Christian Censorship in Josephus

[ajwps]

Discussion: Insertion of Jesus in Josephus history around time of Jesus.

Flavius Josephus was the Roman name of Joseph ben Matthias. Josephus during the second half of the first century AD, produced two long and detailed histories of the Jews and the events leading to the Roman victory in the Jewish Wars, History of the Jewish War and Antiquities of the Jews, but has almost nothing to say about Jesus and even that is probably added by Christians to fill a prominant gap left by the censors.

Josephus was born in Jerusalem only a few years after the crucifixion. He shows an interest in the Jewish religious groups of the time. He tells us about the Jewish religious parties, about John the Baptist who Christians say was the herald of the Messiah and about Jesus's brother, James, whose death he says was a reason for the start of the War in 66 AD. But he tells us nothing about the crucifixion or how it occurred. A man almost contemporaneous with Jesus and whose reputation was built on detailed histories of the Jewish people fails to mention him except in two brief passages, if they are genuine.

The precocious Josephus had studied all the Jewish religious sects before the age of 19 when he decided to become a Pharisee. He became a clerk to the Sanhedrin and at 26 went as an envoy to Rome to plead for some priests sent to Nero by Procurator Felix for trial. With the help of Poppaea, the Empress, who was possibly a Jewish proselyte or at least a godfearer, he succeeded. He was thus in Rome at much the same time as Paul, the Apostle to the gentiles.

Back in Jerusalem in 64 AD, revolt was simmering. Josephus was patriotic enough but had seen the power and extent of the Empire and knew that rebellion was futile. When the war broke out Josephus was made a general by the Sanhedrin and fought in Galilee with John of Gischala, the Zealot leader of the Galilaeans. Vespasian captured him after the town of Jotapata had been sieged for 47 days and decided to use him as an interpreter. Josephus got on well with Vespasian, predicting that he would become Emperor, which he did. Vespasian asked Josephus to write an account of the Jewish War for his campaign Triumph, a Roman victory parade. It was to be a warning to the people of the East not to try to defy Roman might.

Josephus wrote a draft in his native Aramaic which he called On the Capture of Jerusalem. This he polished into his book, the Jewish War. To gather his material, as the appointed historian of the Emperor, he was granted access to official archives, to the Reports of Roman Governors, the campaign diaries of Vespasian and Titus, the Emperor's commentaries and he also corresponded with Agrippa I, for a short while King of Judaea before the war. His work had the ultimate stamp of approval - that of the Emperors themselves.

When Josephus uses official sources it is usually evident. He often tells us who filed the report from which he is quoting and transcribes it verbatim with little effort to paraphrase. Thus even non-signalled passages from official sources can be identified by their style. When writing from experience he is more informal, sounds less official and is less impersonal in the information he imparts.

Our present versions of the Jewish War mention none of Jesus, John the Baptist or Menehem, who revolted in 66 AD, but they do tell us of Judas of Galilee and Theudas, both messianic nationalist leaders. He records that the Jews merely protested when the Romans erected a statue of Caligula in the Temple, an act grossly contemptuous of the Jewish religion. This is a curiously subdued response for the fanatically religious Jews. In their outrage, history suggests they must surely have rioted, if not revolted. Also strange is the omission of the fire in Rome in 64 AD which Nero attributed to the Christians. Such passages smack of censorship because Josephus usually fastidiously records the smallest detail of events relevant to his subject. It looks as though a whole chapter might have been erased by Christian censors because it depicted Jesus and his followers as fomenters of rebellion. Some manuscripts of the Jewish War contain a passage on Jesus extracted from Josephus's companion volume, the Antiquities of the Jews, proving that someone has tampered with the original text, presumably in an attempt to fill the obvious gap left by the initial excision.

The inserted passage is favourable towards Jesus even though he was viewed, rightly or wrongly, by the Roman hierarchy as a terrorist. Josephus would have been taking an unlikely risk by making such an assessment. Remember he was a captive who had been adopted by Vespasian and given certain privileges in return for certain duties - privileges which could easily have been withdrawn. Domitian, who was Emperor when the Antiquities of the Jews was published, could have been no lover of Jesus or his followers. He even ordered all descendants of King David to be rounded up for questioning in an attempt to detect potential rebels and he banished two members of his own family for wanting to be Christians.

In versions of the Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus, edited by Christians, are two passages describing Jesus. Neither is in the Jewish version of the Josephus's Antiquities. The longer passage, the so called Testimonium Flavianum (183), is cited by Christians as independent confirmation of Jesus' existence and resurrection. It reads:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats 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. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvellous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

Though this passage was quoted by Eusebius writing in about 320 AD, earlier Christian writers make no reference to Josephus's commendation of Jesus even when it would have suited them, as they must surely have done had it existed. Indeed Origen, writing in about 250 AD, puzzled:

Though he [Josephus] did not admit our Jesus to be the Christ he none the less gave witness to so much righteousness in James.

Elsewhere he adds:

although [Josephus] disbelieved in Jesus as Christ,
contradicting the extant text. Plainly Origen's version of Josephus's works did not have the passage to which we are referring, but by 340 AD the version used by Eusebius did. Jerome's Latin version has the insertion but it is less assertive, rendering He was the Messiah by He was believed to be the Messiah. It shows that the text of Josephus has been altered. Who would or could have altered it?—only Christians.


The passage is too pro-Christian. Josephus, a Jew in the pay of the Roman Emperor and at his mercy as a captive, could not possibly praise a man killed—as far as the Romans knew—as a rebel and a threat to Rome. Only a Christian could write this. So, what do we find? Not that the passage was forged but, Christians declare Josephus to be a secret Christian!

The passage sounds very much like Josephus in style. If it is a bald insertion it has been written in a style compatible with Josephus's, but it could be a skilful redaction of a genuine passage. Phrases such as "tribe of Christians" and "wise man" which are typical of Josephus are possibly relics of the original. Christian editors who Christianised the text might have cleverly retained these phrases to keep the flavour of Josephus.

However, because the passage was evidently totally absent in early editions since otherwise it would have been quoted even in an attenuated form, we can conclude that originally Jesus was not mentioned, or, more likely, the reference was too defamatory for Christian bishops to quote. It must have been added to Antiquities some time between Origen and Eusebius, when Christians got the power to edit books. After the Christians became supreme in the reign of Constantine they planted evidence on Josephus, turning the leading Jewish historian of his day into a witness for Jesus as Christ. Christian redactors found unsuitable references to Jesus or none at all and interpolated brief but suitable references based purely on Christian belief.

So, many Biblical scholars reject the entire Testimonium Flavianum as a Christian insertion. Josephus's work will have referred to Jesus but unfavourably.

Antiquities, does mention both John the Baptist and James, the brother of Jesus. Josephus also, in passing, mentions Jesus later in Antiquities (20.9.1):

So he [Ananus, son of Ananus the high priest] assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before him the brother of Jesus, he who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others (or some of his companions) and when he had formed an accusation against them, he delivered them to be stoned.

Many scholars think this too is forged. If not it confirms that a previous mention had been made of Jesus. An unfavourable reference to Jesus in the original version must have been excised to render it publishable but Christian copyists, finding that their crudely censored versions contained no reference to Jesus felt obliged to insert one. So what Origen could not see Eusebius could. More space is devoted to John the Baptist in our editions of the Antiquities than to the master whose coming the gospels assure us he was proclaiming. A section covering the career of Jesus in considerably more detail than the short passage we now have must have been deleted.

The passage giving testimony to Jesus in Antiquities comes during a catalogue of calamities that the Jews experienced at the time of Pilate taking office. Josephus seems here to be drawing upon official sources and lists Pilate's raising of the standards in Jerusalem and his taking Temple funds to finance the construction of an aqueduct into the city. Then he mentions Jesus and concludes with two incidents in Rome that occurred, according to Tacitus, in 19 AD. This chronology implies that Pilate was governor and Jesus was active much earlier than Christians today believe. The next section of Antiquities has skipped almost two decades to a revolt led by "The Egyptian" (the one that Paul was mistaken for in Acts) in Samaria in 35 AD. So two tumults in Jerusalem and two incidents in Rome bracket a short paragraph praising Jesus, then there is a jump forward of 15 years to the next strand of the story. Something looks amiss.

Following the testimonial to Jesus, the first of the two incidents in Rome is introduced by: "About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder..." but there follows a description of a woman tricked into intercourse with a man pretending to be a god in the Temple of Isis in Rome, a passage eight times longer than that allocated to Jesus and of no apparent relevance to the Jews, despite its introduction. Logic requires this introduction to be that of a passage about the tumult accompanying the arrest of Jesus and described in the gospels. This section was deleted in some copies of Josephus and strongly edited and put forward in others so that the ministry of Jesus would not be described as a calamity. The only relevance to the story of Jesus was that the conniving Priests of Isis were crucified by Tiberius, although it might have been included as a satirical commentary on the myth, new at the time, that Jesus was born of a virgin.

continued on post 2

 

[ajwps]

Provincial governors had to dispatch, to the Emperor, "acta", official reports of all that occurred under their jurisdiction. Important trials such as those requiring the death penalty had to be filed, particularly if the trial concerned an attempt at insurrection against Imperial rule. On the evidence of the gospels Pilate must have filed an account of the trial of Jesus, and one must have existed in the Roman archives. We know that Tiberius had an almost obsessive reverence for the legal and civic reforms introduced by his predecessor, Augustus, and paid meticulous attention to the governance of the provinces. Officials had to take care not to step outside of their powers and particularly not to oppress their inferiors. Taxation was light and the policy in frontier regions was to avoid conflict. It is inconceivable that Tiberius should not have been informed of the trial of a man charged with riotous assembly and treason.

Josephus had access to the Acts of the Governors and he would have needed it to get an accurate view of events between 6 AD when his earlier source, the books of Nicholas of Damascus, court historian to Herod the Great, ended and about 55 AD when his direct experience as a scribe to the Sanhedrin would have become relevant. So for the period of about 50 years, which covered the ministries of John the Baptist and Jesus, Josephus's main source would have been Roman and Herodian archives.

In his History of the Church in 325 AD, Eusebius informs us that the Acta Pilati, the Acts of Pilate, were published in 311 AD by the Emperor Maximinus Daia precisely to prove that the claims of the Christians were false and the verdict of Pilate was correct. Oddly these documents date Jesus's trial and crucifixion to 21 AD, apparently at odds with Josephus who says Pilate did not take up office until 26 AD. Eusebius concludes the Acta Pilati were forgeries. But it is stretching credulity to suggest that the Roman administration were so incompetent as to unnecessarily change the date when they were altering the record to discredit the Christians.

What reason could they possibly have to want to alter the date especially with Josephus so well known? It is more likely that the triumphant Christians only a few years later decided to alter Josephus to put Pilate's rule outside of the period when the Acta were dated. The Christians had control of the copying of books after the time of Constantine but their opponents could have hidden copies of the Roman records. By altering Josephus, any copy of the true record that emerged could be shown by reference to Josephus to have been a forgery. And altering the dates in Josephus needed only two simple numeric changes - to the Greek number for the length of Pilate's Prefecture (from 18 to 10 years) and the Greek number for the length of the Prefecture of Gratus, his predecessor (3 to 11 years).

Gratus had appointed four High Priests according to Josephus. Now John's gospel (11:49) describes Caiaphas as "High priest that year", implying that it was usual for High Priests to be changed each year. That is just what Gratus had been doing, confirming that three years was his term of office. Gratus had appointed a new High Priest for each year he was governor and had appointed the fourth one, Joseph Caiaphas, in the year he was recalled, Pilate arrived, found Caiaphas High Priest and kept him in place for his full term of office. When Pilate was recalled, Vitellius, Legate of Syria, Pilate's boss, sacked Caiaphas also. So there is good evidence that Pilate and Caiaphas ruled Judaea in tandem for eighteen years from 18 to 36 AD. The policy of Tiberius was not to change governors believing that, like leeches, they left the body alone when they were sated. Pilate's long period of office is testimony to the policy if not the theory,

To return to the Acts of Pilate: we are faced with the following chain of logic.


Either the Acta Pilati existed or they did not.
If they did not exist Pilate must have neglected his duty in not submitting them but Pilate was a conscientious bureaucrat and would not neglect such matters. It is difficult to believe that none were written or submitted.
If they existed either they were favourable to the Christian story and so would be part of the Christian canon or they were unfavourable to the Christian story and so would have been destroyed or altered. They are not part of the canon and so they were unfavourable to the Christian cause. They were either destroyed or altered.
If they once existed but had been destroyed someone must have known and therefore claims that they once existed would have been made. Claims that the Acta once existed have been made.
If they once existed but had been altered someone must have known and therefore claims that they had been forged would have been made. Claims that the Acta have been forged have been made.

It looks very much as though the Acta Pilati once existed as would have been expected but have been destroyed by the Christians. The only reason they would have destroyed them is that they did not match the story the Church wanted to be believed.

There is a Slavonic text of Josephus's Jewish War which seems to be an early version. it is not free of Christian alterations but tells a different story from the usual. Jesus is not named as such but is called the "Wonder Worker" and led a band of 150 disciples into Jerusalem in a pathetic attempt at revolution. He was crucified around 21 AD. Christians tell us this is a mediaeval forgery!

 

[grannys01]

It was very enlightening to read your hypothysis of Christsing editing of Josephus. I can use it in my Sunday School class. We sometimes use Josephus's works as background material but your critical review puts a new and wecomed perspective to history.

Pat

 

[ajwps]

Dear Pat,

My recent post is not my hypothysis as I have simply used a copy and paste quote from a research site.

I wish that my knowledge of Josephus was as complete as the points put forth in this report. All I am aware of is the fact that Josephus was born shortly after the time generally accepted crucifixion of one Jesus Christ.

The use of another's works by adding or inserting new ions that promote something that never existed is a significant violatio of another's works.

Obviously there is no way of speaking with the historian himself but scientific investigation of word usage, context consistency and the like are very relevant in any such conclusion of text alteration as well as the points brought forth in the previous copy of the research paper.

One might think that an event such as described in the NT as the sun being blot out or even the killing (crucifixion) of a relative of or a god would have been a very significant part of the historians text. But alas only two small sections refer to a man called Jesus when in truth, the Greek name Jesus was not used by the people living in the Roman empire's land of Israel at that time. A complete copy of the works of Josephus can be found at the following site. (with possible later inclusions into his original works)

http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/JOSEPHUS.HTM

Good luck with your class and it is brave of you to even use this research in your Sunday school discussions.

 

[5stringJeff]

ajwps,

Very interesting post on Josephus. As I stated before, I haven't done a lot of research into his works or his life. I have two points from the article you posted, though.

1. The supposed insertion of a favorable text about Jesus. There are two reasons I see, of the top of my head, why Christians would not have done this. First, no Christians in the 2nd-4th centuries A.D. would have expected a favorable writing about Jesus from a Jewish historian. If that passage had pooped up all of a sudden, and older versions existed that omitted that passage, it would have obviously been exposed as a lie. Second, the time that the supposed forgery came into being, according to dates given in the article, was between 250-320 A.D. At this time, Christians were still a persecuted minority in the Roman empire, and while mainstream acceptance of Christianity was growing, it was not until 312 A.D. that Constatine even became emperor, giving only eight years for Christians , as it were, to conspire to change Josephus's works, execute the change, and have the forgery accepted as a genuine part of his works.

2. The Acts of Pilate: (p.s. I added letters to the logic steps)

To return to the Acts of Pilate: we are faced with the following chain of logic.

a. Either the Acta Pilati existed or they did not.
b. If they did not exist Pilate must have neglected his duty in not submitting them but Pilate was a conscientious bureaucrat and would not neglect such matters. It is difficult to believe that none were written or submitted.
c. If they existed either they were favourable to the Christian story and so would be part of the Christian canon or they were unfavourable to the Christian story and so would have been destroyed or altered. They are not part of the canon and so they were unfavourable to the Christian cause. They were either destroyed or altered.
d. If they once existed but had been destroyed someone must have known and therefore claims that they once existed would have been made. Claims that the Acta once existed have been made.
e. If they once existed but had been altered someone must have known and therefore claims that they had been forged would have been made. Claims that the Acta have been forged have been made.
f. It looks very much as though the Acta Pilati once existed as would have been expected but have been destroyed by the Christians. The only reason they would have destroyed them is that they did not match the story the Church wanted to be believed.

I take issue with step C. The Christian canon had been agreed on in 397, but by 220 AD, most books in today's NT were recognized as Scripture by most, if not all, of the Christian world. The books were considered as such because of their spiritual and theological value, not necessarily because of its historical value. Thus, this book would have never been considered canonical, regardless.
Step E is also faulty logic. Basically, it says, "If A, then B. B is true. Therefore, A is true." But this is not necessarily so. B (in this case, claims of forgery) could have been made regardless of whether those claims were true. That kind of claim, however, would be hard to disprove. Thus, the claim sticks.
Step F, IMO, is the bastard child of the faulty logic of steps C and E. I fail to see why the lack of existence of the Acts of Pilate are some kind of proof that Christians conspired to erase any unfavorable history about them.

I'll offer one more reason to support it:

Oddly these documents date Jesus's trial and crucifixion to 21 AD, apparently at odds with Josephus who says Pilate did not take up office until 26 AD.
...
And altering the dates in Josephus needed only two simple numeric changes - to the Greek number for the length of Pilate's Prefecture (from 18 to 10 years) and the Greek number for the length of the Prefecture of Gratus, his predecessor (3 to 11 years).

Altering the Acts of Pilate to put the crucifixion in 21 AD instead of 30 AD, as is now commonly recognized, took the change of an X to an I (30=XXX, 21=XXI). Much simpler.

 

[ajwps]

Apparently Jeff you have attempted a great deal of thought at refuting this post. Let’s take a closer look at your logic points.

1. “The supposed insertion of a favorable text about Jesus. There are two reasons I see, of the top of my head, why Christians would not have done this.”

“First, no Christians in the 2nd-4th centuries A.D. would have expected a favorable writing about Jesus from a Jewish historian.”

For your first point to be valid you must initially assume that there existed references to Jesus’ events in any historical records available and then put to pen by Josephus. Then you must assume that any 2 – 4 AD century Christians found negative findings about Jesus. The enigma is that current Josephus historical texts now magically have positive findings regarding Jesus and his times. Also you must realize that Josephus was using Roman records and writings in order to write his historical records as Jesus had already been crucified before Josephus’ birth. Josephus relied on existing documents and records that the Romans or Pilate had to maintain referencing Jesus, his missionary activities, relatives and associates and any miraculous events of the NT crucifixion. Also remember that the early Christians (Jesus followers and disciples) did not vary from their childhood Jewish social and religious beliefs even after the death of Jesus and therefore the Jewish Josephus would have no reason to document any negative evidence of the miraculous events described in the NT. Ergo there is no valid reason to expect Josephus to insert or alter anything in the history as he found and recorded it.

“If that passage had pooped (sic) up all of a sudden, and older versions existed that omitted that passage, it would have obviously been exposed as a lie.”

Note the last passage of my original post which does reference an older version of Josephus’s Jewish War. “There is a Slavonic text of Josephus's Jewish War which seems to be an early version. It is not free of Christian alterations but tells a different story from the usual. Jesus is not named as such but is called the "Wonder Worker" and led a band of 150 disciples into Jerusalem in a pathetic attempt at revolution. He was crucified around 21 AD. Christians tell us this is a mediaeval forgery!” So there were earlier versions that did pop up but like the Gospel of St. Thomas discarded as heresy by the Church. Ergo it is probably true that Christian’s later revised the work of Josephus in order to find evidence of a historical Jesus.

“Second, the time that the supposed forgery came into being, according to dates given in the article, was between 250-320 A.D. At this time, Christians were still a persecuted minority in the Roman empire, and while mainstream acceptance of Christianity was growing, it was not until 312 A.D. that Constatine even became emperor, giving only eight years for Christians , as it were, to conspire to change Josephus's works, execute the change, and have the forgery accepted as a genuine part of his works..

For your second point to be valid you must assume that the early church of Christ was to busy being persecuted by the Romans for St. Paul and the NT writers to compose the books you now use at your church. Please keep in mind that Constantine and the Council of Nicea canonized the existing Christian testaments that you feel could not have been written because of the persecuted Christian minority. Nope your theory doesn’t hold water here either as Josephus’s recorded history was in front of them and not a problem for insertions of a historical Jesus.

“I take issue with step C. The Christian canon had been agreed on in 397, but by 220 AD, most books in today's NT were recognized as Scripture by most, if not all, of the Christian world. The books were considered as such because of their spiritual and theological value, not necessarily because of its historical value. Thus, this book would have never been considered canonical, regardless.
Step E is also faulty logic. Basically, it says, "If A, then B. B is true. Therefore, A is true." But this is not necessarily so. B (in this case, claims of forgery) could have been made regardless of whether those claims were true. That kind of claim, however, would be hard to disprove. Thus, the claim sticks.
Step F, IMO, is the bastard child of the faulty logic of steps C and E. I fail to see why the lack of existence of the Acts of Pilate are some kind of proof that Christians conspired to erase any unfavorable history about them.”

Then let’s take a look at section c with which you take issue.

c. If they existed either they were favorable to the Christian story and so would be part of the Christian canon or they were unfavourable to the Christian story and so would have been destroyed or altered. They are not part of the canon and so they were unfavourable to the Christian cause. They were either destroyed or altered.

Premise ‘c’ is exactly on point. In any rational debate, the absence of earlier documents of purported facts (the Acts of Pilate) has nothing to do with Josephus’s work as he had to be extremely careful to not destroy records which would raise the ire of his mentors; ergo he would have lost the favor of his Roman overseers and thus be killed. It would have been simple for the early Christian NT writers to simply not find the Acts of Pilate which would not have been favorable to the Gospels. Your invalidating the premise set forth by having the other steps contradict each other does not meet the level of credibility.

“I'll offer one more reason to support it:”
quote:

Oddly these documents date Jesus's trial and crucifixion to 21 AD, apparently at odds with Josephus who says Pilate did not take up office until 26 AD.
...
And altering the dates in Josephus needed only two simple numeric changes - to the Greek number for the length of Pilate's Prefecture (from 18 to 10 years) and the Greek number for the length of the Prefecture of Gratus, his predecessor (3 to 11 years).



”Altering the Acts of Pilate to put the crucifixion in 21 AD instead of 30 AD, as is now commonly recognized, took the change of an X to an I (30=XXX, 21=XXI). Much simpler.”

What problem is there if the histories of Josephus were totally rewritten by the Christian Gospel writers and with the majority of Josephus’s work verbatim in keeping with the context of the recorded historical records? Then the Gospel writers or others would simply insert new small sections which included the changing of an X to an I as long as they were rewriting the entire earlier works of Josephus?

No, I think you will have to find other reasoning to invalidate the insertion of Christianity into the previous comprehensive works of Josephus.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by ajwps
Apparently Jeff you have attempted a great deal of thought at refuting this post.

Thanks! Glad someone notices!!! Though I do want to say: I am not arguing that the passages you refer to are genuine, because I don't know the historiography of Jospehus's works. I am arguing that they could be, and probably are, genuine.

For your first point to be valid you must initially assume that there existed references to Jesus’ events in any historical records available and then put to pen by Josephus. Then you must assume that any 2 – 4 AD century Christians found negative findings about Jesus. The enigma is that current Josephus historical texts now magically have positive findings regarding Jesus and his times. Also you must realize that Josephus was using Roman records and writings in order to write his historical records as Jesus had already been crucified before Josephus’ birth. Josephus relied on existing documents and records that the Romans or Pilate had to maintain referencing Jesus, his missionary activities, relatives and associates and any miraculous events of the NT crucifixion. Also remember that the early Christians (Jesus followers and disciples) did not vary from their childhood Jewish social and religious beliefs even after the death of Jesus and therefore the Jewish Josephus would have no reason to document any negative evidence of the miraculous events described in the NT. Ergo there is no valid reason to expect Josephus to insert or alter anything in the history as he found and recorded it.

I assume that Jews would not say anything positive about Jesus because, during his life, Jesus stood against the religious traditionalism of the time, and after His resurrection, Christians hailed him as God. I could not imagine any orthodox Jew wnating to even mention His name, let alone in a good light, if that were the case.
Also, You purport that Josephus relied strictly on Roman writings, without taking into account any type of oral tradition. At the time, writing and reading were not nearly as popular as they are now, and many traditions were passed on by word. It is entirely possible - and I would think probable, considering His miracles - that word of mouth about Jesus had reached Josephus.

Note the last passage of my original post which does reference an older version of Josephus’s Jewish War. “There is a Slavonic text of Josephus's Jewish War which seems to be an early version. It is not free of Christian alterations but tells a different story from the usual. Jesus is not named as such but is called the "Wonder Worker" and led a band of 150 disciples into Jerusalem in a pathetic attempt at revolution. He was crucified around 21 AD. Christians tell us this is a mediaeval forgery!” So there were earlier versions that did pop up but like the Gospel of St. Thomas discarded as heresy by the Church. Ergo it is probably true that Christian’s later revised the work of Josephus in order to find evidence of a historical Jesus.

A work that said something like that would obviously be held as a fiction, because it contradicted the four Gospel accounts that were written between 60-100 A.D. You rail against a possible Christian forgery of Josephus, but you haven't considered the possibility that an anti-Christian would forge the same document.

For your second point to be valid you must assume that the early church of Christ was to busy being persecuted by the Romans for St. Paul and the NT writers to compose the books you now use at your church. Please keep in mind that Constantine and the Council of Nicea canonized the existing Christian testaments that you feel could not have been written because of the persecuted Christian minority. Nope your theory doesn’t hold water here either as Josephus’s recorded history was in front of them and not a problem for insertions of a historical Jesus. [/b]

No, I think you will have to find other reasoning to invalidate the insertion of Christianity into the previous comprehensive works of Josephus.

My argument is that Christians would be too busy setting up churches and evangelizing, while avoiding persecution, to look up Josephus's works in the local library, successfully forge them, and get it recognized as genuine. I was not arguing that no Christians ever wrote, becasue they obviously did. Moreover, their writings were for the purpose of encouraging believers, helping them to live the Christian life, and evangelizing non-believers. A snippet of text in a Jewish historian's work probably would not have done much to further the cause.

I still think it is unlikely that these texts are forgeries. Not impossible - but unlikely.

 

[ajwps]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
Apparently Jeff you have attempted a great deal of thought at refuting this post.



”Thanks! Glad someone notices!!! Though I do want to say: I am not arguing that the passages you refer to are genuine, because I don't know the historiography of Jospehus's works. I am arguing that they could be, and probably are, genuine.”

Jeff take note to what you are saying in the above sentences. You use the disclaimer ‘I don’t know the works’ followed by the words ‘could be’ and finally ‘probably.’ When rebutting arguments about historical events, you must find positive or definitive evidence in order to reinforce your position without using any uncertainties which proves nothing.

“I assume that Jews would not say anything positive about Jesus because, during his life, Jesus stood against the religious traditionalism of the time, and after His resurrection, Christians hailed him as God. “

You are making the same absurd assumptions about Jesus, his religious background along with most of the Jews of that day based solely on (Saul) Paul’s word. A Tarsian man who created a god out of a Jewish Jesus who never stood against the religious traditions of his time. Even Jesus himself said in Paul’s NT that he had not come to change one iota or dital of the original word of G-d, the Father of all mankind.

A word that came from a long dead Jew he met in a flash on the road to Damascus. The Jewish people (including Jesus) were under the yoke and rule of the Roman Empire in that time. The Jewish people were looking for their promised Messiah to rid them of their rulers and give them back their lands. Jesus among others were the hoped for Messianic messenger and the prophecies of redemption from Rome. So when each of the hoped for messiahs died and the prophecies not fulfilled, the Jewish people knew that none was the promised messenger messiah.

To believe in Jesus as a messianic being, you have prove that his own people who had hopes for him to be the promised one, to turn against this messiah so that the gentiles could be saved. But remember, being saved by anyone or anything beside your own actions was nonsense. Even to Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

“I could not imagine any orthodox Jew wnating to even mention His name, let alone in a good light, if that were the case. Also, You purport that Josephus relied strictly on Roman writings, without taking into account any type of oral tradition. At the time, writing and reading were not nearly as popular as they are now, and many traditions were passed on by word. It is entirely possible - and I would think probable, considering His miracles - that word of mouth about Jesus had reached Josephus.”

Jeff you forget that Josephus was a historian who wrote a record of facts taken from existing records or from what he personally witnessed. Historians do not use rumors, traditions or anything that could not validate the accuracy of the work product. What you IMAGINE about any person has no validity or merit when taken into the light that there was no Christianity to mention until long after Jesus was crucified. You are assuming that the man Jesus claimed messiahship or a purported relationship to or being a diety. I don’t have to IMAGINE that Jesus or any of those many others who had this type of title placed on them ever conceived of such an ideation. IMAGINE if you will the Creator of all things, coming to earth, impregnating an already engaged earth woman to have a son who would save mankind from sin. In other words, no man is responsible for committing sin as long as he believed in Jesus and was again forgiven. This was a very foreign concept to the Jewish people including Jesus Christ.

“A work that said something like that would obviously be held as a fiction, because it contradicted the four Gospel accounts that were written between 60-100 A.D. You rail against a possible Christian forgery of Josephus, but you haven't considered the possibility that an anti-Christian would forge the same document.”

I am not here to question or have you question your faith in the Gospel accounts of a Jew who was crucified as were thousands of his fellow Jews. A Jewish man who sinned before his own G-d like everyone else, a man who lived, ate food, drank liquid and went to the bathroom. Can you imagine a god who urinates or defecates like every other human being on earth? You were born a Christian and have every right to believe in Jesus Christ as a risen one-third of a trinty of a god.

I have considered the possibility of a Jewish forgery about Christ, but actual records (Dead Sea Scrolls), archeology and conflicted NT gospels make any IMAGINED forgery to be totally unnecessary. Jews are not given to falsifying records or committing murder of a god except in the imagination of Mel Gibson.

“My argument is that Christians would be too busy setting up churches and evangelizing, while avoiding persecution, to look up Josephus's works in the local library, successfully forge them, and get it recognized as genuine. I was not arguing that no Christians ever wrote, becasue they obviously did. Moreover, their writings were for the purpose of encouraging believers, helping them to live the Christian life, and evangelizing non-believers. A snippet of text in a Jewish historian's work probably would not have done much to further the cause.”

You have made my point perfectly. Thanks

”I still think it is unlikely that these texts are forgeries. Not impossible - but unlikely.”

Jeff you are correct. If your proposition were correct, a Jew by the name of Josephus wouldn’t have referred at all to a any man claiming to be god. But Josephus records did put a couple of snippets about a man named Jesus who would be a god.

What would be Josephus reason for even mentioning him one way or the other