----
Important disclaimer: I don't know anything about ancient Greek.
----
I noticed that Origen uses the phrase "against his will" several times in Contra Celsus when referencing the views of earlier authors. These suggest that Origen was interpreting what the authors "really" meant rather than what they wrote. I suggest that we see Origen doing the same for the James passage.
The examples:
So Celsus didn't actually write that the world is comparatively modern, but Origen believes that's the implication from Celsus' comments about Greek beliefs.
Phlegon didn't write that the doctrines taught be the early fathers had divine power, but according to Origen that was the implication from what Phlegon did write.
Celsus spends a lot of time in Book 4 comparing Christians to irrational ants, flies and bees (and I do mean a lot time!); and Origen spends a lot of time responding to those charges. But according to Origen, even though Celsus doesn''t mean to, he inadvertently highlights the rationality of such creatures and thus Christians and the world.
Finally, coming to the James passage:
Following the same pattern: for Origen, Josephus didn't write overtly that James was the cause of the calamities befalling the Jews, but this was the implication.
Any thoughts from those with knowledge of ancient Greek? Even if against your will?![:)]( "Smile")
Important disclaimer: I don't know anything about ancient Greek.
----
I noticed that Origen uses the phrase "against his will" several times in Contra Celsus when referencing the views of earlier authors. These suggest that Origen was interpreting what the authors "really" meant rather than what they wrote. I suggest that we see Origen doing the same for the James passage.
The examples:
Book 1 https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ ... en161.html
And yet, against his will, Celsus is entangled into testifying that the world is comparatively modern, and not yet ten thousand years old, when he says that the Greeks consider those things as ancient, because, owing to the deluges and conflagrations, they have not beheld or received any memorials of older events.
And yet, against his will, Celsus is entangled into testifying that the world is comparatively modern, and not yet ten thousand years old, when he says that the Greeks consider those things as ancient, because, owing to the deluges and conflagrations, they have not beheld or received any memorials of older events.
So Celsus didn't actually write that the world is comparatively modern, but Origen believes that's the implication from Celsus' comments about Greek beliefs.
Book 2 https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ ... en162.html
Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events (although falling into confusion about some things which refer to Peter, as if they referred to Jesus), but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions. So that he also, by these very admissions regarding foreknowledge, as if against his will, expressed his opinion that the doctrines taught by the fathers of our system were not devoid of divine power.
Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events (although falling into confusion about some things which refer to Peter, as if they referred to Jesus), but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions. So that he also, by these very admissions regarding foreknowledge, as if against his will, expressed his opinion that the doctrines taught by the fathers of our system were not devoid of divine power.
Phlegon didn't write that the doctrines taught be the early fathers had divine power, but according to Origen that was the implication from what Phlegon did write.
Book 4 https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ ... en164.html
And since he [Celsus] asserts that, "when ants die, the survivors set apart a special place (for their interment), and that their ancestral sepulchres such a place is," we have to answer, that the greater the laudations which he heaps upon irrational animals, so much the more does he magnify (although against his will) the work of that reason which arranged all things in order, and points out the skill which exists among men, and which is capable of adorning by its reason even the gifts which are bestowed by nature on the irrational creation.
And since he [Celsus] asserts that, "when ants die, the survivors set apart a special place (for their interment), and that their ancestral sepulchres such a place is," we have to answer, that the greater the laudations which he heaps upon irrational animals, so much the more does he magnify (although against his will) the work of that reason which arranged all things in order, and points out the skill which exists among men, and which is capable of adorning by its reason even the gifts which are bestowed by nature on the irrational creation.
Celsus spends a lot of time in Book 4 comparing Christians to irrational ants, flies and bees (and I do mean a lot time!); and Origen spends a lot of time responding to those charges. But according to Origen, even though Celsus doesn''t mean to, he inadvertently highlights the rationality of such creatures and thus Christians and the world.
Finally, coming to the James passage:
Book 2
Now this writer [Josephus], although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless--being, although against his will, not far from the truth--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.
Now this writer [Josephus], although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless--being, although against his will, not far from the truth--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.
Following the same pattern: for Origen, Josephus didn't write overtly that James was the cause of the calamities befalling the Jews, but this was the implication.
Any thoughts from those with knowledge of ancient Greek? Even if against your will?
Statistics: Posted by GakuseiDon — Sat Nov 09, 2024 1:54 am