JW:
The best bad arguments so far:
1) The Argument From Silence
2) The Argument From Context
The next best bad argument is The Argument From the Origen/Eusebius (mis)Connection:
It's generally agreed that the TF is not what Josephus wrote so the question is how to get from whatever Josephus originally wrote to the TF. The combination of Age and lack of Credibility of Christianity means that in absolute terms no conclusion can be proven or even demonstrated to be likely. We are reduced to relative conclusions. Which conclusion is most likely
compared to other conclusions. In this situation the "unclear" conclusion is usually a good candidate.
Even though I have never seen anyone else even mention this I think what follows is the best bad explanation (guess):
Eusebius' take on Origen's related commentary, parallels in [Red]:
Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book X)
Now looking at the TF:17. The Brethren of Jesus.
And the saying, " Whence has this man this wisdom[1]," Matthew 13:54 indicates clearly that there was a great and surpassing wisdom in the words of Jesus worthy of the saying, "lo, a greater than Solomon is here." Matthew 12:42 And He was wont to do greater miracles[3] than those wrought through Elijah and Elisha, and at a still earlier date through Moses and Joshua the son of Nun.[7] And they spoke, wondering, (not knowing that He was the son of a virgin, or not believing it even if it was told to them, but supposing that He was the son of Joseph the carpenter,) "is not this the carpenter's son?" Matthew 13:55 And depreciating the whole of what appeared to be His nearest kindred, they said, "Is not His mother called Mary? And His brethren, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us?" Matthew 13:55-56 They thought, then, that He was the son of Joseph and Mary. But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or "The Book of James," that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honour of Mary in virginity to the end, so that that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word which said, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon you, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow you," Luke 1:35 might not know intercourse with a man after that the Holy Ghost came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first-fruit among men of the purity which consists in chastity, and Mary among women; for it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first-fruit of virginity. And James is he whom Paul says in the Epistle to the Galatians that he saw, "But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." Galatians 1:19 And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that 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,[5] 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. And Jude, who wrote a letter of few lines, it is true, but filled with the healthful words of heavenly grace, said in the preface, "Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ and the brother of James." Jude 1 With regard to Joseph and Simon we have nothing to tell; but the saying, "And His sisters are they not all with us," Matthew 13:56 seems to me to signify something of this nature— they mind our things, not those of Jesus, and have no unusual portion of surpassing wisdom as Jesus has. And perhaps by these things is indicated a new doubt concerning Him, that Jesus was not a man[2] but something diviner, inasmuch as He was, as they supposed, the son of Joseph and Mary, and the brother of four, and of the others— the women— as well, and yet had nothing like to any one of His kindred, and had not from education and teaching come to such a height of wisdom and power. For they also say elsewhere, "How knows this man letters having never learned?[4]" John 7:15 which is similar to what is here said. Only, though they say these things and are so perplexed and astonished, they did not believe, but were offended in Him; as if they had been mastered in the eyes of their mind by the powers which, in the time of the passion, He was about to lead in triumph on the cross.[6]
Testimonium Flavianum
- 3.3 Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man[1],
if it be lawful to call him a man;[2]
for he was a doer of wonderful works,[3]
a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure.[4]
He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles.
He was [the] Christ.[5]
And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day;[6]
as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.[7]
And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
Eusebius takes literary license to assume that there is an implication that per Origen Josephus wrote directly about Jesus and that Origen's surrounding information was fair game as to what to include. This also helps explain why Jerome has "thought to be" instead of "was" the Christ. Original Eusebius also had "thought to be" because that was the implication from Origen.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,[5] he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James
Another possibility is that there were comments in the margin of Origen's copy of Josephus either put there by Origen or someone in between that Eusebius inherited from Origen at Caesarea and Eusebius added them into the text. For those who need points sharply explained, the best literary clue before Eusebius' TF is Origen and physically Origen/Eusebius were at the exact same scene of the crime.
Add to this Origen's related comment in Contra Celsus 1.47:
JW:For in the eighteenth volume of the Judaic Antiquities Josephus testifies to John as having been a baptist and promised cleansing to those who were baptized. [F] But he himself, though not believing in Jesus as Christ, [D] in seeking the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, [G1] whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these things happening to the people, since they killed the prophecied Christ, [E1] even says, being unwillingly not far from the truth, that these things befell the Jews as vengeance for James the just, who was a brother of Jesus who is called Christ, [B1] since they killed him who was most just. [A] Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he saw this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood or of their common upbringing as on account of his ethics and speech. [E2] If, therefore, he says that the things surrounding the desolation of Jerusalem befell the Jews on account of James, [G2] how is it not more reasonable to say that it happened on account of Jesus the Christ?
Note the conclusions by Origen:
- 1) Josephus should have said "Jesus" instead of "James."
2) It's more reasonable to have said "Jesus" than "James".
- 1) During transmission someone interprets 1) and 2) to possibly mean that the TF is what Josephus originally meant.
Verses (at the other end)
2) Eusebius understands exactly what Origen and Josephus meant but edits it to the TF because Josephus is not Scripture and Eusebius prefers having and giving what he thinks Josephus should have written rather than what he thinks Josephus wrote.
Josephus
- Flounder: Do you think that's gonna work?
Otter: Hey, it's gotta work better than the truth.