Both, not only was the text written by someone else other than Josephus, but also that the statements in the text are false for the reasons I mentioned following the text in the thread. The point is that, in the 4th Century ACE, there was a time when pious forgery was welcome by the Church whose leaders desperately needed to document the historical Jesus, and there was no other literature besides the NT to witness the fact. Since Josephus' works enjoyed more creditation than the NT, his writings had become the best choice to be interpolated with pious forgeries.
I disagree with your account of the forgery date.
First, forgeries in the Church were not welcomed UNTIL the early 9th century CE, when the bishop of Rome was campaigning for primacy so that the Iconoclastic Controversy could be settled in the West. Then in the 12th century to exault the primacy of that papacy over all kings. So you're statement about the Church welcoming forgeries in the 4th century is very inaccurate.
What happened in the 4th century is the Roman Empire let the two Christianities argue which doctrine was right and Romanized that doctrine to make it the State religion.
And you said that nobody accounted for the historical Jesus outside of the NT. This isn't an argument because nobody can account for the historical Moses except for the Tanach, which was written by Jews. These people were not famous at their time and were at odds with their surrounding people. Men like Pharoah and Caesar were well documented and even given busts because the State gave recognition to their political leaders and favored people, rather than the opposite.
Testimony is the only thing we have to go by to provide data about these people, and often those by their followers.
While I do not disagree on your points about the forgery of Josephus, I do disagree on your accusation of a 4th century forgery.
Edited by Bluefinger, 22 August 2012 - 01:57 PM.