Josephus. Who? What? Credible?

Daedelus · Jan 10, 2004

A few christians have been using the works of Josephus to declare the historical accuracy and credibility of the bible. However, I've heard different presentations, some say he was a contemporary to christ, yet he was not a follower of christ. Some say he was simply an honerable jewish historian. Although some of his works, I believe, follow to closely of the biblical account of non-historical events, he may have been a dedicated follower of christ, or in any sense, a fraud. I was curious as to what everyone else here though of him or what you could present me with as to the credibility of josephus.

Drotar · Jan 10, 2004

Josephus's writings are not credible.

He makes a mention of Christ- BUT there's no evidence that those are actually his words. Clearly, early Catholic Christian scribes rewrote history in the guise of Josephus.

WHAT MATTERS is that more than likely Josephus DID make mention of Christ. I believe it was a simple cursory summary of Jesus from a non-religious perspective- a historical obituary of whom many Jews began to follow.

The words written mean nothing- they can't be taken literally since we don't know which words are Josephus's and which are the scribes. What DOES matter is that Josephus probably did make mention of Jesus.

I think he was a very reliable Jewish historian who wrote a small mention of Jesus's death, and what the early Christians made of the resurrection, and that the scribes then revised part of it. TTYL Jesus loves you!

ObbiQuiet · Jan 10, 2004

Wasn't he born in 37 AD, after Jesus died?

AlHailThePowerOfJesusName · Jan 10, 2004

Josephus's writings are not credible.

He makes a mention of Christ- BUT there's no evidence that those are actually his words. Clearly, early Catholic Christian scribes rewrote history in the guise of Josephus.

WHAT MATTERS is that more than likely Josephus DID make mention of Christ. I believe it was a simple cursory summary of Jesus from a non-religious perspective- a historical obituary of whom many Jews began to follow.

The words written mean nothing- they can't be taken literally since we don't know which words are Josephus's and which are the scribes. What DOES matter is that Josephus probably did make mention of Jesus.

wow here we go again with the conspiracy theorys.

isn't this a thread for general apologetics?

there was a giant conspiracy and the catholic church hunted down all the copies of Josephus and altered them right under the the roman governments nose.... yeah right!

Drotar · Jan 10, 2004

AlHailThePowerOfJesusName said:
wow here we go again with the conspiracy theorys.

isn't this a thread for general apologetics?

there was a giant conspiracy and the catholic church hunted down all the copies of Josephus and altered them right under the the roman governments nose.... yeah right!

No, the translators were Christian since that was the official religion.

Yes, this is a thread for general apologetics, as most here now are.

Drotar · Jan 10, 2004

ObbiQuiet said:
Wasn't he born in 37 AD, after Jesus died?

Could have been, I'm not sure of the dates. Jesus dying in 33 AD is approximated. The ages of Jesus are VERY ambiguous in Scripture, and the transition to the AD/BC division of history happened many centuries later.

Josephus didn't witness it actually happen BUT many did, and clearly Josephus would not have written a bold-faced lie to people who had been there.

Remember that Josephus didn't write that Jesus was the Son of God, but that he was another man that was crucified under Pontius Pilate. I doubt hardly any of the events Josephus recorded he was an actual witness to.

ObbiQuiet · Jan 10, 2004

That was what I was trying to say .

Unless he was a historian as a todler, chances are he never met or saw Jesus - though I think it's still pretty likely that someone named Jesus did exist, in one form or another.

AlHailThePowerOfJesusName · Jan 10, 2004

No, the translators were Christian since that was the official religion.

again with the conspiracy theorys. they all met together and conspired that they would add this and that and take out this and that in josephus's writings. Ok I confess us christians are all plotting together to take over the world! lol yeah right.

But if they had done such a thing, why make references to Jesus so obscure? I mean if your gonna lose all your integrity to forge one part why not the whole thing right?

I don't know about anyone else, but to me, this whole forgery Idea just doesn't add up.

Josephus didn't witness it actually happen BUT many did, and clearly Josephus would not have written a bold-faced lie to people who had been there.

Remember that Josephus didn't write that Jesus was the Son of God, but that he was another man that was crucified under Pontius Pilate. I doubt hardly any of the events Josephus recorded he was an actual witness to.

whether or not he witnessed them directly, what he wrote about Jesus he didn't make up himself, so it does show the historical accuracy of the Bible.

ObbiQuiet · Jan 10, 2004

AlHailThePowerOfJesusName said:
again with the conspiracy theorys. they all met together and conspired that they would add this and that and take out this and that in josephus's writings. Ok I confess us christians are all plotting together to take over the world! lol yeah right.

It just takes one person.

But if they had done such a thing, why make references to Jesus so obscure? I mean if your gonna lose all your integrity to forge one part why not the whole thing right?

Slippery Slope, really. Perhaps they felt that since Josephus was a known Jew, it would have been wrong to totally change the view by claiming Jesus was the Christ.

I don't know about anyone else, but to me, this whole forgery Idea just doesn't add up.

Ok.

whether or not he witnessed them directly, what he wrote about Jesus he didn't make up himself, so it does show the historical accuracy of the Bible.

He didn't witness those events, but just copied down what others may have told him.

It does nothing to prove the historical accuracy of the Bible.

AlHailThePowerOfJesusName · Jan 10, 2004

It just takes one person.

It would take much more than one person to hunt down all the copies of Josephus and alter them and if someone did, I am sure other's would notice, and I am sure the roman government would not think well of anyone who would do that.

Slippery Slope, really. Perhaps they felt that since Josephus was a known Jew, it would have been wrong to totally change the view by claiming Jesus was the Christ.

well if they really had done something like that, I don't beleive they would be concerned if it was wrong or not since in just doing so they had already given up any integrity that they might have had.

He didn't witness those events, but just copied down what others may have told him.

Click to expand...

It does nothing to prove the historical accuracy of the Bible.

I am sure if a bunch of people started telling him lies, others would have set them straight. Knowing that he was a famous historian and a well known jew, I am sure that he would have gotten his story straight before telling it, even if it was obscure.

Meatros · Jan 12, 2004

AlHailThePowerOfJesusName said:
It would take much more than one person to hunt down all the copies of Josephus and alter them and if someone did, I am sure other's would notice, and I am sure the roman government would not think well of anyone who would do that.

Hunt down all the copies? It's not like Ancient Rome had a Barns and Noble or anywhere near the amount of historical books as we do today. In fact, IIRC it was a matter of adding stuff to the translation.

Here's a few articles on Josephus: http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/supp10.htm
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/scott_oser/hojfaq.html

This passage is called the Testimonium Flavianum, and is sometimes cited by propagandists as independent confirmation of Jesus' existence and resurrection. However, there is excellent reason to suppose that this passage was not written in its present form by Josephus, but was either inserted or amended by later Christians:

The early Christian writer Origen claims that Josephus did NOT recognize Jesus as the Messiah, in direct contradiction to the above passage, where Josephus says, "He was the Messiah." Thus, we may conclude that this particular phrase at least was a later insertion. (The version given above was, however, known to Jerome and in the time of Eusebius. Jerome's Latin version, however, renders "He was the Messiah" by "He was believed to be the Christ.") Furthermore, other early Christian writers fail to cite this passage, even though it would have suited their purposes to do so. There is thus firm evidence that this passage was tampered with at some point, even if parts of it do date back to Josephus.

The passage is highly pro-Christian. It is hard to imagine that Josephus, a Pharisaic Jew, would write such a laudatory passage about a man supposedly killed for blasphemy. Indeed, the passage seems to make Josephus himself out to be a Christian, which was certainly not the case.

AlHailThePowerOfJesusName said:
well if they really had done something like that, I don't beleive they would be concerned if it was wrong or not since in just doing so they had already given up any integrity that they might have had.

Actually the practice was known as "pious fraud" and was acceptable in the old church. In fact, scholars point to a particular person as the culperate, although at the current time I can't remember his name. I'll try to find a source for that, so for right now, regard this as speculation.

AlHailThePowerOfJesusName said:
I am sure if a bunch of people started telling him lies, others would have set them straight. Knowing that he was a famous historian and a well known jew, I am sure that he would have gotten his story straight before telling it, even if it was obscure.

Not necessarily. Keep in mind he was writing what "Christians" believed, not what was actually true per say. In any event, the Testimonium Flavianium is almost certainly a fraud.

LorentzHA · Jan 12, 2004

AlHailThePowerOfJesusName said:
wow here we go again with the conspiracy theorys.

isn't this a thread for general apologetics?

there was a giant conspiracy and the catholic church hunted down all the copies of Josephus and altered them right under the the roman governments nose.... yeah right!

Actually, I had a prof. in undergrad who was VERY into the writings of Josephus and religious studies. He said that the original writings of Jospehus, which he had a copy of, mention VERY little about Jesus, in fact it said, "There was a man named Yeshu and he preached." THAT WAS ALL. He also had a copy of the reprinting the rest was added but there is still not much there, if I remember correctly. (BTW: people who walked around and preached in that day was not uncommon )

lucaspa · Jan 12, 2004

Drotar said:
Josephus's writings are not credible.

He makes a mention of Christ- BUT there's no evidence that those are actually his words. Clearly, early Catholic Christian scribes rewrote history in the guise of Josephus.

WHAT MATTERS is that more than likely Josephus DID make mention of Christ. I believe it was a simple cursory summary of Jesus from a non-religious perspective- a historical obituary of whom many Jews began to follow.

The words written mean nothing- they can't be taken literally since we don't know which words are Josephus's and which are the scribes. What DOES matter is that Josephus probably did make mention of Jesus.

I think he was a very reliable Jewish historian who wrote a small mention of Jesus's death, and what the early Christians made of the resurrection, and that the scribes then revised part of it. TTYL Jesus loves you!

Josephus is a credible historian. He is our major source for the siege of Masada, for example.

Josephus has two mentions of Jesus in his Histories. The first simply uses Jesus as a way of identifying a person -- in this case "James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ". Very credible that 1) Jesus lived and 2) was called Christ by his followers. However, no credibility that Jesus actually resurrected.

The second is called the Testimonium Flavium. Yes, the original was doctored by the early church to provide credence for the theological claims about Jesus. However, 19th and 20th century Biblical scholars were able to reconstruct Josephus' original words by eliminating those phrases which a believing Jew -- which Josephus was -- could not have said. After that an Arabic copy of Josephus -- never touched by the Christians -- confirmed the reconstruction. Josephus did discuss the existence of a person named Yeshu ben Joseph but provides no support for any theological claims about Jesus.

In the second reference to Jesus, Josephus again confirms that 1) Jesus lived and 2) that he had a following that believed he was the Christ.

Thus, you can use Josephus as evidence to falsify the claim "Jesus never lived at all". However, you cannot legitimately use Joesphus as evidence for any of the theological claims about Jesus.

Once again, Drotar, remember the claims!

Data · Jan 12, 2004

You're assuming there were many copies of it. You do realise that everything had to be copied by hand?

Phred · Jan 12, 2004

All references to Jesus by Josephus are considered questionable at best. I refer you to a well-documented study here: http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/appe.html

AlHailThePowerOfJesusName · Jan 12, 2004

The early Christian writer Origen claims that Josephus did NOT recognize Jesus as the Messiah, in direct contradiction to the above passage, where Josephus says, "He was the Messiah." Thus, we may conclude that this particular phrase at least was a later insertion. (The version given above was, however, known to Jerome and in the time of Eusebius. Jerome's Latin version, however, renders "He was the Messiah" by "He was believed to be the Christ.") Furthermore, other early Christian writers fail to cite this passage, even though it would have suited their purposes to do so. There is thus firm evidence that this passage was tampered with at some point, even if parts of it do date back to Josephus.
[*]The passage is highly pro-Christian. It is hard to imagine that Josephus, a Pharisaic Jew, would write such a laudatory passage about a man supposedly killed for blasphemy. Indeed, the passage seems to make Josephus himself out to be a Christian, which was certainly not the case.

Click to expand...

If Josephus was doctored, to say he was the christ, then there would be no problem at least in accepting that Josephus originally said they beleived he was the christ. Not only that, but Many christian historians beleive that Josephus was actually a secret christian, which would not be uncommon at the time because of fear of persecution.

Not necessarily. Keep in mind he was writing what "Christians" believed, not what was actually true per say. In any event, the Testimonium Flavianium is almost certainly a fraud.

Not certainly, just maybe, and even if it was so, the whole testemonium flavianium probably was not entirely fraud.

SirKenin · Jan 12, 2004

Drotar said:
Could have been, I'm not sure of the dates. Jesus dying in 33 AD is approximated. The ages of Jesus are VERY ambiguous in Scripture, and the transition to the AD/BC division of history happened many centuries later.

Is this for real? AD means "After death" Jesus' death. The entire calendar is based on Christ's life and death.

It is assumed that Jesus died at 33 years of age though.

Chobo Char · Jan 12, 2004

drfeelgood said:
Is this for real? AD means "After death" Jesus' death. The entire calendar is based on Christ's life and death.

It is assumed that Jesus died at 33 years of age though.

Ahem. A.D. means "anno domini" or "year of our lord."

SirKenin · Jan 12, 2004

Chobo Char said:
Ahem. A.D. means "anno domini" or "year of our lord."

Yes, you're right. So it is I that must offer up the apology and eat some crow. lol

Josephus. Who? What? Credible?

New Member

Drotar

Guest

Eating Heart

Mad Preacher

Drotar

Guest

Drotar

Guest

Eating Heart

Mad Preacher

Eating Heart

Mad Preacher

The Meat is in the Middle!

Electric Kool-Aid Girl

Legend

Veteran

Junior Mint

Mad Preacher

Contributor

Dead man walking

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency