Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Paul the Uncertain wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 8:06 am Jesus skeptics should be cautious about promoting long lists of scholars who agree with each other about something.

Why? Carrier himself wrote somewhere that, whereas the historicity of Jesus is not the question in exam, the consensus is often reliable. It is expected by human nature, I mean.

At any case, I have started this thread to talk about the possible ways where Nir's arguments may be harmonized with the Marcionite priority, since her book is a 'strange beast': she is on something when she claims that Justin was inventing Trypho ex novo, with nothing of very Jewish in Trypho (hence the mythicist accusation by Trypho is really a mythicist accusation addressed by Justin against himself, i.e. against other Christians: Marcion?).

A quote would be useful here:


(ibid., p. 84-85, my bold)

This Justin's need of someone who breaks the silence about the 'historical' Jesus is tipically anti-marcionite! Isn't it?


From the other hand, Nir is victim of the false view that the link Jordan/John and wilderness/John are two faces of the same coin, so going directly against the Marcionite priority, that is based on the radical separation between the John in the wilderness and the John at the Jordan.

Why? Carrier himself wrote somewhere that, whereas the historicity of Jesus is not the question in exam, the consensus is often reliable. It is expected by human nature, I mean.

I am unsure what view you are attributing to Carrier here. The author of a book entitled On the Historicity of Jesus can hardly teach that that the historicity of Jesus is not a question worthy of examination.

Acceptance of a consensus is a useful alternative to spending the time and effort required to learn the evidentiary foundation for it. However, if the question is interesting to somebody, and they are willing to spend the time and effort, then it is reasonable to proceed.

The consensus in question deems plausible the following:

Proposed. That Origen misremembered where he read what he discusses, but correctly recalls what he read.

Obviously, the first question to ask is "Plausible compared with what?" I think the following is interesting:

Proposed. That Origen misremembered what he read, but correctly recalls where he read what he discusses.

The universe of evidence is quite compact, and there is little or no "specialist" controversy (for example, modern language translations are adequate to weigh the evidence).

I have written elsewhere about the matter:

https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/201 ... o-do-that/

I have also revisited the issue over the years, but that will serve to explain my dissent from the popular view on this matter.

(I don't like your unnecessary criticisms of dr Carrier)

I complete your post with a list of scholarship that argues for a confusion Josephus/Hegesippus by Origen:

(ibid., p. 40, my bold)

(I don't like your unnecessary criticisms of dr Carrier)

Asking you to clarify your description of a position that you attributed to him is not a criticism of him.

my bold

Why isn't this bolded?

... attempts to prove that the link between James' s death and the destruction of the temple is Eusebius's logical inference from Josephus's description in Ant. 20.200-258, and was not drawn from Hegesippus...

What Eusebius can infer logically, Origen could have inferred logically. Logic is impersonally valid.

BTW, it has been argued once upon a time here at EW (in brief compass) that since Josephus says in Antiquities Book 20 that God intervened because the Temple was defiled by violence, and James's trial in the same Book 20 defiled the Temple further by its violence, then James's trial may reasonably be counted among Josephus's reasons for God's intervention. Further, since Jesus of Galilee is not mentioned among the victims by Josephus, Origen was reasonable to contrast his own view (God intervened on account of Jesus's death) with the claimed deductive closure of Josephus's view (God intervened on account of deaths other than Jesus's, for instance, James's death).

That is not my view, but it expands upon a possible explanation of what you declined to bold.

Regadless, since I didn't dispute the consensus, your boxed disquisition adds little or nothing to our discussion, and would not do so even if it had unequivocally supported your point about consensus, which it doesn't.

I think that the Carrier's claim doesn't need comment.

I don't know what is your point. If you argue that the James's Passage is genuine, then I disagree a priori and I would invite you to read again Carrier's article about it.

As I have written in the first post of this thread: once I concede that Origen confused Hegesippus with Josephus on James, then very probably the same Origen confused Hegesippus with Josephus on John the Baptist, even more so if the reference to John by Origen follows shortly after the reference to James.

The identity of names (Hegesippus==Josephus) is too much impossible, as coincidence, to not work here, at the origin of the James' passage. Especially so when in both Origen and Hegesippus the link is causal: death of James/fall of Jerusalem. And if you deny this latter fact, then I don't see why you insist to continue the discussion starting from a so weak position (= that such link would be not causal in Hegesippus!).

I think that the Carrier's claim doesn't need comment.

I asked you to clarify your description of Carrier's claim. You refuse? Fine, I have my answer. That you falsely characterized my request as an "unnecessary criticism" of Carrier ... moving on.

I don't know what is your point. If you argue that the James's Passage is genuine, then I disagree a priori and I would invite you to read again Carrier's article about it.

As is obvious from the link I posted earlier, I have doubts about the genuineness of "called Christ" at Antiquities 20.200. Although he and I reach similar conclusions about that question, I disagree with some elements of Carrier's argument - among them the explanation of Origen's narrative by proposing that Origen misremembered his source. That disagreement is on topic here because Carrier's view was alluded to in the OP.

As I have written in the first post of this thread: once I concede that Origen confused Hegesippus with Josephus on James, then very probably the same Origen confused Hegesippus with Josephus on John the Baptist, even more so if the reference to John by Origen follows shortly after the reference to James.

Lol. You didn't concede anything. That was your view expressed in the OP, and it remains your view now.

The identity of names (Hegesippus==Josephus) is too much impossible, as coincidence, to not work here, at the origin of the James' passage. Especially so when in both Origen and Hegesippus the link is causal: death of James/fall of Jerusalem. And if you deny this latter fact, then I don't see why you insist to continue the discussion starting from a so weak position (= that such link would be not causal in Hegesippus!).

Where in Hegesippus is a causal claim of the sort you mention? But actually, I usually begin elsewhere:

Josephus makes a causal claim (at 20.8.5/160-166) in a form similar with what Origen remembers reading:

[T]hey slew Jonathan. And as this murder was never avenged, the robbers went up with the greatest security at the festivals after this time: and having weapons concealed in like manner as before, and mingling themselves among the multitude, they slew certain of their own enemies, and were subservient to other men for money; and slew others not only in remote parts of the city, but in the temple it self also. For they had the boldness to murder men there, without thinking of the impiety of which they were guilty. And this seems to me to have been the reason why God, out of his hatred of these men’s wickedness, rejected our city: and as for the temple, he no longer esteemed it sufficiently pure for him to inhabit therein: but brought the Romans upon us, and threw a fire upon the city to purge it; and brought upon us our wives and children slavery: as desirous to make us wiser by our calamities.

Origen's memory differs from received Josephus concerning whose death(s) are relevant to this causal claim (James's versus Jonathan's among others), but Origen's memory and the text he cited agree that the death of the Christians' Jesus isn't mentioned.

Paul the Uncertain wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 8:09 am As is obvious from the link I posted earlier, I have doubts about the genuineness of "called Christ" at Antiquities 20.200.

Well, Carrier doesn't doubt, he has the absolute certainty that 'called Christ' is not genuine. The mention of Jesus ben Damneus as the true brother of the victim is alone sufficient only to raise the doubt but nothing more.

Where the doubt becomes certainty is precisely thanks to the argument from the confusion Josephus/Hegesippus by Origen.

Josephus makes a causal claim (at 20.8.5/160-166) in a form similar with what Origen remembers reading:

Josephus makes casual claims all the time, a lot of times. But not about the "brother of Jesus", this is sure, while Hegesippus makes it only one time, and about the brother of Jesus. I have no doubts at all about what is the source of Origen, especially when Origen reiterates the causal claim about the brother of Jesus.

P.S. I am sorry but your blog has a disturbing background-color black that prevents me from reading it.

P.S. I am sorry but your blog has a disturbing background-color black that prevents me from reading it.

No worries. With a suitable browser you can have any site display however you like. Here's the Uncertaintist with white text on medium gray ground with purple links:


On Firefox it's Menu (3 bars) > Settings > General (side panel option) > Colors > Manage Colors (button).


Your browser may have the same functionality.