable hash of a text, then I don't see the case for any other specific text being involved such as a now lost corrupted copy of Antiquities 20 or the reader's confusion of Antiquities 20 with some specific version of the passion of James when more than one is known to exist. These are possibilities, of course, and they cannot be eliminated, so as always, the teaching of Occam's Razor is uncertain.
I am a great fan of Occam’s razor and think it’s basic to rational inquiry and evaluating theories, though it’s often misstated or misapplied and it’s not always clear how it might favor one theory over another. We could discuss that in greater detail, but to put it simply: I think many people mistakenly think that the razor implies that the simplest theory is best (Entia non sunt multiplicanda) rather than that the simplest theory that accounts for the evidence is best (Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem).

I note that you say that you do not see the case for any other *specific* text being involved, such as some *specific* version of the James passage, when more than one is known to exist. However, I would note that we have one, and, I believe, only one, known written source from before Origen (yes, I know; it’s known only through Eusebius’ reported in HE 2.23) that says that the people thought James was righteous and that links James’ death to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. Granted, Origen could have known another version of the story linking the killing of James to the fall of Jerusalem, but this is the one we have. If we assume there was another such story, it would not make a great deal of difference to the argument that Origen has confused Josephus account with what he had read in or heard from another source. That other version of the story would simply replace Hegesippus’ account as Origen’s possible non-Josephan source. But I’m working with the evidence we have (i.e., the account from Hegesippus rather than a generic Christian tradition that told the same story as we find in Hegesippus).
Read a text + don't check the text before expounding upon it fully explains a resulting hash. Popular examples include Ehrman's "Letter 10 of Pliny the Younger" or Jerome's displacement of the Temple Voices incident to coincide with the crucifixion of Jesus. An amusing contemporary variety of the phenomenon goes under the searchable rubric of "Mandela Effect."
No, simply reading *a* text [singular] and not checking it before expounding on it it does not *fully* explain the resulting hash. It does not not in the case of Origen’s claim about what Josephus wrote about James in the Antiquities, nor in the case of what Ehrman says about Pliny’s Letter 10, nor in the case of Jerome’s Letter 46.4, which claims that Josephus placed the voices in the temple saying ‘Let us go hence’ (from BJ 6.5.3-4) at the time of the crucifixion, nor, in all probability, in the case of Nelson Mandela’s supposed death in prison which some people claim to remember being reported in the news (i.e., original ‘Mandela Effect’). In each of these cases there is another text or story that has played a role in what the reporter records as coming from one particular story.

In the case of Ehrman’s mistaken citation of Letter 96 from Book 10 of Pliny’s collected letters in Did Jesus Exist? (2012, 52), Ehrman did not just make a commonplace error of partial or slightly mistaken citation for the text he was discussing. I think every published scholar has probably done that at one time or another. I know I have. For purposes of the present discussion, the more interesting error is that he remembers ‘the fire brigade problem’ (51-52) as being in the same letter as the Christian problem. Letter 10.96 does not mention fire brigades, but they are not merely a product of Ehrman’s imagination. He misremembered material from the letter about fire brigades (Pliny, Letters, 10.33) as being in the same letter as the material about Christians (10.96).

Nor is Jerome’s claim that Josephus placed the temple voices at the time of the crucifixion in letter 46.4 likely to be the result of Jerome’s own misremembered or imaginative reading of BJ 6.5.3-4:

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001046.htm

The same claim is found in the entry for the 202nd Olympiad in Eusebius’ Chronicon, which survives in Jerome’s Latin translation. Roger Pearse has put an English translation of it online here:

https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jero ... _part2.htm

Since the work survives in Jerome’s Latin translation (and some parts in Syriac) we cannot be certain, but Eusebius is likely to be Jerome’s source.

The Mandela Effect is named for paranormal researcher Fiona Broom’s claim from 2009 (when Nelson Mandela was still alive) that she had strong recollections that it was reported in the news that he had died in prison in the 1980’s, and other people subsequently agreed with her. When I first heard of the Mandela Effect, my initial suspicion was that she had confused Nelson Mandela with Bantu Stephen Biko who was murdered in prison by the state police in 1977. He was commemorated in Peter’s Gabriel’s powerful anti-apartheid anthem ‘Biko’ from 1980 (which I well remember, though probably from one of his 1986 performances) and the 1987 movie ‘Cry Freedom’ with Denzel Washington as Steve Biko. I was happy to see that a number of sources cited in the Wikipedia article on the Mandela Effect now give this theory serious consideration, and the article in Popular Mechanics going so far as to say:

As for the original Mandela Effect, the most likely explanation for Fiona Broome’s (and others’) mistake is that she confused Mandela with Steve Biko, a different anti-apartheid activist imprisoned at the same time as Mandela. Biko had actually died in prison, in 1977.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/scienc ... la-effect/

This is how human long-term memory works: unreliably, but often not entirely unrelated to the matter recalled. Ehrman didn't read a corrupted copy of Pliny's correspondence, nor Jerome a corrupted copy of Josephus's War. There is no foundation for doubt that both of them crafted a version of these works in their own heads that didn't exist until sometime after they read the works in standard editions.
There is considerable foundation for thinking they described the material they read in their sources with reasonable accuracy but did not correctly state what their actual sources for it were.
Other views are possible, as I happily acknowledge.
Of course other views are possible, but what we are discussing is which view theory fits the available evidence the best. I think it’s the one proposed by the British Josephus scholar Henry St. John Thackeray in 1929:

Now we have a fuller, and less probable, Christian account of the martyrdom of James the Just given us by the second century writer Hegesippus; 26 the victim is there represented as being hurled from the roof of the temple before being stoned and beaten to death, and the story ends with the words "And immediately Vespasian besieged them." Origen, it seems, has blundered and attributed to Josephus what was really written by Hegesippus.
F26 ap. Euseb., H.E. ii. 23.
[Thackeray, Josephus: The Man and the Historian (1929) 135].

Best,

Ken
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1222
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Ganging up On Josephus James Ganghymn Style. The Argument Against Josephus James.

Post by Ken Olson »

Additional Notes on early Christian transmission of the passage about James in Antiquities 20.200.

Eusebius Demonstratio 3.5:

Afterwards James, the Lord's brother, whom of old the people of Jerusalem called "the Just" for his extraordinary virtue, being asked by the chief priests, and teachers of the Jews what he thought about Christ, and answering that He was the Son of God, was also stoned by them. (trans. W. Ferrar 1.134).

Eusebius information appears to have come from the passage in Hegesippus that he quotes in HE 2.23. though Hegesippus reports that James referred to Jesus as the Son of Man, not the Son of God, but that is a very minor difference and Eusebius is paraphrasing, not giving a quotation.

Interestingly, in the Demonstratio, unlike the Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius does not refer to Josephus having said anything about James. He refers to, paraphrases, or quotes Josephus 16 times in the Demonstratio by my count. He quotes the Testimonium Flavianum on Jesus in DE 3.5 and cites it to Book 18 of the Antiquities. He quotes the beginning, though not the entirety, of the passage about John the Baptist in DE 9.5 (Ferrar 2.163) where he is discussing John. It is at least slightly odd that he does not mention that Josephus wrote anything about James when he discusses James. This is, arguably, because the text of the Antiquities did not identify the man put to death in Ant. 20.200 as the brother of Jesus who was called Christ at the time the Demonstratio was written and that Eusebius only later made the identification himself in the Ecclesiastical History. The Theophany, which is later than the Demonstratio and the HE and survives only in a Syriac translation, also contains the Testimonium and cites in to Ant. 18. It mentions James without commenting that Josephus had said anything about him and does not mention John the Baptist at all.

Jerome On Illustrious Men, Chapter 2:

He [Hegesippus] says also many other things, too numerous to mention. Josephus also in the 20th book of his Antiquities, and Clement in the 7th of his Outlines mention that on the death of Festus who reigned over Judea, Albinus was sent by Nero as his successor. Before he had reached his province, Ananias the high priest, the youthful son of Ananus of the priestly class, taking
advantage of the state of anarchy, assembled a council and publicly tried to force James to deny
that Christ is the son of God. When he refused
Ananius ordered him to be stoned. Cast down
from a pinnacle of the temple, his legs broken, but still half alive, raising his hands to heaven he
said, Lord forgive them for they know not what they do. Then struck on the head by the club of a
fuller such a club as fullers are accustomed to wring out garments with— he died
. This same
Josephus records the tradition that this James was of so great sanctity and reputation among the
people that the downfall of Jerusalem was believed to be on account of his death.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2708.htm

The passage is mostly a conflation of material from Josephus Antiquities, Book 20 and Hegesippus Book 5, but Jerome is probably taking it from Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 2.23, where Eusebius quotes it. The yellow highlighted material is from Hegesippus and not found in Josephus. The final sentence, however, comes from Origen, Commentary on Matthew 10.17, not from Eusebius, who has a version of the same thing at HE 2.23.20, but Eusebius’ version is based on Origen, Contra Celsum 1.47, not Commentary on Matthew 10.17, which Jerome presumably used directly.

Jerome misattributes more of the Hegesippus’ material to Josephus than (on my theory) Origen or Eusebius did, and he seems to be claiming it could be found in the 7th book Clement’s outlines as well.

Best,

Ken
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: Ganging up On Josephus James Ganghymn Style. The Argument Against Josephus James.

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

Greetings, Ken

Occam's Razor
I don't see this forum or this thread as a likely venue in which to do justice to the issues involved. So long as we can agree that the Razor isn't a demonstrative (truth-value preserving, necessary, ...) inference rule, then I can live with your enthusiasm for it and entreat you to tolerate my relative lack thereof.

In each of these cases there is another text or story that has played a role in what the reporter records as coming from one particular story.
I wasn't aware that that was in dispute between us. It takes at least two pieces to mash them up.

Mandela Effect
We seem to be in agreement that the term Mandela Effect refers to a lapse of human long-term memory. We also have no dispute about the etymology of the term, which now refers to a wide variety of shared partial misrecollections on public matters that mostly have no relation to Mandela (e.g. the false recollection that the Fruit of the Loom trademark included a cornucopia basket, which it did not, to enclose the collections of fruit which did appear in its trademarks).

Ehrman and Pliny
Ehrman did not simply miscite his source, nor accurately condense the content of four letters into two supposed letters (one each way). He also incorrectly described the content of the obvious source letters.

For example, he said the occasion for trying to launch a fire brigade was fires, plural, that villages were burning. In fact, Pliny refers to a single fire in the capital. However, in the Christian letter, Pliny describes the new religion as spreading to villages.

Yet there are clear connections between Ehrman's letters and the actual source letters in question. We do not doubt that Ehrman had read those letters, we do not doubt which letters were intended (despite the errors), and we do not doubt that Ehrman was working without the relevant text in front of him.

Jerome
Jerome placed the Temple voices at the time of the gospel crucifixion, attributing this to Josephus (who tells the voices incident but places it decades later than the gospel crucifixion). His recollection of Josephus was flawed. Yet we do not doubt that Jerome had read what he cited, we have no difficulty recognizing what portion of Josephus's work was intended (despite the error), and we can rule out that Jerome was working with that text in front of him.

I don't readily see how Jerome making the same mistake in a translation changes any of the above.

True, but perhaps oversimplified.
There's no oversimplification. Josephus wrote something recognizably similar to what Jerome reported. Pliny and Trajan wrote letters recognizably similar to what Ehrman reported.

Josephus wrote something similar to what Origen said he wrote about divine intervention as an explanation of the destruction of the city and temple.

Based on what Jerome wrote, I can easily find what he's thinking of in Josephus. That's why I think he misremembered something, because I can compare what he's talking about with what he said. Ditto Ehrman. Even with a black-letter citation to a non-existent letter, I have no difficulty identifying the real letters he's talking about. That's why I think he misremembered something besides the citation itself, because I can compare what he's talking about with what he said.

So, too, with Origen. He cites Josephus, and I have no difficulty locating a similar passage in Josephus. That's why I think Origen misremembered something about that passage, because I can compare what nearly matches what he's talking about, found where he told me to look, with what he said.

As to the rest of what Origen reported Josephus saying about James, if you have high confidence that that came from a specific source, then I'll concede the point for this discussion. What matters more to me is that Origen's memory mixed an authentic opinion of Josephus about why Jerusalem fell with Christian tradition about James the Just. The mixture retains enough fidelity to the original opinion to locate easily a passage similar to what Origen claimed, and located not too far from the trial of a certain James.

That partial fidelity may have been a factor in Eusebius's unhedged adoption of Origen's account of Josephus's opinion about the cause of the ruin of Jerusalem. Perhaps Origen cued a false memory in Eusebius, a memory whose foundation was that Eusebius really had read something similar to what Origen describes. That much of the shared memory is probably true.
Post Reply