The great josephus interpolation

[goodwithoutgod]

Flavius Josephus

Christian apologetic fans most popular non-Christian writer that mentions Jesus is Flavius Josephus. Although he was born in 37 CE and could not have been a contemporary of Jesus, he lived close enough to the time to be considered a valuable secondhand source. Josephus was a highly respected and much quoted Roman historian. He died sometime after the year 100 and his two major tomes were The antiquities of the Jews and the wars of the Jews. Antiquities was written sometime after the year 90 CE. In book 18, chapter 3, this paragraph is encountered:

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, and condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and 10,000 other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

This does appear to give historical confirmation for the existence of Jesus. But is it authentic? Most scholars, including most fundamentalist scholars, admit that at least some parts of this paragraph cannot be authentic. Many are convinced that the entire paragraph is a complete forgery, an interpolation inserted by Christians at a later time. There are at least seven solid reasons for this:

1) The paragraph is absent from early copies of the works of Josephus. For example, it does not appear in Origens second century version of Josephus, in Origen Contra Celsum, where Origen fiercely defended Christianity against the heretical views of Celsus. Origen quoted freely from Josephus to prove his points, but never once used this paragraph, which would have been the ultimate ace up his sleeve.

In fact, the Josephus paragraph about Jesus does not appear at all until the beginning of the fourth century, at the time of Emperor Constantine. Bishop Eusebius, a close ally of the Emperor, was instrumental in crystallizing and defining the version of Christianity was to become Orthodox, and he is the first person known to have quoted this paragraph of Josephus. Eusebius once wrote that it was a permissible medicine for historians to create fictions " prompting historian Jacob Burckhardt to call Eusebius the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity.

The fact that Josephus " Jesus paragraph shows up at this point in history " at a time when interpolations and revisions were quite common and when the Emperor was eager to demolish gnostic Christianity and replace it with literalistic Christianity " makes the passage quite dubious. Many scholars believe that Eusebius was the forger and interpolator of the paragraph on Jesus that magically appears in the works of Josephus.

2) Josephus would not have called Jesus the Christ or the truth. Whoever wrote these phrases was a believing Christian. Josephus was a messianic Jew, and he truly believed Jesus was the long-awaited Messiah (the Christ), he certainly would have given more than a passing reference to him. Josephus never converted to Christianity. Origen reported that Josephus was not believing in Jesus as the Christ.

3) The passage is out of context. Book 18 (containing the interval of 32 years from the banishment of Archelus to the departure from Babylon) starts with Roman taxation under Cyrenius in 6 CE and talks about various Jewish sexts at the time, including the Essenes and a sect of Judas the Galilean, which he devotes three times more space than to Jesus. He discusses at great depth the local history in great detail. But oddly this single paragraph can be listed out of the text with no damage to the chapter or the way it flows. Almost as if it was added after the fact, which of course it was.

4) The phrase to this day shows that this is a later interpolation. There was no tribe of Christians during Josephus' time. Christianity did not get off the ground until the second century.

5) In all of Josephus voluminuous works, there is not a single reference to Christianity anywhere outside of this tiny paragraph. He relates much more about John the Baptist than about Jesus. He lists the activities of many other self-proclaimed Messiahs, including Judas of Galilee, Theudas the magician and the Egyptian Jew Messiah, but is mute about the life of one whom he claims (if he had actually wrote it) is the answer to this messianic hopes.

6) The paragraph mentions that the divine prophets foretold the life Jesus, but Josephus neglects to mention who these prophets were or what they said. In no other place does Josephus connect any Hebrew prediction with the life of Jesus. If Jesus truly had been the fulfillment of divine prophecy, as Christians believe, Josephus wouldve been the one learned enough to document it.

7) The hyperbolic language of the paragraph is uncharacteristic of a careful historian: As the divine prophets had foretold these and 10,000 other wonderful things concerning him This sounds more like sectarian propaganda " in other words, more like the new testament " then objective reporting. It is very unlike Josephus.

Christians should be careful when they refer to Josephus as historical confirmation for Jesus. If we remove the forged paragraph, as we should, the works of Josephus become evidence against historicity. Josephus was a native of Judea and a contemporary of the apostles. He was governor of Galilee for a time, the province in which Jesus allegedly lived and taught. He transversed every part of this province and visited the places where but a generation before Christ performed his prodigies. He resided in Cana, the very city in which Christ is said to have wrought his first miracle. He mentions every noted personage of Palestine and describes every important event that occurred there during the first 70 years of the Christian era. But Christ was of so little consequence and his deeds too trivial to merit a line from this historians pen.

So gentle readers, anyone wish to debate this little gem?

[Dan Unterbrink]

[Replying to post 1 by goodwithoutgod]

You make a very good argument. Here is one more point to add to your list. Josephus proudly called Jesus a doer of wonderful works, but in War 2.258-260, he denounced the wonder-workers.

"In addition to these [the Sicarii] there was formed another group of scoundrels, in act less criminal but in intention more evil, who did as much damage as the murderers to the well-being of the City. Cheats and deceivers claiming inspiration, they schemed to bring about revolutionary change by inducing the mob to act as if possessed, and by leading them out into the desert on the pretense that there God would show them signs of approaching freedom."

In reality, Josephus was against the wonder-workers; he never praised them.

Daniel T. Unterbrink

[Dan Unterbrink]

[Replying to post 1 by goodwithoutgod]

You make a very good argument. Here is one more point to add to your list. Josephus proudly called Jesus a doer of wonderful works, but in War 2.258-260, he denounced the wonder-workers.

"In addition to these [the Sicarii] there was formed another group of scoundrels, in act less criminal but in intention more evil, who did as much damage as the murderers to the well-being of the City. Cheats and deceivers claiming inspiration, they schemed to bring about revolutionary change by inducing the mob to act as if possessed, and by leading them out into the desert on the pretense that there God would show them signs of approaching freedom."

In reality, Josephus was against the wonder-workers; he never praised them.

Daniel T. Unterbrink
Author of Judas of Nazareth

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by goodwithoutgod]

Are you saying the fact that there were forgeries attached to the works of Josephus are evidence against Jesus existence? Or against his supposed Divinity? Against his supposed Messiahship? Or any combination of the three.

[goodwithoutgod]

[Replying to post 3 by Elijah John]

In my humble opinion, a man named jesus existed, who most likely was quite the charismatic fellow. Divine? hardly.

My point is, the number one non biblical reference to jesus's "wonders" is Josephus, and is usually the first grenade thrown my direction when I state the fact that no one who wrote of jesus actually knew him. I figured I would expound a bit on Jospephus to show in fact, his tiny little paragraph mentioning jesus is an interpolation. Thus not only is it NOT evidence to substantiate the story of jesus's miracle performing legend, but in fact shows an odd silence from one of the most respected historians of his day.

To add some more detail:

Philo of Alexandria
The early years of the Roman Republic is one of the most historically documented times in history. One of the writers alive during the time of Jesus was Philo-Judaeus (sometimes known as Philo of Alexandria).
Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era, and lived until long after the reputed death of Christ. He wrote an account of the Jews covering the entire time that Christ is said to have existed on earth. He was living in or near Jerusalem when Christs miraculous birth and the Herodian massacre occurred. He was there when Christ made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He was there when the crucifixion happened with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness and resurrection of the dead took place " when Christ himself rose from the dead and in the presence of many witnesses ascended into heaven. These amazing marvelous events which must have filled the world with amazement, had they really occurred, were all unknown to him. It was Philo who developed the doctrine of the Logos, or Word, and although this Word incarnate dwelt in that very land and in the presence of multitudes revealed himself and demonstrated his divine powers, Philo saw it not.
Philo might be considered the investigative reporter of his day. He was there on location during the early first century, talking with people who should have remembered or at least heard the stories, observed, taking notes, documenting. He reported nothing about Jesus.


Justus of Tiberius
There was also a historian named Justus of Tiberius was a native of Galilee, the homeland of Jesus. He wrote a history covering the time when Christ supposedly lived. This history is now lost, but a ninth century Christian scholar named Photius had read it and wrote: he [Justus] makes not the least mention of the appearance of Christ, of what things happened to him, or other wonderful works that he did.

Your thoughts?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 4 by goodwithoutgod]

My thoughts are that if all the "wonders" attributed to Jesus had actually occured, they would have made "headlines" and been recorded by the folks you mention.

But I think we are in agreement that a preacher/prophet/rabbi named Jesus of Nazareth actually existed and was at the core of the myths made up around him?

[goodwithoutgod]

[Replying to post 5 by Elijah John]

Oh absolutely, while the perspective that the whole thing is a complete fabrication is entertaining to consider, and maybe even possible, I find it highly improbable that a man named jesus of nazareth did not physically exist at some level, and who may have been a popular self advertising "prophet", who at some point annoyed the local authorities enough to be executed. The rest is hopes, dreams and wild imaginations....in my humble opinion.

As you stated, if the wonderous events had occurred, SOMEONE wold have written it down at the time.

[Korah]

....when I state the fact that no one who wrote of jesus actually knew him.

What "fact"?
There are still plenty of scholars who adhere to traditional authorships of the gospels, which thus excludes only Luke as a gospel definitely not written by someone who knew Jesus. But wait! Even that's open to question, as an underlying Proto-Luke may have been written by someone who knew Jesus. I say so myself, for one. That story is among my Thesis that the four gospels contain seven written eyewitness accounts by people who knew Jesus. I presented my Thesis recently here in DC&R in the thread, "How can we determine which parts of Scripture are true?" Particularly important posts of mine there include individual eyewitnesses at #43, 59 (with a link to a convenient location where all these eyewitnesses are listed together), 62, 82, 83, 97 and 101. I gave other important posts starting at #26 and continuing into the 140's.

Here's a link to it at #37, however, http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... c&start=30
which contains a further link to back in February when I challenged someone else about a statement similar to yours. He never replied to me even though he continued to post here in DC&R until Aug. 12th. No one here at DC&R seems up to my challenge, satisfied to rest upon a Consensus that has become less and less hostile to eyewitness testimony in the gospels. Form Criticism is no longer defended. You cannot any longer just presuppose that there was no eyewitness testimony.

[Zzyzx]

.

That story is among my Thesis that the four gospels contain seven written eyewitness accounts by people who knew Jesus.

Has your "eyewitness accounts thesis" been accepted by the scholarly / theistic community? Has it been published in scholarly journals? Have you been promoting the thesis for forty years without success?

Why should your personal opinion be accorded any authority or significance in debate? Why should anyone bother to dispute a personal opinion (which is all it is)?

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. However, personal opinions are not regarded as evidence in debate.


Edited to add: How is the "eyewitness account thesis" related to the Josephus Interpolation (subject of this thread)?

[goodwithoutgod]

[Replying to post 7 by Korah]

The epistles were written after the mythical jesus's death;

1) paul - written about 60 C.E., of the 13, he actually wrote 8. Not a single instance in any of Paul's writings claims that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does Paul give any reference to Jesus' life on earth (except for a few well known interpolations). Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay.

2) James - Epistle of James mentions Jesus only once as an introduction to his belief. Nowhere does the epistle reference a historical Jesus and this alone eliminates it from an historical account.

3) Peter - Many scholars question the authorship of Peter of the epistles. Even within the first epistle, it says in 5:12 that Silvanus wrote it. Most scholars consider the second epistle as unreliable or an outright forgery. The unknown authors of the epistles of Peter wrote long after the life of the traditional Peter. Moreover, Peter lived (if he ever lived at all) as an ignorant and illiterate peasant (even Acts 4:13 attests to this). In short, no one has any way of determining whether the epistles of Peter come from fraud, an author claiming himself to know what Peter said (hearsay), or from someone trying to further the aims of the Church. Encyclopedias usually describe a tradition that Saint Peter wrote them. However, whenever you see the word "tradition" it refers to a belief passed down within a society. In other words: hearsay. This the definition of Pseudepigrapha; a book written in a biblical style and ascribed to an author who did not write it...otherwise known as a FORGERY.

4) Jude - Even early Christians argued about its authenticity. It quotes an apocryphal book called Enoch as if it represented authorized Scripture. Biblical scholars do not think it possible for the alleged disciple Jude to have written it because whoever wrote it had to have written it during a period when the churches had long existed. Like the other alleged disciples, Jude would have lived as an illiterate peasant and unable to write (much less in Greek) but the author of Jude wrote in fluent high quality Greek..more forgery.


Then there are the non-christian sources as follows;

1) Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E. (well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus), puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written. Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.
- Flavius Josephus, (37"100 CE) (http://www.josephus.org) a prolific and comprehensive Jewish historian, who would frequently write a few pages on the execution of common Jewish thieves, has not one authentic line that mentions Yeshua. He does mention Christ on two occasions, yet both have been convincingly exposed as interpolations, (http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/josephus-etal.html)

2) Pliny the Younger (born: 62 C.E.) His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of range as an eyewitness account.

3) Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

4) Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E., mentions a "Chrestus," a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ" (a disputable claim). But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius' birth occurred well after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.

5) Talmud: Amazingly some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a collection of Jewish civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Yeshu, according to scholars depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus or it may refer to Yeshu ben Pandera, a teacher of the 2nd centuy CE. Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud didn't come into existence until the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion. At best it can only serve as a controversial Christian or Jewish legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.

6) Thallus/africanus, In the ninth century a Byzantine writer named George Syncellus quoted a third-century Christian historian named Sextus Julius Africanus, who quoted an unknown writer named Thallus on the darkness at the crucifixion: 'Thallus in the third book of his history calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun, but in my opinion he is wrong.' All of the works of Africanus are lost, so there is no way to confirm the quote or to examine its context. We have no idea who Thallus was, or when he wrote. Third century would have put him being born long after jesus's alleged death, thus hearsay.

7) Phlegon of Tralles was a Greek writer and freedman of the emperor Hadrian, who lived in the 2nd century AD. case closed, more hearsay, born after the alleged jesus's death.


Christian apologists mostly use the above sources for their "evidence" of Jesus because they believe they represent the best outside sources. All other sources (Christian and non-Christian) come from even less reliable sources, some of which include: Mara Bar-Serapion (circa 73 C.E.), Ignatius (50 - 98? C.E.), Polycarp (69 - 155 C.E.), Clement of Rome (? - circa 160 C.E.), Justin Martyr (100 - 165 C.E.), Lucian (circa 125 - 180 C.E.), Tertullian (160 - ? C.E.), Clement of Alexandria (? - 215 C.E.), Origen (185 - 232 C.E.), Hippolytus (? - 236 C.E.), and Cyprian (? - 254 C.E.). As you can see, all these people lived well after the alleged death of Jesus. Not one of them provides an eyewitness account, all of them simply spout hearsay.

It doesn't matter what these people wrote about Jesus, an author who writes after the alleged happening and gives no detectable sources for his material can only give example of hearsay. All of these anachronistic writings about Jesus could easily have come from the beliefs and stories from Christian believers themselves. And as we know from myth, superstition, and faith, beliefs do not require facts or evidence for their propagation and circulation. Thus we have only beliefs about Jesus' existence, and nothing more.