"Do not argue the matter [of how to construct and anchor floating piers for the required port facilities] - Let me have the solution worked out." FWIW, the engineers did exactly that, successfully figuring out how it could be done.
Everything needed to work out the entire problem of the James reference of Ant 20:200, the accounts of James in Hegesippus & Origen, and the TF of 18:63-64 recounted by Eusebius, can be found in War book 4:
For a while now I have been suggesting that one Josephus mss of Ant book 20, at section 200, had two marginal notes to the effect:Josephus, Jewish War 4.163-163 ff, 193 Speech of Ananus to the people, in general assembly, against the Zealots
162 And now, when the multitude were gotten together to an assembly, and everyone had indignation at these men's [i.e., the Zealots] seizing upon the sanctuary, at their rapine and murders, but had not yet begun their attacks upon them, (the reason of which was this, that they imagined it to be a difficult thing to suppress these Zealots, as indeed the case was,) Ananus stood in the midst of them, and casting his eyes frequently at the temple, and having a flood of tears in his eyes, 163 he said, … 193 By these motives Ananus encouraged the multitude to go against the Zealots, although he knew how difficult it would be to disperse them, because of their multitude, and their youth, and the courage of their souls; but chiefly, because of their consciousness of what they had done, since they would not yield, as not so much as hoping for pardon at the last for their enormities.
Josephus, Jewish War, book 4:238-270 Speech of Jesus, the oldest of the high priests next to Ananus, to the Idumeans:
238 Accordingly, Jesus, the oldest of the high priests next to Ananus, stood upon the tower that was opposite them [i.e., the Idumeans], and said thus:- … 270 Thus spoke Jesus, yet did not the multitude of the Idumeans give any attention to what he said, but were in a rage, because they did not meet with a ready entrance into the city. The generals also had indignation at the offer of laying down their arms, and looked upon it as equal to a captivity, to throw them away at any man's injunction whomever.
Josephus, Jewish War, book 4:286-288 The violent storm, immediately following Jesus' speech to the Idumeans, that predicted some grand calamities were to come:
286 for there broke out a prodigious storm in the night, with the utmost violence, and very strong winds, with the largest showers of rain, with continued lightnings, terrible thunderings, and amazing concussions and bellowing of the earth, that was in an earthquake. 287 These things were a manifest indication that some destruction was coming upon men, when the system of the world was put into this disorder; and anyone would guess that these wonders predicted some grand calamities that were coming. 288 Now the opinion of the Idumeans and of the citizens was one and the same. The Idumeans thought that God was angry at their taking arms, and that they would not escape punishment for their making war upon their metropolis. Ananus and his party thought that they had conquered without fighting, and that God acted as a general for them;
Josephus, Jewish War, Book 4.5.2 (315-320) Indignant, the Idumeans go on a rampage and kill, among many other high priests, both Ananus and Jesus.
315 and for the other multitude, they [i.e., the Idumeans] esteemed it needless to go on with killing them [i.e., the common people], but they sought for the high priests, and generally went with the greatest zeal against them; 4:316 and as soon as they caught them they slew them, and then standing upon their dead bodies, in way of jest, upbraided Ananus with his kindness to the people, and Jesus with his speech made to them from the wall. 4:317 Nay, they proceeded to that degree of impiety as to cast away their dead bodies without burial, although the Jews used to take so much care of the burial of men, that they took down those who were condemned and crucified, and buried them before the going down of the sun. 4:318 I should not be mistaken if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city, and that from this very day may be dated the overthrow of her wall, and the ruin of her affairs, whereon they saw their high priest, and the procurer of their preservation, slain in the midst of their city. 4:319 He was on other accounts also a venerable, and a very just man; and besides the grandeur of that nobility, and dignity, and honour of which he was possessed, he had been a lover of a kind of equality; even with regard to the lowest of the people; 4:320 he was a prodigious lover of liberty, and an admirer of a democracy in government; and did ever prefer the public welfare before his own advantage, and preferred peace above all things; for he was thoroughly sensible that the Romans were not to be conquered. He also foresaw that of necessity a war would follow, and that unless the Jews made up matters with them very dexterously, they would be destroyed;
Can this one (meaning Ananus, who is described in 20:200 as stern and rash, while in War 4 he is just and a cool dude) be the just high priest on whose account Jerusalem was destroyed?
Josephus actually does say who it was whose death foretold the destruction of the city. It was the very same Ananus, in War 4.318. That is an inconvertible fact that cannot be easily dispensed with. Sorry to disappoint the romanticists.Better yet it should be on account of Jesus (meaning the chief priest second in rank behind Ananus) because of the speech from the wall, on account of which he [Jesus the Priest] was killed, and cast off!
Jesus the chief priest had made a speech from the city wall trying to persuade the Idumeans not to enter the city with their arms during the early part of the Jewish war, on peril of bringing destruction to the city. A terrible thunderstorm that followed was seen as an ill omen confirming God agreed with his prediction.
Both Ananus and the Chief Priest Jesus were killed by the Idumeans and their bodies cast away without burial, probably meaning the Valley of Hinnom that ran between the city wall itself and the "Mountain of Olives." In other words, their dead bodies were thrown over the wall into the valley, where Idumean pickets prevented anyone from carrying the bodies away for burial.
Some Christian scribe, seeing this mss in his master or patron's library with the two marginal notes, imagined the first was penned by Josephus himself, and took it to mean James, not Ananus, was the person on account of whose death the city was marked for destruction. This Christian scribe felt compelled to correct the text of Ant 20:200 to add "called Christ" in order to identify the Jesus who was brother of James as Jesus Christ.
Origen saw this same copy, which also now had the second marginal note (perhaps it was not yet in the copy seen by the previous scribe), but wasn't sure whether the second note was made by Josephus or someone else. So he imagined that it was correcting the first note by suggesting that Jesus of Christian fame was the person meant, and the speech on the wall was made by James himself.
From these misinterpretations of the two marginal notes, Hegesippus spun the story of James the Just one, a High priest who officiated in the temple, who gave a speech about Jesus Christ on the wall, was cast off the wall, and killed (the fuller's club used to dispatch him and the lament of the Rechabite are Hegisippus' own additions to the legend, got from who knows where). I am not willing to say whether he himself ever saw this manuscript with the two marginal notes, but he had heard about them for sure.
Isn't the Christian imagination a wonderful thing?
This addition of "called Christ" to Ant 20:200 required a previous mention of Jesus Christ, and the TF was created to fill this lack, probably by Eusebius. I am seriously doubting whether there was an actual mention of Jesus called Christ anywhere in the books Josephus wrote.
The best I will do is suspect that the text of Antiquities 18 was monkeyed around with to make Pilate's governorship start in 26 CE rather than 19 CE, in order to make it impossible for his death to have occurred in the year stated by the Acts of Pilate published around 315 CE by the Caesar of Asia Minor and Syria, Maximinus Daia (that is, 21 CE). This is NOT an endorsement of the accuracy or genuineness of Maximinus' Acts of Pilate, but an illustration of just how far Christians were willing to go to negate any criticism of the accuracy of the gospels. It probably also means that the Acts of Pilate of Maximinus differently describes the trial and execution of Jesus. The redacting of Josephus book 18 would almost certainly have been by Eusebius himself, and as long as he was at it, why not add the TF to book 18? The addition of the words "called Christ" to Ant 20:200 was probably already a done deal, perhaps by Origen.
Eusebius, who became Constantine's confidant and cheerleader, on Constantine's accession had the clout to offer this "corrected" (perhaps touted as "improved") version of Ant 18 (and with 20:200) as the standard. While I have no proof to this effect (why start now?), I wonder whether Constantine may have underwritten the cost of replacing the "defective" versions of Ant 18 with revised ones, to deface the memory of Maximinus Daia, who had opposed his moves in the west during the wars between the various Augusti and Caesars of the Tetrarchy. Maximinus had backed the retired Augustus Maximin's bid to wrest control of the Western Empire from Constantine. Retired Augustus Maximin held Rome for a while, and the rules of the Tetrarchy allowed free travel between areas held by the Augusti and Caesars, so in theory Maximinus Daia could have got access to copies of Pilate's Acta (reports), but this is by no means certain.
"Do not argue the matter - Let me have the solution worked out."
DCH
