dog-on

The TF?

TedM

In an entirely different chapter? Without referencing back to it? And again, for what purpose? Why change this James into the Christian James without saying anything about this James being a BELIEVER in Christ or some such thing?

Does anyone here know if the evidence is AGAINST "same time" interpolation of both the James passage and the TF? Other than what I would consider to be common sense?

dog-on

If Josephus was being used by Christians as a proof text, a simple "brother of Jesus called the Christ" is sufficient to make the point. Don't you think?

From whom do we get our extant copies of Josephus' works anyway?

Ben C Smith

Hey, no problem. Unmasking frauds is always worth the space.

I have collected as many Testimonium references as I can find in the original languages on an interface page on my website. The three Syriac versions (Michael, Agapius, and the third from Eusebius) are only in English translation, since I do not know Syriac.

I also have a compilation of citations assembled by Hindley (who is participating in this thread) in English translation, including some that I have not found in the original as of yet.

Ben.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

I think it is. Origen attributes information on James to Josephus but also claims that Josephus did not regard Jesus as the Christ. If both of these were interpolated at the same time, then the Testimonium must have been either negative or (at best) neutral, not positive.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Why does Josephus then repeat that Jesus is the son of Damneus a couple of paragraphs later? Do you have examples of Josephus repeating the patronymic like this in such close succession without a plurality of people using the same name? (They may exist; I do not know; but do you have them? Or are you speculating?)

Ben.

TedM

No. I don't think it is consistent with human nature. Too much temptation to use it to further your cause, if you are willing to deceptively change the text.

TedM

Thanks. Here's my view:

1. The James passage doesn't make sense as being either authentic OR an interpolation without a prior reference to Christ.

2. The James passage is more reasonable as authentic, than interpolated since neither Jesus or James are exalted in the passage.

3. Therefore, it is most likely that the James passage was authentic, and there was a prior reference to Christ.

4. Since Josephus didn't believe Jesus WAS the Christ, the prior reference to Christ was NOT the TF. It may have contained elements of it, and/or may have originally been unfavorable in nature.

ted

dog-on

Well Ben, just how many Jesus(es) are in Josephus?

In reality, I just think that the Son of Damneus bit just makes sense in relation to the paragraph itself.

I know that the Greek is punctuationally challenged, but to me it kind of reads like Josephus momentarily forgot James' name.

Kind of like this:

[Ananus] assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus son of Damneus, (oh yea!) James was his name(!!! ), and some others.


Something like that.

Ben C Smith

That is a great test. All you have to do is to find me another Jesus in Josephus whose patronymic is mentioned twice in close succession.

In the first instance it makes sense. It is the second instance that seems odd.

Ben.