That's why I posted what I did —
From what [Brodie] wrote, [quoted] above, I'd be surprised if Brodie would find any value in a whole cloth Eusebius TF interpolation.What is certain is that it is extremely risky to conclude that Josephus did not have access, direct or indirect, either to serious discussion with some Christians or to some of the work of the evangelists,
— ie., Brodie may not have ever considered or ever had to consider "a whole cloth Eusebius TF interpolation."Brodie published Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus in 2012, ie., before Ken Olson's "A Eusebian Reading of the Testimonium Flavianum" was published in 2013; and it doesn't seem as if Brodie knew Olson, 1999: reference to it doesn't appear in the Bibliography.
So, he may never have had to consider any value in such a proposition.
Note what he said after the clause in yellow, i.e., in both the red you used and the green-highlight I've used:
—> "Unreliable witness cannot be used...to assert that someone lived."
Thomas L.Brodie: Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus.
What is certain is that it is extremely risky to conclude that Josephus did not have access, direct or indirect, either to serious discussion with some Christians or to some of the work of the evangelists, so it is not possible, in any reliable way, to invoke Josephus as an independent witness to Jesus. Unreliable witness cannot be used to condemn someone to death. And neither can it be used to assert that someone lived.
.
And note Brodie's reference to "vague-Jesus-related imperial records that may never have existed"
Thomas L.Brodie: Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus.
(3) Location and time.
What is important in the present context is the availability of a relatively simple working hypothesis: Josephus the writer, in accord with his general practice of adapting sources, especially scripture and scripture-related sources, knew enough about the writings of at least two specific New Testament authors, authors to whom in various ways he seems to have been close, that he could adapt and summarize what they had said, and so could make reference to Jesus.
This hypothesis may not be as detailed as one would like, but it is at least as strong as the hypothesis that appeals to an undefined mix of three sources that are vague-Jesus-related imperial records that may never have existed; unspecified educated Judeans; and a pre-war career in Palestine-sources that, as well as being vague, do not provide one solitary item of fresh information about Jesus.
What is certain is that it is extremely risky to conclude that Josephus did not have access, direct or indirect, either to serious discussion with some Christians or to some of the work of the evangelists, so it is not possible, in any reliable way, to invoke Josephus as an independent witness to Jesus. Unreliable witness cannot be used to condemn someone to death. And neither can it be used to assert that someone lived.
.
Statistics: Posted by MrMacSon — Mon Nov 18, 2024 6:25 pm