Where in Antiquities Do We Suppose "These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just ..." Appeared?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Where in Antiquities Do We Suppose "These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just ..." Appeared?

Post by John2 »

Ben wrote:
I understood you to be saying that whatever Origen and Eusebius were quoting was an interpolation into the text of Josephus, since you agreed with Stephan's first option:

1. the words were in a copy of Josephus used by both Origen and Eusebius.

And you also said that Josephus himself could not have written it ...

So, if the passage was found (by Origen and Eusebius) in a copy of Josephus, and Josephus himself did not write it, then that passage is an interpolation, right? By definition? Or am I missing something?
I mean that "the words" Origen uses do come from Josephus, but not from a lost passage about James but rather from the Ananus passage in War 4.5.2, and that he either misheard or misunderstood this passage to be about James.
Because not to assume that Origen knows Hegesippus (or somebody who knew Hegesippus; remember, we do not necessarily have to suppose that Origen himself accessed the Hegesippan text) means having to make an even greater assumption: namely, that there was at least one copy of Josephus circulating with the interpolation described above (about James' murder being the cause for the siege), and that both Origen and Eusebius quoted from that copy, and then that copy got lost before anybody rectified the lack of the paragraph in question in other copies of Josephus.
No, because I'm not saying there was a lost passage. I'm saying Origen was confused (or misheard about) the Ananus passage. And that Ananus is associated with someone named Jesus (who was "inferior to" Ananus "upon the comparison") might have contributed to the confusion and given Origen the idea that Josephus did not believe Jesus was Christ.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Where in Antiquities Do We Suppose "These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just ..." Appeared?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2017 9:13 pm Ben wrote:
I understood you to be saying that whatever Origen and Eusebius were quoting was an interpolation into the text of Josephus, since you agreed with Stephan's first option:

1. the words were in a copy of Josephus used by both Origen and Eusebius.

And you also said that Josephus himself could not have written it ...

So, if the passage was found (by Origen and Eusebius) in a copy of Josephus, and Josephus himself did not write it, then that passage is an interpolation, right? By definition? Or am I missing something?
I mean that "the words" Origen uses do come from Josephus, but not from a lost passage about James but rather from the Ananus passage in War 4.5.2, and that he either misheard or misunderstood this passage to be about James.
Because not to assume that Origen knows Hegesippus (or somebody who knew Hegesippus; remember, we do not necessarily have to suppose that Origen himself accessed the Hegesippan text) means having to make an even greater assumption: namely, that there was at least one copy of Josephus circulating with the interpolation described above (about James' murder being the cause for the siege), and that both Origen and Eusebius quoted from that copy, and then that copy got lost before anybody rectified the lack of the paragraph in question in other copies of Josephus.
No, because I'm not saying there was a lost passage. I'm saying Origen was confused (or misheard about) the Ananus passage. And that Ananus is associated with someone named Jesus (who was "inferior to" Ananus "upon the comparison") might have contributed to the confusion and given Origen the idea that Josephus did not believe Jesus was Christ.
Ah, I did misunderstand you then. So you think, like I do, that Eusebius took the quotation from Origen, made it direct speech, and attributed it to Josephus on Origen's authority?

At any rate, you and I completely agree on how Origen misread Josephus. Where I differ from you is, of course, on the role of Hegesippus. I think that Clement of Alexandria got his story about the death of James the Just either from Hegesippus or from someone who knew and used Hegesippus, making it plausible that Origen, a bit later on in Alexandria, also had access to such material. It just seems to me that the combination of Origen having read Hegesippus and having misread Josephus explains everything the best. But, if you are content with Josephus alone, that is fine. The results for the status of the passage remains the same overall.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Where in Antiquities Do We Suppose "These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just ..." Appeared?

Post by John2 »

Ben wrote:
Ah, I did misunderstand you then. So you think, like I do, that Eusebius took the quotation from Origen, made it direct speech, and attributed it to Josephus on Origen's authority?
Yes, I agree with that.
At any rate, you and I completely agree on how Origen misread Josephus. Where I differ from you is, of course, on the role of Hegesippus. I think that Clement of Alexandria got his story about the death of James the Just either from Hegesippus or from someone who knew and used Hegesippus, making it plausible that Origen, a bit later on in Alexandria, also had access to such material.
But it seems odd to me, if Origen did know Hegesippus (or someone who knew him), that he never (as far as I can tell) mentions or cites him elsewhere. I imagine Hegesippus would have been very useful to Origen and that someone as meticulous as him (who compiled multiple Bible translations and cited Celsus at length, for examples) would have directly cited or mentioned Hegesippus at least once if he knew about him.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Where in Antiquities Do We Suppose "These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just ..." Appeared?

Post by MrMacSon »

John2 wrote: Sat Nov 18, 2017 9:47 pm
Ben Smith wrote: At any rate, you and I completely agree on how Origen misread Josephus. Where I differ from you is, of course, on the role of Hegesippus. I think that Clement of Alexandria got his story about the death of James 'the Just' either from Hegesippus or from someone who knew and used Hegesippus, making it plausible that Origen, a bit later on in Alexandria, also had access to such material.
But it seems odd to me, if Origen did know Hegesippus (or someone who knew him), that he never (as far as I can tell) mentions or cites him elsewhere. I imagine Hegesippus would have been very useful to Origen and that someone as meticulous as him (who compiled multiple Bible translations and cited Celsus at length, for examples) would have directly cited or mentioned Hegesippus at least once if he knew about him.
There are a number of possibilities. I think the context that they're not doing history but were bedding down a pro-Christian narrative - and, and embellished one at that - is pertinent.

We have the argument of Ken Olson that Eusebius is almost certainly the person responsible for the Testimonium Flavium (AJ 18.3.3), supported by the more recent analysis of Paul Hopper. We now have the argument that Origen doctored Antiq 20.9.1 / 20.200 -

eta: Allen, NPL (2017) 'Josephus on James the Just? A re-evaluation of Antiquitates Judaicae 20.9.1' Journal of Early Christian History, 7; 1-27.
  • eta, part Abstract: "...by highlighting a number of Origen’s key philosophical and theological refutations it becomes evident that, apart from the unlikelihood of Josephus ever writing about James, Origen must now be considered the primary suspect for what is possibly a third century CE Christian forgery."
We know there was a close successive relationship between Origen, Pamphilus, and Eusebius.
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: Where in Antiquities Do We Suppose "These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just ..." Appeared?

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

SA
I am very interested in why both Origen and Eusebius think Josephus had the words ...
They don't think that, IMO. Even if we allow Eusebius the anachronistic punctuation that some modern translations insert there (quotation marks, also called inverted commas), then the phrasing clearly traces back to Origen (especially Against Celsus I.47).

For his part, Origen didn't claim to be quoting Josephus about James. Origen didn't have Josephus open on the desk before him. What he attributes to Josephus - insistently enough to "correct" him about the "real" cause of the calamity - simply isn't there. Or to be precise, the thematic content is largely there, but not linked by Josephus to the trial of James except by being told nearby.

The entire issue, then, rests on a translator's artifact. Either:

- the punctuation simply doesn't belong there, or
- if the punctuation is used, then it needs to be noted that it is Origen, not Josephus, whose phrasing is being recalled.

There is some irony, since what props up the entire James'-trial-is-evidence-for Jesus narrative is Origen's short phrase "called Christ" being mistaken as a quote from Josephus. The phrase is Matthew's, used three times in his Gospel, and Origen uses it in a commentary on Matthew. I think that Origen expected his reader to recognize where he got the phrase from.

Similarly, I don't see any evidence that Eusebius intended his reader to mistake his summary remarks as a verbatim quotation from Josephus, rather than as a closely-paraphrased summary of Origen's views about Josephus, with which Eusebius agreed, possibly in good faith simply on Origen's say-so.

As to Hegesippus, he's somebody who helped to form Origen's and Eusebius' ideas about James the Just. Eusebius' minuscule linkage between Hegesippus' version of the death of James and the sack of Jerusalem (that shortly thereafter Vespasian attacked) may be Eusebius' comment and segue into his next rhetorical point, and not Hegesippus' own view about cause-and-effect. Again, there's no punctuation to divide Eusebius' voice from Hegesippus', and no other source for what the latter wrote.

There is little or no reason at all to think that Origen was confused about Hegesippus. There is every reason to believe he simply misrecalled Antiquities 20, running from late in chapter 8 through early chapter 9.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Where in Antiquities Do We Suppose "These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just ..." Appeared?

Post by Secret Alias »

Painter suggests that the citation of Paul at the beginning of the parallel section in Origen's Commentary on Matthew influenced Eusebius:

https://books.google.com/books?id=HQGsx ... 22&f=false

I however can't help but see things the other way around. I think Eusebius turned a commentary on the Alexandrian gospel harmony into a Commentary on Matthew and so 'filled in the blanks' as it were adding the bits about James and Jude to hide the original structure. Notice that Origen references things found in the Diatessaronic tradition but not in Matthew as is the pattern throughout the Commentary on Matthew:

Let me give you my logic for this after looking at the original passage in the Commentary on Matthew:

And the saying, “Whence hath this man this wisdom,”[1] 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.”[2] And He was wont to do greater miracles than those wrought through Elijah and Elisha, and at a still earlier date through Moses and Joshua the son of Nun. 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?”[3] 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?”[4] 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,[5] as it is entitled, or “The Book of James,”[6] 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 thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee,”[7] 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.”[8] 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.[9] And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, 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.”[10] With regard to Joseph and Simon we have nothing to tell; but the saying, “And His sisters are they not all with us,”[11] 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 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 knoweth this man letters having never learned?”[12] 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.

The original passage in Matthew that this is supposedly a commentary:

When Jesus had finished these parables, he moved on from there. 54 Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked. 55 “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56 Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” 57 And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town and in his own home.” 58 And he did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith.

Clearly the material covered in the Commentary goes beyond Matthew. A second look with non-Matthean passages highlighted in red:

And the saying, “Whence hath this man this wisdom,”[Matt. 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.” And He was wont to do greater miracles than those wrought through Elijah and Elisha, and at a still earlier date through Moses and Joshua the son of Nun. [/b] 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?”[Matt. 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?”[Matt. 13. 55, 56] They thought, then, that He was the son of Joseph and Mary.

Then the 'filler' material to transform the original commentary:
But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter,[5] as it is entitled, or “The Book of James,”[6] 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 thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee,” 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.”[8] 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.[9] And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, 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.”[10] With regard to Joseph and Simon we have nothing to tell; but the saying,
And then back to the commentary:

“And His sisters are they not all with us,”[11] 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 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 knoweth this man letters having never learned?”[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.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Where in Antiquities Do We Suppose "These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just ..." Appeared?

Post by Secret Alias »

And please take note of a pattern in Origen of understanding John 7:15 as being part of the narrative associated with Matthew 13. From Against Celsus:
Now who is there that is capable of giving even moderate attention to affairs— not merely among the believers on Jesus, but among the rest of mankind— that would not laugh at Celsus, on hearing that Jesus, who was born and brought up among the Jews, and was supposed to be the son of Joseph the carpenter, and who had not studied literature— not merely that of the Greeks, but not even that of the Hebrews— as the truth-loving Scriptures testify regarding Him, had read Plato,
Borret, who wrote the book as it were on Contra Celsum sees this as a reference to John 7:15:

Contra Celsum (1)
Date: ca.248 - ca.249
Genre: -
Theme: Faith and Christian Reflection
Clavis: 1476
Biblio:
BORRET M., SC 132 (1967) : livres 1-2 ; SC 136 (1968) : livres 3-4 ; SC 147 (1969) : livres 5-6 ; SC 150 ( 1969 ) : livres 7-8.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Where in Antiquities Do We Suppose "These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just ..." Appeared?

Post by Secret Alias »

That Eusebius corrected Origen is a charge as old as Jerome and his battles with Rufinus. It is IMHO the most likely understanding for the verbal similarities between the passage in the Commentary on Matthew and Church History.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Where in Antiquities Do We Suppose "These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just ..." Appeared?

Post by Secret Alias »

Although Matthew 13:54
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Post Reply