Is the Muslim Jesus cited in the Qur'an possibly historical?

[firedragon]

I do not deny there is better historical documentation for some historical characters around the era of Christ. However Josephus and Tacitus were reputable historians for their era and their accounts were not mythologised.

Yep. I agree. That is why I am accepting them as historical sources.

Although they were not contemporaries of Jesus their accounts were written within a century of Christ's crucifixion. Paul of Taurus is an historic character that even a hardened sceptic such as Richard Carrier accepts as being real. He was a contemporary of Jesus though never met Him face to face. Acts of the apostles has verifiable historicity and the author almost certainly wrote the Gospel. We have evidence of collaboration between the authors of Mark, Luke and Matthew. James the brother Jesus is mentioned in Josephus, the Gospels, Acts and by Paul. The first Gospel to be written, Mark, was most likely written between 66 - 70 AD. Based on the synoptic Gospel accounts, Acts and the Pauline letters we have some basis of other important biblical characters and likely authors of NT books. Then we have a wealth of documents from Christians in the second and third century. So it all holds together for a compelling narrative for most historians and scholars, atheists included.

So what's your point Adrian? Anything specific to the OP?

 

[lukethethird]

1. The Jews claim they killed Jesus (Doesn't say Romans), yet they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him says the Qur'an - 4:157

2. Jesus was called the "Messiah". - 3:45

3. Jesus had followers, him, and his followers preached a theology - 61:14

4. He spoke to the Jews - 5:46, 72

Rather than considering the theological points and all the apologetics on the internet and TV, it would be interesting to just think of these simple historical claims and wonder if it is actually historical objectively.

What you have to say?

There is no way of corroborating these events, besides, the story appears to be a theology rather than a history.

 

[February-Saturday]

Tacitus says that the Christians are named as such because of the Christus who these Christians are named after. And he says that during the rule of Tiberius, the uprising of Jesus or Christus was given the most preferred punishment ruled by Pilate. It is not about a Christian "belief" we spoke of. He clearly states his historical knowledge of a Christus and an uprising that was crushed by Pilates hand. Thats a historical claim, not a statement about other peoples faith. This is book 15, chapter 44 of Annals.

The parts that were "doctored" in the Josephus and the antiquities are the parts where he makes Jesus a miracle man. Everyone knows this. Not the part where he speaks of James, the brother of Jesus this guy who they called a messiah.

This is established scholarship.

There are good scholars who make arguments which you may align with who some people call mythicists, but you should also consider the arguments of most scholars who make these conclusions based on Josephus and Tacitus.

I completely disagree with your readings of Tacitus. I have considered the arguments of historians on this topic, and I find them to be lacking.

The amount of what was doctored in Antiquities is actually disputed. The Jamesian Reference itself is arguably inauthentic. For starters, the existing copies we have of it are fairly recently penned during a time that we know there was a lot of forgeries of older texts to fit Christian narratives and the copies we do have already have a few inconsistencies between them. Vossius had a copy of Antiquities that had absolutely no mention of Jesus or his brother, iirc.

Even if the Jamesian Reference was not doctored, which I will grant is a possibility (although one I'm intensely skeptical of), it also does not provide any compelling evidence that Jesus was an actual person. Again, look at the brother of John Frum, who was a real person, or the countless "children" of various deities. The late dating to a period of common forgeries after the Church has established itself just compounds how untrustworthy I think this source still is. Especially when the early references in the work to Jesus we already know for sure were doctored.

I just do not find arguments from Josephus very convincing. I would be willing to reconsider if we found a version that dated to a time contemporary with Jesus, but as far as I'm aware we don't have that yet.

I would like to close this by pointing out that most scholars on the subject are Christians or theologians. An Argumentum ad Populum and an Argumentum ad Verecundium are both dangerous fallacies to fall into, but it's made worse by the fact that most scholarship on Jesus is not quite on the same level as most of the rest of historical scholarship. If you want to put forth any of their specific arguments, however, feel free to do so. I just don't think being mainstream is the same as being right, especially in such a heavily propagandized field.

 

[firedragon]

I completely disagree with your readings of Tacitus.

Because? Am I misquoting Tacitus? Well, why don't you show me where and the exact words? Thanks.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Josephus and Tacitus have already been discussed extensively in this thread and yes they are the only historical sources we have to make some assessment.

No, they are not the only historical sources. The NT books are historical sources. We will need to agree to disagree no doubt.

1. But you see, does the Quran say that Jesus was never crucified by anyone? Where does it say that? You have not understood the Quran. You have seen the Quranic discourse with the same lens of those Muslims who wanted to defy the Bible. It says about the Ahlul Kithab claim that they killed him, and says no they did not.

It does not matter what you or I think the Quran means other than your view of the Quran is rejected by mainstream history and my view is accepted. Being written 600 years after the fact means it has no historical validity in regards the crucifixion of Christ.

2. Josephus does not mention anything about the Crucifixion.

3. Tacitus doesn't either. Yet we make the probable assumption.

Jesus being crucified is strongly implied in both accounts.

Again, this is not about Quran having a historical value. You should read the OP. Its calling to question if it matches the historical Jesus. Not if Quran has historical authority.

Hope you understand.

Of course Jesus talked to the Jews. He was Jewish. He wouldn't have been talking to the Japanese. So saying He talked to Jews, claimed to be a Messiah and had a following isn't anything other than very basic knowledge. The fact Jesus was crucified is also basic knowledge and the evidence is so strong its considered a fact.

The baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion are considered to be two historically certain facts about Jesus.[71][72] James Dunn states that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent" and "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical facts" that they are often the starting points for the study of the historical Jesus.[71] Bart Ehrman states that the crucifixion of Jesus on the orders of Pontius Pilate is the most certain element about him.[73] John Dominic Crossan states that the crucifixion of Jesus is as certain as any historical fact can be.[74] Eddy and Boyd state that it is now "firmly established" that there is non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[61] Craig Blomberg states that most scholars in the third quest for the historical Jesus consider the crucifixion indisputable.[4] Christopher M. Tuckett states that, although the exact reasons for the death of Jesus are hard to determine, one of the indisputable facts about him is that he was crucified.[75]

John P. Meier views the crucifixion of Jesus as historical fact and states that Christians would not have invented the painful death of their leader, invoking the criterion of embarrassment principle in historical research.[76] Meier states that a number of other criteria, e.g., the criterion of multiple attestation (i.e., confirmation by more than one source) and the criterion of coherence (i.e., that it fits with other historical elements) help establish the crucifixion of Jesus as a historical event.[77]

While scholars agree on the historicity of the crucifixion, they differ on the reason and context for it.

Crucifixion of Jesus - Wikipedia

As your fellow Muslim has contributed above:

"I don't think Quran considers history a means to knowledge of facts and if you study history in University, they'll teach you it's unreliable in general."

Is the Muslim Jesus cited in the Qur'an possibly historical?

Thanks for the discussion.

 

[lukethethird]

The NT books are historical sources.

How so?

 

[Dawnofhope]

How so?

They are documents like any other documents where records exist and their origins can be attributed to the century in which Christ lived.

 

[lukethethird]

They are documents like any other documents where records exist and their origins can be attributed to the century in which Christ lived.

Where does history enter into this?

 

[blü 2]

1. The Jews claim they killed Jesus (Doesn't say Romans), yet they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him says the Qur'an - 4:157

2. Jesus was called the "Messiah". - 3:45

3. Jesus had followers, him, and his followers preached a theology - 61:14

4. He spoke to the Jews - 5:46, 72

Rather than considering the theological points and all the apologetics on the internet and TV, it would be interesting to just think of these simple historical claims and wonder if it is actually historical objectively.

What you have to say?

As to your numbered points (and assuming an historical Jesus, and further assuming that the NT reflects that historical Jesus to some reasonable extent) ─

1. The power to execute by crucifixion lay solely with the Romans. Paul, and the author of Mark (echoed by the other gospel authors), say Jesus was crucified.

2. Jesus was called the messiah by his followers (Greek Χριστός khristos, 'Christ' translates Hebrew mashiyach (Strong's transliteration) meaning 'anointed one' in both cases.) But not having been a military or civil or religious leader, and not having been anointed by the high priesthood, Jesus at no time qualified as a messiah by Jewish standards.

3. According to Paul and to the four gospel authors, Jesus had followers (though the lists of disciples differ). He was a Jew (expressly circumcised in Luke, implicitly with the others) and the starting point for his theology was Jewish. Only Matthew's Jesus declares that the Jewish Law would continue unaltered. On the Christian side, that was clearly contradicted when Paul succeeded in having the Covenant (thus circumcision) abandoned.

4. Yes, he preached to Jews. He was a player in the Jewish religion industry. Thus though Mark's Jesus is not descended from David, the Jesuses of Paul, Matthew, Luke and John are said to be.

 

[firedragon]

The amount of what was doctored in Antiquities is actually disputed. The Jamesian Reference itself is arguably inauthentic. For starters, the existing copies we have of it are fairly recently penned during a time that we know there was a lot of forgeries of older texts to fit Christian narratives and the copies we do have already have a few inconsistencies between them. Vossius had a copy of Antiquities that had absolutely no mention of Jesus or his brother, iirc.

What is doctored and what is not doctored is a matter that can be resolved to a certain extent and has been done by most scholars. I say again "Most". You are quoting Doctor Drews and of course, I have read the book yet you see, this was way before modern scholarship. With all due respect, can you show me the manuscript of Vossius? And how do you know if they intentionally took out everything about Jesus? Do you understand that? Just like you and I both accuse of people inserting the miracle working Jesus into Josephus, why not also think of those like you who might have had a desire to remove it? After all, Vossius had a manuscript, no dating, no paleography, so it is a 16th century man and his version. 1600 years since Josephus. Vossius (I presume you are speaking of the Son, not the father) spoke extensively of Josephus and clearly does cite his inconsistencies with the Bible where he intends to show that Josephus is either not well versed in the Jewish Scripture or that he had a different version of it. These statements make it more credible that Josephus with no intention to deify a Jesus character simply mentions him as a passing citing. And if you note throughout the antiquities the way he references people like Jesus the brother Justos who's sister had another sister etc is the same exact way he references James, this guy known as the brother of a so called Messiah as known to some. Its a passing remark. This is the main and fundamental reason scholars believe this is part of Josephus's actual work. And tell me what it says about other Jesus's like Jesus the son of saphius, Jesus the crook, then the brother of justos, Jesus the son of gamala, Jesus the Galilean, etc etc?

Josephus mentions many other Messiahs. Many. e.g. the messiah who motivated the samaritans. And that is also an example Vossius himself takes. Also brother, with all due respect I believe you misquoted Drew. You said "Vossius had a copy of Antiquities that had absolutely no mention of Jesus or his brother, iirc", not know what iirc is I would like to ask you give me the exact reference of the book where he says this.

Id rather read. He does not make it such an issue where he claims there was no mention of Jesus or his brother. In the chapter you are talking about he is making a scholarly analysis of the miracle working Jesus which is an obvious forgery.

Drews scholarly position seems to be that James, the brother of Jesus they called the messiah is just another figure out of so many messiahs quoted like Theudas, the so called Egyptian, the samaritan, Hezekiah the bandit chief, Simon of Peraea, Simon son of Kochba, Judas the Galilean, Menahem, Simon son of Giora etc. This brother of James just one of them.

What Doc claims is that people like Origen said that Josephus did not accept Jesus as the Messiah. Well, that's the whole point. Josephus did not accept him as the messiah, that is why these miracle working passages are forgeries, also the philology of the passages, and also the context of the same page, yet this does not apply to the chapter nine and which is simply fitting in all manners in terms of context. drew does not negate this. In fact, he discusses chapter nine extensively and says that James the brother could be just a reference to a member or a brethren. It doesn't necessarily have to be a blood brother. This passage, he never ever claims is an absolute forgery, he says that it "could be". Also, he distances himself from this claim citing that it was "Others" who claimed that.

Peace.

 

[firedragon]

As to your numbered points (and assuming an historical Jesus, and further assuming that the NT reflects that historical Jesus to some reasonable extent) ─

1. The power to execute by crucifixion lay solely with the Romans. Paul, and the author of Mark (echoed by the other gospel authors), say Jesus was crucified.

2. Jesus was called the messiah by his followers (Greek Χριστός khristos, 'Christ' translates Hebrew mashiyach (Strong's transliteration) meaning 'anointed one' in both cases.) But not having been a military or civil or religious leader, and not having been anointed by the high priesthood, Jesus at no time qualified as a messiah by Jewish standards.

3. According to Paul and to the four gospel authors, Jesus had followers (though the lists of disciples differ). He was a Jew (expressly circumcised in Luke, implicitly with the others) and the starting point for his theology was Jewish. Only Matthew's Jesus declares that the Jewish Law would continue unaltered. On the Christian side, that was clearly contradicted when Paul succeeded in having the Covenant (thus circumcision) abandoned.

4. Yes, he preached to Jews. He was a player in the Jewish religion industry. Thus though Mark's Jesus is not descended from David, the Jesuses of Paul, Matthew, Luke and John are said to be.

The post is about a historical Jesus brother. Not the Christian Jesus or a Muslim Jesus. This is simply about the historical Jesus, and the question if the history matches with these Quranic points. Thats it.

Hope you understand.

 

[Vouthon]

What is doctored and what is not doctored is a matter that can be resolved to a certain extent and has been done by most scholars. I say again "Most".

Well said and thank you for wading into the details on the scholarship.

What's interesting about the interpolated / corrupted reference to the "miraculous Jesus" as you infer in the foregoing, is that Josephus's Jamesian reference (which is accepted as authentic by the majority of scholars, for example on philological grounds, as part of Josephus's normative style of passing reference) strongly implies that he has already described something of the character of this Jesus "called Messiah" who is the brother of James. It seems to presuppose the reader's familiarity, which implies that he had written something else about this person more specifically.

The Origen witness to an earlier, uncorrupted Josephus which exhibits no belief in Jesus as the Messiah (i.e. correlates with the Jamesian passage in referring to him as simply "called Messiah") is indeed quite the point.

Christians would not have interpolated a passage about Jesus if Josephus had not mentioned him at all. No ancient critic of Jesus, such as the pagan Celsus, doubted that he had existed as an historical person. So this wasn't an issue for late antique Christian interpolators.

What was an issue, and what likely motivated the interpolation, was the danger these Christians felt may be posed to their faith by Jesus being described as merely "human" - as a "wise man" called Messiah whose followers existed as a "tribe" until this day (as the probable untampered part of the passage reads).

Now, that did not stand with Christian doctrine and it obviously would have disturbed many Christian readers of 'this' Josephus.

If we look at the passage:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3​

I mean, you can see the contradiction even in plain sight where the original text likely emerged and where the rank interpolations come in. Jesus cannot at once be both just a "wise man" (sage) and someone not fit to be called a "man". The latter is nonsense and doesn't confirm to Josephus's writing style or fit the first part of the sentence. I mean, the interpolator looks so blatant its almost comical!

If you take out the purported interpolations I've italicised and change the "Christ" line to 'called' in view of the later James reference, what emerges is something decidedly not Christian in provenance:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man. For he was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was called the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.​

To a Christian reading this in the ancient world, the above passage or something close to it with the "wise man" term being the centrepiece would have seemed startlingly blasphemous and unacceptable. The earliest gospel, Mark, begins with the line: "The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. As it is written in the prophet Isaiah..."

A Christian reading 'this' Josephus circa. third century CE would have been struck by the absence of Jesus 'Son of God' the supernatural fulfilment of biblical prophecy. Where is he? Nowhere in view for 'this' Josephus, just as he wasn't for Tacitus either.

Jesus is just a wise sage who gets a popular following and whom some "called" the Messiah, such that he fell foul of the Roman authorities like so many of the messianic claimants Josephus had already described up to this point in his narrative, leading them to execute him by crucifixion (which Josephus has already described for so many other Jewish victims ad nauseum by this point). Nothing supramundane.

The "if indeed one ought to call him a man" after the 'wise man' reference is the absolute giveaway.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Where does history enter into this?

Are you asking about historical reliability of the Gospels?

The historical reliability of the Gospels refers to the reliability and historic character of the four New Testament gospels as historical documents. While all four canonical gospels contain some sayings and events which may meet one or more of the five criteria for historical reliability used in biblical studies,[Notes 1] the assessment and evaluation of these elements is a matter of ongoing debate.[Notes 2][1][2][3][4] Almost all scholars of antiquity agree that a human Jesus existed,[5][6][7][8]but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus,[9] and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[10][11][12] Elements whose historical authenticity is disputed include the two accounts of the Nativity of Jesus, the miraculous events including the resurrection, and certain details about the crucifixion.[13][14][15][16][17][18]

Historical reliability of the Gospels - Wikipedia

I see the Gospel accounts as being written between the fourth and eighth decade after Christ was crucified. While I don’t see the Gospels as being completely historical accounts, I am certain they contain some valuable historical information. What is and isn’t historical is part of a discussion that’s been ongoing since the nineteenth century.

 

[firedragon]

Well said and thank you for wading into the details on the scholarship.

What's interesting about the interpolated / corrupted reference to the "miraculous Jesus" as you infer in the foregoing, is that Josephus's Jamesian reference (which is accepted as authentic by the majority of scholars, for example on philological grounds, as part of Josephus's normative style of passing reference) strongly implies that he has already described something of the character of this Jesus "called Messiah" who is the brother of James. It seems to presuppose the reader's familiarity, which implies that he had written something else about this person more specifically.

The Origen witness to an earlier, uncorrupted Josephus which exhibits no belief in Jesus as the Messiah (i.e. correlates with the Jamesian passage in referring to him as simply "called Messiah") is indeed quite the point.

Christians would not have interpolated a passage about Jesus if Josephus had not mentioned him at all. No ancient critic of Jesus, such as the pagan Celsus, doubted that he had existed as an historical person. So this wasn't an issue for late antique Christian interpolators.

What was an issue, and what likely motivated the interpolation, was the danger these Christians felt was posed to their faith by Jesus being described as merely "human" - as a "wise man" called Messiah whose followers existed as a "tribe" until this day (as the probable untampered part of the passage reads).

Now, that did not stand with Christian doctrine and it obviously would have disturbed many Christian readers of 'this' Josephus.

If we look at the passage:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3​

I mean, you can see the contradiction even in plain sight where the original text likely emerged and where the rank interpolations come in. Jesus cannot at once be both just a "wise man" (sage) and someone not fit to be called a "man". The latter is nonsense and doesn't confirm to Josephus's writing style or fit the first part of the sentence. I mean, the interpolator looks so blatant its almost comical!

If you take out the purported interpolations I've italicised and change the "Christ" line to 'called' in view of the later James reference, what emerges is something decidedly not Christian in provenance:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man. For he was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was called the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.​

To a Christian reading this in the ancient world, the above passage or something close to it with the "wise man" term being the centrepiece would have seemed startlingly blasphemous and unacceptable. The earliest gospel, Mark, begins with the line: "The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. As it is written in the prophet Isaiah..."

A Christian reading 'this' Josephus circa. third century CE would have been struck by the absence of Jesus 'Son of God' the supernatural fulfilment of biblical prophecy. Where is he? Nowhere in view for 'this' Josephus, just as he wasn't for Tacitus either.

Jesus is just a wise sage who gets a popular following and whom some "called" the Messiah, such that he fell foul of the Roman authorities like so many of the messianic claimants Josephus had already described up to this point in his narrative, leading them to execute him by crucifixion (which Josephus has already described for so many other Jewish victims ad nauseum by this point). Nothing supramundane.

The "if indeed one ought to call him a man" after the 'wise man' reference is the absolute giveaway.

True. I appreciate the analysis.

What should also be noted in the same chapter is the surrounding passages which has no correlation. I am sure you know this for you to have gone whatever depth you already have so mind me.

Let us examine the words of Josephus which remain after the expurgation of the supposed possible interpolations. They are as follows : " About this time lived Jesus, a wise man. He had a large following among the Jews and pagans. Although Pilate, at the complaint of the leaders of our people, condemned him to die on the cross, his earlier followers were faithful to him. The sect of the Christians, which is called after him, survives until the present day." Immediately before this Josephus tells of a rising of the Jews, due to a bitter feeling at the conduct of Pilate, and its bloody suppression by the ruling power. The words that immediately follow the passage are : " Also about this time another misfortune befel the Jews"; and we are told of the expulsion of the Jews from Rome by Tiberius on account of the conduct of some of their compatriots. What is the connection between the reference to Jesus and these two narratives ? That there must be some connection, if Josephus himself has written the passage about Jesus, goes without saying, in view of the character of the writer. Josephus is always careful to have a logical connection between his statements. The repression of the Jews by Pilate must, naturally, have been regarded by Josephus as " a misfortune." We likewise understand the concern of the Jewish historian at the expulsion of his compatriots from Borne. These two episodes are directly connected by their very nature.

But what have the condemnation and crucifixion of Jesus to do with them? If Josephus really considered the fate of Jesus as a misfortune of his people, why was he content to devote to it a couple of meagre and lifeless sentences ? Why was he silent about the followers of Jesus '? We have already seen that the reasons usually advanced for this silence are worthless. From a rational point of view, Josephus had no occasion whatever to put the passage about Jesus in the connection in which we find it.

Also, the idea that Christians added this into the text is a plausible assumption but is not definite. I know its not relevant to the discussion but I think its unfair to blame it all on the Christians as if they needed to add something to affirm their faith. It could also be an addition or an interpolation by political motivation. In politics sometimes you have to throw the ball backwards in order to strike forward. Yet, that's of course irrelevant, what is important in analyzing this is not to demean Christians or their effort but to identify and analyze.

Peace.

 

[Vouthon]

The repression of the Jews by Pilate must, naturally, have been regarded by Josephus as " a misfortune." We likewise understand the concern of the Jewish historian at the expulsion of his compatriots from Borne. These two episodes are directly connected by their very nature.

But what have the condemnation and crucifixion of Jesus to do with them? If Josephus really considered the fate of Jesus as a misfortune of his people, why was he content to devote to it a couple of meagre and lifeless sentences ?

Good questions for consideration.

First, I think its important to note that Josephus viewed 'messiah' figures and resistors to Roman rule as misfortunes for the Jewish nation - even ostensibly 'good' ones. We need to bear in mind that he is writing in the aftermath of the failed war of the Judean nation against the Romans and partly as an apologia of his own reasons for 'turncoating' on his people and siding with the gentile victors (despite originally being a 'patriot' and combatant at the beginning of the uprising).

Throughout his works, he keeps trying to trace the origins of Judea's ultimate catastrophe (decisive defeat by the Romans and the destruction of the Temple) on zealotry and messianism, as opposed to the 'mass' of ordinary Jews whom he strives to portray as sort of politically indifferent. He ties it all the way back to the emergence of what he calls the 'fifth philosophy' after the death of King Herod and Judas of Gamala's 'messianic' rebellion in Galilee circa. 6 CE.

All sorts of misfortunes sprang from these men, according to Josephus, and the nation was ultimately decimated as a result of the kind of hopes for liberation that they fed. You see, he's trying - subliminally - to justify his reasons for ultimately siding with the Romans rather than the messianists (patriots).

As Bart Ehrman notes in this respect:

"if one reads the passage without the rose-tinted lenses of the Christian tradition, its view of Jesus can be seen as basically negative. The fact that he was opposed by the leaders of the Jewish people would no doubt have shown that he was not an upright Jew. And the fact that he was condemned to crucifixion, the most horrific execution imaginable to a Roman audience, speaks for itself. Even though Jesus may have been a good teacher, he was a threat to the state, or at least a nuisance, and so the state dealt with him fairly and strongly, by condemning him...

The Testimonium is so restrained, with only a couple of fairly reserved sentences here and there, that it does not read like a Christian apocryphal account of Jesus written for the occasion".​

Apart from the reference to the 'wisdom' of his teaching, the passage is not actually that adulatory if you take away the obvious interpolations that bear the stamp of Christian theology and contradict the other parts of the passage.

We get the sense of a silver-tongued, charismatic teacher and messianic pretender who ultimately turned both the Jewish leadership and the Romans against him because he became associated with messianic and/or seditious fervour. If we peel away the interpolations and account for some give-and-take this way or that on what might be missing/pruned away, the account can be construed as portraying Jesus as a sort of cautionary tale about the perils of resisting Rome and claiming to be a messiah i.e. "even a wise man can fall into that trap. Look what happened to him, learn - it only brings ill for our people!"

I think this is what Josephus was trying to achieve with the Jesus narrative. Consider for comparison:


Judas of Galilee - Wikipedia

Judas of Galilee, or Judas of Gamala, was a Jewish leader who led resistance to the census imposed for Roman tax purposes by Quirinius in Judea Province around 6 CE.[1] He encouraged Jews not to register and those that did had their houses burnt and their cattle stolen by his followers.[2] He began the "fourth philosophy" of the Jews which Josephus blames for the disastrous war with the Romans in 66–70. These events are discussed by Josephus in The Jewish War and in Antiquities of the Jews and mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles...

Several scholars, such as Gunnar Haaland and James S. McLaren, have suggested that Josephus's description of the fourth sect does not reflect historical reality, but was constructed to serve his own interests. According to Haaland, the part covering the sect acts as a transition and an introduction to the excursion concerning the Jewish schools of thought, all of which Josephus presents to portray the majority of Jews in a positive light, and to show that the Jewish War was incited by a radical minority.[5] ​

 

[Vouthon]

@firedragon As Professor Helen Bond of Edinburgh University (one of the foremost historical Jesus scholars today) has noted:

"A widely held view nowadays in scholarship is that Christian alterations may have been fairly minimal. Once the more explicitly Christian passages are omitted (the ones in italics above), the remainder of the text may well go back to Josephus.

The language generally is Josephan and there are some features which would seem unlikely to have come from a Christian scribe (for example the reference to Jesus winning over both Jews and Gentiles during his lifetime – would a Christian make such a mistake? – and the reference to Christians as a ‘tribe’). It is also possible, of course, that later editors have omitted sections. The context of the paragraph is a series of tumults in the time of Pontius Pilate; Josephus’ larger point is to show that upheaval beset both Palestine and even Rome itself at this period. It is quite possible that the original version included an account of a riot (perhaps the incident in the Temple?) which was quietly deleted.

The description, however, could not have been too hostile towards Jesus, otherwise it is diffi cult to account for Josephus’s popularity amongst early Christians. In all probability, Josephus’s attitude was fairly neutral, not dissimilar perhaps to his assessment of John the Baptist, which is broadly neutral to positive ( Ant . 18.116- 9; see Chapter 6 below)."​

I think a stance somewhere between Ehrman and Bond gets at the truth, personally.

Josephus wasn't hostile to Jesus (he recognised his 'wisdom') but nor did he want to approve of Jesus because he wanted to use his narrative as an illustration of the misfortune that 'seditious' activity (i.e. like Jesus's riot in the Temple that some scholars think Josephus may originally have referenced, making Jesus out to be a more politically motivated character than Christians would prefer) could bring for the Jewish nation.

More generally, he wanted to portray this era in Jewish history as "tumultuous", so uses the torture-execution of a popular Jewish preacher of the time - by the most supreme punishment of the Roman state, akin to the electric chair capital punishment in the 20th century US - as an example of such tumult. Really, one must admit that the brutal execution of a 'wise teacher' of the time is rather shocking and indicative of an unbalanced, tumultous environment brewing at this time.

 

[PruePhillip]

Are you asking about historical reliability of the Gospels?

The historical reliability of the Gospels refers to the reliability and historic character of the four New Testament gospels as historical documents. While all four canonical gospels contain some sayings and events which may meet one or more of the five criteria for historical reliability used in biblical studies,[Notes 1] the assessment and evaluation of these elements is a matter of ongoing debate.[Notes 2][1][2][3][4] Almost all scholars of antiquity agree that a human Jesus existed,[5][6][7][8]but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus,[9] and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[10][11][12] Elements whose historical authenticity is disputed include the two accounts of the Nativity of Jesus, the miraculous events including the resurrection, and certain details about the crucifixion.[13][14][15][16][17][18]

Historical reliability of the Gospels - Wikipedia

I see the Gospel accounts as being written between the fourth and eighth decade after Christ was crucified. While I don’t see the Gospels as being completely historical accounts, I am certain they contain some valuable historical information. What is and isn’t historical is part of a discussion that’s been ongoing since the nineteenth century.

We know John wrote his Gospel later in his life. He didn't go into a lot of historical stuff
because other Gospels were circulating. Luke never met Jesus but before he died in
Rome with Paul (ca 66 AD) he had written first his Gospel and then Acts. And he quoted
Matt and Mark. So the first three Gospels were written rather early - I suggest within 20
or 30 years max.

 

[firedragon]

As Bart Ehrman notes in this respect:


"if one reads the passage without the rose-tinted lenses of the Christian tradition, its view of Jesus can be seen as basically negative. The fact that he was opposed by the leaders of the Jewish people would no doubt have shown that he was not an upright Jew. And the fact that he was condemned to crucifixion, the most horrific execution imaginable to a Roman audience, speaks for itself. Even though Jesus may have been a good teacher, he was a threat to the state, or at least a nuisance, and so the state dealt with him fairly and strongly, by condemning him...

The Testimonium is so restrained, with only a couple of fairly reserved sentences here and there, that it does not read like a Christian apocryphal account of Jesus written for the occasion".

Apart from the reference to the 'wisdom' of his teaching, the passage is not actually that adulatory if you take away the obvious interpolations that bear the stamp of Christian theology and contradict the other parts of the passage.

We get the sense of a silver-tongued, charismatic teacher and messianic pretender who ultimately turned both the Jewish leadership and the Romans against him because he became associated with messianic and/or seditious fervour. If we peel away the interpolations and account for some give-and-take this way or that on what might be missing/pruned away, the account can be construed as portraying Jesus as a sort of cautionary tale about the perils of resisting Rome and claiming to be a messiah i.e. "even a wise man can fall into that trap. Look what happened to him, learn - it only brings ill for our people!"

I think this is what Josephus was trying to achieve with the Jesus narrative. Consider for comparison:

Bart Ehrman is quoting Earl Doherty. When Doherty says Josephus wrote nothing about Jesus, does he mean there no one called Jesus in Josephus's work or is it the miracle worker Jesus, the so called "wise man"? It is the latter.

Yet I don't think Josephus was not trying to achieve anything. There is nothing to achieve in his writings. See, the mention of Jesus Christ is so insignificant and said as an identification only shows that he is not trying to achieve anything by mentioning Jesus Christ. By the way brother, you did not quote Bart Ehrman. You quoted Ehrman quoting Doherty and then Ehrman goes onto refute Doherty while accepting certain logic. Basically Ehrmans case is that Doherty is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[firedragon]

@firedragon As Professor Helen Bond of Edinburgh University (one of the foremost historical Jesus scholars today) has noted:

"A widely held view nowadays in scholarship is that Christian alterations may have been fairly minimal. Once the more explicitly Christian passages are omitted (the ones in italics above), the remainder of the text may well go back to Josephus.

The language generally is Josephan and there are some features which would seem unlikely to have come from a Christian scribe (for example the reference to Jesus winning over both Jews and Gentiles during his lifetime – would a Christian make such a mistake? – and the reference to Christians as a ‘tribe’). It is also possible, of course, that later editors have omitted sections. The context of the paragraph is a series of tumults in the time of Pontius Pilate; Josephus’ larger point is to show that upheaval beset both Palestine and even Rome itself at this period. It is quite possible that the original version included an account of a riot (perhaps the incident in the Temple?) which was quietly deleted.

The description, however, could not have been too hostile towards Jesus, otherwise it is diffi cult to account for Josephus’s popularity amongst early Christians. In all probability, Josephus’s attitude was fairly neutral, not dissimilar perhaps to his assessment of John the Baptist, which is broadly neutral to positive ( Ant . 18.116- 9; see Chapter 6 below)."​

I think a stance somewhere between Ehrman and Bond gets at the truth, personally.

Josephus wasn't hostile to Jesus (he recognised his 'wisdom') but nor did he want to approve of Jesus because he wanted to use his narrative as an illustration of the misfortune that 'seditious' activity (i.e. like Jesus's riot in the Temple that some scholars think Josephus may originally have referenced, making Jesus out to be a more politically motivated character than Christians would prefer) could bring for the Jewish nation.

More generally, he wanted to portray this era in Jewish history as "tumultuous", so uses the torture-execution of a popular Jewish preacher of the time - by the most supreme punishment of the Roman state, akin to the electric chair capital punishment in the 20th century US - as an example of such tumult. Really, one must admit that the brutal execution of a 'wise teacher' of the time is rather shocking and indicative of an unbalanced, tumultous environment brewing at this time.

In all honesty, I think you misunderstood Ehrman completely, yet I could be mistaken. Please read the full book you quoted from. The immediate next page he calls the logic posed in the paragraph you cut and paste as "weak". You are in fact "misquoting Ehrman". (Smiley face because the statement is ironic).

 

[SA Huguenot]

Well, either you never read the Quran, or you are attempting to commit Taqiyah. (Lie to defend Islam)
But here is the verse with an English Translation too.
It clearly says that Allah made it appear as if Jesus was crucified.
So, to who did Allah made it to appear?
Obviously to people who saw Jesus being crucified.
Who were they?
Well, the disciples, Jesus' mother, a few more woman, the Romans, the priests who mocked him on the cross, all the people who knew him as he performed miracles in Jerusalem and the region.
The sesimation is that aproximately a minimum of 15 000 people saw Jesus being crucified.
And what does the Quran say they witnessed?
Deception by Allah!
Surah An-Nisa [4:157]