maryhelena

Oh, dear....

Ted, we just have to agree to disagree. I've been an ahistoricst/mythicist for far too long to even contemplate the idea of a historical gospel crucified JC. Such thinking does not for one second enter my intellectual radar. I don't give the idea any credence whatsoever. It's an idea I don't debate, I don't seek to give it any sanction whatsoever. No interest. My interest is in getting to ground zero re early christian history. The assumed historical crucified gospel JC idea is nonsense. Pure, simple, nonsense. What this idea does is put a stranglehold on any investigation into early christian history. It's an idea that Christians are going to have to free themselves from. It's an idea that needs to be put alongside the Adam and Eve story, the Noah story, and the flat earth story, the fires of hell story, etc, in the museum of historical curiosities. Ted, history, intellectual history, intellectual evolution, requires that we do so.

TedM

Mary, I wasn't asking you to change any of your convictions. I was asking you to acknowledge that I have characterized your position on Josephus correctly, and to acknowledge that the idea that IF Josephus is credible, as many historians--Christian or not--believe, then the textual analysis would be very important to them if it were to show that Josephus wrote the Slavonic Josephus. I see from your answer that you really couldn't care less what they think, as you are convinced their opinions are simply way off.

No problem. But, I will say that I don't see why a crucified teacher with a following is something that isn't even on your radar..You don't have to believe he was actually a wonder-worker..If you prefer to not go there, that's fine. I appreciate what you have shared with me even if I am not coming from the same place as you.

Ted

maryhelena

Ted, my position on Josephus?

For what it's worth ....

I happen to think that 'Josephus' (or whoever is writing under that name) had a brilliant mind, a great intellect, a creative ability par excellence. A very very clever individual. Perhaps the greatest prophetic historian the Jews have produced. My aim is not to demonstrate his historical 'errors' but to understand his game plan...

TedM

HI Jay,

I'm not inclined to look at all the pieces of your reasoning here, but would comment:

I see the direct connection between the end of #1 and beginning of #3, but do not consider the diversion to the JTB paragraph to 'have nothing to do with the story Josephus was telling'.

I also do think it is telling that the description of JTB is actually quite different in many ways to the NT: The NT says nothing of the war and a JTB connection to the defeat, describes the baptism purpose very differently, and has a different account of JTB's death. I find it nearly incredulous to think that Eusebius would put in such a different account.

So, on this one I'm totally unconvinced.

I also think that Eusebius would not have interpolated the James passage we now have if he could just as well have interpolated the one he says was there (about the destruction of Jerusalem being blamed on Jame's death).

On the Origen one, I still haven't thought about it enough.

Thanks,
Ted

PhilosopherJay

Hi TedM,

Regarding:

Eusebius does not agree with you that it is such a different account. He writes:
There are some changes that Eusebius makes for political purposes. We can look at them one by one.

Eusebius knows that John was popular among Jews because the gospels all say that he was popular. This just reaffirms the gospel story about John the Baptist. Note that nothing flows from this statement. He doesn't say that the Jews confronted Herod, there was a riot, or that they sent a letter to Tiberius to protest his action. How did Josephus know that the people blamed Herod? Did he take a poll asking him? Which Jews didn't like Herod? Isn't it funny that Josephus says nothing about this either before or after. I'm sure some Jews liked Herod and some didn't. It would be of no concern to Josephus unless they did something about it. He doesn't report them doing anything. Where else does Josephus state a public opinion of some Jews without showing what action it led to or came out of?

Jesus boiled the ten commandments down to love God and love your Neighbor/brother. Eusebius is just crediting John with being a good Christian and pre-figuring Jesus.

John baptized for forgiveness of sins. John baptized Jesus. This means Jesus sinned. Eusebius needs to prove that Jesus was a good man who didn't sin (a good magician, not a bad magician). Therefore Eusebius takes this opportunity of having Josephus revise the implied understanding in the gospel that John baptized for sins. One can almost hear Eusebius saying, "Nope, it was just to refresh the body, nothing about sin here. Jesus didn't sin. Yeah he got baptized by John, but that had nothing to do with sin, see Josephus even tells us so."

This is based on Matthew
This basically follows

Eusebius does leave out the Salome dance and head on a platter story. Opponents could say that Josephus took material from the gospel and therefore he's just repeating what he read in the gospel. Instead Eusebius just leaves out the guilt of Herodias and Salome and has Josephus blame Herod alone. Of course, as good Christians we know the true story that Herodias and Salome were actually to blame.

This is a senseless repetition of the first line. Possibly Eusebius had rewritten the text several different ways and crossed it out. The scribe did not realize that this was part of the crossed out material and accidentally added it.

Before writing this version, Eusebius had inserted a subtler version which can still be seen (the Demonstratio Evangelica) book 9, chapter 5:

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

TedM

Hi Jay,

The only part of that account that I would grant might have been interpolated is the part about the washing being for the purification of the body (your reasoning there appeals). The rest is way too different from the gospel records to take the idea of Eusebius interpolation, or any Christian interpolation seriously.

The other glaring thing I neglected to mention is that no Christian interpolator would have left out a connection between John the Baptist and Jesus. Especially not Eusebius.

I actually find the smaller version you provided to be quite believable as an authentic Josephus original, except that there really is little reason to see it as a 'subtler' interpolation, as you described it: It is simply the first line of the passage. I see no reason to automatically assume Eusebius was doing anything other than quoting the first part of the passage.

That and the fact that in both Acts and the synoptics the Baptist followers seemed to be unaware of Jesus as anyone whom John endorsed as being from God further attests to John as having been a historical person who probably was more like the description in Josephus than the description in the gospels.

My opinion, and I've been wrong before..

Ted

maryhelena

I’ve been thinking about the John the Baptist mention in Antiquities - and I’ve come to the conclusion that it is not an Eusebuis interpolation. Yes, obviously, Eusebuis has added Christian elements to his version of the Antiquities John the Baptist story. However, I don’t think Eusebuis has used Slavonic Josephus in this case - anyway, he says he has used Antiquities. Why would he not seek to use Slavonic Josephus? The basic reason would be the dating for John the Baptist - Archelaus’ rule between 4 b.c. – 6 .ce. (gLuke having JtB born around the 15th year of Tiberius...). Secondly, there is no connection in Slavonic Josephus between the wonder-doer and JtB.

The comparison of Antiquities and Slavonic Josephus is interesting. It looks to me that Josephus, in Antiquities, in his mention of Philip, is referencing the earlier Slavonic Josephus storyline re Philip and JtB. In Antiquities it is the diviners’ of Aretas that foretell the death of a ruler (JtB being now dead) - whereas previously, in Slavonic Josephus, it had been JtB who had foretold the death of Philip the Tetrarch.

I don’t see any reason why a Christian, Eusebuis, would interpolate the JtB story into Antiquities in the position it is now in, 36/37 c.e. A position that even today, causes historicists to twist and turn with dating the crucifixion story, ie JtB must be beheaded prior to that event. Yes, historicists have arguments re it’s a back flash on the part of Josephus to an earlier killing of JtB - but the question re the marriage of Antipas and Herodias is not without it’s own problems. All in all, for a Christian to place the JtB storyline in a context of 36/37 c.e. is problematic. For Josephus, that dating is 100 years from 63 b.c. when Antigonus was taken prisoner to Rome. Consequently, my view is that JtB is wholly a Josephan creation - a creation that is referencing the elements of the Antigonus history. His imprisonment in Rome - his later escape (the Archelaus JtB story) and his beheading in 37 b.c.

Slavonic Josephus	Antiquities book 18 ch.5	Mark, Matthew, Luke	Eusebuis: Church History
4 b.c. - 6 c.e. dating for Archelaus.(John) And he came to the Jews and called them to freedom, saying. “God has sent me to show you the lawful way, by which you will rid of (your) many rulers. But there will be no mortal ruling – (over you).only the Most High, who has sent me.”And when the people had heard this, they were joyful. And there went after him all Judæa, that lies in the region round Jerusalem. And he did nothing else for them, except to immerse them in the Jordan’s stream, and dismiss them, bidding them refrain from their wicked deeds..	36/37 c.e. War between (Herod)Antipas and Aretas. (John) who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness.	-	(John). For Herod slew him, a good man and one who exhorted the Jews to come and receive baptism, practicing virtue and exercising righteousness toward each other and toward God; for baptism would appear acceptable unto Him when they employed it, not for the remission of certain sins, but for the purification of the body, as the soul had been already purified in righteousness.
.. and a king would be given to them, saving them and humbling all the unsubmissive, while he himself would be humbled by no one. ......	Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,)	-	And when others gathered about him (for they found much pleasure in listening to his words), Herod feared that his great influence might lead to some sedition, for they appeared ready to do whatever he might advise.
But he, rebuking them, spake: "I will not disclose to you the mystery which dwelleth in you, for ye have not desired it.. Thereby an untold calamity is come upon you, and because of yourselves.	Herod) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late....	-	He therefore considered it much better, before any new thing should be done under John’s influence, to anticipate it by slaying him, than to repent after revolution had come, and when he found himself in the midst of difficulties.
Thus he spoke and left for the other side of the Jordan. And as no one dared to prevent him, he was doing what he had done before.	Accordingly he (John) was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death.	-	On account of Herod’s suspicion John was sent in bonds to the above-mentioned citadel of Machæra, and there slain.”
-	-	-	The same Josephus confesses in this account that John the Baptist was an exceedingly righteous man, and thus agrees with the things written of him in the Gospels
-	-	John the Baptist beheaded; Mark 6:27; Matthew 14.10, Luke 9.9. The Salome and Herodias story	Not long after this John the Baptist was beheaded by the younger Herod, as is stated in the Gospels
-	?????????	-	Josephus also records the same fact
-	-	Mark 6.17, Matthew 14.3; Luke 3.19	making mention of Herodias by name, and stating that, although she was the wife of his brother, Herod made her his own wife after divorcing his former lawful wife, who was the daughter of Aretas, king of Petra, and separating Herodias from her husband while he was still alive.
-	?????????	Mark 6.24, Matthew 14.8	It was on her account also that he slew John,
-	ABOUT this time Aretas (the king of Arabia Petres) and Herod had a quarrel on the account following: Herod the tetrarch had, married the daughter of Aretas,..... However, he fell in love with Herodias, this last Herod's wife,..... one article of this marriage also was this, that he should divorce Aretas's daughter........So Aretas made this the first occasion of his enmity between him and Herod, who had also some quarrel with him about their limits at the country of Gamalitis. So they raised armies on both sides, and prepared for war, and sent their generals to fight instead of themselves;..... all Herod's army was destroyed	-	..and waged war with Aretas, because of the disgrace inflicted on the daughter of the latter Josephus relates that in this war, when they came to battle, Herod’s entire army was destroyed, and that he suffered this calamity on account of his crime against John........ He relates these things in the eighteenth book of the Antiquities, where he writes of John in the following words:“It seemed to some of the Jews that the army of Herod was destroyed by God, who most justly avenged John called the Baptist.
33/34 or 36 c.e. or ? And in those days Philip, while being in his own domain, saw (in) a dream an eagle tear out both his eyes. And he called others together all his wise men. And when others were resolving the dream otherwise ... the man we have already described as walking about in animal hair and cleaning people in the streams of Jordan, came to Philip suddenly,	by the treachery of some fugitives, who, though they were of the tetrarchy of Philip, joined with Aretas's army.	-	-
unsummoned and said, “Hear the word of the Lord. The dream you have seen, the eagle is your rapacity, for that bird is violent and rapacious. Such also is that sin., it will pluck out your eyes which are your domain and your wife”. And when he had spoken thus, Philip passed away by evening and his domain was given to Agrippa. And his wife Herodias was taken by Herod, his brother. Because of her all those where were learned in the Law detested him but did not dare accuse him to his face.	It was also reported, that when Aretas heard of the coming of Vitellius to fight him, he said, upon his consulting the diviners, that it was impossible that this army of Vitellius's could enter Petra; for that one of the rulers would die, either he that gave orders for the war, or he that was marching at the other's desire, in order to be subservient to his will, or else he against whom this army is prepared.	-	-
-	Antiquities Book 18.ch.7	-	(Josephus) He records also that Herod lost his kingdom on account of the same Herodias, and that he was driven into banishment with her, and condemned to live at Vienne in Gaul.

PhilosopherJay

Hi TedM and maryhelena,

I think TedM's observation about no Christian leaving out a connection between John the Baptist and Jesus is a profound one.

We see that connection in Slavonic-Josephus:

I don't know about the other passages in Slavonic-Josephus, but to me, this passage clearly identifies the author as Christian and not Josephus. (Sorry, maryhelena, as for the 36-37 date, Eusebius could just pass that off as Josephus' bad memory and small knowledge of John because he hadn't read the Gospels.)

There would be one circumstance that I can imagine a Christian not mentioning the well-known connection between John and Jesus. This would be if the interpolator was looking at a version of Josephus that did not contain the TF. This would present a particular problem. How do you introduce the relationship between John and Jesus without introducing Jesus into the text? Once you start saying "John foretold the coming of the Christ." or "John baptized a man, if is permitted to call him a man, named Jesus." you have to introduce some version of the testimonium.

The problem with this is that nobody would believe that Josephus was still a Jew. It would appear obvious that he was a Christian who had read about the relationship of John and Jesus in the gospels. This would eliminate him as an independent witness to the good character of Jesus, which is what Eusebius wants to use him for.
Remember that Celsus and Hierocles charges Jesus and his associates with being evil men and liars. They are conspirators in league with each other to create a cult to deceive men. In fighting Hierocles' charges, Eusebius has to prove that Jesus and his associates were good men. By Josephus talking about John baptizing Jesus, Hierocles and his followers could say. "See, John too was in on the fraud, just as his disciples were.

In this passage and the TF, Eusebius is careful not to associate John with Jesus, or Jesus with his disciples. This way the impression is that Josephus is just testifying to the goodness of John, Jesus, and the Disciples without knowing their connection, so there is no collusion.
John is a good man. He doesn't baptize sinners, but only good men.
Jesus is a good man. His followers are good men, Greeks and Jews who love the truth.

[Note: I do not think that Eusebius intended the TF when he forged the James the Just and John passages. Rather, I think he first did a James the Just forgery as a small, barely noticeable improvement to the text to prove the existence of James the Just and be a witness for Acts and Galatians. Later, he realized that the Gospels had the same existential problems and added the John passage. Since he had already forged twice, he decided to swallow the whole enchilada and add the TF. He thought that if he could get away with the first two, why not the third.]

Here is Eusebius in the "demonstratio evangelica" 9:5 comparing John to an angel.

Naturally the killing of an angel would earn Herod Heaven's wrath.
What better way to prove that John was an angel, but by interpolating this passage into Josephus which Eusebius next quotes in demonstratio evangelica:

John only baptized people who were already good ("exercise righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God"), just as the only people who followed Jesus were people who were already good "a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure"

To compare it to a current situation, imagine defending Rupert Murdoch, his son James, and News World editor Rebekah Brooks against charges that they conspired to criminally hack phones of thousands of people. Would you put on a witness who says, "I work for Mr. Murdock and I frequently see the father, son and Brooks at meetings. They're good people," or a witness who says, "I worked for Mr. Murdoch and he's a good man, After, I worked with James, but I didn't know he was Murdoch's son. He was a good man too. After quitting, I got a job with the editors of News World. I didn't know that they worked for the Murdochs. I know they would never do anything wrong"?

Because he was defending them on conspiracy charges, when Eusebius forged Josephus' testimony for them, he separated John and Jesus, and just made the 12 disciples into a mass of thousands of truth lovers. Let us give Eusebius credit for well representing his clients.



Warmly,

Jay Raskin

TedM

Thanks, although probably put forward by many before me...I think you mean profound in its implications with regard to interpolations of the JTB and TF passages. I might agree with that.

I just can't agree. For me this passage is quite ambiguous. Even the wording prior to it about a ruler to come is only applied to Jesus by way of reading the gospels into it. He well may have been talking about a ruler.


Actually, if the goal (which you mention below) was to present a John who didn't have a connection to Jesus, then it wouldn't matter if there was a TF or not. You simply interpolate in a John that sounds like what is there now. This is not an argument for there not being a TF.


This is not a strong argument if you believe the TF was also interpolated, because that concern didn't stop the interpolator from putting in the 'Christian' references in the TF.


Wow. It's possible. It's also possible that Eusebius would have preferred for Josephus to counter the popular 'true' Jewish notion (as opposed to the phony one Celsus put forth) that John and Jesus weren't connected, and instead made the connection known. It's also possible that Josephus wrote the John passage and a partial version of the TF, which simply reflected the Jewish notion. Lastly, it is possible that Josephus actually wrote what is found in the Slavonic Josephus, which hints at the connection without even naming names, thus avoiding the ire of the Jews.

The biggest prob I have with JTB being interpolated is that the story is just so different than the gospel accounts in all other ways other than the sin/purification issue. Where did Eusebius get that information about the war being blamed by Jews on Herod's killing of John, and the sending away to Macherus to be put to death, and why did he hesitate to mention the head on the platter? Just doesn't add up..to me.


I don't see how that passage demonstrates or even suggests that John was an angel.


One may have influenced the other. No reason to conclude that both were created at the same time by the same person.

Ok, I'm just skeptical at the idea. Just doesn't add up to me. What makes more sense to me is that JTB passage existed, perhaps was modified some on the purpose of baptism issue, and that the reason that JTB doesn't mention Jesus was because there was no strong connection, and the reason TF doesn't mention JTB was because it was a partial TF and not created in whole by a Christian. The idea that both were created at the same time by a Christian interpolator (Eusebius or otherwise) who was conniving enough to address the 'conspiracy' issue (John and Jesus were co-conspirators) by not mentioning a connection in order to look like a non-Christian Josephus wrote it, YET at the same time was dumb enough to be so blatant in his praise of Jesus so as to betray his role as Christian interpolator makes absolutely no sense to me.

Because i see you as highly creative I imagine you will have some interesting answers to this, but I must say that I can't spend any more time on the issue of JTB passage in Josephus being interpolated.

I am interested still in addressing 3 issues when time allows:

1. the idea of Eusebius or anyone else interpolating the JTB/James passage in Origen,
2. the Doherty argument of silence toward any kind of TF from early church fathers, and how the Origen silence should/should not be expected
3. Doug Shaver's response to C. Price article on partial TF

Thanks, Ted

maryhelena

Surely, the passage about a 'king' has more to do with Jewish messianic ideas than the christian version of a spiritual kingdom? Even the dating - around 6 c.e. when Archelaus is removed by Rome - brought about the end of Herodian rule in Jerusalem. (questions about the identity of Agrippa I put on hold for now.....).

Jewish messianism

I think one only has to consider what Josephus has done, in Antiquities, with Agrippa I, to realize just how interested he was in messianic ideas. Yes, he later goes on about Vespasian - but that's long after the death of Agrippa I.

Consider what Josephus had done with Agrippa I.

Agrippa I died in 44/45 ce after ruling Judea for 3 years. (Josephus gives him altogether a 7 year rule…….but other questions do arise……). Interestingly, 44/45 ce is around 490 years from the 20th year of Artaxerxes in 446/445 bc – the year in which Nehemiah goes to Jerusalem to rebuild it’s walls….Nehemiah 1:1-3, 2:1).

With Josephus having such an interest in Agrippa I – a historical figure some years dead by the time he is giving out his prophecy re Vespasian – it’s little wonder that he can freely re-use the messianic concept for a Roman ruler – after all, he has already played his own hand re Agrippa I. After that, any further applications of the concept are more likely to be attempting a very different agenda.

And a carpenter from Nazareth, or wherever, Josephus would never have given such a figure the time of day re messiahic prophecies -

Pseudo-history re JtB and JC is one thing - and for all of Josephus' dalliance with creative figures - he knows where the real game is played - political power, real kings, earthly kings...

The pen might indeed be mightier than the sword - but let's not forget that that pen needs a hand to hold it - physical reality, historical context, has first to be acknowledge before one can reach for the intellectual skies...A hungry man cries for food in his stomach not another god damn idea...

Which all goes to say - that my money is on Josephus as the originator of the JtB storyline....