Do you know historicists who reject entirely all the Testimonia Flaviana as interpolations ?

[Giuseppe]

Please make us know...

[ABuddhist]

A person on Reddit, with the username "Chrissy_H_", claimed to be writing a book about mythicism with help from James McGrath and Justin Meggitt.

Although Chrissy_H_ thinks that Jesus was a historical person, Chrissy_H_ agrees that the Josephan passages referring to Jesus Christ are interpolations.

Chrissy_H_, from what I understand, is Chris Hansen, who has has since abandoned eir plans for a book about mythicism after having received death threats.

[Maciej]

Joseph Hoffmann who view mythicists as a "disease-carrying mosquitoes" sees both the TF and James passage as an interpolation. But idk if he still holds to this view. https://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2 ... bacle-rip/

Louis H. Feldman argued for Eusebian authorship of the TF flavianum in his 2012 paper? He was not clear about his conclusion.

[perseusomega9]

A person on Reddit, with the username "Chrissy_H_", claimed to be writing a book about mythicism with help from James McGrath and Justin Meggitt.

Oh great, McGrath hasn't read a mythicist argument that he couldn't patronize, wildly misread, misconstrue, or strawman to death.

Although Chrissy_H_ thinks that Jesus was a historical person, Chrissy_H_ agrees that the Josephan passages referring to Jesus Christ are interpolations.

Chrissy_H_, from what I understand, is Chris Hansen, who has has since abandoned eir plans for a book about mythicism after having received death threats.

Cry me a river, Chris(sy) Hansen had no problem dishing out insults to mythicists.

eta: added patronize to the McGrath comment

[Giuseppe]

Chris Hansen thinks that the 'called Christ' is genuine, so he is excluded from the list.

Hoffmann is indeed the only scholar who denies both the testimonia flaviana (note: also the 'called Christ' of Ant. 20:200) and continues to be a historicist.

But I should recover a claim by Hoffmann where he says that he is possibilist about Jesus being really Judas the Galilean.

Which would make him virtually a mythicist (at least, insofar Daniel Unterbrink is one).

[Giuseppe]

Here is Joseph Hoffmann suggesting, quasi tempting the reader to conclude, the possibility that the historical Jesus was just Judas the Galilean:

“In specific ways, the political message of Jesus seems identical to the person described by Josephus (Ant. 18.1) as Judas of Galilee, who opposed the tax structure imposed on the Jews following the census of Quirinius mentioned by both Luke and Josephus. The geographical coordinates of Jesus and Judas coincide in important and suggestive ways.”

(My bold)
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2013/01/ ... out-jesus/

Without the support of a genuine Testimonium Flavianum, Hoffmann is not able to deny in clear terms that Jesus and Judas the Galilean are one and the same person.

[Maciej]

Dennis R. MacDonald has a rare view. He sees "called Christ" in James passage as an interpolation but he still thinks its about James, the brother of Christ, because we don't know of any other James who was brother of someone named Jesus. In Two Shipwrecked Gospels, he wrote:

"The phrase “who was called the Christ” may be another Christian gloss, but probably not “the brother of Jesus,” which seems to be Josephus’s way of distinguishing between this James (Jacob) from several others. It would appear that the historian expected the reader to be more familiar with Jesus than with James, presumably because the reader already had encountered Jesus in book 18. This observation is the strongest evidence that Josephus earlier had discussed Jesus"

He debated this with Richard Carrier on youtube but I don't recall where.

I know that Benedict Niese regarded the James passage as an interpolation. What was his view on the TF tho?

[neilgodfrey]

Chrissy_H_, from what I understand, is Chris Hansen, who has has since abandoned eir plans for a book about mythicism after having received death threats.

Hansen has said death threats were received but afaik no details have been given. I can imagine CH taking some words as death threats that may have been more motivated by attributes other than mythicist views and that mythicist views are presented as the reason to hide these real motives -- if they were real. I asked for details and what he had done about them but no response. (CH used to complain a lot about how nasty mythicists were to him as if there was some genetic character flaw in mythicists by definition -- but did not respond when I responded that I had copped the exact same nastiness from historicists here. That historicists could behave in the same way did not seem to compute with him. And the silence on any explanation or description of the death threats remains.)

[neilgodfrey]

Albert Schweitzer (Quest, Fortress, 359)

This note [Book 18 of Antiquities] is either inauthentic or so extravagantly interpolated that it can no longer be presented as credible evidence. . . .

Whether this passage [Book 20 of Antiquities] is genuine cannot be determined with certainty. In any case, Josephus is ruled out as a reliable secular witness to Jesus.

Charles Guignebert (Jesus, p. 18 after discussing both the book 18 and book 20 passages)

It seems probable that Josephus did not name Jesus anywhere.

A. D. Howell Smith (Jesus Not a Myth, an argument against mythicism -- after discussing both passages (books 18 and 20) on page 18 concludes:

no testimonies can be produced from Philo and Justus of Tiberias, and doubtfully from Josephus

Further, if interested enough, follow up various citations in the works referenced at https://vridar.org/2010/01/16/what-they ... for-jesus/ -- I think more names can be added if the effort would justify the result.

[MrMacSon]

Dennis R. MacDonald...still thinks [Antiquities 20.200/ 9.1 is] about James, the brother of Christ, because we don't know of any other James who was brother of someone named Jesus. In Two Shipwrecked Gospels, he wrote:

"... It would appear that the historian expected the reader to be more familiar with Jesus/Iesous than with James, presumably because the reader already had encountered Jesus in book 18. This observation is the strongest evidence that Josephus earlier had discussed Jesus"
.

Josephus gives accounts of other Jesuses ( Ἰησοῦς / Iesous ) but, afaik, just not in Antiquities -

1. Iesous ben Sapphias,1 Wars 2:566
2. Iesous ben Gamla,2.a Life, 204-5; Wars, 4:160, 238ff, 316, 322;2.b also 'identified' with/[as] Jesus ben Gamaliel3 Ant. 20. 213/ 9, § 4,7
3. Iesous ben Ananias,4 Wars 6. 5, §3
4. Iesous ben Saphat,1,5 Life 12.66
   
   1 one and the same(?)
   2 a. aka Gamala; . .b. (War, 4. 3, § 9;.. 5, § 2)
   . .https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/joshua-ben-gamla and https://www.geni.com/people/Joshua-ben- ... 6324909410
   3 said to have been a high priest appointed by Agrippa II
   4 also stoned to death, as James was in Ant 20.200
   
   5 eta: I just looked up Josephus' Life and the version I looked at has Jesus the son of Sapphias