stephan huller

It is the oldest surviving MS of a text claiming to be Josephus's account of the Jewish War. It shouldn't be ignored. A lot of people all over the world preferred this Jewish War tradition to our accepted text. It deserves our attention

stephan huller

And let me clarify - even people who didn't believe that Jesus was the messiah accepted the pseudo-Hegesippus Jewish War tradition. Even though it was overtly Christianized. Curious to say the least.

aa5874

If you claim to be a scholar you should know that the AGE of a manuscript has NO bearing whatsoever on its AUTHENTICITY or VERACITY.

This is basic stuff.

stephan huller

In itself no, of course not. But if a third century New Testament manuscript were to be discovered tomorrow let's see what the reaction would be.

In this particular case I am not just talking about how much earlier the Pseudo-Hegesippus is than the accepted MSS of Josephus. There is also a difference between how widely spread the copies of the Pseudo-Hegesippus family text is (let's call it variety A) than the accepted text (let's call it variety B).

There was an original manuscript of at least one book written on the subject of the Jewish war which many have supposed was written by Josephus in Aramaic. There was at least one book written by Justus of Tiberias written on the subject of the Jewish war in Greek. At some point Josephus's original MS was developed by synergoi into a Greek text. The text called Vita seems to be Josephus responding to 'objections' to his account of what happened in the war. Near the end of Vita Josephus claims that Agrippa was his ally. I don't believe these concluding statements. I think the tone of Vita implies it represents some sort of trial that Josephus was forced to undergo once Vespasian, his original protector had died.

Beyond that it is difficult to say exactly how the various manuscripts made their way to us. All that is clear is that the earliest manuscripts when they are cited by Ante-Nicene Church Fathers are hopelessly corrupt, filled with Christian allusions.

Origen's is particularly interesting. There is a Jewish Antiquities by the middle of the third century but Origen - citing the very book in which the Testimonium Flavianium appears in our collection - comes to a conclusion about Josephus's belief system which makes absolutely clear the Testimonium did not appear in his version of Jewish Antiquities.

At the same time, we have a work attributed to 'Hegesippus' which clearly references the exact same story (or at least a parallel) as Origen says was in 'Josephus's Antiquities' in his day only now Eusebius attributes it to 'Hegesippus' in a work called ὑπομνήματα which makes it seem as if 'Hegesippus' lived in Rome at the time of Irenaeus.

Is it possible that someone in the fourth century began to purge kooky things that Christians had added to Josephus over the years and attributed them to a parallel figure named "Hegesippius"? I think the evidence points in that direction.

maryhelena

I suggest that you take this matter up with Rachel Elior.

stephan huller

AA,

Pseudo-Justin: His Exhortation to the Greeks is a late document, which mentions the name of Josephus and his Antiquities in chapter 9. However it is not by Justin, and may be 5th century in date, according to Hardwick.

stephan huller

I am very tired but I think I have discovered something of earth shattering significance. I think I can prove that all the Alexandrian manuscripts of Josephus were of the 'Hegesippus' variety as such they were Christianized 'frauds' before being 'corrected' to look like an objective historical record.

A lot of people have noticed that Hegesippus's record of the destruction of the temple because of James the Just looks like the kind of historical record the Origen was citing was in his version of the Jewish Antiquities of 'Josephus.' But then a chorus of 'experts' came along and said that this Hegesippus wasn't the same as Josephus the author of the Jewish historical material because Josephus wrote in the late first century and Hegesippus wrote in the middle of the second century and was primarily concerned with a history of the Church.

Well I was trying to dissect this quote from Clement of Alexandria which references Josephus:

Flavius Josephus the Jew, who composed the history of the Jews, computing the periods, says that from Moses to David were five hundred and eighty-five years; from David to the second year of Vespasian, a thousand one hundred and seventy-nine; then from that to the tenth year of Antoninus, seventy-seven. So that from Moses to the tenth year of Antoninus there are, in all, two thousand one hundred and thirty-three years.[Strom. 1.21]

Roger Pearse points out that "Hardwick says that this is a composite of Jewish War 6.435 ff. and Antiquities 8.61 ff; 7.389. Whealey agrees." I found the "from David to the second year of Vespasian, a thousand one hundred and seventy-nine" at the very end of Book Six of the Jewish War but the rest of the numbers don't appear in any source.

Anyway, I was going through every book of Josephus trying to find all these numbers so every minute or so the words of the original citation in Clement would get drilled in my head. Then something just hit me. Why is Josephus calculating the tenth year of Antoninus's reign? That's impossible. Josephus couldn't have known that an Emperor would come along named Antoninus. He died at the turn of the second century long before Antoninus.

So I went back to the original context in Clement just to make sure that Clement was saying that Josephus was saying that - in effect - "that from Moses to the tenth year of Antoninus there are, in all, two thousand one hundred and thirty-three years."

Yes there is no mistake about it.

Now most people's minds would just shut off at this point and say 'it's impossible; Josephus can't be saying this.' I, on the other hand, had already noticed that the figure cited by Eusebius as Hegesippus already cites the report that Origen attributes to Josephus (Hegesippus is a corruption of Josephus in Greek). Then I thought, is it possible that Clement thought that Josephus lived during the reign of Antoninus Pius like Eusebius imagines Hegesippus to have done?

Well I opened up Eusebius's Church History to Book IV and noticed that 'Hegesippus' is portrayed as coming to Rome in the thirteenth year of Antoninus's reign (three years later) after being in Corinth where it may be presumed that he delivered his ὑπομνήματα:

And the Church of the Corinthians remained in the true Word until Primus was bishop in Corinth; I made their acquaintance during my journey to Rome, and remained with the Corinthians many days, in which we were refreshed with the true Word. And when I was in Rome, I made a succession up to Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And in each succession, and in each city, all is according to the ordinances of the Law and the Prophets and the Lord. (Hegesippus in Euseb IV, 22)

Anicetus is traditionally understood to have begun his reign as Pope in the year 150 CE, three years after the ten year of Antoninus's reign the date Clement understands 'Josephus' (his namesake) to have made a calculation dating the distance of time that had elapsed since Moses.

When you take the material attributed to 'Josephus' from Clement and Origen together and compare them to what is preserved by Eusebius as belonging to 'Hegesippus' there can be absolutely no doubt - the Josephan corpus began its existence as a corrupt and highly Christianized text WITHIN THE CHURCH only to be 'corrected' and purified of its obvious corruptions in the fourth century by an author who want to make Christianity and the Church look like something other than a bunch of laughing stocks who used counterfeit historical texts.

I can't believe no one ever noticed this before. But like I said, I am tired. Maybe I am not seeing clearly. I can't even open my eyes.

maryhelena

And what about the Pilate Stone

So, Pilate has some hard evidence for his rule. The dating of his rule is linked to Tiberius - 14 -37 ce. Josephus has been interpreted to suggest that Pilate was in office from 19 ce - which would give an 18 year time slot for the gospel writers to place their Jesus crucifixion story. (Seemingly, the Acts of Pilate puts the crucifixion in 21 ce.) As I wrote, it is only the gospel of Luke that is being so specific re the 15th year of Tiberius.

And the gospel of Matthew can be read to indicate that its Jesus figure was born around the time of the siege of Jerusalem in 37 bc - with its slaughter of innocents. So, again, it is the gospel of Luke that has thrown a spanner in the works....
Actually, whether or not there was a war between Antipas and Aretas is of secondary interest to me. It's the reason given for this war that is my primary focus - the Josephan story re the marriage of Herodias to Antipas, the divorce from the daughter of Aretas - and the involvement of John the Baptist in this story - both in the gospel account and by implication in the killing of John the Baptist prior to the Josephan account of this war.

If one was not reading Josephus as a straightforward historical writer (and putting aside any prophetic interests Josephus might have had) then surely, from a purely literary analysis it is evident that Josephus here is recycling an earlier historical event - with new faces and a bit of a twist. This sort of literary analysis is done all the time with the NT.



The veracity of the narrative? It needs some supporting evidence to support any historicity. Mixing and matching? I'm using both sources in order to try and get a better picture of the history underlying the gospel storyline. In that endeavor I'm finding that Josephus, in regard to Herodian history, a history that relates to the gospel time-frame - is not without problems...Well, at least crystal ball readings try and move things along - better the ups and downs of prediction with the chance of forward movement - than the fossilized, drag your feet approach of the consensus....
No rational pathway to new insights, I'm afraid....

"There are no logical paths to such natural laws, only intuition can reach them". Einstein. The point being that there is no gospel consensus, apart from being within the rule of Pontius Pilate, when Jesus died. Only one gospel writer, Luke, attempts a dating - and even if one wants to put the 3 year ministry of John aside - Luke can be then made to run the 7 years to 37 ce....So, its the attempts at harmonizing Luke with the gospels of John and Matthew that produce yet more problems - at least problems for a historical Jesus theory...Josephus is both, chronicler of the time period plus a 'prophetic historian'.
Perhaps there were a half a dozen more Josephan lookalikes - but all we have is Josephus - and we have to make do. And if that cannot be done, either to verify or falsify Elior's claim - then perhaps it's not a bad ideas to see where that idea can take one. Which I did in an earlier thread. Josephus has turned Philo's Essenes into prophets - and a general in the army. The Essenes: Judas, Menahem, Simon and John

Ah, the ninety nine dollar question? Just what was Josephus up to...

Josephus, like the gospel writer Luke, was playing the numbers game. He has been using symbolic numbers, the 70 and 7, in particular. He has been using these numbers as a template, fitting in his historical re-constructions, interpretations of history, into these symbolic time frames.

Why the interest in numbers? Josephus compared his Essenes to the Pythagoreans.

my bolding

As to Josephus and his story re John the Baptist in 36/37 b c - this story does not contradict the gospel story. As I pointed out above - even the gospel of Luke, on its own not related to the gospel of John, can be read as having the crucifixion in 36 ce - which is I think the position of Kokkinos....

Motive for Josephus re replaying the historical tape of 37 bc to a new time slot of 37 ce. Prophetic interest. Particularly his interest in symbolic numbers. 37 ce is 100 years from another siege of Jerusalem - the 64/63 bc siege of Jerusalem by Pompey. It's the numbers that are important - what Josephus chooses to allocate to the number is his prophetic interpretations.

Closer to the gospel time frame:
Pilate, in Josephus, can be dated either to 18/19 ce or 26 ce.
18/19 ce is 483 years from 465/464 bc - the 1st year of Artaxerxes
26 ce is 490 years from 465/464 ce - the 7th year of Artaxerxes

Is Luke aware of this application of the numbers of Daniel ch.9 by Josephus? Well, all four gospel writers are fixed upon Pontius Pilate. Luke is simply taking the numbers game a step further than the others. He decided to get more specific re the 15th of Tiberius in 29/30ce. A time period 70 years from the rule of Lysanias of Abilene in 40 bc - also a time when Herod becomes King in Rome - and 7 years prior to the 100 year 'anniversary' of Pompey's siege of Jerusalem...

And the 100 year 'anniversary' of the crucifixion and beheading of Antigonus in 37 bc - 63/62 ce and the Josephan storyline re the stoning of James the Just...

So, as they say when one is trying to get to the bottom of some intrigue or another - follow the money - and in this case with the gospels and Josephus - follow the numbers....

spin

An interesting change of topic. Pilate is dated by Josephus. I didn't question his existence. The only sources we have for Pilate that supply any dating for him are the gospels and AJ, but your date range is purely from Josephus. You've got to learn to live with it.

With his family moving to Nazara because Archelaus came to the thrown? Try again.

Only Josephus provides that. The gospels are silent on the Aretas+daughter issue. Yet

Almost no writer in ancient times was a "straightforward historical writer". The historian's job was poorly understood by most.

You are not answering the question. Content in Josephus has been confirmed again and again. Given the track record for confirmation, you need to provide evidence for what appears to be arbitrary dismissal of his narrative.

Mixing and matching. When things suit you you'll take one and then the other. I don't see any coherence in the process.

While Josephus is a historical source in that his content has been verified, what central material in the gospels has been verified? ie while I take Josephus as a proven historical source, I see no reason to accept what is patently tendentious to be of any better use than as a secondary source.

Intuition works by getting you somewhere, then you apply logic to see where you actually are and whether it is of any use.

You are not responding to what I said. Josephus gives us a different chronology. Pilate seems to already have left Judea when John dies.

You can say this however many times you want. If you cannot give any tangibility to it, repeating it won't make it any more useful.

Unfalsifiable renders the claim useless. It has no functional meaning. You may as well be talking nonsense.

Sounds like a load of rubbish to me. Isn't it?

(There was an "if".)

Did he tell you that? Were you at the track when he was placing his bets? How many times did he use his numbers to make his bets? Or are you just reading generic phrases to be more than they were? When you say you'll be back in a week, do you mean that it is always literal, or can it mean six days or eight as well?

The problem has always been chronology. Pilate is gone before John's death. Whoops.


spin

maryhelena

Pilate is not only dated by Josephus. The Pilate Stone, above post, dates Pilate to the rule of Tiberius 14 - 37 ce. I'll live with that, thanks...
So you want to stick with gMatthew? OK - and which date for the death of Herod? 4 bc or 1 bc? From 4 bc to the end of Pilate' rule in 36 ce = at least a 40 year old Jesus at the cut off date for the crucifixion.

(and Luke's Jesus, born in 6 ce - is 30 years old at the cut off date for the crucifixion - and Luke looks to be a bad mathmatician that can't figure out that 6 ce to 29/30 ce is only 23/24 years......)
And the evidence for the war between Antipas and Aretas is???
I'm all for accepting evidence - I don't see any evidence for the Antipas and Aretas war of 37 ce - so why should I accept it? On trust, on faith....Perhaps some of the content of Josephus has been verified - and the content that has not been verified? Take it on trust, on faith....
I'm trying my best....
Seems to have already left Judea?

spin - I have referenced two studies on the issue of Josephus as a 'prophetic historian'. Although I find much interest in this perspective - it is not my perspective. I have referenced two scholarly books.
Well, I hope that your not being othewise here.... Yes, that Josephus is making a dog's dinner out of Philo's Essenes might be classified as "rubbish". It could also indicate that Josephus is using Philo's philosophical Essenes for his own prophetic interests.

What he did do was leave his writing behind - a writing not just of a historical nature but also writing of a 'prophetic historian'. As for Josephus displaying an interest in symbolic numbers - well now, is that not part and parcel of what prophets did?

Bingo! There goes the gospel storyline....
As regards the death of John the Baptist - perhaps it might first be a good idea to provide some evidence that he actually was historical....