I’m a little shocked by Barker’s tactics if he argues for inauthenticity with those arguments, because those arguments, well, are pretty bad. And he completely ignores the smaller passage about “James, the brother of Jesus called Christ”.
The position of most scholars is that the Testimonium Flavianum is partially authentic, partially interpolated. Some parts fit in very well with Josephus’ overall vocabulary, while others stand out.
Eh, I don’t need credit, I didn’t write the post. I’m just passing the savings along to you.
( but thanks)
If I do another round of atheist interviews, would you be interested?
Sure!
I’m a little shocked by Barker’s tactics if he argues for inauthenticity with those arguments, because those arguments, well, are pretty bad. And he completely ignores the smaller passage about “James, the brother of Jesus called Christ”.
The position of most scholars is that the Testimonium Flavianum is partially authentic, partially interpolated. Some parts fit in very well with Josephus’ overall vocabulary, while others stand out.
This web page summarises the case for partial authenticity:
http://bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm