PaulK

Origen's statement could simply mean that Josephus was not a Christian. It does not necessarily imply any mention of Jesus in his writings.

jjramsey

Two problems:

• Be very careful about assuming that a simple change in the English translation would imply a simple change in the Greek. I don't know much in the way of Greek myself, but I do know to be leery of taking much more from the translation than an overall gist.
  
• Remember that for his Roman audience, "Christ" was at most the name or nickname of the founder of a particular minority superstition. Saying that Jesus was not "the Christ" in the sense of meaning that Jesus was not what the Jews would call a messiah would be confusing without further explanation--and Josephus had been avoiding expounding on the idea of the messiah.

Lamkin

But, in this passage Origen does not say anything about what Josephus believes about Jesus.

If you read the whole passage that this quote comes from:
Origen: Contra Celsus: Book I Chapter 47
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. Now this writer, 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. 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. If, then, he says that it was on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason to say that it happened on account (of the death) of Jesus Christ, of whose divinity so many Churches are witnesses, composed of those who have been convened from a flood of sins, and who have joined themselves to the Creator, and who refer all their actions to His good pleasure. [taken from the same source Apostate Abe used]

The reference to Josephus is only about what Josephus wrote about John the Baptist, specifically that Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. The subject of this is about Celsus' representation of "the Jew" ( Celsus' jewish source of Chritians) as "accepting somehow of John as a Batist."
The remainder of the passage is not about Josephus, but rather about Celsus. Note the very next sentence: "Now this writer..." I read that as a change of subject from the previous sentence. Josephus is the writer of antiquity, Celsus is "this writer." It is Celsus who seeks after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem. Origen may believe that Celsus is using Josephus for this claim, but we know from reading Josephus that the account of James that was not in the context of the fall of Jerusalem.

In fact, it seems to me this passage could account for the two interpolations concerning Jesus into Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews. Origen said so, so Josephus orignally must have contained something to that effect. Origen's passage ties in all three, Jesus, John the Baptist and James the Just.

Of course, I may be wrong about this. If anyone who does know this subject better, believes otherwise, could you please offer citations where I can check.

Terri

jjramsey

This has been discussed before, but as our own Ben C Smith pointed out:

aa5874

This is part of what you wrote
Again, your assertion is erroneous, two opposing statements are not proof that one or the other is partially or wholly true. If it is doubted that Josephus wrote the "TF", it should be obvious that the passage form Origen does not confirm what Josephus knew about a character called Jesus.

Malachi151

Because of what Origen says. I don't think he intentionally messed it up, I think he accidentally attributed a passage from Hegesippus to Josephus.

Origen's quote of "Josephus" is not to be found in any writing of Josephus, but the same basic statement in made in a text by Hegesippus. In ancient Greek the two names were almost identical, and they are known to have been confused by other people.

spin

As Josephus and Origen have been dealt with a number of times before, here's an analysis of mine of Origen's major reference to James in Josephus from one of the previous threads. It should be relevant to this thread.


spin

Minimalist

It seems more reasonable to me that if Josephus had written an "unflattering" passage that Origen would have done with it exactly what he was trying to do with the rest of Contra Celsus....refute disparaging claims against his religion.

I'm more inclined to the "other" person idea. Possibly, within the context of the paragraphs preceeding and following some Yeshua bar Someone who led a revolt and got himself crucified. A later Christian like Origen might not have made the connection between that "Jesus" and his "Jesus." Of course, neither did any other pre-4th century christian scholars so the passage must have been quite a stretch, indeed. Then along came the blue pencil crew to do a little Urban Legend Renewal and the rest, as they say, is revised history!

jjramsey

And the fuller thread challenging your argument is also relevant:

http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthr...64#post3361664

Malachi151

I address the matter in some detail here:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...ty_of_the_Jews