aa5874

What is that?

Well, once your claim is true that pseudo-Hegesippus is dated from the 4th century and that Church writers who supposedly LIVED BEFORE the 4th century used pseudo-Hegesippus then it may be that the supposed writings that are claimed to be from those earlier writers were ACTUALLY from the 4th century AFTER pseudo-Hegesippus was written.


Once Origen used pseudo-Hegesippus then that writing or passage under Origen's name MUST be or very likely to be AFTER pseudo-Hegesippus was written.

Now, what is the dating for pseudo-Hegesippus?

If pseudo-Hegesippus is from the 4th century then your statement may be true.

Some people may have already noticed that some writings that were claimed to be early were really very late.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Hegesippus

The theory that writings that are claimed to be early or before the 4th century but was written later or after the 4th century appears to be very good.

stephan huller

AA,

But this is a little different. What I am saying is that Clement of Alexandria allows us to clear a bit of the fog to see that in the late second century the textual tradition called 'Hegesippus' by fourth century writers and editors was actually identified as 'Josephus.' The wrinkle is that they didn't think that they were reading the original work of 'Josephus the son of Matthias' but that of a second century Josephus who was also Jewish but who had come over to Christianity after the bar Kochba revolt.

I am not saying that the text which now is identified as 'Hegesippus' is the exact same as Clement's variant Josephus written in the middle of the second century nor am I saying that it is identical with Eusebius's Hegesippus. I can't say that because there are obvious differences.

What I am saying though is that it bears one striking similarity with that whole tradition - the preserving of a 'second Josephus' figure from a much later period who claims to be guiding us through what he claims is the something more than Josephus's original history of the Jewish War. He adds theological explanations to an original work which he acknowledges was mostly a collection of speeches.

The question before us is whether 'second century Josephus' is just taking a copy of our received text of Jewish War and just adding stuff to it. The answer is clearly no. Hegesippus's narrative is not simply a recycling of our manuscripts of Josephus. There are uncanny similarities a lot of the time but it has a slightly different ancestor.

Just compare the material I just cited. The introductions are totally different and then at the very beginning of the narrative we read:

Nor did Antiochus remain calm who resented his army to have been an object of mockery to Simon the father of Ionathas ... [H]

And now Antiochus was so angry at what he had suffered from Simon ... [J]

... and desiring to quench the beginnings of Ionathas yet rising, coming with a great band, he besieged Jerusalem and Hyrcanus.[H]

... that he made an expedition into Judea, and sat down before Jerusalem and besieged Hyrcanus [J]

... Hyrcanus fended him off with gold, which he was not able to do with weapons, and the tomb of David having been opened, as Josephus is our source, he dug up three thousand talents of gold, from which he counted out three hundred to Antiochus, so that he should abandon the siege, bought off by this price he went away.[H]

... but Hyrcanus opened the sepulcher of David, who was the richest of all kings, and took thence about three thousand talents in money, and induced Antiochus, by the promise of three thousand talents, to raise the siege.[J]

--- [H]

Moreover, he was the first of the Jews that had money enough, and began to hire foreign auxiliaries also.[J]

I don't think that Hegesippus is simply our Josephus + Christian references. No one else thinks it is that simple either. What I am trying to suggest is that our Josephus is rather a shrinking of a second century text which was similar to but not exactly like this surviving Hegesippus.

This will become especially clear when we get to the parts in the narrative where OUR Josephus speaks about himself and his actions in the third person. A narrative like Hegesippus which begins ALWAYS speaks about Josephus in the third person seems closer to the original text behind our heavily edited Josephus narrative.

I have never thought of this before. I am going through all of this for the first time will all of you ...

maryhelena

Josephus, seemingly, published 'War' in the early post 70 ce years. Antiquities was published around 93/94. Around 20 years between the two publications. Adding to that mix would be the early traditions within Slavonic Josephus - possibly from an earlier version of 'War'.

Ideas develop with time. Where one was intellectually 20 years ago is no indication of where one is today. Thus, in the case of Josephus, or whoever it is that is writing under that name - allowance needs to be made for this reality. If, for the sake of argument, 'Josephus', became involved with the early or pre-christian developments - then his later writing in Antiquities could have been written from a different perspective than the perspective he had when writing 'War'.

Regarding third person writing: If, as I think, 'Josephus' is not a historical figure but a pseudonym, then such third person writing could be either intentional or a lapse of concentration.

Who has used 'Josephus' as a pseudonym? My money would be on Agrippa II.

Was Josephus a historical person?

aa5874

There is still fog.

There are similarities?

In effect, you are saying the pseudo-Hegesippus mutilated the writings of Josephus.

So, your answer may not be right. It is NOT clear at all. Once there is FOG it cannot ALSO be clear.

It is not necessary for pseudo-Hegesippus to be identical to any writing of Josephus only that there are some similarities that were very likely from Josephus.

Why do you think you KNOW what every one else thinks?

Pseudo-Hegesippus is CLEARLY Josephus + Christian references once it is DATED AFTER the writings of Josephus.

Once you cannot DATE pseudo-Hegesippus BEFORE the writings of Josephus then it is MOST likely that pseudo-Hegesippus is Josephus + Christian references.

The writings of Josephus are DATED as 1st century and pseudo-Hegesippus is placed at the 4th century.

Your admission is earth shattering. We are not all intellectually lazy.

stephan huller

The third in our series where we try to establish whether the underlying common text of Jewish War (shared by Latin Pseudo-Hegesippus and Greek Jewish War) prove that we have the original narrative written by 1st Josephus or a deliberately 'corrected' version of a Christianized text by a 2nd century Josephus openly attesting that he was working from and adding to 1st century Josephus (viz. a fourth century editor eventually wrote 2nd century Josephus out of the narrative). We will go through the existing material line by line where ever a reference to Josephus appears in the first person or third person.

Here is the third appearance of 'Josephus' in one of the surviving narratives:

They indeed paid the punishments of their crimes, who after they had crucified Jesus the judge of divine matters, afterwards even persecuted his disciples. However a great part of the Jews, and very many of the gentiles believed in him, since they were attracted by his moral precepts, by works beyond human capability flowing forth. For whom not even his death put an end to their faith and gratitude, on the contrary it increased their devotion. And so they brought in murderous bands and conducted the originator of life to Pilatus to be killed, they began to press the reluctant judge. In which however Pilatus is not absolved, but the madness of the Jews is piled up, because he was not obliged to judge, whom not at all guilty he had arrested, nor to double the sacrilege to this murder, that by those he should be killed who had offered himself to redeem and heal them. About which the Jews themselves bear witness, Josephus a writer of histories saying, that there was in that time a wise man, if it is proper however, he said, to call a man the creator of marvelous works, who appeared living to his disciples after three days of his death in accordance with the writings of the prophets, who prophesied both this and innumerable other things full of miracles about him from which began the community of Christians and penetrated into every tribe of men nor has any nation of the Roman world remained, which was left without worship of him. If the Jews don't believe us, they should believe their own people. Josephus said this, whom they themselves think very great, but it is so that he was in his own self who spoke the truth otherwise in mind, so that he did not believe his own words. But he spoke because of loyalty to history, because he thought it a sin to deceive, he did not believe because of stubbornness of heart and the intention of treachery. He does not however prejudge the truth because he did not believe but he added more to his testimony, because although disbelieving and unwilling he did not refuse. In which the eternal power of Jesus Christ shone bright because even the leaders of the synagogue confessed him to be god whom they had seized for death. And truly as god speaking without limitation of persons or any fear of death he announced also the future destruction of the temple. But the damage of the temple did not move them, but because they were chastized by him in scandal and sacrilege, from this their wrath flared up that they should kill him, whom no ages had held. For while others had earned by praying to do what they did, he had it in his power that he could order all things what he wished to be done. John the Baptist a holy man, who never placed the truth of salvation in second place, had been killed before the death of Jesus. Finally to all things which he taught to be full of righteousness, with which he invited the Jews to the worship of god, he had instituted baptism for the sake of purification of mind and body. For whom freedom was the cause of his death, because he was unable, the law having violated of the right of fraternal marriage, to endure the wife abducted from a brother by Herod. For when this same Herod was travelling to Rome, having entered the house of his brother for the purpose of lodging, the wife to whom was Herodias the daughter of Aristobolus, the sister of king Agrippa, unmindful of nature he dared to solicit her, that the brother having been left behind she should marry him, when he had returned from the city of Rome, with the consent of the woman an agreement of lewdness having been entered into information of which thing came to the daughter of king Areta still remaining in marriage of Herod. She indignant at her rival insinuated to her returning husband that he should go to the town Macherunta which was in the boundaries of king Petreus and Herod. He who suspected nothing, at the same time because he had impaired the whole state around the same, by which he could more easily keep the faith of the agreement to Herodias if he should get rid of his wife, agreed to her diversion. But she when he came near to her father's kingdom revealed the things learned to her father Areta, who by an ambush attacked and completely destroyed in a battle the entire force of Herod, the betrayal having been made through those, who from the people of Philippus the tetrarch had associated themselves to Herod. Whence Herod took the quarrel to Caesar, but the vengeance ordered by Caesar the anger of god took away, for in the very preparation of war the death of Caesar was announced. And we discover this assessed by the Jews and believed, the author Josephus a suitable witness against himself, that not by the treachery of men but by the arousing of god Herod lost his army and indeed rightly on account of the vengeance of John the Baptist a just man who had said to him: it is not permitted you to have that wife. But we construe this thusly as if in their own people the Jews preserved their lawful rights, among whom the power of the high priest had perished and the avarice of those killed and the arrogance of the powerful, who thought the right to do what they wished was permitted to them. For from the beginning Aaron was the chief priest, who transmitted to his sons by the will of god and a lawful anointing the prerogative of the priesthood, by whom by the order of succession are constituted those exercising the chief command of the priesthood. Whence by the custom of our fathers it became valid for no one to become the foremost of the priests, unless he was from the blood of Aaron, to whom the first law of this method of the priesthood was entrusted. It is not permitted to succeed to a man of another descent even if a king. Finally Ozias, because he seized the office of the priesthood, overspread with leprosy ejected from the temple, he spent the rest of his life without authority. And without doubt he was a good king, but it was not permitted to him to usurp the office of religion.[Hegesippus 2.12]

This is one of the most important references in the series because of its connection with the whole Testimonium Flavianum which is cited here almost exactly as many scholars have supposed it might have appeared in the 'original Josephus.'

Our own Andrew Criddle has written about this already in a number of places. Here is what I dug up today on the web:

Pseudo-Hegesippus is of interest in providing (in book 2 chapter 12) a version of the Testimonium Flavianum (Josephus’ account of Christ) which is unlikely to be directly or indirectly influenced by Eusebius:

About which the Jews themselves bear witness, Josephus a writer of histories saying, that there was in that time a wise man, if it is proper however, he said, to call a man the creator of marvelous works, who appeared living to his disciples after three days of his death in accordance with the writings of the prophets, who prophesied both this and innumerable other things full of miracles about him. from which began the community of Christians and penetrated into every tribe of men nor has any nation of the Roman world remained, which was left without worship of him. If the Jews don't believe us, they should believe their own people. Josephus said this, whom they themselves think very great, but it is so that he was in his own self who spoke the truth otherwise in mind, so that he did not believe his own words. But he spoke because of loyalty to history, because he thought it a sin to deceive, he did not believe because of stubbornness of heart and the intention of treachery. He does not however prejudge the truth because he did not believe but he added more to his testimony, because although disbelieving and unwilling he did not refuse.

For the importance of a witness to Josephus that is independent of Eusebius, please see my series of posts:

“Josephus, the Testimonium Flavianum, and Eusebius” (Aug. 6, 2004) http://hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2004/...-eusebius.html

“A Pre-Eusebian Witness to the Testimonium” (Aug. 7, 2004) http://hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2004/...stimonium.html

“Tacitus, Josephus, and Eusebius” (Dec. 10, 2004) http://hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2004/...-eusebius.html

Now I want everyone to know that I still have inner doubts about the idea that the historical Josephus ever referenced Jesus. I am sure there are many people here do too. Nevertheless, what the evidence must guide our research and the fact that 'second century Josephus' knows a version of the Testimonium Flavianum which appears in our received text of Jewish Antiquities is a far bitterer pill for those arguing that the received texts of the Josephan corpus come directly from a 'first century Josephus.'

I get the feeling that some people are having difficulty with this matryoshka doll concept I am presenting. So let me try and spell it out again.

The question here is whether the common ancestor to Jewish War and Hegesippus represents 'first century Josephus' speaking or Clement of Alexandria's 'Josephus the Jew' who wrote in the tenth year of the reign of Antoninus Pius (i.e. 147 CE). I think the evidence weighs especially heavily in favor of the latter proposition and that Eusebius or some fourth century figure not only transformed the Testimonium Flavianum but also systematically removed the original narrator - 'second century Josephus' - thereby strengthening the value and the credibility of the narrative.

The reason for this is that Origen - whose claims about 'Josephus' undoubtedly the same 'Josephus' known through a common manuscript shared with Clement - specifically states that Josephus "did not accept Jesus as Christ" [Comm. Matt. 10.17] Moreover Criddle points us to another argument that strengthens this suggestion:

Again, we have to go where the evidence leads us. We can't refuse to hear what Criddle is saying merely because we don't agree with the idea that the real 'first century Josephus' ever really testified on behalf of the historical Jesus. This is the way partisans reason. It is unbecoming a true researcher seeking truth.

So let us concede the possibility that Origen does know a form of the Testimonium Flavianum. The two elements just mentioned fit perfectly within the context of the surviving material in Hegesippus which as I have noted are in turn undoubtedly more purely connected with Clement's second century 'Josephus the Jew' writing in 147 CE than our existing Josephan corpus which was clearly edited by Eusebius or someone like Eusebius living in the fourth century.

This is a major development when you really think of it. All that Whiston's argument does is lead to yet another confirmation that the Alexandrian tradition had a text which was intimately related to the fourth century 'Hegesippus' manuscript. Indeed let's look again at what 'second century Josephus' does with the testimony he has in front of him from 'first century Josephus.' He writes that:

that there was in that time a wise man, if it is proper however, he said, to call a man the creator of marvelous works, who appeared living to his disciples after three days of his death in accordance with the writings of the prophets, who prophesied both this and innumerable other things full of miracles about him from which began the community of Christians and penetrated into every tribe of men nor has any nation of the Roman world remained, which was left without worship of him. If the Jews don't believe us, they should believe their own people. Josephus said this, whom they themselves think very great, but it is so that he was in his own self who spoke the truth otherwise in mind, so that he did not believe his own words. But he spoke because of loyalty to history, because he thought it a sin to deceive, he did not believe because of stubbornness of heart and the intention of treachery. He does not however prejudge the truth because he did not believe but he added more to his testimony, because although disbelieving and unwilling he did not refuse.

Some obvious things which might have escaped most people's eyes (heavy as they are with inherited prejudices) is that 'second century Josephus' does not report that 'first century Josephus' specifically identifies this figure as 'Jesus.' He is just 'a wise man' who had 'disciples' and who 'appeared living' after 'three days of his death' and whose miracles represent the beginning of 'the community of Christians.' I won't distract readers with my own theories but the gospels do specifically mention 'disciples of John' who in the Marcionite recension at least do not seem to belong to our familiar 'John the Baptist.' It is worth noting that Origen and many other fathers point to a subtext involving John the disciple. The multiplication of loaves miracle especially references a youth who seems to be involved in the working of the miracle. The Coptic tradition seems equally convinced that Mark who is called John is hidden throughout the narrative bolstered by the idea behind the Muratorian canon's claim that Mark was present at all the things he reported. The Coptic tradition thinks strangely that Mark was also present at miracles reported in other gospels. One can also see that the disciples didn't recognize the resurrected figure until he demonstrates 'the marks of Christ' on his body.

In any event, I don't want to get too distracted so for the present moment we need only note that our received texts of Josephus are further removed from the original version of the Testimonium Flavianum than our copies of the Hegesippus. The Hegesippus knows the original reading known to Origen - i.e. a reference which (a) does not identify Jesus as the Christ but which (b) has an ambiguous reference to a wise man who had disciples, did miracles and ultimately showed himself living after three days of death.

How can people continue to laugh at the Hegesippus?

One more thing, which may be of interest. Second century Josephus clearly did not have Jewish Antiquities (see previous entry in this series http://freeratio.org/showthread.php?...31#post6478431) and yet he cites this variant Testimonium Flavianum which resembles the form most scholars think is original Josephus. Second century Josephus thinks the Testimonium appeared in first century Josephus's lost original narrative of his role in the Jewish War. It was removed from our 'corrected' fourth century version of Jewish War which has since become our accepted text. This demonstrates above all else that Jewish Antiquities served as a 'junk yard' for problematic passages in the original Jewish War even those with connection to Christianity - such as references to 'John the Baptist' (Jewish Antiquities Book 18) and 'James the brother of Jesus (Jewish Antiquities Book 20) - once again confirming the original hypothesis that our Jewish War was purified of Christian references rather than representing any thing resembling the original edition of 'first century Josephus.'

The proposed order of development again of the Jewish War material:

1. lost Aramaic manuscript of first century Josephus's Jewish War
2. lost second century manuscript of second century Josephus's reworking of that text with a Christian spin.
3. Pseudo-Hegesippus which is a version of (2) albeit corrected to some extent
4. the received text of Jewish War which represents a wholesale neutering of anything related to Christianity AND the presence of 'second century Josephus' from (2).

stephan huller

Mary Helena,

I don't think it was Agrippa. I think Vita is mostly authentic. I don't know all the answers. My guess is still that Justus of Tiberias's Chronology hasn't completely disappeared. It might be in the Jewish War somewhere. That's my suspicion. Why? How did Josephus know what going on behind the walls of Jerusalem? Why do I think Justus did? Well its just a theory but Josephus seems to accuse Justus of being involved in the revolt throughout and then there's this ...

[Vespasian] said; I am now going, and will send someone to take my place. You can, however, make a request of me and I will grant it. He said to him: Give me Jabneh and its Wise Men, and the family chain of Rabban Gamaliel, and physicians to heal R. Zadok. R. Joseph, or some say R. Akiba, applied to him the verse, '[God] turneth wise men backward and maketh their knowledge foolish'. He ought to have said to him; Let them [the Jews] off this time. He, however, thought that so much he would not grant, and so even a little would not be saved. How did the physicians heal R. Zadok? The first day they let him drink water in which bran had been soaked; on the next day water in which there had been coarse meal; on the next day water in which there had been flour, so that his stomach expanded little by little.[Gittin 56b]

R. Zadok was earlier identified as being behind the walls of Jerusalem. He is spared the fate of other Jews in the same way Justus is save (albeit by Berenice in Vita but same difference). Latin Justus = Hebrew Zadok (the Hebrew zedek interestingly is usually translated by the Aramaic zakkai which is in turn the source of the name Zacchaeus for those keeping track at home).

But I think there are good grounds for suspecting that the figure remembered as R. Zadok in the rabbinic tradition might be Justus of Tiberias. It's all speculative of course. But Zadok seems to have been influential in the post-destruction period in the same way that Justus was being Agrippa's secretary.

The bottom line is that Agrippa didn't need to write an account when he had his secretary compose a history of the period on his behalf.

maryhelena

And if Agrippa wanted to write something that was not quite kosher, ie something along the lines of a re-write of Herodian/Hasmonean history. A re-write that was to be in support of Agrippa's prophetic interpretations, evaluations of recent history, from a 'salvation' perspective - perhaps his secretary, being an 'honorable' man, was not keen on his employer cooking the history books - and either resigned or got fired - and would later, if he attempted any history book of his own - be discredited. After all, the political and financial power was with Agrippa....:constern01:

stephan huller

The fifth in our series where we try to establish whether the underlying common text of Jewish War (shared by Latin Pseudo-Hegesippus and Greek Jewish War) prove that we have the original narrative written by 1st Josephus or a deliberately 'corrected' version of a Christianized text by a 2nd century Josephus openly attesting that he was working from and adding to 1st century Josephus (viz. a fourth century editor eventually wrote 2nd century Josephus out of the narrative). We will go through the existing material line by line where ever a reference to Josephus appears in the first person or third person.

Here is the fifrth appearance of 'Josephus' in one of the surviving narratives. First the pseudo-Hegesippus:

But let us return to the plan, alarmed by the serious news Nero, things in Judaea not going favorably, placed Vespasian a man experienced in war in charge of all military matters which were in Syria. He hastily, for indeed no time for delaying was given, his son Titus having been sent to Alexandria, so that he should lead thence some part of the soldiers who were present, he himself the Hellesponts strait having been crossed hastened his steps into Syria. In the meantime the Jews elated by the favorable affairs choose leaders of the military for the war. They assign the places to which each would be in charge, what duties each should carry out. Joseph son of Gorion and Ananus chief of the priests they put in charge of the affairs of Jerusalem city and especially of restoring the walls. Eleazarus son of Simon desired ardently that something of the state offices be committed to him. But although he collected in his power all the booty they had captured from the Roman army, especially rich and fat, piled up by the avarice and unbounded robberies of Cestius, however having considered (him) more intent on preparing power for himself than appropriate for general benefit they determined that he should be turned down. But gradually by soliciting individually by giving by bribery he accomplished that the substance of all things should be committed to his control. Also one Jesus of the priests and Eleazarus the son of a priest placed in charge of military affairs received (the task of) guarding Idumaea, reserving however precedence always in the greatest matters to Nigerus the foremost man of all of Idumaea, Hiericho was allotted to Joseph of Simon, to Manassus was committed Perea a region located across the Euphrates to which from there tne name was conferred, because the Euphrates is crossed by those travelling to that region. Iohannes Essaeus, also another Iohannes the son of Anania and others assigned to various regions, which they were to protect with their care. And so each was not to forsake the duties committed to him, to build walls, to gather a fighting band. From whom Josephus descending into Galilaea, quickly took care to fortify the citadels, to establish defences, to join to himself the strongest and promptest to fight of the region, to restrain brigandage, to be present daily in the camp, to exercise the soldiers in the manner of the Roman troops, to distribute the ranks, to assign the centurions, to place most in authority (those) by whom discipline could be most easily exacted from everybody, lest anyone should escape notice whoever abandoned his individual duties. He put into effect even that they should recognize the summons and retreats of the trumpets, that they should follow the regular arrangement of the ranks, set straight the battle line, join together their shields, like a wall, if perhaps a great force of the enemy should make an assault, they should defend themselves against those making a charge, they should go to the aid of those hard pressed, to have compassion for the exhausted, to turn against themselves the dangers of others, not only to teach the arts of war like the Roman military but even before war to threaten which further assists fighters, as a soldier he should carry food for himself and arms, he should protect himself by a wall and ditch and he should forestall the enemy by placing fortified camps, he should obey orders, he should be accustomed to abstain from theft and robbery, he should think his gain appropriate if he inflicts nothing of expense upon rural farmers. For what distinguishes (him) from the enemy who himself carries off in a hostile manner things found, unless because it is more serious to attack his own rather than a foreigner's and to plunder his allies rather than his enemies? A good conscience avails much in war, because he anticipates more from divine aid who recognizes himself a connection of no crime. But from these things he experienced ill-will to have inflicted harm upon himself among the wicked more quickly than there was gratitude among the good. For when he had collected about sixty thousand foot soldiers, very few horsemen, those who fought for pay about four thousand men, also six hundred picked guards of his body, he took so much from the Jews, that more of peril before the war threatened from his own men than in the war itself from the Romans. I omit what of sedition was aroused, because it was suspected that they returned things seized by brigandage to those who had lost them, especially to Agrippa and Beronica, to whom things were rightly returned, lest they should make the king more hostile. But he however, by which he might soften the fury of the people, said that the money was saved for the construction rather of walls than for the indemnification of the rulers, and all those things which had been taken from Ptolomaeus, who had carried away the royal gold, garments, and remaining items; they judged that the Taricheatans to owe, for among them things were carried out, whether they thought it should be saved for the restoration of their walls, or whether it should be expended for plundering the robbers. It certainly seemed unfitting that he should receive punishment because he had planned better. And therefore these things having reversed he at the same time escaped ill-will and danger. Again when Tiberias had demanded the favor of king Agrippa and association, Josephus hurrying himself forth out of the celebrated city of the Taricheatians, closed the gates, lest any messenger should proceed to the city of Tiberias and point out that military assistance was lacking to Josephus. He however collected the fishing boats from the lake, which he was able to trace out in time, and he sought Tiberias by rowing, but when he came to that place, in which indeed a conspicuous display of boats had been stationed in the city, they were unable to be found out however whether they were empty of fighters, he ordered them to be scattered through the total space of the lake, that the number should be considered greater, nor could any be considered empty rather than filled with fighters, from which terrified, because they considered themselves powerless against such a great multitude, they threw down their arms and the gates having been opened they poured themselves out suppliant to Josephus, who as if the leader of a military host had approached nearer. It was sought by what madness finally they had put on the division in their minds, driven by what authorities were they about to surrender themselves to their adversaries. And at the same time those running up to him he ordered the governors that they should bring out Taricheas and with him almost six hundred members of the court, many of the people he seized in chains. Also Clituin the leader arraigned for his crimes he ordered to pay the penalty of his hands being amputated and he asking, that at least one hand be left to him, Josephus ordered, that he should take off for himself what he wished. Then he seizing a sword with his right hand cut off his left hand. And so Tiberias was recovered, but even Sephoris a separation having been attempted was nevertheless held fast by tenacity to Josephus among the cities (that were) partners of the Jews. He preferred to defend his own by peaceful policies rather than by attacking those hostile.[Hegesippus 3.3]

And then we follow with the parallel account in the received text of Jewish War:

But as to those who had pursued after Cestius, when they were returned back to Jerusalem, they overbore some of those that favored the Romans by violence, and some them persuaded [by en-treaties] to join with them, and got together in great numbers in the temple, and appointed a great many generals for the war. Joseph also, the son of Gorion, and Ananus the high priest, were chosen as governors of all affairs within the city, and with a particular charge to repair the walls of the city; for they did not ordain Eleazar the son of Simon to that office, although he had gotten into his possession the prey they had taken from the Romans, and the money they had taken from Cestius, together with a great part of the public treasures, because they saw he was of a tyrannical temper, and that his followers were, in their behavior, like guards about him. However, the want they were in of Eleazar's money, and the subtle tricks used by him, brought all so about, that the people were circumvented, and submitted themselves to his authority in all public affairs.

They also chose other generals for Idumea; Jesus, the son of Sapphias, one of the high priests; and Eleazar, the son of Ananias, the high priest; they also enjoined Niger, the then governor of Idumea, who was of a family that belonged to Perea, beyond Jordan, and was thence called the Peraite, that he should be obedient to those fore-named commanders. Nor did they neglect the care of other parts of the country; but Joseph the son of Simon was sent as general to Jericho, as was Manasseh to Perea, and John, the Esscue, to the toparchy of Thamna; Lydda was also added to his portion, and Joppa, and Emmaus. But John, the son of Matthias, was made governor of the toparchies of Gophnitica and Acrabattene; as was Josephus, the son of Matthias, of both the Galilees. Gamala also, which was the strongest city in those parts, was put under his command.

So every one of the other commanders administered the affairs of his portion with that alacrity and prudence they were masters of; but as to Josephus, when he came into Galilee, his first care was to gain the good-will of the people of that country, as sensible that he should thereby have in general good success, although he should fail in other points. And being conscious to himself that if he communicated part of his power to the great men, he should make them his fast friends; and that he should gain the same favor from the multitude, if he executed his commands by persons of their own country, and with whom they were well acquainted; he chose out seventy of the most prudent men, and those elders in age, and appointed them to be rulers of all Galilee, as he chose seven judges in every city to hear the lesser quarrels; for as to the greater causes, and those wherein life and death were concerned, he enjoined they should be brought to him and the seventy elders.

Josephus also, when he had settled these rules for determining causes by the law, with regard to the people's dealings one with another, betook himself to make provisions for their safety against external violence; and as he knew the Romans would fall upon Galilee, he built walls in proper places about Jotapata, and Bersabee, and Selamis; and besides these, about Caphareccho, and Japha, and Sigo, and what they call Mount Tabor, and Tarichee, and Tiberias. Moreover, he built walls about the caves near the lake of Gennesar, which places lay in the Lower Galilee; the same he did to the places of Upper Galilee, as well as to the rock called the Rock of the Achabari, and to Seph, and Jamnith, and Meroth; and in Gaulonitis he fortified Seleucia, and Sogane, and Gamala; but as to those of Sepphoris, they were the only people to whom he gave leave to build their own walls, and this because he perceived they were rich and wealthy, and ready to go to war, without standing in need of any injunctions for that purpose. The case was the same with Gischala, which had a wall built about it by John the son of Levi himself, but with the consent of Josephus; but for the building of the rest of the fortresses, he labored together with all the other builders, and was present to give all the necessary orders for that purpose. He also got together an army out of Galilee, of more than a hundred thousand young men, all of which he armed with the old weapons which he had collected together and prepared for them.

And when he had considered that the Roman power became invincible, chiefly by their readiness in obeying orders, and the constant exercise of their arms, he despaired of teaching these his men the use of their arms, which was to be obtained by experience; but observing that their readiness in obeying orders was owing to the multitude of their officers, he made his partitions in his army more after the Roman manner, and appointed a great many subalterns. He also distributed the soldiers into various classes, whom he put under captains of tens, and captains of hundreds, and then under captains of thousands; and besides these, he had commanders of larger bodies of men. He also taught them to give the signals one to another, and to call and recall the soldiers by the trumpets, how to expand the wings of an army, and make them wheel about; and when one wing hath had success, to turn again and assist those that were hard set, and to join in the defense of what had most suffered. He also continually instructed them ill what concerned the courage of the soul, and the hardiness of the body; and, above all, he exercised them for war, by declaring to them distinctly the good order of the Romans, and that they were to fight with men who, both by the strength of their bodies and courage of their souls, had conquered in a manner the whole habitable earth. He told them that he should make trial of the good order they would observe in war, even before it came to any battle, in case they would abstain from the crimes they used to indulge themselves in, such as theft, and robbery, and rapine, and from defrauding their own countrymen, and never to esteem the harm done to those that were so near of kin to them to be any advantage to themselves; for that wars are then managed the best when the warriors preserve a good conscience; but that such as are ill men in private life will not only have those for enemies which attack them, but God himself also for their antagonist.[Jewish War 2.20.3 - 7]

Believe it or not, this seemingly innocuous description of the beginning of military operations for the rebels is represents a transformational moment in our efforts. Everything is really downhill from here. I believe that a detailed examination of this section will prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the surviving 'received' copies of 'first century Josephus' represent a deliberate reworking of a narrative written by 'second century Josephus' principally about 'first century Josephus' and his actions during the Jewish War.

As I have noted there undoubtedly was an original Aramaic narrative written in the first person by 'first century Josephus' which served as the template for 'second century Josephus.' Nevertheless the claims of our received text that it is that first century text are out and out lies. Our received text is properly defined as a deliberate reworking of the text known to Clement of Alexandria and presumably Origen as - in effect 'second century Josephus' - which in turn is the grandfather (or possibly 'father') of our surviving Latin Hegesippus. Let me say it again - Hegesippus more faithfully preserves the original material of 'second century Josephus' than our received text because the received text is trying to disguise itself as the original 'first century Josephus' which was likely lost to history at a very early period.

How do we know that the received text of Josephus's Jewish War is just the 'second century' Jewish War known to Clement with all the original Christianized narrative gutted? The answer lies in the strange third person narrative that extends through much - but not all - of Josephus's narrative.

No, I am not going to bring up the old argument that it is unreasonable to suppose that the Aramaic text of Josephus would have tried to imitate Thucydides. That's not a proof, that's an argument. Indeed, the third person narrative is also typically defended by arguing that 'first century Josephus' now living within the reconquered Palestine wanted to distance himself from lingering accusations associated with his war crimes.

The dangerous new question which comes from our recognition of a 'second century Josephus' at the earliest period of the transmission of the Jewish War narrative is the identity the historical 'first century Josephus.' By removing 'first century Josephus' as the ultimate author of our narrative, we are free now to place the rebel commander under the microscope - to prod and poke him - all in an effort to discover his true identity and separate the motives of the fourth century editor of the Josephan corpus from 'Josephus the general.'

stephan huller

Why does a critical evaluation of this section of Josephus challenge our inherited identity? Well let's just begin by saying that most people reading this post think they already know the answer to the question - he is Joseph son of Matthias and so have never even bothered to think that there might be a problem or that our inherited image of Josephus might have been deliberately developed by a fourth century editor to shield us from the truth.

Now that I have discovered this new wrinkle in the old problem of Josephus I find people are more interested in having me prove the identity of the 'second century Josephus' because the former question is already resolved for them.

Yet there is reason to think there is 'something wrong' with our knowledge of the identity of 'first century Josephus.' This section proves it.

So why does the Hegesippus tradition challenge our inherited notion of the identity of 'first century Josephus'? Well, let me introduce to you the understanding of Josephus that my mother was introduced to when she was growing up in schule in Switzerland.

At least a few of you might know the Yosippon which is universally acknowledged to have used a text related to - if not identical - with Pseudo-Hegesippus looked at what was written in Jewish War (as a quick side note the Arabic still retains the name Hegesippus through his name 'Yusibus') and took it for granted that Josephus was Joseph bar Gorion or as the Hebrew rendered his name Joseph ben Gorion or יוסף בן גוריון

Why were the Jews so ignorant of the fact that 'Josephus' was really 'Joseph son of Matthias'? We might suppose that maybe they wanted to develop Josephus into a relative of Simon bar Giora or make the innocent priest more of a militant. The footnote to the reference to 'Joseph the son of Gorion' in the above cited reference in the received text of Jewish War led to this mocking footnote from Whiston "From this name of Joseph the son of Gorion, or Gorion the son of Joseph, as B. IV. ch. 3. sect. 9, one of the governors of Jerusalem, who was slain at the beginning of the tumults by the zealots, B. IV. ch. 6. sect. 1, the much later Jewish author of a history of that nation takes his title, and yet personates our true Josephus, the son of Matthias; but the cheat is too gross to be put upon the learned world."

But is this really a 'cheat'? Are the Jews really pulling a fast one over the world identifying Josephus the revolutionary commander of Galilee as Joseph bar Gorion the brother presumably of Simon bar Giora the revolutionary commander of Idumea?

What Whiston hasn't done is look at the Yosippon (probably couldn't read Hebrew) or the Pseudo-Hegesippus textual tradition from which it derives. If he did he would see that the Jews were giving an accurate account of what their text actually says WITHOUT prejudicing that reading with accepted notions promoted among white people.

The natural reading of Hegesippus textual tradition is that 'first century Josephus' was Joseph bar Gorion:

They [the Jewish elders] assign the places to which each would be in charge, what duties each should carry out. Joseph son of Gorion and Ananus chief of the priests they put in charge of the affairs of Jerusalem city and especially of restoring the walls ... And so each was not to forsake the duties committed to him, to build walls, to gather a fighting band. From whom Josephus descending into Galilaea, quickly took care to fortify the citadels, to establish defences, to join to himself the strongest and promptest to fight of the region, to restrain brigandage, to be present daily in the camp, to exercise the soldiers in the manner of the Roman troops, to distribute the ranks, to assign the centurions, to place most in authority (those) by whom discipline could be most easily exacted from everybody, lest anyone should escape notice whoever abandoned his individual duties.

The parallel passage in the received text however clearly ADDS the name 'Josephus the son of Matthias' at a critical juncture in order to make this other Josephus appear as someone who only stayed in Jerusalem:

and [they] got together in great numbers in the temple, and appointed a great many generals for the war. Joseph also, the son of Gorion, and Ananus the high priest, were chosen as governors of all affairs within the city, and with a particular charge to repair the walls of the city ... [n]or did they neglect the care of other parts of the country ... John, the son of Matthias, was made governor of the toparchies of Gophnitica and Acrabattene; as was Josephus, the son of Matthias, of both the Galilees. Gamala also, which was the strongest city in those parts, was put under his command. So every one of the other commanders administered the affairs of his portion with that alacrity and prudence they were masters of; but as to Josephus, when he came into Galilee, his first care was to gain the good-will of the people of that country, as sensible that he should thereby have in general good success, although he should fail in other points. And being conscious to himself that if he communicated part of his power to the great men, he should make them his fast friends; and that he should gain the same favor from the multitude, if he executed his commands by persons of their own country, and with whom they were well acquainted; he chose out seventy of the most prudent men, and those elders in age, and appointed them to be rulers of all Galilee, as he chose seven judges in every city to hear the lesser quarrels; for as to the greater causes, and those wherein life and death were concerned, he enjoined they should be brought to him and the seventy elders.

This is patently obvious a deliberate addition - the second if we remember the preface - a purposive reference to misidentify 'first century Josephus.' The way that old scholarship used to belittle the attribution in the Yosippon was by assuming that it was ideosyncratic or implying that it represented some manipulation of the text by Jewish sources. The thing that these people overlooked of course was that the source of the reading was already present in Pseudo-Hegesippus and undoubtedly went back to the grandfather text known to Clement of Alexandria.

Indeed we are left in a position once again of having to decide between two positions - viz. whether (a) the heavily Christianized Hegesippus textual tradition deliberately changed Josephus's identification from son of Matthias to that of 'bar Gorion' or (b) as I suggest, that the fourth century editors of the Hegesippus material created 'Josephus the son of Matthias' as a distraction from the ill-repute associated with the name 'Gorion.'

I should mention that nowhere in the Pseudo-Hegesippus is Simon identified as 'bar Giora.' This name is introduced in the received text, indeed in the very section where 'Joseph the son of Matthai' is dropped into the narrative. In the Hegesippus tradition he is simply 'Simon' (go and check for yourselves).

Giora as a family name is unknown in rabbinic literature as far as I know. 'Bar Giora' means either 'proselyte' but giora itself is a most unflattering term in Aramaic having connotations of 'adulterer,' 'murderer' and similar slanders. The family name Gorion by contrast is well attested throughout the rabbinic writings and especially Nakdimon ben Gorion who is specifically associated with the rebels in Tractate Gittin. I will dig up specific evidence connecting Joseph and Simon as brothers shortly.

The point of course is that it should be readily apparent why the fourth century editor of 'second century Josephus' needed to change his name away from ben Gorion. The appearance of a 'purified' Jewish War - purified from all the Christian references and to the 'second century Josephus' who promoted them - was clearly one part of a two step plan which introduced 'Jewish Antiquities' to the world.

Why should retaining the identity of Josephus bar Gorion be problematic to the idea that this former rebel commander who only spoke Aramaic should suddenly decide to model a massive history of the Jews based on Dionysius's Roman Antiquities? The very name 'bar Gorion' must have always been remembered by the Jews even in the fourth century with revolutionary activity against the Roman state. The etymological origins of Gorion is goriah = 'young lion" and the Gorion family name is often preserved in this form (cf. Kidd IV.13, Mekh Mishpat 20 etc.)

It would be utterly incompatible to argue that the young revolutionary lion Josephus ever went over to the cause of Rome and the editors new it. To see a modern story of how the very name 'ben Gorion' summoned up Zionist aspiration one should read the modern newspaper story of David Grin who deliberately changed his name to 'ben Gorion' to emulate the romantic hero he read about in the pages of the Yosippon: http://www.forward.com/articles/123337/

Now we already know better than this author. The Jews as we have seen were not at all mistaken about the identity of Josephus. Modern Jews are unfortunately all too willing to abandon their own tradition in order to fit within the white man academic institutions. If academic career advancement necessarily means throwing bubby and zaidi's silly stories under the bus, they get thrown under the bus.

The reality is that it makes a lot more sense to argue that the received texts claim about two brothers Matthias acting as governors during the revolt - viz. "John, the son of Matthias, was made governor of the toparchies of Gophnitica and Acrabattene; as was Josephus, the son of Matthias, of both the Galilees. Gamala also, which was the strongest city in those parts, was put under his command"[Jewish War 20.3] was developed from an original understanding of the brothers ben Gorion - Joseph and his brother Simon.

Indeed if I can ask again - why else was Josephus such an important war prize? Why did Titus send Josephus to the walls to address 'kinsmen' and the leadership of the rebels? What made Josephus so special? We will get to the parallel accounts of 'second century' and 'first century' Josephus in due course but let us note that each contains a different understanding of who Josephus was addressing.

To this end, while I have opened up a number of questions I can't possibly answer as completely as I would like in what should have been a rather short post, I want to back to our original purpose. Have we now at long last discovered a motivation for at least part of the fourth century editors falsification of 'second century Josephus'? I think so.

Remember it is important to note that the Hegesippus tradition - witnessed now not only by Pseudo-Hegesippus but also and more importantly the specific interpretation of the Yosippon among Jewry from the tenth century - shows that without the corrections of the fourth century editor it would be only natural to interpret 'first century Josephus' as 'Joseph ben Gorion.' This was the way the narrative was originally meant to be interpreted.

Despite pseudo-Hegesippus harsh words for Jews generally and their attempted revolt from Rome, his narrative supports what would become six centuries later the accepted Jewish interpretation of the material. It is impossible to believe that pseudo-Hegesippus 'changed' his original source to make Josephus more Jews, more rebellious, more involved in what he sees as the errors of the Jewish side in the revolt.

Rather the more sensible explanation is that the fourth century editor not only stripped 'second century Josephus' and his Christian interpretations but also the core identity of 'first century Josephus' buried within his narrative. This in order to facilitate and make almost believable the introduction of Josephus's 'other' historical work - viz. Jewish Antiquities. As noted it would be simply impossible to imagine that the 'young lion' at the heart of the rebel cause turned around and wanted to imitate Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Yet more than this I think it gets to the heart of what Eusebius (or someone like Eusebius) was attempting to do with all the texts under his stewardship.

He wanted to present Christianity and Christians as being completely compatible with 'good citizenship' in the Roman Empire. Let's not forget how bold Constantine's efforts must have seemed to many in the Empire. Now at long last we see not only the historical 'first century Josephus' but also the legacy of 'second century Josephus' being sacrificed for the sake of progress.

Nothing more epitomized the spirit of the Nicene age that the transformation which affects the Josephan corpus. The trumping of Roman ideals over even (pseudo)Christian identity should be duly noted.

aa5874

Your proposal makes very little sense.

"Antiquities of the Jews" by Josephus is not a corroborative source for pseudo-Hegesippus.

Pseudo-Hegesippus contains many passages about Jesus Christ, Paul, Peter, and John the Baptist that are not even found in Antiquities of the Jews by 1st century Josephus.

Paul and Peter are NOT at all in Antiquities of the Jews.

Pseudo-Hegesippus appears to be a late mutilation of thewritings of Josephus by an apologetic source.