mountainman

But what do you mean you cant account for the motivation for forgery and then cite Hitler's motivation was money? Isn't it commonly obvious that most forgeries are motivated by power and money?

What would it benefit 4th century Christians in forging material into Josephus? The answer is quite obvious. The Christians were attempting to forge their own authenticity for a brand new Jewish related "Christian religious history". Why did they need this?

Because the rest of the religions in the empire (especially Alexandria) were Graeco-Roman and NOT JEWISH

The motive in forging Jewish religious history was to make redundant the pagan religions (ie: all other religions in the empire) -- especially the very rich and influential religious cults, with most ancient and highly revered temples which had been sponsored (here and there) by all the Roman Emperors from the very beginning until Constantine turned up.

Constantine did not sponsor the pagan religions. He made them redundant by embracing a state-enforced Jewish related religion, and then ROBBING the TEMPLE GOLD from the pagans.


It is a generally admitted historical fact that the development of christianity, by the interpolation into Josephus and the fabrication of false documents (Agbar, Paul-Senecca, etc) was in full-swing between the years of 312 and 324 CE in the 4th century.

What happened in the 2nd century was clearly vetted by what happened in the 4th century. This is just common sense logic.

mountainman

We may never know since the witings of Eusebius were obviously preserved in the imperially controlled orthodox christian scriptoria, or perhaps just archived. Eusebius does not appear to have been heavily cited in respect of his presentation of the "1st, 2nd and 3rd century christian authors through the 4th century. The dominant authority mentioned here there and everywhere in the 4th century was the rock-solid and orthodox authority of the three hundred and eighteen Nicaean "Fathers of the Church" . AFAIK only in the time and writing of Cyril of Alexandria (5th CE) did the reference ""Fathers of the Church" become disassociated from the war-like 318 Nicaean ""Fathers of the Church" and become associated with the Pre-Nicaean Eusebian ""Fathers of the Early Christian Church" .

Eusebius could have been altered anywhere between the 4th and the 10th century. The important alterations IMO consisted in the retrojection of Gnostic heretics away from Nicaea and beyond, back into the Pre-Nicaean "fairy-tale story". The Gnostics are the ancient historical key to commence the refutation of the historical reliability of the heresiologist "Eusebius".



(1) 324/325 CE ..... The Arian controversy
(2) 4th/5th CE ...... The Origenist controversy
(3) 4th ................ The controversy over Emperor Julian's anti-Christian invectives.
(4) 5th/6th CE ...... The Nestorian controversies
(5) 4th/5th CE ...... the controversies of the "Gnostic Gospels and Acts, etc"
(6) 4th/5th CE ...... The explosion of all different species of "Anti-Christian heretics"
(7) 4th/5th CE ...... The Anathemas of Orthodox Church Councils.
(8) 5th CE ............ The anathemas and refutions and censorships by Cyril of Alexandria (Seal of the Fathers).

This is just a short list.
Start at the top and work down.
The Arian controversy was about the 5 sophisms of Arius AGAINST Jesus.
These sophisms were viewed as pernicious, heretical and anti-Christian.
To have been echoed down many generations, what the F did they actually mean?

aa5874

Can you imagine what would happen in a trial if the cops already shredded and burned the written statements of a defendant long before the trial because he told blatant lies in his written statement?

The Cops actually want the defendant to blatantly lie and they want to DOCUMENT ALL the LIES to increase their chances of getting a conviction in their favor. And the prosecution want all the witnesses for the defendant to repeat the same blatant lies during the trial.

It was extremely important that the Church writers and authors of the NT left writings which can be examined. It is of extreme significance that the historians of the Church have claimed that many of these writings are authentic and undisputed.

The historical claims about Jesus, the disciples and Paul cannot be verified OUTSIDE the Church and NT authors. There is a complete "black historical hole" yet the Church has presented a most glorious history of Jesus and his apostles fully supported and witnessed internally.

And they all claim Jesus actually was RAISED from the dead.

Even the forgery in Josephus.

This is blatant fiction.

Jesus was blatant fiction.

No one dare shred or burn Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3. The jurors must see it. The world must see.


Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 And now a Pauline writer.

Ro 10:9 - The salvation of mankind was based on PURE FICTION.

Let the Church writers and the authors of the NT take the stand. They have something to say.

andrewcriddle

Just a few points FWIW on these numbers.

josephus ant-8 has this puts the Exodus 592-4=588 years before the end of David's reign. This figure of 588 years from Moses to David is found elsewhere in Josephus. The 585 years in Clement is probably an error for 588 (epsilon eta confusion)

The figure of 2133 years seems wrong, it doesn't add up and is represented differently in other translations eg Stromateis has 1883 which doesn't add up either (to add up it should be 1841 or 1844) Whiston gives 1833. There is a problem both with the manuscript (which I presume reads 1833) and how it has been translated.

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller

This is the third and probably last post that I develop for this thread. I have literally been waiting all day anxiously racing through my day like an eighteen year old whose girlfriend told him that tonight would be the night. Ideas take a while to gestate in the minds of those chosen to explain them.

This thread began with the realization that Clement of Alexandria was using a historical text by a 'Josephus the Jew' who wrote during the tenth year of Antoninus's reign. Then as a second line of proof I brought forward Turner's article demonstrating that Eusebius and Epiphanius used the work of a Church historian who calculated events in the Jerusalem Church from the tenth year of the reign of Antoninus. I proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that this chronologist was the figure known from the writings of Eusebius as 'Hegesippus the Jew.'

I also demonstrated how it is universally recognized that the specific form 'Hegesippus' is an adaptation to the phonetics of Greek, to make the name sound Greek (not Latin). It is an artificial name made up by whoever edited this version of Josephus called Hegesippus.

The most important thing that came from these two lines of proof was that the text that Eusebius identifies in the fourth century as a 'memoir' belonging to 'Hegesippus' was identified by Clement and Origen as a Jewish historical text written by a 'Josephus.'

Whether it is Eusebius's Hegesippus and Clement and Origen's 'Josephus' this is a Jew who wrote a chronology in the tenth year of Antoninus Pius.

Now some of the hundred or so people who actually read this thread and parallel posts at my blog did question one thing - how could anyone in antiquity have bought such a stupid story that there were two 'Jewish Josephs' - i.e. one who was a general at the time of the Jewish war and another who was a Jew or a Jewish convert to Christianity who lived and wrote in the tenth year of Antoninus?

These respondents argued that the whole idea at the heart of pseudo-Hegesippus - i.e. a narrative about a first century Josephus by a second century Josephus - was ridiculous and PROVED beyond a shadow of a doubt that the pseudo-Hegesippus tradition was a fake. Our accepted text of Jewish War which purports to be directly from the hand of the first century Josephus (or at least through the assistance of synergoi) makes more sense and better explains the surviving narrative.

At first glance these respondents certainly seem write. If someone wrote a history of the Jewish War it would be a far more authoritative text if it were written as close to the events as possible. The historical work in the hands of Clement of Alexandria purporting to be from 'Josephus the Jew' who wrote in the tenth year of Antoninus couldn't possibly be as authoritative as the chronology by Justus of Tiberias, who was an eyewitness to major events in the war.

But then again, I thought to myself - there certainly were historical works written about the exploits of Alexander the Great and various other figures which were written more than seventy seven years after the events they describe. Aelian wrote about Alexander in the second century BCE. Arrian in the late first century CE.

So why is it so impossible that the Josephan material began life as a second century Christian text written about a first century Jew named Joseph by a second century Jew named Joseph? The Josephus we all know and love could still have written a historical narrative. All that I am suggesting is that was lost like Justus's text and moreover that all our existing Josephan material is actually an outgrowth of the literary productivity of the second century Josephus.

Sounds crazy right? But what's so crazy about it. Clement absolutely certainly used the work of this second century Josephus. It is highly probable that Origen did too. Where are all the other references to Josephus among the non-Alexandrian Ante-Nicene Church Fathers? They don't exist.

The first person to cite 'our' Josephus is Eusebius in the fourth century and curiously he deliberately distinguishes Clement and Origen's 'Josephus' as 'Hegesippus' which again is an adaptation to the phonetics of Greek, to make the name 'Joseph' sound Greek.

A number of people have theorized that Epiphanius had a hand in creating Josephus. We are now standing on a very persuasive proof that confirms that suspicion and in fact takes matters one step further.

There cannot be an objection to the idea that Clement and Origen's 'second century Josephus' shows up in the historical record before the closely related text cited by Eusebius as a work direct from the hand of the first century Josephus with no reference to this 'second century Josephus.'

But can we PROVE that our familiar texts claimed to be written by the first century Josephus were really edited versions of the original work known to Clement as coming from the hand of the second century Josephus?

Well, not exactly but we can something almost as good. We can prove that the understanding Clement had reflects the narrative common to both literary traditions - i.e. the one which is now called Pseudo-Hegesippus and is identified as being written by a secondary Josephus figure (the date of his writing is never specified) about the first century Josephus and which in turn was responsible for the Slavonic Josephus, the Yosippon, the Ethiopic and Syrian narratives AND the various 11th through to 14th century manuscripts of the familiar Josephan narratives where 'the first century Josephus speaks directly to us.

In other words, all the Josephus material (whether written by the first century Josephus or the other guy with the same name) has an underlying similarity. The Pseudo-Hegesippus material happens to date from the fourth century and has this 'other guy Josephus.' But there can be no doubt that there is an underlying common ancestor which dates back to a period before the fourth century.

Now it is interesting to note that as the Pseudo-Hegesippus material was being translated into Slavonic and Hebrew 'the other Josephus' got 'lost in translation.' In other words, the text removes this 'second Josephus' and mirrors the familiar idea of the first century Josephus speaking directing to us without intermediary.

It can't be denied - having the first century Josephus as our narrator suddenly makes everything about the writing seem suddenly more authoritative. We as students of history like our source better. We feel more confident that what we are reading actually happened in real history.

But so what?

This is what is wrong with scholarship. There is an unconscious human need to believe that what we are engaged in isn't a complete waste of time. So scribes, historians and general readers often unconsciously do their best to make activities they are involved in 'have meaning.'

In this case I am suggesting that things were taken one step further - i.e. that an original narrative known to Clement which featured a 'second century Josephus narrator figure' who definitely was a rabid Christian - was ultimately edited out of the narrative to make it sound 'more realistic' for critical minds living in an age where Christianity had already conquered the world.

In short, no one needed a Christian Josephus narrator any longer telling us how to interpret history 'the Christian way.' History itself had fully converted to Christianity.

Indeed I am so sure that almost EVERY SINGLE PERSON reading this post will come over to my view - i.e. that our surviving copies of Josephus's Jewish War were originally developed with that 'second century Josephus narrator' and then he was subsequently 'dropped' along with all his Christian narrative. Yes I hope to convince you all.

Why am I so confident? Well that's what's been buzzing through my head all day. I just remembered that almost the whole of the Jewish War is written in the third person. As Steve Mason notes:

Evidently, his account of himself, written in the third person, focused upon his character: after describing his ancestry and upbringing, he interspersed the story of his actions with notices about his many virtues, and then he concluded the whole with a summary of his character (Misch 1950:1,307.13)

The usual explanation of this shift to the third person voice is that it was used by classical Greek writers like Thucydides and Polybius. But this is utterly absurd. Josephus was a Jew and not a Greek. Even by the standard account of Josephus his work was originally written in Aramaic in the early 70's to warn Syrian Jews that it was futile to join the revolt against Rome. After the war an expanded version was translated into Greek by the synergoi (75-79 CE).

The point is that Josephus himself could not have been influenced by the classical Greek authors and there is no tradition of writing in the third person for historical eyewitnesses in Latin or Aramaic. If anyone was responsible for putting Josephus in the third person it was the so-called 'synergoi' and whether they wrote in the late first century or - as the 'second Josephus' hypothesis dictates the middle of the second century, it was they - or him - who introduced the idea of reducing 'the first century Josephus' to a character in the greater narrative.

If 'first century Josephus' we know - i.e. the guy who was on the ground attempting to preserve the peace in Judea - really wrote the Jewish War that we have you'd expect the kind of thing you get in Vita where first century Josephus is speaking in the first person:

The family from which I am derived is not an ignoble one, but hath descended all along from the priests; and as nobility among several people is of a different origin, so with us to be of the sacerdotal dignity, is an indication of the splendor of a family. Now, I am not only sprung from a sacerdotal family in general, but from the first of the twenty-four courses; and as among us there is not only a considerable difference between one family of each course and another, I am of the chief family of that first course also; nay, further, by my mother I am of the royal blood; for the children of Asamoneus, from whom that family was derived, had both the office of the high priesthood, and the dignity of a king, for a long time together. I will accordingly set down my progenitors in order. My grandfather's father was named Simon, with the addition of Psellus: he lived at the same time with that son of Simon the high priest, who first of all the high priests was named Hyrcanus. This Simon Psellus had nine sons, one of whom was Matthias, called Ephlias: he married the daughter of Jonathan the high priest, which Jonathan was the first of the sons of Asamoneus, who was high priest, and was the brother of Simon the high priest also. This Matthias had a son called Matthias Curtus, and that in the first year of the government of Hyrcanus: his son's name was Joseph, born in the ninth year of the reign of Alexandra: his son Matthias was born in the tenth year of the reign of Archclaus; as was I born to Matthias in the first year of the reign of Caius Caesar. I have three sons: Hyrcanus, the eldest, was born in the fourth year of the reign of Vespasian, as was Justus born in the seventh, and Agrippa in the ninth. Thus have I set down the genealog of my family as I have found it described in the public records, and so bid adieu to those who calumniate me [Vita 1]

Indeed what makes our received Jewish War such a schizophrenic account is that 'Josephus' not only speaks about himself in the third person but also as Schwartz notes he speaks about the Jews in the third person which he argues "sounds strange for Josephus" and suits better a Gentile author (Schwartz Josephus and Nicholas p. 159). Can we start to see that these might be remnants of the original second century CHRISTIAN narrator Josephus that weren't all removed?

My point here is that it is only because most of you haven't read the Pseudo-Hegesippus narrative from beginning to end that you can't see how it PROVES beyond a shadow of a doubt - when coupled with Clement's witness of a 'second century Christian Josephus' narrator - that the reason why much of familiar Jewish War narrative in OUR RECEIVED TEXT is written in the third person IS BECAUSE IT WAS WRITTEN BY THE 'SECOND JOSEPHUS' - the guy who lived in the third century. Our received text results from a fourth century author 'purifying' that narrative of the ridiculous 'second Josephus' narrator - immediately making it seem a more authoritative account of what happened in Judea in 66 - 70 CE.

I will stop here before I go on to cite the common third person narrative that pervades the received Jewish War narrative and the Pseudo-Hegesippus text AND ASK YOU TO DECIDE WHICH BETTER EXPLAINS ITS DEVELOPMENT (i.e. that the Aramaic speaking Josephus was 'imitating' classical Greek authors like Thucydides or that it is a purified remnant of Clement's Josephus narrative). For the moment I would just like to close by introducing you to the whole concept of having a 'second Josephus' narrating the account of 'first century Josephus's' involvement in the Jewish War.

I will cite extensively from Heinz Schreckenberg's introduction to the Pseudo-Hegesippus narrative in Jewish historiography and iconography in early and Medieval. Enjoy!

So-called Hegesippus (Pseudo-Hegesippus), a Latin paraphrase of the Greek War written about 370 (making use also of 1 Maccabees, Lucanus, Suetonius and Tacitus) is preserved among the writings of Ambrose, but the identity of the author remains hypothetical. By introducing a Christian standpoint, the paraphraser changes Josephus' own portrayal, indeed already in the prologue he distances himself from his source (consortem se enim perfidiae Judaeorum exhibuit, 'indeed, he shows himself to have shared in the unbelief of the Jews'; Prologus, p3) The fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus are, in the Christian view, the deserved punishment for the perfidia of the Jews and the killing of Jesus. Hegesippus' comment to the Testimonium Flavianum is characteristic of his polemical attitude:

If the Jews will not believe us, they should at least believe their own people [ie, their Jewish brother Josephus] This is said by Josephus [ie, the witness to Christ], whom they themselves hold to be of great importance; and yet even at this very point, where he speaks the truth, he has so wandered from the way spiritually, that he does not believe his own words. Yet for the sake of historical truth he speaks, for he considers deception a sin, but he does not believe, for his heart is hard and his faith is false. To be sure, he does no disadvantage to the truth with his unbelief, but rather strengthens his testimony .... The eternal power of Christ Jesus was made clear, in that even the leaders of the synagogue, who dragged him to execution, confessed his divinity. (CSEL 66/1 , pi 64)

(Ps.-)Hegesippus brings the charge against Josephus that, although he defected to the Romans, 'he did not distance himself from their [the Jews'] blasphemy [ie, their unbelief and the killing of Jesus]', and, 'indeed, laments in a heart-rending manner the tribulation [of the Jews], but fails to grasp the reason for this tribulation' (CSEL 66/1, p3) , ie, the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple are the deserved punishment for the false beliefs (perfidia) and the godlessness (impietas) of the Jews who rejected and killed Jesus Christ (Prologus; CSEL 66/1, p3). Whereas Josephus himself differentiates between the various rebel groups and the population of Jerusalem, part of which was in no wise hostile to Rome, here we have an unqualified reference to 'the Jews' who have themselves to thank for their doom and cannot escape the punishment they have earned.[p. 71, 72]

The truth is my friends that Schreckenberg's description isn't exactly true. When we compare the sections of our received Josephus text which describe Josephus in the third person the same pattern emerges. As I noted it is a composite - and heavily edited - text.

stephan huller

The Preface of First Century Josephus is clearly written in the first person with the author claiming to be Josephus the Jewish general who led the Jewish revolt:

1. Whereas the war which the Jews made with the Romans hath been the greatest of all those, not only that have been in our times, but, in a manner, of those that ever were heard of; both of those wherein cities have fought against cities, or nations against nations; while some men who were not concerned in the affairs themselves have gotten together vain and contradictory stories by hearsay, and have written them down after a sophistical manner; and while those that were there present have given false accounts of things, and this either out of a humor of flattery to the Romans, or of hatred towards the Jews; and while their writings contain sometimes accusations, and sometimes encomiums, but no where the accurate truth of the facts; I have proposed to myself, for the sake of such as live under the government of the Romans, to translate those books into the Greek tongue, which I formerly composed in the language of our country, and sent to the Upper Barbarians; Joseph, the son of Matthias, by birth a Hebrew, a priest also, and one who at first fought against the Romans myself, and was forced to be present at what was done afterwards.

Notes - the author is clearly a secondary figure pretending to be Josephus. He not only wrote after Justus of Tiberias ('vain and contradictory story by hearsay ... flattery to the Romans') and perhaps Tacitus ('hatred of the Jews'). All of this points to a secondary figure who lived after the historical Josephus. Justus's narrative must have been completed shortly before his death (cf. Photius Justus of Tiberias "He [Justus] died in the third year of Trajan [100 CE], when the history ends. Justus' style is very concise and he omits a great deal that is of utmost importance. Suffering from the common fault of the Jews, to which race he belonged, he does not even mention the coming of Christ, the events of his life, or the miracles performed by Him."). Tacitus wrote the Annals c. 116 CE again possible also shortly before his death. The line "I have proposed to myself, for the sake of such as live under the government of the Romans, to translate those books into the Greek tongue, which I formerly composed in the language of our country, and sent to the Upper Barbarians" despite the tacked on self-identification by 'Josephus' is a task which is elsewhere explicitly connected with 'synergoi' (Greek speaking 'assistants' cf. Against Apion 1.50). How this isn't interpreted as the synergoi taking on Josephus's identity is beyond me. They must have been writing the introduction and for the explicit purpose of warning Jewish or Jewish Christian rebels about the dangers of rebelling against Rome. It is worth noting that Josephus writing in the 'first person' continues down to the end of the introduction until the very conclusion of the preface when he ends with the words:

I have comprehended all these things in seven books, and have left no occasion for complaint or accusation to such as have been acquainted with this war; and I have written it down for the sake of those that love truth, but not for those that please themselves [with fictitious relations]. And I will begin my account of these things with what I call my First Chapter.

Book Seven is clearly a separate work. It is never found in any copies of Jewish War outside of Europe. The fact that the person writing the preface identifies seven chapters to his work is highly suspicious.

The Preface to Second Century Josephus narrative is clearly a second century Greek author who OPENLY acknowledges taking a first century manuscript of Josephus and 'Christianizing' it because Josephus was not a believer:

Having followed with my pen the four books of Kings which the sacred writings embrace all the way to the captivity of the Jews and the destruction of the wall and the triumphs of Babylon, I arranged this in the manner of history. The prophetic speech also summarizes in a few words the things done by the Macchabaeans; of the rest all the way to the burning of the temple and the booty of Titus Caesar the excellent narrator Josephus (covers) with his historical pen, would that he had been attentive to religion and truth as to tracking down events and the staidness of speeches. He showed himself in his own words even a partner of the treachery of the Jews, which he made known about their punishment, and whose arms he deserted, but whose sacrilege he did not give up: he lamented tearfully their hardships, but he did not understand the cause of this hardship. Whence it was a concern for us relying not upon the help of tricks but the purpose of faith to go in the history of the Jews a little beyond the chain of sacred writing so that, as if seeking a rose among the thorns, among the savage crimes of the impious, which were paid off at a price worthy of the impiety, we may dig up something of reverence of the sacred law or of the miracle of the divine destiny, which although to evil heirs were either a pretext in unfavorable circumstances or a reason for honor in favorable ones; at the same time, because it is proof of domestic wickedness, establishes for all that they themselves were for themselves the authors of their own destruction, first because they turned the Romans who desired something different against themselves and attracted them to an examination of their kingdom, for which it was preferable to be ignored, not about to keep faith they asked for friendship, unequal in strength they violated the peace, finally they brought on war, to whom all hope was in their walls not in their strength, since to be shut in by a siege is a miserable thing for all, which even if it proceeds well, is accustomed more frequently to increase rather than to decrease the dangers. And lest anyone should think us to have undertaken a task empty of faith and unnecessary, let us consider that all the tribe of Hebrews was so led by their leaders, as is plainly evident, whether from the loins of Judas the successors of his begetting nowhere were deficient, or in truth offended in the chain of leaders, but continued in him in whom all things remained placed and who was himself the hope of the nations. From here therefore we take up our beginning.[Prologue]

I think there is good reason to believe that BOTH prefaces were written by later editors. In the case of First Century Josephus the Greek synergoi are active but pretend they are 'first century Josephus.' In the case of 'Second Century Josephus' the editing and manipulating is explicitly referenced from the get go. 'Josephus' the first century Jew is almost always referenced in the third person.

avi

What I like, no, enjoy, about this thread, Stephan, is your evident enthusiasm for the topic.

Bravo. Good effort. Well written, and with obvious potential for an ultimate scholarly translation.

But, not to be always a naysayer, please permit me to offer a different point of view.

When you write: "there can be no doubt"..., sorry, I tune out at that point.

I am filled with doubt. I don't know anything about this topic, but what I suspect is, (and this maybe completely wrong), the entire "first century" Josephus is a fictional character. I suppose, no I suspect, but obviously have no proof, that the "second" Josephus, or "Hegesippus", is ALSO a fictional character.

It would not surprise me, though I acknowledge it could be completely nonsense, to learn that BOTH of these guys were created by Eusebius, or one of his minions.

I believe that we seriously underestimate the creative power and skill of those folks living half a millenium after Alexander of Macedonia. They were educated, they were talented, and society was receptive to novel ways of thinking.

We are the ones, not those bilingual and trilingual guys, we are the ones, who have such a limited ability to imagine all kinds of possibilities. For us, in general, (and you Stephan, may be the exception,) it is difficult to imagine, that the real situation, could be anything other than, that which we were taught as kids in school and church, or synagogue, or temple.

So, yes, I have plenty of doubts.

I cannot even imagine what would constitute a "proof", as you have frequently written, in your posts above.

However, that is a reflection of my own intellectual mediocrity. For you to succeed, friend, I think you need to spell out WHY your writing should be regarded as a PROOF, rather than a simple assertion on your part.

avi

stephan huller

Avi, The second Josephus may well have been a mask for someone else but right now I'm just try to see if there are any clues in the existing writing.

Thanks for the feedback!

Clivedurdle

I thought Josephus, being very senior in the Roman imperial hierarchy was independently attested.

Have I misunderstood something about the clade diagrams?

But wiki does say

stephan huller

The second in our series where we try to establish whether the underlying common text of Jewish War (shared by Latin Pseudo-Hegesippus and Greek Jewish War) prove that we have the original narrative written by 1st Josephus or a deliberately 'corrected' version of a Christianized text by a 2nd century Josephus openly attesting that he was working from and adding to 1st century Josephus (viz. a fourth century editor eventually wrote 2nd century Josephus out of the narrative). We will go through the existing material line by line where ever a reference to Josephus appears in the first person or third person. Here is the second appearance of 'Josephus' in one of the surviving narratives:

Nor did Antiochus remain calm who resented his army to have been an object of mockery to Simon the father of Ionathas, and desiring to quench the beginnings of Ionathas yet rising, coming with a great band, he besieged Jerusalem and Hyrcanus. Hyrcanus fended him off with gold, which he was not able to do with weapons, and the tomb of David having been opened, as Josephus is our source, he dug up three thousand talents of gold, from which he counted out three hundred to Antiochus, so that he should abandon the siege, bought off by this price he went away.[Hegesippus 1.1]

The story is paralleled by the following narrative in Book One of '1st century Josephus' (not surprisingly without the self-reference):

And now Antiochus was so angry at what he had suffered from Simon, that he made an expedition into Judea, and sat down before Jerusalem and besieged Hyrcanus; but Hyrcanus opened the sepulcher of David, who was the richest of all kings, and took thence about three thousand talents in money, and induced Antiochus, by the promise of three thousand talents, to raise the siege. Moreover, he was the first of the Jews that had money enough, and began to hire foreign auxiliaries also.[Jewish Antiquities 2.2.5]

It is amazing to see how these two accounts ultimately attributed to '1st century Josephus' differ from what is commonly identified as 'Jewish Antiquities by Josephus':

And when Hyrcanus sent to Antiochus, and desired there might be a truce for seven days, because of the festival, be gave way to this piety towards God, and made that truce accordingly. And besides that, he sent in a magnificent sacrifice, bulls with their horns gilded, with all sorts of sweet spices, and with cups of gold and silver. So those that were at the gates received the sacrifices from those that brought them, and led them to the temple, Antiochus the mean while feasting his army, which was a quite different conduct from Antiochus Epiphanes, who, when he had taken the city, offered swine upon the altar, and sprinkled the temple with the broth of their flesh, in order to violate the laws of the Jews, and the religion they derived from their forefathers; for which reason our nation made war with him, and would never be reconciled to him; but for this Antiochus, all men called him Antiochus the Pious, for the great zeal he had about religion. But Hyrcanus opened the sepulcher of David, who excelled all other kings in riches, and took out of it three thousand talents. He was also the first of the Jews that, relying on this wealth, maintained foreign troops. There was also a league of friendship and mutual assistance made between them; upon which Hyrcanus admitted him into the city, and furnished him with whatsoever his army wanted in great plenty, and with great generosity, and marched along with him when he made an expedition against the Parthians; of which Nicolaus of Damascus is a witness for us; who in his history writes thus [Jewish Antiquities 13.8.4]

I can't believe that there are people claiming that Josephus wrote Jewish Antiquities when this account is COMPLETELY at odds with what is written in Jewish War. In those accounts, Antiochus is furious and besieges Jerusalem only to be bribed by Hyrcanus in order to release his stranglehold on the city. The citation from Nicolas of Damascus is deceptive because it only shows that Antiochus allowed Jews to maintain their customs not that he didn't besiege Jerusalem.

I am baffled how anyone can claim Josephus wrote both Jewish War AND Jewish Antiquities. In any event it is worth noting that 2nd century Josephus specifically cites 1st century Josephus as the source for this story. As it appears in the introduction we might well assume that 1st century Josephus referenced this story but the real question is why - if 2nd century Josephus - has access to all sorts of histories - did he specifically attribute this narrative to '1st century Josephus'? The answer must be that 1st century Josephus must have been the only person to ever mention that someone robbed the temple during the siege.

I wonder whether Josephus invented this story of a 'precedent' in order to justify his stealing of Imperial property during the siege of Jerusalem in 66 CE. The reason I say this is that Vita is replete with accusations that Josephus stole or caused damage to Imperial property. The invention of the story would justify his actions during the siege.

A parallel example emerges in Vita with regards to Josephus's plunder of the Imperial grain during the war - viz. "I placed my armed men on the outside of the village, and gave orders that they should guard the passes with great care, that the enemy might not disturb us until we should have carried off the corn, a great quantity of which lay there: it belonged to Bernice the queen, and had been gathered together out of the neighboring villages into Besara; so I loaded my camels and asses, a great number of which I had brought along with me, and sent the corn into Galilee."[Vita 24] The story of the rebels stealing of Agrippa's grain supply is repeated throughout the rabbinic tradition too. But most interesting of all it's justification with the theft of David makes its way into the gospels too when Jesus says "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and taking the consecrated bread, he ate what is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions."[Mark 2.25 - 26]

It is even more interesting to note that when Tertullian justifies Jesus breaking the Sabbath law prohibiting gathering food on the Sabbath against Marcion's interpretation he doesn't identify this story as appearing in the gospels but rather as one of his typical scriptural argument:

For from the Creator's Scripture, and from the purpose of Christ, there is derived a colourable precedent ----as from the example of David, when he went into the temple on the Sabbath, and provided food by boldly breaking up the shew-bread.[AM 4.12]

In other words he (or his second century source) says the example of David from 1 Sam. xxi. 2-6 can be used to provide a precedent for breaking laws in cases of emergencies. It doesn't necessarily mean that Jesus was ending the Sabbath. But clearly the way Tertullian frames his argument (or more likely his source) it shows that the reference to David stealing the showbread WASN'T in the standard texts of Marcion's gospel at the time.