Flavius Josephus

[bdbthinker]

I have heard from many apologetics that Josephus provided a seperate, eyewitness account of Jesus. Is this true? If so, does this count for evidence for Jesus's existance?
Or is this account flawed like many theologians say it is. If so, how is it flawed?

I don't know much about it so I figure I'd start a forum where we could discuss the matter. Theists and non-theists, maybe we can get to the bottom of this Josephus matter (how's that for optimism )

Here are some links I found by just googling Josephus.

http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/home.htm
http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/JOSEPHUS.HTM
http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/xtianity/josephus.html
http://www.josephus-1.com/
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/josephus.html

[asajoseph]

Eyewitness? Certainly not. Josephus was born AFTER Jesus died.

What we do have in Josephus is mention of one or two biblical characters (including James), and also an early account of Christianity that is often used by less well informed apologists. This early account however was added to by later Christian scribes and copyists, however even when removing the interpolations you have a very interesting piece about early Christianity.

Taken from something I wrote elsewhere

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 Messiah. 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."

- Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 63

Historically there have been times in which the whole thing was taken as truth by the early christians, but then during the enlightenment the whole passage was questioned.

That passage is wideley accepted today as authentic, but also having certain interpolations, possibly made by early Christian copyists.

The first line uses phrasology not common among early Christians, and therefore seems authentic, however the second part of the first sentence, 'if indeed one ought to call him a man', implies directly that Jesus is more than human, and is probably an interpolation.

The second sentence too appears authentic, but the third, the statement, 'He was the Messiah', also appears to be an interpolation. Elsewhere in Josephus, in reference to James, brother of Jesus, Jesus is noted as being called the Christ, and it appears unlikely that Josephus actually believed this.

The second section,('He appeared to them...' - '....marvels about him'), also seems to be an interpolation, and unlikely statement of belief in Jesus in the resurrection.

However, even with the interpolations removed, this passage DOES seem to indicate several things about Jesus - that he was a martyred religious leader, was considered a wise teacher, and acquired a lasting following despite being crucified at the hands of Pilate under pressure from the Jewish authorities.



BUT in 1972 an arabic manuscript was found, which may have NOT been interpolated, and the translation of which is thus:

at this time there was a wise man called Jesus and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and die. but those who had become his disciples did not abandone their discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them 3 days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of the christians, so named after him, has not dissappeared to this day.

this is PAul Maier's translation available in "Josephus, the essential works" pg. 269-270


I'm not too familiar with this manuscript, or this version of the translation. But I'm told it exists.

[juliod]

does this count for evidence for Jesus's existance?

No. Regardless of what part of Josephus you accept as original, all he really reveals is the existance of the religion or cult. That there was a religion in the second half of the first century that tuaght about a person named Jesus, etc, is not in question.

The fact that his writings were corrupted shows just how bad the situation is. Chrsitian writers of all periods have sought to "help" the religion along by "improving" on the writings, even the canon.

I read Metzger's Canon of the New Testement. It's a catastrophe. He refers to a document as "the so-called Second Epistle of Clement". And what about Hebrews? It was in serious doubt almost from the beginning, but there it is, right in the NT. And the Donation of Constantine.

I mean, how can anyone support the truth of a movement that is so sorrounded by obvious fakes and forgeries?

DanZ

[asajoseph]

That simply isn't true. Josephus DOES clearly state the existence or Jesus, even when the interpolations are disregarded. In fact, if one looks at the latest manuscript (which I would not be prepared to defend, as my knowldedge of it is currently limited), the extreme claims seem to be even more stark.

I've demonstrated clearly where Josephus mentions the existence of the Jesus character. If you wish to reject it you need to do a better job than that.

[asajoseph]

More of Josephus, with regards to the Bible.

The second mention of Jesus in the Antiquities (Book 20, Ch. 9, Par. 1).

Now it is said that the elder Ananus was extremely fortunate...but the younger Ananus, who had been appointed to the high priesthood, was rash in his temper and unusually daring. He followed the school of the Sadducees, who are indeed more heartless than any of the other Jews, as I have already explained, when they sit in judgment. Possessed of such a character, Ananus thought that he had a favourable opportunity because Festus was dead and Albinas was still on the way. And so he convened the judges of the Sanhedrin, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, the one called Christ, whose name was James, and certain others, and accusing them of having transgressed the law delivered them up to be stoned. Those of the inhabits of the city who were considered the most fair-minded and who were strict in observance of the law were offended at this. They therefore secretly sent to King Agrippa urging him, for Ananus had not even been correct in his first step, to order him to desist from any further such actions. Certain of them even went to meet Albinus, who was on his way from Alexandria, and informed him that Ananus had no authority to convene the Sanhedrin without his consent. Convinced by these words, Albinus angrily wrote to Ananus threatening to take vengeance upon him. King Agrippa, because of Ananus' action, deposed him from the high priesthood which he had held for three months and replaced him with Jesus the son of Damnaeus.

The 10th-Century Arabic translation of the Testimonium recounted by Agapius (the one I mentioned earlier)

At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and his learning outstanding. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after the crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.

John the Baptist (Antiquities, Book 18, Ch. 5, Par. 2)

2. Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him.

Just some further info.

Asa

[juliod]

I've demonstrated clearly where Josephus mentions the existence of the Jesus character.

But he only relates what other people were saying about him, based on the content of early christian teachings. The fact that Josephus may have not questioned the actual existance of Jesus is neither here nor there.

Of course, the entire passage may be an interpolation, given the propensity of christian copyists to improve on texts. We know it was munged around with by copyists. We merely lack evidence to say what the original reference might have been, if any.

DanZ

[asajoseph]

But he only relates what other people were saying about him, based on the content of early christian teachings.

Again, this simply isn't true. First of all, at the start of the Testimonium Flavianum, in a passage that is generally not thought to be an interpolation, he states explicitly.

About this time there lived Jesus

Not reported stories about him, a clear statement that Jesus lived.

Then, elsewhere, in book 20 of the antiquities

...brought before them the brother of Jesus, the one called Christ...

Another clear statement that the Jesus character existed. The fact that he is called Christ is a report of what others say, not the fact that James was his brother.

The fact that Josephus may have not questioned the actual existance of Jesus is neither here nor there.

What exactly are you suggesting here? That Josephus' sources for the very EXISTENCE of Christ are wrong? Because you really need to show this.

Of course, the entire passage may be an interpolation, given the propensity of christian copyists to improve on texts.

Indeed, it might be. You would of course need to show this. And, before you try I warn you, the evidence is strongly against you. By the same standards, the whole of Josephus might be an invention by a 5th century monk! But of course, you'd need to show this too.

We merely lack evidence to say what the original reference might have been, if any.

Not at all - we have manuscript evidence, and failing that also through the use of textual criticism it is quite possible for us to come close to an original of what Josephus might have said. Whilst the exact phrasology might be difficult to ascertain, we can come to a rather close idea of what was said. The suggestion that we need to reject the entire passage seems to be one motivated solely upon a pre-existing bias, because I can see no good reason to throw the whole thing out, baby, water and bathtub.

Asa

[juliod]

Not reported stories about him, a clear statement that Jesus lived.

Unless Josephus was writing his own experiences then he was writing stories that other people tell. Right?

Another clear statement that the Jesus character existed.

No, it is a statement about a story told about someone claimed to be the brother of someone claimed to be the Christ.

Not at all - we have manuscript evidence

But no originals. We have no way of knowing what Josephus may have written. We know that his writings were corrupted by christians. We don't know how badly they were corrupted.

The key point about Josephus is that he had no way of knowing the veracity of the accounts he recorded, except those he personally witnessed, which would be a tiny minority. No one claims he was recording evidence of Jesus that he had personal experience with.

This provides proof of christian claims no more than a news reports of the Branch Dividian seige provides proof of the claims of David Koresh. Or indeed that is not true, since the news reports were contemporary with the events they relate.

DanZ

[The Happy Humanist]

The suggestion that we need to reject the entire passage seems to be one motivated solely upon a pre-existing bias, because I can see no good reason to throw the whole thing out, baby, water and bathtub.

---
If I may cut and paste from the excellent Pascal's Wager website...

However a more probable solution exist as to the authenticity of the whole passage. The passage quoted, as mentioned above, is the third paragraph of the third chapter. As it stands today this chapter consists of five numbered paragraphs. The first paragraph deals with the trouble between the Jews and Pontius Pilate over his exhibition of the images of Caeser in Jerusalem which the natives considered sacrilegious. In the second paragraph, Josephus describes another row between Pilate and the Jews. Pilate had apportioned some money from the Temple to pay for the building of an aqueduct. The Jews again protested. This time, unlike the first incident when Pilate let them off, he had the Jews massacred. And Josephus concludes the second paragraph with: "And thus was put an end to this sedition."

It was here that the third paragraph with its allusion to Jesus follows. Immediately after this third paragraph, the fourth paragraph starts with: "At about the same time, another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder..." An obvious question arises: what does Josephus mean, in the context of the arrangement of the paragraphs, by another sad calamity? In its present location the fourth paragraph follows the paragraph about Jesus. Was Jesus the sad calamity? Or was it his being risen from the dead? Or was the continued existence of Christians at the date of writing the "sad calamity"? In short, the sentence in the fourth paragraph does not make sense following the third. It only makes sense if it follows immediately after the second paragraph. Here the wholesale massacre of the Jews was the sad calamity Josephus was referring to. [5]

I dunno, looks kinda like textual analysis to me...perhaps born of bias, but certainly not predicated solely thereon...

[asajoseph]

Dan,

I'm sorry, I'm beginning to find this startling. Josephus was a historian. He was a historian that recorded the histories of the Jews. To say that he's simply reporting what other people tell him is accurate, insofar as the fact that he was not an eyewitness to many of the events that he recalled. To imply that this particular event did not occur because it is reported to him and not witnessed first hand is frankly a misunderstanding of the historical method. By the same standard, we have to throw out almost ALL of the ancient history that we currently posess, because it was 'reported' to the historian. But so far, we only want to throw out this particular passage, because of some pre-existing bias.

No, it is a statement about a story told about someone claimed to be the brother of someone claimed to be the Christ.

I'm sorry, but you're simply mistaken, and reading things that aren't there. The statement is clear. James who WAS the brother of Jesus who WAS called the Christ WAS arrested. There's no room for hearsay in that passage. The fact that Josephus may have learned this from a source, just like he learned most of his material from sources, is neither here nor there - it has to be treated in exactly the same manner as everything else in Josephus, unless you can give good evidence that either: a) Josephus was mistaken, or b) the entire passage is a forgery. I'm still waiting to see if you can do either of the above.

But no originals. We have no way of knowing what Josephus may have written. We know that his writings were corrupted by christians. We don't know how badly they were corrupted.

Applying exactly the same criteria as we do to any other historical record, we find that in terms of manuscript evidence, there is plenty to render Josephus' Antiquities as reasonably 'true' - i.e. written by Josephus. Again, whilst it may be apparent that the passage has been tampered with (and not even ALL evidence suggests this, although this is the position taken by the most liberal scholars), this does NOT suggest that the whole passage itself is not original. You have to have reasons to do this, and unless you can come up with good ones, your argument will remain unconvincing.

The key point about Josephus is that he had no way of knowing the veracity of the accounts he recorded, except those he personally witnessed, which would be a tiny minority. No one claims he was recording evidence of Jesus that he had personal experience with.

You seem to be under the impression that there is some kind of special pleading going on with the Testimonium Flavianum (and the second ref. in book 20). This isn't the case. What IS the case is that unless specific reasons can be shown otherwise, the passages need to be taken with the same level of truth as everything else in Josephus (which Josephus ALSO didn't witness personally).

No one claims he was recording evidence of Jesus that he had personal experience with.

Quite true. This was the very first statement I made in this thread. However, nobody is trying to use it as eyewitness evidence. What IS being asked, is that each passage is treated with the same respect as everything else, unless specific reasons can be given as to why we might do otherwise. Speculating, simply isn't enough. Evidence can be produced that the Testimonium isn't as handed down to us, and the wide consensus (secular and christian) is that the passage is original but interpolated. I'm wondering why you believe that reliable history is limited SOLELY to eyewitness accounts?

This provides proof of christian claims no more than a news reports of the Branch Dividian seige provides proof of the claims of David Koresh

Again, this is simply a false parallel. There is a clear statement that Josephus BELIEVED that Jesus existed, in both passages. THAT is what is at stake here, nothing to do with whether or not he was resurrected, or indeed the Judeo-Christian Messiah. The statement from Josephus, that Jesus existed (twice mentioned) is evidence for this, nothing more.

Asa