Peter Kirby wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2024 4:35 pm
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2024 1:26 pm
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.
That is simply not true: Josephus doesn't say that the baptism by John purified the people who received it.
Technically, Origen didn't either; he said that Josephus said that John promised purification to those who underwent the rite, which leaves ambiguous what the cause of that purification is.
The passage in book 18 of the
Antiquities of Josephus says:
he was a good man and had urged the Jews to exert themselves to virtue, both as to justice toward one another and reverence towards God, and having done so join together in washing. For immersion in water, it was clear to him, could not be used for the forgiveness of sins, but as a sanctification of the body, and only if the soul was already thoroughly purified by right actions.
The logic of the passage is:
(1) John "urged the Jews to exert themselves to virtue, both as to justice toward one another and reverence towards God"
(2) By doing so, "the soul was already thoroughly purified by right actions" (τῆς ψυχῆς δικαιοσύνῃ προεκκεκαθαρμένης)
(3) John conditionally also urged that they "having done so, join together in washing"
(4) It was clear to John that "immersion in water" was a "sanctification of the body" (ἁγνείᾳ τοῦ σώματος)
Josephus elsewhere uses similar language (sanctification, holiness) for the effect of washing the body in water (Life 2):
Nor did I content myself with the trying of these three only, for when I was informed that one whose name was Banus lived in the desert, and used no other clothing than what grew upon trees, and had no other food than what grew of its own accord, and bathed himself in cold water frequently, both night and day, for sanctification (πρὸς ἁγνείαν), I imitated him in those things, and continued with him three years.
Origen says this about the passage in book 18 of the
Antiquities of Josephus:
John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins (εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτημάτων βαπτίζοντα), 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 (καθάρσιον τοῖς βαπτισαμένοις ἐπαγγελλομένῳ).
Origen's first phrase isn't said to be from Josephus and is indeed, instead, directly based on the gospels and Christian teaching. However, Origen has abbreviated as compared even to the very short phrase found in Mark 1:4 about John, dropping "repentance (μετανοίας) for the remission of sins" in favor of just "the remission of sins," giving us only a shorter and very Christian formula, as in Matthew 26:28 (εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν).
Mark 1:4. John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins (μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν).
As to the phrase from Origen about promising purification to those who underwent the rite (καθάρσιον τοῖς βαπτισαμένοις ἐπαγγελλομένῳ), the text of Ant. 18 is compatible with that statement:
(1) John "urged the Jews to exert themselves to virtue, both as to justice toward one another and reverence towards God"
(2) By doing so, "the soul was already thoroughly purified by right actions" (τῆς ψυχῆς δικαιοσύνῃ προεκκεκαθαρμένης) [making an offer of purification (καθάρσιον ... ἐπαγγελλομένῳ)]
(3) John conditionally also urged that they "having done so, join together in washing" [to those who underwent baptism (τοῖς βαπτισαμένοις)]
(4) It was clear to John that "immersion in water" was a "sanctification of the body" (ἁγνείᾳ τοῦ σώματος)
In the account of Ant. 18, those who joined together in washing already had purified their soul (τῆς ψυχῆς ... προεκκεκαθαρμένης) through right actions. Having done so, the baptism made what John preached complete, through a sanctification of the body (ἁγνείᾳ τοῦ σώματος).
Origen went from his own very Christian wording "remission of sins" (ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν) to a different statement of what Josephus said about John, as making "an offer ... of purification" (καθάρσιον ... ἐπαγγελλομένῳ). The latter wording is found similarly in Ant. 18 (προεκκεκαθαρμένης), providing a point of contact in terminology.
However, the text of Ant. 18 has statements that stand in contradiction (or, at least, tension) to Christian teaching about the effects of baptism by John. Origen does not emphasize the contradiction, as could be expected from the apologetical nature of his work. Those who were reading Origen
would easily be misled into thinking that Josephus viewed the baptism of John in very similar terms to the way Christians interpreted it. Origen, if he were thinking about it at all,
would want us to identify the compatibility of the statements "remission of sins" (ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν) and "an offer ... of purification" (καθάρσιον ... ἐπαγγελλομένῳ), and he
would also want us to connect both of them directly to baptism. Of course he would! If we end up thinking that way, we would be led to believe that Josephus confirms the account of the gospels regarding the nature of the baptism of John.
But they are
not the same phrase, the latter phrase is compatible with the account in Ant. 18 (while the former phrase clearly is not), and the ambiguity (after comparing to Ant. 18) has one of two plausible explanations:
(1) ... either Origen forgot or misremembered the exact details of the passage in Ant 18, or ...
(2) Origen intentionally used an ambiguous phrase about what Josephus said, in order to conceal the contradiction.
Origen was intelligent and more than capable of using strategic ambiguity to make his point seem stronger. The sentence about John the Baptist in Ant. 18 from Origen is technically correct about what Josephus wrote. It is also easily misread, if used as a guide to what Josephus wrote without access to Ant. 18 to compare. But it can indeed be expected, since what Josephus actually wrote would be in contradiction to what Origen believed, that Origen wouldn't mind if we didn't know exactly what Josephus wrote. But Origen didn't need to lie here. He could just say less, while still being technically accurate in what he says about the John the Baptist passage in Ant. 18, to make his point effectively.