john76 said
Mythicists sometimes cite Origen (Contra Celsum 1.47 and Commentary on Matthew 10.17), who certainly knew Book 18 of the Antiquities and cites 5 passages from it, as explicitly stating that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as Christ. This seems to exclude Origen as being aware of the relevant passage in the Testimonium Flavianum as we have it today, but doesn’t it ALSO imply Origen’s copy of Josephus’ work did say “something” about Jesus, enough for Origen to conclude that Josephus didn’t think Jesus was the Christ?  

It would be a bit odd for Origen to claim that Josephus ” did not believe in Jesus as Christ” if his copy contained no mention of Jesus. It is more likely that there was a piece of prose making it clear that the belief in Jesus as Christ belonged to his adherents only.  This is the implication of the Agapius version of TF, which has the clause “They reported” .

The most likely solution to TF is that Josephus wrote a brief commentary on Jesus, based on a Christian source, while distancing himself from it’s messianic dogma. Later on , this passage was tampered with, so that it came to contradict Origen’s statement.

TF, as it stands today, is internally inconsistent, showing that it is the product of at least two hands, either by Josephus and Christian copyists, or by several independent Christians copyists. The former is the most likely.

Stephen said
I don’t know why Mythicists are so obsessed with Josephus.  So desperate to undermine him as a historical source.  Even if the references to Jesus are partial interpolations (my own opinion) that doesn’t prove anything.  Just that J was aware of the claims of the Jesus movement and that the movement existed.  And we knew that already!  And if the passage is a total interpolation it doesn’t prove that Jesus didn’t exist.  The real reason to believe there was a historical Jesus lies elsewhere.

A thought about Philo and his lack of a reference to Jesus (which Mythicists also go on and on about):  Maybe he did refer to Jesus and it was a negative comment or even an outright attack on the Jesus movement.  And subsequent believers suppressed it.  I mean after all if you believe someone can add to Josephus then there’s nothing fantastic about someone censoring Philo.  But the truth is, as Prof Ehrman and others have pointed out, we have to deal with the sources we have not the ones we wish we had.  All we can say is we have no reference to Jesus in Philo and we do in Josephus.  And go from there.     

The reason Mythicists want to undermine Josephus is likely that they want to undermine the idea of a late first century Christian literature like the canonical gospels. Many of them would like to see the gospels to be inventions of the first half of the second century. If TF is authentic in its core, it would strongly support the traditional dating of the gospels.

john76 said

gavriel said

It would be a bit odd for Origen to claim that Josephus ” did not believe in Jesus as Christ” if his copy contained no mention of Jesus. It is more likely that there was a piece of prose making it clear that the belief in Jesus as Christ belonged to his adherents only.  This is the implication of the Agapius version of TF, which has the clause “They reported” .

The most likely solution to TF is that Josephus wrote a brief commentary on Jesus, based on a Christian source, while distancing himself from it’s messianic dogma. Later on , this passage was tampered with, so that it came to contradict Origen’s statement.

TF, as it stands today, is internally inconsistent, showing that it is the product of at least two hands, either by Josephus and Christian copyists, or by several independent Christians copyists. The former is the most likely.  

Regarding whether Origen had a reference to Jesus in his copy of Josephus’ text, Carrier says:

No. Origen doesn’t say Josephus said he didn’t believe Jesus was the Christ. Origen only said he didn’t. Which is an inference, not a citation: Origen is just saying in a prolix way that Josephus wasn’t a Christian. When Origen is reporting what Josephus said, he says he’s stating something he said. (Even when he’s wrong and mistaking something someone else said for something Josephus said.)

So that actually rules out any reference to Jesus in Josephus known to Origen. Origen was tasked by Celsus with finding anything in Josephus that corroborated anything in the Gospels. All Origen could find was a reference to John the Baptist, and a reference to James (which he then confused with the account in Hegesippus). If there had been any reference to Jesus, Origen would have quoted it or cited it. Especially if it was negative. Because Origen is standing on the authority of Josephus; the reason why his being not a Christian made him a valuable source to Origen rhetorically. If Josephus said anything negative, Celsus (or any critic ever, who is reading what Origen is writing) would be able to cite that back at him and turn Origen’s own source against him; so Origen would need to include a preemptive apologetic against any negative thing Josephus said. That’s how ancient rhetoric operated. That Origen never does that, shows there wasn’t even a negative statement against Christians in Josephus that Origen’s critics could ounce on and that Origen then would have to apologize for or run damage control on.  

For Origen to conclude “But he himself, though not believing in Jesus as Christ,…” there would have to be something in those writings of Josephus that were available to Origen , that made him think so. The mere absence of any mention of Jesus would not do.