Given the fact that Josephus does have a passage on the expulsion of Jews from Rome (under Tiberius):
Whereupon Tiberius, who had been informed of the thing by Saturninus, the husband of Fulvia, who desired inquiry might be made about it, ordered all the Jews to be banished out of Rome; (Antiquities 18.83)
Yet as Josephus has no passage regarding an expulsion under Claudius, an intermediary source (like the example of Eusebius retroverting the statement of Origen) would explain this reference from Paulus Orosius. Thus we might expect either that there was a misread marginal note or an earlier history/chronicle that comments on Josephus (perhaps correcting Josephus gently, making it seem like Josephus meant to say something else, i.e., that the expulsion was under Claudius not Tiberius, thus explaining the emphasis of the statement on chronology) and that Paulus Orosius put this directly to Josephus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudius%2 ... _from_Rome
The 5th-century Christian writer Paulus Orosius makes a possible reference to the event, citing two sources:
"Josephus reports, 'In his ninth year the Jews were expelled by Claudius from the city.' But Suetonius, who speaks as follows, influences me more: 'Claudius expelled from Rome the Jews constantly rioting at the instigation of Christ [Christo, or rather xpo].' As far as whether he had commanded that the Jews rioting against Christ [Christum] be restrained and checked or also had wanted the Christians, as persons of a cognate religion, to be expelled, it is not at all to be discerned."[44]
The first source used by Orosius comes from a non-extant quote from Josephus.[45] It is this which provides the date of AD 49. His second source is Suetonius Claudius 25.4.
Slingerland contends that Orosius made up the Josephus passage for which no scholar has been able to discover a source.[46] He also argues that the writer is guilty of manipulating source materials for polemic purposes.[47] Feldman states that "there is no such statement in the extant manuscripts of Josephus, and there is reason to believe that this version was created in the mind of Orosius himself."[48] Philip Esler agrees with Slingerland that the AD 49 date "is a creation fully explicable within the tendentious historiography of this author."[49]
However, E. M. Smallwood states that Orosius may have known of a passage from another author but confused the Josephus passage with it, or may have been quoting from memory.[50] Silvia Cappelletti states that the change in spelling was probably not due to Orosius but to an intermediate source he consulted.[51] Cappelletti also states that the lack of the Josephus text referred to does not undermine the authority of the date Orosius has suggested.[51] Brown tactfully states, "Orosius is not famous for his impeccable accuracy," then adds that "such a date" (i.e. 49) "receives some confirmation from Acts."[41] Bernard Green states that given that this section of Orosius' history is based on the chronological order of events, and that he refers to the expulsion only briefly and attaches no significance to it, Orosius seems to be "guiltlessly reporting" an event based on records he had seen.[52] Rainer Riesner notes that it is not possible for Orosius to have derived the date of the expulsion that he wrote about from the Book of Acts.[1]
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
