I would actually argue for removing the straw man prohibition in the commenting policy because almost every argument against every position can be accused of being a straw man argument and many of our initial arguments *are* inadvertently straw men because we don't really understand the position contrary to our own.

I think you raise a good point. If you actually know that your opponent does not say X, what could be the point of trying to refute X?

Ben,
(If you are still here and not banned) According to almost every account I've read by academics, Christian, agnostic and unbeliever alike, there seem to be good reasons for doubting the authenticity of at least some of the language used by Josephus. But I think even if we are to grant that they are the exact words Josephus decided to use his theological musings don't count for much, nor do his details of the life of Christ, limited though they are. Josephus was reporting biased history very much after the events had occurred. Josephus wasn't born until the year 37. Jesus was dead several years prior to that. The writings in question don't show up until nearly 100 CE. In any event, There are two mentions in Antiquities. The references come very much after the fact, and working from secondary, and tertiary sources. Again, most scholars disagree with Mr. Sorenson.

Whether the surviving quotes contain Christian interpolations or not, the scholarly consensus is that Josephus did indeed know something of an obscure teacher named Jesus.

Wouldn't Josephus also have known that the followers of that obscure teacher were telling everyone who would listen that he was God incarnate?

That is the view of Biblical scholar Robert Price, among others, who, upon closer examination of that particular passage in Josephus' writing, have discovered that we may have the wrong Jesus and the wrong James. It certainly explains why it took so long for early Christians make reference to it.

The version containing statements about Jesus not necessarily being a man and appearing alive, would be inconsistent with a Jew who was unconvinced by the claims of the Christians he was familiar with. I think it makes sense to prefer the latter reading. But how could I know? I can't read the vernacular, I'm not deeply familiar with the period, have no idea how many versions are floating around. I don't know what else Josephus says that might question his credibility, his ability to observe these matters, what sources he drew on. This is why it makes sense to defer to mainstream historians.

Of course, these same scholars do not accept that the historical record establishes any of the supernatural claims in the Bible.

Not even Josephus believed that Jesus was God or that the Christians were right.

My issue with this article is that it asks us to take Mr. Sorensen at his word when states that this or that is the "scholarly consensus." Why should we? He has no academic credentials pertaining to the field of study in question. He is employed by Catholic Answers, an unscholarly and even contra-scholarly website. Strange Notions itself appears to be suspicious of scholarly consensus, as evidenced by the moderator's recent comments on the NAB. The reader has no reason at all to regard Mr. Sorensen as a reliable source on the issue scholarly consensus.

The Wikipedia entry on the Testimonium may have been written by non-scholars but it includes extensive footnotes demonstrating its general reliability. This article does not. You have appealed to scholarly consensus from time to time but have also demonstrated by the books you've quoted that you posses a basic awareness of scholarly consensus. Mr. Sorensen does not even attempt to do the same. His single quote of Klausner is not enough.

Right, there is nothing here that isn't available to anybody with a "lay" interest. (I would note that it's odd that he doesn't discuss the references to James or John in detail, since scholars make a lot more hay out of the authenticity of those passages).

What is at stake here? The only take-away seems to be that Josephus is another example of an early witness to the existence of Jesus. I suppose that matters in debates with "mythicists," but doesn't seem otherwise applicable to this site's nature.