Accurate sources for the life of Jesus

[nebulaJP]

Josephus is another matter entirely, and in my opinion, a complete hoax by Christians. Christians throughout history have been aware of the scant evidence for Christ and have created documents trying to prove his existence. This particular passage is widely regarded to have at the least been altered by Christians...if not entirely added by them. It reads...
" Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular."
One of the glaring problems is the entirely "positive" light this passage puts Jesus in. Josephus was a Jew who didn't believe in Christianity...yet if he wrote that passage it would be hard to imagine why. If he thought Jesus was the messiah, certainly he would've become Christian. Furthermore, if you look at the preceding and following passages, this passage does not fit. It is unrelated to the other passages and breaks the continuity of the entire chapter. Josephus also created a "table of contents" where he outlines everything he writes...yet makes no mention of this Jesus figure. Hardly credible at all.

You have accidentally paisted Tacitus in there instead of Josephus. The actual suspected Christian interpolation in Josephus in bold below:

2. But Pilate undertook to bring a current of water to Jerusalem, and did it with the sacred money, and derived the origin of the stream from the distance of two hundred furlongs. However, the Jews were not pleased with what had been done about this water; and many ten thousands of the people got together, and made a clamor against him, and insisted that he should leave off that design. Some of them also used reproaches, and abused the man, as crowds of such people usually do. So he habited a great number of his soldiers in their habit, who carried daggers under their garments, and sent them to a place where they might surround them. So he bid the Jews himself go away; but they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them, and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not; nor did they spare them in the least: and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition.


3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.


4. About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder, and certain shameful practices happened about the temple of Isis that was at Rome. I will now first take notice of the wicked attempt about the temple of Isis, and will then give an account of the Jewish affairs. There was at Rome a woman whose name was Paulina; one who, on account of the dignity of her ancestors, and by the regular conduct of a virtuous life, had a great reputation: she was also very rich; and although she was of a beautiful countenance, and in that flower of her age wherein women are the most gay, yet did she lead a life of great modesty.
- Antiquity of the Jews, Book XVIII; Flavius Josephus, 94-100 CE


Source

 

[Ana the Ist]

You have accidentally paisted Tacitus in there instead of Josephus. The actual suspected Christian interpolation in Josephus in bold below:

2. But Pilate undertook to bring a current of water to Jerusalem, and did it with the sacred money, and derived the origin of the stream from the distance of two hundred furlongs. However, the Jews were not pleased with what had been done about this water; and many ten thousands of the people got together, and made a clamor against him, and insisted that he should leave off that design. Some of them also used reproaches, and abused the man, as crowds of such people usually do. So he habited a great number of his soldiers in their habit, who carried daggers under their garments, and sent them to a place where they might surround them. So he bid the Jews himself go away; but they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them, and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not; nor did they spare them in the least: and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition.


3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.


4. About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder, and certain shameful practices happened about the temple of Isis that was at Rome. I will now first take notice of the wicked attempt about the temple of Isis, and will then give an account of the Jewish affairs. There was at Rome a woman whose name was Paulina; one who, on account of the dignity of her ancestors, and by the regular conduct of a virtuous life, had a great reputation: she was also very rich; and although she was of a beautiful countenance, and in that flower of her age wherein women are the most gay, yet did she lead a life of great modesty.
- Antiquity of the Jews, Book XVIII; Flavius Josephus, 94-100 CE


Source

Thank you! How embarrassing, I forget that when posting from my phone its so easy to make a mistake, I should proofread more often.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I entirely agree and I said so: Philo was alive in Christ's time.


With pleasure. Here's a link to all of the surviving writings of Philo of Alexandria. That will be sufficient to establish what I said: that the vast majority of his writings were commentary on Jewish scriptures. The one letter you mentioned, On the Embassy to Gaius, (full text here) was the one and only thing he every wrote about contemporary events, and it covers events from a wide span of time, with no particular focus on the dates of Jesus's ministry. In fact there's nothing in the letter that can be verified to have occurred in 30-33 A.D., the probable dates of Christ's ministry. Thus your statement that Philo "was a prolific writer of the events in Jewish life in Jesus's time" is untrue.

As for the mention of Pontius Pilate, since you've read the letter there's no need to inform you of the facts. Nonetheless, for the benefit of others, I'll explain that when you say Philo "wrote extensively about Jewish grievences with Pontius Pilate", you mean that he wrote one paragraph about Jewish grievances under Pontius Pilate. He mentioned exactly one event: when Pilate insisted that two large shields be installed in the Palace of Herod. It seems to me a little bit difficult to justify the claim that Philo "wrote extensively" about what happened under Pilate, when Philo actually wrote only one paragraph about one event. Philo certainly did not, and did not try, to describe everything that happened under Pilate. On the Embassy to Gaius was mostly focused on events involving Jews in the diaspora, not in Judea. But since you've read it, you know that already.


The "fact" that you mentioned is a fiction. During the 50-100 years after Jesus lived, nobody ever wrote anything disputing the historical facts about Christ's life , nor for many generations thereafter. There were a few gnostic texts appearing possibly in the late second century A.D. arguing that Christ's nature was entirely divine and not human; however even the gnostics accepted the historical facts that Jesus was born Bethlehem, lived in Judea, and died at Jerusalem; they accepted the factual information given in the Gospels. Therefore the gnostic texts cannot be what you're referring to. I'll be interested to see you tell us exactly what texts you are referring to.

Then again, it wasn't long ago, if I recall correctly, that we had a debate about whether people in the time of Christopher Columbus believed the earth was flat. You urged me then to ignore historical fact and believe works of fiction. Perhaps that's the principle that you're following here as well.

If your argument is that Philo was more of a religious writer of his time than a political writer, I'll concede that. I'll even concede that my use of the word "extensively" was perhaps reckless...I should've said that Philo had specific knowledge of political events in Jesus's time...including events regarding Pilate. After all, he was part of an embassy to the emperor that pleaded the grievances of the Jews at the hands of the Romans. Regardless of whether you think his principle knowledge was religion or politics, it doesn't change the fact that he was a prime candidate to confirm the existence of Jesus. I'm not say that necessarily because he could...he should have written about Jesus. My point is the notion that there was no one around at the time to confirm Jesus's existence is untrue.

Yes, there were second century writings regarding Gnostics that didn't believe Jesus existed in the flesh...of course they believed in Jesus or they wouldn't have called themselves Christians. It's important to note though that these writings are often referencing beliefs that have existed for some time...not as if they sprung up the day before the writing. However, let's not forget the bible itself....2 John 1:7 says,
" 7 I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist."

Now...if you take away the dogmatic part of this the message is pretty clear, that not even 50 years after Jesus's death (I've read various sources guessing at the date of the book of john, I don't think its a stretch for me to say 80ad) there is report of those who believe in Jesus, yet don't believe he existed in the flesh (just like the Gnostics...perhaps the gnostics themselves). Pretty odd isn't it? Only five decades after his death there are those who question that Jesus was a real flesh and blood person. Surely they could've found a few people who had met or even seen Jesus in his lifetime to silence all these naysayers? Apparently not, since such beliefs would persist for much longer indeed.

Are you still sore about that last discussion regarding a flat-earth? Or have you managed to forget that I used your own source to contradict your position. Do yourself a favor and stick to the topic at hand.

 

[AlexBP]

Josephus is another matter entirely, and in my opinion, a complete hoax by Christians. Christians throughout history have been aware of the scant evidence for Christ and have created documents trying to prove his existence.

Oh? Suppose I were to suggest that this was yet another lie on your part? Can you provide us with any evidence from a reliable source to back up your claim that "Christians throughout history have been aware of the scant evidence for Christ and have created documents trying to prove his existence"?

One of the glaring problems is the entirely "positive" light this passage puts Jesus in. Josephus was a Jew who didn't believe in Christianity...yet if he wrote that passage it would be hard to imagine why. If he thought Jesus was the messiah, certainly he would've become Christian.

Well, laying aside the already-mentioned fact that the passage you quoted doesn't actually come from Josephus, let's talk about this. First of all, you wrote as if Josephus wrote only one passage that mentions Christ. Josephus mentioned Christ in two passages, not just one, from his history book Jewish Antiquities. The more famous passage is called the "Testimonium Flavianum" and is in book 18, chapter 3, paragraph 3. The other passage is in book 20, chapter 9, paragraph 1. No scholar seriously argues that the second passage, dealing with the execution of Christ's brother James, is not authentic. So, unless you're claiming to have some knowledge that the entire scholarly community doesn't have, you'll acknowledge that Josephus did mention Jesus Christ.

Now back to the Testimonium Flavianum. You are correct that it contains a few words which Josephus probably would not have written; for this reason it's generally agreed that the passage was glossed by a Christian scribe at some point. However, a large majority of scholars agree that Josephus did write an original paragraph about Jesus Christ. (Citation) This is backed up something else that you conveniently forgot to mention: the recent discovery of an ancient manuscript which contains the Testimonium Flavianum as originally written, without the glosses. (See the book by Greg Boyd and Paul Eddy, which I already linked to, for a citation.) Since we now have physical evidence in the form of a manuscript where we can read what the text said in ancient times, it seems unlikely that the entire passage is a complete forgery.

Furthermore, if you look at the preceding and following passages, this passage does not fit. It is unrelated to the other passages and breaks the continuity of the entire chapter. Josephus also created a "table of contents" where he outlines everything he writes...yet makes no mention of this Jesus figure. Hardly credible at all.

I'll tackle these in reverse order. When you say "Josephus created a 'table of contents' where he outlines everything he writes", you're incorrect. The scholarly consensus is that the table of contents was not written by Josephus, but was added by an editor. More importantly, the table of contents obviously doesn't outline "everything he writes". Jewish Antiquities is 1,000 pages long--give or take, depending on what edition you have--while the table of contents is 20 short sentences. Logically the table of contents can't mention everything that's in the entire book. Would you claim that everything not mentioned in table of contents is a forgery?

Or look at it this way. In my American history textbook, there's a mentioned of James Buchanan. But in the table of contents, there's no mention of James Buchanan. Can I conclude that the passage in the text about James Buchanan is a forgery? If not, then you understand the silliness of this line of argument.

You also mention the argument that the Testimonium Flavianum is unrelated to the preceding and following passages. Well, Jewish Antiquities contains many passages that are unrelated to the surrounding passages, does it not? And so do Josephus' other works, do they not? And so do all ancient historical works, do they not? Are you going to argue that all such passages are inauthentic?

 

[Blackguard_]

The testimonium flavianum that was at least altered isn't the only mention of Jesus as an historical person in the Antiquites. In book 20 there is the story of James the Just being put to death.

"And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest. - Josepuphus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XX

Here the stuff about Jesus flows with the stuff around it and it doesn't have Josephus saying anything a Jew couldn't have. He says Jesus was called Christ, reporting the belief of Christians, but not calling him Christ himself as the other passage has him.

Everyone one of the sources you listed were hearsay. None of these sources were contemporaries of Jesus.

Josephus was a contemporary of James, brother of a mythological construct.

 

[AlexBP]

If your argument is that Philo was more of a religious writer of his time than a political writer, I'll concede that. I'll even concede that my use of the word "extensively" was perhaps reckless...I should've said that Philo had specific knowledge of political events in Jesus's time...including events regarding Pilate. After all, he was part of an embassy to the emperor that pleaded the grievances of the Jews at the hands of the Romans. Regardless of whether you think his principle knowledge was religion or politics, it doesn't change the fact that he was a prime candidate to confirm the existence of Jesus. I'm not say that necessarily because he could...he should have written about Jesus. My point is the notion that there was no one around at the time to confirm Jesus's existence is untrue.

I see. So first you said Philo "was a prolific writer of the events in Jewish life in Jesus's time. Even more so, he wrote extensively about Jewish grievences with Pontius Pilate throughout the time Jesus supposedly lived." When I pointed out this was completely false, you doubled down on it and vowed that "I'd be more than happy to post the passages if you or anyone else thinks I've made this up." And then when I posted the facts in more detail, you don't post any passages. That doesn't do a great deal for your credibility, but let's move on.

Can you name any current historian who thinks this argument about Philo's failure to mention Jesus has any validity?

In post 14 you wrote this:

Now, you may think that the nonbeliever is asking too much...that there simply won't be anyone of Jesus's time who was likely to write about him....you would be wrong. Philo of Alexandria was by far the best candidate.
​

Now apparently you're still clinging to it, saying Phil was "a prime candidate to confirm the existence of Jesus". What's distinctly missing from your argument is any reason to believe what you say. To those of us who know what we're talking about Philo seems like a remarkably poor candidate to mention Jesus for an obvious reason: Jesus lead a minor religious movement, and Philo's one and only letter about current events said nothing about minor religious movements.

You seem incredibly impressed by the fact that Philo wrote about "events regarding Pilate". (Even though I've already shown you that's wrong. Philo wrote about one event regarding Pilate, not multiple events.) Surely even you know that Pilate was Prefect of Judea, and that Jesus Christ's ministry was mostly outside of Judea--Christ spent only a few days in Jerusalem and a few minutes being tried by Pilate. Thus since Philo wrote next to nothing about things happening under Pilate and Jesus didn't live under Pilate, it's unclear why you place so much importance on the fact that Philo mentioned one event dealing with Pilate. Further, you yourself have said that Philo's Embassy to Gaius was about political events, while Jesus always carefully avoided politics. That would provide further reason to not expect Philo to make any mention of Jesus Christ.

Consider an analogy: de Tocqueville wrote about the USA in the 1830's, which is when Joseph Smith lived. Does that make de Tocqueville a "prime candidate" to confirm the existence of Joseph Smith? Since de Tocqueville doesn't mention Joseph Smith, does that prove that Joseph Smith never existed, and that we should just ignore all the writings by people who did mention Joseph Smith? Surely you can see that such an argument would be utterly lame.

 

[pjnlsn]

Well, if we're talking about Jesus, the miracle worker, the one who makes the dead walk and the blind see, it's very likely that someone would write about him. This is sort've a separate issue, but none of that likely happened. In the case of Jesus simply being a man who regularly spoke to great crowds for a time near one of the cities in the middle east, and who had some amount of followers, it's not nearly as likely that someone would mention him, and it's not so surprising that there is no record.

 

[Blackguard_]

Well, if we're talking about Jesus, the miracle worker, the one who makes the dead walk and the blind see, it's very likely that someone would write about him

They did, but in these discussions people like to try to claim the Epistles and Gospels somehow "don't count".

 

[pjnlsn]

They did, but in these discussions people like to try to claim the Epistles and Gospels somehow "don't count".

Yes, well, ultimately, given the nature of the human psyche, and the nature of what you're referencing, it's not likely that there was a man who lived roughly 2000 years ago who had supernatural powers. It's also not likely that there exists a deity; It's not likely at all.

 

[St Antony]

Ana,

Under the standard you have set, it would be virtually impossible to prove that anyone in history lived unless you knew them personally. We all know that Christopher Columbus lived, but under your argument, all of the stories and biographies written about him by others could be only "... retellings of what (supporters of Coulumbus/Spanish nationalists/etc) believed true.

Tacitus, Josephus and Pliny, none of which were Christians and were actually hostile to Christianity, all identified Jesus as the founder or instagator of the Christian communities, beliefs and practices. Although one passage of Jopsephus is an alleged interpolation, the other writings of all three are generally accepted as fully credible in the scholarly community.

Certainly, each person has a right to believe, or not believe, as they choose. I have never understood, however, why athiests want to discredit Christianity and banish its influence from our society and culture. Most good in our society has its roots in Christianity; the worth of the individual, the importance of love and charity, peace and brotherhood among men, are just a few of these values. Dinesh D'Souza has an excellent book, "What is so great about Christianity", which explores this further. I highly encourage you to take a look at it.

Just imagine though how the Greco-Roman world lived before Constantine: infanticide, gladiator fights for sport inthe arena, your rights in society depending entirely on which social class you belonged to, among other things. It was a cruel world and Christianity gave later generations something better. UNfortunately, in the present day and age, we are trying our hardest to toss it all away.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Oh? Suppose I were to suggest that this was yet another lie on your part? Can you provide us with any evidence from a reliable source to back up your claim that "Christians throughout history have been aware of the scant evidence for Christ and have created documents trying to prove his existence"?


Well, laying aside the already-mentioned fact that the passage you quoted doesn't actually come from Josephus, let's talk about this. First of all, you wrote as if Josephus wrote only one passage that mentions Christ. Josephus mentioned Christ in two passages, not just one, from his history book Jewish Antiquities. The more famous passage is called the "Testimonium Flavianum" and is in book 18, chapter 3, paragraph 3. The other passage is in book 20, chapter 9, paragraph 1. No scholar seriously argues that the second passage, dealing with the execution of Christ's brother James, is not authentic. So, unless you're claiming to have some knowledge that the entire scholarly community doesn't have, you'll acknowledge that Josephus did mention Jesus Christ.

Now back to the Testimonium Flavianum. You are correct that it contains a few words which Josephus probably would not have written; for this reason it's generally agreed that the passage was glossed by a Christian scribe at some point. However, a large majority of scholars agree that Josephus did write an original paragraph about Jesus Christ. (Citation) This is backed up something else that you conveniently forgot to mention: the recent discovery of an ancient manuscript which contains the Testimonium Flavianum as originally written, without the glosses. (See the book by Greg Boyd and Paul Eddy, which I already linked to, for a citation.) Since we now have physical evidence in the form of a manuscript where we can read what the text said in ancient times, it seems unlikely that the entire passage is a complete forgery.


I'll tackle these in reverse order. When you say "Josephus created a 'table of contents' where he outlines everything he writes", you're incorrect. The scholarly consensus is that the table of contents was not written by Josephus, but was added by an editor. More importantly, the table of contents obviously doesn't outline "everything he writes". Jewish Antiquities is 1,000 pages long--give or take, depending on what edition you have--while the table of contents is 20 short sentences. Logically the table of contents can't mention everything that's in the entire book. Would you claim that everything not mentioned in table of contents is a forgery?

Or look at it this way. In my American history textbook, there's a mentioned of James Buchanan. But in the table of contents, there's no mention of James Buchanan. Can I conclude that the passage in the text about James Buchanan is a forgery? If not, then you understand the silliness of this line of argument.

You also mention the argument that the Testimonium Flavianum is unrelated to the preceding and following passages. Well, Jewish Antiquities contains many passages that are unrelated to the surrounding passages, does it not? And so do Josephus' other works, do they not? And so do all ancient historical works, do they not? Are you going to argue that all such passages are inauthentic?

I read through the link you provided, and its hard to argue against something so unconvincing. Even the link itself mentions that the arguments made for only partial interpolation aren't necessarily evidence of it, for example,
" Because all of these references contain some tampering, however, this manuscript evidence does not lend direct support to the partial-authenticity theory."

The strongest part of this page's argument is in the analysis of Josephus' language which it admits, while uniquely Josephan, is used in ways he never uses it. For example the "tribe of Christians" passage. Nonetheless, you seem convinced of the "partial interpolation" theory. I'm not going to bore you then by pointing out that those who wrote about Josephus before Eusebius in the 3rd century don't mention the passage. It's also probably pointless to show that Eusebius himself is an admitted liar for Christianity who sees nothing immoral or unethical about his own falsifications. I mean what are the chances that an admitted liar managed to first notice this historical passage when no one before him did? Anyway....

To me, the most telling part of the TF is its place within the context of the passages preceding it and after it. Perhaps I missed it, but your citation didn't touch on this point...except to say that they weren't convinced that the TF didn't flow within the context of its surrounding passages...that the very first sentence of the passage following the TF makes no sense unless the TF were completely interpolated. Let's take a look...

"About the same time also, another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder..."

Another sad calamity that put the Jews into disorder. The passage preceding the TF is about an instance where Pilate violently puts down a Jewish uprising, harming many of them. That would certainly be a sad calamity that put the Jews in disorder. It's possible that the sad calamity he is referring to is the crucifixion of Christ...but as a Jewish man who doesn't believe in Christ, why would he consider this a sad calamity? It doesn't really make any sense that he would. That first line clearly refers to the passage preceding the TF, in which Jews are treated very harshly under Pilate. As for the majority of scholarship, one can just as easily cite a claim that most scholars, including Christians, think the entire TF is a fake. Josephus on Jesus | Forgery and Fraud? | Flavius Testimonium

From the link...

" To repeat, this passage was so completely dissected by scholars of high repute and standing--the majority of them pious Christians--that it was for decades understood by subsequent scholars as having been proved in toto a forgery, such that these succeeding scholars did not even mention it, unless to acknowledge it as false."

 

[Ana the Ist]

Oh? Suppose I were to suggest that this was yet another lie on your part? Can you provide us with any evidence from a reliable source to back up your claim that "Christians throughout history have been aware of the scant evidence for Christ and have created documents trying to prove his existence"?


Well, laying aside the already-mentioned fact that the passage you quoted doesn't actually come from Josephus, let's talk about this. First of all, you wrote as if Josephus wrote only one passage that mentions Christ. Josephus mentioned Christ in two passages, not just one, from his history book Jewish Antiquities. The more famous passage is called the "Testimonium Flavianum" and is in book 18, chapter 3, paragraph 3. The other passage is in book 20, chapter 9, paragraph 1. No scholar seriously argues that the second passage, dealing with the execution of Christ's brother James, is not authentic. So, unless you're claiming to have some knowledge that the entire scholarly community doesn't have, you'll acknowledge that Josephus did mention Jesus Christ.

Now back to the Testimonium Flavianum. You are correct that it contains a few words which Josephus probably would not have written; for this reason it's generally agreed that the passage was glossed by a Christian scribe at some point. However, a large majority of scholars agree that Josephus did write an original paragraph about Jesus Christ. (Citation) This is backed up something else that you conveniently forgot to mention: the recent discovery of an ancient manuscript which contains the Testimonium Flavianum as originally written, without the glosses. (See the book by Greg Boyd and Paul Eddy, which I already linked to, for a citation.) Since we now have physical evidence in the form of a manuscript where we can read what the text said in ancient times, it seems unlikely that the entire passage is a complete forgery.


I'll tackle these in reverse order. When you say "Josephus created a 'table of contents' where he outlines everything he writes", you're incorrect. The scholarly consensus is that the table of contents was not written by Josephus, but was added by an editor. More importantly, the table of contents obviously doesn't outline "everything he writes". Jewish Antiquities is 1,000 pages long--give or take, depending on what edition you have--while the table of contents is 20 short sentences. Logically the table of contents can't mention everything that's in the entire book. Would you claim that everything not mentioned in table of contents is a forgery?

Or look at it this way. In my American history textbook, there's a mentioned of James Buchanan. But in the table of contents, there's no mention of James Buchanan. Can I conclude that the passage in the text about James Buchanan is a forgery? If not, then you understand the silliness of this line of argument.

You also mention the argument that the Testimonium Flavianum is unrelated to the preceding and following passages. Well, Jewish Antiquities contains many passages that are unrelated to the surrounding passages, does it not? And so do Josephus' other works, do they not? And so do all ancient historical works, do they not? Are you going to argue that all such passages are inauthentic?

As for Christian forgeries and fakes, I hope you're joking. The Vatican Library alone is filled with hundreds of tomes containing stories of Jesus, his disciples, angels, etc. The Vatican itself regards them as "pious frauds" which is a pleasant way of saying "lies". Not only these, but more fake relics than one could hope to count. Really, I doubt you don't already know this, but anyone who doesn't, just google "pious frauds"....there's more examples than I could hope to list.

If you want or more modern example, just google "Jesus's wife" which will result in a very recent hoax...

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ana,

Under the standard you have set, it would be virtually impossible to prove that anyone in history lived unless you knew them personally. We all know that Christopher Columbus lived, but under your argument, all of the stories and biographies written about him by others could be only "... retellings of what (supporters of Coulumbus/Spanish nationalists/etc) believed true.

Tacitus, Josephus and Pliny, none of which were Christians and were actually hostile to Christianity, all identified Jesus as the founder or instagator of the Christian communities, beliefs and practices. Although one passage of Jopsephus is an alleged interpolation, the other writings of all three are generally accepted as fully credible in the scholarly community.

Certainly, each person has a right to believe, or not believe, as they choose. I have never understood, however, why athiests want to discredit Christianity and banish its influence from our society and culture. Most good in our society has its roots in Christianity; the worth of the individual, the importance of love and charity, peace and brotherhood among men, are just a few of these values. Dinesh D'Souza has an excellent book, "What is so great about Christianity", which explores this further. I highly encourage you to take a look at it.

Just imagine though how the Greco-Roman world lived before Constantine: infanticide, gladiator fights for sport inthe arena, your rights in society depending entirely on which social class you belonged to, among other things. It was a cruel world and Christianity gave later generations something better. UNfortunately, in the present day and age, we are trying our hardest to toss it all away.

Actually, the standard I've set is hardly unreasonable. There are all sorts of historical figures we can reasonablely prove existed...in many cases because it becomes almost impossible to explain history without their existence...for example Julius Caesar. There is nothing about Jesus's existence that cannot be achieved by merely the story of Jesus....and when you think about it, that's a pretty flimsy standard for basing your idea of what's real and what isn't.

As for Tacitus and Pliny, scholarship does agree the passages are real...but I'm not sure that means what you want it to.

 

[Blackguard_]

Josephus on Jesus | Forgery and Fraud? | Flavius Testimonium

Not that I think the TF being a forgery isn't a valid position, (although I have hard time believing Eusebius or someone of his era could have slipped the entire TF into a Jewish work) but Achyara S has about as much credibility as David Icke.

But if you want the latest in Victorian scholarship and crack pottery, I guess she's the place to look.

Anyways, do you accept the other mention of Jesus by Josephus, where he refers to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" in Book 20 of the Antiquities as genuine?

Origen alludes to that passage, Achyara S even quotes it.

 

[Blackguard_]

There is nothing about Jesus's existence that cannot be achieved by merely the story of Jesus....

Like James, brother of a mythological construct, and Peter, apostle of a mythic figure?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Not that I think the TF being a forgery isn't a valid position, (although I have hard time believing Eusebius or someone of his era could have slipped the entire TF into a Jewish work) but Achyara S has about as much credibility as David Icke.

But if you want the latest in Victorian scholarship and crack pottery, I guess she's the place to look.

Anyways, do you accept the other mention of Jesus by Josephus, where he refers to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" in Book 20 of the Antiquities as genuine?

Origen alludes to that passage, Achyara S even quotes it.

I wonder if you consider the many scholars she cites throughout that link as crackpots as well? Did you read the explanation of the James passage? It's not an unreasonable explanation...especially when you consider the physical nature of those early copies of The Antiquities...

 

[AlexBP]

As for Christian forgeries and fakes, I hope you're joking.

I am not joking.

If you want or more modern example, just google "Jesus's wife" which will result in a very recent hoax...

You are evidently completely ignorant about this.

In the "Jesus's wife" hoax, somebody was trying to attack Christianity. According to the Gospels, Jesus was not married. Anti-Christian frauds throughout the ages have tried to undermine the historicity of the gospels by claiming that Jesus was married. (For instance this idea was the basis of Dan Brown's book The Da Vince Code.) Whoever created the fake document referring to "the wife of Jesus" was pushing this anti-Christian theory. So that is not an example of a Christian fraud. It's an example of someone like yourself, who hates Christianity, being a fraud.

As a reminder, here's what you said:

Christians throughout history have been aware of the scant evidence for Christ and have created documents trying to prove his existence.
​

I challenged you to provide us with evidence from a reliable source to back up this claim. Not surprisingly, you've utterly failed to provide any evidence from any source to back it up. I hereby renew my challenge to you: provide some evidence from a reliable source to back up what you said. Until you do so, I'll assume that you were lying.

 

[mandelduke]

If I encountered a non-Christian who was interested in Christianity, but from a historical perspective thought the story of Jesus to be only a story, not fact, which sources could I bring up to show that person that Jesus did actually exist?

Thanks.

Lee Strobel’s THE CASE FOR CHRIST

 

[pjnlsn]

I am not joking.


You are evidently completely ignorant about this.

In the "Jesus's wife" hoax, somebody was trying to attack Christianity. According to the Gospels, Jesus was not married. Anti-Christian frauds throughout the ages have tried to undermine the historicity of the gospels by claiming that Jesus was married. (For instance this idea was the basis of Dan Brown's book The Da Vince Code.) Whoever created the fake document referring to "the wife of Jesus" was pushing this anti-Christian theory. So that is not an example of a Christian fraud. It's an example of someone like yourself, who hates Christianity, being a fraud.

As a reminder, here's what you said:

Christians throughout history have been aware of the scant evidence for Christ and have created documents trying to prove his existence.
​

I challenged you to provide us with evidence from a reliable source to back up this claim. Not surprisingly, you've utterly failed to provide any evidence from any source to back it up. I hereby renew my challenge to you: provide some evidence from a reliable source to back up what you said. Until you do so, I'll assume that you were lying.

Ultimately, this whole discussion is pointless. The primary figure of Christianity, and indeed any sort of deity, is/are unlikely and unproven to exist.

 

[AlexBP]

As for the majority of scholarship, one can just as easily cite a claim that most scholars, including Christians, think the entire TF is a fake. Josephus on Jesus | Forgery and Fraud? | Flavius Testimonium

From the link...

" To repeat, this passage was so completely dissected by scholars of high repute and standing--the majority of them pious Christians--that it was for decades understood by subsequent scholars as having been proved in toto a forgery, such that these succeeding scholars did not even mention it, unless to acknowledge it as false."

Thank you. I haven't had a laugh like that in days.

The page that you linked to is on the website for "Achyra S.", who proudly promotes astrology and suchlike. She has no credentials of any sort. If there are actually any good reasons to believe that the Testimonium Flavinum is a forgery, why can't you linked to an article by a real historian that says so? You'll recall that the article I linked to is by Christopher Price, edited and on the page of James Hannam. Both men have actual credentials in the fields. So who do you think we should trust more: the anonymous postings of an astrologer, or history articles by historians?

I wonder if you consider the many scholars [Achyra S.] cites throughout that link as crackpots as well?

Which scholars would that be? I've read the whole article and I don't see a single citation to a recent scholar of history or ancient literature. As Blackguard already told you, most of her citations go to 19th century books, which can hardly be taken seriously when compared against recent scholarship. Other than that, I only see here citing people such as Earl Doherty and G. A. Wells, who are famous for posing as scholars but not having credentials. (And in any case, Wells has recently recanted of all the nonsense that he spewed earlier in his career.)

So I ask you once again: which "scholars" are you referring to here? If there's an actual case to be made for the Testimonium Flavinum being a hoax, why can't you cite any actual scholarship on the matter?