Did Josephus mention John the Baptist?

[neilgodfrey]

We only know about Celsus thru Origen. Celsus could well be a sock-pupppet (as could be Typho).

Celsus is different from Trypho in that Origen purports to quote the written passages he is debating so that we can more or less reconstruct what Celsus wrote: e.g. https://www.amazon.com/True-Doctrine-Di ... 0195041518

[Bernard Muller]

What strikes me, with no TF in Josephus' Antiquities book 18 before Eusebius' times, is why would a Christian interpolator insert (in the times of Origen or before) such a highly complimentary section on John the Baptist rather than on Jesus?
That would make John the Baptist very important, and "Jesus called Christ", mentioned two books later only as an identification for his brother James, as rather insignificant.
And I think that what Josephus, an orthodox Jew, intended to suggest. But that does not make any sense for a Christian to suggest the same.

Cordially, Bernard

[Giuseppe]

What strikes me, with no TF in Josephus' Antiquities book 18 before Eusebius' times, is why would a Christian interpolator insert (in the times of Origen or before) such a highly complimentary section on John the Baptist rather than on Jesus?
That would make John the Baptist very important, and "Jesus called Christ", mentioned two books later only as an identification for his brother James, as rather insignificant.
And I think that what Josephus, an orthodox Jew, intended to suggest. But that does not make any sense for a Christian to suggest the same.

Cordially, Bernard

The question is good and the answer is good, too (I think).

Origen, in his role of pseudo-Josephus - had to talk more diffusely about John because his goal was to made an entire apology of the Baptism and of the John's Jewishness against the Celsus's denigration of both them.

At contrary, Origen - in his role of pseudo-Josephus - had to be elusive as much as possible in his mention of Jesus in Antiquities 20:200, because his entire argument against Celsus required an ironical point behind that evasiveness:

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.

The Origen's argument is that it is rational to derive explicitly from the ''Josephus'' 's implication:

death of James brother of Jesus called Christ -------> destruction of Jerusalem

the following implicit implication:

death of THE Christ ------> destruction of Jerusalem

with the Christian irony that a not-Christian as ''Josephus'' would confirm implicitly the great historical importance of the death of Jesus, just as the Pagan Pilate confirmed implicitly the messiahship of Jesus when he asked:

"Which man do you want me to free for you? Do you want me to free Barabbas or Jesus, who is called Christ?"

Matthew 27:17

[Giuseppe]

Note that Origen was aware of the ironical theological point behind ''called Christ'' of Matthew 27:17:

That the judge would, without any hesitation, have set Him at liberty if He had offered a defence, is clear from what is related of him when he said, "Which of the two do ye wish that I should release unto you, Barabbas or Jesus, who is called Christ?" and from what the Scripture adds, "For he knew that for envy they had delivered Him." Jesus, however, is at all times assailed by false witnesses, hand, while wickedness remains in the world, is ever exposed to accusation. And yet even now He continues silent before these things, and makes no audible answer, but places His defence in the lives of His genuine disciples, which are a pre-eminent testimony, and one that rises superior to all false witness, and refutes and overthrows all unfounded accusations and charges.

(Against Celsus, I, 2)

The Origen's argument is that the presence of ''called Christ'' on the mouth of Pilate confirms that Pilate himself suspected that Jesus was innocent (and therefore he was THE Christ and not only a ''so-called'' Christ).

As with Pilate, so for Josephus.

[Giuseppe]

Note that from the post above it follows the theological point, in Origen, behind the precise mention that Josephus was NOT Christian:

Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ,

The not-Christian status of Josephus serves to emphasize, by direct contrast, the irony behind its mention (and implicit involuntary recognition) of the status of Jesus as ''called Christ''.

[Giuseppe]

After the reading of the Allen's case against the authenticity of the Baptist passage, it seems to be very IMPOSSIBLE to remove the SUSPECT that that goal was not of Josephus but of Origen:

In any case, it is not necessary to resort to a hypothesis that Josephus were not the author in order to understand the statements found in this passage of the Antiquities about ablutions, righteousness, and the forgiveness of sin. It is at home in a presentation made by Josephus to demonstrate the virtuous philosophical qualities of Judaism and of particular Jews, such as John the Baptist, that Josephus admired

(quoted from the Peter's conclusion of the his blog post on the Baptist passage, my emphasis)

Replace "Josephus" with "Origen" in the quote above and you are put at the center of the dramatic polemic between Origen and a Jew-hater as Celsus.

[Bernard Muller]

to Guiseppe,
Answering

What strikes me, with no TF in Josephus' Antiquities book 18 before Eusebius' times, is why would a Christian interpolator insert (in the times of Origen or before) such a highly complimentary section on John the Baptist rather than on Jesus?
That would make John the Baptist very important, and "Jesus called Christ", mentioned two books later only as an identification for his brother James, as rather insignificant.
And I think that what Josephus, an orthodox Jew, intended to suggest. But that does not make any sense for a Christian to suggest the same.

you said:

The question is good and the answer is good, too (I think).

Great, thanks.
But later you wrote:

After the reading of the Allen's case against the authenticity of the Baptist passage, it seems to be very IMPOSSIBLE to remove the SUSPECT that that goal was not of Josephus but of Origen:

Are your two comments compatible?

Cordially, Bernard

[Giuseppe]

you said:

The question is good and the answer is good, too (I think).

Great, thanks.
But later you wrote:

After the reading of the Allen's case against the authenticity of the Baptist passage, it seems to be very IMPOSSIBLE to remove the SUSPECT that that goal was not of Josephus but of Origen:

Are your two comments compatible?

Cordially, Bernard

The comments are compatible because I was alluding to the my answer as a good answer to your very good and intelligent question. Please read the entire my answer in the posts above. I think that I am doing the case of Allen even more strong....

Good reading!

[austendw]

The Baptist passage is very proto-catholic and intimately anti-Jewish in nature, since his author assumes impliciter as a true fact for his readers the contrast between the ''good'' John and the Jews being in strong need of learning ''virtue'' and ''morality'' by John himself.

But the text in questions doesn't particularly suggest a "strong need". Where does Josephus say that?

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.

[Giuseppe]

Surely these my words are too much extreme. My point is that IF I want to persuade someone - one (like Celsus) who hates the Jewish origins of Christianity - that the Jews in general and John in particular were good people and the baptism of John is a good practice, then all what I have to do is to write the Baptist passage and refer that a Jewish-Roman author (Josephus) wrote it.

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. Origen yes.