Featured Does Josephus mention Jesus?

[AgnosticBoy]

But if Josephus believed Jesus was Christ, as stated in TF, then that would make him a Christian. But we know that doesn't fit his profile since he was associated with the Pharisees - the group that opposed Jesus.

Not all Pharisees opposed Jesus. Nicodemus was a Pharisee and so was Paul. Acts 15:5 states several Pharisees believed Jesus was the Christ. So claiming Josephus rejected Jesus as the Messiah because he was a Pharisee is not a valid argument.

Your point about Acts 15:5 is valid in that it shows some Pharisees were believers. Having a 2nd look at the issue of if Josephus was a Christian, I see that there are still reasons to doubt, starting with questioning the validity of the Testimonium itself. But I'll stick to two issues instead. One being that in the Testimonium, which I quoted in the OP (quote #1), seems to show Josephus speaking about Christians in the third person, as if they are a group apart from him. For reference, this is the quote,

"He was [the] Christ; (64) 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's pretty peculiar to have to bring up Christians not being extinct at some point of time, when he is a Christian himself. I would've expected him to say something like, "We are Christians" or "we Christians exist today". I mean maybe there is some wiggle room there to explain otherwise, but it still seems odd.

An even clearer example of this point can be seen by how Josephus refers to Jesus being the Christ in the other quote. He states, "who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others;". Saying that someone is "called" Christ is not necessarily the same as someone claiming that Jesus was Christ. For instance, I can say Michael Jordan is called the greatest, and all that would involve is people calling him that eventhough I don't believe it. I'm just reporting on what they called him.

Also, I don't see that Josephus's life was compatible with Christian teachings. He is considered a traitor and here's a good explanation of why:

During the war against Rome, he commanded the fortified city of Jotapata. Realizing that defeat was imminent, Josephus hid in a cave with other fighters. When the Jews in the cave decided on a suicide pact, Josephus arranged matters to remain alive. Surrendering to the Romans, he convinced Vespasian that he would be valuable as a Roman spokesman to the Jews. Traveling with the Roman army on their road of conquest, Josephus constantly harangued the Jewish defenders, telling them of the futility of resistance.

Source: chabad.org

Then the guy had like 2 or 3 divorces, so definitely seemed to embrace the Roman lifestyle more than the Christian one:

Vespasian arranged for Josephus to marry a captured Jewish woman, whom he later divorced. Around the year 71, Josephus married an Alexandrian Jewish woman as his third wife. They had three sons, of whom only Flavius Hyrcanus survived childhood. Josephus later divorced his third wife. Around 75, he married his fourth wife, a Greek Jewish woman from Crete, who was a member of a distinguished family. They had two sons, Flavius Justus and Flavius Simonides Agrippa.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus

And yes, divorce was easy and common in ancient Rome:

Roman divorce was as simple as marriage. Just as marriage was only a declaration of intent to live together, divorce was just a declaration of a couple’s intent not to live together. All that the law required was that they declare their wish to divorce before seven witnesses.

Because marriages could be ended so easily,
divorce was common, particularly in the upper classes. When she divorced, a wife could expect to receive her dowry back in full and would then return to patria potestas – the protection of her father.

Source: PBS

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I think the clear majority of scholars say the “good” one was added later, whereas the brief one is probably legit.

I think everyone here so far is in agreement that Josephus does refer to Jesus in at least one of his writings, that is the one where he brings up James, Jesus's brother. So that's at least one valid instance of Jesus being mentioned by an independent (or non-Christian) source.

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

One being that in the Testimonium, which I quoted in the OP (quote #1), seems to show Josephus speaking about Christians in the third person,

This does raise an eyebrow. I guess I’d ideally want a scholar who specializes in this time period of the Hebrew language to take a good long look.

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

I think everyone here so far is in agreement that Josephus does refer to Jesus in at least one of his writings, that is the one where he brings up James, Jesus's brother.

Let me gently step away from group consensus.

Josephus was maybe decades away from Jesus’ crucifixion by the Romans traditionally dated at 33 AD, leaving plenty of time for lore and legend.

And in the age of hand-written manuscripts and monks and others slowly making copies, I don’t know how common additions were.

 

[Multicolored Lemur]

In skeptical books I’ve read — Jesus was just one of many “end time” preachers in that 1st century AD.

Okay, does Josephus talk about sone of these other preachers or about mystery cults, etc, etc. ? ?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Let me gently step away from group consensus.

Josephus was maybe decades away from Jesus’ crucifixion by the Romans traditionally dated at 33 AD, leaving plenty of time for lore and legend.

And in the age of hand-written manuscripts and monks and others slowly making copies, I don’t know how common additions were.

Here's an interesting fact...

According to scholar Bart Ehrman, the only non-Christian source to mention Jesus before 130 CE is Josephus:

No other non-Christian Jewish source written before 130 c.e. mentions Jesus.

Clearly, we cannot learn much about Jesus from non-Christian sources, whether pagan or Jewish. Thus if we want to know what Jesus actually said and did during his life, we are therefore compelled to turn to sources produced by his followers.

Source: Bart Ehrman's blog

Getting back to Josephus...
Based on my research, Josephus finished writing The Antiquities of the Jews by 93 AD (source: Britannica). While Josephus wrote during the 1st century AD, but the earliest extant manuscript dates back to the 11th century. That's a big gap in time for lots of changes to be made, but I'm not sure how that compares to other histories, and we know 2nd century AD sources, like Origen, make reference to Josephus.

I think the fact that Origen states that Josephus did not believe in Jesus was given by some indication in Josephus's writings which would of course mean that Josephus made statements about Jesus that someone could go by. I'm convinced so far by this line of thought outlined in next excerpt (although I disagree with the conclusion that it's a non-sequitur):

I find the theory that Origen’s statements that Josephus was ‘unbelieving in Jesus as Christ’ (Contra Celsum 1.47), and that Josephus ‘did not accept our Jesus to be Christ’ (Commentary on Matthew 10.15) would require him to have known some specific assertion to that effect by Josephus (i.e., some earlier form of the Testimonium Flavianum) to be a non sequitur.

Source: https://kenolsonsblog.wordpress.com...-josephus-was-unbelieving-in-jesus-as-christ/

That phrase "unbelieving of Jesus as the Christ" has a strong relevance to Josephus since when Josephus references Jesus, it's always in connection to him being called Christ. So Origen (go to chapter 47) likely got that idea from the Josephus's reference to Jesus's brother.

Last point, I think is that the reference to Jesus and James are so brief that I don't think lore and legend would've mattered here. If he was writing some detailed information about their life then that's one thing, but he just mentions them in passing. So I think lore and legend would be negligible or would not impact at least a simple fact, such as knowing that those 2 people existed at some point, and that one was called Christ. Just my reasonable opinion, of course.

 

[bbyrd009]

I've heard many Christian apologists and even some non-Christians claim that Josephus's writings confirm Jesus's existence. I can agree with them that if Josephus wrote about Jesus, then that would serve as corroborating and independent source for Jesus's existence. The problem that I run into is that looking up this topic brings up mixed results. Some sources support the claim, while others completely deny the authenticity of Josephus references to Jesus.

Here's some relevant background...Josephus makes two references to Jesus in his book called, Antiquities of the Jews.

Here are the references to Jesus:
1. "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; (64) 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."

Source: Quoted by PBS from The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3 The Works of Josephus, translated by William Whiston Hendrickson Publishers, 1987

2." But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#:~:text=The Testimonium Flavianum,-Testimonium Flavianum&text=About this time there lived,and many of the Greeks. Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews Book 20 Chapter 9, 1

For Debate:
What are the facts? What do the scholars in the field say about this issue? Is there a scholarly consensus?

the facts, lol. ok

Jesus of Nazareth reduces to “John Doe, from Nowhere” via some pretty basic rabbi-speak, fwiw

and the scholars are pretty much all going to be “believers,” right? Meaning “in the Cult of Sol Invictus?” Paul expressly avoided other believers for his first three years of study…and if there is a scholarly consensus, i would just assume that it is wrong

milk and meat dont mix, right

 

[bbyrd009]

That's good to bring up that point. Before, I used to say that being a good debater is not just a matter of logic, but also psychology because oftentimes motivation, bias, and other non-intellect factors can distort thinking. I think that can also be extended to intellectual matters even beyond debate, like researching, examining evidence, etc.

I'm sure there are plenty experts that have anti-Christian motivations, and that has an effect on their scholarship. The same can be said for some Christian scholars, as well.

I agree 100%. Scholars, experts, etc...all approach subjects with their own personal biases. Both secular and religious. So I get there may be those who reject portions of Josephus' writings that reference Jesus Christ. But, there has to be some sort of evidence to base their position on. Just saying it is "unlikely" isn't evidence at all, it is opinion. Now, I'm not an apologist for Josephus. My faith has nothing to do with his writings. So whether Josephus actually wrote about Jesus or not does not change my beliefs. I just believe that if people are going to make claims, they need to be able to substaniate those claims.

No son of man may die for another’s sins; the lifesoul that sins is the one that dies