spin

As you haven't shown from the Origen passage what Josephus specifically said, I don't think that you can show the point you are trying to make. In fact I think you are creating a contradiction in Origen to read him the way you do. The following is how I read Origen to see what I think he thinks Josephus actually said (in black):

[Josephus], (although not believing in Jesus as the Christ,) in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, (whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet,) says nevertheless (--being, although against his will, not far from the truth--) that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just (, who was a brother of Jesus called Christ,--the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice).

Origen says that Josephus did not admit the (Origen's) truth concerning Jesus being the christ, so if Origen in this passage actually claimed that Josephus called Jesus christ while not accepting it should be read as incoherent. What we see in the above in my understanding is a consistent commentary by Origen, indicated in blue. The passage should not be construed to read anything about Josephus's comments, but about Origen's parenthetical method, a method which should be clear from the rest of the passage. Did Josephus ever say he didn't accept Jesus as the christ? or that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of the calamities? Plainly not.

Origen's word order does not reflect that of the current form of the James passage, putting James first, rather than Jesus. In fact, one should wonder if Origen had actually read Josephus on James at all, because he is apparently of the belief that Josephus thought James's death was the cause for the fall of Jerusalem, which is not found in AJ 20.9.1.

While Origen uses the phrase Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου, this is just the genitive the same phrase as found in Matt 1:16, which should be seen as a source for Origen's usage. Χριστος is used forty times in the LXX text, so Josephus should have known the significance of the term in Jewish diaspora circles. As the term christ reflected a Jewish technical term, had he used the phrase calling Jesus the christ he would be flagrantly contradicting Origen's contention that Josephus did not accept the notion. Josephus did not use the LXX term anywhere in his text, so we must doubt the veracity of its appearance in the Jesus passages. Origen says that Josephus -- against his will -- is almost right when he refers to James. Origen just explains where he went wrong... with a few parentheses.

I think your and Carlson's reading does not reflect Origen at all. We can justify Origen's use of the term Χριστος in the commentary -- both because of his beliefs and his method, along with the probable source --, but not later readers' attribution of it to Josephus.


spin

rlogan

The most obvious motivation in "repairing" Josephus is precisely the use to which it was put: "proving" the canon version of the gospel.

The Bishop

I think you've been confusing me with someone else, because I don't think I asked questions at all in this thread.

Phlox Pyros

Of course. Google and online Latin dictionaries are wonderful.

It was just a fancy way of saying "It takes one to know one." LOL
And I still think spin gets away with murder and the mods let him...heh,heh

Ben C Smith

You appear to be answering what was going to be my next question to Chris. So you think that Origen was in fact the source of the gloss in Josephus? Someone (Eusebius?) noticed what Origen had written and decided to insert his words into the passage, as if to make good on them?

Ben.

jjramsey

But this is assuming that Origen would be keeping track of the grammatical details of how one referred to Jesus as the Christ, rather than the overall gist of the text. A native English speaker reading English is likely to remember the point of the text that he/she is reading, but will probably only subconsciously note the grammar. As a native Greek speaker, Origen would probably do likewise. From what I understand, using "legemonos" to call Jesus as Christ is fairly neutral, and so not a common way for Christians to refer to Jesus as Christ. Mt. 1:16 is an exception rather than the rule. For Origin to read Josephus neutrally saying "Jesus called Christ" and coming away with the understanding that he didn't believe in Jesus as the Christ is understandable.

Was there any messianic claimant other than Jesus of Nazareth who was ever referred to as "Christos" or "Christus"? It occurs to me that for Josephus' audience, "Christos" was thought of as the name of the founder of a certain pernicious superstition, not as the Greek translation of a Jewish technical term.

No doubt there are plenty of references to people being anointed in the LXX, but AFAIK, it would be anachronistic to say the LXX referred to the Anointed in the messianic sense.

Ben C Smith

Fear not, it was coming. For convenience, I have the passage on one of my web pages. And you will notice that my point so far did not depend on the Origen quote of Josephus; I was merely pointing out that (A) to deny someone is the messiah and (B) to say that someone was actually called the messiah involves no contradiction.

I can both deny that Cassius Clay was the greatest boxer ever and admit that he is often called the greatest boxer ever without fear of self-contradiction.

Future points I may make on the matter will probably involve citing Origen on the Josephus passage itself, especially given your recent post. All in good time.

Ben.

Chris Weimer

Indeed. I do apologize for that.

You can't hide these from everyone. And I do disagree. PM me if you really think so.

Chris Weimer

In the Septuagint, christos is the translated term for "anointed one". Josephus surely would have been aware of that. Furthermore, if we take it as a name of some sort, then do we assume that the earliest Christians thought of it as a name too? Where would Josephus get this information from?

There was only one way to say "the anointed" in Hebrew, and christos is the Greek word for it.

Phlox Pyros

Do we have any Greek texts that refer to Simon Bar Kokhba as Christos? For that matter, how do the Aramaic texts refer to him?

"This one was the Christ." was probably not in the original text of Josephus unless in modified form, as seems obvious. However, the reference to "the one called Christ" should not be discounted as original. It is common language used by Josephus. If we are to say that because Josephus only uses Christ in these spots and so it is an interpolation, then there are other single-use, "so-called" epithets that would have to be tossed as well.
ιφ ι πυτ μυ κομπλαιντς ιν Γρεεκ λεττερς, δοες τηατ ηελπ?