the_cave

Actually I don't see you saying that anywhere; I assumed you meant Origen was combining parts of Ant. xviii with Hegesippus, not conflating them. I assumed the real confusion was over Josephus' treatment of James, not John, i.e. over Ant. xx, where Josephus also lays his own blame for the fall of Jerusalem (apparently on internal struggles between different priestly factions, among other things, though he seems willing to blame it on the adoption of linen vestments by the priesthood!)

I can imagine Origen getting two texts about James confused, but it's hard to imagine him confusing a text about James with a text about John. It's conceivable, but difficult.

In fact, it looks like Origen must be confusing three texts in one, not two. He says that Josephus did not belive in "Jesus as the Christ". But I assume he is referring here to the statement in War, not Ant., that Vespasian was the Messiah. So Origen is conflating not only Ant. xviii and Hegesippus, but also BJ vi. This is getting a little complicated...if you throw in Ant. xx, then you could even say that Origen is conflating four texts, which strains credulity a little.

spin

She seems to be making claims against the essence of John's innovation, baptism, as though it is christian, or at least not possibly Jewish.


spin

Chili

??? I don't get it. In my view baptism has nothing to do with bodily purity nor spiritual purification or Catholic water would never do and as it is only Catholic water will do. It is a sacrament that has power of its own (sic) that is beyond discourse but is wherein the mystery of faith is contained.

Ben C Smith

Unless there is some secret meaning to the verb conflate of which I am unaware, conflation is combination.

I am saying (and this is not original to me) that Origen incorrectly got the bulk of his citation from Hegesippus instead of from anything in Josephus. I am also saying that one detail (the people blaming a war on an execution) came from misremembering a different part of Josephus, that on John the baptist.

In this scenario, nothing remains to be explained... except that line brother of Jesus called Christ, which I had not yet mentioned on this thread, and which I really do not want to go into this time round. That is the part from Antiquities 20 that may also have created this reference, but I had not mentioned it on this thread until this very paragraph.

I do not think the bit about the people blaming a war on an execution came from his confusion over the text itself, as if it lay open before him. I think it came from confusion in his memory of or notes on the text. I think he was paraphrasing or summarizing Hegesippus and, where Hegesippus had linked the war to the execution in a post hoc ergo propter hoc fashion, Origen (legitimately) made the connection more direct and (illegitimately) attributed the connection to the people. I am saying that I think the most likely source for this connection to the people arose from a hazy recollection of the John the baptist passage in conjunction with the Hegesippan emphasis on the people.

It is also possible that Origen found all of this in some misattributed catena or summary of Josephus; if so, I am simply identifying where the elements of this passage came from.

I disagree with this. Origen is not confusing any fourth text with his James text; he is summarizing Josephus as a whole; that he may have gotten this notion at least partially from the Vespasian passage (or, as has been suggested, possibly from a negative version of the TF) is not the same as confusing this text with the James passage.

And, again, I do not think he has the remaining three texts in front of him. I think he has either faulty notes or faulty memory. This kind of confusion requires no special explanation; I have seen it happen on this forum, for example. We may see the same sort of conflation or perhaps exaggeration in John Malalas, too:

And from that time the destruction of the Jews began, just as Josephus the philosopher of the Hebrews wrote down these things, having said this also, that from when the Jews crucified Jesus, who was a good and just man, if indeed it is necessary to call such a one a man and not God, trouble never left the land of Judea.

Or consider Andreas of Jerusalem:

But Josephus the Jew also records in the same way that the Lord appeared with joined eyebrows, beautiful eyes, a long countenance, humped over, well grown.

This physical description of Jesus is evidently taken from a series of patristic texts. Lots of things were attributed to Josephus.

Ben.

the_cave

I meant more than a simple combination--I didn't assume that Josephus was conflating passages at all (i.e. confusing them as a single passage)--I thought he was just referring to one here, to another there. Intending to refer to more than one passage, and conveying that to the reader. Whereas you seem to be suggesting that he was in fact interleaving vague memories of more than one into a single, nonexistent passage--that's conflation!

I know--I was saying that if that was the source of Origen's statement, then he was sampling Josephus in multiple locations--but I assume he just got this from Galatians.

Alright, though this is then an argument, I think, for the basic authenticity of the JtB passage in Ant. xviii. Or at least of the simple statement that Josephus describes a John who was a baptist, whom Herod beheaded, and that the people blamed Herod's defeat by Aretas on his beheading.

We should note that if Josephus had not read War (which he nowhere actually says he has) then either the TF or the "Jesus called Christ" line in Ant. xx (or both) must be authentic. Because otherwise there is no reason for Origen to say Josephus didn't believe in Jesus as the Christ--unless he was just referring to the fact that he was Jewish.

(I'd like to add that it's interesting that this makes sense if Malalas were referring to pseudo-Hegesippus, who does say words to that effect. Though I haven't found any evidence that he had read pseudo-Hegesippus.)

Steven Carr

Luke/Acts never mentions any James, brother of Jesus.

the_cave

Right, that's what I'm saying--I'm not sure it's safe to assume that the author of Acts realized any difference between a James, the brother of John, and a James, the brother of the Lord (or was even aware of the existence of the latter).