andrewcriddle

In previous threads about Origen's claim that Josephus blames the Fall of Jerusalem on the killing of "James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ" it has been noted that this claim occurs first in Origen's Commentary on Matthew and that "Jesus who is called Christ" occurs in Matthew in the trial scene (27:17 and 27:22)

It was hence suggested that the title of Jesus attributed to Josephus by Origen in his Matthew commentary "Jesus who is called Christ" comes from the use of this title by Matthew and was not in Origen's text of Josephus.

One problem in evaluating this idea is that the later part of the Matthew commentary does not survive in Greek. However a surviving ancient Latin translation of Origen on Matthew does contain the commentary on chapter 27. This Latin text is in Migne. The comment on verse 17 is a discussion about whether we should read Barabbas or Jesus Barabbas and seems irrelevant to the point we are interested in here. The comment on verse 22 reads which I tentatively translate The main point of interest seems to be that here Origen regards "Jesus called Christ" as a declaration that Jesus is the Messiah whereas he has earlier claimed that Josephus attributes this title to Jesus while not regarding him as the Messiah.

I'm not sure what this evidence establishes one way or the other but here it is FWIW.

Andrew Criddle

Roger Pearse

Translation looks very good. Point of detail (it's always easier to offer suggestions, than to translate, and I doubt that I would have done as good a job as Andrew):

This is oratio obliqua (reported speech), of course; verb + accusative + infinitive. We could render such in English as verb unchanged + "that" + noun in nominative + verb in indicative. This gives:

... Pilate was confessing (confitebatur) that Jesus (Jesum) is (esse) the Christ (Christum)...

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ben C Smith

Good find, Andrew.

My first reaction is that this text offers some support to the notion that Origen did not regard at least the called Christ bit as part of the text of Josephus. (An alternative is that Origen is engaging in wishful thinking on behalf of Pilate but could not do so in the case of Josephus, either because of a negative Testimonium or because of the passages that seem to identify Vespasian as the promised messiah figure.)

Thanks.

And that passage is available in an archaic font on Google Books.

Ben.

andrewcriddle

Did Josephus really identify Vespasian as Messiah ? http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/t...phus/war6.html is pretty startling in terms of applying to Vespasian an oracle more suitable for the Messiah.

But IMO it does not imply that Josephus thought Vespasian to be the Messiah.

Andrew Criddle

Ben C Smith

Maybe my use of the term messiah figure was a bit weaselly, but I think I can express the thought more tightly. From the point of view of Origen, if Josephus applied such an oracle (whether it be the star from Numbers or the weeks from Daniel, or some other scriptural prophecy) to Vespasian, then it probably meant for Origen that Josephus thought of Vespasian as the messiah. Just because Josephus may have been able to take a seemingly messianic passage and turn it into something else does not necessarily mean that Origen would be willing to walk that mile with him.

Ben.