Josephus and others writing about Jesus

  • Thread starter Thread starter Armor_of_Light
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Armor_of_Light

Guest
I was listening to one of Matthew Kelly’s CD’s a while ago, and he is commenting on the historical fact that Jesus was a real guy, and we need to remind people of that fact. Some atheists will say that there is NO historical evidence to support the fact that Jesus was real, and they will bring up Josephus (a Jewish historian), and how his writings are forgeries. Also, I thought I read that Pontius Pilate wrote about him.

So…who else wrote about Jesus and recorded him in the history books for all time?

Thanks- I don’t want to rely on Wikipedia for answers to this question!!
 
That’s interesting that some atheists claim Josephus’ writings were forgeries. That’s an argument that I’ve not heard yet. A quick Bing search turned up a few things but they were all from obviously anti-faithful sources. What does this crowd say about Tacitus? Unless I’m mistaken Tacitus mentioned Jesus, too.
 
I think that most scholars agree that the one short mention of Jesus in the writings of Josephus was a later addition.

But just do a smell test. How plausible is the idea that there was not actually a person named Jesus who was executed by the Romans?

The Gospel was first preached in Jerusalem (I don’t think anyone would argue that historically). How could you make up a story like that and preach it in the very town where the Passion took place? People would be saying, “Wait a minute - I was here last Friday, and none of that happened.”

It would be like going to work and talking about how Joe got fired last week - except that you made Joe up. Nobody is gonna buy that.
 
Bart Ehrman recently released a book defending Jesus’ existence, I’d highly recommend it.

Yes, the famous Testimonium Flavianum (relevant section where Josephus’ allegedly describes Jesus) is almost universally thought to have been interpolated by later Christian scribes copying his works. That’s not to say the entire text was invented, just that it was embellished. But, as Ehrman (and others like Crossan note), it doesn’t matter whether Josephus wrote this portion of the text. He’d still have acquired his information from Christians, without critically assessing the claims. So, he isn’t independent attestation to Jesus’ existence, just to the existence of Christians during the time period.

Likewise, Tacitus, Suetonius, and the other non-Christian references to Jesus and his community don’t do much to establish Jesus’ existence.

Rather, the incredible wealth of evidence for Jesus’ existence comes from the gospels, and NT letters.

Obviously, the NT authors got their information about Jesus from sources whether written or spoken. Without getting too into it, we call the sources used by the gospel authors: Q, M and L. These were written works that predated our gospels. These in turn recorded information that had been transmitted orally for decades.

Anyways, the point is that the claims made about Jesus in our NT documents (e.g., he was a Nazarene, etc.) can be traced to around the time Jesus is traditionally thought to have been in public ministry.

So, the question becomes what’s more likely, that a group of poor fishermen invented some uninteresting claims about a Palestinian Jewish peasant, or that these claims were true, at least some of them. The reality is, there is no reason at all to think the uninteresting claims about Jesus were invented. They’d serve no apologetic or theological end. So, the most reasonable thing to do is conclude that these claims are true. So, we get the existence of a 2nd Temple Jewish peasant named Jesus from Nazareth.

From here, we can ask why other stories recorded in the gospels would have been invented, and by iterating this process, we end up knowing a decent amount about this Jesus character.
 
From Google Books, Tacitus’ Annals:

books.google.com/books?id=K44A69SUSlcC&printsec=frontcover#v=snippet&q=Christian&f=false

There was no getting away from the infamous belief that the conflagration had been ordered. Therefore, to dispel the rumor, Nero supplied defendants and inflicted the choicest punishments on those, resented for their outrages, whom the public called Chrestiani. The source of the name was Christus, on whom, during the command of Tiberius, reprisal had been inflicted by the procurator Pontius Pilatus………
 
I was listening to one of Matthew Kelly’s CD’s a while ago, and he is commenting on the historical fact that Jesus was a real guy, and we need to remind people of that fact. Some atheists will say that there is NO historical evidence to support the fact that Jesus was real, and they will bring up Josephus (a Jewish historian), and how his writings are forgeries. Also, I thought I read that Pontius Pilate wrote about him.

So…who else wrote about Jesus and recorded him in the history books for all time?

Thanks- I don’t want to rely on Wikipedia for answers to this question!!
evangelizationstation.com/Pamphlets/400%20Evidence%20for%20the%20Existence%20of%20Christianity%20and%20Jesus%20Christ%20in%20Secular%20History.pdf
 
Bart Ehrman recently released a book defending Jesus’ existence, I’d highly recommend it.

Yes, the famous Testimonium Flavianum (relevant section where Josephus’ allegedly describes Jesus) is almost universally thought to have been interpolated by later Christian scribes copying his works. That’s not to say the entire text was invented, just that it was embellished. But, as Ehrman (and others like Crossan note), it doesn’t matter whether Josephus wrote this portion of the text. He’d still have acquired his information from Christians, without critically assessing the claims. So, he isn’t independent attestation to Jesus’ existence, just to the existence of Christians during the time period.

Likewise, Tacitus, Suetonius, and the other non-Christian references to Jesus and his community don’t do much to establish Jesus’ existence.

Rather, the incredible wealth of evidence for Jesus’ existence comes from the gospels, and NT letters.

Obviously, the NT authors got their information about Jesus from sources whether written or spoken. Without getting too into it, we call the sources used by the gospel authors: Q, M and L. These were written works that predated our gospels. These in turn recorded information that had been transmitted orally for decades.

Anyways, the point is that the claims made about Jesus in our NT documents (e.g., he was a Nazarene, etc.) can be traced to around the time Jesus is traditionally thought to have been in public ministry.

So, the question becomes what’s more likely, that a group of poor fishermen invented some uninteresting claims about a Palestinian Jewish peasant, or that these claims were true, at least some of them. The reality is, there is no reason at all to think the uninteresting claims about Jesus were invented. They’d serve no apologetic or theological end. So, the most reasonable thing to do is conclude that these claims are true. So, we get the existence of a 2nd Temple Jewish peasant named Jesus from Nazareth.

From here, we can ask why other stories recorded in the gospels would have been invented, and by iterating this process, we end up knowing a decent amount about this Jesus character.
Bart Erhman has been criticized by many for his inaccurate portrayal of Gospel history. Bart Erhman is not a historian, he is a textual critic. His arguments are flimsy and have been refuted by many.

I would not recommend any of Bart Erhman’s books for historical truth.

John Dominic Crossan distorts who Jesus was in history.
 
That’s interesting that some atheists claim Josephus’ writings were forgeries. That’s an argument that I’ve not heard yet. A quick Bing search turned up a few things but they were all from obviously anti-faithful sources. What does this crowd say about Tacitus? Unless I’m mistaken Tacitus mentioned Jesus, too.
I think that most scholars agree that the one short mention of Jesus in the writings of Josephus was a later addition.

But just do a smell test. How plausible is the idea that there was not actually a person named Jesus who was executed by the Romans?

The Gospel was first preached in Jerusalem (I don’t think anyone would argue that historically). How could you make up a story like that and preach it in the very town where the Passion took place? People would be saying, “Wait a minute - I was here last Friday, and none of that happened.”

It would be like going to work and talking about how Joe got fired last week - except that you made Joe up. Nobody is gonna buy that.
There are arguments for and against the authenticity of the Josephus’ quotes about Jesus:

thedevineevidence.com/jesus_history.html

bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm
 
I was listening to one of Matthew Kelly’s CD’s a while ago, and he is commenting on the historical fact that Jesus was a real guy, and we need to remind people of that fact. Some atheists will say that there is NO historical evidence to support the fact that Jesus was real, and they will bring up Josephus (a Jewish historian), and how his writings are forgeries. Also, I thought I read that Pontius Pilate wrote about him.

So…who else wrote about Jesus and recorded him in the history books for all time?

Thanks- I don’t want to rely on Wikipedia for answers to this question!!
Let’s take a look at Julius Caesar, one of Rome’s most prominent figures. Caesar is well know for his military conquests. After his Gallic Wars, he made the famous statement, “I came, I saw, I conquered.” Only five sources report his military conquests: writings by Caesar himself, Cicero, Livy, the Salona Decree, and Appian (and Appian was second century, more than 150 years after Julius died). Why didn’t more writers mention his great military conquests? In 150 years his death, more non-Christian authors alone comment on Jesus than all of the sources who mentioned Julius Caesar’s great military conquests within 150 years of his death.

Let’s look at an even better example, a contemporary of Jesus. Tiberius Caesar (Nov. 16, 42 BC – March 16, AD 37), was the Roman emperor at the time of Jesus’ ministry and execution, and died less than 4 years after Jesus died in 33 AD. Tiberius is mentioned by ten sources within 150 years of his death: Tacitus, Suetonius, Velleius Paterculus, Plutarch, Pliny the Elder, Strabo, Seneca, Valerius Maximus, Josephus, and Luke. Compare that to Jesus’ forty-two total sources in the same length of time. That’s more than four times the number of total sources who mention the Roman emperor during roughly the same time. If we only considered the number of secular non-Christian sources who mention Jesus and Tiberius within 150 years of their lives, we arrive at a tie of 9 each. (Tiberius’s number reduces from ten to nine since Luke is a Christian source.)

Craig Bloomberg, who served as the editor for and contributor to a large scholarly work on the Gospels (Gospel Perspectives), provided four reasons why more was not written about Jesus in his time: “the humble beginnings of Christianity, the remote location of Palestine on the eastern frontiers of the Roman empire, the small percentage of the works of the ancient Graeco-Roman historians which have survived, and the lack of attention paid by those which are extant to Jewish figures in general” (Bloomberg, Historical Reliability, 197. See Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 64-67).

What we have concerning Jesus is actually quite impressive. We can start with approximately nine traditional authors of the New Testament. If we consider critical thesis that other authors wrote pastoral letters and such letters as Ephesians and 2 Thessalonians, we’d have an even larger number. Another twenty early Christian authors and four heretical writings mention Jesus within 150 years of his death on the cross. (Clement of Rome’s letter to the church in Corinth; 2 Clement whose author is unknown; the seven letters of Igantius; Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians; The Martyrdom of Polycarp; Didache; the letter of Barnabas; The Shepherd of Hermas; Fragments of Papias; the letter of Diognetus; the Apocalypse o Peter (not to be confused with the Nag Hammadi text of similar name); the Gospel of Peter; the Epistula Apostolorum; and the works of Justyn Martyr, Aristides, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Quadratus, Aristo of Pella, and Melito of Sardis. The four heretical writings are the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Truth, Apocryphon of John, and Treatise on Resurrection-see Habermas, Historical Jesus, 208-15.

Moreover, nine secular, non-Christian sources mention Jesus within 150 years: Joseph, the Jewish historian; Tacitus, the Roman historian; Pliny the Younger, a politician of Rome; Phlegon, a freed slave who wrote histories; Lucian, the Greek satirist; Celsus, a Roman philosopher; the historians Suetonius and Thallus, as well as the prisoner Mara Bar-Serapion (highly regarded in a British Museum). In all, at least forty-two authors, nine of them secular, mention Jesus within 150 years of his death. (see Habermas, Historical Jesus, ch. 9).

You can even add more on top of that. We know only about half of what Roman historian wrote in the first century about an ancient Mediterranean history has survived. Suetonius is aware of the writings of Asclepiades of Mendes, yet, his writings are no longer available. Herod the Great’s secretary, Nicholas of Damascus, wrote a Universal History in 144 books, none of which has survived. Livy, the great Roman historian, has suffered a similar fate. (Documented by Paul Maier, Distinguished Professor of Ancient History at Western Michigan University, for the information on Nicholas of Damascus and Livy.)

biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?3289-Compare-Caesar-Tiberius-and-Jesus-150-Years-After-Their-Deaths
 
I was listening to one of Matthew Kelly’s CD’s a while ago, and he is commenting on the historical fact that Jesus was a real guy, and we need to remind people of that fact. Some atheists will say that there is NO historical evidence to support the fact that Jesus was real, and they will bring up Josephus (a Jewish historian), and how his writings are forgeries. Also, I thought I read that Pontius Pilate wrote about him.

So…who else wrote about Jesus and recorded him in the history books for all time?

Thanks- I don’t want to rely on Wikipedia for answers to this question!!
We also know of several Christian writings no longer available. For example, an influential church leader in the early part of the second century named Papias wrote five books that are quoted by several early church fathers. (Papias, Expositions of the Sayings of the Lord. See Robert H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross, 1026-45). However, none of these books have survived. Only a few citations and slight summary information remain. (See Fragments of Papias). Quadratus was as Christian leader who wrote a defense of the Christian faith to the Roman Emperor Hadrian around 125. However, if Eusebius had not quoted a paragraph and mentioned his work, we would be totally unaware of its composition (Ecclesiastical History, 3:37; 4:3). The five books of Recollections, written by Hegesippus in the second century, have likewise been lost. Only fragments have been preserved, mostly by Eusebius.

biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?3289-Compare-Caesar-Tiberius-and-Jesus-150-Years-After-Their-Deaths
 
I was listening to one of Matthew Kelly’s CD’s a while ago, and he is commenting on the historical fact that Jesus was a real guy, and we need to remind people of that fact. Some atheists will say that there is NO historical evidence to support the fact that Jesus was real, and they will bring up Josephus (a Jewish historian), and how his writings are forgeries. Also, I thought I read that Pontius Pilate wrote about him.

So…who else wrote about Jesus and recorded him in the history books for all time?

Thanks- I don’t want to rely on Wikipedia for answers to this question!!
Even if we could provide 100% undeniable evidence to an atheist that Jesus did exist in history it still takes faith to believe that Jesus is God. Arguing with an atheist is a waste of time since there’s nothing that can convince someone who is arrogant and doesn’t want God to be real. My belief in God started with personal experiences that an atheist would never understand unless he or she could experience what I did.
 
Would the Jews have written anything regarding Jesus? Was anything written about his death considering the head priest was involved? Or what about very early records when the early Christians shared worship with the tradtional Jews?
 
Even if we could provide 100% undeniable evidence to an atheist that Jesus did exist in history it still takes faith to believe that Jesus is God. Arguing with an atheist is a waste of time since there’s nothing that can convince someone who is arrogant and doesn’t want God to be real. My belief in God started with personal experiences that an atheist would never understand unless he or she could experience what I did.
Agreed. The arrogance and self serving justification can be staggering.

Thank you all for the excellent responses. I admire you and the obvious dedication it takes to study all these things. I’ll check out the links.

Was I correct…did Pilate write about Jesus as well?
 
Bart Erhman has been criticized by many for his inaccurate portrayal of Gospel history. Bart Erhman is not a historian, he is a textual critic. His arguments are flimsy and have been refuted by many.

I would not recommend any of Bart Erhman’s books for historical truth.

John Dominic Crossan distorts who Jesus was in history.
I don’t know a thing about you Abyssinia. I don’t know whether you’ve completed a single book of either author etc. But, given the extremely sweeping statements you’ve made here I’m inclined to think you’re unseasoned.
 
I don’t know a thing about you Abyssinia. I don’t know whether you’ve completed a single book of either author etc. But, given the extremely sweeping statements you’ve made here I’m inclined to think you’re unseasoned.
I have seen both of them in talks/discussion and there written work online.

Father Barron on john Dominic Crossan:
Now Crossan is a graceful writer and a careful scholar, and I’ll acknowledge gratefully that I’ve learned a great deal from him. His emphasis on Jesus’ “open table fellowship” and his readings of Jesus’ parables as subversive stories are both, I think, right on target. The problem is that he so consistently reads Jesus through a conventional political lens that effectively reduces him to the level of social reformer.
How does Crossan explain the accounts of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead? They are, he says, essentially “parables,” figurative representations of the disciples’ conviction that Jesus’ way was more powerful than the Roman way. They were never meant to be taken literally but rather as poetic inspirations for the succeeding generations of Jesus’ followers. How does he explain the church’s dogma of Jesus’ divinity? It is, essentially, a misleading overlay that effectively obscures the dangerous truth of who Jesus really was: a threat to the cultural, religious, and political status quo.
Skilled at translating academic debates into relatively accessible language and blessed with a charming Irish brogue, Crossan became a favorite of television producers and documentarians. On numerous programs and specials, Crossan has popularized his reductionistic vision of Jesus and has succeeded in convincing many that orthodox Christology is appealing only to those who haven’t taken the time to think through the historical evidence clearly. Time and again, he has argued that his version of Christianity is for those who haven’t “left their brains at the door.”
The little problem, of course, is that Crossan is compelled to ignore huge swaths of the New Testament in order to maintain his interpretation. All of the evangelists indeed present Jesus as a dangerous, even subversive figure, a threat to the conventional Jewish and Roman ways of organizing things, but they are much more interested in the utterly revolutionary fact that Jesus is the Son of God.
payingattentiontothesky.com/2012/03/09/on-john-dominic-crossan-rev-robert-barron

John Dominic Crossan was also part of the radical ‘Jesus seminar,’ which is a liberal group: denies Jesus as God and do not think the New Testament documents are as valid as extra-biblical sources which makes no sense because in the historical method the primary documents are usually the most trustworthy.
 
I don’t know a thing about you Abyssinia. I don’t know whether you’ve completed a single book of either author etc. But, given the extremely sweeping statements you’ve made here I’m inclined to think you’re unseasoned.
Bart Erhman has been historically inaccurate in some of his writing. In his book ‘Jesus, Interrupted’ for example on page 147 Bart Erhman has doubt on the accuracy of the Gospels because of oral tradition. He uses the example of a ‘telephone game’ which is when people pass around a phrase, maybe not a very well understood phrase from the front of a room to the back and and when it is back to the first person the message is different. That is not how Jewish oral tradition worked and I recommend these books on Jewish oral tradition worked:

‘Educational Ideals in the Ancient World’ by William Barclay and Memory and ‘Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity’ by Birger Gerhardsson

Jewish people did repetition or learning by repetition to pass along accurately traditions.

People can remember for 20 year old music compositions example, because they play them often or listen to them often.
 
Bart Erhman has been historically inaccurate in some of his writing. In his book ‘Jesus, Interrupted’ for example on page 147 Bart Erhman has doubt on the accuracy of the Gospels because of oral tradition. He uses the example of a ‘telephone game’ which is when people pass around a phrase, maybe not a very well understood phrase from the front of a room to the back and and when it is back to the first person the message is different. That is not how Jewish oral tradition worked and I recommend these books on Jewish oral tradition worked:

‘Educational Ideals in the Ancient World’ by William Barclay and Memory and ‘Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity’ by Birger Gerhardsson

Jewish people did repetition or learning by repetition to pass along accurately traditions.

People can remember for 20 year old music compositions example, because they play them often or listen to them often.
Thanks Abyssinia! I’d really like to hear the reasons behind the questioning of your studies. Maybe that was posted by one of the authors themselves?
 
Oops do not understand your question. Recommend watching Dr William Lane Craig critique Bart Erhman: youtube.com/watch?v=q5u1dKk_sVM Debate between Dr William Lane Craig and Bart Erhman about the historical evidence for the Resurrection: youtube.com/watch?v=SyUAPhHohIg
I was referring to ‘Perplexity’ and his comment:
I don’t know a thing about you Abyssinia. I don’t know whether you’ve completed a single book of either author etc. But, given the extremely sweeping statements you’ve made here I’m inclined to think you’re unseasoned.
Maybe 'Perplexity" is actually Bart Erhman?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top