Artemus

Just below the quote you gave, Peter says

Gooch's dad

Ah, interesting, Artemus. That's 8 scholars out of how many that study this area? I'm not sure at all.

Cheers,

Kelly

Artemus

I don't know either. That is why an Appeal to Authority is not convincing.

Back to the original question, there is clearly reason to doubt the authenticity of the passage due to evidence of tampering of the text going back to the earliest days.

Gooch's dad

Artemus,

There is no reason to claim that Josephus didn't mention James, the brother of Jesus. At the time of Origen's writings, Christian scribes by no means had control over the copying of Josephus.

At the time of Origen's writings, the copy of Josephus he had contained an obvious reference to James, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ.

Paul refers only once to a "brother of the lord" and that is James.

As Peter Kirby has said, by the standards of historical inquiry, this places Jesus as a historical figure. It isn't a lot to go on, but it's enough.

Kelly

Doctor X

Gooch's Dad:

Because I SAID so!!! [Stop that!--Ed.]

Actually, give me a few hours--not near "the library"--and I will get back to you.

The problem I have is that most scholars, indeed, "expect" a HJ. I, personally, do as well, so I am not attacking Josephus because I want to destroy a HJ and establish a MJ. I am not at all convinced that MJ'ers have answered the Galatians which is being argued about on another thread.

Thus I think scholars who do accept this reference accept it because they expect it. It sticks out like a sore thumb. Granted, the other Josephus references stick out like sorer pious thumbs.

--J.D.

Doctor X

Gooch's Dad:

However, while posting, Artemus posted:

so . . . HA! HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA! [He will not admit he wet his Depends over the thought he was once again caught spouting his mouth off.--Ed.]

Anyways, I will keep looking on the more important question: is there a reasonable argument--textually, linguistically--that casts that particular reference in Josephus as suspect.

--J.D.

Artemus

I didn't claim that Josephus didn't write the passage. I said that there is reason to doubt that he did. I'm not prepared to conclude one way or the other since there is only tainted evidence to deal with.

Regarding Peter Kirby's conclusions, when I first read his essay I was thinking how he had done an excellent job clearly detailing why the passage could not be used as evidence for the HJ. I was quite surprised when I read his conclusions. But that is why I like his writing so much. He presents all arguments rather than just those that support his point of view. Telling me that Peter has made a conclusion is simply another appeal to authority, and in this case I (very) respectfully disagree with him.

Llyricist

Well I was only going by Ameleq13's testimony, that I thought I remembered him attributing to Peter Kirby's site (or CD). So any further elaboration would have to come from him.
And further, it was not the 20.9.1 reference, but a reference to something no longer extant.

Jabu Khan

All this talk about the historical Jesus is getting tiring lets switch to the Historical Te Tuna Debate.

Amaleq13

Nice hand-off, ya bastige.

I can't look up the relevant details presently but I'm pretty sure Kirby covers the "lost" reference somewhere in his discussion of the Testimonium.

I also don't recall whether either of the two references to the non-extant mention of James as "brother" uses "Lord" or "Jesus".

I think, Llyricist, you might be recalling a reference I made some time ago to the fact that Photius' copy of Josephus apparently has "Lord" rather than "Jesus". This is not, however, an early copy but is from the 9th century I think.