Imagine this...

[Ranjr]

The Testimonium Flavianum was an later insertion.  None of the 2nd century apologists who cite Josephus mention it, though it would have greatly helped their case.  Josephus wrote that people were mad at Herod for killing John the Baptist.  Some 3rd or 4th century church father, such as Eusebius, noted the glaring omission and added the ill-fitting blurb about Jesus.

The gospel of John was more likely written around or even after 120.

[Jehanne]

Maybe Josephus was anti-Christian, or just denying the truth out of hatred for Jesus's religion.

Given the fact that Josephus documented every wandering mendicant who claimed messiahdom in great detail, no matter how minor or how deranged, your hypotheses do not hold water. The simplest explanation is still the most likely, viz Josephus didn't talk about Yeshua bar Yosef because he didn't hear of him, likely because either a) he did not exist, or b) was so minor that even somebody as prone to gossip as Josephus didn't hear of him.

My preference is for Option B.

[Pat Mustard]

The Testimonium Flavianum was an later insertion.  None of the 2nd century apologists who cite Josephus mention it, though it would have greatly helped their case.  Josephus wrote that people were mad at Herod for killing John the Baptist.  Some 3rd or 4th century church father, such as Eusebius, noted the glaring omission and added the ill-fitting blurb about Jesus.

The gospel of John was more likely written around or even after 120.

Photios 1 Patriarch of Constantinople flat out said that Eusebius put it in there, and he had an original Hebrew copy to back it up.

And when one of the most powerful thinkers in the orthodox church after the church fathers calls out bullshit, you know it's bullshit.

[Jehanne]

The Testimonium Flavianum was an later insertion.  None of the 2nd century apologists who cite Josephus mention it, though it would have greatly helped their case.  Josephus wrote that people were mad at Herod for killing John the Baptist.  Some 3rd or 4th century church father, such as Eusebius, noted the glaring omission and added the ill-fitting blurb about Jesus.

The gospel of John was more likely written around or even after 120.

Photios 1 Patriarch of Constantinople flat out said that Eusebius put it in there, and he had an original Hebrew copy to back it up.

And when one of the most powerful thinkers in the orthodox church after the church fathers calls out bullshit, you know it's bullshit.

Not to mention that the interpolation/forgery is lacking in Arabic manuscripts.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

So we'll put it next to another book but we'll not define a category for the books other than "They influence folk."

At tad late in responding but better late than never.

[The Grand Nudger]

Given the fact that Josephus documented every wandering mendicant who claimed messiahdom in great detail, no matter how minor or how deranged, your hypotheses do not hold water.  The simplest explanation is still the most likely, viz Josephus didn't talk about Yeshua bar Yosef because he didn't hear of him, likely because either a) he did not exist, or b) was so minor that even somebody as prone to gossip as Josephus didn't hear of him.

My preference is for Option B.

Which would be a problem for any historical jesus candidate.  He's a man, allegedly, known far and wide. Take away every miracle, even the mundade miracles - and the candidates fail on account of obscurity, still.

[Belacqua]

So we'll put it next to another book but we'll not define a category for the books other than "They influence folk."

That's certainly not what I said.

[vulcanlogician]

My preference is for Option B.

Which would be a problem for any historical jesus candidate.  He's a man, allegedly, known far and wide.  Take away every miracle, even the mundade miracles - and the candidates fail on account of obscurity, still.

But if you take away the miracles, then the pigs ran down the cliff and drown themselves for NO REASON. 

[Pat Mustard]

Given the fact that Josephus documented every wandering mendicant who claimed messiahdom in great detail, no matter how minor or how deranged, your hypotheses do not hold water.  The simplest explanation is still the most likely, viz Josephus didn't talk about Yeshua bar Yosef because he didn't hear of him, likely because either a) he did not exist, or b) was so minor that even somebody as prone to gossip as Josephus didn't hear of him.

My preference is for Option B.

I personally prefer A, but that's largely my prejudices. We have insufficient evidence to say what, aside from the fact that we can say Yeshua wasn't the son of Yhwh.

---

Which would be a problem for any historical jesus candidate.  He's a man, allegedly, known far and wide.  Take away every miracle, even the mundade miracles - and the candidates fail on account of obscurity, still.

But if you take away the miracles, then the pigs ran down the cliff and drown themselves for NO REASON. 

Actually if you take the story at face value, the pigs ran at least thirty miles, most of it uphill to drown themselves in the sea of Galillee.

[The Grand Nudger]

Which would be a problem for any historical jesus candidate.  He's a man, allegedly, known far and wide.  Take away every miracle, even the mundade miracles - and the candidates fail on account of obscurity, still.

But if you take away the miracles, then the pigs ran down the cliff and drown themselves for NO REASON. 

No pigs ever ran down any hill.  Not for no reason, not for any reason. The pig bit isn't part of any of the historical jesus candidates.