Editing Josephus on Jesus (section)

==== Origen's references to Josephus ====
According to Wataru Mizugaki, the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' passage that [[Origen]] had seen in the third century was likely to have been neutral or skeptical on Jesus without Christian interpolation and this may have looked unsatisfactory to a Christian editor.{{sfn|Mizugaki|1987|pp=340–341}} Origen's statement in his ''Commentary on Matthew'' ([[Wikisource:Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IX/Origen on Matthew/Origen's Commentary on Matthew/Book X/Chapter 17|Book X, Chapter 17]]) that Josephus "did not accept Jesus as Christ", is usually seen as a confirmation of the generally accepted fact that Josephus did not believe Jesus to be the Messiah.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|p=97}}<ref>''Jesus in his Jewish context'' by Géza Vermès 2003 {{ISBN|0-334-02915-5}} pp. 91-92</ref> This forms a key external argument against the total authenticity of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' in that Josephus, as a Jew, would not have claimed Jesus as the Messiah, and the reference to "he was the Christ" in the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' must be a Christian interpolation.{{sfn|Maier|2007|pp=336–337}} Based on this observation alone, [[Paul L. Maier]] calls the case for the total authenticity of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' "hopeless".{{sfn|Maier|2007|pp=336–337}} Almost all modern scholars reject the total authenticity of the ''Testimonium'', while the majority of scholars still hold that it includes an authentic kernel.{{sfn|Maier|2007|pp=336–337}}{{sfn|Van Voorst|2003|pp=509–511}}