heretic888
Senior Master
Jamie,
I hate to break this to you, but the so-called Testimonium Flavius is almost universally regarded by scholars as a Christian forgery. Some scholars, such as those you have cited, seem to believe there was an original reference to Jesus that was later "edited" by Christian writers (to make Josephus' claims more grandiose and devout), but the truth is there is no real evidence for this claim. It rests on a priori presuppositions about both the existence of Jesus Christ, as well as the biographical details of his life.
This passage, nor anything even similar to it, is ever referenced by Church fathers (such as, say, Origen of Alexandria, who directly quotes Josephus in his surviving works) prior to the 5th century CE. In addition, the passage is grammatically "awkward" in that if you remove it from the text, the preceding and succeeding passages (which have nothing to do with Jesus or the Christians) "flow" much more naturally between one another.
Even if we assume that there was an original reference to Jesus that later become exaggerated (and that's a big if here), Josephus wrote his history of the Jews around 100 CE and does not draw upon any apparent primary sources (no references or citations for his information). This puts his information more than a full lifetime removed from the purported events in question. As such, his descriptions of Jesus Christ are, at best, little more than word-of-mouth information that somebody may have heard from their grandparents. This is hardly a rock-hard historical source here.
Sorry, but I remain unconvinced.
Laterz.
I hate to break this to you, but the so-called Testimonium Flavius is almost universally regarded by scholars as a Christian forgery. Some scholars, such as those you have cited, seem to believe there was an original reference to Jesus that was later "edited" by Christian writers (to make Josephus' claims more grandiose and devout), but the truth is there is no real evidence for this claim. It rests on a priori presuppositions about both the existence of Jesus Christ, as well as the biographical details of his life.
This passage, nor anything even similar to it, is ever referenced by Church fathers (such as, say, Origen of Alexandria, who directly quotes Josephus in his surviving works) prior to the 5th century CE. In addition, the passage is grammatically "awkward" in that if you remove it from the text, the preceding and succeeding passages (which have nothing to do with Jesus or the Christians) "flow" much more naturally between one another.
Even if we assume that there was an original reference to Jesus that later become exaggerated (and that's a big if here), Josephus wrote his history of the Jews around 100 CE and does not draw upon any apparent primary sources (no references or citations for his information). This puts his information more than a full lifetime removed from the purported events in question. As such, his descriptions of Jesus Christ are, at best, little more than word-of-mouth information that somebody may have heard from their grandparents. This is hardly a rock-hard historical source here.
Sorry, but I remain unconvinced.
Laterz.
