aa5874

How do you know there was a second century Josephus or if there ever was a second century writing by Josephus?


And IF he did not Clement is wrong.

Clement appears to be aware of Acts of the Apostles. Clement quoted passages found in Acts and it is there (Acts 8.18-23) that Simon Magus met Peter since the time of the Emperors Caligula or Cladius, or before the conversion of Saul/Paul but certainly NOT the time of Adrian.

Clement was a FAKE 2nd/3rd century character.

But, have you NOT ALREADY claimed that Church writers mutilated the extant texts that have survived?

But, was Clement of Alexandria there or not? That is one of the questions that you need to answer.

You now believe Eusebius and Clement were honest?

Were they honest with YOUR Mark?

I can't even hear you now.

stephan huller

AA,

No but how is it possible that the two arrive at the same conclusion about a 'second century Josephus' writing in the same year 147 CE AND one does so through the name 'Hegesippus' (Eusebius) the other 'Josephus.' This can't be a conspiracy. The only answer is that they are faithfully reporting what was written in a common manuscript tradition - namely that a figure named Joseph who happened to be Jewish completed a chronology where all the numbers were calculated from the tenth year of Antoninus Pius's reign BECAUSE THAT WAS THE YEAR HE PUBLISHED HIS WORK.

There's no way around this. Someone published a chronology in the year 147 CE and both Clement and Eusebius report that that 'someone' was named 'Joseph' (a very common name).

It doesn't matter if Clement wore women's underwear or didn't pay his taxes or cheats on his wife or that Eusebius is a mass murderer, a liar or a cheat. They both independently report the same tradition WITHOUT KNOWING IT IS THE SAME TRADITION (or telling us that).

aa5874

But, your claim is illogical OR a convolution.

You have ALREADY claimed that Church writers have written the same ERRORS about Marcion.

Again, this is a convolution. You have NOT even shown or established that Eusebius or Clement were credible writers.

I have shown that Clement could not count or did NOT even know the history of Peter and Simon Magus. Clement of Alexandria claimed Simon Magus was AFTER Marcion when he was AWARE of Acts of the Apostles which places Simon Magus about 80 years BEFORE Marcion.

Clement's chronology is sometimes up to 295 years in error.

You present a most absurd convolution.

It MUST matter if Clement was a LIAR. It MUST MATTER if Eusebius was a LIAR.

Veracity MUST matter.

stephan huller

Continuing with our side by side comparison of Pseudo-Hegesippus and Jewish War the next passage in Pseudo-Hegesippus is:

But however Vespasian was not unoccupied by military tasks. And indeed it having been learned that very many from separate locations had taken themselves to the city Iopen it being ideal to them for piratical raids the buildings having been repaired which had been destroyed by Cestius, they renewed them, since the region having been ravaged the supplying of food was obtained by sea, he searched out everything. But they building ships of such nature that were adapted to the use of pirates, having observed the passages of those traveling, the entire commerce almost of Phoenicia and Egypt was being plundered, so that the frequent pillagings closed all that sea with panic and its use for navigation was interrupted by fear of the certain danger. Which having been discovered he orders a band of foot soldiers and most of the cavalry to proceed and and to go into Iopen by night. Which was easily done, since no guard was spread before the city, inasmuch as it was thought that the rumor that the city had been destroyed would arouse no worries in the Roman leader. They were present however but not daring to resist and to deny entrance to the arriving Romans, having embarked on the boats beyond the range of an arrow of the advance force they spent the night on the sea. The situation is seen to demand a position on the shore from which to show quickly that Iopen is hemmed in, so that it would be clearly evident to the aforesaid city in what manner without any battle that there will be a second destruction. The city is without harbors by nature, whose shore is rough and straight but gently bent with curves on both sides, in which there are deep rocks and gigantic stones which stick up from the sea, and although they may rise up from the depths of the sea, they extend into the sea however. From which even Andromeda (is said) to have been there, when she was offered to the sea monster, the patterns of the places and the very appearances of things are seen to hand this down, applying a not mediocre trust to the old tales. And so by the breath of the north wind falling against the shore huge waves are raised up, which striking against the cliffs cause a great noise and falling back into the waves render that bay of the sea unquiet, so that there is more danger in the port than in desert wastes. In that place toward early morning a violent wind, which those sailing in these regions call the Melamborium, struck against the boats bouncing on the waves, which had been brought out from the city of Iopen as we said above, and immediately entangled the boats among themselves and overturned them with driving waves. Some their anchor cables having broken it drove into the rocks, the wave which standing very high above sank those crushed by its mass opposed others when they were lifted up violently against the sea -- the danger of the rocky shore or slaughter by the Romans, who scattered themselves on the shore, the sailors fleeing. Nor was there any place for one fleeing or hope of staying when the wind drove them from the sea. The sound of the ships was painful when they dashed [p. 224] together, the cries of the men unbearable when the ships broke up. Who when they saw the sea to break into the tottering ships, some experienced in swimming threw themselves (into the sea), others while they jump into the approaching ships having fallen into the sea are crushed by the collision of the ships, most sank down in the depths with the small ships, whom it deprived of any hope of swimming out. Death transfixed itself with less suffering however upon those to whom skill was lacking or any hope of attempts. But yet having been attacked in the nose the shattered remnants of the ships shook from frequent blows and struck in the sides they cruelly beat up the wretched limbs or death followed them driven against the rocks between the very vows of embracing the shore, having however whatever consolation it is to have perished on land. The face however had to be pitied, the heads of the unlucky having been struck the rocks were stained, and the shores were wet with blood. You could see the sea dyed with blood, the whole filled with bodies. And if anyone escaped those approaching the shore were killed by the appraising Romans, because a storm did not lessen its rage in these places from the roughness of the places or the use of the winds, but from divine anger beyond the ordinary the sea was enveloped by winds blowing together, lest the Jews should escape, and thus to pardon those fearing, whom god had not pardoned. There were those who killed themselves with the sword judging it more tolerable to perish by the sword than by shipwreck, others who wishing to push with the long lances had pierced the ships, some who pushed off with oars or struck with a dart those who having fallen into the sea if perhaps they were praying that they should be picked by those sailing by. I have not thus passed over that by which it is clear that the greatest danger to have been from the very people of the Jews to themselves rather than from the enemy, who were killing themselves, as if the dangers were inadequate for their destruction at the same time as everything else, heaven, the enemy, the sea, and the rocks. And so four thousand five hundred bodies of the dead were counted, which the sea had spat out, without a battle the city was captured and razed to its foundations. And thus in a second short time the Roman troops razed Iopen, which with justice Vespasian thought should have been warned, that dwellings of pirates should not be built in that place a second time. Although departing from that place he left in it cavalry with a few foot soldiers, so that the foot soldiers should remain in the place lest a band accustomed to brigandage of robbers should dare something, the cavalry would harry the neighboring areas of the region, and the villages and small towns, where all were completely destroyed lest daringly they should conspire against somebody.[Pseudo-Hegesippus 20]

And now the parallel narrative in Jewish War:

In the mean time, there were gathered together as well such as had seditiously got out from among their enemies, as those that had escaped out of the demolished cities, which were in all a great number, and repaired Joppa, which had been left desolate by Cestius, that it might serve them for a place of refuge; and because the adjoining region had been laid waste in the war, and was not capable of supporting them, they determined to go off to sea. They also built themselves a great many piratical ships, and turned pirates upon the seas near to Syria, and Phoenicia, and Egypt, and made those seas unnavigable to all men. Now as soon as Vespasian knew of their conspiracy, he sent both footmen and horsemen to Joppa, which was unguarded in the night time; however, those that were in it perceived that they should be attacked, and were afraid of it; yet did they not endeavor to keep the Romans out, but fled to their ships, and lay at sea all night, out of the reach of their darts.

Now Joppa is not naturally a haven, for it ends in a rough shore, where all the rest of it is straight, but the two ends bend towards each other, where there are deep precipices, and great stones that jut out into the sea, and where the chains wherewith Andromeda was bound have left their footsteps, which attest to the antiquity of that fable. But the north wind opposes and beats upon the shore, and dashes mighty waves against the rocks which receive them, and renders the haven more dangerous than the country they had deserted. Now as those people of Joppa were floating about in this sea, in the morning there fell a violent wind upon them; it is called by those that sail there "the black north wind," and there dashed their ships one against another, and dashed some of them against the rocks, and carried many of them by force, while they strove against the opposite waves, into the main sea; for the shore was so rocky, and had so many of the enemy upon it, that they were afraid to come to land; nay, the waves rose so very high, that they drowned them; nor was there any place whither they could fly, nor any way to save themselves; while they were thrust out of the sea, by the violence of the wind, if they staid where they were, and out of the city by the violence of the Romans. And much lamentation there was when the ships were dashed against one another, and a terrible noise when they were broken to pieces; and some of the multitude that were in them were covered with waves, and so perished, and a great many were embarrassed with shipwrecks. But some of them thought that to die by their own swords was lighter than by the sea, and so they killed themselves before they were drowned; although the greatest part of them were carried by the waves, and dashed to pieces against the abrupt parts of the rocks, insomuch that the sea was bloody a long way, and the maritime parts were full of dead bodies; for the Romans came upon those that were carried to the shore, and destroyed them; and the number of the bodies that were thus thrown out of the sea was four thousand and two hundred. The Romans also took the city without opposition, and utterly demolished it. [Jewish War 3.9.2,3]

They are very close it must be acknowledged. However I was so distracted by the recurrence of our discovery - the para-suicidal impulse at the heart of the Jewish race. Have people being paying attention to this thread? We claimed that we had uncovered the key to unlock the secret behind the composition of the text. The editor had developed Josephus's original text into an indictment of Judaism. The missing speech of the forty Jews in the cistern identify 'demand of the law of the Jews' to kill oneself rather than submit to authority. The legal precedent for this para-suicidal impulse was the example of king Saul who fell on his sword after being surrounded by enemies.

We argued that the narrative of all manuscripts of Jewish War were developed into a fabulous story about Josephus as a paradigmatic 'new Jew' who turned his back on these destructive beliefs. We argued that the whole cistern narrative was fictitious. So too the scene which follows in Jewish War where Josephus acknowledges again the command of the law which forbids surrender to authorities. We argued also that there were countless narratives in the Jewish War which were nothing more than fables designed to show the error of traditional Judaism which led to an irrational impulse to revolt against the natural order, and none of these fables were more fabulous than the myth of Masada, the legendary tale of a Jewish mass suicide where all the hold outs 'fell upon their swords' like the ancient king Saul.

So isn't it odd, that only a few sentences after Pseudo-Hegesippus preserves the words of the forty Jews in the cistern, and Jewish War puts the very same words in the mouth of Josephus we have this ludicrous image of Jewish sailors so crazy with hatred of the 'natural order' that they would kill themselves rather than submit to nature. First Pseudo-Hegesippus:

There were those who killed themselves with the sword judging it more tolerable to perish by the sword than by shipwreck, others who wishing to push with the long lances had pierced the ships, some who pushed off with oars or struck with a dart those who having fallen into the sea if perhaps they were praying that they should be picked by those sailing by. I have not thus passed over that by which it is clear that the greatest danger to have been from the very people of the Jews to themselves rather than from the enemy, who were killing themselves, as if the dangers were inadequate for their destruction at the same time as everything else, heaven, the enemy, the sea, and the rocks.

And then Jewish War again:

But some of them thought that to die by their own swords was lighter than by the sea, and so they killed themselves before they were drowned

Is there anyone out there who now really thinks that Jewish War was developed from a second century document written ten years after the bar Kochba revolt and whose intention was nothing more than to use Josephus as a paradigmatic example of the benefits of 'turning one's back' on irrational logos of Judaism.

stephan huller

I want to give the reader some near contemporary references to the core portrait of Judaism as an irrational tradition. Origen explicitly dates Celsus to the Hadrianic and Antonine period (Contra. Celsum i.8). His writings, while generally tolerant of Jews and Judaism, only do so because it was felt in the contemporary age that they had paid for their irrationality through the holocaust that was the bar Kochba revolt (ibid viii.69). Nevertheless there is a repeated understanding in Celsus's writings that the Jews were under the power of an irrational Logos who established a sinister compact with Moses (ibid i.23). Celsus first argues that there was a 'true Logos' at the very beginning which instructed the oldest races but not the Jews (ibid i.14f). They remain under the power of a degraded logos which convinced brothers to fight one another (ibid v.59) - i.e. Cain/Abel, Jacob/Esau, Joseph/brothers etc. To this Judaism, the tradition which followed this false Logos began as a rebellion from the Egyptian state (ibid iii.5) and a straight line can be drawn from Moses to the recent bar Kochba revolt which Celsus references many times in many different ways:

Let this band (i.e. the Jews), then, take its departure, after paying the penalty of its vaunting, not having a knowledge of the great God, but being led away and deceived by the artifices of Moses, having become his pupil to no good end (ibid v:41)

and again:

You surely do not say that if the Romans were, in compliance with your wish, to neglect their customary duties to gods and men, and were to worship the Most High, or whatever you please to call him, that he will come down and fight for them, so that they shall need no other help than his. For this same God, as yourselves say, promised of old this and much more to those who served him, and see in what way he has helped them and you! They, in place of being masters of the whole world, are left with not so much as a patch of ground or a home (ibid viii:69)

I think there is good reason to believe that the original Jewish War, written a little over a decade after the failed Jewish revolt shared the same contempt for this Jewish. It was the way Jews were viewed after 135 CE - i.e. as irrational revolutionaries.

stephan huller

So I want to reinforce to those reading this post that I not only (a) accept the fourth century revisions of the text but (b) posit that all previous studies of Josephus have mistakenly sought to connect the Jewish War tradition DIRECTLY with a first century original. This is misguided and show a lack of subtlety on the part of the scholars that perpetuated this interpretation.

As I have demonstrated already with what amounts to being only a limited examination of the original parallels between Hegesippus and Jewish War the grandfather text was established exactly when Clement tells us it was written - i.e. 147 CE - only a few years after the disastrous Jewish rebellion of bar Kochba. When read correctly - AND IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PREFACE TO THE RECEIVED TEXT OF JEWISH WAR (but not found in Pseudo-Hegesippus, the Slavonic, the Yosippon etc. - this context is explicitly confirmed:

I have proposed to myself, for the sake of such as live under the government of the Romans, to translate those books into the Greek tongue, which I formerly composed in the language of our country, and sent to the Upper Barbarians (viz. the Parthians and Babylonians, and remotest Arabians) ... [as a warning to] those Jews also who were for innovations ... [those who] were also in a flourishing condition for strength and riches, insomuch that the affairs of the East were then exceeding tumultuous, while some hoped for gain, and others were afraid of loss in such troubles; for the Jews hoped that all of their nation which were beyond Euphrates would have raised an insurrection together with them. [Jewish War i.3]

The witness of Clement that Jewish War derives from a second century chronology written long after the original events and the death of 'first century Josephus' is on very solid ground. All that it requires of us is to accept that the synergoi were not commissioned by this historical Josephus but editors working in the second century ONLY PRETENDING to be 'working with him.' The reality is that the text was being established to send out a message to contemporary Jews and Jewish sympathizers living in the aftermath of the bar Kochba revolt.

This is a far more rational proposition GIVEN ALL OF THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE than merely accepting the mythology perpetrated by these texts which acknowledge falsification by Greek speaking 'assistants.'

stephan huller

And now to continue with our original program - i.e. comparing the parallel narratives of Hegesippus and Jewish War. There is a short little addition to Jewish War narrative that has no parallel in Pseudo-Hegesippus:

And thus was Joppa taken twice by the Romans in a little time; but Vespasian, in order to prevent these pirates from coming thither any more, erected a camp there, where the citadel of Joppa had been, and left a body of horse in it, with a few footmen, that these last might stay there and guard the camp, and the horsemen might spoil the country that lay round it, and might destroy the neighboring villages and smaller cities. So these troops overran the country, as they were ordered to do, and every day cut to pieces and laid desolate the whole region. [Jewish War 9.8.4]

We now go back to our section by section citation of the two Josephan narrative. The next chapter in Pseudo-Hegesippus which follows after the one cited in our previous post reads:

While these things are being done in Iopen, although at a distance the inhabitants of Jerusalem were passing the time, not even thusly by the partnership of the slaughter they were keeping holiday. It having been heard what things have been done by the Romans in Judaea and especially because they had learned that Josephus had been killed, at first, because no one from those places had come to them as an informer, they did not believe, then they thought that such a great leader not to have fallen recklessly into the hands of the enemy. And in fact no messenger of such a great slaughter had survived, and from this itself the rumor of such a tremendous destruction, because no informer had survived, it was piled on everything to have been destroyed, and nothing to have remained or gotten abroad as information of the things done any rumor whatever greater in the telling, because the very silences themselves terrify the uncertain, everything was believed that was feared, and it was so far from anything that was announced, that even things that had not been done were added. For rumor declared emphatically that Josephus also had been killed and that was a great grief to everyone. But when he was discovered to be passing time with the Romans, they followed up with such a great hatred, that whose death at first they had grieved, that same one's life they called down curses upon as a sign of cowardice or betrayal. From this there was great excitement against the Romans, that they should avenge themselves for Josephus, and the more their situation grew worse, the more they were inflamed to war. When it ought to have been the finish, from there the beginning of misfortunes was seized. For to the wise unfavorable outcomes of things are more a warning to take precautions, lest again the same things happen which have already happened badly, for the foolish however (they are) an incentive of misfortunes. The peril of their allies ought therefore to have been for people of Jerusalem a reason for sobriety, but because they were unwilling to understand that they should conduct themselves rightly, it turned into their ruin.[Pseudo-Hegesippus 21]

The parallel narrative in Jewish War reads:

But now, when the fate of Jotapata was related at Jerusalem, a great many at the first disbelieved it, on account of the vastness of the calamity, and because they had no eye-witness to attest the truth of what was related about it; for not one person was saved to be a messenger of that news, but a fame was spread abroad at random that the city was taken, as such fame usually spreads bad news about. However, the truth was known by degrees, from the places near Jotapata, and appeared to all to be too true. Yet were there fictitious stories added to what was really done; for it was reported that Josephus was slain at the taking of the city, which piece of news filled Jerusalem full of sorrow. In every house also, and among all to whom any of the slain were allied, there was a lamentation for them; but the mourning for the commander was a public one; and some mourned for those that had lived with them, others for their kindred, others for their friends, and others for their brethren, but all mourned for Josephus; insomuch that the lamentation did not cease in the city before the thirtieth day; and a great many hired mourners, with their pipes, who should begin the melancholy ditties for them.

But as the truth came out in time, it appeared how the affairs of Jotapata really stood; yet was it found that the death of Josephus was a fiction; and when they understood that he was alive, and was among the Romans, and that the commanders treated him at another rate than they treated captives, they were as vehemently angry at him now as they had showed their good-will before, when he appeared to have been dead. He was also abused by some as having been a coward, and by others as a deserter; and the city was full of indignation at him, and of reproaches cast upon him; their rage was also aggravated by their afflictions, and more inflamed by their ill success; and what usually becomes an occasion of caution to wise men, I mean affliction, became a spur to them to venture on further calamities, and the end of one misery became still the beginning of another; they therefore resolved to fall on the Romans the more vehemently, as resolving to be revenged on him in revenging themselves on the Romans. And this was the state of Jerusalem as to the troubles which now came upon it. [Jewish War 3.9.5,6]

While the parallels between these two sections are obviously very strong there are other reasons to find this description particularly interesting. The first thing that we should notice is the fact that 'first century Josephus' couldn't possibly know how his reported death was received by the Jewish population. It seems especially vain to imagine Josephus ask the survivors of the contemporary Holocaust "I know it was terrible what happened in Jerusalem but ... how did people take the news that I was dead a few years earlier? ..." This doesn't mean that the question wasn't asked of course. One can imagine a Hollywood celebrity asking such a question. But I would argue that there is an equally plausible explanation that the second century author just made up a narrative.

Indeed it is almost plausible to imagine that if 'first century Josephus' was skilled Greek writer, he might have developed an account of things he witnessed first hand in the third person to make the narrative have a sense of objectivity. But since there are clear moments where Josephus jumps into the first person in the narrative, one would think that this would be one such place where that might occur. Something akin to "I heard later that ..." or something of that nature because this is a particularly unusual part of the narrative - i.e. a reference to what others were thinking about the narrator when the narrator could not possibly know what this third party was saying about him.

I have already noted that the capture of Josephus at Jotapata is a fiction. The original capture according to the natural chronology of Vita when compared side by side Jewish War must have occurred much later and probably in the early stages of the siege of Jerusalem. As such it makes a great deal more sense to see this as an example of a deliberate juxtapostion developed by the second century author of the Jewish War regarding the reception of two related pieces of 'news' by the Jewish at Jerusalem. The first being the destruction of the rebels at Jotapata and Joppa, the second the death and then capture of Josephus.

It can't be coincidence that we just saw a long account of the irrational behavior of those at Joppa (i.e. those under the power of the 'law of the Jews' and Saul's para-suicidal example) falling on their swords rather than submitting to nature and natural law. The news of Josephus's paradigmatic reconciliation with Rome is explicitly said in Hegesippus to have actually fueled the irrational hatred of the Jews towards their own ruin:

For rumor declared emphatically that Josephus also had been killed and that was a great grief to everyone. But when he was discovered to be passing time with the Romans, they followed up with such a great hatred, that whose death at first they had grieved, that same one's life they called down curses upon as a sign of cowardice or betrayal. From this there was great excitement against the Romans, that they should avenge themselves for Josephus, and the more their situation grew worse, the more they were inflamed to war. When it ought to have been the finish, from there the beginning of misfortunes was seized. For to the wise unfavorable outcomes of things are more a warning to take precautions, lest again the same things happen which have already happened badly, for the foolish however (they are) an incentive of misfortunes. The peril of their allies ought therefore to have been for people of Jerusalem a reason for sobriety, but because they were unwilling to understand that they should conduct themselves rightly, it turned into their ruin.

Jewish War softens the original formulation obviously because the artificiality of the formulation raises questions about the authenticity of the narrative.

Could Josephus really have written a narrative where his example literally became the demarcation line of the whole rebellion? I mean, it is only natural that everyone thinks they are the center of the universe but is it believable that a former commander in an insurgency against the Roman Empire developed a text which argued that Jews were destroyed because they wouldn't follow his example?

It's ludicrous.

Nevertheless the synergoi or as I would prefer to explain it - the second century editor of the Jewish War narrative written in 147 CE - frames the story in this way because of his explicit purpose to his contemporaries i.e. to warn against future rebellions. It is worth noting that one can argue that the second century author of Jewish War got his idea from Justus of Tiberias's chronology if we assume that the entire description of the siege of Jerusalem derived from that source.

As I have noted many times the arrangement of that part of the work is very different in style. It develops as nothing short of a theological exposition where the events of the destruction of Jerusalem mirror the prophesy of the seventy weeks. One key element that we will see in Pseudo-Hegesippus and the Yosippon is the idea that the destruction of the temple was the result of the Jews not heeding Agrippa's call for peace at the very beginning of the Jewish War narrative (as such he represents the messiah who was 'cut off' Daniel 9:26 in most Jewish and many Christian interpretations of the historical events here).

I have always thought that what now passes as 'the Jewish War' of Josephus is really a fusion of Josephus's original apologia for his involvement in the war effort BEFORE the siege of Jerusalem with Justus's account of what happened in Jerusalem (he was a captive held there). Justus's account is structured around the Jews rejection of Agrippa as their rightful monarch. It is bracketed on the one end by the long speech by Agrippa (ten pages of print!) in the Yosippon and other traditions (starting on p. 277 in Flusser's edition) which warns the Jews against these traits of theirs.

The Yosippon interesting has the Jewish rebels continually referring back to that original speech in a parallel form of artificiality - i.e. whenever things are getting really bad one rebel turns to the other and says 'remember what Agrippa said about seeking peace, do you think he was right?'

I think Justus developed one form of literary artificiality and then in the second century the hypomnema of Josephus kept developing to the point that it was developed into a second artificial narrative, where the capture and submission of Josephus became the paradigmatic example of how Jews should accept their role in the Empire.

stephan huller

Another possible line of interpretation which emerges from my discoveries regarding the second century author of the Jewish War and his development of an understanding that the Jewish people suffered from following the example of Saul is the possibility that this author was also the one who established the Luke-Acts corpus (owing to a number of arguments cited in a previous post).

I have argued at length that there is no internal evidence from the Pauline letters themselves to suggest that the name of the apostle was 'Saul' in a past life. This claim is wholly developed from the Acts of the Apostles and its author who shares a number of characteristics with the original author of the Josephan corpus). There is no reason to suggest that the tradition that Paul was originally called 'Saul' went beyond the claims of Acts and as such it was certainly unknown to the Marcionites who only ever identify him as 'the Apostle' or 'Paul.'

Is it possible then that the development of Josephus as one who turned his back on the para-suicidal example of Saul that afflicted the Jewish people is in turn sublimated into the figure of Paul who literally changes his name away from 'Saul' and thus sheds his inherent Jewishness and goes over to become a Christian?

I think there is something to this but I haven't worked out all the details yet but here is a CATHOLIC WEBSITE arguing FOR a connection between the two:

I am not citing this analysis because I necessarily agree with all of it however I am always encouraged when people from a different perspective than me come to a similar conclusion that I do.

When given a moment I can refine this argument that Acts and Jewish War were written by the same second century author in 147 CE for the same purpose - i.e. the purification of 'Saul' from Israel. For the now I have to finish what I started and continue with the comparison of Jewish War and Pseudo-Hegesippus.

stephan huller

We have been examining and comparing parallel sections of Pseudo-Hegesippus and Jewish War side by side. The next section which follows our last citation of Pseudo-Hegesippus reads:

Vespasian however, as they considered they themselves would be benefited by the delay itself and that the army should rest a short time from work, granted to Agrippa asking that he should interpose about twenty days in the city Caesarea of Phillipus of his kingdom, at the same time the troubles of his factions were recovering from the frenzy of agitation and disagreement, who should be able to recognize themselves to be able to be received by the intervention of the king, if they should turn aside, although the very painstaking contracts of agreements between the king and the Romans might come up. Finally Tiberias being close to Caesarea he did not deny a benefit, he found a reason. For also the very people boiled up from the serious distemper of disagreeing between themselves. Whence in a task to his son Vespasian ordered three strong legions to be summoned and to attack Scythopolis directly. Of ten cities that was the greatest neighboring to Tiberias. He orders Valerianus to approach the walls from there with fifty horsemen, who should recommend peace offerings and call those shut in to loyalty to the alliance, that fear of the collected army should dismay those who were hostile, as a messenger of peace he should invite those willing. Valerianus near the walls dismounted from his horse, and also those did the same who had approached closer at the same time. Who thinking they should be scorned because of their (small) number, Jesus the the chief of the plundering band with his men, who having dared equally to attack, they drove (them) from the place with a sudden attack, and at the same time they madly rushed upon the horses which he had led away of those withdrawing, who did not notice that Valerianus had prudently withdrawn, and seized them the booty of haughtiness from those who were offering peace. Finally the elders incensed by the harshness of the deed leaving the city came to Vespasian begging that he would not ascribe the insolence of a few to all the people. Vespasian immediately ordered Traianus to the city, that he should investigate if the people turned themselves away from rashness of the ambushers. And they making known with prayers the agreements of the people the eagerness of the elders piled up their loyalty to the embassy. And so pardons were given to those petitioning for them, especially because Vespasian was giving consideration to the king who was concerned about the status of the entire city, with whose loyalty interposed nothing of the sort would be dared afterwards, wishing pardon of the offense, he departed. [Pseudo-Hegesippus 3.22]

The parallel section in Jewish War is:

But Vespasian, in order to see the kingdom of Agrippa, while the king persuaded himself so to do, (partly in order to his treating the general and his army in the best and most splendid manner his private affairs would enable him to do, and partly that he might, by their means, correct such things as were amiss in his government,) he removed from that Cesarea which was by the sea-side, and went to that which is called Cesarea Philippi and there he refreshed his army for twenty days, and was himself feasted by king Agrippa, where he also returned public thanks to God for the good success he had had in his undertakings. But as soon as he was informed that Tiberias was fond of innovations, and that Tarichere had revolted, both which cities were parts of the kingdom of Agrippa, and was satisfied within himself that the Jews were every where perverted [from their obedience to their governors], he thought it seasonable to make an expedition against these cities, and that for the sake of Agrippa, and in order to bring his cities to reason. So he sent away his son Titus to [the other] Cesarea, that he might bring the army that lay there to Seythopous, which is the largest city of Decapolis, and in the neighborhood of Tiberias, whither he came, and where he waited for his son. He then came with three legions, and pitched his camp thirty furlongs off Tiberias, at a certain station easily seen by the innovators; it is named Sennabris. He also sent Valerian, a decurion, with fifty horsemen, to speak peaceably to those that were in the city, and to exhort them to give him assurances of their fidelity; for he had heard that the people were desirous of peace, but were obliged by some of the seditious part to join with them, and so were forced to fight for them. When Valerian had marched up to the place, and was near the wall, he alighted off his horse, and made those that were with him to do the same, that they might not be thought to come to skirmish with them; but before they could come to a discourse one with another, the most potent men among the seditious made a sally upon them armed; their leader was one whose name was Jesus, the son of Shaphat, the principal head of a band of robbers. Now Valerian, neither thinking it safe to fight contrary to the commands of the general, though he were secure of a victory, and knowing that it was a very hazardous undertaking for a few to fight with many, for those that were unprovided to fight those that were ready, and being on other accounts surprised at this unexpected onset of the Jews, he ran away on foot, as did five of the rest in like manner, and left their horses behind them; which horses Jesus led away into the city, and rejoiced as if they had taken them in battle, and not by treachery.

Now the seniors of the people, and such as were of principal authority among them, fearing what would be the issue of this matter, fled to the camp of the Romans; they then took their king along with them, and fell down before Vespasian, to supplicate his favor, and besought him not to overlook them, nor to impute the madness of a few to the whole city, to spare a people that have been ever civil and obliging to the Romans; but to bring the authors of this revolt to due punishment, who had hitherto so watched them, that though they were zealous to give them the security of their right hands of a long time, yet could they not accomplish the same. With these supplications the general complied, although he were very angry at the whole city about the carrying off his horses, and this because he saw that Agrippa was under a great concern for them. So when Vespasian and Agrippa had accepted of their right hands by way of security, Jesus and his party thought it not safe for them to continue at Tiberias, so they ran away to Tarichete. The next day Vespasian sent Trajan before with some horsemen to the citadel, to make trial of the multitude, whether they were all disposed for peace; and as soon as he knew that the people were of the same mind with the petitioner, he took his army, and went to the city; upon which the citizens opened to him their gates, and met him with acclamations of joy, and called him their savior and benefactor. But as the army was a great while in getting in at the gates, they were so narrow, Vespasian commanded the south wall to be broken down, and so made a broad passage for their entrance. However, he charged them to abstain from rapine and injustice, in order to gratify the king; and on his account spared the rest of the wall, while the king undertook for them that they should continue [faithful to the Romans] for the time to come. And thus did he restore this city to a quiet state, after it had been grievously afflicted by the sedition [Jewish War 3.9.7,8]

The material is again very similar although one cannot be described as a 'copy' or a summary of the other. They each represent separate traditions of a lost second century original text. It is worth noting that only Jewish War identifies Jesus as 'the son of Shaphat.' Shaphat is the name of the father of Elisha. It also means 'vengeance' in Hebrew. It is also important to note that Pseudo-Hegesippus does not develop the thread that Jesus went on to Tarichete which is the next scene in the narrative. This would seem to be an embellishment in our received text to help move the story forward.

Notice the role of Agrippa. This may well derive from Justus's original narrative.

stephan huller

And now to continue again with our side by side comparison of Pseudo-Hegesippus and Josephus and yet another example of the Latin text actually providing more information and different information than the received Greek text of Jewish War.

The material which immediately follows our last citation from Pseudo-Hegesippus reads:

From there he sought Taricheas with the army watchful and prepared, for the reason that very many of the rabble had collected at that very city because of the fortification of the place. And because Josephus had surrounded it with a wall, by which it was made inaccessible to foot soldiers, it was washed by the waves of lake Gennesarus, thus boats having been collected they clamored for a two front war: if a land battle should grow worse against them, they should flee to the ships, if they should yield in a naval contest, they should go back to the city and defend themselves by the encircling walls. The protection was similar in all respects in both places either in the city of Tiberias or Taricheas, but at Taricheas the natural disposition was better, the wall was stronger at Tiberias, but the fury of Taricheorans was more manifest, so that if it should be necessary that they could mix up everything, naval battles with land ones, land battles with fleet engagements. At worst blockaded by an enemy battle line since they would would act more boldly with resources, nor would any foolhardiness whatsoever move forward against the management of the Roman activity or also the valor of the veteran army, before they should undergo anything of destruction, overthrown into flight, they flew together to the ships. Who were pressed together as if they were fighting in a packed battle line, as if it were being fought hand to hand on land. And also in the plain an innumerable multitude awaited the enemy. Having learned that, Vespasian sent his son with selected horsemen. [Pseudo-Hegesippus 3.23]

And the parallel section in Jewish War reads:

And now Vespasian pitched his camp between this city and Taricheae, but fortified his camp more strongly, as suspecting that he should be forced to stay there, and have a long war; for all the innovators had gotten together at Taricheae, as relying upon the strength of the city, and on the lake that lay by it. This lake is called by the people of the country the Lake of Gennesareth. The city itself is situated like Tiberias, at the bottom of a mountain, and on those sides which are not washed by the sea, had been strongly fortified by Josephus, though not so strongly as Tiberias; for the wall of Tiberias had been built at the beginning of the Jews' revolt, when he had great plenty of money, and great power, but Tarichese partook only the remains of that liberality, Yet had they a great number of ships gotten ready upon the lake, that, in case they were beaten at land, they might retire to them; and they were so fitted up, that they might undertake a Sea-fight also. But as the Romans were building a wall about their camp, Jesu and his party were neither affrighted at their number, nor at the good order they were in, but made a sally upon them; and at the very first onset the builders of the wall were dispersed; and these pulled what little they had before built to pieces; but as soon as they saw the armed men getting together, and before they had suffered any thing themselves, they retired to their own men. But then the Romans pursued them, and drove them into their ships, where they launched out as far as might give them the opportunity of reaching the Romans with what they threw at them, and then cast anchor, and brought their ships close, as in a line of battle, and thence fought the enemy from the sea, who were themselves at land. But Vespasian hearing that a great multitude of them were gotten together in the plain that was before the city, he thereupon sent his son, with six hundred chosen horsemen, to disperse them.[Jewish War 3.10.1]

The two sections are rather similar again. Jewish War specifies a specific number of chosen horsemen (600) where Pseudo-Hegesippus does not. There are some other notable differences. As aforementioned 'Jesus' makes his way over to Taricheae in Jewish War but absent in Pseudo-Hegesippus. Jesus is here identified as being involved with 'disrupting' the Roman armies building a wall around their camp. The wall built by Josephus at Tarichaea is said to have been inferior to the one in Tiberias in both accounts but Jewish War adds the bit about Josephus running out of money to complete the walls surrounding the former city.

It is also worth noting that only Pseudo-Hegesippus says that the walls around Tarichaea "made it inaccessible to foot soldiers." Pseudo-Hegesippus also emphasizes that the topography made Tarichaea easier to defend; something not found in Jewish War. It also retains what must be regarded as the original theme of the second century narrative - namely that an irrational "fury" was present in the Taricheorans which led them to contemplate a two front war - i.e. opening up sea battles with the Romans. These original details have been expunged from Jewish War.