"If the TF was a forgery (and you seem to grant that it likely is),"

No, that is not at all what I said, or implied.  Also, there is a big difference between 'forgery' and 'interpolation.' Grant the worst- because it's not relevant.

"There is no evidence whatever that Origen was aware of that passage, and his failure to reference it has been just one of the reasons that so many doubt the authenticity of the TF."

You are not reading very carefully.   Origen said that Josephus rejected Jesus as Christ.  How did he know this?

"Hence, most scholars take the James reference as reasonably likely to be authentic."

Which is exactly why I submitted it and made sure also to focus on the James reference.  If one has gone so far as to admit that the James reference as being authentic, allowing for the existence of another passage about Christ that indicated to Origen that Josephus rejected Christ, is really a small step.

"Did the modifier phrase 'the brother of Jesus called Christ' actually occur in Josephus' description of "a man called James"? It would have been an easy interpolation to make, although most scholars treat the passage as a prima facie early reference to Jesus."

Why is it that despite the fact that 'most scholars' accept the passage- and these often liberal- you insist on wearing your tinfoil hat?

"That leaves us with a lot of questions."

No it doesn't.  Origen wrote to Celsus c. 250 AD, expecting Celsus to have access to the works of Josephus.   Any interpolation would have had to have occurred pretty early.  There is only a 150 year window here to work with.

It's a very basic question, Cop:

Why would Josephus submit to Celsus ANYTHING about Josephus and Christ if there were not passages in Josephus about them?

That is the only important question you need to consider.  Thus, we see you once again invoking speculation left and right, by suggesting:

"It is quite conceivable that Origen himself, who did not actually quote the passage, confused the "James" mentioned in Josephus with the brother of Jesus. A later scribe might well have inserted the marginal material, because he knew of Origen's point of view."

All this is bunk, in light of the fact that Origen was writing to a foe of Christianity in an apologetic.  Your speculation suggests something that is not very 'easy' at all.  It requires some things that make it wholly untenable.

Your emphasis on Origen betrays your cynicism.  The emphasis ought to be on Origen's audience, Celsus.  It's one thing to speculate that Origen confused this James (and I suppose he added 'the baptist' to 'John,' too- that Origen- he was an idiot, after all), it's quite another to think that Celsus would be too stupid as to look up the passage on his own and counter that this 'brother of Christ' business was not in there.

Or, what possible good is it to an apologist to cite material that the skeptic cannot access?

Here, Cop.  I have irrefutable evidence of Christ's existence.  Are you ready for this?  This will end the conversation right here:  2 Maccabees 4:10

HA.  What do you say to that?

"The simplest story, however, is that Josephus himself knew of the Christian sect, and he identified James as the brother of Jesus."

Is it really simpler? And how did Josephus know that James was the brother of Jesus?

"Why did he think that this particular James was the brother of Jesus? We'll probably never know, but it is still within the realm of possibility that Josephus was confused."

So what?  It's also within the realm of possibility that he had good reason to think so!

At what point are you going to offer any truly substantive arguments against any of the material I offer?   Must we really believe your whole argument against the existence of Jesus is to take every evidence for his existence and invoke a thousand speculative possibilities and consider for that reason the argument for his existence 'weak'?  Is that really the hill you are planning on dying on?

"Josephus was published in 93 CE in Rome. Origen was writing about it a century later, and it is unclear what Origen's source text contained."

But not so unclear as to know that the source text talked about Jesus.  Within a century we have to suppose that either Josephus was interpolated without anyone noticing, or Origen posted content that he was confused about to an opponent with the express purpose of convincing him, and Celsus' text ALSO included the interpolation, or Origen did not expect him to have access to it (so why bring it up, and give the appropriate book?).

No, what's abundantly clear, TF or not, Josephus referenced Jesus.

"Hold on, sntjohnny. You all but dismissed the TF as an obvious forgery,"

That's extremely presumptuous.  What I said was 'grant it' because it was not relevant.  We need not concern ourselves with the content of the passage in order to know, thanks to Origen's dialogue with a skeptic, that at the very least the existence of Jesus is corroborated.

But no, I certainly did not dismiss it as a forgery, or an 'obvious forgery.'  I only said I didn't particularly care.

"The second mention is hardly solid evidence, since it is an indirect reference--a casual mention of a man that was said to be the brother of Jesus."

What, a deliberate mention would have been better?  lol, in the TF we hve what might be called a deliberate mention, and skeptics have wanted to castrate it ever since.  This just goes to show you that certain folks can't be pleased no matter what you give them.

At anyrate, a casual mention is in many respects preferred, because then we don't have to worry that Josephus' attention was on that particular thing at all, and consequently possibly trying to make hay on his agenda with it.

""You are not reading very carefully. Origen said that Josephus rejected Jesus as Christ. How did he know this?""

"You tell me. How did Origen know this? Why would that statement lead us to believe that he had some knowledge of a version of the TF?""

The only reason why I brought up the TF at all is because it's the only passage that comes close to telling us anything about how Josephus felt about Jesus.  Origen had to have come by this conclusion based on something.  Whether it was the TF, or perhaps some other passage for whatever reason no longer in existence (we can invoke your mysterious interpolaters as an explanation for its excisement), there must have been information from Josephus telling us he rejected Jesus.

Thus, there is that passage whatever it is, and the James passage.

"Not necessarily."

Not necessarily what?  A small step?  No, it really is a small step.

"If Josephus were a Jew that had accepted Christ as the true Messiah, then he would have stated that in his histories."

How do you know this?  Please justify this with some concrete passages from Josephus.  I'm sorry, but you make all sorts of conclusions as though they were merely common sense but you never make any attempt to justify them from the record.  I am thus at quite the disadvantage.  I disagree that he would have stated it in his histories, which after all, were not primarily about him, but rather the HISTORIES.

Since apparently we are allowed to read the minds of ancient authors and use our cross-century telepathy to come to our conclusions, let me suggest that if Josephus were a Jew that had accepted Christ, his credibility within the Jewish community would obviously suffer, and his works fall into disrepute.  The last thing that Josephus could afford would be to lumped into the group accused of 'mischeiveious superstitions.'

Of course, my paragraph there was just counter-speculation to your own.  

It's at least as good as yours.

"Most Christian scholars are motivated to find evidence of Jesus' historicity, no matter how flimsy."

That isn't quite true.  The evidence for Jesus EXISTENCE is really quite strong.  You equivocate, of course, by saying 'historicity' and then using the same word in regards to the mysterious Christian interpolaters trying to also find evidence of his 'historicity.'  The motives are not quite the same, I'm afraid.  All we are doing is working up an argument with the conclusion that Jesus existed, beyond a reasonable doubt.

And that's where the rub is.  Doubt is one thing- irrational unreasonable doubt is quite another.  I'm afraid even the most cogent apologists cannot ultimately handle that.

"A century and a half is a long time. Joseph Smith and friends invented a whole new addition to the Bible in that time span, and it is taken as solid fact today by roughly 12 million people."

Red Herring that actually proves my point.  Within that time, we have access to all sorts of tools still about the origins of Mormonism.  We possess all of the primary resources, and so can challenge various claims, confident they were made.

"Josephus was published in 93 CE, but his work may well have existed in several different versions in Origen's time, thanks to the imperfect copying process of scribal transmission."

'May very well' seems to be the preface to all of your arguments.  I believe your skepticism is actually cynicism.

"I would love to have learned what triggered Origen's rant against Celsus, but Christians often neglected to preserve records that contradicted their beliefs."

Nice cheap shot.  We only know of Celsus at all because Origen responded to him.   Those Christians are a nefarious bunch to you, aren't they?  Can't do anything right, eh?

"All it would take would be a note in the margin of a manuscript: "James=brother of Jesus"."

lol, a note by who?  And how did the same note end up in Celsus' copy??!?!?

"If Celsus bothered to reply, yes, that could have happened. Do you think that any such reply would have been preserved for posterity by Christian scribes over the centuries? I don't."

The perservation of Celsus' reply is completely irrelevant.  The point is that Origen would not have referred to Celsus to a source, for the sole purpose in refuting him or persuading him, if he did not think or hope that Celsus had access to the same source.

What do you say about my 2 Maccabees passage.  It completely proves that Jesus is God and Christianity is true.  I'd stake my reputation on that 2 Macc passage.  That 2 Mac passage rocks.  You stand refuted by it.

All you can do is give me a smiley in response to that argument clinching piece of evidence?

""So what? It's also within the realm of possibility that he had good reason to think so!""

"Yes, it is. We'll probably never know the truth. My point is not that your interpretation is wrong, but that it could be reasonably imagined differently."

But since the imaginations equally cancel each other out, there is no reason for you to submit them to me.  Unless you have something concrete, you are resigned to accepting the prima facie textual evidence.

"We have no independent evidence to back up our guesses."

That's not true.  Josephus' description of James as brother of Jesus is of course corrobrated by the Christian literature.  That's therefore independent of Josephus.

That Josephus did actually make the comment to James as brother of Jesus we have of course the textual evidence of Josephus itself, we also have Origen, citing the very passage in question against a foe of Christianity- stupid if false- and Eusebius, as well.  

In this one bundle here we have:

1.  James the brother of Jesus corroborated.
2.  The existence of the passage corroborated by two later authors, one writing comparatively early.
3.  One of those authors was submitting the passage to a foe.

So, no, you really can't say that I have no independent evidence to support my acceptance of the James passage.  I truly don't care if you accept my conclusion that Origen's mysterious knowledge of Josephus' rejection of faith implies the existence of another passage- I think you strain out a gnat in order to swallow a camel.  At this point, I'll just take the James passage.

"Hold it right there. I am not trying to prove that Jesus never existed."

Good, I'm not trying to prove he did.

"I am trying to show that the evidence for his existence in non-Christian sources is shaky."

That's fine!  By God, I wish you would!  You demonstrate nothing by laying seige to my arguments with a litany of speculations that can be rejected merely by offering a contradictory speculation.  If I offer a piece of evidence, you should offer counter-EVIDENCE.

THAT would show these sources are 'shaky.'

"We have no direct textual evidence from the time of Jesus,"

No?  Are you sure?

"As a Christian, you naturally start with the assumption that he existed. I do not."

Do I?  How quickly you forget.  I threw out all my assumptions at one time.   There was a time when I was not a Christian, therefore, I did not 'naturally' start out with any assumptions.  I established what I thought was a reasonable epistemology.  In doing so, I needed a reasonable one for historical inquiry, as well.  In doing that, I realized that if I were to reject the existence of Jesus, it would be on completely arbitrary grounds, and if I rejected his existence based on this sort of evidence and methodology, I would surely have to do the same in other areas of history.

Thus, at least I'm consistent.  You'd never apply your skeptical methods to any other area of historical inquiry, but if you did, you'd effectively eliminate the possibility of ever uttering a 'historical fact.'  I was not willing to reduce history to agnosticism just because of the implications of the application of a historical epistemology.

For the record.

"What internet do you think people posted their debates on in those days?"

LoL.  How far you will go to deny the obvious.  So now your argument is that people did not have access to information.   yea.... solid....

"Origen was writing an anti-Celsus polemic. Celsus' work was apparently a well-known anti-Christian polemic."

Yes, so it's always a good strategy, when responding to an apparently well known anti-Christian polemic to refer to the author of that polemic, and submit your refutation to the world at large (like the Romans that mocked the Christians) materials you either know to be false, or materials you don't think any of them will have access to.

You've gone and done it again.  You've conceded that Celsus' work was probably well known.  Perfect!  Now, Origen is submitting his refutation not just to Origen, but the general public in the Roman empire, none of whom- internet or not- are expected to have access to Josephus.  *scoff*

"Clearly, Origen's polemic did not receive rave reviews in the pagan community, because Christians would have preserved any records of those. Instead, we get bupkis on pagan reactions to Origen from the Christian propaganda machine."

lol, so a minute ago you were saying that it was not reasonable to suppose that Celsus had access to the information because they didn't have the internet, but now that we don't have access or evidence of any responses, the notion that not all information was preserved or accessible is out the door and you invoke a Christian propoganda machine!

Perhaps Christians did preserve these records, but they are nonetheless lost, because, after all, they didn't have the Internet.  Oh, wait a minute- we're talking about Christians, so they don't get the dignity of the same speculation.  Rank hypocrisy.

Notice, I did not merely give you Josephus.  I anticipated your arguments and showed you something early on from Origen, speaking to a foe, documenting the existence of the very things we find in Josephus.   That's three strands of evidence right there.  In reply we have....

Speculation.
 
Do you deny that Origen's citation is evidence corroborating the existence of the Josephus passage about James?  Ignore the TF.  It's not relevant.

bump

I am pleased that you find it all invigorating.  Though I often mutter under my breath as I read your posts, I have high hopes that we'd all get along grand in person, over coffee, a beer, or some irish whiskey.

In light of your post, though, I wonder if you want me to wait, or proceed on parts 3-5?  Well, I was only going to post part 3 in the near future, though I'm close to ready on parts 4 and 5.  I can wait, if you like, or post away.

who cut and run here?