Origen and Josephus

Topher
Topher's picture
Posts: 513
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
Origen and Josephus

 Here's two citation of Josephus by Origen:

 

Quote:
"Flavius Josephus, who wrote the "Antiquities of the Jews" in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. 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." (On The Gospel Of Matthew, 1:15)

 

Quote:
"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" (Origen, Against Celsus, 1:47)

 

Notice he mentions "Jesus as the Christ," suggesting Josephus did believe in a Jesus, just not "as the Christ."

 

Is there anything to this?

"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Been dealt

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


bob lackey (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
josephus on jesus

Nothing concerning the subject "did Josephus mention Jesus as his execution by Pilate" can be absolutely certain. But after swapping Email with Louis Feldman, PhD a Jewish expert on Josephus and Dr. Feldman introducing me to the work of Josephus expert Alice Whealey, PhD and her book "Josephus on Jesus" published in 2004 and my recent  phone interview with her and with my serious study of the website www.josephus.org by Dr. Gary Goldberg and my swapping Email with him, I'm convinced the most likely position is the most popular position with experts today. And that is JOSEPHUS DID WRITE THE "TF" but later it suffered a minor interpolation by some Christian scribe which is why what we read today flows as a Christian confessional that would be odd for a Jew to write. Unless you hold to the Joseph Atwill position that Josephus did indeed write the TF just as it reads today but Josephus was part of the Roman conspiracy to invent Christianity and Jesus and Jesus never existed even as a human being who had a small following in Jerusalem which was NOT expecting him to be crucified which is the liberal/critical view held by Christian origin experts such as atheist Burton L. Mack author of  "Who Wrote the New Testament, the Making of the Christian Myth".

So to me, the mystery is most likely solved and that is Josephus DID write the TF and one can dig deep into the proof by going to www.josephus.org  Dr. Goldberg will answer Email (he did mine) but he is really dug in with his position so you may find him unable to take seriously opposing views.