Extra biblical accounts of Jesus like Josephus any others?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Struggling1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Struggling1

Guest
So I’m reading up on the case for Christ. He mentions things like Josephus accounts of Jesus extra biblically? Weren’t those shown to be forgeries? Does anyone know of other references?
 
Last edited:
Struggling1 said:
So I’m reading up on the case for Christ. He mentions things like Josephus accounts of Jesus extra biblically? Weren’t those shown to be forgeries? Does anyone know of other references?
Click to expand...
There are two references to Jesus in Josephus, in Antiquities XVIII.63-64 and in Antiquities XX.200.

The controversial passage is generally accepted by historians as partially original, the other as very likely wholly original.

The paragraphs below are from the History for Atheists website, written by Tim O’Neill, an atheist historian (Scroll to the Josephus section.):
To begin with, several elements in the passage are distinctively Josephan in their style and phrasing. “Now (there was) about this time …” is used by Josephus as a way of introducing a new topic hundreds of times in his work. There are no early Christian parallels that refer to Jesus merely as “a wise man”, but this is a term used by Josephus several times, eg about Solomon and Daniel. Christian writers placed a lot of emphasis on Jesus’ miracles, but here the passage uses a fairly neutral term παραδόξων ἔργων – “paradoxa erga” or “paradoxical deeds”. Josephus does use this phrase elsewhere about the miracles of Elisha, but the term can also mean “deeds that are difficult to interpret” and even has overtones of cautious scepticism. Finally, the use of the word φῦλον (“phylon” – “race, tribe”) is not used by Christians about themselves in any works of the time, but is used by Josephus elsewhere about nations or other distinct groups. Additionally, with the sole exception of Χριστιανῶν (“Christianon” – “Christians”) every single word in the passage can be found elsewhere in Josephus’ writings.

The weight of the evidence of the vocabulary and style of the passage is heavily towards its partial authenticity. Not only does it contain distinctive phrases of Josephus that he used in similar contexts elsewhere, but these are also phrases not found in early Christian texts. And it is significantly free of terms and phrases from the gospels, which we’d expect to find if it was created wholesale by a Christian writer. So either a very clever Christian interpolator somehow managed to immerse himself in Josephus’ phrasing and language, without modern concordances and dictionaries and create a passage containing distinctively Josephean phraseology, or what we have here is a genuinely Josephean passage that has simply been added to rather clumsily.

As a result of this and other evidence (eg the Arabic and Syriac paraphrases of this passage which seem to come from a version before the clumsy additions by the interpolator) the consensus amongst scholars of all backgrounds is that the passage is partially genuine, simply added in a few obvious places. Louis H. Feldman’s Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1984) surveys scholarship on the question from 1937 to 1980 and finds of 52 scholars on the subject, 39 considered the passage to be partially authentic.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I guess someone was saying that the writings were altered after the fact? It came up on another forum. It’s possible they are insane haha. I know there were several accounts but I never recall any issue with Josephus from most scholars right?
 
You are amazing I appreciate this so much! Can I copy this down?
 
No, his entire writings aren’t considered forgeries- rather, it’s thought that his mentions of Jesus were edited. So, he did mention Jesus, but Christian scribes likely added to his words.
 
At least at its core though a man known as Christ was written about it sounds like!
 
Struggling1 said:
At least at its core though a man known as Christ was written about it sounds like!
Click to expand...
Certainly. Overzealous scribes just added their own ideas into Josephus’ work. For example, it’s generally accepted that Josephus really talked about Jesus’ appearance before Pilate and crucifixion- Christians just added such phrases as, “If one could call him a man” and “He was the Messiah”. A Jew like Josephus wouldn’t have written such things and remain a Jew.
 
This is super awesome I have to admit I now lead towards agnostic! There must be a first cause and there was a man named Jesus who was crucified and died! Thank you both for your help!
 
I greatly appreciate this 🙂 you helped me with one of my major objections to belief! You are awesome! I hope today is filled with good things for you!
 
Thom18 said:
40.png
Struggling1:
At least at its core though a man known as Christ was written about it sounds like!
Click to expand...
Certainly. Overzealous scribes just added their own ideas into Josephus’ work. For example, it’s generally accepted that Josephus really talked about Jesus’ appearance before Pilate and crucifixion- Christians just added such phrases as, “If one could call him a man” and “He was the Messiah”. A Jew like Josephus wouldn’t have written such things and remain a Jew.
Click to expand...
It isn’t clear that he “remained a Jew” in the full sense of the word since his allegiance switched to Rome after the destruction of Jerusalem.

He was military governor of Galilee, Jesus’ home turf. He may have been aware of the fact that Christians fled Jerusalem to Pella before Titus destroyed it. He clearly knew Scripture and was aware of the impact of Christianity on Judaism. He also likely knew the prophecies of the Messiah/Son of Man figure from Daniel, Psalms, and apocryphal writings. And that Messianic expectations among the Jews was at a fevered pitch when Jesus preached.

It isn’t clear in what capacity Josephus remained “a Jew” and why he necessarily couldn’t have written “such things.” At the moment there is some doubt that he did, but that doesn’t amount to a full-blown case that he didn’t.
 
Struggling1 said:
I greatly appreciate this 🙂 you helped me with one of my major objections to belief! You are awesome! I hope today is filled with good things for you!
Click to expand...
Just so you don’t miss the Tacitus reference. He says much more, historically speaking, than Josephus does, and definitely not a “friendly” to Christianity.
“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.
Click to expand...
 
Do you mind if I copy this down? There’s quite a bit more evidence than I was originally aware of! Holy cow.
 
Jesus left us a sign as He promised He would. That miracle is His image on His burial shroud which today is known as the Shroud of Turin. It was intensively investigated by a team of two dozen scientists in 1978, and they found absolutely no evidence that precluded this linen cloth from being the actual burial shroud of Jesus.*

In 1988 a different group subjected a small piece of the Shroud to carbon fourteen dating. Then they lied about the results.** The actual dates obtained vary by over 250 years and these dating results show a linear progression with the dates getting younger as the part of the Shroud tested gets closer to the Image. This indicates that the disappearance of Jesus’ corpse (Gospel of Matthew) affected the C-14 content of the Shroud.

So instead of being an indication of 14th century origin, the unabridged dating results prove that the Gospel of Matthew account of the empty tomb is correct. Don’t be fooled by the sceptics of which their are many. The Shroud of Turin is proof of Jesus’ existence, death, burial, and resurrection.

*REPORT ON THE SHROUD OF TURIN, Heller, 1983
**TEST THE SHROUD, Antonacci, 2015
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top