John the Baptist, redivivus of a 2015 article

[Paul the Uncertain]

It is similar. The forgotten detail interpretation is plausible.

However, it seems very likely that Origen would have noticed the contradiction with his view of the baptism of John ("for the remission of sins") if and when he read the passage in the 18th book directly. Accordingly, it also seems likely that Origen would have remembered the distinction made by Josephus between prior purification of the soul and sanctification of the body, which is the essence of the contradiction, since the Ant 18 passage denies (for John) the effectiveness of baptism for that kind of purification. If Origen remembered all that, then this distinction made by Josephus was elided by Origen in his reference. And there would be a good reason for Origen to do that, which makes it look intentional.

Long term memory is strange. You'd think Jerome would have noticed that the "temple voices" incident occurred a generation after the Crucifixion according to Josephus, instead of during the Crucifixion, which would fit in with other Christian traditions about signs and wonders when Jesus died. When he first read about the voices, Jerome must have noticed it was presented as an omen of the destruction of the Temple, but that realization didn't come back years later.

So, too, Bart Ehrman must have noticed that Pliny wrote to Trajan about Christians in a different letter than when he wrote to Trajan requesting a fire brigade. Years later, not only did that realization not come back, but a new, vivid, integrated "memory" of a single letter came back instead. Ehrman describes the non-existent letter served up by his memory in detail - a chimera where bits of one letter are grafted onto bits of the other letter.

Both Jerome's and Ehrman's mistakes conform with their personal interests, they would reckon themselves better off if their recollection were true. The problem with using that heuristically is that quite a bit of human behavior, even unconscious behavior, furthers the person's goals and interests.

I know. I always try to think the best of people, so of course I'll make excuses for Origen. But one heuristic that has consistently paid off for me in a long and storied life is "Don't blame on malice what can be fully explained by incompetence."

[Giuseppe]

If I are correct that Origen confused the book 18 of Antiquities of Josephus with the same book written by 'Hegesippus', then what an interpolator had to do, after Origen and without having read Origen at all (but only the same Hegesippus's book read by Origen), is to place in the original Josephus the passage from the Hegesippus's book, and place it in the same position where Hegesippus (the author of the false book 18 of Antiquities) put it.

What my scenario assumes by need, then, is that a Christian forger, before Origen, wanted to pose as "Josephus"" by calling himself "Hegesippus" (really the same name), and was interested to fabricate, inter alia, precisely the book 18 of the Antiquities, given that the book 18 is the book, in the real Josephus, where the same political figures (Pilate and Herod Antipas) mentioned in the Gospels are mentioned more often according to the real Josephus, too.

This false book 18 of Antiquities by Hegesippus obliged both Origen to mention the 'book 18 of Antiquities' as coming (via confusion) from the real Josephus and, entirely independently, a later Christian interpolator to interpolate the same passage in the precise location in the real Josephus.

Okaaaay, I'm trying to figure out what you see as having been the sequence of events... This is my attempt at summarising what you believe about this:

1. A forger rewrote Ant. Book 18, including, among other things, a description of someone called JtB who used baptism for purification of sins.
2. Origen read this rewritten Book 18 rather than the real one, and mentioned this quote in 'Contra Celsus' under the belief that it was a genuine Josephus quote.
3. Later, a different person interpolated a different quote about JtB into Book 18, which is the one we have today.

Could you please a) tell me whether I've interpreted your thoughts correctly,

correct. I would add only that the forger of the point (1) is probably Hegesippus, since a microsecond after it has been proved (by Olson, Carrier and probably Kirby inter alia) that Origen quoted Hegesippus about James. In other terms, I argue from the premise that it is a FACT that Origen quoted Hegesippus about James. Given that the confusion by Origen was between Josephus and Hegesippus about James, then it is very probable that the same confusion between Josephus and Hegesippus about James was the banal continuation of the confusion by Origen between Josephus and Hegesippus about John the Baptist.

and b), if so, tell me what you believe to have been the motive of both the forger in the first point and the interpolator in the third point?

in the first point: since the first forger is Hegesippus, and since Markus Vinzent finds a possible cause behind Hegesippus' legend about James in the anti-marcionite polemic, then probably also the positive description about John the Baptist reflected the same anti-marcionite polemic in action behind the legend about James the Just forged by Hegesippus.

The second forger introduced a different Baptist Passage (the passage read by us today) for unknown (i.e. only speculative) reasons. We know that this passage doesn't overcome the test of authenticity since we have already verified, thanks to Origen's quote from a different passage, the Christian interest in interpolating their own version on John the Baptist into Josephus. Hence, the final verdict is fifty-fifty: licet to doubt about the authenticity of the current passage about John the Baptist in Josephus. But this is clearly a weak agnostic position. It doesn't share the same degree of certainty held by the claim that all the Testimonia Flaviana about Jesus are total interpolations.

[Ken Olson]

Okaaaay, I'm trying to figure out what you see as having been the sequence of events... This is my attempt at summarising what you believe about this:

1. A forger rewrote Ant. Book 18, including, among other things, a description of someone called JtB who used baptism for purification of sins.
2. Origen read this rewritten Book 18 rather than the real one, and mentioned this quote in 'Contra Celsus' under the belief that it was a genuine Josephus quote.
3. Later, a different person interpolated a different quote about JtB into Book 18, which is the one we have today.

Could you please a) tell me whether I've interpreted your thoughts correctly, and b), if so, tell me what you believe to have been the motive of both the forger in the first point and the interpolator in the third point?

Dr. Sarah,

I'm not Giuseppe, but I can give you a clear sequence of events on how I think the brother of Jesus who was called Christ came to be in Ant 20.200. I think Giussepe is at least to some extent dependent on me for that, though I think the John the Baptist passage in Ant. 18 is likely authentic.

1) Josephus wrote about a man, possibly named James, in Ant. 20.200, but he was not identified as the brother of Jesus who was called Christ in the original text.

2) Origen, relying on memory, confused material he had read in Hegesippus about James the Just with what he had read in Josephus and attributed it to Josephus in his Commentary on Matthew and then later in his Contra Celsum. The brother of Jesus who was called Christ was Origen's language, not Josephus's. Unlike the passage about John the Baptist, which Origen cites to Antiquities, book 18, Origen does not cite where the passage about Janes is to be found.

3) Eusebius read in Origen that there was a passage in Josephus about James the brother of Jesus who was called Christ. In Ecclesiastical History 2.23.20, Eusebius quotes 'And these things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, for the Jews killed him in spite of his great righteousness' and attributed the quotation to Josephus, but he does not cite the location, and it not found in any known manuscript of Josephus. It is at least widely held among scholars (there are, of course, dissenters) that Eusebius is actually quoting the passage from Origen, who said Josephus said this, but it was not actually in his manuscript of Josephus.

4) The theory I am proposing is that Eusebius, who was looking for a passage in his manuscript of the Antiquities for the passage about James that Origen was talking about, found Antiquities 20.200, and glossed it with the identifier 'the brother of Jesus who was called Christ" which he had found in Origen. I do not know how James was identified in Ant. 20.200 before that.

That's the sequence I am proposing. Some evidence that I think makes this plausible:

1) I have argued extensively that Eusebius composed the Testimonium Flavianum in Ant. 18.63-64 (two peer reviewed papers on this and a huge amount of online discussion). If I'm correct on that, it means the text of Josephus Antiquities has been interpolated from the Ecclesiastical History (I don't know whether Eusebius oversaw the interpolation himself or whether later scribes of the Antiquities dit it because Eusebius text had become an authority on how Josephus should read). My 2013 paper is online here.

https://chs.harvard.edu/chapter/5-a-eus ... 20ministry.

2) In the case of the sixth century Latin translation of Josephus Antiquities, the translators did not make an original translation of the passages about Jesus (the Testimonium) or John the Baptist, but copied the earlier translations of those passages from Rufinus Latin translation of the Ecclesiastical History (the James passage is different, except for the identifier of James as the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, which is the same). This does not, of course, show that Eusebius composed the Testimonium Flavianum, but it does show (1) the Latin Antiquities is not a witness to the pre-Eusebian text of Josephus for those passages and (2) sixth century scribes considered Eusebius' HE an authority on the text of Josephus. The fact that the Latin translators of Josephus considered Eusebius HE an authority on the text of Josephus would not necessarily require that earlier scribes copying the Greek text also did so, but it does make that theory plausible.

3) Eusebius glosses other quotations of Josephus for the benefit of his Christian readers. When quoting a passage from Josephus on the Hasmoneans, Eusebius adds: 'who are called the Maccabees'.

Of course, i need an explanation for why the version of the James passage from the HE would have been carried over into the manuscripts of Josephus Antiquities when the passage about the Maccabees and the version of the James passage from HE 2.23.20 were not. I think this is because (1) the passage about the Maccabees is from the Demonstraio, not the HE, and does not mention Jesus and (2) unlike the version of the James passage we find in Ant. 20.200, which Eusebius cited as being from Josephus Antiquties book 20 and providdes a good del of the surrounding context, he does not give any idea on where the version of the passage he quotes in HE 2.23.20 ought to be found in Josephus' text, so scribes wold not have known where to put it.

I realize, of course, that all that is contestable and I could be wrong, but that is what I think is the best explanation currently available for why Ant. 18.63-64 and Ant. 20.200 read the way they do.

Best,

Ken

PS Yes, I know I still owe GakusieDon a response.

[DrSarah]

Dr. Sarah,

I'm not Giuseppe, but I can give you a clear sequence of events on how I think the brother of Jesus who was called Christ came to be in Ant 20.200. I think Giussepe is at least to some extent dependent on me for that, though I think the John the Baptist passage in Ant. 18 is likely authentic.

1) Josephus wrote about a man, possibly named James, in Ant. 20.200, but he was not identified as the brother of Jesus who was called Christ in the original text.

2) Origen, relying on memory, confused material he had read in Hegesippus about James the Just with what he had read in Josephus and attributed it to Josephus in his Commentary on Matthew and then later in his Contra Celsum. The brother of Jesus who was called Christ was Origen's language, not Josephus's. Unlike the passage about John the Baptist, which Origen cites to Antiquities, book 18, Origen does not cite where the passage about Janes is to be found.

3) Eusebius read in Origen that there was a passage in Josephus about James the brother of Jesus who was called Christ. In Ecclesiastical History 2.23.20, Eusebius quotes 'And these things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, for the Jews killed him in spite of his great righteousness' and attributed the quotation to Josephus, but he does not cite the location, and it not found in any known manuscript of Josephus. It is at least widely held among scholars (there are, of course, dissenters) that Eusebius is actually quoting the passage from Origen, who said Josephus said this, but it was not actually in his manuscript of Josephus.

4) The theory I am proposing is that Eusebius, who was looking for a passage in his manuscript of the Antiquities for the passage about James that Origen was talking about, found Antiquities 20.200, and glossed it with the identifier 'the brother of Jesus who was called Christ" which he had found in Origen. I do not know how James was identified in Ant. 20.200 before that.

[...]

I realize, of course, that all that is contestable and I could be wrong, but that is what I think is the best explanation currently available for why Ant. 18.63-64 and Ant. 20.200 read the way they do.

Best,

Ken

PS Yes, I know I still owe GakusieDon a response.

Hi Ken,

Thanks for this. While it's not impossible, it does sound like a very roundabout, complicated, improbable explanation for something that can surely be explained much more easily by the 'brother of Jesus called Christ' line being original to Josephus. Doesn't Occam's razor just take us to that explanation?

Specifics:

1. Note that Josephus's phrasing is 'Iacobus onoma auto', which seems like an odd sort of phrase to use if he didn't have the 'brother of Jesus called Christ' identifier. I also can't see why an interpolator would have put that in. However, if 'brother of Jesus called Christ' is original to the sentence, then it does make sense; Josephus leads by identifying James by his better-known brother, then puts in his actual name with the 'onoma auto' phrase to tell us that this was his own name.

2. Your sequence of events requires Origen to confuse two authors with very different approaches and styles. Yes, they had the same first name, but that doesn't seem like enough to cause that level of confusion. If Origen remembers reading this in a Christian apologetics work, why would he think it's from a Jewish historian who wrote almost a century earlier?

(Comparison from an event in my own life: I was once trying to find a children's book that someone on a forum remembered reading and that I did also remember, but, when I tried to remember the author's name, I kept thinking 'Bernard Cornell', which seemed unlikely as the books I'd read by him were adult historical novels and quite different. When I succeeded in looking the book up based on what I remembered of the title, I realised the author was actually Bernard *Ashley*, which made much more sense in terms of what I remembered reading of Ashley's work. So, although I'd initially confused two authors with the same first name, I did have a strong sense of 'huh, that doesn't seem right' that led me to check and get it correct, and I can't imagine just forging ahead with 'well, it's obviously Bernard Cornell just because that's the first name that came to mind'.)

3. It also requires Origen to have spontaneously come up with the phrase 'called Christ' for Jesus, which is not one that I can find him using anywhere else except when he's quoting it from Matthew, and is, for obvious theological reasons, a rare one for Christians to use anyway.

4. It requires Eusebius to have copied that same lengthy phrase into the margin, instead of, say, just making a note 'Origen', or 'brother of Christ', to remind himself.

With all of those issues on top of the general issue of this being significantly more complicated and roundabout than believing the passage to be there in the first place, I don't see why this is 'the best' explanation rather than the explanation that the 'Jesus called Christ' line is indeed original to Josephus.

[Ken Olson]

Hi Ken,

Thanks for this. While it's not impossible, it does sound like a very roundabout, complicated, improbable explanation for something that can surely be explained much more easily by the 'brother of Jesus called Christ' line being original to Josephus. Doesn't Occam's razor just take us to that explanation?

Specifics:

1. Note that Josephus's phrasing is 'Iacobus onoma auto', which seems like an odd sort of phrase to use if he didn't have the 'brother of Jesus called Christ' identifier. I also can't see why an interpolator would have put that in. However, if 'brother of Jesus called Christ' is original to the sentence, then it does make sense; Josephus leads by identifying James by his better-known brother, then puts in his actual name with the 'onoma auto' phrase to tell us that this was his own name.

2. Your sequence of events requires Origen to confuse two authors with very different approaches and styles. Yes, they had the same first name, but that doesn't seem like enough to cause that level of confusion. If Origen remembers reading this in a Christian apologetics work, why would he think it's from a Jewish historian who wrote almost a century earlier?

(Comparison from an event in my own life: I was once trying to find a children's book that someone on a forum remembered reading and that I did also remember, but, when I tried to remember the author's name, I kept thinking 'Bernard Cornell', which seemed unlikely as the books I'd read by him were adult historical novels and quite different. When I succeeded in looking the book up based on what I remembered of the title, I realised the author was actually Bernard *Ashley*, which made much more sense in terms of what I remembered reading of Ashley's work. So, although I'd initially confused two authors with the same first name, I did have a strong sense of 'huh, that doesn't seem right' that led me to check and get it correct, and I can't imagine just forging ahead with 'well, it's obviously Bernard Cornell just because that's the first name that came to mind'.)

3. It also requires Origen to have spontaneously come up with the phrase 'called Christ' for Jesus, which is not one that I can find him using anywhere else except when he's quoting it from Matthew, and is, for obvious theological reasons, a rare one for Christians to use anyway.

4. It requires Eusebius to have copied that same lengthy phrase into the margin, instead of, say, just making a note 'Origen', or 'brother of Christ', to remind himself.

With all of those issues on top of the general issue of this being significantly more complicated and roundabout than believing the passage to be there in the first place, I don't see why this is 'the best' explanation rather than the explanation that the 'Jesus called Christ' line is indeed original to Josephus.

Dr. Sarah,

Thanks for the reply. Those are reasonable objections and not unexpected. But let me address them serriatim.

First: No, I don't think Occam's razor takes us to the explanation that 'the brother of Jesus who was called Christ' is the original reading, but I realize many do think that.

Occam's razor (we'll skip the question of whether William Occam ever wrote the principle attributed to him) is commonly formulated as 'the simplest explanation is usually the best', but is more accurately translated 'Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity' (Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem). It's not the simplest explanation that is best, it's the simplest explanation that explains or takes account of the evidence that's best.

The difference between the two is apparent in several places I've already discussed, and I'll add one:

If we look at the Testimonium Flavianum in the Latin translation of the Antiquities, we might think it's a direct translation made of the Antiquities (i.e., that's the simplest theory), unless we look at the version of the Testimonium in Rufinus' translation of the Ecclesiastical History, and then the simplest explanation is that it's dependent on that.

The simplest explanation for the presence of the Testimonium Flavianum in all our manuscripts of book 18 of the Antiquities of Josephus is that Josephus wrote it, and there are scholars who think that, but for a multitude of reasons I won't try to recapitulate here, I and a large majority of scholars do not think it's the correct one.

The simplest explanation for why Eusebius says Josephus wrote that 'these things' happened to avenge the brother of Jesus Christ etc. in HE 2.23.20 would be that he really did find that in his manuscript of Josephus, and there are a very few scholars, such as Sabrina Inowlocki, that have argued for that, but the more common view is that Eusebius is repeating what Origen said.

As far as I know, all the manuscripts of Josephus Antiquities use a nomen sacrum for the word Christos in the two places in which it occurs (Ant 18.63-64 and 20.200) (I would be interested if anyone knows different). The simplest explanation would be that that's what Josephus wrote. I don't think any scholar thinks that (there might be someone online who does). If Josephus wrote it at all (which I doubt), it has almost certainly been changed by Christian scribes who transmitted the text of Josephus.

So there is a difference between simplest and simplest that explains the evidence. (I apologize if you found the point banal).

To your enumerated points:

1) Yes, you are correct that the simple excision of 'who was called Christ' would not solve the problem, at least for me. That is why I said I do not know how the passage read before Eusebius. Richard Carrier has argued that it would solve the problem because it refers to the brother of Jesus, the son of Damneus who is mentioned in Book 20 of the Antiquities. That is a simple and elegant solution, and possible, but I think it's probably not right.

2) You skipped the fact that Origen claims Josephus attributed the destruction of Jerusalem to the Jews putting to death James who had a reputation for great righteousness among the people which we do not find in our manuscripts of Josephus. We do, however, know that there was a Christian tradition that claimed James had a reputation for great righteousness among the people and at least implies that this was the reason for the Roman capture of the city. It would seem that Origen is getting this from Hegesippus (or perhaps I should say a Christian tradition best preserved in Hegesippus among extant texts). GakusieDon, to whom I still owe a reply, has suggested that Origen may be combining material from Josephus and Hegesippus and that may be so. But I think it would be difficult to explain what Origen says without recourse to him having imported ideas from Hegesippus into what he claims Josephus said.

I do not think the Bernard Cornwell/Bernard Ashley analogy is quite apt. You verified your references, which was much less common in ancient authors than modern scholars, and Origen did not do it for the James passage as he claims there are things in the text which are not there.

3) No, Origen would not be *spontaneously* coming up with the phrase 'Jesus who was called Christ,' which you can't find in Origen *except when he's quoting it from Matthew*. That is kind of a big exception, particularly as the earliest place we find Origen citing the James passage is in his Commentary on Matthew, in which he quotes the phrase more than once in the extant text. Similarly, he refers to 'brothers of Jesus' as well, so the singular 'brother of Jesus' would not be alien to him.

I've always been fascinated by the argument that a Christian author would not have said 'who is called Christ' when we find those words four times in the canonical New Testament (Matt 1.16, 27.17, 22, and John 4.25 with a different antecedent). I'm not aware that it's ever found in ancient Greek literature in non-Christian sources, with the single possible exception of the case under consideration (i.e., Ant. 20.200). The simplest explanation would appear to be that it is a Christian usage (though other factors may, of course, need to be considered).

4) I have argued that Eusebius composed the entirety of the Testimonium Flavianum, I'm not going to balk at having him rewrite the James passage. You seem to be arguing based on the premise that I think Eusebius is annotating a copy of Josephus Antiquities, but what I'm arguing is that he wrote a version of the James passage in the Ecclesiastical History and *that* was copied into the Antiquities. Eusebius does not quote the James passage in his earlier work, the Demonstratio, which has a slightly different version of the Testimonium Flavianum (in DE 3.5), though he does cite an abbreviated version of the martyrdom of James the the Just (also in DE 3.5).

Slightly off topic: What do you think the simplest explanation for the Testimonium Flavianum never being quoted before Eusebius is?

Thanks again for your thoughts.

Best,

Ken

PS I did not address the issue of Josephus referring to Jesus as Christ, but this is already a long post and I think that would require another about as long.

PPS Love Bernard Cornwell

[Paul the Uncertain]

1) Josephus wrote about a man, possibly named James, in Ant. 20.200, but he was not identified as the brother of Jesus who was called Christ in the original text.

2) Origen, relying on memory, confused material he had read in Hegesippus about James the Just with what he had read in Josephus and attributed it to Josephus in his Commentary on Matthew and then later in his Contra Celsum. The brother of Jesus who was called Christ was Origen's language, not Josephus's. Unlike the passage about John the Baptist, which Origen cites to Antiquities, book 18, Origen does not cite where the passage about Janes is to be found.

3) Eusebius read in Origen that there was a passage in Josephus about James the brother of Jesus who was called Christ. In Ecclesiastical History 2.23.20, Eusebius quotes 'And these things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, for the Jews killed him in spite of his great righteousness' and attributed the quotation to Josephus, but he does not cite the location, and it not found in any known manuscript of Josephus. It is at least widely held among scholars (there are, of course, dissenters) that Eusebius is actually quoting the passage from Origen, who said Josephus said this, but it was not actually in his manuscript of Josephus.

4) The theory I am proposing is that Eusebius, who was looking for a passage in his manuscript of the Antiquities for the passage about James that Origen was talking about, found Antiquities 20.200, and glossed it with the identifier 'the brother of Jesus who was called Christ" which he had found in Origen. I do not know how James was identified in Ant. 20.200 before that.

Dear Ken,

I'm not G'Don, but here's how I see it. Feel free not to reply, and if you do, then I trust that your recent failure to come up with a rejoinder more constructive than "Blather" was an isolated lapse which you will rarely repeat from now on.

As to your enumerated points:

1,3 and 4: Word.

2: (Yours, with omissions and additions)

2) Origen, relying on memory, confused combined Christian traditions material he had read in Hegesippus about James the Just with what he had read in Josephus and attributed it to Josephus in his Commentary on Matthew and then later in his Contra Celsum. In these passages, Origen added material in his own words about the character and reputation of James the Just, similar to what Eusebius attributes to Hegesippus (while noting that Clement wrote something similar) to improve his readers' understanding of why Josephus might mistake whom God was supposedly avenging. Origen didn't attribute his explanatory material to Josephus, although he risked misunderstanding by offering both explicitly attributed points and background information in the same sentences. The brother of Jesus who was called Christ was Origen's language, not Josephus's. Unlike the passage about John the Baptist, which Origen cites to Antiquities, book 18, Origen does not cite where the passage about James is to be found. However, both the material which Origen partially misremembered and the trial of some James are now found in Antiquities Book 20.

In my estimation, you and I are very close to agreement, and based on other exchanges, G'don and I are not so far apart, either. If we were diplomats, we'd have a deal.

>Edited to improve flow and clarity of item 2<

[Giuseppe]

Origen does not emphasize the contradiction, as could be expected from the apologetical nature of his work.

hence he would have given to his rival Celsus, by inviting him expressly to read the book 18 of Antiquities of Josephus, useful food for a further attack against the Christians along the lines: "John the Baptist meant a different baptism from the your!"

At this point, I don't know how much the hypothesis of an Origen "being reticent to emphasize the contradiction" is an ad hoc hypothesis introduced only to justify the Origen's mention of (the true) Josephus.

Rivka Nir argues that a marginal Jewish-Christian sect (not the same proto-Catholic sect of Origen) was really interested to emphasize the contradiction, because it was that same sect that interpolated in first place the contradiction in Josephus.

At any case, it is evident that both Peter and Ken and Nir are arguing from the premise that Josephus wrote the entire passage as it stands today in order to argue for their different views about what Origen did really.

I wonder if the empasse can be resolved by appealing to what Rivka Nir finds rather surprising in Origen about John the Baptist:

Contrary to the usual standpoint in research, Origen is not citing the passage from Jewish Antiquities, either wholly or partly. In contrast to his habitually accurate citations of Jewish War, Antiquities and Against Apion, here he uses indirect speech (oratio obliqua). Moreover, he provides no details from this particular passage,

...and this at all apart from contradiction or not.

Hence, the Peter's scenario would require two hypotheses ad hoc:

• 1) Origen wanted to eclipse the contradiction between his (presumed) Josephus and the Gospels;

• 2) by collateral effect of (1), Origen breaks his ordinary routine by citing the passage not wholly and not even partly.

If Peter or Ken can quote a counter-example from Origen where he quotes something "not wholly and not even partly", then I can be persuaded by their argument.

Obviously, the mention of James from Hegesippus (because Hegesippus is the only source of James for Origen, pace Paul the Uncertain and GDon) cannot work as counter-example.

[Ken Olson]

If Peter or Ken can quote a counter-example from Origen where he quotes something "not wholly and not even partly", then I can be persuaded by their argument.

Origen, Commentary on Matthew 10.17:

And the saying, Whence has this man this wisdom, Matthew 13:54 indicates clearly that there was a great and surpassing wisdom in the words of Jesus worthy of the saying, lo, a greater than Solomon is here. Matthew 12:42 And He was wont to do greater miracles than those wrought through Elijah and Elisha, and at a still earlier date through Moses and Joshua the Son of Nun. And they spoke, wondering, (not knowing that He was the son of a virgin, or not believing it even if it was told to them, but supposing that He was the son of Joseph the carpenter,) is not this the carpenter's son? Matthew 13:55 And depreciating the whole of what appeared to be His nearest kindred, they said, Is not His mother called Mary? And His brethren, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Matthew 13:55-56 They thought, then, that He was the son of Joseph and Mary. 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 brethren 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.

Done!

Best,

Ken

[Giuseppe]

Ok, I recognize now that Origen mentioned Josephus who mentioned John the Baptist.

[Ken Olson]

Ok, I recognize now that Origen mentioned Josephus who mentioned John the Baptist.

I was not prepared for that. I need a moment.