Proof of Jesus? Pt 12-Josephus Pt 4

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 wonders, A TEACHER OF SUCH MEN AS RECEIVE THE TRUTH WITH PLEASURE. He drew many after him BOTH OF THE JEWS AND THE GENTILES. HE WAS THE CHRIST. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among 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 ABOUT HIM, and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day (Antiquities 18.3.3). (ALL CAPS ARE DOUBTED PHRASES)

At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly, he may have been the Messiah, of whom the Prophets have recounted wonders. (Arabic version)

But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned. (Antiquities 20.9.1)

Opinion on the authenticity of this passage is varied. Louis H. Feldman surveyed the relevant literature from 1937 to 1980 in Josephus and Modern Scholarship. Feldman noted scholars regarding the Testimonium Flavianum that :
4 entirely genuine
6 as mostly genuine
20 some interpolations
9 several interpolations
13 regard it as being totally an interpolation.

This breaks down to 7.7% feel it is entirely genuine and 92.3% that it has been adjusted in one way or another from slightly to it being a total fabrication.

If the Gospel is true why would the Church need to change the evidence?
Please also watch-"Josephus-Who was the Messiah" and "Paulina and Anubis".

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Jesus
• Christ
• Christian
• Bible
• Atheist
• Pagan
• Sun
• Worship
• False
• Messiah
• Fraud
• Josephus
• History
• Gospels
• Historical
• Proof

[boblackey1]

I don't understand why there is a debate on the historical Jesus. All of the people who say there wasn't a historical Jesus and NOT experts in the fields of study. I can only find one PhD NT scholar who thinks it likely that Jesus was not a historical person and that is Robert Price. Why there is a growing number of laymen over the last 10 to 15 years who want to claim Jesus never existed is very strange to me. What is the reason for this?

[ForBibletruth]

The truth sets us free. You chose to believe a story that is claimed to have been spread by uneducated fishermen, yet, you need scholars to decide the matter for you? There are 14 parts to this series which looks at all the evidence the Church holds up as proof. A closed mind is a trap.

[uziyahuidf]

Have you read "Caesar's Messiah", by Joseph Atwill. Excellent book showing how you can read the New Testament and Flavius Josephus inter-textually to arrive at the true story(tm?).

[ForBibletruth]

Yes, Joe Atwill has shown some of the career parallels between Jesus and Titus, and shown that Titus may have been the Son of Man. He has also shown how the Flavians were very involved in the Christian Church, and the founding of many other religions. I believe he is working on a 2nd book as well, that will deal with this last point in more detail. It has been said that the Piso family may have written both Josephus and the Gospels, and that Paul was a friend of the Flavians. Who knows?

[uziyahuidf]

Maybe around 5:15 you meant "Josephus was not a CHRISTIAN" or "Josephus WAS a Jew"? Or maybe I missed something in one of your earlier videos?

[ForBibletruth]

Yes, I mis-spoke. Sorry, What I meant to say is that if Josephus was not a believing Jew he would have never said "He was the Christ". Which brings up an earlier point, that if Josephus knew the passage as it now stands to be true, why would he not believe it? Why did he not explain the concept of an expected Messiah, upon which the Christians place so much weight, to his readers? I do plan on covering this in my next video.

[lizazoon]

gdunntm :--One other one is a greek historian Lucian of Samosata. He mocked the Christians for their practices and the man they worshipped. -- That proves nothing. I am sure you can find greec texts mocking followers of others gods.

[lipoicacid]

Paul [was] Josephus.

[BoyintheMachine]

Lucian of Samosata is circa 125AD to 180AD, therefore not a source that can be used as evidence for the historicity of Jesus.

[gdunntm]

never said it did, but it clearly provides a valid secular source that he existed if is valid (which i described some reasons why it is believed to be in my previous comment) the overall consenous of scholars is that Jesus did historically exist and there are other secular sources for Jesus's historical existence. One other one is a greek historian Lucian of Samosata. He mocked the Christians for their practices and the man they worshipped.

[BoyintheMachine]

it still doesn't end the debate on the historicity of Jesus.

[gdunntm]

the overall consensus of scholars on that passage is that it is a PARTIAL interpolation. In addition to that if you look at the Arabic version that doesn't contain the suspicious phrases it is clear that the passage is consistent with his writing.

[BoyintheMachine]

They treat Josephus' passage on Jesus as if it was a block of moldy cheese, meaning that you can just 'cut off' the bad part and save the good part, but it's not like that at all.