aa5874

If the copyist entered the error in the 4th century, that in no way can confirm that the copyist knew that Jesus was called "Christ". It may be that Eusebius or some other person instructed the copyist to write the word "Christ", and it is not mandatory that a copyist know the details of the material he copies.

What year was the word "Christ" placed in the AJ?
Who put the word "Christ" in the AJ?

If you can't answer those questions, you know your are only speculating. So how is it you know what the speculated copyist would have known about the unknown Jesus?

Ben C Smith

I agree that son of God is later than son of David. That does not mean that son of God is later than 90. Or 60. Or even 40. What is fallacious is arguing that son of God must postdate 90 (about when Josephus was writing) simply because it postdates son of David.

I think you are thinking of the wrong example. (If you are thinking of the son of Giora, then it is indeed the wrong example.)

So do I. The difference is that you tend to get defensive while I tend simply to thank the one who pointed out my error and then make the necessary changes.

We are not talking about the TF. I have already stated as clearly as I can that I blame nobody -- nobody -- for rejecting the TF outright and in toto.

Apparently partisan hope? Partisan for what, exactly?

Ben.

Julian

Just out of curiosity, what is your position, if you have any, on the implications of Pliny? If we assume that he encountered the Christians in 111CE and that some of them had been Christian as much as 25 years earlier, as some of them confessed, then that would make Christians exist as early as 86CE. We can assume an even earlier existence since there is no reason to believe that the religion originated in Bithynia/Pontus. This leaves ample time for at least some Christians to have made their way to Italiy and/or Rome. Also, in light of Pliny sending Roman Christians to Rome, this could have conceivably have happened earlier, although I am not certain when the edict against political associations came into play and whether that would have been the only cause of sending someone to Rome.

Just asking for an opinion, that's all. I, myself, don't have a strong one on this either way. Ben, I would be curious to hear your thoughts, as well.

Julian

Ben C Smith

Since your entire post depends (if) upon a postulate that I do not accept, there is no need for me to answer it. You must defend your postulate to your interlocuter before you can use it as common ground in a debate with him or her.

Ben.

aa5874

Well, if the copyist entered the error in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th or any century, how would you know what this speculative copyist knew about the imagined Jesus.

]

I ask you again, defend your postulate. How do you know what an assumed copyist knew?

squiz

Maybe I missed it in an earlier post, but I am just curious what your position is on this text, spin. Do you believe that the entire reference to James is an interpolation, or do you just think the bit about him being the brother of Jesus is?

spin

Mk's rending of the temple curtain places that text later than the fall of the temple and both LK and Mt start with the doctrine of the son of David as against the son of god, so they had had the son of David clarity added after the dissemination of Mk, ie well after the fall of the temple. The move away from real Davidic sonship to sonship of god requires a change in doctrine in at least two centers (I think separately). This means that neither 40 nor 60 are meaningful and that 90 is doubtful. Besides, Josephus's knowledge of the state of affairs in Judea functionally stopped when he left there, so

OK. What's the right example?

It is merely endemic of the fact of corruption.

That you can palm of the multiple corruption problems as too hard to believe.


spin

Doug Shaver

Oh, is it? Very well. Imagine you're a Christian apologist living in the early third century, and you're trying to convert a pagan who knows what the gospels say about Jesus being famous throughout the region. He says to you, "That's bullshit. If he had been that famous, Josephus would have mentioned him." Please tell me how you would respond.

That does not say why he omitted this particular explanation, and so it doesn't answer the question. "He might have thought nobody would care why" would have answered the question.

Whenever I have seen that rule explained, the context always involves two versions of a passage, one longer than the other. It says the shorter version is more likely than the longer to be authentic. It does not say that if a passage is short, it is likely to be authentic.

Not necessarily, in my view. I see no reason to assume that all Christian scribes were as obsessive as the one who made Josephus affirm Jesus' messiahood in the TF. They were individual human beings, each with his own personal history and personality. They did not all think alike.

I'll accept that challenge. To make my case, I must first ask: Do you think there is evidence that the church would have been motivated to preserve such references, had there been any? If so, what is that evidence?

Doug Shaver

I don't agree that it would have been useless or that the forger had to know one way or the other whether it would or would not have been. He needed only to think it possibly could have been helpful. And, even if he felt certain it would help, he could have been right for all we know.

Maybe, if he knew about the debate.

TedM

Just popping in here...I sure am glad you ran with this one instead of me jjramsey There are scenarios in which this could have been an intentionally deceptive interpolation, but overall it doesn't pass the smell test to me. More likely that Josephus referenced Jesus earlier. But, that's JMO.

ted