stephan huller

Because Hegesippus is a non-existent name. It is universally acknowledged to be a corruption of Josephus.

stephan huller

I have already demonstrated that Irenaeus's version of Josephus was different from our text. As you have never studied these things please look at the differences between the Slavonic text and the Yosippon and even the Latin Hegesippus when compared with our Greek text. You will be surprised what knowledge does to dispel ignorance. The texts are quite different in key places.

stephan huller

See above. The Testimonium in the Latin text of Hegesippus is very different from what appears in our Greek text. You keep thinking there is this 'Josephus' text especially with regards to Jewish War. Not true.

Duke Leto

I am aware Tacitus is usually more reliable than Suetonius or Josephus. He is not infallible. I have demonstrated, in detail, that there is almost no way he could be correct that his Drusilla was a granddaughter of Antony and Cleopatra. So he has already made one mistake in the passage. If he has her generation wrong, getting her name wrong isn't out of the question either, and he could be giving her the name of Felix's 2nd wife. He could be relying on another source that does the same thing.

I have boldened text in the above quotation to show you asserting what you are trying to prove as a premise.

Duke Leto

Yes, I've learned a few things about the wide variety of things Stephan Huller thinks are stupid in this thread. I don't see why the fact that YOU find a story stupid should prove its ahistoricicity. The promiscuous abandon that you lavish the appellation on people and things that you don't like makes you a somewhat suspect judge on the matter.

Tacitus doesn't say how, where or when Drusilla of Mauritania married Felix. So your Josephus or his intermediate source must have created the story or quoted someone who did.

So once again, why is she supposed to have been Jewish when anyone reading Tacitus would know she wasn't? Why make up the "love potion" story, (which isn't in the copy of Antiquities I'm reading)? Why invent the story that she died at Pompeii? Why invent the story that she and her sister were raped in person or proxy on their father's death at Caesarea?

People don't include things in their histories for no reason.

If he's just reporting stories someone else told him than how did such a complex history of a fictitious daughter of Agrippa get invented? It doesn't read like an urban legend.

Duke Leto

Alright that's SLIGHTLY fair.

Duke Leto

Completely ignored the question. If Josephus would be corrupted into Hegesippus in little time at all, why were the Gospel Josephs not further corrupted in their time in oral tradition? Why do you think early Christians had no idea how to spell Joseph?

Duke Leto

Your citation showed that it could be, not that it might be. If wiki and the Jewish Encyclopedia are accurate, it would appear the consensus is that 2nd Century Hegesippus was separate from a pseudo-Hegesippus from the 4th or 5th Century who adapted Josephus. The Jewish Encyclopedia suggests that the similarity of the names caused Josephus to be misattributed to Hegesippus. The only source suggesting Hegesippus might be Josephus is Price.

Did you know Hegesippus is actually a perfectly well attested, albeit obscure classical Greek name? He was a known contemporary of Demosthenes the Orator and went on an embassy to Phillip of Macedon. Was he a hellenizing Jewish Christian the Athenians eccentrically chose to grant citizenship to 350 years before the alleged birth of Christ? Or did Eusebius send someone to forge Demosthenes orations, or otherwise just make sure that all the copies in existence in his time had a Hegesippus spuriously inserted?

But since the bit where Eusebius is deciding to cut a Christian history down to make it look like a Jewish history and doesn't bother to put in any corroboration of his faith except for something that looks like interpolation at the wrong chronological point already requires him to be the most sublime literary forger in history, so let's just make him God and have him edit just the copies of Demosthenes that he knew would survive.

Duke Leto

The Latin Hegesippus is not extant, or am I missing something? Do these differences extend to having Archelaus' reign begin and end with the census of Quirinius? Or perhaps they place Quirinius at the time of Herod the Great?

If they are compatible with a historical harmonization of the infancy narratives (in spite of Quirinius actually being in Cillicia at the time of Herod's last days), the question of why the Josephus texts would be rewritten to contradict the Gospels comes flaming up. Did they get the idea when they caught God burying dinosaur fossils as a means of testing the faithful?

If you are asserting that Irenaeus finished Luke by inserting the Josephan material and that he had Matthew as well, then either Matthew had its infancy narrative inserted at a later date or Josephus originally contained a chronology for Archelaus and Quirinius that was drastically different, and was subsequently rewritten to contradict Matthew. In either case... WHY!?!

Duke Leto

Hegesippus is supposedly non-extant. I certainly don't recall Earl Doherty thinking of it as a factor. I'm assuming you mean a quotation of Hegesippus.

It's a quotation, how much more expansive can it be? Does it describe the temple cleansing business? Josephus spends more on John the Baptist than he does about Jesus in the received text. If the text was originally inclusive of more NT material, WHY WAS IT REMOVED?!?!