Contemporaneous Accounts & Josepheus

[mvh18]

Good day to you all

I am a Catholic, and have recently become quite fascinated in the historicity of the New Testament. Through my research so far I am of the opinion that the Gospels are historically reliable, from the number of original manuscripts, timespan written in after Jesus’s death, the lack of motive for untruth, the rapid growth of Christianity in early times, and the agreeance of the four Gospels.

I have however a few queries, relating to the contemperous accounts of Jesus Christ. Firstly, I find it odd that there weren’t more historians and authors that wrote about Jesus, given that he was the proclaimed Son of God. Even if the author rejected Jesus as the Saviour, you would think that they may write about an evil doer of witchcraft, such as Yeshu in the Talmud. (Which I don’t think is Jesus). I don’t think this is a valid reason to not believe in Jesus given the evidence we do have, however it seems strange that there are quite few historians around the time of Jesus that make no mention of him. The reasons I’ve thought of are 1)The persecution and prejudice they would receive from their Jewish community, 2) They may have in fact written about Jesus however these documents have been lost or destroyed.

Secondly, what is there to make about Josepheus’s account? Why do so many Historians think it’s forged and how much of this is reliable?

Any thoughts are much appreciated.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Good day to you all

I am a Catholic, and have recently become quite fascinated in the historicity of the New Testament. Through my research so far I am of the opinion that the Gospels are historically reliable, from the number of original manuscripts, timespan written in after Jesus’s death, the lack of motive for untruth, the rapid growth of Christianity in early times, and the agreeance of the four Gospels.

I have however a few queries, relating to the contemperous accounts of Jesus Christ. Firstly, I find it odd that there weren’t more historians and authors that wrote about Jesus, given that he was the proclaimed Son of God. Even if the author rejected Jesus as the Saviour, you would think that they may write about an evil doer of witchcraft, such as Yeshu in the Talmud. (Which I don’t think is Jesus). I don’t think this is a valid reason to not believe in Jesus given the evidence we do have, however it seems strange that there are quite few historians around the time of Jesus that make no mention of him. The reasons I’ve thought of are 1)The persecution and prejudice they would receive from their Jewish community, 2) They may have in fact written about Jesus however these documents have been lost or destroyed.

Secondly, what is there to make about Josepheus’s account? Why do so many Historians think it’s forged and how much of this is reliable?

Any thoughts are much appreciated.

Personally I think the forgery argument of Jospehus is the biggest cop-out.

As for written accounts, we do have lots of apocryphal writings from eye-witnesses and early oral traditions who just happen to not be inspired by the Holy Spirit but nevertheless did give us accounts, not to mistake the apocrypha with gnostic. Plus, whose to say that there were not many more writings that did exist but did not survive 2000 years of deterioration? I guarantee there were! It has only been since the last 100 years that the modern day high and mighty scholars have tried to discount the value of the apocrypha, the Church Fathers put a lot of value on them.

We also have the Apostolic Fathers who some were eye-witnesses of Jesus and also worked right along side of the Apostles.

 

[Nita]

Firstly, I find it odd that there weren’t more historians and authors that wrote about Jesus, given that he was the proclaimed Son of God.

If you stand back and look at it, it is not really that odd. The Jews were a small segment of the people under Rome’s rule. At the time of Our Lord Rome was tolerant of other religions and didn’t involve itself. You can tell from Scripture, especially from Luke and John, that Pilate almost seemed irritated that they involved him and wanted them to handle it themselves.

As an example, imagine a man from the back hills of Tennessee going around and preaching a new religious message and healing people. Goes on for approximately 3 years. It’s highly unlikely his activities would get recorded at the time they were taking place in any historical record. However, those who were listening and following the new preacher would be highly likely to make an effort to preserve the teachings and activities. That is what ends up becoming the historical record.

Keep in mind, there was no printing press back in those days. Everything had to be written by hand - far more laborious. Lot more editing! As an historian for Rome, would you have considered this obscure Jewish preacher someone whose life should be recorded in the historical record of Rome? (This is assuming you had even heard of Him.)

Have you tried googling “extrabiblical evidence of Jesus”? Here’s one of the sites that came up.
carm.org/christianity/bible/non-biblical-accounts-new-testament-events-andor-people

 

[COPLAND_3]

Letter of Pilate to Tiberius
newadvent.org/fathers/0810.htm

LETTERS OF HEROD AND PILATE
ministries.tliquest.net/theology/apocryphas/nt/herpilat.htm

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Someone can come to my aid here, but there is a recorded mention of Jesus in Roman History (Tacitus? Suetonius?) Where it is noted that Tiberias petitioned the senate to have Jesus declared a god because he was very impressed with Pilate’s letter and reports of Jesus. However the Senate turned Tiberias down, as according to Roman Law, only the Senate could initiate a request to have someone declared a god.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Someone can come to my aid here, but there is a recorded mention of Jesus in Roman History (Tacitus? Suetonius?) Where it is noted that Tiberias petitioned the senate to have Jesus declared a god because he was very impressed with Pilate’s letter and reports of Jesus. However the Senate turned Tiberias down, as according to Roman Law, only the Senate could initiate a request to have someone declared a god.

Yes, here are all the qutoes from the Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus, Suetonius rationalchristianity.net/jesus_extrabib.html

 

[severntofall]

This whole Josephus revival serves mainly as a testament to the desperate measures most current Christians are willing to take to defend their increasing indefensible beliefs. For centuries most scholars had concluded that the passage was adapted by later Christians to defend the legitimacy of Christianity and now it has resurface as proof du jour for the divinity of Jesus. The passage which reads:

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.

It is absurd to think that he wrote this when one considers that Josephus himself was definitely not a Christian. If he honestly believed that Jesus was the Christ and that and that he did in fact rise from death then it is inconceivable that he did not convert to the faith himself. It is a known fact that he did not. He did however fight in the Jewish uprising decades after Jesus’ death and wrote numerous times about his faith and never once mentioned that he was a Christian or a follower of Jesus.

Josephus did refer to a Jesus who was the brother of a James and this reference is largely viewed as credible. In fact this reference is mentioned to by early Christian apologist Origen who was attempting to prove the actual existence of Jesus. Shockingly, he made no mention of Josephus describing Jesus as “the Christ” which would have been far more effective in proving the existence of Jesus and his divinity.

Worth noting, while the text from which this passage was found was originally written in the 1st century AD, the oldest manuscripts of the text were from the 11th century. Christians had ample time to alter the text and hope that nobody would be the wiser.

BTW-The four canonical gospels are similar by design. Many scholars believe that Mark was the first to be written and the remaining three used that text as a “template”. In addition to the four canonical gospels, there were dozens of other gospels and Acts written which varied greatly for MML&J. Many Christians took these non-canonical texts very seriously for several centuries.

 

[JJ59]

Josephus’ references to Jesus are quite accurate. The larger one was partially forged. Things like “if it be lawful to call him a man” were obviously put in by a Christian scribe later.

The references to Jesus in the historical record are detailled in a section of JP Holding’s “Shattering the Christ-Myth”. You can get it off Amazon. Worth the $$$.

God Bless.

 

[mvh18]

Personally I think the forgery argument of Jospehus is the biggest cop-out.

As for written accounts, we do have lots of apocryphal writings from eye-witnesses and early oral traditions who just happen to not be inspired by the Holy Spirit but nevertheless did give us accounts, not to mistake the apocrypha with gnostic. Plus, whose to say that there were not many more writings that did exist but did not survive 2000 years of deterioration? I guarantee there were! It has only been since the last 100 years that the modern day high and mighty scholars have tried to discount the value of the apocrypha, the Church Fathers put a lot of value on them.

We also have the Apostolic Fathers who some were eye-witnesses of Jesus and also worked right along side of the Apostles.

Thanks for your reply. In regards to Josephus’s writings, I think that there is a case for forgery, at least for the Antiquities 18.3.3 in which his description of Jesus is in a writing style much unlike the rest of his work. I think the question is, whether it has been modified or completely created. Furthermore, if Flavius Josephus did write about Jesus Christ himself there must have been good reason, for he was generally a well regarded writer and historian and did not actually live during the time of Jesus.

I am aware of the apocrypha, and think that they do hold merit, however they are not included in versions of the New Testament for, in my opinion, good reason. The source and author for most of these works are not known with confidence, and generally do not pass the reliability tests applied to other historical artifacts.

I agree with your point about the deteriation and destruction of other texts that make reference to Jesus; it’s not like we have recovered the majority of ancient works by any means.

 

[mvh18]

If you stand back and look at it, it is not really that odd. The Jews were a small segment of the people under Rome’s rule. At the time of Our Lord Rome was tolerant of other religions and didn’t involve itself. You can tell from Scripture, especially from Luke and John, that Pilate almost seemed irritated that they involved him and wanted them to handle it themselves.

As an example, imagine a man from the back hills of Tennessee going around and preaching a new religious message and healing people. Goes on for approximately 3 years. It’s highly unlikely his activities would get recorded at the time they were taking place in any historical record. However, those who were listening and following the new preacher would be highly likely to make an effort to preserve the teachings and activities. That is what ends up becoming the historical record.

Keep in mind, there was no printing press back in those days. Everything had to be written by hand - far more laborious. Lot more editing! As an historian for Rome, would you have considered this obscure Jewish preacher someone whose life should be recorded in the historical record of Rome? (This is assuming you had even heard of Him.)

Have you tried googling “extrabiblical evidence of Jesus”? Here’s one of the sites that came up.
carm.org/christianity/bible/non-biblical-accounts-new-testament-events-andor-people

Thanks for your reply.

You make a very good point. The Jews embraced language and were very much an oral-communicating society. It was not uncommon for Rabbis to learn the majority of the Old Testament by heart. However I would have thought, a miracle worker with the ability to heal even the most sick or crippled person, would have got a mention somewhere, even as an evil doer or witch. Although as already stated, who’s to say he wasn’t? It’s not like we have every single text written from the time of Jesus’s life.

 

[mvh18]

If you stand back and look at it, it is not really that odd. The Jews were a small segment of the people under Rome’s rule. At the time of Our Lord Rome was tolerant of other religions and didn’t involve itself. You can tell from Scripture, especially from Luke and John, that Pilate almost seemed irritated that they involved him and wanted them to handle it themselves.

As an example, imagine a man from the back hills of Tennessee going around and preaching a new religious message and healing people. Goes on for approximately 3 years. It’s highly unlikely his activities would get recorded at the time they were taking place in any historical record. However, those who were listening and following the new preacher would be highly likely to make an effort to preserve the teachings and activities. That is what ends up becoming the historical record.

Keep in mind, there was no printing press back in those days. Everything had to be written by hand - far more laborious. Lot more editing! As an historian for Rome, would you have considered this obscure Jewish preacher someone whose life should be recorded in the historical record of Rome? (This is assuming you had even heard of Him.)

Have you tried googling “extrabiblical evidence of Jesus”? Here’s one of the sites that came up.
carm.org/christianity/bible/non-biblical-accounts-new-testament-events-andor-people

Didn’t see the link at the bottom, must read posts more carefully next time! Thanks for the link, although I was aware of the sources stated. It’s interesting that the Talmud is included in here, as I don’t think there’s enough proof that ‘Yeshu’ represents our Jesus.

 

[mvh18]

This whole Josephus revival serves mainly as a testament to the desperate measures most current Christians are willing to take to defend their increasing indefensible beliefs. For centuries most scholars had concluded that the passage was adapted by later Christians to defend the legitimacy of Christianity and now it has resurface as proof du jour for the divinity of Jesus. The passage which reads:

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.

It is absurd to think that he wrote this when one considers that Josephus himself was definitely not a Christian. If he honestly believed that Jesus was the Christ and that and that he did in fact rise from death then it is inconceivable that he did not convert to the faith himself. It is a known fact that he did not. He did however fight in the Jewish uprising decades after Jesus’ death and wrote numerous times about his faith and never once mentioned that he was a Christian or a follower of Jesus.

Josephus did refer to a Jesus who was the brother of a James and this reference is largely viewed as credible. In fact this reference is mentioned to by early Christian apologist Origen who was attempting to prove the actual existence of Jesus. Shockingly, he made no mention of Josephus describing Jesus as “the Christ” which would have been far more effective in proving the existence of Jesus and his divinity.

Worth noting, while the text from which this passage was found was originally written in the 1st century AD, the oldest manuscripts of the text were from the 11th century. Christians had ample time to alter the text and hope that nobody would be the wiser.

BTW-The four canonical gospels are similar by design. Many scholars believe that Mark was the first to be written and the remaining three used that text as a “template”. In addition to the four canonical gospels, there were dozens of other gospels and Acts written which varied greatly for MML&J. Many Christians took these non-canonical texts very seriously for several centuries.

I’m quite glad that we have another perspective as part of this thread, as it makes for a more balanced discussion.

I find your first paragraph odd, as I don’t know of any Christians that base their belief on the works of Flavius Josephus. In my opinion the legitimacy of his texts are irrelevant when arguing a case for Jesus Christ, given that the New Testament itself contains up to 27 different, contemperous sources for the life of Jesus. I think if you applied the same scrutiny that you apply to the New Testament, we wouldn’t have much in the way of history as most other artifacts would have to be discarded on similar grounds.

 

[severntofall]

I’m quite glad that we have another perspective as part of this thread, as it makes for a more balanced discussion.

I find your first paragraph odd, as I don’t know of any Christians that base their belief on the works of Flavius Josephus. In my opinion the legitimacy of his texts are irrelevant when arguing a case for Jesus Christ, given that the New Testament itself contains up to 27 different, contemperous sources for the life of Jesus. I think if you applied the same scrutiny that you apply to the New Testament, we wouldn’t have much in the way of history as most other artifacts would have to be discarded on similar grounds.

It wasn’t I who claimed that the writings of Josephus indicate the validity of Christian beliefs, no Christians have been making that false claim for centuries.

BTW, the notion that the 27 “contemperous sources for the life of Jesus” (written in total by 7 or 8 people I believe, the majority of which written by Saul who never even met Jesus) somehow proves the validly of Christianity is silly. Even if you assume that the the authors actually believed what they wrote and that the text of the NT was not altered countless times over the centuries to meet the theological beliefs of the countless scribes who had to transcribe it over the centuries, you still fall way short of Islam. By your standard, Islam is even “truer” than Christianity as there are hundreds of hadiths (biographies of Mohammed written by people who actually knew him) plus the Quran proving that Mohammad was Allah’s great prophet. Same is even truer of Hindu avatars as there are countless tales written of them. With just 27 sources (most written by the same person), I’m sorry your religion fails; well at least if that’s the standard by which “truth” is determined.

You did make a commonly made point, that if I deny Christianity based upon the fact that there isn’t any unbiased evidence in favor of it’s truth, then how do I believe that any historical figure is real? Well for starters, I do believe that there probably was a Jesus who was probably the figure whom these myths are centered on. I believe he existed, I just don’t believe that he was magical or divine. Same is true of Confucius, I’m certain that he was a really historical figure. Just because I believe he existed doesn’t mean that Confucius was born of a virgin (yes, that is part of the mythology surrounding his existence and a very common claim throughout history) nor do I believe that angles appeared upon his death as is claimed. I also believe that Julius Caesar existed, but I don’t believe that upon his death he became a god.

 

[mvh18]

It wasn’t I who claimed that the writings of Josephus indicate the validity of Christian beliefs, no Christians have been making that false claim for centuries.

BTW, the notion that the 27 “contemperous sources for the life of Jesus” (written in total by 7 or 8 people I believe, the majority of which written by Saul who never even met Jesus) somehow proves the validly of Christianity is silly. Even if you assume that the the authors actually believed what they wrote and that the text of the NT was not altered countless times over the centuries to meet the theological beliefs of the countless scribes who had to transcribe it over the centuries, you still fall way short of Islam. By your standard, Islam is even “truer” than Christianity as there are hundreds of hadiths (biographies of Mohammed written by people who actually knew him) plus the Quran proving that Mohammad was Allah’s great prophet. Same is even truer of Hindu avatars as there are countless tales written of them. With just 27 sources (most written by the same person), I’m sorry your religion fails; well at least if that’s the standard by which “truth” is determined.

You did make a commonly made point, that if I deny Christianity based upon the fact that there isn’t any unbiased evidence in favor of it’s truth, then how do I believe that any historical figure is real? Well for starters, I do believe that there probably was a Jesus who was probably the figure whom these myths are centered on. I believe he existed, I just don’t believe that he was magical or divine. Same is true of Confucius, I’m certain that he was a really historical figure. Just because I believe he existed doesn’t mean that Confucius was born of a virgin (yes, that is part of the mythology surrounding his existence and a very common claim throughout history) nor do I believe that angles appeared upon his death as is claimed. I also believe that Julius Caesar existed, but I don’t believe that upon his death he became a god.

Thanks for replying. It seems that we can at least agree on something; that Josephus’s Antiquities work regarding Jesus Christ has been altered. This doesn’t however rule out the possibility that Josephus had written about Jesus, given that he had also written about James.

Regarding the historicity of Jesus, I think there is sufficient evidence for his divinity. I am not a historian by any means, however to me, even 7 accounts of someone from people who directly knew, or knew someone that did, seems reasonable evidence for His existence. You say that Jesus was a mere teacher, what evidence do you base this on? If you accept the New Testament as your primary source of evidence, why should you then make the decisions about what parts you believe and what parts you think are false? You can see through the New Testament that Jesus did claim to be the Messiah, and thought of himself as more than just a teacher. From the opening accounts of the likes of Luke, you can see that these authors are genuine in what you write, and are trying to preserve historical events. Furthermore, Luke in particular is considered an accurate and reliable historian, and many of the locations and places he talks about have been collaborated. These authors all died horrible deaths, for no real benefit.

It’s interesting you raise the likes of Confucius, seeing as we don’t have a great deal of information for him in the first place. You say that you’re certain he was a historical figure, what do you base this on exactly? The Shiji was written by Sima Qian four centuries after his death, the Lian Yu appears to be around 200BC (400 years after his death), and the Mencius 100 years after his death. Compare this to the New Testament, which has at the least, 7 different direct, or secondary witnesses to Jesus, all within a 100 years of his death. Furthermore, I don’t think Confucius ever claimed to be the Son of God, and was more a wise teacher and philosopher.

Julius Caesar we do have a lot of information for,I don’t think anyone can doubt his existence. However he was not a miracle worker and did not proclaim to be the Messiah. Many Roman politicians were made Gods, it was part of their culture.