stephan huller

You keep throwing around this term which apparently comes from a scholar with a PhD beside her name. If the second century Christian Josephus arranged the material to reflect a Christian interest in prophesy being fulfilled in history or indeed if the synergoi incorporated foreign material to enlarge the original Aramaic hypomnema it is difficult to tell who or what the real historical Josephus was or wasn't in terms of being a historian. It might all be a by-product of literary appropriation or editing in the second century.

I find it very hard to believe that Josephus could still think that Daniel 9:24 - 27 was fulfilled in the history of the period. He might have had one version of 'truth' - i.e. that he or his brother or someone they followed was the messiah but those original beliefs crashed and burned. It is hard to believe that Josephus jumped on the Agrippa as messiah of Daniel 9:26 bandwagon so quickly after his defeat. But strangely the narrative CAN be read to support the traditional Jewish and Christian interpretation

Strange.

stephan huller

Now to continue our ongoing comparison between parallel sections of Pseudo-Hegesippus and Jewish War. As noted both traditions had strong chronological parallels with Vita up until this point. If read chronologically Vita implicitly argues that the massacre at Gamala and Sepphoris occurred under Josephus command of Galilee. It can be inferred that there was an original tradition that Josephus originally fled with the Jewish rebels and continued to have a leadership position until the siege of Jerusalem. One might assume that like the 'John' of the rabbinic tradition he was captured in the early stages of the revolt and acknowledged that the true messianic interpretation of Genesis 49:10 was that Vespasian was the awaited world ruler then.

In any event since Hegesippus and Jewish War agree that Josephus capture happened at this point in the shared narrative, the claim must have been developed rather early.

The next section following the last citation of the narrative in Hegesippus reads:

Josephus meanwhile in a certain cistern was hiding among the glowing ashes of the city, not all unaware that as the leader of the opposing forces he was being zealously sought for. Having come out on the second day, when he noticed that everything was encircled, he returned into the cistern. On the third day a certain woman found out revealed to those seeking him that the hiding places of Josephus were known to her. But in the cistern also forty men who had fled there were hiding themselves. Who when they noticed Josephus to be summoned out by Vespasian in the hope of safety first through Paulinus and Gallicanus, afterwards through Nicanoris, who was bound to Josephus by virtue of ancient friendship, and for that reason sent that he should give a pledge, he willingly carried out the obligation of the assigned task, having surrounded Josephus they addressed him with words of such kind. [Pseudo-Hegessipus 15]

The parallel (and much, much longer section) in Jewish War reads:

And now the Romans searched for Josephus, both out of the hatred they bore him, and because their general was very desirous to have him taken; for he reckoned that if he were once taken, the greatest part of the war would be over. They then searched among the dead, and looked into the most concealed recesses of the city; but as the city was first taken, he was assisted by a certain supernatural providence; for he withdrew himself from the enemy when he was in the midst of them, and leaped into a certain deep pit, whereto there adjoined a large den at one side of it, which den could not be seen by those that were above ground; and there he met with forty persons of eminency that had concealed themselves, and with provisions enough to satisfy them for not a few days. So in the day time he hid himself from the enemy, who had seized upon all places, and in the night time he got up out of the den and looked about for some way of escaping, and took exact notice of the watch; but as all places were guarded every where on his account, that there was no way of getting off unseen, he went down again into the den. Thus he concealed himself two days; but on the third day, when they had taken a woman who had been with them, he was discovered. Whereupon Vespasian sent immediately and zealously two tribunes, Paulinus and Gallicanus, and ordered them to give Josephus their right hands as a security for his life, and to exhort him to come up.

So they came and invited the man to come up, and gave him assurances that his life should be preserved: but they did not prevail with him; for he gathered suspicions from the probability there was that one who had done so many things against the Romans must suffer for it, though not from the mild temper of those that invited him. However, he was afraid that he was invited to come up in order to be punished, until Vespasian sent besides these a third tribune, Nicanor, to him; he was one that was well known to Josephus, and had been his familiar acquaintance in old time. When he was come, he enlarged upon the natural mildness of the Romans towards those they have once conquered; and told him that he had behaved himself so valiantly, that the commanders rather admired than hated him; that the general was very desirous to have him brought to him, not in order to punish him, for that he could do though he should not come voluntarily, but that he was determined to preserve a man of his courage. He moreover added this, that Vespasian, had he been resolved to impose upon him, would not have sent to him a friend of his own, nor put the fairest color upon the vilest action, by pretending friendship and meaning perfidiousness; nor would he have himself acquiesced, or come to him, had it been to deceive him.[Jewish War 3.8.1,2]

maryhelena

Agrippa I - and 'defeat'? Are you not confusing the history of Agrippa II? There was no 'defeat' for Agrippa I.

On the death of Agrippa I, 'Josephus' says:

Hardly something the Jews are going to be doing for Agrippa II and the scenario of his involvement with the Romans in the war of 70 ce.....

First century 'Josephus' - second century 'Josephus' - this is going to be extremely difficult to have any sort of discussion. I speak of Agrippa I and Agrippa II - and you have only Agrippa....

Stephen - yes, 'Josephus' as depicted is a contradictory figure re his involvement in the Jewish war - as is the storyline. Rather than coming up with a theory re multiple historical Josephus figurers - why not consider the possibility that 'Josephus' is not historical and therefore his creator can do whatever with the character - bad guy, good guy etc.

'Josephus' as a 'prophetic historian' - well, since I think 'Josephus' was not historical - the 'prophetic historian' would be the creator of 'Josephus'. And for that position I'll put my money on Agrippa II.

and now I'm falling asleep........

stephan huller

Oh and in case it wasn't explicit enough over the last few posts. Vita is written in the first person - i.e. 'directly from Josephus.' The conflicts between this narrative and the third person narratives raises questions about the third person narratives.

aa5874

I have already told you that Clement does not appear credible. The information that he gave about Flavius Josephus does not ADD up.

Eusebius also claimed 1st century Josephus wrote Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 and 20.9.1 which are forgeries.

There are a lot of bogus claims coming from the so-called Christian sources, including the historian of the Church.

The author of Pseudo-Hegesippus claimed that Josephus wrote about the Jews up to the time of Titus.

There is ZERO about Josephus and a chronology from Moses to Antoninus in pseudo-Hegesippus.

So, you think it was a very good guess to say there was a 2nd century Josephus because some Josephus must have written something at sometime in antiquity.


[ We have 1st century Josephus and 4th century pseudo-Hegesippus.

Now, it was not unusual for the Church writers to make bogus claims about 1st century Josephus.

The historian of the Church, Eusebius, made claims about the death of Agrippa that appears to be false and attributed his false claims to 1st century Josephus.

The Church historian falsely claimed 1st century Josephus wrote that an angel killed Agrippa. See AJ 19.8.2 and "Church History" 2.10.6.

The Church historian claimed that Josephus wrote that some James had a brother called Jesus the Christ yet "Christian sources" from Papias to Jerome claimed James the apostle was NOT the son of Mary the supposed mother of the so-called Jesus.

It is NOT obvious that there was a second century Josephus but it is most likely that there were bogus information about Josephus being propagated by "Jesus believers".

You are putting forward an absurd notion that the Church destroyed or removed the corroborative evidence for their "history of the Church" and instead preserved the non-Christianized 1st century Josephus.

stephan huller

We continue to go through the parallel chronology of Pseudo-Hegesippus and Jewish War. The passage that follows the last cited in Hegesippus is:

But in the cistern also forty men who had fled there were hiding themselves. Who when they noticed Josephus to be summoned out by Vespasian in the hope of safety first through Paulinus and Gallicanus, afterwards through Nicanoris, who was bound to Josephus by virtue of ancient friendship, and for that reason sent that he should give a pledge, he willingly carried out the obligation of the assigned task, having surrounded Josephus they addressed him with words of such kind, [Pseudo-Hegesippus 15]

The parallel section in Jewish War is generally similar but adds a prayer narrative while emphasizing the connected of 'Joseph bar Matthias' to the priesthood:

Now as Josephus began to hesitate with himself about Nicanor's proposal, the soldiery were so angry, that they ran hastily to set fire to the den; but the tribune would not permit them so to do, as being very desirous to take the man alive. And now, as Nicanor lay hard at Josephus to comply, and he understood how the multitude of the enemies threatened him, he called to mind the dreams which he had dreamed in the night time, whereby God had signified to him beforehand both the future calamities of the Jews, and the events that concerned the Roman emperors. Now Josephus was able to give shrewd conjectures about the interpretation of such dreams as have been ambiguously delivered by God. Moreover, he was not unacquainted with the prophecies contained in the sacred books, as being a priest himself, and of the posterity of priests: and just then was he in an ecstasy; and setting before him the tremendous images of the dreams he had lately had, he put up a secret prayer to God, and said, "Since it pleaseth thee, who hast created the Jewish nation, to depress the same, and since all their good fortune is gone over to the Romans, and since thou hast made choice of this soul of mine to foretell what is to come to pass hereafter, I willingly give them my hands, and am content to live. And I protest openly that I do not go over to the Romans as a deserter of the Jews, but as a minister from thee." When he had said this, he complied with Nicanor's invitation. But when those Jews who had fled with him understood that he yielded to those that invited him to come up, they came about him in a body, and cried out, [Jewish War 3.8.3,4]

The general similarities aside the Hegesippus material cannot possibly be described as a 'copy' of Jewish War. Yet what is most interesting about the two narratives is that TWO DIFFERENT speeches comes out of the forty Jews who are stuck with Josephus in the cistern. The Hegesippus speech reads as follows:

"Now the great downfall of the Jewish name is tested, now the bitter ashes, which submerge and hide the teaching of our splendid lineage and undermine every distinction, when Josephus a captive is ordered to be saved for the triumph. What do such solicitous inducements of the enemy suddenly wish for themselves? What of this voluntary offer of safety? They did not spare others seeking life: Josephus is sought out, Josephus is asked that he should live. They fear evidently that they may lose the pomp of a triumph, lest he should be wanting whom Rome would see a captive, whom in chains Vespasian would direct before his chariot. You wish therefore to be saved for this spectacle? And from what will they triumph, if their leader will be lacking that over which the triumph is celebrated? Or what sort of triumph, if an alliance is given to the conquered? Do not believe, Josephus, life is promised you, but worse things than death are being prepared. Roman arms conquered you, do not let deceit capture you. Their gifts are more heinous than wounds, the former threaten servitude, the latter save freedom. You are bowing, Joseph, and broken by a certain weakness of spirit you wish to be a survivor of your country? Where is the teaching of Moses, who sought to be erased from the divine book that he might not outlive the people of the lord? Where is Aaron, who stood in the middle between the living and the dead, so that death should not destroy a living people with a cruel contagion? Where is the spirit devoted to their country of king Saul and Ionathas, and that death bravely borne for the citizens, gloriously received? The son encouraged the father by example, the father did not forsake the son in the purpose of death, who although he was able to live, preferred himself to be killed rather than to be triumphed over by the enemy. He encouraged his weapon bearer saying: Strike me lest these uncircumcised should come and strike me and make sport of me. Because his weapon bearer feared to do this, he transfixed himself with his sword, worthy whom that David in a prophetic spirit would vindicate, because Amalechita had boasted falsely about the manner of his death and had thought to diminish the renown of the man who had saved himself from the enemy, he lied that he had been killed by himself,worthy whom that even such a great prophet should praise saying: Saul and Ionathas beautiful and beloved inseparables in their life and in death they were not separated, lighter than eagles, more powerful than lions. David himself also when he saw his people struck by an angel, wished to draw the heavenly vengeance upon himself lest he should be spared with the people perishing. Finally what of the divine law, whose interpreter you have always been, which promised everlasting immortality to the righteous instead of this brief life? When the god of the Hebrews, who teaches the righteous to have contempt for death, to owe it even to escape this earthly dwelling place, to fly back to the heavenly, to that region of paradise where god consecrates pious souls? Now finally you wish, Josephus, to live, when it is not fitting, indeed not permitted, what indeed is more important it is not proper? And you want to snatch at that life, I dare to say, of slavery which is in another's power? So that a Roman may snatch it away when he wishes? May throw into the dark corner of a prison when he wishes? And you would choose to flee from here and not be allowed to die? And with shame you go to them, from those whom you persuaded to die for their country? What excuse will you have that you have stayed so long? They are awaiting what you might do, they are certainly saying already: Why is Josephus delaying who ought to have come? Why does he come so tardily? Why is he refusing to imitate his followers whom he persuaded to die for freedom? We will permit certainly that you choose to serve a champion of freedom, but that you doom yourself a slave to the Romans, that you put bondage before freedom? But be it that you wish to live, how will you obtain this from them against whom you have fought so many times? How will they look upon you, with what eyes, with what feelings? How will you wish to live with angry masters even if it allowed? And who will not believe you to have been a traitor to your country, who will see to whom the reward of treason was paid? Choose whichever you may prefer, that it be one of these is necessary: your life will be the reward of treachery or the suffering of slavery. [Pseudo-Hegesippus 3.16]

The speech in Jewish Antiquities by contrast reads as follows:

"Nay, indeed, now may the laws of our forefathers, which God ordained himself, well groan to purpose; that God we mean who hath created the souls of the Jews of such a temper, that they despise death. O Josephus! art thou still fond of life? and canst thou bear to see the light in a state of slavery? How soon hast thou forgotten thyself! How many hast thou persuaded to lose their lives for liberty! Thou hast therefore had a false reputation for manhood, and a like false reputation for wisdom, if thou canst hope for preservation from those against whom thou hast fought so zealously, and art however willing to be preserved by them, if they be in earnest. But although the good fortune of the Romans hath made thee forget thyself, we ought to take care that the glory of our forefathers may not be tarnished. We will lend thee our right hand and a sword; and if thou wilt die willingly, thou wilt die as general of the Jews; but if unwillingly, thou wilt die as a traitor to them." [Jewish War 3.8.4]

Strangely, Jewish War now appears to be a summary of Hegesippus! How can this be explained?

Indeed the reason why it is so important to bring up the incompatibility of this narrative with the chronology of Vita is that we all know that the story of Josephus alleged capture in Jotapata ends with a Looney Toons cartoon where all forty of his fellow captives stuck in the cistern end up killing one another! In short, there is very good reason to suspect that all of this is unhistorical i.e. none of this ever happened. It is a terribly silly narrative AND interestingly Hegisippus and Jewish War's narratives are completely different.

maryhelena

Why stop there - the whole 'Josephus' story is a "silly narrative". A Jewish freedom fighter turned traitor...and ends up living the high life in Rome....and not one Jewish loyalist manages to give the traitor his comeuppance during the long years thereafter...nay, the story is bizarre, unbelievable, illogical and shreds credibility to smithereens...

Much better to look for some moral in the story, some prophetic purpose or some symbolic relevance....

Now that I think about it - how about 'Josephus' as a symbol of those Jews who became 'traitors' - and went over not to the Romans but to the Christians....:constern01: - or to be more correct - those who went over to the new spiritual developments, comprehension, understanding.....

stephan huller

The next stage in our comparative analysis of the narratives of Pseudo-Hegesippus and Jewish War and we have really come to an interesting part in the study. There is very good reason to believe that the capture of Josephus took place much later than in Jotapata. This was merely created to shield Josephus from serious war crimes that took place in Gamala and Sepphoris. I suspect that the original capture narrative took place in the early stages of the Jerusalem siege - i.e. when all or most of the Jewish rebels had been chased out of Galilee.

To this end it is important to note that Pseudo-Hegesippus goes on to present a RIDICULOUSLY long speech from Josephus follows answering the accusations of the forty fellow Jews in the cistern:

To this Joseph responds: 'And who would wish to be a survivor of so much death? Who would choose to become the inheritor of sorrow? Who does not wish his soul to be freed from that corpse of death if it is permitted? But permission is not given to set free unless to him who has done the binding. The soul is joined to the body by the chains of nature. Who is the originator of nature if not omnipotent god? Who would dare to break up and separate this companionship pleasing to god of our soul and body? If anyone should take away the chain put upon his hands by the order of his master without the authority of his master, will he not be found guilty of having inflicted his master with a severe injury? We are a possession of god, we owe servitude to god, as servants we may expect commands, as conquered we may be held with chains, as the faithful we should watch over the goods entrusted to us. We may not refuse the gift of that life which he gave us, we may not run away from the heavenly gift. If you should reject the gifts of a man, you are insulting: how much more we ought to protect what we have received from our god? from him himself we have received what we are, therefore we ought to be his as long as he wishes that we should be. Each is the act of an ungrateful person to depart earlier than he [i.e. God] wishes and to live longer than he [i.e. God] himself has wished, who has granted the life. For what happened in the past when Abraham hastened? What in the past when Moses ascended Mount Abarim this was said to him: Ascend Mount Abarim?[Deut 32:48] However it was said ascend, and he ascended it and died. Like a good servant he awaited the command of the lord. It was Job himself who said: May that day perish on which I was born,[Job 3:3 LXX] However although placed in wounds and griefs he did not sever the chains of this life but asked that he should be freed saying: As how light is given in bitterness, life however in the grief of souls?[Job 3:20 LXX] He was praising death certainly when he said: death is rest for man,[Job 3:23 LXX] however he did not rip it away but asked as is written: I am shattered in all my members and inasmuch as I am wicked why am I not dead? [Job 9:28,29 LXX] Why did I not fall from the womb of my mother into the grave or why the brief period of my life? Allow me to rest a little.[Job 3.11,13 LXX] Also another holy man said: Lead out my soul from confinement.[Psalm 142.7] He sought to escape, he sought to be freed from this body as if from a prison. None however of the holy men usurps this himself for himself, none snatches (his own life) away. If to die is a gain, then it is theft to usurp it before it is expected, if it is a good thing to live, then it is sacrilege to reject (life) before it is demanded. But you think it glorious to die in battle. Nor do I deny that it is good to die in battle for your country, for the citizens. But by the law of war I offer the throat, if the enemy seeks it, if the Romans should sink the sword point, to whom from us god gave the victory, to whom because of our sins he adjudged us. Nor is it more attractive to me because they promised to spare me. If only they are lying! but I would consider this a gain that they so feared me that they would deceive me, or that I should return this vengeance because they break faith. To die by an evil villainy of theirs rather than by mine. It is villainy if I turn my hand against myself, a favor if the enemy does it. Therefore they can give that favor by putting and end to me, if they have thought it should be granted: because if they have been engaged in villainy they have it in their power that they should kill a captive. But you are promising me the service of your band of soldiers. A true killer has been lacking to us, so that we are dying by our own evil deed. I am unwilling to perish by my own, by your own evil deed, but what is more than by mine, I am unwilling by mutual. That is, that each of us inflict his hands against himself, pay the price of a substitute death, so that the evil deed should owe not only for its own but even for the blood of another. Truly the precedent of king Saul comes to mind, his certainly who was both chosen king against the divine will and merited the displeasure of god, whence even while he was living he received his successor. An excellent example of a man to whom the favor of god was wanting. Yet also he wanted to die, because he could no longer live. He wanted moreover that his companion should kill him, but the latter thought it a sin, he refused the service. Not therefore making use of his plan but lacking a helper he accomplished, that he should turn his sword upon himself. If fearful he accomplished that he should not bring ridicule upon himself, how do you praise what is the result of fear? If he feared not, why did he first choose another? I do not fear the Romans either speaking mockingly or lying. Saul alone killed only himself, not Ionathas, not anyone else in our scriptures. Is it a wonder if he was able to kill himself, who was able even to kill his son? Aaron stood between the living and the dead, and this is an act of valor, not of daring. For he did inflict death upon himself, but he did not fear death, who thrust it away from his body and was an obstacle to the serpent against everything. Indeed I am not Aaron but however I am not unworthy of him behold! I offer my hands, let them strike who will. If I can fear their hands, I am deserving that I should perish at my own hands. If they show consideration for an adversary, why should I not show consideration for myself? If you seek why they should wish to show consideration, even among the enemy they may admire valor. For so great is the esteem of valor, that frequently even it delights an enemy. For you yourselves know how great the destruction I inflicted upon the Romans, how I turned aside the victors over all races from the destruction of the city of Jerusalem by the long lasting siege of the obscure city of Iotapata. I played a game of dice at the risk of a small loss of the entire war. All the others learned from my attempt to choose peace. Perhaps we are spared for this that the others are not discouraged but challenged. But you assert that it is pleasant to die for freedom. Who indeed denies that? However it is sweet to live with freedom. For who is offering friendship, is promising freedom. But if he should impose servitude, then certainly there will be a more suitable purpose in dying, if it should be fitting to die. Now however they offer life, they do not want to kill. He is cowardly however who does not wish to die when it is necessary, and wishes to when it not necessary. For who does not know that to wish to die, not that you may die, is a woman's freedom and a woman's fear? In fact fearful women, when they have learned some danger hangs over them, are wont to give themselves to the precipice. With a poor intellect they are not able to support the burden of terror and the fear of death. A man on the other hand is more enduring, who does not fear the present and reflects on the future, knows not to tremble when there is no fear. Finally it is written that the spirits of the effeminate will hunger for the sustenance of courage which not having they are hungry, and so they hasten to death before its time. Nor indeed filled with food does he ask for the hand of spiritual grace upon himself, since it is written that the mouth of the foolish invokes death. And again scripture says: he who does not take regard for himself in his works is the brother of him who puts himself away. Therefore he is condemned who kills himself. For what even is so against the law of nature? For what is against the nature of all living things? For it is innate in all creatures, whether wild beasts or peasants, to love themselves. For it is a strong law of nature to wish to live and not to aspire to death for oneself. And finally all families of living beings are not able to be armed against themselves with a sword even if they wished it. Men have found the noose of death hideous, wild beasts do not know it. But the jaws of wild beasts are weapons, their teeth are swords. When however has anyone heard, that some wild beast has deprived itself of a limb with its own jaws? Against others they use the weapons of their jaws, against themselves (they use) their mouths. As for us what is so sweet as life, what so unwelcome as death? Lastly he who will have defended life is a protector, he who will have tried to seek death is an ambusher. What therefore we detest in others, if they should assail us, we ourselves wish to inflict upon us? And although we exact something from others as a punishment, we ourselves invite this upon us as a favor? And although we take revenge on the helmsman if he strikes the ship entrusted to him upon a rock, we destroy with a sword the helm of our body entrusted to us and assign it to a voluntary shipwreck? But you throw before me an early death, when I shall have been led into the power of the enemy, I should receive it as a benefit, if what I fear from the enemy I myself shall bring upon me, when it can happen that what you are persuading me to do the enemy will not do? It is as if the helmsman seeing there is about to be a storm should sink the ship beneath the waves for the benefit of avoiding the storm. And because the enemy will demand the most severe punishments, you think it should be thus prevented? Or because you think it quick, that we ourselves should use the sword against us? But that is the refuge of weakness, not a sign of courage, to grasp the benefit of the punishments. To this therefore we hold fast, that it neither has the marks of bravery, nor the profit of usefulness? To which I may add that the religion of the dead person is dishonored? Omnipotent god has given us the best treasure, and included and sealed it in this vessel of clay he entrusted to us to be guarded by us, until it shall please him to ask it back. Is it not a crime in both, either to refuse the trust him who has given it not demanding it back, or to refuse it to him demanding it back? If it incurs the penalty of dishonor to violate that entrusted by a man, how much worse to violate that entrusted by god? That entrusted by god is the soul in this body, a soul that is not within the capacity of that death. For it is not bound and grasped by any fetters of death, but seems to produce death, when it is freed from the body and separated from the cohabitation committed to it. Why therefore before the thing entrusted is requested back are we asking for death and sending back the soul as if useless to us and excluding it from our home and are releasing the body into the earth without dignity and thanks? Why are we not awaiting the command of going forth from here? A soldier expects a signal, a slave a command. If any of these should leave without an order, the one is a deserter, the other a runaway slave. Who flees a man is liable to punishment although he may have fled a wicked master. Are not we fleeing the best of all things able to be bound by the shameful act of irreverence? For indeed that goes beyond our opinion, that god placed an angel near to the neighborhood of those fearing him? It is he therefore who prohibits unless he has received an order. If there is no order, there is no provision for a journey. And how do we arrive without provision for a journey? Who will accept us in that unsoiled and secret place? Who will admit us to that community of blessed souls? Adam hid himself, because he violated an order of god, he was excluded from paradise, because he did not keep a command. It was said to him: Adam, where are you? as if to him who had fled, as if to him whose presence is not before god? Will it not be said to me: where are you, who have come contrary to an order, whom I have not loosed from natural chains? Lift him up into the outer darkness, in that place will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. We have received not only this disease of men but prohibitions with laws. For some order them to be thrown out unburied who have thrust a sword into themselves. It is indeed fitting that those who have not awaited the command of the father should be deprived, as if of the bosom of his mother, of a grave of earth. Others cut off the right hand of the dead person, so that there is separated from the limbs of his body that which in a mad rage made war against his body. But this consequence of sacrilege suffer either traitors or murderers of their parents. Who in truth do not acknowledge their father nor recognize themselves. Thus they are prohibited to be buried at all, or are not buried entire. Paradise also does not receive back their souls but the darkness of hell and fierce sufferings. To me reflecting on these things, although all things might be taken away, they are things only for fear and panic, that I should not impose upon myself, which even the enemy will not be able to impose, nor should I take away the things of paradise, which a Roman as yet has not been able to take away -- certainly he will be able to hasten it, he will not be able to take it away -- which things alone I impatiently long for. For not any desire of this life holds me, in which neither in the citizens nor in the enemy have I grasped what would give delight. The former denied me peace, the latter took away my homeland. Among so many disasters what can survive of charm in this life? You only, omnipotent father, who are the originator and judge of nature, grant an honorable death, you break this natural bond, return my soul to its haunts. Although my people may be extinguished, justice snatched away, freedom crushed, I will not however transgress your law that I might die unbidden. I await that you command, I await that you liberate one willing. You have many assistants, I await a command from you, and service from an assistant. It is good to die, but if I die as a Jew, not as a robber, not as a murderer, not as an enemy. Granted that I have been defeated in war, I will remain however what I was born, so that I will not desert the inheritance of father Abraham. I will not go over into the number of the enemy, so that I am my own destroyer. Expose me to the enemy to be killed without loss of loyalty, I am not able to turn my hands against the enemy for myself without sin. And in truth there is fear, that it is not fitted to us to live according to the law? In fact there is now great freedom for those to whom it is not permitted to die according to law.' [Pseudo-Hegesippus 17]

The parallel speech in Jewish War reads:

As soon as they said this, they began to thrust their swords at him, and threatened they would kill him, if he thought of yielding himself to the Romans. Upon this Josephus was afraid of their attacking him, and yet thought he should be a betrayer of the commands of God, if he died before they were delivered. So he began to talk like a philosopher to them in the distress he was then in, when he said thus to them: "O my friends, why are we so earnest to kill ourselves? and why do we set our soul and body, which are such dear companions, at such variance? Can any one pretend that I am not the man I was formerly? Nay, the Romans are sensible how that matter stands well enough. It is a brave thing to die in war; but so that it be according to the law of war, by the hand of conquerors. If, therefore, I avoid death from the sword of the Romans, I am truly worthy to be killed by my own sword, and my own hand; but if they admit of mercy, and would spare their enemy, how much more ought we to have mercy upon ourselves, and to spare ourselves? For it is certainly a foolish thing to do that to ourselves which we quarrel with them for doing to us. I confess freely that it is a brave thing to die for liberty; but still so that it be in war, and done by those who take that liberty from us; but in the present case our enemies do neither meet us in battle, nor do they kill us. Now he is equally a coward who will not die when he is obliged to die, and he who will die when he is not obliged so to do. What are we afraid of, when we will not go up to the Romans? Is it death? If so, what we are afraid of, when we but suspect our enemies will inflict it on us, shall we inflict it on ourselves for certain? But it may be said we must be slaves. And are we then in a clear state of liberty at present? It may also be said that it is a manly act for one to kill himself. No, certainly, but a most unmanly one; as I should esteem that pilot to be an arrant coward, who, out of fear of a storm, should sink his ship of his own accord. Now self-murder is a crime most remote from the common nature of all animals, and an instance of impiety against God our Creator; nor indeed is there any animal that dies by its own contrivance, or by its own means, for the desire of life is a law engraven in them all; on which account we deem those that openly take it away from us to be our enemies, and those that do it by treachery are punished for so doing. And do not you think that God is very angry when a man does injury to what he hath bestowed on him? For from him it is that we have received our being, and we ought to leave it to his disposal to take that being away from us. The bodies of all men are indeed mortal, and are created out of corruptible matter; but the soul is ever immortal, and is a portion of the divinity that inhabits our bodies. Besides, if any one destroys or abuses a depositum he hath received from a mere man, he is esteemed a wicked and perfidious person; but then if any one cast out of his body this Divine depositum, can we imagine that he who is thereby affronted does not know of it? Moreover, our law justly ordains that slaves which run away from their master shall be punished, though the masters they run away from may have been wicked masters to them. And shall we endeavor to run away from God, who is the best of all masters, and not guilty of impeity? Do not you know that those who depart out of this life according to the law of nature, and pay that debt which was received from God, when he that lent it us is pleased to require it back again, enjoy eternal fame; that their houses and their posterity are sure, that their souls are pure and obedient, and obtain a most holy place in heaven, from whence, in the revolutions of ages, they are again sent into pure bodies; while the souls of those whose hands have acted madly against themselves are received by the darkest place in Hades, and while God, who is their Father, punishes those that offend against either of them in their posterity? for which reason God hates such doings, and the crime is punished by our most wise legislator. Accordingly, our laws determine that the bodies of such as kill themselves should be exposed till the sun be set, without burial, although at the same time it be allowed by them to be lawful to bury our enemies [sooner]. The laws of other nations also enjoin such men's hands to be cut off when they are dead, which had been made use of in destroying themselves when alive, while they reckoned that as the body is alien from the soul, so is the hand alien from the body. It is therefore, my friends, a right thing to reason justly, and not add to the calamities which men bring upon us impiety towards our Creator. If we have a mind to preserve ourselves, let us do it; for to be preserved by those our enemies, to whom we have given so many demonstrations of our courage, is no way inglorious; but if we have a mind to die, it is good to die by the hand of those that have conquered us. For nay part, I will not run over to our enemies' quarters, in order to be a traitor to myself; for certainly I should then be much more foolish than those that deserted to the enemy, since they did it in order to save themselves, and I should do it for destruction, for my own destruction. However, I heartily wish the Romans may prove treacherous in this matter; for if, after their offer of their right hand for security, I be slain by them, I shall die cheerfully, and carry away with me the sense of their perfidiousness, as a consolation greater than victory itself." [Jewish War 3.8.4,5]

Once again we have two very different speeches and Pseudo-Hegesippus is much longer and contains some very eye-opening material - Josephus claiming to be an equal to Aaron the original high priest! The idea that Moses's death on Mt Nebo resembled a divine suicide was also noted by Goethe. Yet something which no one has noticed before of course is that 'Hegesippus' is clearly citing from the LXX which necessarily means that the section in Latin is a translation of a Greek original.

The key line here is "death is rest for man" which only appears in the LXX version of Job. http://books.google.com/books?id=Jtu...man%22&f=false The significance of this cannot be overstated. Yes, to be sure everyone would acknowledge that there was a Greek original behind Pseudo-Hegesippus but the assumption always was that the Latin Pseudo-Hegesippus - which dated to the last generation of the fourth century - was a translation, summary or condensation of something like the received text of Jewish War with all the additions and curiosities being added to the text by the Latin translator.

The clear use of the LXX in a variant section which totally disagrees with the parallel material in Jewish War might be very significant. It might help confirm that the material here might go back to a Greek original.

The second confirmation that he is using the LXX comes from the line that immediately follows:

He [Job] was praising death certainly when he [Job] said: death is rest for man, however he [Job] did not rip it away but asked as is written:I am shattered in all my members and inasmuch as I am wicked why am I not dead? Why did I not fall from the womb of my mother into the grave or why the brief period of my life? Allow me to rest a little.

"I am shattered in all my members and inasmuch as I am wicked why am I not dead?" is a shortening of the LXX "I quake in all my limbs for I know that thou wilt not leave me alone as innocent, but since I am ungodly (asebes) why have I not died?" (Job 9:28,29 LXX Brenton translation). The Hebrew reads "I am afraid of all my pains, I know that Thou wilt not hold me guiltless. I shall be condemned; why then do I labour in vain?"

In short we have two confirmations that this variant section was originally written in Greek. I bet we will find many more before we're through ...

stephan huller

I want to make clear that the use of the LXX by a Latin Father proves nothing in itself. John Cassian writing around the same time uses the LXX too "And so when death has been brought upon a saint, we ought not to think that an evil has happened to him but a thing indifferent; which is an evil to a wicked man, while to the good it is rest and freedom from evils. "For death is rest to a man whose way is hidden." [Conferences 7] The point however is that it is impossible to imagine that three citations of very large amounts of variant text which happens to use the LXX could have been added to the Pseudo-Hegesippus by the editor. Why would he have - supposedly - removed the received tradition only to add this stuff? The point is that this material is very old and demonstrates that the Hegesippus tradition is at least as old as Eusebius.

avi

Seems I am always nitpicking, must be a trait related to insecurity about the true substance of the subject matter!!!

haha.

I have a little trouble understanding your sources, here, Stephan.

Here's my source for Job 9: 29. Is it incorrect?

It certainly does not seem, to my uneducated eye, to be the same as your source: "I shall be condemned".

http://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B18C009.htm#V28

Latin Vulgate
9:29 si autem et sic impius sum quare frustra laboravi

King James Version
9:29 If I be wicked, why then labour I in vain?

אנכי ארשע למה־זה
הבל איגע׃

Is this difference in text a result of LXX having been rewritten, in the second, third, or fourth century? The whole rationale for Jesus' divinity is to "save" us, because we are born in sin. But the Hebrew text, at least the Masoretic text I have quoted, suggests, contrarily, that people CHOOSE to be wicked or kind..... Am I in error on this point?

The quibble here, is that you ought, in my opinion, document very carefully, your arguments about Hegesippus or pseudo hege, or "2nd century Josephus", or anyone else, by unequivocal references, instead of simply asserting that the Hebrew text says thus and so, or LXX explains this or that.....

avi