• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Nov 17, 2010
401
22
United States
✟23,142.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I am reading a new translation on Eusebius of Caesarea (A.D. 263-339).In this volume is a copy of Flavius Josephus' famous extra-Biblical reference to Jesus Christ. Josephus had written "Antiquities of the Jews" and "The Jewish Wars" sometime in the mid first century A.D..In both treatises he refers to Jesus as a teacher,healer, condemned by Pontius Pilate, died by
crucifixion,and rose again on the third day. Josephus also refers to Christ as the Messiah.
Apparently these passages have been disputed since the sevententh century. The theory is that either these portions were interpolated into the text of Josephus by Christian copyists at some later date.(But before Eusibius) or both Josephus and Eusebius texts were tampered with. Or,and this is my thought: Since Josephus' references to John the Baptist and James the Just are considered authentic, isn't it just possible that Josephus also commented on Christ, and that he passed on the information as he had it?
When we consider that the unbeliever isn't likely to believe Poloroid pictures of Christ with sound recordings, there is no way unbelievers are going to believe anything that brings THEM into condemnation for unbelief no matter what.
Therefore, I posit that the facts as refered in Greek by Josephus and read two hundred years later by Eusebius are genuine,reliable,and worthy to be used as Exhibit "A". "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man,but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." If God inspires and preserves the Bible, I take it that He can protect and preserve any information that He pleases.
Of course, "Blessed are those who have not seen,but believe".
But what say you, friends in Christ?

Julian of York
Enjoying the Christian Life and
WILLING TO LEARN!
 

John 1720

Harvest Worker
Site Supporter
Jan 26, 2013
1,017
447
Massachusetts
✟171,630.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Here's the quote May God Bless, John 1720
 
Upvote 0

Andy S

Newbie
Mar 6, 2013
50
2
✟15,425.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Thanks John 1720 for the feedback. I was aware that Josephus possibly wrote this (maybe an interpolation) in the "Antiquities of the Jews". Julian of York said that she/he read this in Eusebius of Ceasarea's work and I was wondering where he/she found this "new translation" because I can't find this "passage" in my "Church History" book by Eusebius. Have you heard that Eusebius wrote this "passage" of Josephus in any of his works. If not I have to conclude that this "passage" by Josephus is an interpolation made later by dishonest Christians.

Thanks,

Andy S.
 
Upvote 0

John 1720

Harvest Worker
Site Supporter
Jan 26, 2013
1,017
447
Massachusetts
✟171,630.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
No, it's actually there in Eusebius as well. Here's the excerpt from Book I, Chapter 11
I think what you may have heard, with regard to this being an interpolation of Josephus' original, comes from the earlier Origen who said Josephus was not a Christian, which has always raised a bit of a suspicion as to why Josephus would state "He was the Christ". Many have accused Eusebius of embellishment but without proof. Perhaps the best argument against Eusebius' wording has been a more recent discovery of Arabic version from Agapius of Manbij who was an historian that lived in the 10th century A.D. He had a slightly different translation of Josephus recorded in his Kitab al Unwan. Obviously his version is 700 years after Eusebius' but some are more inclined to believe this version, although to date an older copy than the Eusiebius fragment cannot be found. The line of thinking here is that Agapius had another source but no one can determine if it was earlier than Eusebius or if his was just a version that had been subject to literary changes over time that were perhaps more acceptable to his audience. There certainly appear to be additions as well as deletions but to be honest it really doesn't matter to me a hill of beans, historically speaking. If Josephus stated, "He was the Christ" or he merely implied His followers believed "He was the Christ", a.k.a "the Messiah", it verifies Christ as the historical figure of the New Testament Gospels and letters. He still wrote and verified Jesus' history either way, as well as verifying the birth of primitive Christianity. Of course I do hope Josephus actually believed He was the Christ but that matters not to the historical capture of His ministry as much as it does to Josephus himself.

In Christ, John 1720
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0