Origen 2, Scholars 0. Origen as author of ''called Christ''

[Giuseppe]

My proof is analogous to say the following claim:

IF Origen had reported the words of Josephus ''called Christ'' without to infer no subtle ironical theological point behind that ''called Christ'', only then I would have believed that he was not the forger of ''called Christ'' in Josephus but he was only reading it innocently in Josephus.

I am assuming that the theological point of Origen is very subtle:

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.	Therefore Origen is already assuming, via ''Josephus'', that God punished Herod because he killed John.
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,	Josephus is not Christian because he didn't claim that the fall of Jerusalem was the effect of the death of the Christ: therefore Origen recognizes that if Josephus was Christian, then he would have talked about that link. Just as Pilate ''would, without any hesitation, have set Him at liberty if He had offered a defence'', according to Origen. The same Pilate who used the construct ''called Christ'' in a skeptical way.
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.	Josephus is ''not far from the truth'', just as Pilate in Matthew 27:17, when Pilate used the construct ''called Christ''. With these words, Origen is already clearly a liar.
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,	Origen was a true liar when he attributed to Josephus the inference ''death of James----->fall of Jerusalem''.
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.	So now it would be ''in accordance with reason'' to infer the causal link ''death of Christ--->Fall of Jerusalem''! Therefore now also Jesus is vindicated against his killers.

[Giuseppe]

Josephus is converted clearly by Origen in the role of an implicit ''witness of the truth'' about Jesus Christ, just as Pilate is an implicit witness of the truth when he used the expression ''called Christ'' in Matthew 27:17.

Both Pilate and Josephus were ''not far from truth'', according to Origen, because both they used the expression ''called Christ''.

Therefore Origen was not embarrassed at all from the mention of the causal link ''death of James--->fall of Jerusalem'' because it was him, Origen himself!, to introduce that link falsely in Josephus, by simply adding ''called Christ'' and making Josephus a second Pilate !!!

Therefore these scholars who say:

1) that Origen read elsewhere about the link ''death of James--->Fall of Jerusalem'' in a now lost source

2) that Origen believed that pseudo-Hegesippus was Josephus

3) that Origen was embarrassed by the presumed link James/Jerusalem found somewhere in Josephus or in Hegesippus

are simply WRONG!!!

[Bernard Muller]

to Giuseppe,

My proof is analogous to say the following claim:

IF Origen had reported the words of Josephus ''called Christ'' without to infer no subtle ironical theological point behind that ''called Christ'', only then I would have believed that he was not the forger of ''called Christ'' in Josephus but he was only reading it innocently in Josephus.

I am assuming that the theological point of Origen is very subtle:

Is that all what you have to justify your position? Your perception of very subtle ironical theological point.
Your evidence is getting microscopic.

Cordially, Bernard

[Giuseppe]

You seem imprisoned in a literalist reading of Matthew 27:17 . You seem unable of seeing behind the Pilate's mention of a "called Christ" an implicit recognizement of the messiahship of Jesus. As with Pilate, so with Josephus. If you don't see it, then you fall easily prey of the apology of Origen.

[Giuseppe]

And now I describe my argument to consider Origen as the probable forger of "called Christ":

1) in Matthew 27:17 "called Christ" gives a ironic point behind his mention by the Pagan Pilate: just a "so-called Christ" results to be THE Christ. A precedent is therefore introduced, for the Christian irony behind the (only apparent) use of the construct by a Pagan.

2) the probability that a not-Christian uses the costruct "called Christ" and at the same time gives to a Christian the possibility of seeing something of similar to the specific Christian irony of the point 1, has to be considered a priori a very low probability. An authentic miracle, so much it's improbable.

3) the fact that the same Christian

1) alludes to (an apparent) not-Christian use of the construct "called Christ"

AND

2) at the same time infers a theological point from the not-Christian use of that construct

...has to make virtually improbable the real not-Christian use of "called Christ".

3) the fact described in the point 2 is evident in the Origen's mention of the James passage in Josephus.

4) from the point 2 it follows that two alternative possibilities have to be preferred BY NEED:

A) Origen inserted deliberately "called Christ" in Ant. 20:200.

or

B) accidentally, before Origen, an innocent Christian scribe inserted "called Christ" in Ant. 20:200.

The possibility B is excluded because it requires the improbable coincidence that a late Christian (Origen) finds already in Josephus the accidental glossa "called Christ" that serves PERFECTLY to infer his ironical theological point (à la Matthew 27:17). It is like to a win on lottery. It is like to imagine that Origen found in Josephus ***precisely*** what served to his apology against Celsus.


5) therefore, the more probable explanation is that the same Christian interpolated deliberately "called Christ" in Antiquities 20:200 and alluded to it to infer the implicit irony of a theological point.

That Christian is Origen. ▭

[Giuseppe]

Another indication of the fact that Origen was reading his same interpolation ''called Christ'' in Antiquities 20:200 and not on Hegesippus is that the latter says that the death of James happened immediately before the fall of Jerusalem.


Allen 2015 gives his reason to consider Origen as the principal suspected forger of both ''called Christ'' (James Passage) and the Baptist passage:

The fact that both the JP and the BP are mentioned in the same passage penned by Origen strengthens this possibility. It is simply too much of a coincidence that in one paragraph this apologist manages to point to two supporting pieces of evidence, written by the same author, to so conveniently substantiate so many aspects of his debate with Celsus. The fact that both of these substantiations have independently been recognised as suspicious in nature and candidates for total interpolation, based on other evidence, is also enthralling. The obvious conclusion that must be made here is that Origen is the prime candidate for two of the interpolations under review.

(p. 361)

1) it is a coincidence that the Baptist Passage in Josephus serves to Origen's apology against Celsus to infer the link: ''death of John---->defeat of Herod''.

2) it is a coincidence that the construct ''called Christ'' in Ant.20:200 serves to Origen's apology to infer the link ''death of James--->fall of Jerusalem'' and even the link ''death of Christ--->fall of Jerusalem'' and even to allude to a not-Christian Josephus as ''not far from truth'' (just as Pilate in Matthew 27:17).

3) it is a coincidence that the James Passage and the Baptist Passage are mentioned in the same passage penned by Origen, in his apology against Celsus.

4) it is a coincidence that the James Passage (''called Christ'') and the Baptist Passage were written by the same author, Josephus.

5) it is a coincidence that Origen sees the theological irony of ''called Christ'' in Matthew 27:17 (basically the same irony behind the reading of the James Passage made by Origen).

CONCLUSION: to have as true at the same time all the coincidences listed above is too much impossible to be a coincidence, therefore it is NOT a coincidence.

The more simple explanation is that Origen did interpolate both ''called Christ'' in Antiquities 20:200 and the Baptist Passage.

[Giuseppe]

Allen sees precisely what I had already seen independently from him:

Thirdly, given the scenario already previously described, there was absolutely no need
for a Christian interpolator to refer to James as the “brother of our Lord” when it was
already known and accepted that Josephus was not a Christian. Such wording would
have cast great suspicion on its authenticity – ironically the very reason why some
conservative Christian scholars would consider it to be authentic! In addition, even by
only referring to “Jesus who was called Christ” the Christian interpolator manages to
draw his reader’s attention to at least consider the following possibilities, s.c.:
1. Jesus was really an historical figure with a written record other than the gospel
accounts;
2. Jesus was already recorded by a neutral witness to be the “Christ” in the late
first century C.E., thus proving his divinity;
3. Josephus does not need not be a practising Christian to tell us that Jesus was
called the “Christ” (This position would have well suited the specific needs of the
ante-Nicene Christian apologists); and
4. The interpolation is not too long or over-embellished to arouse any suspicion of
it being inserted by another hand.

(my bold, p.311)

There are not more doubts that the my personal reasons to consider the construct "called Christ" as interpolated probably by Origen coincide entirely with the Allen's reasons to do so.

Allen - Carrier: 1 - 0

[Giuseppe]

Another clue of Origen's forgery of the construct ''called Christ'' in Antiquities 20:200.

Origen quotes Paul just after the mention of the James found in Josephus, to remove the idea that his James of Gal 1:19 was not a carnal brother of Jesus:

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,

Why did Origen feel the need of pointing out the fact that for Paul James was a brother of Jesus more ''because of his virtue and doctrine'' than for more material reasons? Because Origen is applying on that James the same irony applied on the James of Josephus:

1) James of Gal 1:19 is apparently the carnal brother of Jesus but really he was brother more in a spiritual sense
2) the death of James is apparently the cause of the Fall of Jerusalem but really the true spiritual cause of the Fall of Jerusalem is (more) the death of Jesus Christ
3) Josephus was apparently not a believer in Christ but implicitly he was ''not far from truth'' when he mentioned (à la Pilate) the one ''called Christ''.

[Giuseppe]

The evidence above shows that for Origen's anti-Celsus apology it was really convenient to have as (very useful) starting point in ''Josephus'' the official acknowledgment of the following apparently ''brute'' facts used by Origen as ''trampoline'' to claim his more spiritual points:

-James is brother of Jesus called Christ.
-The fall of Jerusalem follows chronologically the death of the James of Antiquities 20:200.

[Giuseppe]

This strategy by Origen (to use the apparently ''brute'' fact to emphasize a higher spiritual fact) also explains why he quoted the his same forgery in Antiquities 20:200 not in a totally identical sequence of words:

1. COM, X, 17 / 5268: “James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ”;
2. Cels, I, 47: “James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus called Christ”; and
3. Cels, II, 13: “James the Just, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ”.

versus:

“the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James”

Origen's emphasis is more on James, as involuntary witness of the implicit messiahship of Jesus, than on Jesus himself (that in Josephus is mentioned before because he serves to surprise the reader about his identity, revealed after some line when Jesus ben Damneus is introduced as new high priest).