John the Baptist, redivivus of a 2015 article

[Giuseppe]

I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, that the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who lived no great length of time after John and Jesus. For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite.

That is simply not true: Josephus doesn't say that the baptism by John purified the people who received it.

Now compare the following words:

Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ,

• That denial by Origen of the Christian belief of Josephus doesn't mean that Origen read the Testimonium Flavianum in Josephus.

• In the same way, the denial by Origen of the kind of baptism found in the current Baptist Passage doesn't mean that Origen read the Baptist Passage in Josephus.

[Paul the Uncertain]

You need to state your objection more clearly. God's retribution against Jerusalem is in Antiquities book 20

I disagree on this point. In my opinion, God's retribution against Jerusalem is not in Antiquities book 20. At least: not by connecting the destructive effect with the death of only a prominent man.

Josephus mentions the murder of the high priest Jonathan specifically, and then describes an escalation of bloodshed when Jonathan's assassination is not avenged by natural means.

In any case, you're quite correct. You needn't clarify your objection unless you care whether I know what you are talking about. If not, then no hard feelings, but don't expect me to reply further on this specific matter.

Again, you need to state your objection. Origen does not claim to quote Josephus, nor does he, so far as we can tell.

again I disagree. Origen seems to be really interested to resume Josephus, given that he gives even the specifics (18° book of Antiquities).

To quote is to recite the same words as another. Origen doesn't do so, he doesn't claim to do so, instead he describes in his own words what he remembers reading and cites his source.

I renew my advice to clarify your objection. If you wish not to do so, then no hard feelings, etc.

Ken Olson said that the fact that Origen wrote that Josephus didn't believe that Jesus was the Christ is not evidence of Origen knowing an original Testimonium Flavianum. In virtue of the same reason, I claim that the fact that Origen wrote that the John's baptism purified the sins is not evidence of Origen knowing the same Baptist Passage that we read today in Josephus, where we read rather the opposite.

Good for you. I wish you only the best. Since I've already stated my view, and iirc Ken Olson and I disagree about the meaning of the received TF's statement about Jesus and the term Christ, perhaps that righteously concludes our discussion on this other point.

[Peter Kirby]

I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, that the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who lived no great length of time after John and Jesus. For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite.

That is simply not true: Josephus doesn't say that the baptism by John purified the people who received it.

Technically, Origen didn't either; he said that Josephus said that John promised purification to those who underwent the rite, which leaves ambiguous what the cause of that purification is.

[Giuseppe]

I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, that the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who lived no great length of time after John and Jesus. For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite.

That is simply not true: Josephus doesn't say that the baptism by John purified the people who received it.

Technically, Origen didn't either; he said that Josephus said that John promised purification to those who underwent the rite, which leaves ambiguous what the cause of that purification is.

Is very much imagination required to know what the cause of the purification is in the Origen's passage?

[Peter Kirby]

I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, that the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who lived no great length of time after John and Jesus. For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite.

That is simply not true: Josephus doesn't say that the baptism by John purified the people who received it.

Technically, Origen didn't either; he said that Josephus said that John promised purification to those who underwent the rite, which leaves ambiguous what the cause of that purification is.

The passage in book 18 of the Antiquities of Josephus says:

he was a good man and had urged the Jews to exert themselves to virtue, both as to justice toward one another and reverence towards God, and having done so join together in washing. For immersion in water, it was clear to him, could not be used for the forgiveness of sins, but as a sanctification of the body, and only if the soul was already thoroughly purified by right actions.

The logic of the passage is:

(1) John "urged the Jews to exert themselves to virtue, both as to justice toward one another and reverence towards God"
(2) By doing so, "the soul was already thoroughly purified by right actions" (τῆς ψυχῆς δικαιοσύνῃ προεκκεκαθαρμένης)
(3) John conditionally also urged that they "having done so, join together in washing"
(4) It was clear to John that "immersion in water" was a "sanctification of the body" (ἁγνείᾳ τοῦ σώματος)

Josephus elsewhere uses similar language (sanctification, holiness) for the effect of washing the body in water (Life 2):

Nor did I content myself with the trying of these three only, for when I was informed that one whose name was Banus lived in the desert, and used no other clothing than what grew upon trees, and had no other food than what grew of its own accord, and bathed himself in cold water frequently, both night and day, for sanctification (πρὸς ἁγνείαν), I imitated him in those things, and continued with him three years.

Origen says this about the passage in book 18 of the Antiquities of Josephus:

John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins (εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτημάτων βαπτίζοντα), is related by one who lived no great length of time after John and Jesus. For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite (καθάρσιον τοῖς βαπτισαμένοις ἐπαγγελλομένῳ).

Origen's first phrase isn't said to be from Josephus and is indeed, instead, directly based on the gospels and Christian teaching. However, Origen has abbreviated as compared even to the very short phrase found in Mark 1:4 about John, dropping "repentance (μετανοίας) for the remission of sins" in favor of just "the remission of sins," giving us only a shorter and very Christian formula, as in Matthew 26:28 (εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν).

Mark 1:4. John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins (μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν).

As to the phrase from Origen about promising purification to those who underwent the rite (καθάρσιον τοῖς βαπτισαμένοις ἐπαγγελλομένῳ), the text of Ant. 18 is compatible with that statement:

(1) John "urged the Jews to exert themselves to virtue, both as to justice toward one another and reverence towards God"
(2) By doing so, "the soul was already thoroughly purified by right actions" (τῆς ψυχῆς δικαιοσύνῃ προεκκεκαθαρμένης) [making an offer of purification (καθάρσιον ... ἐπαγγελλομένῳ)]
(3) John conditionally also urged that they "having done so, join together in washing" [to those who underwent baptism (τοῖς βαπτισαμένοις)]
(4) It was clear to John that "immersion in water" was a "sanctification of the body" (ἁγνείᾳ τοῦ σώματος)

In the account of Ant. 18, those who joined together in washing already had purified their soul (τῆς ψυχῆς ... προεκκεκαθαρμένης) through right actions. Having done so, the baptism made what John preached complete, through a sanctification of the body (ἁγνείᾳ τοῦ σώματος).

Origen went from his own very Christian wording "remission of sins" (ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν) to a different statement of what Josephus said about John, as making "an offer ... of purification" (καθάρσιον ... ἐπαγγελλομένῳ). The latter wording is found similarly in Ant. 18 (προεκκεκαθαρμένης), providing a point of contact in terminology.

However, the text of Ant. 18 has statements that stand in contradiction (or, at least, tension) to Christian teaching about the effects of baptism by John. Origen does not emphasize the contradiction, as could be expected from the apologetical nature of his work. Those who were reading Origen would easily be misled into thinking that Josephus viewed the baptism of John in very similar terms to the way Christians interpreted it. Origen, if he were thinking about it at all, would want us to identify the compatibility of the statements "remission of sins" (ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν) and "an offer ... of purification" (καθάρσιον ... ἐπαγγελλομένῳ), and he would also want us to connect both of them directly to baptism. Of course he would! If we end up thinking that way, we would be led to believe that Josephus confirms the account of the gospels regarding the nature of the baptism of John.

But they are not the same phrase, the latter phrase is compatible with the account in Ant. 18 (while the former phrase clearly is not), and the ambiguity (after comparing to Ant. 18) has one of two plausible explanations:

(1) ... either Origen forgot or misremembered the exact details of the passage in Ant 18, or ...
(2) Origen intentionally used an ambiguous phrase about what Josephus said, in order to conceal the contradiction.

Origen was intelligent and more than capable of using strategic ambiguity to make his point seem stronger. The sentence about John the Baptist in Ant. 18 from Origen is technically correct about what Josephus wrote. It is also easily misread, if used as a guide to what Josephus wrote without access to Ant. 18 to compare. But it can indeed be expected, since what Josephus actually wrote would be in contradiction to what Origen believed, that Origen wouldn't mind if we didn't know exactly what Josephus wrote. But Origen didn't need to lie here. He could just say less, while still being technically accurate in what he says about the John the Baptist passage in Ant. 18, to make his point effectively.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

(1) ... either Origen forgot or misremembered the exact details of the passage in Ant 18, or ...
(2) Origen intentionally used an ambiguous phrase about what Josephus said, in order to conceal the contradiction.

It seems similar to me.

At some point Origen made a note of which book of Antiquities Josephus wrote about the Baptist. Not more. Just to be able to mention it later. Then he later mentions it in a book, adding the usual Christian perspective, without remembering what Josephus actually wrote. He wasn't interested in that at all. Origen was only interested in the fact that Josephus mentioned the Baptist.

At least that's what it looks like to me at first glance.

[Peter Kirby]

(1) ... either Origen forgot or misremembered the exact details of the passage in Ant 18, or ...
(2) Origen intentionally used an ambiguous phrase about what Josephus said, in order to conceal the contradiction.

It seems similar to me.

At some point Origen made a note of which book of Antiquities Josephus wrote about the Baptist. Not more. Just to be able to mention it later. Then he later mentions it in a book, adding the usual Christian perspective, without remembering what Josephus actually wrote. He wasn't interested in that at all. Origen was only interested in the fact that Josephus mentioned the Baptist.

At least that's what it looks like to me at first glance.

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.

[DrSarah]

Idem with John the Baptist: once we consider the Origen's description as a description different from what we find in Josephus, then we should deny that Origen is a witness of the presence of that description in Josephus. It is not simply a case where we limit ourselves to suspend the judgement. We have to claim positively that Origen wasn't quoting Josephus but a different source.

Why? Why do you find it so implausible that Origen might have genuinely misremembered a passage in line with what he wanted to believe it said?

Since it is virtually impossible that the Origen's memory was half right about a quote (on John the Baptist) but entirely wrong, only a microsecond after, about another quote (on James).

Again... why do you find it impossible that he would have remembered one quote while misremembering another?

[DrSarah]

ADDENDA: Nothing prohibits to consider the entire passage of Antiquities 20:200 about James being a post-Origen interpolation in Josephus.

Do you have any plausible motive as to why someone would want to invent and include a passage with that kind of detail?

[DrSarah]

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, 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?