rlogan

I hope mine wasn't taken that way. I was referring to myself with "duh". But sorry if i offended anyone.

Layman

You only assuming that what is recorded is now how nonChristians referred to Jesus.

In any event, a Christian would have no motive to insert a passage into Josephus which stated what everybody already accepted--Christians thought Christ was Christ.

Amaleq13

I wrote:
How, exactly, does this example of a Christian placing this phrase in the mouth of an unbeliever make it less likely that a Christian did the same thing with Josephus?

I'm assuming the author of Matthew was a Christian and that he deliberately chose the phrase because it was coming from the mouth of an unbeliever. This appears to agree with your own words:

Eusebius clearly states the obvious motive for "finding" any reference to Jesus in Josephus:

"Of the Jews of that time he was the most famous, not only among his fellow-countrymen but among the Romans too ..." (HC, 3, 9)

From Muller's site: http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/appe.html

Layman

No, you are assuming he invented it and that his writing was not based on how he knew nonChristians referred to Jesus.

First, since Eusebius' works of Josephus already contained the two references to Jesus, he is not all that persuasive of evidence of Christian opinion of Josephus' works which contained no such references.

Second, on what basis do you assume that Eusebius' opinion of Josephus was shared by earlier Christians? It seems as if it was not.

Third, the evidence demonstrates that Eusebius' approach to history was rather unique:

One of the most common objections to the partial authenticity theory is that if the reconstructed TF was authentic, some Christian writer prior to Eusebius would have mentioned it. Although this argument is not without appeal, upon closer examination it fails to persuade. There simply is no reason to believe that the early Christians would have found the TF much use to their writings. Moreover, Roger Pearse has helpfully compiled all of the references to Josephus by the early Church fathers (Pearse, Josephus and Anti-Nicene Fathers, 2001). There are surprisingly few -- only around a dozen prior to Eusebius -- , showing that Josephus was not well known or often used by the early Church fathers.

Why was Eusebius the exception?

Eusebius: The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine, Trsn. G.A. Williamson, at xx.

His reliance on Josephus was also unique:

Eusebius, The History of the Church, at xx.

Fourth, Mueller is being somewhat anachronistic here. Just because our main source of Jewish history is Josephus does not mean that the ancients weres similiarly situation. As Steven Mason notes, "We know that other accounts of Jewish history and Palestinian geography survived the first century and that some even lasted to the ninth century." Steve Mason, Josephus and the New Testament, page 13.

There remains no good reason to suppose a Christian interpolator would have manufactured such a description in the first place. The evidence suggests various Christian glosses added to an authentic core that Christians found to inadequate to let stand.

Amaleq13

This is called "shifting the burden" and it is not a legitimate tactic. You were arguing against this phrase being an interpolation. This is about your claim that "it's more likely a Christian would prefer the declarative rather than the tenatitve". spin provided four examples from the new testament of this same phrase. As you have acknowledged, it is a sentiment placed in the mouths of unbelievers by Christian authors. Clearly, your claim that a Christian would not use such a phrase if placing it in the "mouth" of Josephus is not credible.

There is no trace of the Testimonium before Eusebius. The "lost reference" was contained in an earlier interpolation that was subsequently deleted. It seems like too much of a coincidence that the same phrase suddenly shows up in a different account of the death of a guy named "James".

Your own source found "around a dozen" earlier references to Josephus. Contrary to your assertion that this is "few", I think it is more than sufficient to suggest that they would have mentioned it if they found a reference to Jesus. Especially one that contained a "fairly sympathetic" portrayal of Jesus' miraculous power as well as an accusation against Jewish leaders.

As your source pointed out, he wasn't the "exception" but part of a group of around a dozen early Church Fathers who considered Josephus. Given Eusebius' bold project to create a history of the Church, it seems rather obvious why he might value Josephus even more than anyone prior.

On the contrary, that the phrase is how two Gospel stories depict unbelievers referring to Jesus provides an excellent reason for a Christian interpolator to apply it to Josephus.

The evidence suggests the entire passage is inauthentic. The notion of a two-stage (or more) process is entirely founded on the assumption of some authentic core. There is no basis for the assumption because even the reduced version is clearly not authentic.