Flavius Josephus About Jesus?

[Oberon]

Several Scholars have asserted

You were asked to cite scholars, not claim to know what "several have asserted." Can you name two experts within the past 100 years who have stated that the reference to "James, the brother of Jesus, called the christ" was "unknown until the 4th century?"

Philo's silence itself is an evidence that Josephus' references to Jesus were forgeries.

Hardly. John the Baptist is mentioned by Josephus, and is in the NT, but is found nowhere in Philo. Paul of Tarsus is mentioned nowhere outside of christian literature (not by Philo or Josephus, or the romans) yet we have his letters. Rabbi Hillel is not mentioned by the pharisee Josephus. And so on.

The absence of the mention of a historical figure by one source says nothing about the mention of that figure in another source.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Several Scholars have asserted that those quotations about Jesus in Josephus were absolutely unknown until the 4th Century, ...

That is irresponsible nonsense.

 

[logician]

That's faith which blinds the faithful.

Of course the Xian apologist rant is that the supposed Jesus was too unimportant to be noticed by any important historians of that day, but somehow was important enough to pass on a rich "ORAL" tradition that carried the "REAL" history of Jesus faithfully down thru the years.

Whart utterly absurd nonsense.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Describing how Nero blamed the Christians for Rome's fire in 64 AD(CE) Tacitus wrote:
" Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus [Christ], from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate. "

According to Tacitus did such an opponent as Nero doubt the historicity of Jesus?

 

[logician]

Describing how Nero blamed the Christians for Rome's fire in 64 AD(CE) Tacitus wrote:
" Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus [Christ], from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate. "

According to Tacitus did such an opponent as Nero doubt the historicity of Jesus?

This passage proves absolutely nothing about a historical Jesus:

"
In the "Annals" of Tacitus, the Roman historian, there is another short passage which speaks of "Christus" as being the founder of a party called Christians--a body of people "who were abhorred for their crimes." These words occur in Tacitus' account of the burning of Rome. The evidence for this passage is not much stronger than that for the passage in Josephus. It was not quoted by any writer before the fifteenth century; and when it was quoted, there was only one copy of the "Annals" in the world; and that copy was supposed to have been made in the eighth century--six hundred years after Tacitus' death. The "Annals" were published between 115 and 117 A.D., nearly a century after Jesus' time--so the passage, even if genuine, would not prove anything as to Jesus.
The name "Jesus" was as common among the Jews as is William or George with us. In the writings of Josephus, we find accounts of a number of Jesuses. One was Jesus, the son of Sapphias, the founder of a seditious band of mariners; another was Jesus, the captain of the robbers whose followers fled when they heard of his arrest; still another Jesus was a monomaniac who for seven years went about Jerusalem, crying, "Woe, woe, woe unto Jerusalem!" who was bruised and beaten many times, but offered no resistance; and who was finally killed with a stone at the siege of Jerusalem.
The word "Christ," the Greek equivalent of the Jewish word "Messiah," was not a personal name; it was a title; it meant "the Anointed One."
'

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Pontius Pilate and Tiberius were not at the siege of Jerusalem in the year 70.

Nero's word's fit the time frame for Christ Jesus.

 

[Ben Masada]

[/color][/b]

You were asked to cite scholars, not claim to know what "several have asserted." Can you name two experts within the past 100 years who have stated that the reference to "James, the brother of Jesus, called the christ" was "unknown until the 4th century?"




Hardly. John the Baptist is mentioned by Josephus, and is in the NT, but is found nowhere in Philo. Paul of Tarsus is mentioned nowhere outside of christian literature (not by Philo or Josephus, or the romans) yet we have his letters. Rabbi Hillel is not mentioned by the pharisee Josephus. And so on.

The absence of the mention of a historical figure by one source says nothing about the mention of that figure in another source.

Joseph Mendson, who wrote about the Contradictions of the NT is one who claims that all references to alleged historical figures in the NT by Josephus are pious forgeries by the Church, starting with the 4th Century. Erick Hinnerman is another Scholar of the 19th Century to say almost the same. Now, how will this help you? I know your answer already: "I have never heard about them." Although it doesn't mean a thing.

 

[Ben Masada]

That is irresponsible nonsense.

I have given examples of two of the Scholars who have asserted what I say about the pious forgeries of the Church. Now, the ad hominem of irresponsible nonsense is yours for speaking too much too soon.

 

[Ben Masada]

This passage proves absolutely nothing about a historical Jesus:

"
In the "Annals" of Tacitus, the Roman historian, there is another short passage which speaks of "Christus" as being the founder of a party called Christians--a body of people "who were abhorred for their crimes." These words occur in Tacitus' account of the burning of Rome. The evidence for this passage is not much stronger than that for the passage in Josephus. It was not quoted by any writer before the fifteenth century; and when it was quoted, there was only one copy of the "Annals" in the world; and that copy was supposed to have been made in the eighth century--six hundred years after Tacitus' death. The "Annals" were published between 115 and 117 A.D., nearly a century after Jesus' time--so the passage, even if genuine, would not prove anything as to Jesus.
The name "Jesus" was as common among the Jews as is William or George with us. In the writings of Josephus, we find accounts of a number of Jesuses. One was Jesus, the son of Sapphias, the founder of a seditious band of mariners; another was Jesus, the captain of the robbers whose followers fled when they heard of his arrest; still another Jesus was a monomaniac who for seven years went about Jerusalem, crying, "Woe, woe, woe unto Jerusalem!" who was bruised and beaten many times, but offered no resistance; and who was finally killed with a stone at the siege of Jerusalem.
The word "Christ," the Greek equivalent of the Jewish word "Messiah," was not a personal name; it was a title; it meant "the Anointed One."
'

Hey Locian, that's a superb testimony from Tacitus but, what is the use in the ears of those who are puffed up with blind faith?

 

[logician]

Hey Locian, that's a superb testimony from Tacitus but, what is the use in the ears of those who are puffed up with blind faith?

Saing something about a "Christus" proves nothing about a "Jesus", 2 different subjects. ANd this Christus was very, very likely a later inventions of the sects of Xiantity a century down or so down the line, than anything know around the supposed time of some historical Jesus. It certainly wasn't know by any major historians of the time.

 

[dogsgod]

No scholar can site anything of what we have of the Testimonium Flavianum reference in question before the 4th century, and nothing to the Antiquities of the Jews reference in question prior to the 3rd century.

 

[Oberon]

Joseph Mendson, who wrote about the Contradictions of the NT is one who claims that all references to alleged historical figures in the NT by Josephus are pious forgeries by the Church, starting with the 4th Century. Erick Hinnerman is another Scholar of the 19th Century to say almost the same. Now, how will this help you? I know your answer already: "I have never heard about them." Although it doesn't mean a thing.

So, your support for your theory for Josphus comes from two "scholars" so obscure that searching a search through my university, my university library loan system (which has all the other top universities), google scholar, google books, and google itself comes up with nothing? How about a citation including title, date, publisher, etc? And how about citing something a little more recent, as scholarship on the Josephus controversy has progressed since your over 100 year old source.

 

[logician]

No scholar can site anything of what we have of the Testimonium Flavianum reference in question before the 4th century, and nothing to the Antiquities of the Jews reference in question prior to the 3rd century.

It's rather comparable to somebody deciding to write something about an "unknown' founding father today, it being the first reference to such a person, and the writing being rather cryptic and very general. How reliable would historians take it to be?

 

[Oberon]

It's rather comparable to somebody deciding to write something about an "unknown' founding father today, it being the first reference to such a person, and the writing being rather cryptic and very general. How reliable would historians take it to be?

Hardly.

1. Jesus was not unknown. The earliest testimony to his existence dates to shortly after his death by a contemporary (Paul). Meanwhile, the life of emporer Constantine was only recorded sometime after his death by a church historian.
2. Ancient history and more modern history differ in several ways. Josephus' reference to James, the brother of Jesus, the one called christ, is neither cryptic nor christian.
3. Comparing the written record for founding fathers in an era of widespread literacy to the written record of Jesus is laughable. But then, so is much of what you write.

 

[Ben Masada]

Saing something about a "Christus" proves nothing about a "Jesus", 2 different subjects. ANd this Christus was very, very likely a later inventions of the sects of Xiantity a century down or so down the line, than anything know around the supposed time of some historical Jesus. It certainly wasn't know by any major historians of the time.

You could have a point in there somewhere. No wonder Historians of the time until about the 4th Century never mentioned anything about it.

 

[Ben Masada]

So, your support for your theory for Josphus comes from two "scholars" so obscure that searching a search through my university, my university library loan system (which has all the other top universities), google scholar, google books, and google itself comes up with nothing? How about a citation including title, date, publisher, etc? And how about citing something a little more recent, as scholarship on the Josephus controversy has progressed since your over 100 year old source.

Good that you have replied to this one. I have just found the book "The Interview" by Joseph Mendson. It was published by Vantage Press in New York in 1987. The author must still live. You can't have anything more recent than this. In the biographical details of his life, one of his majors was a degree in Christian Theology. This book I have found, "The Interview" is about the contradictions of the NT. He has published other books about "Pious Forgeries" but I haven't found yet.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

It's rather comparable to somebody deciding to write something about an "unknown' founding father today, it being the first reference to such a person, and the writing being rather cryptic and very general. How reliable would historians take it to be?

Food for thought...
YouTube - Dr. Robert M. Price - Dying and Rising Gods

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Food for thought...

Thin gruel for those who don't wish to think because they've already made up their minds.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Thin gruel for those who don't wish to think because they've already made up their minds.

No problem. I guess I should have seen that one coming .......from you....

 

[dogsgod]

Special pleading, exactly.