Flavius Josephus About Jesus?

[Oberon]

The existence of any historical figure rises and falls on its own merits. How reliable or unreliable writings are of one figure has no bearing on the other. If there's nothing on Jesus there's nothing on Jesus regardless of what is known or unknown of anyone else.

The importance of the other documents is figuring out the genre of the gospels. You, for example, state that they gospels are myths. Yet you have read so little of ancient history or of ancient myths you aren't able to tell the difference.

Having read only modern history, and then turning to the NT, it is no wonder that they seem to be anything other than historically reliable. However, when one looks around at oral traditions, ancient historical genres, and ancient myth, not to mention studying the sociology of religions, not only do the gospels begin to look more like ancient history and less like ancient myth, it become impossible to explain the jesus sect without jesus.

 

[logician]

The Jesus tale has its merits as storytelling, but has little merit as documentaion of a historical record or event, and should be taken as such.

 

[Oberon]

The Jesus tale has its merits as storytelling, but has little merit as documentaion of a historical record or event, and should be taken as such.

Yet Jesus is in Josephus, a Jewish historian, in Paul's letters, which aren't stories, as well as the gospels. So even if we ignore the various studies on orality in the gospels and comparing the gospels to graeco-roman biography, and ignore the gospels we are still left with more historical data for jesus' existence than for many ancient persons.

 

[logician]

If history wanted us to find a historical Jesus, it did a very bad job of doing it.

 

[Oberon]

If history wanted us to find a historical Jesus, it did a very bad job of doing it.

The sources, on the other hand, do a pretty good job of letting us find a historical jesus.

 

[Ben Masada]

[/color][/b]

Vantage Press is a publisher for people who can't publish their books anywhere else because they are rejected. The book isn't available in university libraries, or even amazon, because it isn't credible. The author is a nobody, and the book apparently has zero status anywhere.

If you want your points on Josephus to be taken seriously, how about citing modern scholars (by scholars I mean someone with some sort of expertise in biblical studies or ancient history) and a book that was published by an academic press (and not one so obscure it is virtually impossible to find because it was published by a nobody)?




I can and I do. There have been many publications on Josephus since 1987. Moreover, Joseph Mendson is a nobody, and not a scholar. Off the top of my head, J. P. Meier, Geza Vermes, Gerd Theissen, Bart Ehrman, J. D. G. Dunn, and several others have all worked on Josephus more recently than 1987. Moreover, for the past hundred years virtually all scholars have accepted that the shorter reference to Jesus by Josephus is unaltered and genuine, and a wide consensus believe that the longer reference is altered but contains a genuine reference by Josephus to Jesus.



A major is meaningless. The guy doesn't have a PhD or any sort of relevant expertise. His book is so obscure it is almost impossible to find.

Nevertheless, I found it in the Public Library of Tel-Aviv. I wonder how this book came to stop here all the way from New York. And he does have a PhD in Theology and Psychology. The Major in Christian Theology which I mentioned previously was acquired as a BA in a Seventh-Day Adventist Faculty in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Then, he taught Hebrew in the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Back in the United States, he studied Judaism and Gemara in the University of Conservatism Judaism in Los Angeles, California. Okay, that's all I read in the "About the Author" page.

Anyway, it does mean a thing to someone who can't hear of anyone else who can see a little further than he does. No wonder they say that jealousy is the root of all evil.

 

[Oberon]

Nevertheless, I found it in the Public Library of Tel-Aviv. I wonder how this book came to stop here all the way from New York.

Public libary? Because public libraries take whatever is donated to them, including the junk. University libraries have academic works. This guy published an obscure book by an obscure press that isn't taken seriously or mentioned anywhere in scholarship and is almost impossible to find. I gave you the names of many actual experts in this field, including perhaps THE expert in Josephus, many of whom have published SINCE 1987, and who ALL argue that not only is the shorter reference completely genuine and the longer mostly genuine, but that a wide consensus of scholarship believes the longer reference is mostly genuine and virtually EVERY scholar believes the shorter one is.

In response, you give a book so obscure it is nearly impossible to find, and is NOT by an expert in ancient judaism, classics, or josephus.

Now, why don't you list some ACTUAL scholarship to support your "points?"

 

[dogsgod]

What Origen comments on in the third century contradicts what we have of the fourth century Testimonium Flavianum. We can conclude that the Testimonium Flavianum may have said something about Jesus and that's about all that can be said, but to suggest that it's mostly or even partly original is wishful thinking.

 

[Oberon]

What Origen comments on in the third century contradicts what we have of the fourth century Testimonium Flavianum. We can conclude that the Testimonium Flavianum may have said something about Jesus and that's about all that can be said, but to suggest that it's mostly or even partly original is wishful thinking.

If Origen was able to state something about what Josephus believed about Jesus, it means Josephus said something about Jesus. Ergo, Josephus knew of his existence. And he also said something about Jesus' brother. And, we have numerous studies showing typical Josephan vocabulary and syntax in the passage in the Testimonium.

 

[dogsgod]

Origen wrote in the third century, do the math.

 

[Oberon]

Origen wrote in the third century, do the math.

What does that have to do with anything? He wrote with a knowledge of Josephus' texts. Now, either you think he had no idea about what Josephus knew, in which case you can't marshall his testimony as evidence against the authenticity of most of the longer passage which concerns Jesus, or he DID have access to Josephus' texts, and therefore KNEW what Josephus thought about Jesus, and therefore we know that Josephus discussed Jesus.

You can't have it both ways.

As Vermes puts it "The fact that Origen denies thatJosephus believed in the messianic status of Jesus indirectly proves that the version of the Antiquities known to the Alexandrian master in the mid-third century included something about Jesus."

Vermes, G. "The Jesus Notice of Josephus Re-Examined." Journal of Jewish Studies 38 (1987): 1-10.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

If Origen was able to state something about what Josephus believed about Jesus, it means Josephus said something about Jesus. Ergo, Josephus knew of his existence. And he also said something about Jesus' brother. And, we have numerous studies showing typical Josephan vocabulary and syntax in the passage in the Testimonium.

Are you serious?

Josephus NEVER "Knew" the person called (Yeshua)...Jesus. At best he, like the writer of the book of Luke, gathered his information from those who said they knew him (i.e. Christians)....if, in his surviving writings, he actually did reference the biblical Yeshua at all. This will continue to be a "circular" argument........

 

[dogsgod]

Oberon likes to believe.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Oberon likes to believe.

But...are we arguing a historical Yeshua because he is described and recorded?

If so then I agree.



Are we arguing that he actually existence because we have evidence?

If so then I disagree.


Edit: What makes the supposed existence of Yeshua real compared to Zeus?

 

[dogsgod]

Oberon's beliefs tell us more about Oberon than about what Josephus "knew," that's all I was getting at. At least some realize that Josephus is not the all and end all, and on top of that, we don't know what he actually wrote.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Oberon's beliefs tell us more about Oberon than about what Josephus "knew," that's all I was getting at. At least some realize that Josephus is not the all and end all, and on top of that, we don't know what he actually wrote.

And I agree.

 

[Oberon]

Are you serious?

Josephus NEVER "Knew" the person called (Yeshua)...Jesus. At best he, like the writer of the book of Luke, gathered his information from those who said they knew him (i.e. Christians)....if, in his surviving writings, he actually did reference the biblical Yeshua at all. This will continue to be a "circular" argument........

So what? Josephus lived shortly after Jesus, while contemporaries of Jesus were still alive. Do you reject ALL of ancient history because most historians did not personally witness everything they wrote about? Josephus wrote A LOT about things which happened even PRIOR to Jesus. He was alive for the trial of James, Jesus' brother. The fact is, we have every reason to believe that a historian like Jospephus knew people who knew Jesus, and wrote about him. Same with John the Baptist and others who Josephus wrote about. He was a historian who went around talking and recording statements from those who knew.

Edit: What makes the supposed existence of Yeshua real compared to Zeus?

My god, have you ever read anything on ancient history or the historical Jesus?

Nobody ever wrote anything in which Zeus is set in a historical time and place. Mark set Jesus in palestine shortly before his writing, while living people could still say "wait a minute, this never happened." Paul, who KNEW Jesus' brothers, and was a contemporary of Jesus, also wrote about him. NOTHING LIKE THIS IS EVER RECORDED ANYWHERE ABOUT ZEUS

 

[Oberon]

Oberon's beliefs tell us more about Oberon than about what Josephus "knew," that's all I was getting at.

Right. I can back up everything I say with plenty of references to scholarship. You peruse wikipedia and google and make so many mistakes it is truly sad. I read greek, latin, and hebrew in order to read all the relevant original texts. You aren't even familiar with the translations. Your dogmatic insistence in following the one or two scholars with peripheral degrees who believe what you want to believe anyway, not to mention whatever websites or non-experts you dig up, as well as your dogmatic opposition to reading ANY ACTUAL SCHOLARSHIP even by non-christians is indicative not of an unbiased person actually wanting to KNOW what evidence is or isn't available but of a completely biased and "faith-based" approach to getting the view you had prior to reading anything: a mythicist Jesus which has been rejected by virtually every person in a position to render a knowledgable verdict.

My posts say something about being tired of dealing with people, especially those who "claim" to be interested in truth (at least people approaching texts through faith have an excuse for being blind) who dogmatically insist on rejecting thorough and scholarly analyses of historical issues in favor of searching through google for whatever they can find to support the opinions they already have.

At least some realize that Josephus is not the all and end all, and on top of that, we don't know what he actually wrote.

If only you had any idea of what you speak. Unfortunately, we know the many, many blatant errors you make all the time (see here for a partial list) that you don't.


There is NO TEXT AT ALL FROM CLASSICAL HISTORY that we have the autographs (the originals) of. ALL texts show at least SOME changes in the copying process. Yet we know from Origen, writing in the third century, that Josephus DID talk about Jesus. Ever text we have of Josephus has BOTH references to Jesus. And with the James reference AT LEAST, there are virtually NO scholars of any religious persuasion who do not consider it completely genuine.

 

[dogsgod]

"The fact is, we have every reason to believe that a historian like Jospephus knew people who knew Jesus, and wrote about him."

 

[dogsgod]

I set out to discern the historical Jesus from the legendary, in other words, I assumed an historical Jesus, I explained this before, but Oberon insists he knows otherwise, "completely biased and "faith-based" approach to getting the view you had prior to reading anything: a mythicist Jesus which has been rejected by virtually every person in a position to render a knowledgable verdict." Oberon is full of himself.