Yes. I've hilited #2 because the intrusive nature of the T.F. is a dead give-away that it was rather clumsily inserted into the text by a later author. What are your views on the other Josephus reference to Jesus, referring to James as the brother of "Jesus who was called the Christ"?
I went over this several times with
post 3903 likely being the best one:
The problem with the James brother of Christ comment in Josephus is that we don't know if that is what he actually wrote or that even if genuine refers to Jesus. (Carrier, Richard (2012). "Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200".
Journal of Early Christian Studies 20 (4).)
Never mind there the details are off as Josephus' James dies 62 CE just by stoning while nearly everybody else puts the death c69 CE by stoning, being thrown from top of the Temple, stoned, and finally beaten to death by laundrymen (insert tasteless joke about clean death here
) and his successor Saint Simeon of Jerusalem is not appointed till after the siege of Jerusalem ie 70 CE
"After the martyrdom of James
and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed..." (Eusebius of Caesarea,
Church History, Book III, ch. 11.) Well, let's look at the list of High Priests from the removal of Ananus to the conquest of Jerusalem:
Joshua ben Damneus (ie Jesus son of Damneus) 63
Joshua ben Gamaliel 63-64
Mattathias ben Theophilus 65-66
Phannias ben Samuel 67-70
Supposedly Eusebius has Josephus right at his finger tips (he is the first person to mention the infamous Testimonium Flavianum after all) so how (bad pun time) in the name of Heaven does he mess this up?
Either Eusebius has the most insane definition of "immediately followed" in the history of the world (7 years and four High Priests) or his James is NOT the same James referenced in Josephus.
As I said before
"The Bible uses the term "christ" or "messiah" for a variety of figures, including all of the
high priests and kings of ancient Israel" (Wright, Stuart A. (1995) Armageddon in Waco University of Chicago Press pg 296)
"In a characteristic typological reading he asserts that Moses himself was the first to recognize the glory of the name of Christ because he applied this title (in Greek as in the Hebrew, mashiah means simply "the anointed one") to
the High Priest" (Yerushalmi, Yosef Hayim (1993)
Freud's Moses Yale University Press pg 91)
So even if you take the tack the passage hasn't been tampered with (which there is good reason to suspect) it could still refer to the Jesus at the end of the passage: Jesus the son of Damneus who was made high priest by Agrippa and therefore became "christ" ie "the annotated one".
Odds are Origen saw this passage and assumed the James here was James the Just and either he or a later Christian glossed the passage. Still later a Christian scribe moved the gloss into the main text.
This is basically what Resmburg said back in 1909:
"This passage is probably genuine with the exception of the clause, "who was called Christ," which is undoubtedly an interpolation, and is generally regarded as such.
Nearly all the authorities that I have quoted reject it. It was originally probably a marginal note.
Some Christian reader of Josephus believing that the James mentioned was the brother of Jesus made a note of his belief in the manuscript before him, and this a transcriber afterward incorporated with the text, a very common practice in that age when purity of text was a matter of secondary importance.
The fact that the early fathers, who were acquainted with Josephus, and who would have hailed with joy even this evidence of Christ's existence, do not cite it, while Origen expressly declares that Josephus has not mentioned Christ, is conclusive proof that it did not exist until the middle of the third century or later."
The authorities Remsburg is referring to are Rev. Dr. Giles, Rev. S. Baring-Gould, Dr. Chalmers, Dean Milman, Canon Farrar, Theodor Keim, Adolph Hausrath, Rev. Dr. Hooykaas, and Alexander Campbell
More over near the end of Book II, Chapter XIII of his
Commentary on Matthew Origen says that he disagrees with Josephus' placement of blame for the destruction of Jerusalem on the death of James saying that it should be attributed to Jesus. Because of this and numerous other conflicts with Origen there is serious doubt to the authenticity of the 'who was called Christ' phrase. (Painter, John (2005).
Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition. Univ of South Carolina Press ISBN 0-567-04191-3.)
In fact Painter above states:
"What he (Origen) has to say at this point is, however,
not to be found in extant text of Josephus. No precise reference is given by Origen, and
the quotation cannot be found in Josephus, nor does its form suggest that it is a precise quotation."
All Carrier really did is provide the scholarly work that this idea has long need but the idea itself has been around for over 100 years and back then the idea was pretty mainstream.
