Dr. Sarah,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?
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.
Statistics: Posted by Ken Olson — Mon Feb 05, 2024 5:09 am