Amaleq13

IMO, neither Pliny nor Tacitus suggest that such familiarity can be assumed on the part of Josephus' audience.

Wouldn't we still expect "James" to precede the describing phrase?

Amaleq13

"Partial similarity" seems oxymoronic to me but, that aside, no. I don't consider your effort to point to parts of sentences to be meaningful at all.

Amaleq13

Is the rather enormous gap (9 centuries?) between the original writing and our oldest copy relevant to this consideration?

Is the fact that the reference connects to a passage that is clearly the work of later editing relevant to this consideration?

Does the shorter reference require that "Christ" was used in the TF?

Do you think Pliny and Tacitus support an assumption of such a broad familiarity? Neither uses the name "Jesus" after all and both appear to have only a superficial awareness of the group despite having direct contact. It seems strange to me to suggest that Josephus would assume greater (or even equal) familiarity on the part of his readers.

Vorkosigan

Moreover, anyone who knew Christ would have to know James, for he was the head of the Church at that time.

The original reference was to James the brother of Jesus Damneus. It's a pity it can't be proved.

Vorkosigan

S.C.Carlson

No, Paul Maas was a classical text-critic. Such gaps are not unusual in his field.

That's why I limited my remarks to the condition that if some form of the Testimonium was genuine and mentioned Christians.

No. It could also work if "tribe of Christians" was in it.

On jjramsey's scenario, one would have to hold that Josephus used the name "Jesus" because referring to family members by name to identify individuals is a Jewish convention, and then used "called Christ" for the benefit of his Roman audience. I admit that jjramsey's scenario has some plausibility, but the use of both Jesus and Christ in the shorter reference still is easier to accept with a non-interpolated longer reference.

Stephen

Roger Pearse

The majority of all literary texts extant today derive from exemplars no older than the 9th century, both in the East and West.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ben C Smith

Let me add that the gap is not really 9 centuries; we have patristic testimony for both the Testimonium proper and its Jacobian cousin, fourth century for the former, third century for the latter. That, IMHO, is as good as having actual manuscript fragments of the relevant portions dated to those centuries respectively.

Ben.

Steven Avery

And the James reference is therefore important evidence for the Testimonium in some form.

Since the James reference has no textual variance of note, and is far more difficult to see as an interpolation (lacking any floweriness and such, using simply "called the Christ", a phraseology referenced by others early as from Josephus).

From a logical standpoint, it is far easier to link the strengths of the James reference to some form of the Testimonium than to link the weaknesses of the Testimonium (including its textual variance) to the James reference.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Ben C Smith

If the scope of this statement is the extant corpus of Josephus, then this claim is demonstrably false. Look at War 4.9.3 §503:

Επανισταται δε αλλος τοις ΙεÏ?οσολυμοις πολεμος. υιος ην ΓιωÏ?α, Σιμων τις, ΓεÏ?ασηνος το γενος.…

And there arose another war at Jerusalem. There was a son of Giora, a certain Simon, by birth of Gerasa....

Neither description nor name precedes the mention of a son of Giora, just as neither description nor name precedes the mention of the brother of Jesus in War 20.9.1 §200.

Ben.

Amaleq13

And, as Ben points out, the gap is not actually that large. Nevermind.

Which would be another apparently singular use of language in Josephus since he never refers to a religious group as a "tribe" but, instead, consistently applies it to a "race" of people. Is it reasonable to assume that degree of differentiation at such an early date?

Do you consider it relevant that "called {the} Christ" is a phrase found in Matthew and placed in the mouth of an unbeliever?