Doug Shaver

None of that answers my question. If the reference to Jesus was interpolated, then Josephus didn't write it, and if he didn't write it, then he's not a witness to it.

Doug Shaver

Right. If there is other evidence available, it needs to be taken into consideration.

If paleography is all we have, then we go with paleography. If the paleography happens to be consistent with something Eusebius says, then that is just too bad for any presupposition that everything Eusebius said was a lie.

mountainman

What I was referring to was the CLAIM that Josephus is a witness for the historical Jesus who was the Christ. To many people this claim is important and they will defend it, by actively rejecting claims of interpolation or by seeking refuge in the luxury of a "partial interpolation".

My purpose in outlining this claim is to highlight the active CLAIM that Josephus is also an extremely important (if not critical) witness for the historical event of a mass translation of the Hebrew Bible into the Greek language. This is another legend. Is it the historical truth?

mountainman

Of course it does. But the question here is "Is there any other evidence"

Hopefully with some reservations.


Until the paleography is supported by another independent dating methodology, it appears to be reasonable to have some reservations about the entire issue.

Doug Shaver

"It's not infallible" expresses a reservation. "It's wrong" expresses more than a reservation.

mountainman

I am running with the condition that "It's not infallible", especially when it is used as the only dating methodology. And for the OP here, all the hasty research that I have done on this subject, briefly summarised in the above table of evidence, discloses that we do not have any other form of critical dating methodology being applied to the question other than:

a) paleography, and
b) the literature traditon (in the testimony of Josephus and Eusebius et al)

I would like to see more evidence if it exists.
All I am doing is calling for evidence on the issue.


On the other hand, we are all used to the expression that the opinion that the LXX was first auspiciously translated from Hebrew to Greek in the epoch BCE by the Egyptian government and King Ptolemy is --- "the right opinion". But this may not be the case. We could be dealing with people who wish to glorify the history and antiquity of the LXX, for political purposes.

Doug Shaver

Yes. We could be.