Toto

Please cut the sarcasm and tell me how this took place. Jesus was crucified, and the Christian movement becomes virtually invisible as far as documentation. The standard narrative is that it went underground to avoid Roman persecution, and/or that Christians worshiped in synagogues as if they were still Jews until they were expelled about 90 CE. There is also an inconsistent claim that there was a Jerusalem church headed by James that migrated out of Jerusalem to Pella to avoid the first Jewish War -- except if Christians were still worshiping in synagogues, why was there a church?

But even assuming there were Christian churches, why was there a church in Jerusalem, when it would make more sense to stick to Galilee or the diaspora? Why did Jesus' Galilean brother head this church? What gave the Jerusalem Christian church any authority?

An imaginative historian can fill in the gaps, but it is an exercise in imagination, not historical reconstruction.

As other posters have pointed out, it isn't a case of intentional, well thought out deceit. It only takes one Christian scribe, half awake, who sees the name Jesus and decides to embellish it - followed by a later scribe who cleaned things up.

The place where the Testimonium resides is an awkward break in Josephus' narrative and a change in subject, but it is a perfect place for a later interpolater to add a story about Jesus.

(Note that Josephus does not contain anything about Jesus causing a temple disturbance. Modern historians have seized on the temple disturbance as a possible rational explanation for anyone wanting to crucify Jesus. But this does not seem to be how ancient writers viewed the question. The gospels do not record any charges against Jesus for causing a disturbance in the Temple.)

ApostateAbe

The four gospels mention "Christ" hundreds of times. In a small number of those times (four total), "Christ" is identified with the phrasing "called Christ." In the two other cases in the gospel of Matthew, a non-Christian is quoted. The purpose of the phrase in all cases of course would be to communicate the idea that the society (or a subset of the society) identified Jesus as "Christ" and not merely the Christian author. It would not be expected that a Christian author of a marginal gloss to use this phrasing, because a Christian author would be speaking from his own perspective. However, it is very much expected of Josephus. A marginal gloss is still possible--however, possibility is not the key point. In order for the proposition to be taken seriously, then it needs to be shown to be probable.

Toto

The proposition has been taken seriously by a number of credentialed scholars. Marginal glosses were common. This particular marginal gloss makes intuitive sense, especially as a Christian putting words into Josephus' mouth (or pen).

All of your discussion of probability is highly subjective. Why do you reject this? Could it be based on your a priori rejection of anything endorsed by mythicists - an argument of convenience - even though Wells is not a mythicist?

ApostateAbe

You may have missed this point, so I will repeat it: if it was an innocent marginal gloss, then it is NOT a Christian putting words in Josephus' mouth. It is a Christian author explicitly speaking for himself.

sotto voce

It's perfectly legitimate to answer a question with a question. It is a common technique among university teachers. There is no limitation of this practice to a single ethnicity or religion, even where people can prove either of those.

If Josephus had a rabbi, he was no Jew.

'No longer will a man teach his neighbour, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the Lord. "Because I will forgive their wickedness, and will remember their sins no more." Jeremiah 31:34

outhouse

thats false

we know, literature started early and continued to be penned. because scripture did not survive does not mean it didnt exist.

its possible, as with writings from the johannine communities we see conflicts and expulsions very early.

proto christians had no real churchs and worshipped around dinner tables, I would have to think churches over houses were interpolated

TedM

These various accounts are not relevant to whether James could have led a Christian Church in Jerusalem as is indicated early on by Paul. So why bring them up other than to muddy the issue?

I'm very surprised at the question. Christianity was all about the new Kingdom of God. That wasn't supposed to happen in Galilee. It was to happen in Jerusalem. Jerusalem was the ONLY logic place for Christians to congregate in the beginning of the movement in expectation of the return of Jesus on the right hand of God. How could it happen? I've said why I think James could have gone there and had a following. The brother of the resurrected Messiah is an OBVIOUS choice for leadership. So the WHERE (Jerusalem) and the WHO (James) make perfect sense. The only other thing necessary is that the group either was unknown or not considered enough of a threat by any opposing forces for them to get ousted. What doesn't make sense about that Toto?

I don't know what your objections are on any logical basis. You've said it makes no sense. I'm saying it makes a lot of sense and I've told you why: Contrary to your outrageous conclusion the WHERE and the WHO make perfect sense. It doesn't take imagination to make sense out of the idea of Christianity beginning in Jerusalem by the brother of the resurrected Messiah. It takes simple logic. To claim it makes no sense IMO is based strictly on intentional skeptical thinking and nothing else. Hence, my sarcasm. I think it is well-deserved.


'Embellishment' while half awake with regard to the role of the Savior of his soul and the martyr of the Savior's brother, the revered leader of the Christian movement in Jerusalem? Who are you trying to fool Toto?


SO you think it is a 'perfect' place to interpolate a story but was somehow was not perfect if it was original because it was an awkward break in the narrative and a change in subject? Well, it isn't any more of an awkward break than Josephus' other awkward breaks..it is consistent with Josephus. And it isn't a change in subject. The subject is various disturbances, most involving the temple and or Pilate. The subject of Jesus would fit in very well there.


Geez, you are missing the forest for the trees. The temple incident is clearly portrayed by the gospel writers as significantly contributing to his arrest and crucifixion. It is most reasonable to conclude that the temple incident was highly significant and would have been remembered as such.

Gmark 11:

Luke 19:

The importance of the temple incident to the crucifixion is clear from these accounts. I'll point out too that one of the charges at the trial in GMatthew was that Jesus claimed he would rebuild the temple in 3 days. The temple was a big deal and it requires no unusual degree of imagination to see that this incident would be seen as a major motivation for his arrest, or that Josephus mentioned it in relation to his crucifixion along with other accounts of disturbances regarding the Jerusalem temples, and Pilate's involvement.

Bottom line: The reference to Jesus, called Christ in Josephus is difficult to explain away as an interpolation. It is more reasonable to regard it as authentic, and as referencing another passage in which Josephus explains why Jesus was called the Christ. That other passage most likely was in the position in which we now find the Testimonium, and most likely either referenced the temple incident, or was written with such incident in mind.

Clivedurdle

Because High Priests were anointed and it was an honorific? So what we have is an actual use of christ, with a minimal tweaking to christianise it, or a complete misreading of it as a reference to an alleged Lord Jesus Christ with other aliases of Jesus of Nazereth and King of the Jews

Toto

You are tying yourself in knots to turn this phrase, used only by Christians, into something that a Christian would not have written.

This particular Christian might have felt that he was supplying what Josephus should have written, or did write, but was somehow lost.

Besides, "innocent" is a relative term here.

Toto

I think these are real questions. It appears you can't answer them.

Nothing makes sense about it. It sounds like a contrived attempt to force fit the gospel story into what you know about history.

Even assuming your scenario, how long do you think the disciples would have stayed in Jerusalem after Jesus did not reappear within a generation?

Do you agree with James Tabor's claims about the Jesus Dynasty? Why else turn to the "brother" of Jesus?




Obviously not you, with your selective skepticism




The Temple incident could not have been remembered, since it never happened. It would have been physically impossible, as well as being realistically highly improbably for someone creating this incident not to have been arrested and executed on the spot.

I don't have the time now to go through all of your points, and this issue has been hashed to death at various other places.