Did Jesus exist?

[Vampiel]

I've recently watched the movie "The God Who Wasn't There"

They made the case that Jesus never actually existed as a man on Earth, and it was pretty convincing.

So my question is, what evidence is there that Jesus actually existed?

Note : I would like to frame this into two different arguments :

One being quotes from the bible.

The second being evidence outside of the bible.

The reason for this is because even quotes from the bible may contradict itself, so I am interested in both sides of the debate.

In other words, quotes from the bible are not "off limits" in the debate, although it would give more credence if the evidence existed outside of that.

If anyone has watched the movie, they actually use the bible's own words that Jesus wasn't even a prophet on Earth, but rather a simple part of the "legendary hero" that many people want to exist that becomes legends such as Hurclules, in other words, just a tale that people say to each other that changes after each person. Rather "an idea" -- that get's spread and resonates with us.

[JehovahsWitness]

My point was that CHRISTIANITY was a Judean first century phenonemon and drew attention the logistics of this fact.

TACITUS (c.112CE)
Tacitus accepts the recent advent of Christianity, which was against Roman practice

Your quote SUPPORTS this fact, as even if Christianity achieved the level of notoriety he suggests by 112 this STILL places its origins and promulgation well within the first century.

[Composer]

My point was that CHRISTIANITY was a Judean first century phenonemon and drew attention the logistics of this fact.

TACITUS (c.112CE)
Tacitus accepts the recent advent of Christianity, which was against Roman practice

Your quote SUPPORTS this fact, as even if Christianity achieved the level of notoriety he suggests by 112 this STILL places its origins and promulgation well within the first century.

At first you claimed my Post didn't address the Topic you raised, but now you have egg on your face you quietly recant that and contradict yourself now, spuriously claiming my quote was pertinent with regard to your reference to the Historian Tacitus allegedly supporting a literal historical jesus, which it does not! Nor do the Historians, Pliny, nor Josephus, nor Suetonius.

Like those of the Jewish writer Josephus, the works of the ancient historians Pliny, Suetonius and Tacitus do not provide proof that Jesus Christ ever existed as a "historical" character. . . . . . . . .

Regarding Christian desperation for evidence of the existence of Christ, Dupuis comments that true believers are "reduced to look, nearly a hundred years after, for a passage in Tacitus" that does not even provide information other than "the etymology of the word Christian," . . . . . . . .

. . . . to have the authenticity of the mighty Christian religion rest upon this Pagan author's scanty and likely forged comment is preposterous. Even if the passage in Tacitus were genuine, it would be too late and is not from an eyewitness, such that it is valueless in establishing an "historical" Jesus, representing merely a recital of decades-old Christian tradition. ((Source: http://www.truthbeknown.com/pliny.htm))

Much much much much much much much much better luck next times!

[Confused]

My point was that CHRISTIANITY was a Judean first century phenonemon and drew attention the logistics of this fact.

TACITUS (c.112CE)
Tacitus accepts the recent advent of Christianity, which was against Roman practice

Your quote SUPPORTS this fact, as even if Christianity achieved the level of notoriety he suggests by 112 this STILL places its origins and promulgation well within the first century.

At first you claimed my Post didn't address the Topic you raised, but now you have egg on your face you quietly recant that and contradict yourself now, spuriously claiming my quote was pertinent with regard to your reference to the Historian Tacitus allegedly supporting a literal historical jesus, which it does not! Nor do the Historians, Pliny, nor Josephus, nor Suetonius.

Like those of the Jewish writer Josephus, the works of the ancient historians Pliny, Suetonius and Tacitus do not provide proof that Jesus Christ ever existed as a "historical" character. . . . . . . . .

Regarding Christian desperation for evidence of the existence of Christ, Dupuis comments that true believers are "reduced to look, nearly a hundred years after, for a passage in Tacitus" that does not even provide information other than "the etymology of the word Christian," . . . . . . . .

. . . . to have the authenticity of the mighty Christian religion rest upon this Pagan author's scanty and likely forged comment is preposterous. Even if the passage in Tacitus were genuine, it would be too late and is not from an eyewitness, such that it is valueless in establishing an "historical" Jesus, representing merely a recital of decades-old Christian tradition. ((Source: http://www.truthbeknown.com/pliny.htm))

Much much much much much much much much better luck next times!

Moderator Intervention
The words highlighted are considered uncivil. Could you please use vocabulary that promotes respect while still getting your message across in the future?
Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.

[Mithrae]

Regarding Christian desperation for evidence of the existence of Christ, Dupuis comments that true believers are "reduced to look, nearly a hundred years after, for a passage in Tacitus" that does not even provide information other than "the etymology of the word Christian," . . . . . . . .

. . . . to have the authenticity of the mighty Christian religion rest upon this Pagan author's scanty and likely forged comment is preposterous. Even if the passage in Tacitus were genuine, it would be too late and is not from an eyewitness, such that it is valueless in establishing an "historical" Jesus, representing merely a recital of decades-old Christian tradition. ((Source: http://www.truthbeknown.com/pliny.htm))

For the benefit of any readers who may not be familiar with the full chain of reasoning here, it is as follows:

Premise 1: All material which the religious sect writes about its own origins is essentially spurious by definition. Witness Composer's frequent references to "Story book land" or D.thomas' comment that "We are dealing with religion and its religious texts, not facts about anything, it's only purpose is belief..."

Premise 2: The gospel stories are to be considered literal and unembellished to the extent that we expect many references to a vastly-popular miracle-worker from Jew and Gentile alike, rather than scant references to a wandering Jewish teacher. Historians finding only a few references to Jesus from folk who didn't end up believing in him is therefore put forward as a valid argument from silence; and is translated into "Christian desperation for evidence of the existence of Christ" rather than a consequence of sceptics' dubious premises.

Premise 3: For every reference to Christ, we must propose the 'possibility' that it's an interpolation; we must emphasise eyewitness status or lack thereof; and we must assume a Christian source for the information unless proven otherwise. All three of these can be seen in play for the Tacitus passage, despite no evidence it's an interpolation, no evidence that he was relying on information from a sect he despised, and the fact that history is overwhelmingly not based on eyewitness accounts. The True Sceptic doesn't need to provide evidence of course, or even to actually make a claim; as above, it's suggested as 'possibly' or even 'likely' a forgery, but "even if it were genuine..." Similarly, despite no evidence suggesting it, Josephus' reference to the brother of Jesus is frequently ignored or dismissed as unreliable due to the 'possibility' of interpolation.

(Incidentally, if you want a bit of a LOL and a caution about the use of Wikipedia, in that James brother of Jesus section imagine that paragraph beneath the quote minus the final sentence. Whoever wrote it appears to have got confused with the account of James' death by Hegesippus, who does associate Jerusalem's destruction as divine punishment for it. This helps to illustrate that sceptical thinking at times is not necessarily the same as critical thinking, I reckon. I added the final sentence a while back; not sure whether I should've mentioned the Hegesippus connection also.)


Anyways, in fairness one must acknowledge that given the validity of these premises, there does indeed appear to be no reliable evidence for the existence of Jesus. And since a lot of Sceptics aren't particularly sceptical towards that line of reasoning, that level of debate and earnest intellectual inquiry does tend to crop up over and over again. Personally I prefer discussions with ThatGirl and others about how best to understand Christian accounts of their origins and what we might infer from that, but it takes all sorts I guess



Edit:

The T.F. was not mentioned by Origen when he reviewed Josephus - Origen even says Josephus does NOT call Jesus the Messiah, showing the passage was not present in that earlier era.

Should probably comment on this, since it relates to the brother of Jesus passage somewhat also. Origen conspicuously doesn't mention the TF and says that Josephus did not believe in Jesus as Christ, which does indeed suggest the TF is an interpolation. But I've not seen where Origin says that Josephus never uses the term Christ.

On the contrary, he references the James brother of Jesus passage from Josephus three times in two different works (though I've found only two of them):

• Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done...
  ~ Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 (link)
  
  
  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.
  ~ Origen, Commentary on Matthew 10.17 (link)
  
  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. 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, 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)...
  ~ Origen, Against Celsus 1.47 (link)

[d.thomas]

Regarding Christian desperation for evidence of the existence of Christ, Dupuis comments that true believers are "reduced to look, nearly a hundred years after, for a passage in Tacitus" that does not even provide information other than "the etymology of the word Christian," . . . . . . . .

. . . . to have the authenticity of the mighty Christian religion rest upon this Pagan author's scanty and likely forged comment is preposterous. Even if the passage in Tacitus were genuine, it would be too late and is not from an eyewitness, such that it is valueless in establishing an "historical" Jesus, representing merely a recital of decades-old Christian tradition. ((Source: http://www.truthbeknown.com/pliny.htm))

For the benefit of any readers who may not be familiar with the full chain of reasoning here, it is as follows:

Premise 1: All material which the religious sect writes about its own origins is essentially spurious by definition. Witness Composer's frequent references to "Story book land" or D.thomas' comment that "We are dealing with religion and its religious texts, not facts about anything, it's only purpose is belief..."

To clarify, the gospels appear to be concerned with formulating a theology rather than presenting a record of actual events, or facts about the past as if to record history.

[d.thomas]

sorry, double post

[d.thomas]

Mithrae wrote:

On the contrary, he references the James brother of Jesus passage from Josephus three times in two different works (though I've found only two of them):

All three citations in Origen appear in the context of an unknown passage of Josephus. In all three citations Origen relates that the death of "James the Just the brother of Jesus called Christ" (note the change in nomenclature) is the cause of the fall of Jerusalem.


The Origen passages in question:

Commentary on Matthew 10:17 – “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 called Christ [ton adelphon Iēsou tou legomenou Christou]. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, 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.�

Contra Celsum I, 47: “Now this writer [Josephus], although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple…says…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 [adelphos Iēsou tou legomenou Christou], the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice.�

Contra Celsum II, 13: “…Vespasian, whose son Titus destroyed Jerusalem, on account, as Josephus says, of James the Just, the brother of Jesus called Christ [ton adelphon Iēsou tou legomenou Christou]…�





All three citations in Origen appear in the context of an unknown passage of Josephus.

Origen is wrong about Josephus, and judging by the information he gives, he probably had him confused with Hegesippus.

[JehovahsWitness]

My point was that CHRISTIANITY was a Judean first century phenonemon and drew attention the logistics of this fact.

TACITUS (c.112CE)
Tacitus accepts the recent advent of Christianity, which was against Roman practice

Your quote SUPPORTS this fact, as even if Christianity achieved the level of notoriety he suggests by 112 this STILL places its origins and promulgation well within the first century.

[...] yourself now, spuriously claiming my quote was pertinent with regard to your reference to the Historian Tacitus allegedly supporting a literal historical jesus, which it does not!

My point was NOT ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS- my point was about the EXISTENCE of first century CHRISITANITY*.

My point is based on the premise of a FICTIONAL JESUS and the practical problems this presuppostion presents if, as the evidence suggest CHRISTIANITY existed in FIRST CENTURY Judea.

* Please excuse the CAPS but this is the third time I have posted and would be interested in ANYONE addressing this point.

[Mithrae]

Regarding Christian desperation for evidence of the existence of Christ, Dupuis comments that true believers are "reduced to look, nearly a hundred years after, for a passage in Tacitus" that does not even provide information other than "the etymology of the word Christian," . . . . . . . .

. . . . to have the authenticity of the mighty Christian religion rest upon this Pagan author's scanty and likely forged comment is preposterous. Even if the passage in Tacitus were genuine, it would be too late and is not from an eyewitness, such that it is valueless in establishing an "historical" Jesus, representing merely a recital of decades-old Christian tradition. ((Source: http://www.truthbeknown.com/pliny.htm))

For the benefit of any readers who may not be familiar with the full chain of reasoning here, it is as follows:

Premise 1: All material which the religious sect writes about its own origins is essentially spurious by definition. Witness Composer's frequent references to "Story book land" or D.thomas' comment that "We are dealing with religion and its religious texts, not facts about anything, it's only purpose is belief..."

To clarify, the gospels appear to be concerned with formulating a theology rather than presenting a record of actual events, or facts about the past as if to record history.

Thanks for the clarification. It's worth noting that the works of Josephus and (I've heard) numerous or even most other ancient historians also were written with no small amount of agenda involved. The question is how much of the content is driven or distorted by agenda, and how much is actually or at least based on factual history? The gospel of John is obviously primarily theological in nature, which isn't to say that it doesn't contain some historical information (eg. John 2:20). The Acts of the Apostles obviously has an agenda, and a very narrow scope on Paul's work in the latter half, but it wouldn't be unreasonable to conclude that its purpose was at least broadly historical in nature. The Synoptic gospels lie somewhere in between those examples. Each of them, particularly Matthew and Luke, has themes to share even beyond 'Jesus is Christ' - but all of them require that Jesus is Christ, not that some mythical figure represents such-and-such concepts.

I was gonna mention either your comment or JoeyK's "religious promotional material," and yours was the broader and less accurate generalisation. I do recognise that most folk don't hold views as extreme as those advocated by Composer - it's not like I'm a bible-thumpin' fundy or even a Christian - but I also recognise that thoughts are shaped by words and repetition (or familiarity). So naturally I object to the extreme imprecision which Composer seems to advocate, and whether more common or less so it similarly seems prudent to comment on lesser imprecision such as your own above.

Mithrae wrote:

On the contrary, he references the James brother of Jesus passage from Josephus three times in two different works (though I've found only two of them):

All three citations in Origen appear in the context of an unknown passage of Josephus. In all three citations Origen relates that the death of "James the Just the brother of Jesus called Christ" (note the change in nomenclature) is the cause of the fall of Jerusalem.

The Origen passages in question:

Commentary on Matthew 10:17 – “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 called Christ [ton adelphon Iēsou tou legomenou Christou]. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, 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.�

Contra Celsum I, 47: “Now this writer [Josephus], although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple…says…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 [adelphos Iēsou tou legomenou Christou], the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice.�

Contra Celsum II, 13: “…Vespasian, whose son Titus destroyed Jerusalem, on account, as Josephus says, of James the Just, the brother of Jesus called Christ [ton adelphon Iēsou tou legomenou Christou]…�

All three citations in Origen appear in the context of an unknown passage of Josephus.

Origen is wrong about Josephus, and judging by the information he gives, he probably had him confused with Hegesippus.

Thanks for that third reference - I was referring back to an old discussion, though I'm not sure why I didn't find it back then. Laziness, I suspect.

I note that while Origen calls him 'James the Just' in Against Celsus in his Commentary on Matthew he does not, so your comment on nomenclature is dubious. The idea that Jerusalem's destruction was a result of the killing of James no doubt does come from Hegesippus. But as I pointed out earlier, it seems that such a mistake can be made even while editting a Wikipedia article about Josephus' reference to James - though of course I have no proof that it wasn't I who inserted the questionable paragraph in preparation for this debate Hegesippus' notion is, as it were, a Jewish Christian form of poetic justice and an explanation for the horrible event, and as such it's somewhat memorable. Of course Origen takes a more mainstream or Gentile Christian view that it was the death of Jesus which was resulted in that 'judgement,' which perhaps means all the more reason for him to recall the contrast with Hegesippus' view.

But there are very significant points of Hegesippus' account which Origen does not mention, most notably that James was thrown down from the temple's pinnacle (reminiscent of Jesus' temptation) and that he was buried right there, by the temple. Far from confusing Hegesippus with Josephus, Origen appears to have simply recalled the single most memorable aspect of Hegesippus' account; he does not mention other noteworthy details, and indeed specifically says that the fellow did not believe in Jesus as Christ.

On the other hand the account of Hegesippus does not appear to use anything like the phrase "Jesus who is called Christ," unlike the passages in Origen and Josephus I highlighted above. In fact (though I'd prefer a source for it), your Greek transliterations of those Origen passages truly reinforce that despite some small confusion, when he said he was talking about Josephus' mention of the death of James "the brother of Jesus called Christ," he was indeed referring to Josephus:
Josephus, Antiquities 20.9.1 - ton adelphon Iesou tou legomenou Christou
Origen, Com. on Matthew 10.17 - ton adelphon IÄ“sou tou legomenou Christou
Origen, Contra Celsum 2.13 - ton adelphon IÄ“sou tou legomenou Christou

[Goat]

Regarding Christian desperation for evidence of the existence of Christ, Dupuis comments that true believers are "reduced to look, nearly a hundred years after, for a passage in Tacitus" that does not even provide information other than "the etymology of the word Christian," . . . . . . . .

. . . . to have the authenticity of the mighty Christian religion rest upon this Pagan author's scanty and likely forged comment is preposterous. Even if the passage in Tacitus were genuine, it would be too late and is not from an eyewitness, such that it is valueless in establishing an "historical" Jesus, representing merely a recital of decades-old Christian tradition. ((Source: http://www.truthbeknown.com/pliny.htm))

For the benefit of any readers who may not be familiar with the full chain of reasoning here, it is as follows:

Premise 1: All material which the religious sect writes about its own origins is essentially spurious by definition. Witness Composer's frequent references to "Story book land" or D.thomas' comment that "We are dealing with religion and its religious texts, not facts about anything, it's only purpose is belief..."

To clarify, the gospels appear to be concerned with formulating a theology rather than presenting a record of actual events, or facts about the past as if to record history.

Thanks for the clarification. It's worth noting that the works of Josephus and (I've heard) numerous or even most other ancient historians also were written with no small amount of agenda involved. The question is how much of the content is driven or distorted by agenda, and how much is actually or at least based on factual history? The gospel of John is obviously primarily theological in nature, which isn't to say that it doesn't contain some historical information (eg. John 2:20). The Acts of the Apostles obviously has an agenda, and a very narrow scope on Paul's work in the latter half, but it wouldn't be unreasonable to conclude that its purpose was at least broadly historical in nature. The Synoptic gospels lie somewhere in between those examples. Each of them, particularly Matthew and Luke, has themes to share even beyond 'Jesus is Christ' - but all of them require that Jesus is Christ, not that some mythical figure represents such-and-such concepts.

I was gonna mention either your comment or JoeyK's "religious promotional material," and yours was the broader and less accurate generalisation. I do recognise that most folk don't hold views as extreme as those advocated by Composer - it's not like I'm a bible-thumpin' fundy or even a Christian - but I also recognise that thoughts are shaped by words and repetition (or familiarity). So naturally I object to the extreme imprecision which Composer seems to advocate, and whether more common or less so it similarly seems prudent to comment on lesser imprecision such as your own above.

Mithrae wrote:

On the contrary, he references the James brother of Jesus passage from Josephus three times in two different works (though I've found only two of them):

All three citations in Origen appear in the context of an unknown passage of Josephus. In all three citations Origen relates that the death of "James the Just the brother of Jesus called Christ" (note the change in nomenclature) is the cause of the fall of Jerusalem.

The Origen passages in question:

Commentary on Matthew 10:17 – “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 called Christ [ton adelphon Iēsou tou legomenou Christou]. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, 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.�

Contra Celsum I, 47: “Now this writer [Josephus], although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple…says…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 [adelphos Iēsou tou legomenou Christou], the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice.�

Contra Celsum II, 13: “…Vespasian, whose son Titus destroyed Jerusalem, on account, as Josephus says, of James the Just, the brother of Jesus called Christ [ton adelphon Iēsou tou legomenou Christou]…�

All three citations in Origen appear in the context of an unknown passage of Josephus.

Origen is wrong about Josephus, and judging by the information he gives, he probably had him confused with Hegesippus.

Thanks for that third reference - I was referring back to an old discussion, though I'm not sure why I didn't find it back then. Laziness, I suspect.

I note that while Origen calls him 'James the Just' in Against Celsus in his Commentary on Matthew he does not, so your comment on nomenclature is dubious. The idea that Jerusalem's destruction was a result of the killing of James no doubt does come from Hegesippus. But as I pointed out earlier, it seems that such a mistake can be made even while editting a Wikipedia article about Josephus' reference to James - though of course I have no proof that it wasn't I who inserted the questionable paragraph in preparation for this debate Hegesippus' notion is, as it were, a Jewish Christian form of poetic justice and an explanation for the horrible event, and as such it's somewhat memorable. Of course Origen takes a more mainstream or Gentile Christian view that it was the death of Jesus which was resulted in that 'judgement,' which perhaps means all the more reason for him to recall the contrast with Hegesippus' view.

But there are very significant points of Hegesippus' account which Origen does not mention, most notably that James was thrown down from the temple's pinnacle (reminiscent of Jesus' temptation) and that he was buried right there, by the temple. Far from confusing Hegesippus with Josephus, Origen appears to have simply recalled the single most memorable aspect of Hegesippus' account; he does not mention other noteworthy details, and indeed specifically says that the fellow did not believe in Jesus as Christ.

On the other hand the account of Hegesippus does not appear to use anything like the phrase "Jesus who is called Christ," unlike the passages in Origen and Josephus I highlighted above. In fact (though I'd prefer a source for it), your Greek transliterations of those Origen passages truly reinforce that despite some small confusion, when he said he was talking about Josephus' mention of the death of James "the brother of Jesus called Christ," he was indeed referring to Josephus:
Josephus, Antiquities 20.9.1 - ton adelphon Iesou tou legomenou Christou
Origen, Com. on Matthew 10.17 - ton adelphon IÄ“sou tou legomenou Christou
Origen, Contra Celsum 2.13 - ton adelphon IÄ“sou tou legomenou Christou

Since the commentary from Origen does not appear to reference antiquites 20.9.i , yet the phrase is the same, perhaps the commentary from Origen was a copiers gloss into Antiquities.

After all, the phrase is the same as found in a couple of the gospels.