Origen is used to show the Testimonium Flavianum did not exist before 250 A.D.
Theodoric keeps blowing the Testimonium Flavianum (Josephus Ant. Book 18) flute.
He has really been performing a clever "bait and switch", because he keeps making comments like this, to "prove" that the Book 20 reference to "brother of Jesus called Christ" was forged.
As for Josephus you are less than honest in your comments. IN the Testimonium he is reputed to say.
He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ.
Not something an observant Jew would say. But more importantly it does not matter. This is not evidence of Jesus. It is evidence that people believed in him. No corroboration. Find corroboration.
Theodoric is not only a one note flute, but it always is with a bait and switch.
He follows this pattern.
Ask for first-century documents mentioning Christians and Biblical characters.
Wait for somebody to present them, which they will
Change the subject (such as Josephus Ant. Book 20) to another (Book 18).
Claim that one bit of evidence for later Christian tampering causes ALL other evidence to be thrown out.
(Did I miss anything?)
Now, what about Theodoric's law code?
This legal technicality argument is getting old.
(What law code are you applying anyway)
You push him long enough, and he responds:
As for Josephus, you miss my point completely. The one Jesus reference puts the other into doubt.
I think we all get your point.
But you can only really say the Testimonium Flavianum (Josephus Ant. Book 18 reference to Jesus: "He was the Christ") is likely a POST 250 CHRISTIAN INSERTION because Origen did not mention it, and the absence of mention by Origen is all the more impressive because he positively comments on Josephus' lack of belief in Jesus as Messiah. The evidence does seem to indicate that the TF is an insertion from around 300 A.D.
But Origin did say that Josephus mentioned the "brother of Jesus, called Christ" and he specifically described a murder. Origin even attempted to interpret Josephus' comments as somehow supportive of the idea that the killing of James caused the Temple to be destroyed.
Yet there were no textual changes, to Jospehus' Antiquities, that worked that powerful Christian idea (clearly held from the mid-second century Hegesippus through Origen in the first half of the third century and INTO THE FORTH) into the Josephus text.
The BOOK 20 (not the Book 18 TF!) text has no evidence of changes to fit Christian theological views of the history of the destruction of the Temple.
Origen lived from 184-253.
During Origens time:
The "brother of Jesus called Christ" in Book 20 was in Josephus' text, it seems.
The "He was the Christ" in Book 18 (Testimonium Flavianum) was not.
Theodoric says, "The one Jesus reference puts the other into doubt".
I can't prove that there were no changes, to Book 20, before 200 A.D. But it seems that there were no changes after 200. Changes (major ones too) to Book 18, around 300, only prove that Book 18 was changed.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|This message is a reply to:|
| ||Message 114 by Theodoric, posted 02-17-2019 8:48 PM|| ||Theodoric has not yet responded|