It’s from his commentary on Matthew, X, c. 17:
“And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James.”
Yes, what Porphyry said. Even though it’s a claim, Origen must have been sure that Josephus didn’t believe. I mean, if you read a huge book + autobiography and you don’t see any mention of Jesus, That gives me a definite belief to claim that you didn’t believe in Jesus to be the Christ. Otherwise, if you did believe, there’s no chance you wouldn’t include it in the book. So whether Origen claims or just guesses, to me, don’t really matter.
Feldman seemed to just leave the possibility there, which I don’t have any problem with. All I’m saying is, what Origen said doesn’t at all enforce anything on Josephus’s side whether he said something or not. There could still have been something in original Josephus’s book, but we don’t have at least 1% proof of that(That’s what I’ve been meaning, you shouldn’t include Origen’s saying in this proof) and it’s a lottery game whether he mentioned or not.
if you read a huge book + autobiography and you don’t see any mention of Jesus, That gives me a definite belief to claim that you didn’t believe in Jesus to be the Christ. Otherwise, if you did believe, there’s no chance you wouldn’t include it in the book.
I don’t think that argument is conclusive; I suspect I could find autobiographies of practicing Christians that don’t talk about Jesus. To say definitively the person didn’t accept Christ, I think you’d need something more, like knowing the person belonged to a sect that was well known for rejecting Christ.
I think there is a pretty strong argument to be made that Origen couldn’t have seen the Testimonium as we have it and still have written that Josephus didn’t accept Jesus as Christ–since the TF as we have it explicitly says that Jesus was the Christ. Even if, secretly, Josephus was some sort of ancient Messianic Jew, Origen couldn’t have both read the received text of the Testimonium–which says explicitly, “he [Jesus] was the Christ” and yet have written that “he [Josephus] didn’t accept Jesus as Christ.” So unless you want to argue that Origen wasn’t acquainted with the Antiquities (I haven’t looked into this, but it seems unlikely) or that he saw the Testimonium and its profession that Jesus as the Christ and forgot about it (that seems extremely unlikely), we can say with pretty high confidence that there was a version of the Antiquities floating around in first half of the third century that didn’t include the line in the TF about Jesus being the Christ, and that any version that might have included that line was obscure enough that Origen didn’t know about it or it was doubtful enough that Origen rejected it as spurious.
Even if the Test Flav is a complete interpolation, it has been through multiple hands. There is an overt Christian layer but there is also a less overt layer. But it’s hard to see how, at the end of the First Century, there would be Christians content to simply regard Jesus as a wise man who did wonderful deeds.
it’s hard to see how, at the end of the First Century, there would be Christians content to simply regard Jesus as a wise man who did wonderful deeds.
Maybe that’s the most they thought they could get away with putting into the mouth of a Jew. Then someone else came along and had to take it one step too far, and added the bit about him being the Christ.
Maybe that’s the most they thought they could get away with…
I don’t subscribe to the conspiracy theory of history, meaning simply that I think most things that happen are not the result of planning. The simplest explanation in the face of a lack of definitive evidence is that there was probably something there originally to work on. I do have an imagination though and I am tantalized by the thought that the original comment might have been negative!
Well, here are a couple of strong arguments why TF is fake and there’s a higher chance that no mention of Jesus was there.
1: A few years after writing the Antiquities, a book entirely devoted to a defense of Judaism and communicating it to Gentiles, Josephus wrote Against Apion to defend Judaism as the true religion against a critic, and wrote his Autobiography in which he pridefully describes his status as a Pharisee. Thus, it is beyond doubt that Josephus was not a Christian when he wrote the Antiquities – If this sentence doesn’t give you the notion that Origen didn’t need TF to say what he said, then, I don’t know what else to add.
2: If you think, there was something negative, then here is what would happen: Origen was proving to Celsus about Christianity and was trying to defend the faith. We know Origen has used many things from Josephus, but he never used the TF. If there was something negative in TF, what Celsus would do is(since Celsus also knew that Origen was using Josephus as a helper) bring this negative comment and then Origen would need to defend the negative comment from TF about Jesus.
The above quite interestingly proves that the chance of having no TF in Josephus is higher than having it.
but sure, I might agree with something. Most of the time, we humans, don’t plan something in advance(i mean in historical events). Which means I understand and agree partially with Stephen’s last reply and THIS IS THE ONLY THING THAT’S MAKING ME STILL BELIEVE THERE WAS SOMETHING IN THERE. (Origen’s saying doesn’t help/suggest anything).
Giorgi_Lagidze said
have been reading Bart Ehrman’s book (Did Jesus Exist – The historical argument for Jesus of Nazareth).
You only have one question, though in order to answer it, I might start with a conspiracy theory that at first it doesn’t seem related, but it is. You see, there is no real proof for the existence of Jesus. And that’s fine, for Christians, that base their beliefs on their faith, and for Atheists as well, that don’t really care despite Jesus’ nonexistence seems to be empowering them.
The problem is with the Satanists. These, as opposed to Atheists, they are not neutral; they are militant, they conduct was against God and Christianity. There are two ways in which they proselytise people to Atheism:
- either argue that Jesus never existed; obviously all things lead to this, so this is a very solid ideology. However, it does have its minuses, for example it can be easily dismissed by the faith-answer, when Christians simply say: “well, I just believe in Him”. Lately also there’s been a rise in philosophers who clearly noticed the civilizational collapse correlated with the rates of Atheism and as well the horrific murders perpetrated in communist regimes (that are Atheistic), to name one is Jordan B Peterson, who concluded something like this: even if you don’t believe in God, you should live like He exists.
- or just go with the Jesus truly existed. This sounds counter-productive for they agenda, but it’s actually quite cunning. You see, the funds and grants come mainly from Christians and Jews; and the academia is corrupted, is profoundly liberal and anti-racist and anti-antisemitic… (I can’t express otherwise). So obviously, when Christian sponsors, most of the older and of Protestant faiths, liberal, hear stories about what really Jesus said, about the foods He ate, the places He had visited, his real tomb, you get the idea, mostly earthly human-like things that have nothing to do with a religion, they are pleased. The trick is that they make Jesus an absolute man, a Jew, a failed Prophet, clumsy, that did mistakes, believed wrongly etc. Now this pleases the other half of the sponsors, you know who. Jesus is not God, is not Messiah, He’s just a lunatic.
Bart is of the 2nd type. To answer your question: well, because there are no real proofs for the existence of Jesus, Bart Ehrman, the renowned world scholar, and many others like him, try to satisfy the rigors of science required for an individual to be historically attested, he tries to isolate manuscripts of each other, in order to show that are “multiple independent accounts“. That’s it. It’s that simple. They also take for real manuscripts that are clearly forgeries.
But you are correct: people like Josephus, giving the fact he did such a vast work, it’s impossible to miss the gospels. It’s okay, Bart is not the first grifter you’ll ever met. Literally mythicists like Richard Carrier have better information (because it’s honest) than Bart. Life’s hard and the war is unseen. And I repeat again: there is no evidence for the existence of Jesus to obey the rigors of history. It’s just not there.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)