Did Josephus mention John the Baptist?

[Giuseppe]

He talks of "good" John appealing to "good" Jews who "lead righteous lives and practice justice towards their fellows and piety toward God". I see no binary good/bad opposition here.

Even so - as catholic apology by Origen against Celsus of John and Jewish followers of John - I insist that the Baptist Passage is subtly anti-Jewish in nature, because it assumes implicitly that the Jews who didn't follow John were the contrary of what it is meant for "good Jews".

[austendw]

I insist that the Baptist Passage is subtly anti-Jewish in nature, because it assumes implicitly that the Jews who didn't follow John were the contrary of what it is meant for "good Jews".

Well, that may be so. But one might think that same about all Jewish sectarians. Sadducees, Pharisees and Quram sectarians all thought they knew better than the other Jews, who obviously had the wrong ideas about this and that. They could all seem "anti-Jewish" from a particular viewpoint.

[Giuseppe]

I insist that the Baptist Passage is subtly anti-Jewish in nature, because it assumes implicitly that the Jews who didn't follow John were the contrary of what it is meant for "good Jews".

Well, that may be so. But one might think that same about all Jewish sectarians. Sadducees, Pharisees and Quram sectarians all thought they knew better than the other Jews, who obviously had the wrong ideas about this and that. They could all seem "anti-Jewish" from a particular viewpoint.

Correct, but my precise point is that you can with equal right to interpret the Baptist Passage

1) under the hypothesis that Josephus was to write it ''to demonstrate the virtuous philosophical qualities of Judaism and of particular Jews, such as John the Baptist, that Josephus admired'' (Peter Kirby's words), or...

2) under the hypothesis that Origen was to write it to demonstrate, in polemic against Celsus, the virtuous qualities of Judaism and of particular Jews, such as John the Baptist, that Celsus hated and despised and considered false witnesses of the baptism of Jesus (my words derived from Allen's thesis).

How can we overcome the apparent empasse of this prima facie analysis of the evidence in our possess?

ANSWER OF ALLEN: the probabilities lead in direction of forgery by Origen, because it is already proved, independently, that Origen was the probable interpolator of the construct ''called Christ'' in Antiquities 20:200.
Note that in the post above I give other clues of this fact (for example, the fact that Origen knew probably the ironic point behind ''called Christ'' in Matthew 27:17, the fact that Origen knew probably the ironic point behind the his pointing out of the fact that Josephus was not Christian).

§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§

It is similar to the following anecdote:

Suppose I realize that on the table the silver is absent but the gold is present.

Can I deduce from this fact that a thief stole the silver from my table ?

No, because if a thief stole the silver from the table, why would not have he taken also the gold from the same table?

But I can surely convince me that a thief stole the silver from my table if I see that the gold has disappeared from the table, too, and not only the silver.

Idem with Origen. If I see that Origen, the more probable candidate to forger the Baptist Passage, is also the same person who falsified probably Antiquities 20:200 (the James Passage) by interpolating ''called Christ'', then I can't doubt more about the fact that Origen inserted the entire Baptist Passage in Josephus.

[austendw]

You emphasize that John is "good" and his followers are "good" people only because someone is claiming aggressively the contrary. Josephus didn't have that need.

I can't agree with that "only". It may be for a different reason. As for example: emphasising that Herod was wrong to kill John, because John was neither a crank nor a rabble-rouser, but a moral person, whose popularity Herod only thought might lead to insurrection, and who therefore didn't deserve his fate. And it was for this unjustifiable execution that some Jews (though not necessarily Josephus) thought Herod met his comeuppance.

Thus it's quite possible to read the passage differently from the way you do. And if that's so, then all the reasons why you say Origen fabricated this passage could simply be understood as the reasons why he quoted it: Origen interpreted it as a defence of his views on baptism, even though Josephus had meant it rather differently.

[austendw]

... it is already proved, independently, that Origen was the probable interpolator of the construct ''called Christ'' in Antiquities 20:200.

I haven't read Allen's essay yet - and will do so ASAP. I suspect that it is utterly impossible to prove who was the interpolator of the "called Christ" in Ant 20:200, but I will comment again after I have read it.

[Giuseppe]

... it is already proved, independently, that Origen was the probable interpolator of the construct ''called Christ'' in Antiquities 20:200.

I haven't read Allen's essay yet - and will do so ASAP. I suspect that it is utterly impossible to prove who was the interpolator of the "called Christ" in Ant 20:200, but I will comment again after I have read it.

The mere possibility that Origen was the interpolator is already raised by Carrier 2012.

I am only partially satisfied by the Allen's reason to transform that possibility in probability.

Therefore I give my further reasons to correct Allen's view in the same his direction: Origen was probably the forger of ''called Christ'' for all the reasons that I list in this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2948#p65368

It would be interesting to listen a serious criticism of Allen, surely, but also of Allen partially corrected by Giuseppe!

[austendw]

It would be interesting to listen a serious criticism of Allen, surely, but also of Allen partially corrected by Giuseppe!

Well, there are two salient problems for me:

(1) Though Origen nearly quotes the Josephus passage three times, he never quotes it exactly. My feeling is that if he was responsible for interpolating "called Christ" (and according to Allen, striking out whatever had originally been there) why didn't he quote that passage more accurately? More to the point, why didn't he interpolate into Josephus precisely what he later quotes Josephus as having written? Three times Origen mentions "James [the Just], the brother of Jesus, called Christ" in that order. He puts both "James" and "brother" in the accusative or genitive, as the context requires. So why on earth did he deviate from that in the passage in Josephus? Why write "the brother of Jesus, called Christ - whose name was James" ("James" in the nominative)? That sylistic/grammatical difference is, I think, significant.

(2) The passage in Josephus simply doesn't say what Origen three times insists it says. It doesn't connect the execution of this person/these persons with the fall of Jerusalem at all. The notion that Origen was intimately familiar with the passage, as he would have to be if he interpolated a phrase, yet forgot the glaring fact that the passage makes no mention of the fall of Jerusalem, beggars belief.

Both of these points make me doubt that Origen could possibly have been the author of the interpolation.

[Giuseppe]

Well, there are two salient problems for me:

(1) Though Origen nearly quotes the Josephus passage three times, he never quotes it exactly. My feeling is that if he was responsible for interpolating "called Christ" (and according to Allen, striking out whatever had originally been there) why didn't he quote that passage more accurately? More to the point, why didn't he interpolate into Josephus precisely what he later quotes Josephus as having written? Three times Origen mentions "James [the Just], the brother of Jesus, called Christ" in that order. He puts both "James" and "brother" in the accusative or genitive, as the context requires. So why on earth did he deviate from that in the passage in Josephus? Why write "the brother of Jesus, called Christ - whose name was James" ("James" in the nominative)? That sylistic/grammatical difference is, I think, significant.

To this point I don't know (for the moment) to answer but maybe Allen says something about the differences.

(2) The passage in Josephus simply doesn't say what Origen three times insists it says. It doesn't connect the execution of this person/these persons with the fall of Jerusalem at all. The notion that Origen was intimately familiar with the passage, as he would have to be if he interpolated a phrase, yet forgot the glaring fact that the passage makes no mention of the fall of Jerusalem, beggars belief.

To this your question I have the answer and I have derived it from Peter's thread titled "Origen 1- Scholars 0". In short, Origen "read" the causal link "death of James----->fall of Jerusalem" in the entire context of what Josephus writes from the death of James until the mention of the fall of Jerusalem (even if, obviously, Josephus never meant to do a such point). The Peter's thread is the following (please read it all!):

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1540&start=10#p35203

[austendw]

To this your question I have the answer and I have derived it from Peter's thread titled "Origen 1- Scholars 0". In short, Origen "read" the causal link "death of James----->fall of Jerusalem" in the entire context of what Josephus writes from the death of James until the mention of the fall of Jerusalem (even if, obviously, Josephus never meant to do a such point). The Peter's thread is the following (please read it all!):

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1540&start=10#p35203

Hmmm. Peter Kirby's argument is that Origen could have (over-)interpreted Josephus without having confused him with Hegesippus. But I'm not so sure. Origen says:

...Flavius Josephus... when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James (COM, X, 17 / 5268 – 5269)

and

[Josephus]... says... that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James ... the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. (Cels 1.47)

"The things which they dared to do against James" agrees with Hegesippus closely, but not at all with the account in Josephus, where Ananus kills James and loses the High Priesthood because of it - a different scenario entirely. Can Origen really have been thinking of Josephus here, however broadly he was interpreting it? I can't see it.

And in Commentary on Matthew he even says "and he [Josephus] says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James" - but Josephus wrote nothing of the sort. I'm not sure where he got that from.

However, from the citation that Eusebius makes, we have no reason to think that the phrase "the brother of Jesus, called Christ" was in either Hegesippus or Clement, so surely Origen did get the expression from the text of Josephus that he read.

We have now drifted wildly off topic.

[Giuseppe]

Can Origen really have been thinking of Josephus here, however broadly he was interpreting it? I can't see it.

He was introducing Josephus against Celsus, when he alluded to James in 1:47.

But note the essence of the Origen's apology. He has already proved, via Josephus (interpolated or not), that it is rational, also for a Pagan, to consider a positive thing the Christian baptism and to have respect of the Jewish traditions.

Now he would like to prove that also Jesus had a triumphal revenge against his killers, since Celsus claimed that Jesus, differently from the Pagan gods and heroes, didnt' have no revenge against his killers.

Therefore the primary goal of Origen is to prove that God punished the Jews because the Jews had killed Jesus.

If Origen can prove this, then Celsus is confuted.

Origen introduced his apologetical reading of Josephus according the lines so well described by Peter Kirby, and he took advantage of this (forced) reading to get Celsus where he wanted to go from the beginning: ''to read'' in Josephus not the causal link ''death of James---> fall of Jerusalem'', but rather the causal link: ''death of Jesus----> fall of Jerusalem''.

Tombola! Not only a mere evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ, but also of the his divine revenge against his killers.

It doesn't matter if Origen knew or not Hegesippus's legend about the causal link death of James--->fall of Jerusalem. What is important to learn is that Origen was interested to apply on Josephus the same irony that Matthew applied on the Pagan Pilate: just the so-called (skeptically) ''Christ'' was really the true reason of the fall of Jerusalem, therefore he was THE Christ.