Sent you an email!Thank you! I appreciate getting your thoughts here.I pretty much agree. On my own theory, the only element unoriginal to Josephus is "brother of Jesus called Christ" which Origen read into the text based on the fact that Josephus' account paralleled Christian tradition in enough ways it would be immediately evocative of the Jamesian tradition. So, I don't bother with Hegesippus or complicated theories of alternative readings.The point of this thread is that there is *no need to assume* that Origen was confused when attributing this to Josephus (or to assume that Josephus must have had more than we currently find there in order for Origen to make the statements he does).
This, along with the absence of any other mention of Jesus in his Ant, can explain why Origen was primed for this kind of reading of Josephus. All the same, we must reject most categorically those ideas according to which Origen based his statement on something other than and without reading what we find in Ant 20.... Such as suggested as a serious possibility by Doherty/Carrier and the first edition of my Test. essay. Such reasoning is faulty.
I bumped this thread by mistake (meaning to post in the new thread I created in Academic Discussion).
And I would be very glad to be able to see a draft of your current article whenever you could share it with me. My email is peterkirby@gmail.com
Statistics: Posted by Chrissy Hansen — Tue Oct 01, 2024 10:09 pm
