Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Where I agree:

• The Baptist Passage in Josephus is a Christian interpolation (Origen quoted Hegesippus, not Josephus, as usual).

• The theme of Elijah precursor of the Messiah was not an external Jewish tradition to which the Christians had to conform Jesus someway by casting John the Baptist as the new Elijah. The theme of Elijah precursor of the Messiah was 100% invented by Christians just as the John's conformity to it.

Where I disagree:

• There was indeed an earliest rivarly between Jesus and John, pace Nir. The weakest point in her argument of the contrary is that the Fourth Gospel is dated by her at the end of first century, while it is obviously post-Bar Bokhba.

• The link John/wilderness, according to Nir, is strictly connected with the link John/Jordan, but precisely that connecton has been broken by the Marcionite priority.

The Baptist Passage in Josephus is a Christian interpolation (Origen quoted Hegesippus, not Josephus, as usual).

Is the parenthetical remark, bolded in the quote box, Nir's argument, or it your argument which explains why you agree with Nir's conclusion about interpolation?

Paul the Uncertain wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 3:11 am

The Baptist Passage in Josephus is a Christian interpolation (Origen quoted Hegesippus, not Josephus, as usual).

Is the parenthetical remark, bolded in the quote box, Nir's argument, or it your argument which explains why you agree with Nir's conclusion about interpolation?

it is the her argument.

My addition has been "as usual", since already Carrier had argued for Origen quoting Hegesippus on James brother of Jesus etc. (and confusing him with Josephus).

Nir needs the Fourth Gospel dated at the end of the first century: it is necessary for her case of the absence of rivalry between Jesus and John since in the Fourth Gospel John is a friend of Jesus. Nir has also interest to place too much late the Pseudo-Clementines and Recognitions, since there John is an enemy of Jesus.
Nir ignores that the Fourth Gospel, docet Turmel, in his earliest form has been written by a marcionite, hence the presumed friendship of John with Jesus may well be a late (Catholic) addition. In the original, Stahl had even assumed that the words of presumed recognition by John in the Fourth Gospel ("this is the Lamb of god" etc) were an invitation, by John servant of the Demiurge, to stone the designed victim, i.e. Jesus. John could even be the killer chosen by the demiurge to recognize and kill the alien Jesus before that the latter did miracles.

At any case, the Fourth Gospel doesn't matter to detect things related to John the Baptist.

Another point where I don't follow Nir is the her obstination to see Apollos as a friend of Catholics, since Apollos wanted to join the Catholics, by accepting the baptism of Jesus as superior to the John's baptism. But Nir ignores that Apollos accepted the Jesus found in the scriptures, not even the Gospel Jesus.

Thank you. I'll just stay with the OP item and your clarification.

Putting aside the merits of Carrier's speculation about Hegesippus in the James controversy, I am surprised that anyone would assign much of a role to Origen in the John the Baptist matter.

In Against Celsus 1.47, Origen claims Celsus accepts that John existed and performed baptisms. I think some skepticism is warranted that Hegesippus was Celsus's source, or Celsus Origen's source.

Origen locates Josephus's remarks to book 18 (in agreement with the received text), and the only thing of substance he adds is that the purpose of the ritual supposedly was the remission of sins (contrary to both the received text of Josephus and Eusebius). That addition is a gospel interpretation of John's baptism; Origen would hardly need Hegesippus as a source for that.

Origen says little about John, and nothing that isn't gospel-consistent except the apparently correct but imprecise location of the passage in Josephus. I am not seeing any role for Hegesippus in this controversy, at least not via Origen.

I cannot share your conclusions, since my sure premise is that, as to James's passage, Origen was indeed quoting Hegesippus. Hence I can only agree with who writes:


(The First Christian Believer, p. 40-41, my bold)

I put Carrier's speculations about Origen and James aside because they have no obvious relevance to anything Origen wrote about John the Baptist.

No anonymous hypothetical Christian forger needs Origen's brief remarks about Celsus's conceding a point to compose the received mention of John. The gospels suffice to cover anything Origen contributed. The forger doesn't need Origen's pointer to Book 18 to find the stories of Antipas, nor Origen to point out that that's where a forged John would best be placed. The gospels suffice for that, too. All that, and the hypothetical forger follows neither the gospel nor Origen on the remission of sins.

Origen has done no work in this affair that leaves a trace, and all the work that he might have done was already done in the gospels.

If there's no work for Origen to do in the affair, then it doesn't matter what Origen might have read about John outside the gospels, and even less what Origen read anywhere about James the Just. Good, then, to leave James out of it, as I suggested.

Nir is not a member here. I accept that that limits the scope of possible discussion. I rise simply to express surprise at the argument, for the reasons stated.

As I have said, Carrier has persuaded me that about the James's passage Origen was indeed quoting Hegesippus, therefore the implication follows naturally, as described by Nir above: if there is the dirty hand of Hegesippus behind the Origen's quote on James, then there is probably the same dirty hand of Hegesippus also behind the Origen's quote on John the Baptist.


I don't understand how of grace you allow yourself to ignore Carrier on this matter. Nir lists a lot of scholars (not even Carrier) who have argued for Origen being based on Hegesippus about James.

The forger used the same Christian source used by Origen to talk about James.

Then there is the internal evidence to doubt about the authenticity of the Baptist's passage, but it would be very long to resume all the Nir's arguments here. On Vridar you may find a good resume.

Possibly it may interest you that the usual argument held by the proponents of authenticity, i.e. that the passage doesn't mention Jesus at all, is one of the reasons to doubt it (since the theological role and goal of the Baptizer is to be an independent witness of the historical Jesus).

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Fri Aug 18, 2023 6:15 am As I have said, Carrier has persuaded me that about the James's passage Origen was indeed quoting Hegesippus, therefore the implication follows naturally, as described by Nir above: if there is the dirty hand of Hegesippus behind the Origen's quote on James, then there is probably the same dirty hand of Hegesippus also behind the Origen's quote on John the Baptist.

If that is Nir's argument, then so be it.

I don't understand how of grace you allow yourself to ignore Carrier on this matter. Nir lists a lot of scholars (not even Carrier) who have argued for Origen being based on Hegesippus about James.

Jesus skeptics should be cautious about promoting long lists of scholars who agree with each other about something.

The forger used the same Christian source used by Origen to talk about James.

Assuming there was a forger, and assuming Origen's source for James wasn't what he said it was, which even on casual examination, it could well have been. The parties agree that Origen misremebered something he read; the disagreement is what that was.

Then there is the internal evidence to doubt about the authenticity of the Baptist's passage, but it would be very long to resume all the Nir's arguments here. On Vridar you may find a good resume.

I was only discussing the argument, not the conclusion. It was clear from your OP that that was not Nir's only argument.

Possibly it may interest you that the usual argument held by the proponents of authenticity, i.e. that the passage doesn't mention Jesus at all, is one of the reasons to doubt it (since the theological role and goal of the Baptizer is to be an independent witness of the historical Jesus).

I am aware that arguments have been made based upon the absence of any mention of Jesus. It is not obvious why a Christian forger would be a stupid forger, given that the forger's goal would presumably be to pass for a non-Christian historian.