Doubting again about the Baptist Passage in Josephus...

[Peter Kirby]

Allen, Nicholas Peter Legh. “Josephus, Origen, and John the Baptist: Exposing a Christian Apologist’s Deceit.”

Origen must now be considered the primary suspect for what is possibly a third century CE Christian forgery.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10. ... 17.1317008

IMO, hold fast, good sir!

One of your most well-respected credentials now is your tendered opinion that the Baptist passage is probably authentic.

It gives everything else you say an air of plausible fair-mindedness, willingness to follow evidence.

Why give up a good thing?

And just so you know, I'm not even joking.

It's an unwritten rule that everyone is judged not only for how they argue but what they decide to argue for.

Extra points if you start to argue the point actively and criticize arguments made against its authenticity.

Nota bene: this is because it works against your biases. If you had different biases, it would not give you any credit.

[Ken Olson]

The issue is further compounded by the fact that, by the fourth and fifth centuries, it
was more normal for the mainstream church to refrain from referring to Jesus as having
flesh and blood brothers.

You also don't have to wait for the fourth and fifth centuries.

There's an allusion to this in one of the passages of Origen that is a focus of this essay.

Origen, Contra Celsum 1.47

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.

There is an unfortunate tendency to over-schematize the development of Christian thought and expression about the virginity of Mary in discussions of the passage about James in Ant 20.200. Alice Whealey wrote:

But by the midsecond
century both proto-orthodox and non-orthodox Christians were distancing
themselves, sometimes quite dramatically, from the idea that Jesus
had even had half brothers. The Protevangelium of James and the Gospel of
Peter were composed in this period, and both insist that Jesus' New Testament
brothers were only step brothers so they can promote or preserve the
idea that Mary was a perpetual virgin without contradicting Luke 2,7 that Jesus
was her first-born ('Josephus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and the Testimonium Flavianum', 2007, p151).

But in the fourth century Jerome argues against his contemporary Helvidius, who held that Jesus' brothers (what about his sisters?) were full brothers and sons of Mary (De Viris Illustribus, Against Helvidius). So someone was advocating that position in the fourth century. Christian practice was a lot more varied than some of these scholars suggest.

Perhaps the most relevant passage, though, is Origen's Commentary on Matthew 10.17, which is the earliest outside attestation of the James passage. Origen is discussing Matt 13.54-56:

13.54 and coming to his own country he taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, “Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works? 55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all this?”

Origen comments:

But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or The Book of James, that the brothers of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honour of Mary in virginity to the end, so that that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word which said, The Holy Ghost shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you, Luke 1:35 might not know intercourse with a man after that the Holy Ghost came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first-fruit among men of the purity which consists in chastity, and Mary among women; for it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first-fruit of virginity.

Origen notes that some say the brothers of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, but that does not stop him from calling them the brothers of Jesus.

Also of note is that Origen's reference to Paul in Contra Celsum 1.47 contains a little bit of Paul (Gal 1.19) and a bit more of Origen.

Best,

Ken

[Giuseppe]

It seemed to me that the Allen's argument was:

• 1) Origen interpolated the James Passage (argument on this).

• 2) If Origen was able to interpolate the James Passage, then the possibility is concrete that Origen interpolated also the Baptist Passage.

But indeed there is a difference between Origen and Josephus on the Baptizer, contra Allen's conclusion.

In whiletime, I have read another more serious argument to consider interpolated the Baptist Passage.

The author is Jean Magne (a mythicist scholar I already like for a lot of other reasons).

I will quote him fully in another thread.

Spoiler: just what appears as "less Christian" in the Josephian account of the John's baptism, is really the best evidence supporting the hypothesis of an interpolation.

[Peter Kirby]

It seemed to me that the Allen's argument was:

• 1) Origen interpolated the James Passage (argument on this).

• 2) If Origen was able to interpolate the James Passage, then the possibility is concrete that Origen interpolated also the Baptist Passage.

But indeed there is a difference between Origen and Josephus on the Baptizer, contra Allen's conclusion.

In whiletime, I have read another more serious argument to consider interpolated the Baptist Passage.

The author is Jean Magne (a mythicist scholar I already like for a lot of other reasons).

I will quote him fully in another thread.

Spoiler: just what appears as "less Christian" in the Josephian account of the John's baptism, is really the best evidence supporting the hypothesis of an interpolation.

Are you able to evaluate and critique Jean Magne yourself?

[Peter Kirby]

Jean Magne (a mythicist scholar I already like for a lot of other reasons).

If I can say so, you have a tendency towards:

Liking primarily mythicist and Marcion scholars, and then (based on who you're liking at the time) subscribing to what they say and defending what they argue. It would be a positive development to see you arguing "I really like this scholar, and I might like this conclusion, but I consider their reasoning to be flawed. Let me explain why."

[Peter Kirby]

The issue is further compounded by the fact that, by the fourth and fifth centuries, it
was more normal for the mainstream church to refrain from referring to Jesus as having
flesh and blood brothers.

You also don't have to wait for the fourth and fifth centuries.

There's an allusion to this in one of the passages of Origen that is a focus of this essay.

Origen, Contra Celsum 1.47

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.

There is an unfortunate tendency to over-schematize the development of Christian thought and expression about the virginity of Mary in discussions of the passage about James in Ant 20.200. Alice Whealey wrote:

But by the midsecond
century both proto-orthodox and non-orthodox Christians were distancing
themselves, sometimes quite dramatically, from the idea that Jesus
had even had half brothers. The Protevangelium of James and the Gospel of
Peter were composed in this period, and both insist that Jesus' New Testament
brothers were only step brothers so they can promote or preserve the
idea that Mary was a perpetual virgin without contradicting Luke 2,7 that Jesus
was her first-born ('Josephus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and the Testimonium Flavianum', 2007, p151).

But in the fourth century Jerome argues against his contemporary Helvidius, who held that Jesus' brothers (what about his sisters?) were full brothers and sons of Mary (De Viris Illustribus, Against Helvidius). So someone was advocating that position in the fourth century. Christian practice was a lot more varied than some of these scholars suggest.

Perhaps the most relevant passage, though, is Origen's Commentary on Matthew 10.17, which is the earliest outside attestation of the James passage. Origen is discussing Matt 13.54-56:

13.54 and coming to his own country he taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, “Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works? 55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all this?”

Origen comments:

But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or The Book of James, that the brothers of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honour of Mary in virginity to the end, so that that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word which said, The Holy Ghost shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you, Luke 1:35 might not know intercourse with a man after that the Holy Ghost came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first-fruit among men of the purity which consists in chastity, and Mary among women; for it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first-fruit of virginity.

Origen notes that some say the brothers of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, but that does not stop him from calling them the brothers of Jesus.

Also of note is that Origen's reference to Paul in Contra Celsum 1.47 contains a little bit of Paul (Gal 1.19) and a bit more of Origen.

Best,

Ken

Thank you for this additional background and perspective.

The example of how Origen references Paul is indeed instructive.