ynquirer

Many critics nowadays believe that there is consensus among non-apologists as to the existence of good-quality evidence against the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum (TF). It seems that there are several pieces of evidence conducive to such consensus. Here I want to revise just one of them, namely, Origen’s expressed denial of any belief by Josephus that Jesus was the Christ. If the evidence were good, it would be a serious case of external evidence, which is admittedly the hardest evidence possible.

I’m afraid it is not as good as the critics purport.

The argument against the Testimonium Flavianum as based on Origen’s Contra Celsus bears two premises whence a conclusion. The first premise is that Origen positively read Antiquities of the Jews bk.18:

Actually, John the Baptist’s story is narrated in AJ 18.5.2, while the TF is AJ 18.3.3 – a few paragraphs above. It would be most unlikely that Origen read John’s story and missed the TF – that’s the first premise.

The second premise says that Origen missed the crucial phrase, “He was the Christ,” as inferred from his own words:

It is most puzzling that the critics have overlooked that it is very strange, to say the least, that Josephus thought the cause of the fall of Jerusalem to be the death of an apparent Christian like James the Just. Actually, there is nothing in Josephus’ account of James’ death that suggests the fact as cause of anything but the removal of a high priest.

I’d like someone to show where Josephus says, in connection with James the Just that his death was the cause of the fall of Jerusalem. Actually, Josephus identifies the cause of that fall, and it is by no means what Origen says but something very different:

It is clearly not the execution of one man but the killing of many people in the temple – James might not have been stoned in the temple – the reason why God rejected Jerusalem, brought the Romans upon the Jews, and threw a fire upon the city to purge it. A reason much more at home for a Jew than the execution of a Christian, however righteous this might have been.

Nevertheless, one may perhaps think that mentions of the Baptist and the TF are in book 18, while mention of James the Just is in book 20, and that this deprives my argument of some strength. (In any event, James the Just is mentioned in book 20 alone, not in book 18 – what “book 20” did Origen read?)

Yet, there is another misreading by Origen of book 18, as regard the Baptist. He quite clearly says, “Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite.” This is in concordance with Origen’s previous statement that John baptized for the remission of sins. This is wrong, though. What Josephus says is that John the Baptist

Josephus’ view of John the Baptist is so alien to Christians as for the English translator – William Whiston – to add, between brackets, what he thought to be a necessary qualification, namely, that baptism was not only a rite for the remission of sins, but also for the purification of the body. However, Josephus quite clearly says that baptism for John was not for the remission of sins but for the purification of the body once that the soul had been thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness – being righteousness the sole way to put away the sins. That makes a difference with the Christian belief, and Origen totally missed the difference.

Therefore, Origen spots three different references to Antiquities of the Jews and offers mistaken readings in at least two. He has been proved unreliable as a witness of Josephus’ belief as regard a) John the Baptist and his doctrine, and b) the cause of the fall of Jerusalem. Why must he be held a reliable witness as regard c) Josephus’ opinion on the messianic nature of Jesus?

It is unclear what Origen read, possibly it was only a summary written by a careless scribe – much like those written, with greater care we hope, by Photius of Constantinople. Yet, it is clear enough that it was not a full, faithful copy of Antiquities of the Jews.

ynquirer

It is apparent that Origen’s source was a distorted version of AJ wrought to showing Josephus under a Christian light. To be sure, where Josephus said a) that John baptized not for the remission of sins but for the purification of the body after the soul had been purified and the sins put away by righteous behavior, Origen’s source said – according to the Christian doctrine – that he baptized for the remission of sins, and b) that Jerusalem was destroyed because murder in the temple had become customary, Origen’s source said – “not far from the truth,” according to him – that the city fell because of the death of an apparent Christian like James the Just. Accordingly, isn’t it still much odder that such a Christian copyist had failed to mention that the original AJ spoke of Jesus as the Christ and/or that Origen failed to use such info in his debate with Celsus? To the contrary, Origen quite clearly says that Josephus “did not believe in Jesus as the Christ.”

This is to my fairest understanding what is in substance the argument against the TF as based on Origen’s Contra Celsum (CS).

The argument, however, does not take notice of the context of CS 1.47 – and I by context mean the whole message of CS as far at least as book 1. Celsus was a Platonist that criticized Christianity from the standpoint of Greek philosophy and mythology. He had the gospels as ‘official’ narratives of Jesus’ life and death and endeavored to separate in them fact from fiction. The following is an account of his results, as inferred from CS bk.1. True facts are for Celsus these two:

1. Jesus historical existence is not questioned.
2. Neither is Jesus’ record of miracles and wonders. Actually, Celsus takes Jesus’ miracles for granted, and explains them away on account of his having learnt sorcery in Egypt rather than his divine nature – an explanation borrowed by the Talmud and Toldot Yeshu.

When dealing with outright fabrications, Celsus first points at Jesus’ baptism by John the Baptist in the Jordan and, accordingly, at the scene in which the heavens are open for the Holy Spirit as a dove to descend while a voice says that Jesus is his beloved Son. His main argument is that the existence of John the Baptist has not been attested by non Christian sources. This is actually the topic of CS bk.1.

IOW Celsus in this first book of Origen’s critique appears as deeming Jesus a) to have been a historical person, b) to have worked out miracles, and c) to have been an ordinary man that learnt sorcery and magic in Egypt rather than the Son of God. Items a) and b) are by no means put on the same footing. Celsus believes that Jesus was a historical person because there is a reliable source telling him so, while Celsus accepts for the sake of argument that Jesus might have worked miracles – a possibility always accepted in Antiquity (see Alexander the Great and Vespasian, for instance). The former point for him is certain or very likely, while the latter is at least possible.

All in all, Celsus appears to be a fairly scientific mind. He quite clearly distinguishes the case of John the Baptist, of whose existence he does not know of any reliable, historical witness, from the case of Jesus, for whose existence he must know of such a source. In all likelihood this witness of Jesus, reliable enough for Celsus is Tacitus.

This is the issue that Origen tries to tackle when he joins the debate. Provided that Celsus’ approach is what it is, it is pointless for Origen to speak of miracles and wonders and support them either on the TF or otherwise. What Origen does is something different. As Celsus questions the existence of John the Baptist outside the Christian sources, so that the whole episode of the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan would be a fabrication, Origen mentions Josephus as one that lived shortly after both Jesus and John, and that gave testimony of the existence of John. (This is indication that Celsus did not know of Josephus, btw.)

Nevertheless, for Origen’s purpose the TF phrase, “He was the Christ” is rather counterproductive. For such a phrase seemed indication that Josephus was a Christian – which many have believed, the copyist that wrought Origen’s source possibly included. Therefore, Origen needs to prove that in spite of the phrase, “He was the Christ,” Josephus was not a Christian. This explains the otherwise odd digression that follows to show that should Josephus have been a Christian, he would have mentioned Jesus’ death as the cause of the fall of Jerusalem instead of James the Just’s. The digression is all the more necessary as the phrase, “He was the Christ” is there as a stumbling block. Had it not be there, why should Origen have spoken of James the Just precisely at the moment of evaluating the evidence of John the Baptist’s historicity?

Therefore, the whole debate Origen versus Celsus in which Josephus’ AJ bk.18 is mentioned looks like a pretty serious, scientific debate about the historical existence of John the Baptist. Celsus has questioned his historicity on account of the lack of non Christian sources in support of it. Origen mentions Josephus to the contrary. Should the TF and the phrase, “He was the Christ” not be there, the rest of CS 1.47 would be waste. Yet, it is not waste since the TF and the phrase are there, posing a reasonable doubt that Josephus was a Christian and so falling short of Celsus’ requirement for a source to qualify as ‘independent’. This is why Origen has to furnish extra evidence that Josephus was not a Christian through a circumventing digression about the inaccurate mention of James the Just’s death in substitution for Jesus’ as the true cause of the fall of Jerusalem.

Dreadnought

You're flogging a dead horse. Do you have any reason to believe it will resurrect?

Toto

This quote does not seem appropriate for this particular thread.

Contra Celsus can be read here.

I am not sure of the basis for saying that Celsus disputed the existence of John. It appears to me that Celsus thinks that the baptismal scene is a fiction. Origen is not trying to prove the existence of John, but is using the fact of John's attestation by Josephus as a bad argument in favor of the truth of the baptismal scene

PhilosopherJay

Hi Toto and ynquirer,

Good point Toto. I do not see how John's existence has been called into question by Celsus.

Also, note that Origin attributes to Paul something that is not in any of he Pauline works that have come down to us:

Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine.


What are we to make of this? In close proximity to Origin talking about stuff being in Josephus that isn't in Josephus, we have him talking about stuff in Paul which isn't in Paul.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Toto

What was Origen's position on the perpetual virginity of Mary? This sound like an attempt to keep Mary virginal after the birth of Jesus.

ynquirer

Hi Toto,

Thanks, to begin with. Your criticism is serious, and of course leaves a margin for doubt.

Yet, the line of reasoning that a writer commits a mistake, or tries a “bad argument” – as you say – ought to be used as a line of last resort. Have, for instance, PhilosopherJay’s comment about Paul’s opinion on James the brother of the Lord. Why is there? You are right on the mark. Origen has felt a necessity to take a very difficult way; he thinks he must mention Josephus and James the Just. However, Josephus’ mention that James is the brother of Jesus embarrasses Origen because of the virginity of the mother of Jesus – another topic of Contra Celsum book 1. What otherwise would be hardly intelligible, or a mistake, or bad argument becomes clear when one takes account of the writer’s mindset.

The mention of James the Just is such a case. Celsus’ work is a Platonic dialogue between Jesus and an unidentified Jew. We cannot really know what the dialogue said, since it is lost, but from what Origen says about it. Still, we can ascertain a few details.

As Origen says at the beginning of charter 47, Celsus has the Jew accept somehow John as a Baptist. There is not plain, full acceptance of his existence. It seems as if Celsus had the Jew accept John ex hypothesis, for the sake of the argument. ‘Somehow’ implies that there is no proof of John’s historicity. Origen suspects that Celsus uses ambiguity as regard his own beliefs’ as a heathen and the Jew’s to instill doubts in the reader’s mind as to the historicity of John as a means to undermine the credibility of the whole scene. This is the reason why he feels a logical necessity to establish John’s historicity once and for all. If both Jesus and John are historical persons, it was likely that Jesus went to the Jordan in order to be baptized, and that there happened the scene of the dove is at the very least a possibility – that is, something as possible as those other scenes of the OT of which the Jew presumably thought to be true.

Ben C Smith

I think the actual paraphrase (and it is a paraphrase, not a quotation, since it the φησιν is followed up with the infinitive of indirect discourse) of Paul ends at κυριου:

Τον δε Ιακωβον τουτον ο Ιησου γνησιος μαθητης Ϊαυλος φησιν εωρακεναι ως αδελφον του κυριου....

And Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he saw this James as a brother of the Lord....

The rest follows as an Origenic comment on Paul, not a Pauline comment on himself:

...ου τοσουτον δια το προς αιματος συγγενες η την κοινην αυτων ανατροφην οσον δια το ηθος και τον λογον.

[Paul says this] not so much on account of their relationship by blood or of their common upbringing as on account of his ethics and speech.

My two cents.

Ben.

Doug Shaver

Excuse me? A writer should be presumed inerrant until proven otherwise?

ynquirer

Not a mistake of that kind. I meant that we oughtn't to think that a writer wished to say one thing and said another instead. Isn't it a 'mistake'?