Editing Josephus on Jesus (section)

==== Origen's complaint about Josephus referencing Jesus ====
[[Lester L. Grabbe]] notes that in two works (''Commentary on Matthew'' 10.17 and ''Contra Celsum'' 1.47; see {{section link||Early references}}) Origen had actually complained that Josephus had mentioned Jesus, while not recognizing Jesus as the messiah, and this provided an early independent support of the partial ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' in a more neutral form.<ref>{{cite book |author1=Lester Grabbe |editor1-last=Verenna |editor1-first=Thomas S. |editor2-last=Thompson |editor2-first=Thomas L. |title="Is This Not The Carpenter?": The Question of The Historicity of the Figure of Jesus |date=2013 |isbn=978-1-84465-729-2 |pages=61–67 |chapter=3. Jesus Who is Called the Christ: References to Jesus Outside Christian Sources |publisher=Acumen Publishing Limited}}</ref> Zvi Baras argues from this that Origen had seen a version of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' that included no interpolations.{{sfn|Baras|1987|pp=340–341}} Baras asserts that a ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' seen by Origen must have had a neutral tone, and included no derogatory references towards Christians, and hence required no reaction from Origen.{{sfn|Baras|1987|pp=340–341}} He claims that the neutral tone of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'' was then modified between the time of Origen and Eusebius.{{sfn|Baras|1987|pp=340–341}} John P. Meier similarly argues that the fact that Origen complains that Josephus had not recognized Jesus as the Messiah points to the fact that Origen had read the original version of the ''{{lang|la|Testimonium}}'', since such a clear statement could not have simply arisen from the "James, brother of Jesus" passage.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Meier |first=John P. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=zODYAAAAMAAJ |title=A Marginal Jew: The roots of the problem and the person |date=1991 |publisher=Doubleday |isbn=978-0-385-26425-9 |language=en}}</ref>