Flavius Josephus About Jesus?

[Dirty Penguin]

So what? Josephus lived shortly after Jesus, while contemporaries of Jesus were still alive.

But never knew him and wrote what he heard from others and no contemporary, other than Paul....who never ever met him but said he heard his voice from the heavens on the road......, ever wrote anything about him.

Do you reject ALL of ancient history because most historians did not personally witness everything they wrote about?

I reject the notion that Josephus "knew of his existence".

He was alive for the trial of James, Jesus' brother.

Still debatable and that's one of the reasons I said this debate will continue due to circular arguments.

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

No we don't. We have every reason to believe that Josephus possibly spoke with those who said they knew Yeshua. We also have every reason to believe he was aware of the stories christians were telling in regards to "their christ/messiah"...

 

[dogsgod]

No we don't. We have every reason to believe that Josephus possibly spoke with those who said they knew Yeshua.

More like spoke of a Yeshua rather than knew, if at all. "The one called Christ" comes from Matthew 24:36 which renders it suspicious. A later Christian scribe copying Josephus could have written that into the margin, an anotation, when he noted the Josephus account of a Jesus with a brother named James. A later scribe could have included the side note into the main body of the manuscript when recopying at a later date. We have proof of this happening in other cases wherein we have both copies. Origen came across a copy in the third century and we have no prior reference to it. The point is, "The one called Christ" is suspicious because we have no evidence of anyone reading the gospels outside of theologians themselves until well into the second century. What reason would Josephus have to use the term?

 

[Oberon]

I set out to discern the historical Jesus from the legendary

No, you didn't. If you had, you would have read a lot more actual scholarship, and a lot less B.S. Someone who wants to legitimately learn about a subject doesn't immediately go for the most extreme views. They try to get a balanced approach. Yet you have read so little of actual scholarship, reading only the type of views which reinforce what you wanted to find from the beginning.

in other words, I assumed an historical Jesus, I explained this before

And it is clear you were not truthful. If you were, you would have been far more familiar with the topic, not made all of mistakes you made, and been more familiar with real scholarship. But you didn't set out to learn, you set out to find what you wanted.

 

[Oberon]

But never knew him and wrote what he heard from others and no contemporary

Which is standard for ancient history. How do you think we know about pythagoras? Or numerous other figures from history? MOST of the figures from ancient history

I reject the notion that Josephus "knew of his existence".

Yes, but you know next to nothing about this subject. All of those who HAVE studied Josephus disagree with you. What exactly have you read to convince you to "reject" this notion?

Still debatable and that's one of the reasons I said this debate will continue due to circular arguments.

Its only "debatable" because the neither you or dogsgod no much about this subject. Its easy to find something "debatable" when you don't know anything about it. People find evolution debatable.

No we don't. We have every reason to believe that Josephus possibly spoke with those who said they knew Yeshua.

He was aware of Jesus' brothers trial, which took place DURING his life. He was a historian and investigator, and wrote about what he personally experienced or, if he wasn't around, what those who were around said. To argue that Josephus, a jew living in Jesus' culture while contemporaries of Jesus' life were still around, somehow mistook a completely mythical figure for a genuine person, is ridiculous.

 

[logician]

More like spoke of a Yeshua rather than knew, if at all. "The one called Christ" comes from Matthew 24:36 which renders it suspicious. A later Christian scribe copying Josephus could have written that into the margin, an anotation, when he noted the Josephus account of a Jesus with a brother named James. A later scribe could have included the side note into the main body of the manuscript when recopying at a later date. We have proof of this happening in other cases wherein we have both copies. Origen came across a copy in the third century and we have no prior reference to it. The point is, "The one called Christ" is suspicious because we have no evidence of anyone reading the gospels outside of theologians themselves until well into the second century. What reason would Josephus have to use the term?

The plain truth is there is NO EYEWITNESS recording of the supposed Jesus by a historian. Historically, there is no evidence whatsoever that points to a specific man in history that was the man written about in the stories of the NT. That's the whole point here.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Which is standard for ancient history. How do you think we know about pythagoras? Or numerous other figures from history? MOST of the figures from ancient history

Yes, and I don't have a problem of some one...writing about some one they heard stories about. If Josephus wrote about the biblical Yeshua...he was only writing from what he heard from others.

Yes, but you know next to nothing about this subject. All of those who HAVE studied Josephus disagree with you. What exactly have you read to convince you to "reject" this notion?

Here we go with this tired old mantra again. You made the claim that Josephus "knew of Yeshua's existence"....I'm telling you that all we know is that Josephus knew christians who possibly reported the existence of their christ to him. There is no evidence to conclude Josephus "knew" Yeshua existed. The report is...Yeshua is crucified in 30 BCE and Josepus is born in 37. The date of Antiquities is dated around 75 CE.....so from 30 to 75 we have a 45 year time span of rumors upon rumors.

Its only "debatable" because the neither you or dogsgod no much about this subject. Its easy to find something "debatable" when you don't know anything about it. People find evolution debatable.

I understand what you mean but that's not the case. I find it debateable because we don't have earlier works of Josephus before 3/4 century and it and what we do have appears to have been tampered with by christians scribes...either on purpose or by "accident"....

As far as this weak argument about evolution...there are plenty in the scientific community holding various degrees but are creationist. It's not that they are unfamiliar with the evolutionary process rather dismiss it because it does not fit in with what their bible says.

He was aware of Jesus' brothers trial, which took place DURING his life.

Again, circular argument.

He was a historian and investigator, and wrote about what he personally experienced or, if he wasn't around, what those who were around said. To argue that Josephus, a jew living in Jesus' culture while contemporaries of Jesus' life were still around, somehow mistook a completely mythical figure for a genuine person, is ridiculous.

I'm not arguing that Josephus, a jew, took Yeshua as mythical ...rather...he only knew "of" Yeshua from those who said they knew him (christians). He, like Paul - a contemporary of Yeshua, never knew him personally.

 

[Oberon]

The plain truth is there is NO EYEWITNESS recording of the supposed Jesus by a historian.

The same is true of Socrates, Pythagoras, in many ways the emporer Constatine, Solon, and plenty of others. Most of the figures form ancient history are known to us from far less than what we have for Jesus.

Historically, there is no evidence whatsoever that points to a specific man in history that was the man written about in the stories of the NT.

Completely false. The gospels are all lives (ancient biographies) written about a specific person which are not eyewitness accounts but used eyewitness accounts. Mark was written while people who were witnesses were still around. Paul was a contemporary of Jesus, and knew his brother, and Josephus was around for Jesus' brothers trial. The fact that Jesus had siblings who were known to eyewitnesses means A SPECIFIC MAN.

 

[Oberon]

Yes, and I don't have a problem of some one...writing about some one they heard stories about. If Josephus wrote about the biblical Yeshua...he was only writing from what he heard from others.

And if this kind of testimony is not good enough for you, than you half to write off just about everything we know about ancient history.

Here we go with this tired old mantra again. You made the claim that Josephus "knew of Yeshua's existence"....I'm telling you that all we know is that Josephus knew christians who possibly reported the existence of their christ to him.

And you have no idea what you are talking about. Josephus lived shortly after Jesus' death. He didn't talk to just christians, but far more with other jews. So if Jesus never lived or walked during the generation RIGHT before Josephus, Josephus would absolutely have heard about it, because there would be plenty of Jews around to say "wait a minute! I was around in Jerusalem/galilee during this time. This guy was never here!"

There is no evidence to conclude Josephus "knew" Yeshua existed. The report is...Yeshua is crucified in 30 BCE and Josepus is born in 37. The date of Antiquities is dated around 75 CE.....so from 30 to 75 we have a 45 year time span of rumors upon rumors.

You are missing a central fact. All you are noticing is the seperation in years, not in lives. The point was, while Josephus was growing up and learning about his culture, in the same places where Jesus lived and walked, and the stories about Jesus were being told (and not just by supporters) there were plenty around who could have said "none of this happened because there was no Jesus. The guy is made up."

You don't understand the culture of ancient Israel in Jesus' day. Even the cities weren't that big, let along small towns Jesus visited. Jospephus was a historian who investigated and reported many things, and knew a great deal about what happened in his day and before it. There is no possible way that a man like Jesus could have made the stir that he did, and that Josephus could never have known people who were there at the time. If Jesus didn't live, there is no way that Josephus would never have found people to say so. Yet he reports Jesus' existence.

I understand what you mean but that's not the case. I find it debateable because we don't have earlier works of Josephus before 3/4 century and it and what we do have appears to have been tampered with by christians scribes...either on purpose or by "accident"....

1. We don't have any texts from this period, with very few exceptions (like the NT) which date from before the 3rd or 4th century.
2. Origen, living in the late 2nd and early 3rd century, was familiar with Josephus' writings, and knew that Josephus talked about Jesus.
3. The shorter reference to Jesus' brother has not been tampered with at all.
4. Before you talk about what is debatable in terms of textual criticism, you should probably have at least a basic knowledge OF textual criticism. Or, if you don't want to be bothered, why not just look at the arguments of experts IN textual criticism?

As far as this weak argument about evolution...there are plenty in the scientific community holding various degrees but are creationist. It's not that they are unfamiliar with the evolutionary process rather dismiss it because it does not fit in with what their bible says.

Who? There are precious few scientists (in relevant fields) who disbelieve evolution, even among the religious. It is a basic fact upon which so much in science is built that if you don't believe it you can't get a lot of work done in biology or similar fields.

Anyway, the point is your statement of "debatable." Lot's of things become debatable to people who lack any or most relevant knowledge. If you aren't familiar with what ancient history looks like, what myth looks like, with textual criticism, with orality in Jesus' day, with how we know what we know about ancient history, and a lot of other things, Jesus' existence becomes far more debatable. Likewise, is you don't know anything about evolution (or any given subject), it becomes very debatable. Everything is debatable when you aren't familiar with the relevant data.

Again, circular argument.

How is this circular? You object, without good reason, to Josephus' testimony about Jesus, partly because it was before his time. The trial with James, Jesus' brother was not. It took place during his lifetime, and was something he was in a great position to know about. The text is clearly not tampered with, and clearly not christian, and Josephus knew that James was Jesus' brother. Ergo, we have a statement which has not been tampered with from a guy living during this event, who was in a perfect postion to know, and is about a blood relative to Jesus. Which means he must have existed.

I'm not arguing that Josephus, a jew, took Yeshua as mythical ...rather...he only knew "of" Yeshua from those who said they knew him (christians). He, like Paul - a contemporary of Yeshua, never knew him personally.

I understand you argument. What you don't understand is that it displays a lack of understanding of the social and cultural make-up of first century palestine, let alone of Josephus and the Jesus sect.

Paul probably did not know Jesus personally. Certainly he was not well acquainted with him during his own life. But he moved in the same Jewish circles Jesus did, and began as a persecutor of the church. If Jesus never lived, he would have known because there would have been plenty of people in Jerusalem and Galilee saying "this guy was never around." Moreoever, Paul personally knew Jesus' brothers. Josephus likewise was in a great position to know whether or not Jesus actually lived, and he also knew of Jesus' brothers trial.

 

[dogsgod]

Dirty Penguin, the Josephus references in question were written in 95CE.

 

[dogsgod]

"And if this kind of testimony is not good enough for you, than you half to write off just about everything we know about ancient history."

No, we just write off everything you think you know about ancient history.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Dirty Penguin, the Josephus references in question were written in 95CE.

Thanks....

 

[dogsgod]

No problem.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

"And if this kind of testimony is not good enough for you, than you half to write off just about everything we know about ancient history."

No, we just write off everything you think you know about ancient history.

See I get what Oberon is saying. My problem is the charge that 20.9.1 is genuine is a suspect claim considering they were preserved by christian copyist who originally interpolated a previous book and we have nothing earlier to compare it to. NT documents are slightly different. There was a time where what we had we thought was genuine (enough)...even though those we had were not originals.....later finds discovered that there were numerous interpolations in the gospels thus certain passages had to be removed. We can't do this with Josephus...(yet)...because there is nothing earlier.

 

[dogsgod]

Dirty Penguin, I agree, the notion that 20.9.1 has not been tampered with, intentionally or otherwise, is questionable.

 

[Oberon]

See I get what Oberon is saying. My problem is the charge that 20.9.1 is genuine is a suspect claim considering they were preserved by christian copyist who originally interpolated a previous book and we have nothing earlier to compare it to.

Only you are not looking at this like a textual critic (because, obviously, you aren't one).

Why do we think that Antt. 18.63 ff is either modified or a complete interpolation? This begs the question, why do textual critics EVER think that a text we have has changed from when it was originally penned? Let's give you a basic intro to textual criticism.

1. With the exception of the NT texts (for which we have an amazing amount of textual attestation) most texts from the ancient world come down to us preserved in less than a half a dozen texts from the middle ages. For example, most of our texts for the ancient greek plays date from almost 2000 years after the originals. So the fact that our texts for josephus do not date to before the 3rd century means nothing.

2. How do textual critics decide if a passage has been altered or interpolated? The usual way is a disagreement between texts. Most of our ancient texts have numerous surviving versions. As I said, typically these versions date to some time in the 12th century CE or so. So, if we have four texts of Antiphon's 1st tetralogy, and they disagree, they can't all be right.

3. Another way is that occasionally a line is grammatically or syntactically wrong. Perhaps a scribe accidently switched a few letters and wrote down the wrong word. Perhaps they copied a line twice. Perhaps they missed a word. So when a text has a serious issue with it's flow, sometimes textual critics believe a word is missing, added, changed, etc. Or many words are.

4. Finally, another way is when a line or clause or word just doesn't "fit." Perhaps the line was already present elsewhere in the text. Perhaps it just is so atypical of the author. Perhaps it goes against the thrust of the passage. And so forth.

It is this last category that Ant. 18.63-64 falls. No surviving text we have disagrees here. All the lines fit into the passage syntactically. For this reason, some very notable scholars (e.g. F. C. Burkitt and A. Harnack) have argued that the passage is wholly genuine.

However, it is clear that as it stands, the passage is decidly UN-jewish. The passage clearly states "he was the messiah" (ho christous outos en). So, most scholars do not believe that the text as we have it was written by Josephus.

But note the reasons why. It is not because there are errors or changes elsewhere in the text. EVERY SINGLE TEXT we have has disagreements. EVERY single one is a copy of a copy. If we start doubting texts because there are errors in them somewhere, there goes every single ancient text. THEY ALL ARE COPIES OF COPIES WITH ERRORS!

The important thing to consider, when it comes to 20.200 (Jesus called christ) is WHY so many scholars think the other passage is not completely genuine. The other passage looks christian. This one does not. In fact, it looks decidedly UN-christian, just as the last other one looked UN-Jewish.

Hence, no alteration. In fact, Theissen and Merz's statement is typical here: Die Authentizität der Stelle kann als gesichert gelten...the authenticity of the section kann be considered certain(p. 74 of their textbook Die Historische Jesus: Ein Lehrbuch).

NT documents are slightly different. There was a time where what we had we thought was genuine (enough)...

Not about 200 years.

We can't do this with Josephus...(yet)...because there is nothing earlier.

We have several texts of Josephus. See above for the numerous problems with your approach to textual criticism.

Dirty Penguin, I agree, the notion that 20.9.1 has not been tampered with, intentionally or otherwise, is questionable.

The blind leading the blind.

 

[logician]

"And if this kind of testimony is not good enough for you, than you half to write off just about everything we know about ancient history."

That's a negative argument, not a positive one that suggests a real Jesus existed. Again, the existence of a REAL Jesus is a long, long way from being "proven" historically, it's mostly just a Christian hope based upon Christian scriptures. You have to lower the "evidence" bar almost to the ground to accept that there was a real Jesus.

 

[Oberon]

That's a negative argument, not a positive one that suggests a real Jesus existed.

True. However, the point is not to argue for Jesus' existence, merely to point out that Dirty Penguin (and you and dogsgod for that matter) are not familiar enough with how we learn what we do from ancient history.

Again, the existence of a REAL Jesus is a long, long way from being "proven" historically,

You can't "prove" that that President Lincoln existed either. You can't "prove" evolution. That Jesus existed is as sure as just about anything we know from ancient history.

it's mostly just a Christian hope based upon Christian scriptures.

Which is why jewish, atheist, and agnostic scholars in this field all accept that Jesus was historical.

You have to lower the "evidence" bar almost to the ground to accept that there was a real Jesus.

No, you don't. There is more evidence for Jesus than most emperors, let alone everybody else from ancient history.

 

[dogsgod]

"And if this kind of testimony is not good enough for you, than you half to write off just about everything we know about ancient history."

That's a negative argument, not a positive one that suggests a real Jesus existed. Again, the existence of a REAL Jesus is a long, long way from being "proven" historically, it's mostly just a Christian hope based upon Christian scriptures. You have to lower the "evidence" bar almost to the ground to accept that there was a real Jesus.

The bar has to rest in a wagon rut, lower than a snake's belly.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

You can't "prove" evolution.

That one's easy. Trying to convince a creationist the truth is another thing altogether.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The bar has to rest in a wagon rut, lower than a snake's belly.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
"We have to accept somewhat looser standards. In the legal profession, to convict the defendant of a crime, you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil cases, a preponderance of the evidence is sufficient. When dealing with the Bible or any ancient source, we have to loosen up a little; otherwise, we can't really say anything."[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]David Noel Freedman (in Bible Review magazine, Dec. 1993, p.34)[/FONT]
​

Education
Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD 1945-1948 Ph.D. Semitic Languages and Literature


Princeton Theological Seminary Princeton, NJ 1941-1944 Th.B. Hebrew Bible


University of California, Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA 1938-1939 B.A. Modern European History


City College of New York New York, NY 1935-1938