DCHindley

I'm cut to the quick! I'll just be over there in the tub opening my veins.

It bothers me when we all spend so much time assuming the world spins around Christians, even agnostics and atheists.

Josephus did say in War 4 that the murder of Ananus was the reason for the city's destruction, and this is quite different that the way he is presented in Ant 20, which could easily have caused a scribe to have made a comment about it.

Meanwhile Christians convinced themselves that the destruction of Jerusalem was due to the murder of Jesus (preferred) or at very least James (because he was believed to have been killed at or by the temple in Jerusalem), on the analogy that Antipas was popularly believed to have been defeated in battle because he murdered John the Baptist. This kind of fanciful myth making is bast reflected by the fragments of Hegesippus.

A Christian, coming into possession of the mss with the marginal note, not thinking of War 4 but Hegesippus, could easily have misinterpreted it as referring to James, not Ananus. If you like, this error could have been on the part of Origen or even his predecessor at the Alexandrian school started by Clement.

The usual explanations either have to assume Jopsephus actually talked casually about "Jesus Christ," as in the Testimoneum, or Ant 20:200 was altered as part of a grand conspiracy. I think both those alternatives are much less likely to have been the case than my scenario. In other words, instead of my own wishful thinking driving things, I leave the wishful thinking to either the copyist who made the original comment (about the good HP Ananus of War vs the bad HP of Ant, which was actually correct) or the one who read it and thought "this comment HAS to be about James the Just!" (which is definitely wishful thinking)

It's getting dark in here ... I'm seeing a point of light ... there's mom with her arms open!!! I'm commin' home Lord Jesus ... <uhh> damn, just a dream.

DCH

DCHindley

Any time after Antiquities 20 was published.

All these comments were lost in the great sack of Rome by the Visigoths, in which all newspaper clippings were used to wipe their butts on account of the mistimed invention of toilet paper and Sears catalogues. This was a great tragedy, due principally to the fact that men are full of shit.

DCH

the_cave

In that case, who wrote the catena? There are only four authors prior to Origen who refer to Antiquities:

Irenaeus
Clement
Hippolytus
Julius Africanus

The references in Irenaeus and Clement are somewhat dubious. Africanus might have read Josephus' sources, but maybe not. We know he corresponded with Origen, and Origen would no doubt have been very familiar with Hippolytus' writings. So I'm guessing it would have been one of those two.

If that's the case, the catena could have included references to Antiquities and to Hegesippus. Maybe Origen just got confused and thought the Hegesippus passages were Josephus, too.

Heh. Well, it wouldn't have been a day trip.

The catena, if it existed, would probably have been enough for Origen. Of course, we have to wonder in that case where the author actually found the passage on John--in Josephus, or Hegesippus? But surely it had to be already in Josephus--who would bother interpolating a passage about John into Antiquties? Especially if you're not going to interpolate a passage about James.

But now we have to ask where Celsus got his info on John. Remember, he's putting his claims in the words of a Jewish character--this character seems to be saying that the Jews accepted the mission of John the Baptist. Why would Celsus make this claim if he were getting all his info on John from the gospels? He's otherwise quite skeptical about the gospel accounts. It's best explained if the John passage is indeed (at mostly) authentic Josephus.

spin

You mean that these four (or two) were the only possible compilers of such a catena???

There's no reason why such a catena would have been limited to Josephus.

I think the John passage is original to Josephus. It's variance with the gospel versions of John help to give it independence, as does the report of a John follower not knowing anything about Jesus in Acts 18:24-26, and the survival of a baptist sect into modern times.


spin

the_cave

No, but I am simply going by the evidence available (as some have argued we should). Who else could have compiled it?

What else would have been in it?

All true. What do you think of Rivka Nir's arguments for the Christian nature of the language and theology of the passage?

spin

Beats me. We only have a small amount of the literary efforts produced in antiquity.

Anything from non-scriptural sources that would have taken the comiler's fancy. We don't have the document if it existed, so speculation woun't help.

Apparently a retrojection (I've only seen a synopsis). If we don't know the exact relationship between the baptist sect and christianity, it's rash to make christianity the source.


spin