Jospehus did indeed mention Jesus and his brother James

[John T]

Sorry for the delay.

After dismissing Ken for the shameless promoter of himself that he is, I thought I would take the time to watch the rest of the British Open. Congratulations Cameron Smith on your victory. Cam is a true professional with immense talent and integrity for the game and respect for his fellow competitors. Unlike the chaddy shack posers here on this thread.

So, after three pages of spam, insults, and conspiracy theories, is there anyone, anyone, that wants to pick up the mythicist flag that Josephus never mention Jesus and his brother James in his historical work? Hence proof that Jesus never existed.

Paging Dr. Carrier.

https://youtu.be/pOyZamte8Zs

[Chrissy Hansen]

So, after three pages of spam, insults, and conspiracy theories, is there anyone, anyone, that wants to pick up the mythicist flag that Josephus never mention Jesus and his brother James in his historical work? Hence proof that Jesus never existed.

Don't be insulting and degrading and you won't be treated that way.

Also it isn't a "mythicist" flag. I gave you a whole bibliography of non-Mythicist academics who doubt Josephus wrote the TF, and argue it was a wholesale interpolation,

Likewise, here is a list of non-mythicist scholars who doubt Josephus wrote the Ant. 20.200 passage or argue that it is at least partially interpolated with "called the christ" being inserted (which kinda annihilates any clear identification with the Jesus of the NT).

Michael Grant, The Ancient Historians (New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 1970), 263 says "the remarks about Jesus, and probably portions of the other passages as well [referring to John the Baptist], do not in fact go back to Josephus at all, but are insertions by a later hand."

Tessa Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and His Society (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 131

Léon Herrmann, Chrestos. Témoignages païens et juifs sur le christianisme du premier siècle (Bruxelles: Latomus, 1970), 99–104

R. Joseph Hoffmann, Jesus Outside the Gospels (Amherst: Prometheus, 1984), 55 refers to the passage as "mutilated" by Christians

Graham Twelftree, “Jesus in Jewish Tradition,” in David Wenham (ed.), The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), 289–332 considers the James passage an interpolation but the Testinomium Flavianum partially authentic.

Joshua Efron, Studies on the Hasmonean Period (Leiden: Brill, 1987), 333

Ken Olson, “Eusebius and the ‘Testimonium Flavianum’,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61, no. 2 (1999): 305–22

Jürgen Becker, “The Search for Jesus’ Special Profile,” in Tom Holmén and Stanley E. Porter (eds.), Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus (4 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 2011), vol. 1, 57–89 declares that both references to Jesus are likely interpolations (59)

Petr Pokorný, “Jesus Research as Feedback on His Wirkungsgeschichte,” in Holmén and Porter, Handbook for the Study, vol. 1, 333–359 in the same volume argues it is likely a Christian interpolation

Sabrina Inowlocki, "Did Josephus Ascribe the Fall of Jerusalem to the Murder of James, Brother of Jesus?" Revue des études juives, 170, no. 1–2 (2011): 21–49 (thanks Ken!), argues that Origen's version was the original and the textus receptus is therefore inauthentic

James Tabor and Simcha Jacobovici, The Jesus Discovery: The Resurrection Tomb that Reveals the Birth of Christianity (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2012), 235 argue that "called the Christ" was an interpolation

Dennis R. MacDonald, Two Shipwrecked Gospels: The Logoi of Jesus and Papias’s Exposition of Logia About the Lord (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2012), 548 argues that “who was called the Christ” is an interpolation, but that Jesus may have been mentioned in book 18.

Nicholas P. L. Allen, “Josephus on James the Just? A reevaluation of Antiquitates Judaicae 20.9.1,” Journal of Early Christian History 7 (2017): 1–27

Ivan Prchlík, “Ježíš řečený Christos‘ u Iosepha Flavia: Jistota nejistoty,” in Peter Fraňo and Michal Habaj (eds.), Antica Slavica (Trnava: Univerzita sv. Cyrila a Metoda v Trnave 2018), 77–152 and 280–6.

Your polemical attempt to paint these theories as "mythicist flags" is nonsense. Historicists originated these theories, and historicists have continued them. Mythicists came on the scene long after the references to Josephus were already being challenged by theologians.

You've been nothing but insulting and degrading to everyone on this forum. Of course no one wants to deal with you in any manner other than to call you what you are: an immature troll.

[John T]

So, after three pages of spam, insults, and conspiracy theories, is there anyone, anyone, that wants to pick up the mythicist flag that Josephus never mention Jesus and his brother James in his historical work? Hence proof that Jesus never existed.

Don't be insulting and degrading and you won't be treated that way.

You had fair warning up front not to go down that ugly road, but no, you had to get ugly from the peanut gallery and disrupt the proceeding before Ken even had a chance to make his case. Perhaps you did that because you knew Ken didn't have a valid argument anyway, just a conspiracy theory, so you were simply trying to protect him from embarrassment. For that I have respect, yet he didn't take the hint anyway. But now you say a tit for tat is unfair?

So, are you willing to take up the mythicist flag? And no, you don't get to use Ken's cop out, that first I must read hundreds of pages of your stuff and then get back to you. I would simply retort that you must first read every published paper to the contrary, then get back to me. Surely you understand the fallacy of the Red Herring is not an argument but a cop-out.

With that out of the way, the podium is now yours but you must get to it right away, thas is, your argument that Jospheus did not mention Jesus and his brother James in his historical works.

Please don't blow it like Ken.

[Chrissy Hansen]

Buddy, the only peanut gallery here, as Ken said, is you. You are the only one disrupting anything. Congrats on the projection though.

Ken's paper was like 20 pages, tops. If you can't be bothered to read a 20 page paper, then why would I bother? If you can't read a short paper, why should I believe you'd even charitably read my posts? You've given me no reason to consider you anything but a lazy troll, and frankly life is too short and too precious to deal with individuals who act as you do.

And you've not been exchanging "tit for tat." Every comment you made since you engaged on the topic has been demanding, insulting, and childish.

And with that out of the way, the floor is yours to prove you are even worth having a conversation with.

Frankly, Ken has been perfectly nice and afforded you great clemency given how you've been behaving.

[MrMacSon]

.. is there anyone, anyone, that wants to pick up the mythicist flag that Josephus never mention Jesus and his brother James in his historical work? Hence proof that Jesus never existed.

Except the proposition that 'Josephus never mention[ed] Jesus and his brother James in his original [semi-]historical work' is

1. not [just] a mythicist one,
2. nor proof that Jesus never existed

You're being narrow-minded, irrational, and downright paranoid

[MrMacSon]

Here let me help you. In your next post please start off with: Jospehus did not mention Jesus and his brother Jesus in his historical works because:________________________.

Why ‘Josephus [would] not [have] mention[ed] Jesus and his brother Jesus in his historical works’ is a very different prospect to an argument that he didn’t.

Just trying to get Ken to start off with some kind of a declarative.1 You are welcome to make it for him with his permission. You have provided credible input deserving a response but Ken demands the lime light, so please wait behind the stage curtains until he is done with his song and dance.

Ken, the peanut gallery is getting restless waiting for your shtick.2

1 Expecting anyone to be able to explain why ‘Josephus [would] not [have] mention[ed] Jesus and his brother Jesus in his historical works’ is irrational

2 The schtick is all yours

[John T]

Buddy, the only peanut gallery here, as Ken said, is you. You are the only one disrupting anything. Congrats on the projection though.

Ken's paper was like 20 pages, tops. If you can't be bothered to read a 20 page paper, then why would I bother?

Well then, how about you condensing into a short paragraph for us? Surely you read it and can explain it to us as well as Ken, so what is his argument?

I already quoted Carrier on what he said Ken's argument was and he did it in less than 20 seconds.

For starters, I just needed Ken to confirm or deny it. But no!

Obviously, you don't support Ken's conspiracy theory either.
If I'm wrong, say it! If I'm right, please return to your seat in the peanut gallery with Ken and feel free to throw more tomatoes.

Paging Dr. Carrier.
You got a lot of explaining to do regarding Ken Olson.

[John T]

.. is there anyone, anyone, that wants to pick up the mythicist flag that Josephus never mention Jesus and his brother James in his historical work? Hence proof that Jesus never existed.

Except the proposition that 'Josephus never mention[ed] Jesus and his brother James in his original [semi-]historical work' is

1. not [just] a mythicist one,
2. nor proof that Jesus never existed

You're being narrow-minded, irrational, and downright paranoid

Never said that. If you bothered to watch the short video on my first post you would know that and that I'm in the camp of Dr. Ehrman. I not arguing that no interpolation took place, never had.

This is why mythicists can't be friends with Bibilical Criticism scholars and are looked at as crackpots.

Is that it?

Paging Dr. Carrier.

[MrMacSon]

.. is there anyone, anyone, that wants to pick up the mythicist flag that Josephus never mention Jesus and his brother James in his historical work? Hence proof that Jesus never existed.

Except the proposition that 'Josephus never mention[ed] Jesus and his brother James in his original [semi-]historical work' is

1. not [just] a mythicist one,
2. nor proof that Jesus never existed

Never said that.

• Yet
  

  
  .. the mythicist flag that Josephus never mention Jesus and his brother James ... Hence proof that Jesus never existed
  
  

[ABuddhist]

Never said that. If you bothered to watch the short video on my first post you would know that and that I'm in the camp of Dr. Ehrman. I not arguing that no interpolation took place, never had.

You are conflating two separate positions.

1. The claim that portions of the text of Josephus's references to Jesus were interpolated.

2. The claim that all of the text of Josephus's references to Jesus were interpolated.

Position #1 seems to be fairly accepted.

Early on, Valliant decided not to allow that any part of the Testimonium was interpolated.

Does anyone aside from him hold that view?

Some people are very close to that position, but most of those, like Alice Whealey and Serge Barrdet, allow a word or two here and there may be interpolated or omitted.

Valliant floats the idea that Josephus was a Christian, and there I cannot think of a single Josephan scholar of the last century or more who agree with him. His authority is William Whiston's 18th century translation of Josephus with appendixes.

The interesting thing about that approach to the TF is that it (1) pretty much admits that the TF is a christian text and (2) gives up the only first century non-Christian witness to the historicity of Jesus, because he turns out to be a Christian after all.

Best,

Ken

I can only find a tiny handful who think the TF is totally authentic.

Garnet, P. 1989. If the Testimonium Flavianum Contains Alterations, Who Originated Them? In: Livingstone, E. A. (ed.) Studia Patristica Vol. XIX: Papers Presented to the Tenth International Conference on Patristic Studies held in Oxford 1987. Leuven: Peeters, 57–61.

Garnet, from what I understood, argued that Josephus wrote two versions of the TF 18.3.3 and circulated them. The first was a reduced variant, and then he later produced, himself, a pro-Christian variant.

Ulrich Victor, if I'm understanding the German correctly (I'm a bit rusty), argues that what we perceive as interpolations are actually just a result of us not understanding the climate that Josephus wrote in (?). So I think he is saying the whole TF is authentic? See:

Victor, U. 2010. Das Testimonium Flavianum: Ein authentischer Text des Josephus. Novum Testamentum 52, 72–82.

These are the only two I'm currently aware of, but I know there are others.

Curiously enough, in his Letter to a Deist, Edward Stillingfleet in the 1600s seemed to be sympathetic to total authenticity as well asking why Josephus couldn't have just been incoherent with his own beliefs and principles.

Position #2, although more controversial, is not limited in its acceptance to mythicists, as we have proven to you in this and other threads.