I will be debating any Mythicist on debate.org, each person has 72 hours to present their argument for that specific round, and each post is limited to 8000 characters so the debate will be brief.

 

Anyone interested can accept the debate here: http://www.debate.org/debate/13720/

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

It's hard for me to believe you

are able to be so comfortable with Josephus as your primary source, Matt. It's pretty clear where these passages come from - the forth century propaganda master. 

 

"We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity."

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2.

The interpolation of Josephus could have been the responsibility of any one of a number of nameless Christian scribes, but it was probably not Eusebius.  The church father Origen wrote a hundred years before Eusebius, and he twice apparently used Josephus' writing about Jesus as evidence to win religious debates.  Origen apparently knew about the passage in Josephus where he wrote about "James, the brother of Jesus, called Christ."  He also wrote as a concession that Josephus did not believe Jesus as the Christ, as though that is what Josephus explicitly wrote. 

Against Celsus, 1:47

For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless-being, although against his will, not far from the truth-that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),-the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine.

On The Gospel Of Matthew, 1:15

Flavius Josephus, who wrote the "Antiquities of the Jews" in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James.

It is therefore next to impossible that Eusebius faked all of the writing of Josephus about Jesus.   It is possible that Eusebius changed the Testimonium Flavianum in his favor, though I would find it far more probable that it was some Christian scribe between the times of Origen and Eusebius who didn't want to copy down blasphemy.  The Testimonium Flavianum says, "He was the Christ," and it was only a simple omission from the original, "He was not the Christ," which would match both Josephus' known views and what Origen wrote.

Atheistextremist wrote:

ApostateAbe wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

It's hard for me to believe you

are able to be so comfortable with Josephus as your primary source, Matt. It's pretty clear where these passages come from - the forth century propaganda master. 

 

"We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity."

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2.

The interpolation of Josephus could have been the responsibility of any one of a number of nameless Christian scribes, but it was probably not Eusebius.  The church father Origen wrote a hundred years before Eusebius, and he twice apparently used Josephus' writing about Jesus as evidence to win religious debates.  Origen apparently knew about the passage in Josephus where he wrote about "James, the brother of Jesus, called Christ."  He also wrote as a concession that Josephus did not believe Jesus as the Christ, as though that is what Josephus explicitly wrote. 

Against Celsus, 1:47

For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless-being, although against his will, not far from the truth-that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),-the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine.

On The Gospel Of Matthew, 1:15

Flavius Josephus, who wrote the "Antiquities of the Jews" in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James.

It is therefore next to impossible that Eusebius faked all of the writing of Josephus about Jesus.   It is possible that Eusebius changed the Testimonium Flavianum in his favor, though I would find it far more probable that it was some Christian scribe between the times of Origen and Eusebius who didn't want to copy down blasphemy.  The Testimonium Flavianum says, "He was the Christ," and it was only a simple omission from the original, "He was not the Christ," which would match both Josephus' known views and what Origen wrote.

 

Abe. Those points broaden the scope of possibilities considerably. I agree with you - it seems likely the mention of James in Josephus is older than I suggested. It would be nice to know for certain exactly who wrote what and when.

I had read Eusebius was the first to use the "For he was the Christ" passage in an argument with pagan opponents - the church would surely have used this passage earlier than 400 if the'd had it. Given his eagerness to lie for the lord, I think it likely Eusebius wrote the Testimonium. I'll have to look it up again and consider my position.

What do you think, TG, JGadfly or John Paul? Who may have authored this passage? 

 

 

I go with an unnamed Christian scribe who was making copies of  Josephus sometime between Origen and Eusebius though I wouldn't put anything past Eusebius.

Origen is clear Josephus did not see the Jesus as the Christ or the messiah (mashiach). Between Origen and Eusebius there were many events that influenced the developing church including Constantine and the legitimacy of Christianity in the Empire by his edict.