Wrong on Josephus. Part of the line is considered a later edition, the other part is not. Not debating this in a comment section. I've read books on the issue and have read on the historical Jesus and the Jesus seminar since the late 1980s. I encourage anyone interested in this subject to do their own reading.
Wrong on Josephus. Part of the line is considered a later edition, the other part is not. Not debating this in a comment section. I've read books on the issue and have read on the historical Jesus and the Jesus seminar since the late 1980s. I encourage anyone interested in this subject to do their own reading.
Not sure which part you mean, but his entire paragraph on Jesus didn't show up till over two centuries later. The suspicion is that it was added by Eusebius, as Marycat's first two links explain above. I've read a few hundred books on Christianity and have had articles in two languages and a book published on the subject, by Penguin Random House. Thanks for the advice.
Wrong on Josephus. Part of the line is considered a later edition, the other part is not. Not debating this in a comment section. I've read books on the issue and have read on the historical Jesus and the Jesus seminar since the late 1980s. I encourage anyone interested in this subject to do their own reading.
Not sure which part you mean, but his entire paragraph on Jesus didn't show up till over two centuries later. The suspicion is that it was added by Eusebius, as Marycat's first two links explain above. I've read a few hundred books on Christianity and have had articles in two languages and a book published on the subject, by Penguin Random House. Thanks for the advice.
https://www.namb.net/apologetics/resource/josephus-and-jesus/ IтАЩll ignore the snark.