Flavius Josephus About Jesus?

[dogsgod]

[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

I understand that, but bandwagon theories and the you don't know nothing crap isn't what Freedman had in mind.

 

[Oberon]

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

Wrong. Because science doesn't talk about "proofs." In science, you have a hypothesis. If, through experiments, it appears the hypothesis is correct, than you have theory. But science doesn't talk about "proof." That is for logic and math.

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."

True. Every field has its own standard of proof. In logic and math, we actually use the word "proof." In science, there is falsifiability. If a theory is continually supported, we stick with it, but we don't say it is proved because there is always the chance that new evidence will show it to be flawed or incorrect. In history, it is a matter of plausibility. There is more evidence for Jesus' existence than for virtually any other person or event from ancient history. It is completely implausible that he never existed.

 

[dogsgod]

And in the case of Jesus Christ, where virtually every detail of the story fits the mythic hero archetype, with nothing left over, no "secular," biographical data, so to speak, it becomes arbitrary to assert that there must have been a historical figure lying back of the myth. There may have been, but it can no longer be considered particularly probable, and that's all the historian can deal with: probabilities. Robert M. Price

 

[Oberon]

I understand that, but bandwagon theories and the you don't know nothing crap isn't what Freedman had in mind.

I'm sure he didn't have misuse of the term bandwagon in mind either. Jumping on the bandwagon is when people agree without questioning. Only this question was asked over 200 years ago. hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of pages by scholars have been written since then. As a result of intense and critical research, there are a wide variety of opinions over who Jesus was, how reliable our sources are, etc. What is no longer a question, because it is as sure as anything we know from this period, is that Jesus existed.

As for the "you don't know nothing crap" the truth hurts. I have already shown that you, dogsogd, specifically don't know anything about this period. As anyone can see here, your mistakes are numerous and show very well that you are hardly in any position to make claims that are to be taken seriously. You simply lack knowledge of the relevant data, which may be outlined in brief (for this thread) below:

1. Textual Criticism. The methods of textual criticism are important not only for understanding the Josephus issue but for understanding the wealth of texts for the NT, which are indicative of how quickly and far it spread. Yet we have no voices from antiquity (even though we have plenty of critical voices like Celsus) who state that Jesus never existed.

2. The genre of ancient history. Too frequently critics of taking the gospels as evidence talk about historical error and miracles within it, as if this is a reason to ignore them. Only that is standard for ancient history.

3. Ancient Myth. As above, too many people make the claim that the gospels are purely myth without having read any primary texts of myth. Mythic cults were not built around preachers that lived a mere 30-40 years ago, while witnesses were still living.

4. Orality in first century judaism. Important for understanding the method of transmission of the Jesus tradition.

5. Methods of ancient historical inquiry. Important for understanding the B.S. in the "no eyewitnesses" claim.

6. Greek, Latin, and Hebrew. Necessary for reading the texts.

7. The culture and religion of the first century.

And so forth.

It is so interesting to me that so many people who are barely acquainted with any or all of the above nonetheless still feel secure in bashing 200+ years of critical scholarly inquiry and virtual unanimity among experts.

If the same people read an article stating that a consensus of indo-european linguists believe that pre-indo-european was, typologically, and active language, I seriously doubt anyone of them would think to question this. They would know they don't have the expertise, and go along. This despite the fact that every daughter language was transitive. Why? Because they aren't biased when it comes to obscure questions such a reconstruction of proto-language syntax.

Yet when Jesus is concerned, all of the sudden plenty of amateurs without the requisite study find the unanimous conclusions of the relevant experts "debatable."

And in the case of Jesus Christ, where virtually every detail of the story fits the mythic hero archetype, with nothing left over, no "secular," biographical data, so to speak, it becomes arbitrary to assert that there must have been a historical figure lying back of the myth. There may have been, but it can no longer be considered particularly probable, and that's all the historian can deal with: probabilities. Robert M. Price

Wrong on every point.
1. Most of the details hardly fit into a "mythic field archetype" even if one did exist. In the greco-roman world, the heros were all warriors.
2. There were no secular writings. However, we do have early non-christian writings about Jesus.
3. It isn't "arbitrary" to assert this. It is the product of intense research.
4. Price is a theologican who is better suited to writing books on H. P. Lovecraft, as he does.

 

[logician]

And in the case of Jesus Christ, where virtually every detail of the story fits the mythic hero archetype, with nothing left over, no "secular," biographical data, so to speak, it becomes arbitrary to assert that there must have been a historical figure lying back of the myth. There may have been, but it can no longer be considered particularly probable, and that's all the historian can deal with: probabilities. Robert M. Price

It does seem odd that other men by the name of Jesus who lived at the same time were known by historians of that time, but no Jesus born of Mary and Joseph had any records of events written about him matching at least some of the accounts of the NT.

"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."

"Philo, one of the most renowned writers the Jewish race has produced, was born before the beginning of the Christian Era, and lived for many years after the time at which Jesus is supposed to have died. His home was in or near Jerusalem, where Jesus is said to have preached, to have performed miracles, to have been crucified, and to have risen from the dead. Had Jesus done these things, the writings of Philo would certainly contain some record of his life. Yet this philosopher, who must have been familiar with Herod's massacre of the innocents, and with the preaching, miracles and death of Jesus, had these things occurred; who wrote an account of the Jews, covering this period, and discussed the very questions that are said to have been near to Christ's heart, never once mentioned the name of, or any deed connected with, the reputed Savior of the world."

Did Jesus Christ Really Live?

 

[Oberon]

It does seem odd that other men by the name of Jesus who lived at the same time were known by historians of that time

Which historians? You mention more than one.

but no Jesus born of Mary and Joseph had any records of events written about him matching at least some of the accounts of the NT.

Again indicative of how little you know of ancient history. Our record is extremely sparse.

"The name "Jesus" was as common among the Jews

Which is why kin and nicknames and titles were used to distinguish people. There was only one Jesus called christ.

In the writings of Josephus, we find accounts of a number of Jesuses

Including Jesus, brother of James, called christ.

"Philo, one of the most renowned writers the Jewish race has produced, was born before the beginning of the Christian Era, and lived for many years after the time at which Jesus is supposed to have died. His home was in or near Jerusalem, where Jesus is said to have preached, to have performed miracles, to have been crucified, and to have risen from the dead. Had Jesus done these things, the writings of Philo would certainly contain some record of his life.

Again indicative of how little you know of ancient history. Philo doesn't mention John the Baptist (although Josephus does) or the teacher of righteousness (although the qumran documents do). He wasn't a historian. Why is it necessary for him to mention Jesus?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

It does seem odd that other men by the name of Jesus who lived at the same time were known by historians of that time, but no Jesus born of Mary and Joseph had any records of events written about him matching at least some of the accounts of the NT.

"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."

Sounds similar to the Jesus story of the bible.

"Philo, one of the most renowned writers the Jewish race has produced, was born before the beginning of the Christian Era, and lived for many years after the time at which Jesus is supposed to have died. His home was in or near Jerusalem, where Jesus is said to have preached, to have performed miracles, to have been crucified, and to have risen from the dead. Had Jesus done these things, the writings of Philo would certainly contain some record of his life. Yet this philosopher, who must have been familiar with Herod's massacre of the innocents, and with the preaching, miracles and death of Jesus, had these things occurred; who wrote an account of the Jews, covering this period, and discussed the very questions that are said to have been near to Christ's heart, never once mentioned the name of, or any deed connected with, the reputed Savior of the world."

There are some that say or don't consider him a historian and others that consider what is known of him to be of historical importance.

 

[Oberon]

There are some that say or don't consider him a historian and others that consider what is known of him to be of historical importance.

Nobody considers him a historian.

 

[Oberon]

Again, it is so interesting to me that so many people who are barely acquainted with any or all of the above nonetheless still feel secure in bashing 200+ years of critical scholarly inquiry and virtual unanimity among experts.

If the same people read an article stating that a consensus of indo-european linguists believe that pre-indo-european was, typologically, and active language, I seriously doubt anyone of them would think to question this. They would know they don't have the expertise, and go along. This despite the fact that every daughter language was transitive. Why? Because they aren't biased when it comes to obscure questions such a reconstruction of proto-language syntax.

Yet when Jesus is concerned, all of the sudden plenty of amateurs without the requisite study find the unanimous conclusions of the relevant experts "debatable."

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Nobody considers him a historian.

Never said he was nor did I say anyone did.

 

[Oberon]

Never said he was nor did I say anyone did.

I know that you didn't. However, "logician" used him as a source, after talking about only using historical sources.

 

[dogsgod]

It does seem odd that other men by the name of Jesus who lived at the same time were known by historians of that time, but no Jesus born of Mary and Joseph had any records of events written about him matching at least some of the accounts of the NT.

Yes, especially considering the crowds Jesus supposedly attracted. The well known philosopher Philo was in Jerusalem at the time of Pilate, wrote an essay about the Son of God, wrote about Pilate, Jewish Roman conflicts, and yet failed to notice Jesus. Actually, all things considered, it' not that odd. Mark could have simply combined a Jesus ministry from Galilee with Paul's Jerusalem Christ cult when he wrote what is now called a gospel. That would explain why no one noticed him. The fact that people eventually accepted this story to be of actual events should come as no surprise considering religion and its practices.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Yes, especially considering the crowds Jesus supposedly attracted. The well known philosopher Philo was in Jerusalem at the time of Pilate, wrote an essay about the Son of God, wrote about Pilate, Jewish Roman conflicts, and yet failed to notice Jesus. Actually, all things considered, it' not that odd. Mark could have simply combined a Jesus ministry from Galilee with Paul's Jerusalem Christ cult when he wrote what is now called a gospel. That would explain why no one noticed him. The fact that people eventually accepted this story to be of actual events should come as no surprise considering religion and its practices.

Also I find it interesting to note that some of the writings of Philo I've seen appear to be themes reiterated in the gospels....(Book of John) for instance.

 

[dogsgod]

Also I find it interesting to note that some of the writings of Philo I've seen appear to be themes reiterated in the gospels....(Book of John) for instance.

I find that interesting as well. He may have influenced Paul, his contemporary, and perhaps the authors of the Gospel of John (C. H. Dodd) and theEpistle to the Hebrews(R. Williamson and H. W. Attridge). In the process, he laid the foundations for the development of Christianity in the West and in the East, as we know it today. Philo of Alexandria [The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

 

[Oberon]

Yes, especially considering the crowds Jesus supposedly attracted.

John the baptist attracted numerous crowds. He had possibly as much of a following as Jesus did. Josephus discusses this, yet we find nothing on John the Baptist in Philo. The same goes for the great leaders Hillel and Shammai, not to mention the Qumran Teacher of Righteousness. If so many great leaders who attracted multitudes are not mentioned, why is it strange that Jesus is also not mentioned?

The well known philosopher Philo was in Jerusalem at the time of Pilate, wrote an essay about the Son of God

No. He wrote about logos/wisdom as a sort of son of god.

, wrote about Pilate, Jewish Roman conflicts, and yet failed to notice Jesus.

And failed to notice a numer of other important Jewish leaders, many of whom we find in Josephus or other sources.

That would explain why no one noticed him.

They did. We know Josephus did, because even if the longer passace in Ant. is an interpolation, the shorter one is not, and Origen, familiar with Josephus' works, tells us that Josephus talked about him.

Moreover, as with the Teacher of Righteousness and other leaders (Jewish and pagan), most of the time if something is written down at all about them it is only written down by followers. And thus we have a contemporary of Jesus, Paul, who tells us a little about Jesus' teachings, knows Jesus' brother, and Jesus' disciples. And we have the bioi of Jesus in the gospels.

The fact that people eventually accepted this story to be of actual events should come as no surprise considering religion and its practices.

Completely false. Had you studied the sociology of religion, or myths in the Jewish or graeco-roman world, you would know that, if Jesus never existed, what Mark did is unprecedented. It is one thing to write a myth or story about a mythic figure living sometime in the distant pass. No one can say it didn't happen, because no one was around. But mark did not do this. He wove various teachings of and stories about Jesus in to one narrative while people were still alive in the places and time the narrative takes place.

 

[Ben Masada]

[/color][/size][/b]

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?"

Whatever you give me from anyone else you think is authentic, is always just the opinion of another man. What do we know? What do you know? You read a few books and proclaim yourself an expertise in the opinion of another man.

Even History, which usually is written by the conqueror, is tempered with all kinds of forgeries, while the real facts of life get lost and behind in the march of time.

So, don't come to me with this talk that you have given me something authentic. What's authentic? Perhaps you don't even know the meaning of the word.

 

[Oberon]

Whatever you give me from anyone else you think is authentic, is always just the opinion of another man.

There is a big difference between the informed opinion of people who have studied a particular topic in depth, and that of people who haven't. Your opinion is based primarily on reading into the few sources you have read, and occasionally referencing obscure books or books full of errors.

You read a few books and proclaim yourself an expertise in the opinion of another man.

This sentence isn't grammatical. And, while I have read extensively in this field, I don't consider myself an "expert" because I don't yet have a PhD. However, I can refer to many works BY experts, while so far to support your view of Josephus you have cited one book so obscure it can't be found in most university libraries, and another one from over a century ago.

Even History, which usually is written by the conqueror, is tempered with all kinds of forgeries, while the real facts of life get lost and behind in the march of time.

Which is exactly why the study of history takes training, in order for experts to be able to sort through the data and plausibly reconstruct the past.

I guess this means you don't have any actual scholarly citations to back your views.

 

[dogsgod]

So Mark wrote a story that people could read and say, "this is fiction." What of it? What was their first clue? Was it when they read that the heavens parted and a booming voice was heard from above? LOL. Or was their first clue in the opening line? Mark1The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

 

[Oberon]

So Mark wrote a story that people could read and say, "this is fiction."

Again you show ignorance of ancient genres. Mythical stories were set in a time long past. Anyone reading Mark in Mark's day would know that is meant to be taken seriously as a true story. They might not believe it all, especially if they weren't christian, but stories that were meant to be fiction in Mark's world were not set in a time less than a lifetime ago and passed around in the same place where the story took place (galilee and jerusalem, among other places). Mark is clearly not a "story" in any ancient sense of the word (mythos, logos, or fabula). It is to haphazardly composed of various oral traditions strung together and placed in a narrative. Anyone reading it, whether they believed it or not, would know that the author is claiming these things actually happened. If Jesus never existed, was never thought to work wonders or was never crucified, Mark would almost certainly have been lost to us (it isn't a good enough piece of literature to be kept around as fiction), and even if it happened to survive in some random manuscript from the middle ages, it would never have the influence it did in the early generations of the church.

After all, according to your ridiculous theory, the early christians (like Paul) did not believe in a fleshly Jesus, but in some mythical christ akin to Mithras or whoever. If that was the case, why on earth would they take such care to store, copy, and transmit Mark, if they all knew it was only a story? No other work of fictitious literature has anywhere near as many ancient copies attesting to enormous transmission and copying as the gospels.

What was their first clue? Was it when they read that the heavens parted and a booming voice was heard from above? LOL. Or was their first clue in the opening line? Mark1The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

The Life of Augustus caesar describes him as a son of god, born from a god, not man. Yet, despite the myths surrounding him, he was a real person.

 

[logician]

If , for example, hypothetically, the supposed Jesus was a robber that spent some time in Jerusalem, who only did or said a few of the things recorded in the NT, does that count as a historical Jesus? Where is the line drawn between fact and fiction?