the_cave

Been thinking about this one. We know from Against Celsus that Origen knew there was a passage in Antiquities 18 about John the Baptist.

Either he read it there himself, or he got it from someone else. (Probably from either Hippolytus or J. Africanus, I would say.)

Assume he got it via hearsay. Now...can we assume that Origen would not have tried to find a copy of Antiquities to look it up himself?

If not, then one way or another, he read it there himself.

If so, then it's possible he never read Antiquities.

But can we really assume that Origen would use the reference to argue against Celsus if he'd never read the passage himself? Or that Origen, a formidable scholar, would not have bothered to try and find a copy of Antiquities so he could look it up?

Thoughts, please.

yankee_doodle

My thoughts are the authenticity of the alleged writings of Josephus shouldn't be given the attention they're typically given in debates between theists and non-theists.

We know there were numerous Christian interpolations; however, I also think the majority of modern scholars accept the idea that Josephus did mention Jesus in some of his writings (albeit briefly, and nothing that would lend credence to any of the supernatural claims made by the new testament -- which should be obvious enough since Josephus remained a Jew).

First, remember Josephus was not a contemporary of Jesus (he wrote several decades after Jesus' alleged execution). Second, his mention of Jesus was made in the context of references to his followers (Palestinian first century Christians). Therefore, it really only confirms (**possibly**) that there were Christians in first century Palestine (I'm agnostic & I never disputed that there were Christians in first century Palestine).

Roger Pearse

In the surviving ante-Nicene literature, Josephus is only quoted 13 times. 4 of those are from Origen, which makes him the writer best acquainted with Josephus. He is the only one, if I recall correctly, who quotes from books 11-20 of Antiquities. Julius Africanus *may* do so, in his surviving fragments. I don't know of a ref. to Hippolytus?

This is important, because Antiquities did not travel down the years in one chunk, because of its length. Like other massive histories, the groups of 10 books travelled separately. So when a writer knows one decade, it does not mean he knows other ones.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

the_cave

Yes, but elsewhere Origen refers to Against Apion and The Jewish War. He knows of Antiquities, but his mention of James the Just mistakes Hegesippus with Josephus. (Nor does he "quote from" Antiquities at all, even in regards to John, which is doubly mysterious.)

If Origen only read the second decade of Antiquities, that would still answer my question. Again, I would be very surprised if he'd heard about the passage in Ant. 18 about John, and hadn't tried to track down a copy of Antiquities, but it's possible--however, it's very puzzling that he doesn't quote the passage at all when countering Celsus, and contradicts what our versions say about John (that his baptism was not for the remission of sin, contrary to Origen's claim).

Hippolytus states "And Josephus says that the temple had two storeys, and that the whole height was one hundred and twenty cubits." This is from Antiquities. It's on your own page! I would be very surprised if Hippolytus--an immense scholar, an author of a history, a Greek writer, and a resident of Rome--were not familiar with Antiquities. I don't see how we could expect he wouldn't have been. So much of his works are missing that his relative silence on the rest of Josephus is almost no evidence at all that he hadn't read him.

jakejonesiv

These slippery citations are evidence of forgery by early Christians. They were often claiming to find something in other documents that was never there to support their doctrines. (I posted earlier on Justin's spurious prophecy).

Sometimes the forgeries gained traction and survived in the extant manuscript transmissions (such as the TF), and sometimes it didn't stick. The cases that didn't stick, give away the game.

andrewcriddle

We know that there was a copy of Antiquities in the library of the church at Caesarea by the time of Eusebius. It is probably simplest to assume that it was already there in the time of Origen.

IMO some of the problems with Origen referring to Josephus come from Origen's tendency to refer to texts from memory.

Andrew Criddle

jakejonesiv

That is a possibility.

spin

Origen's comment about James the Just with its motivation doesn't derive from Josephus, despite the fact that he mentions Josephus. The best explanation there is that he didn't have access to Josephus.


spin

mountainman

"Origen the Platonists is almost (but not quite) certainly a different person the Origen the Christian"

Roger Pearse

You are quite correct -- my mistake. He simply summarises what Josephus says, in each case.

Does he do verbatim quotations of others in Contra Celsum?

Oops! How did I miss that?