Chaucer

Keeping the historical/textual chronology in mind, tell us, please, how do we account for Origen's knowing that Josephus did not view Jesus as a "Christ"?

Thank you,

Chaucer

Toto

One distinct possibility: Origen knew that Josephus was a Jew, and the Jews rejected Jesus; if Josephus had accepted Jesus as Christ, he would have been a Christian.

aa5874

Josephus wrote NOTHING of an historical Jesus because if he did then Origen would have to ATTACK Josephus and claim he was a LIAR.

Origen argued that Jesus was born of a Ghost and a Virgin and implied that anyone who claimed Jesus had a human father was a Liar.

Celsus claimed Jesus had a human father and Origen IDENTIFIED him as a Liar and wrote a compilation 8 BOOKS AGAINST Celsus.

See Origen's Against Celsus.

See Origen's De Principiis By the way, we know that Origen statement's about Josephus is false because Josephus did explain WHY he believed the Jewish Temple fell.

The Fall of the Jewish had NOTHING whatsoever to do with James the brother of Jesus called the Anointed.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Jesus called Anointed in Antiquities 20.9.1 was dead up to c 62 CE.

Jesus called Anointed was probably Jesus the Son of Damneus who was appointed High Priest.

Origen's writings are products of fraud, forgeries, false attribution and with Multiple authors.

It is virtually impossible that the same author who argued Jesus was born of a Ghost and called Celsus a Liar would admit that Josephus wrote Jesus was just an ordinary man.

Stringbean

What danger do you suppose Josephus would have faced by admitting that this Jesus was a Christ?

Stuart

Antiquities 18.3.3 is entirely an interpolation. Occasioned by the name Pilate. But the circumstances are entirely different than the Gospels. He has Roman Soldiers attack and kill many unarmed Jews for being displeased with using Temple money to build a water project for Jerusalem. It's impossible to see this same group petition Pilate immediately after to put to death some religious trouble maker, the enmity would be too great. Further there is no indication this is near the passover time of year.

The interpolation also does not concern a calamity befalling the Jews - unless you are a Christian who feels that the death of Jesus is by definition a calamity for the Jews, as the passage doesn't say so explicitly per the normal Josephus formula. It is a confession of faith with the added Catholic creed "as the divine prophets foretold" (τῶν θείων προφητῶν), an addition not necessary to add to the creed until facing opponents in the mid 2nd century who denied the Law and prophets. Josephus was long dead.

Here is the text without the interpolation, which should make it clear the lack of connection to the surrounding text:

Stuart

He mentioned it as a piece of common knowledge that Josephus was a Jew, not a Christian, and therefore made a reliable witness for anyone questioning the veracity of the Christian text. Here is the excerpt so you can see this is exactly how he uses him as a witness.

Of course Antiquities 20.9.1 text in question is itself an interpolation, most likely from the early 3rd century, which infected Origen's versions of Antiquities, where the following was added by a pious scribe - who even added the word Judges.

κριτῶν καὶ παραγαγὼν εἰς αὐτὸ τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰησοῦ τοῦ λεγομένου Χριστοῦ, Ἰάκωβος ὄνομα αὐτῷ, καί τινας ἑτέρους, ὡς παρανομησάντων κατηγορίαν ποιησάμενος παρέδωκε λευσθησομένους.

The basic problem is the rest of the text surrounding it has no need for this passage. Here is what it reads without the interpolation

As you can plainly see the issue for the complaint was the calling of the assembly, which like all similar ones in Europe pretty much to this day have to be called by the Monarch (where applicable). So Ananus over stepped his authority in his brashness, and was seen as challenging the King and Procurator. Hence he was sacked. He was not sacked for executing a Christian, and that would not be grounds for sacking.

aa5874

We know that Origen's claim is false from "Wars of the Jews" 6.5.4.

Josephus did not claim the Jewish Temple fell because of what the Jews did to James.

Wars of the Jews 6.5.It is clear that Origen's "Against Celsus" is a source of fiction.

andrewcriddle

I think you should include the previous sentence This seems to indicate that Ananus was making use of the opportunity to sentence those he regarded as offenders.

Andrew Criddle

Stuart

LOL, Good catch, the words you bold could also be interpolated, they don't fit the passage either, except to support the known interpolation. The sanhedrim throughout Josephus is never used for trials of minor offenders. It is a quorum for governance. The "trial" by sanhedrim for religious offenses is a Christian fiction.

However I think the entire phrase about his being a heretic (sect) of the Sadduccees is possibly interpolated, since it partly excuses his behavior as expected from being such a sect member, something inconsistent with the story line. Also the Sadduccees are not part of this story line, betraying a Christian hand, as it has a very Patristic feel to it.

Thus the actual passage should read

andrewcriddle

Josephus doesn't tell us much about normal judicial procedure in Judea. However early Jewish tradition e.g. the Mishnah, regards the Sanhedrin as a court passing sentences sometimes capital sentences for various offenses including what we would call religious offenses.
Postulating more and more interpolations without textual evidence becomes less and less plausible.

Andrew Criddle