aa5874

Philo DATED his Essenes.

Hypothetica 11.1 There were Essenes were living in Judea when Philo wrote.

You are continuously spreading propaganda about Josephus even though he was NOT the first to mention the Essenes.

stephan huller

The problem of the various manuscript traditions of Josephus is among the most interesting things about New Testament scholarship. It is rarely given its due because people tend to think in terms of Josephus writing two books - Jewish Antiquities and Jewish War. As I noted in a previous post Roger Pearse has demonstrated that Jewish Antiquities was unknown to Ante-Nicene Church Fathers. That's why I treasure Pearse's opinion so much. He's a rational observer of the phenomenon.

So let's leave Jewish Antiquities out of the discussion for the moment because it is of unknown provenance. The pre-Nicene Fathers always reference a Josephan text either called 'Jewish War' or roughly corresponding to this text.

There is no mention of Antipas's wars with Aretas in the familiar Greek narrative of Jewish Wars. There is also no reference to John the Baptist. These are all the Antipas references in Greek Jewish Wars:

AND now as the ethnarchy of Archelaus was fallen into a Roman province, the other sons of Herod, Philip, and that Herod who was called Antipas, each of them took upon them the administration of their own tetrarchies; for when Salome died, she bequeathed to Julia, the wife of Augustus, both her toparchy, and Jamriga, as also her plantation of palm trees that were in Phasaelis. But when the Roman empire was translated to Tiberius, the son of Julia, upon the death of Augustus, who had reigned fifty-seven years, six months, and two days, both Herod and Philip continued in their tetrarchies; and the latter of them built the city Cesarea, at the fountains of Jordan, and in the region of Paneas; as also the city Julias, in the lower Gaulonitis. Herod also built the city Tiberius in Galilee, and in Perea [beyond Jordan] another that was also called Julias.

In the mean time Agrippa, the son of that Aristobulus who had been slain by his father Herod, came to Tiberius, to accuse Herod the tetrarch; who not admitting of his accusation, he staid at Rome, and cultivated a friendship with others of the men of note, but principally with Caius the son of Germanicus, who was then but a private person. Now this Agrippa, at a certain time, feasted Caius; and as he was very complaisant to him on several other accounts, he at length stretched out his hands, and openly wished that Tiberius might die, and that he might quickly see him emperor of the world. This was told to Tiberius by one of Agrippa's domestics, who thereupon was very angry, and ordered Agrippa to be bound, and had him very ill-treated in the prison for six months, until Tiberius died, after he had reigned twenty-two years, six months, and three days.

... But when Caius was made Caesar, he released Agrippa from his bonds, and made him king of Philip's tetrarchy, who was now dead; but when Agrippa had arrived at that degree of dignity, he inflamed the ambitious desires of Herod the tetrarch, who was chiefly induced to hope for the royal authority by his wife Herodias, who reproached him for his sloth, and told him that it was only because he would not sail to Caesar that he was destitute of that great dignity; for since Caesar had made Agrippa a king, from a private person, much mole would he advance him from a tetrarch to that dignity. These arguments prevailed with Herod, so that he came to Caius, by whom he was punished for his ambition, by being banished into Spain; for Agrippa followed him, in order to accuse him; to whom also Caius gave his tetrarchy, by way of addition. So Herod died in Spain, whither his wife had followed him.[Josephus Greek Jewish Wars 2.9.1,6]

Pseudo-Hegesippus represents a parallel and related but ultimately different text claiming to be Josephus's Jewish Wars. It (or a related text) ultimately spawned EVERY text claiming to be Josephus's Jewish War outside of Europe. The manner in which John the Baptist and the war with Aretas was added to the text is so obviously counterfeit it is laughable.

In that tradition Herod is called 'Antipas' in the section which precedes these references and then only later the text 'switches' to call him 'Herod.'

The point is that you can't compare apples and oranges. If you want to hold that the Greek Jewish War is the authentic text of Josephus or closer to the original - fine - but you'll find no references to Antipas's war with Aretas nor will you find any reference to John the Baptist. By your own definition they were added later to corrupt versions of the Jewish War.

Jewish Antiquities is a non-starter because as I noted five times by now, it was unknown to the ante-Nicene Church Fathers. It is a conscious imitation of Dionysius of Halicarnassus's Roman Antiquities written by someone blending Josephan material with other things, other inventions (Nicolas of Damascus?) who knows but it has to be left to the side in any serious discussion as an unknown commodity of unknown provenance.

stephan huller

So let me make it absolutely clear for anyone that doesn't get it. PEOPLE HAVE TO STOP SAYING 'JOSEPHUS TELLS US THIS ..." or "JOSEPHUS TELLS US THAT." There are three basic historical tradition (besides his apologia):

a) Greek Jewish War which has no reference to John the Baptist
b) Pseudo-Hegessipus's De excidio urbis Hierosolymitanae (On the ruin of the city of Jerusalem) or Historiae (History) which in effect is a rival Jewish War tradition which spawned ALL the other copies of Josephus in the hands of Christian (and Jewish) cultures around the world. This tradition references John the Baptist (as well as all sorts of other ridiculous things that are obviously Christian additions). Any discussion of 'what Josephus says in Jewish Wars' necessarily concludes that the John the Baptist references were added by a Christian scribe.
c) Jewish Antiquities a text ascribed to Josephus but unknown to any of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers. It makes reference to John the Baptist BUT IN THE EXACT SAME MANNER as the counterfeit references added to the Jewish War

As we see again:

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, and had lived with her a great while; but when he was once at Rome, he lodged with Herod, (15) who was his brother indeed, but not by the same mother; for this Herod was the son of the high priest Sireoh's daughter. However, he fell in love with Herodias, this last Herod's wife, who was the daughter of Aristobulus their brother, and the sister of Agrippa the Great. This man ventured to talk to her about a marriage between them; which address, when she admitted, an agreement was made for her to change her habitation, and come to him as soon as he should return from Rome: one article of this marriage also was this, that he should divorce Aretas's daughter. So Antipus, when he had made this agreement, sailed to Rome; but when he had done there the business he went about, and was returned again, his wife having discovered the agreement he had made with Herodias, and having learned it before he had notice of her knowledge of the whole design, she desired him to send her to Macherus, which is a place in the borders of the dominions of Aretas and Herod, without informing him of any of her intentions. Accordingly Herod sent her thither, as thinking his wife had not perceived any thing; now she had sent a good while before to Macherus, which was subject to her father and so all things necessary for her journey were made ready for her by the general of Aretas's army; and by that means she soon came into Arabia, under the conduct of the several generals, who carried her from one to another successively; and she soon came to her father, and told him of Herod's intentions. 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; and when they had joined battle, all Herod's army was destroyed by the treachery of some fugitives, who, though they were of the tetrarchy of Philip, joined with Aretas's army.. So Herod wrote about these affairs to Tiberius, who being very angry at the attempt made by Aretas, wrote to Vitellius to make war upon him, and either to take him alive, and bring him to him in bonds, or to kill him, and send him his head. This was the charge that Tiberius gave to the president of Syria.

Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, 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. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, 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,) 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. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him.[Jewish Antiquities 18.1 - 2]

You can't go from (a) to (b) and then look at (c) and argue that it is authentic. The only manner you can possibly make - and it is absurd - is that the editor of Pseudo-Hegesippus read the Jewish Antiquities account of John the Baptist and 'decided' that 'John the Baptist' and the war with Aretas belonged in his translation and developed a parallel addition to his new Latin version of Jewish War.

There can be no doubt the two accounts of John's death are related just look again at what is early Latin version of Jewish Wars:

For when this same Herod was travelling to Rome, having entered the house of his brother for the purpose of lodging, the wife to whom was Herodias the daughter of Aristobolus, the sister of king Agrippa, unmindful of nature he dared to solicit her, that the brother having been left behind she should marry him, when he had returned from the city of Rome, with the consent of the woman an agreement of lewdness having been entered into information of which thing came to the daughter of king Areta still remaining in marriage of Herod. She indignant at her rival insinuated to her returning husband that he should go to the town Macherunta which was in the boundaries of king Petreus and Herod. He who suspected nothing, at the same time because he had impaired the whole state around the same, by which he could more easily keep the faith of the agreement to Herodias if he should get rid of his wife, agreed to her diversion. But she when he came near to her father's kingdom revealed the things learned to her father Areta, who by an ambush attacked and completely destroyed in a battle the entire force of Herod, the betrayal having been made through those, who from the people of Philippus the tetrarch had associated themselves to Herod. Whence Herod took the quarrel to Caesar, but the vengeance ordered by Caesar the anger of god took away, for in the very preparation of war the death of Caesar was announced. And we discover this assessed by the Jews and believed, the author Joseph a suitable witness against himself, that not by the treachery of men but by the arousing of god Herod lost his army and indeed rightly on account of the vengeance of John the Baptist a just man who had said to him: it is not permitted you to have that wife.. [Pseudo-Hegesippus Book 2.12]

So now we have to argue that either (i) both Jewish Antiquities and this Latin text added the war against Aretas and the reference to the death John the Baptist (which just happens to agree with the gospels) AFTER Josephus had written a single historical narrative, the Jewish War which made no mention of either or (ii) Josephus wrote two narratives, one - Jewish Antiquities - which made reference to these two details (among many others) and another, Jewish War which didn't. The Latin editor just decided to 'fix' Jewish War with the addition of 'extra' details from Antiquities.

I don't buy (ii) because no Ante-Nicene Church Father knows or uses Jewish Antiquities. It seems an implausible creation from the Aramaic speaking leader of the Jewish revolt. I think Jewish Antiquities was falsely created in Josephus name by a Christian writer in the fourth century and the material which agrees with the gospels was there because the editor believed in these things and made Josephus 'the secret believer in Jesus' secretly reflect Christian values.

spin

Interestingly, this data regarding Pilate comes specifically from Josephus, so you'll use him as canonical when it suits you.

It is sufficient to work on the notion that the death of John occurred after Pilate had been removed by Lucius Vitellius, the death that occurred near the start of Jesus' religious career, when he was about 30.

What about it? This war would not be an issue, if you didn't need to discount it for your own purposes. While using his dates for Pilate, you're prepared to dismiss the war though without evidence, when the reliability of his material has been frequently demonstrated. Isn't your approach basically arbitrary?

The question which you avoided was:

[W]hat has it got to do with any contention here about the veracity of the narrative?

So you admit that you were mixing and matching.

This is merely popular conjecture.

Do you charge for crystal ball readings?

I think they all place the death of John before that of Jesus.

?

The topic was evidence that doubters can provide to reject his evidence.

When you have a little evidence up your sleeve, you might be in the position to comment.

Everyone in his age accepted prophecies. Was there any difference for a Jew of the period between what a prophet did and what a chronicler did? You go on...

...so the distinction isn't particularly meaningful or useful.

Rachel Elior is almost off a limb, she is so far out there. You are supposed to have evidence, not other people's conjectures.

Josephus is basically the only source we have for the Jewish context. That's a problematic situation for us. We have to confirm what he says as much as we can and that's what scholars have been doing. You cannot argue against that merely because someone can conjecture alternative histories. How could one ever verify or falsify Elior's claim?

I know that what was considered mere romance in the past from Josephus, such as the Roman siege of Masada, has been verified down to the legion positions. This makes him a trustworthy witness and to reject his narrative requires evidence.

If Josephus wrote the material about the war between Antipas and Aretas and it wasn't real, what motivation can you attribute to him, what gain was there for him in doing so? If it was an interpolation, a) what textual indications within AJ would make you think so, and b) why doesn't it conform to the gospel material (for it does contradict it)?


spin

aa5874

But, in "Against Celsus" Origen mentioned "Antiquities of the Jews" 18 and John the Baptist

Once you accept Origen as pre-Nicene then your claim may be erroneous.

And further, Justin Martyr in "Hortatory Address to the Greeks" also mentioned Josephus.

It would seem that "Antiquities of the Jews" by Justin Martyr was known since the middle of the 2nd century.

mountainman

So who do you suspect was this 4th century Christian writer/forger/fraudster?
And do you suspect this writer/forger/fraudster was sponsored? If so, by whom?

stephan huller

AA

My original post on Jewish Antiquities:

I am trying to demonstrate that the overtly Christianized Josephan texts come before the 'corrected' realistic ones. In the case of Jewish War it has been demonstrated that ALL the earliest manuscripts of Jewish War are filled with Christianianized references. Now we turn to Jewish Antiquities.

You cite Origen's witness that such a text existed in the middle of the third century:

What you cleverly avoid referencing is that this 'eighteenth book of Jewish Antiquities' pretends that Josephus acknowledged that the temple was destroyed because of the mistreatment of John the Baptist. Notice all Origen's surprise that Celsus would have his concede the existence of John the Baptist.

Jews back then were no different than today. They never heard of 'John the Baptist' nor did the Samaritans, nor did the Marcionites.

Now back to Origen's witness of this 'Jewish Antiquities of Josephus.' Let's cite the whole passage:

I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, that the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who lived no great length of time after John and Jesus. For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless--being, although against his will, not far from the truth--that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),--the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine. If, then, he says that it was on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason to say that it happened on account (of the death) of Jesus Christ, of whose divinity so many Churches are witnesses, composed of those who have been convened from a flood of sins, and who have joined themselves to the Creator, and who refer all their actions to His good pleasure.

If you believe that Origen is citing a REAL text written by Josephus which attributed the destruction of the temple to the death of John the Baptist I have some real estate in Florida I'd like to sell to you ...

spin

How many have you asked?


spin

stephan huller

Marcionites? Good question. I should have said that Jews and Samaritans only tell us what they learned in a later period from Christians. that would be more exact.

aa5874

But, you have already bought the very phantom estate in Florida.

You are sold on pseudo-Hegesippus.