I don't regularly post on RfM, but I lurk occasionally. (And yes, I am an ex-mormon, BIC. I left a long time ago but still have family members and friends that are TBM.)

I enjoyed the post on evidence of Paul's existence, mainly because I'm interested in the history of religion (from a lay perspective).

I was wondering if anyone else knew about the assertion that Josephus' mention of Jesus was actually a later add on, by the early Christian Church? The information came from a program that was examining if Jesus really did exist. Although, I've heard the statement before.

If anyone can give suggestions on reading material that would be great. Every time I search on the net, I get a lot of "religiously sanctioned" sites. I'm only interested in less biased information.

Thanks,
SP

Jesus, Interrupted

Great book for lay-peeps. He lays out all of the evidence for a historical Jesus as well as how "problematic" it is. Including what you are specifically asking.

He's an agnostic himself and has been a Religious Scholar for quite some time and teaches at Harvard (I think).

Thanks Raptor!

I've also been watching Diarmaid McCulloch's (a professor at Oxford) series, "A History of Christianity." I have to say, it does more to reaffirm my atheism. Although, I know that's not necessarily the point of the program.

It has been added to and possibly made up. Google Josephus/Jesus and you will find a Wiki article which shows what has been added and what is possibly authentic. There is another passage where Josephus is talking about the death of James, Jesus brother, where Jesus is mentioned in passing. It is regarded as authentic.

Thank you bona dea! My only concern is the fact that the article comes from a Wiki. Is it a reliable resource? And, where can I find a resource that discusses the authenticity of the second passage you mentioned?

The wiki article is actually very good for this topic and goes into a quite a bit of detail on why scholars feel the way they do about these two passages. Its synopsis of the scholarly stances on these passages is also spot on: virtually everyone rejects the first passage as being from Josephus while virtually everyone accepts the second (mundane and boring) passage as being legitimately from Josephus.

It also does a good job at exploring the counter arguments to the standard positions. Most of all, the reference section is great and can provide further reading.

The Wikwi article has references which you can check. I have read the same thing other places although I don't remember for sure which books.I'd look but my books are in my guest room and someone is sleeping there right now and probably wouldn't appreciate me waking him up. It is 6:45AM here. If I think about it later, I'll take a look

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

But even if we accept that Josephus did write about Jesus, Josephus did not show where or how he got the information about Jesus. There is no way of judging credibility of his sources. Yes, he heard the story of Jesus, but was the story fiction of non-fiction? Josephus does not answer that question and we can not answer it based on what Josephus wrote. So in reality, Josephus does nothing to answer the questions "Was there a historical Jesus?".



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/26/2011 09:11AM by MJ.

...from what I understand Josephus was writing well after Jesus' time. At best, as evidence of Jesus it may (as you state) just be a story he heard.

I've heard the story of Jesus, but no one in their right mind is going to take that as evidence of his existence.

And the story of Zeus, Ra, Thor.......

Lots of stories about lots of myths, but a lot of people believed those myths to be true, which may well have been the case with Josephus and other scholars that wrote about Jesus.

I'm sorry if it came across that I was asserting that Josephus did/didn't believe the story. In fact, I have no way of knowing what he believed to be true. I think I'm more interested in how his writings are now perceived as evidence.

This is slightly off topic, but I remember having a conversation with a TBM family member regarding "myths" vs "truth". I stated that all "myths" started off as perceived "truths". The ancient Greeks, Mayans, Aztecs, Egyptians (etc.) all believed whole heartedly in their gods as truth. So why is that any different than how mormons feel about mormonism? I think it fell on deaf ears.

I was just expanding on my original point.

there is even a movie about HIM!! :)

The so called writing about jesus is a christian forgery.

It's inconceivable that he would make only minor mention of a possible Messiah candidate.

The writings of Josephus were preserved by Chrisitians and not Jews...

Look at the possible parallel with what Mormons are doing with their "santized history" where original works like the Journal of Discourses are being glossed over and hidden...

History is always written initially by the "winners."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/26/2011 10:58AM by SL Cabbie.

I'm not calling you a liar. I've heard the assertion that Josephus' works were altered, but I don't know that anyone has proven that textually.

Do you have manuscript evidence where a reliable text of Josephus is compared to a doctored text, so that we can demonstrate that his statements about Jesus are inserted?

What is your source?

For every primary lesson teaching my girls about Jesus I give them a lesson on Jebus, his mentally retarded twin brother. They enjoy all sorts of fiction stories and that Jebus has some really silly adventures.

When I was showing signs of disillusionment with the Mormon church, my non-mo son bought me the Complete Works of Josephus. I immediately looked up "Jesus"in the index. There are 10 different Jesuses listed in the index. I went to the paragraph where Jesus Christ is mentioned. I was surprised at the brief mention of Jesus in a book that is almost 1,000 pages long by a man who spared no detail in describing life during this period in history! This is what it says: "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; 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."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/26/2011 10:41AM by freegirl10.

Dont forget that Josephus was not _born_ until 37AD which is 4 years after Jesus' supposed death date.

at the very, very best, all his writing are 2nd hand accounts (the ones which have not been shown to be forgeries, that is)

That's exactly the problem that I have with the New Testament in general. How can people say that things are the words of Jesus, when they weren't alive when he was?

All that Josephus would have had were stories and rumours.

Fawn Brodie, Michael Quinn, Shelby Foote, etc. They research people who lived before them. They often rely upon their sources by simple faith without redundant supporting evidence.

You'd be surprised how very thin the evidential threads are at times when creating biographies. Note, for example, how little actual original textual and physical evidence there is for the life and adventures of Alexander the Great.

Religios charlatans, like Joseph Smith, promote matters of faith as facts for the purpose of picking people's pockets.

No credible historian would dare promote an historical "fact" without overkill in the "supporting evidence" department.

Timothy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/26/2011 01:51PM by Timothy.

Hmmm. It's been a while since Joseph Smith died, and I like to write, so I'll do mine about him:

Now there was about this time JOSEPH SMITH, a charming man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a teller of wonderful stories - a teacher of such men as receive the truth with gullibility. He drew over to him both many of the Christians, and many of the unlearned. He was (a) prophet; and when State, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to pay for his transgressions, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again as a wine-induced mantle hallucination, posing as one the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him were imagined; and the tribe of Mormons, so named from his story, are not extinct at this day."

Anagrammy

We are aware by virtue of being ex-mo's how the character of Joseph Smith Jar has been transformed to be someone he really wasn't. I have come to regard Smith as a womanizing con man willing to use religion to sleep with his friends' wives and blame them when they are angered because of it. Such behavior is pathological, imo.

But Smith is viewed as being second only to Jesus by many Mormons. He could do almost no wrong - no matter what wrong he truly did. He is seen as a man of the utmost moral character to be used by Mormons as a model of virtue, spiritual strength and fortitude. We have even discussed the evolution of Smith's portrayal in Mormon art from someone who appears rather human to a character of someone who was larger-than-life. Even the story of Joseph's successor Brigham Young taking on the likeness of Smith was taken as proof that Young was the rightful heir to Mormon leadership.

I see no reason to believe that a similar process didn't take place with Jesus by those who followed him. Biblical accounts have all been written by those who loved Jesus just as the accounts of Smith were all recorded by those who depended on him for their identity (Indeed, they allowed him to control their lives). In the same way that the followers of Smith morphed the character of Joseph Smith especially in the time right after his death, I have no doubt that the followers of Jesus did the same immediately after Jesus was crucified. The process is natural enough and humans would appear to engage in this kind of "deification" of their leaders. In Jesus case, the deification was literal.

Truthbeknown.com
Jesus as myth, as a solar diety, as historical. Articles and books, this author contributed to zeitgiest movie part one. Great movie btw. It's on youtube free to watch.

I haven't been able to find it since having read somewhere on the internet that some early Christian leaders felt it was ok to doctor documents if they promoted belief among Christians. The name I recall in connection with this article was Eusebius,but I could be completely mistaken.

The things I have read about Josephus' comments on the existence of Jesus are that the entries had been added at a later time and were not written by Josephus. He may have penned a single line that a Jew named Jesus was crucified by Pilate around the time that Jesus of the Bible would have been (plus or minus as many as 20 years - records were often written way after the fact and often time frames were not very accurate) but nothing more that.

The Talmud refers to Jewish prophets about the time of Jesus whose life events parrallel those of Jesus. There are several names these prophets are referred to including Yeshua, Yeshua ben Pantera, and the Egyptian. Some - including some middle age Christian leaders - thought these were references to Jesus of the Bible. But again, the time frame described for these prophets is off from the traditional life of Jesus by more than a decade or two. The Talmud was recorded from oral tradition from the first century CE many centuries after the events took place - like the 3rd or 4th century CE. It is conceivable that at least some of the events described about these prophets apply to Jesus. All of it is speculation.

There are numerous historical problems with the reliability of the writings of Jewish historian Josephus as they pertain to the supposed historical figure known as Jesus.

Indeed, even Christian apologist Ian Wilson acknowledges that accounts attributed to Josephus have been undeniably adulterated by others with a pro-Christian spin. (Wilson, pp. 51, 54-56, 58-60)


Former Christian minister Charles Templeton goes further, asserting:

"There is no non-Christian record of Jesus before the second century. References in Flavius Josephus (end of the first century) can be dismissed as later Christian insertions."

Even, for the sake of argument, if one cedes that Josephus' writings on Jesus are credible (which is a tenuous claim, at best), Templeton notes that Josephus "mention[s] Jesus only briefly, making passing reference to the fact that he preached in occupied Palestine and was crucified by the Roman government.” (Templeton, p. 85)
_____


As to the specific writings attributed to Josephus about Jesus, the case against their historicity is compelling.

In his work, "The Antiquities of the Jews" (circa 90 A.D.),
Flavious Josephus, a messianic Jew and respected Roman historian, supposedly wrote:

“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 Hews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that love him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive against 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.”

Dan Barker, former evangelical Christian minister and and co-president of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, dispenses with the claim that this is the authentic Josephus with the following observations:

1. This paragraph about Jesus did not appear until the advent of the fourth century.

The disputed writing surfaced during the time that Bishop Eusebius, a close ally of the Roman emperor Constantine, was helping to fashion what would eventually become the orthodox version of Christianity. Barker notes that it was Eusebius who had argued it was justifiable for Christians to, in effect, “lie for the Lord” and that it was he who was the first person known to have cited this alleged Josephus account. As Barker notes, many Bible experts have concluded, in fact, that Eusebius forged the paragraph in question and then attributed it to Josephus.


2. The paragraph in doubt appears completely out of context.

It is dropped into Josephus’ writings after the historian gives an account of Roman taxation, various Jewish religious sects, Herod’s municipal building projects, the comings and goings of priests and procurators, the planning of seditious plots against Pilate, and Pilate’s construction of Jerusalem’s water supply using religious monies, which led to a Jewish protest, followed by Pilate’s bloody suppression of it. The questionable paragraph then follows, after which Josephus goes on to speak of “another terrible misfortune [that] confounded the Jews . . .” As Barker notes, only a Christian would have regarded this as a misfortune for Jews. Josephus himself was an orthodox Jew and would not have so described it.


3. Not being a believer in Christianity, Josephus would also not have used the language of a Christian convert in referring to Jesus as “the Christ.”


4. Josephus would also not have used the term “tribe of Christians,” since Christianity did not achieve organizational status until the second century.


5. Josephus’ alleged paragraph on Jesus portrays Josephus as having no other familiarity with the alleged Christian Messiah.

Barker observes that the Roman historian thus simply repeats what Christians would have already known, while adding virtually nothing to the Gospel accounts. In fact, Josephus’ supposed brief mention of Jesus is the only reference in all of his expansive writings to Christianity.


6. The paragraph does not reflect the careful wording of a responsible historian.

Rather, says Barker, it is written in the fervent language of a believing Christian and, further, is given with no citation of predictions from Hebrew prophets who supposedly foretold Jesus’ advent. (Barker, pp. 362-63)

*****


Bibliography

--Barker, Dan, "Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist" (Madison, Wisconsin: Freedom from Religion Foundation, 1992)

--Templeton, Charles, "Farewell to God: My Reasons for Rejecting the Christian Faith" (Toronto, Ontario, Canada: McClelland & Stewart, Inc., 1996)

--Wilson, Ian, "Jesus: The Evidence" (San Francisco, California: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1984)



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 04/26/2011 12:43PM by steve benson.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/26/2011 01:12PM by steve benson.

I have to throw my hat in with Raptor Jesus and say that Bart Ehrman is the best at communicating with us non-historians.

He actually teaches at the Moody Bible instituate, but he's very liberal and has deconstructed a lot of peoples faith (he was a factor in the deconstructing mine). He is an agnostic and if he did believe in God he says it definitely wouldn't be Jesus.

This first video is him at Stanford talking about the problems with the bible (especially the NT) and he sort of outlines how we have the bible, and why we don't have the original manuscripts of Mark, Matthew, etc. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3N4ymHO-eA

This next one gets more into historical no-how. These are lectures Ehrman gave talking about why most biblical scholars believe Jesus was a historical figure. They're very thorough and they go through the criteria that historians use for ancient historical work. http://www.archive.org/details/HistoricalJesus

I would also second raptorjesus recommend on Jesus, Interrupted and would add Ehrman's "Jesus: Apocalyptic prophet of the new millenium."

Lastly here are some lectures from Yale that are really good on Christianity that cover historical work and the historical Jesus. They are by Dale B. Martin. He really knows his stuff. http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/introduction-to-new-testament

P.S. they also have some good lectures on the Hebrew Bible on that site if you are interested http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/introduction-to-the-old-testament-hebrew-bible/

P.S.S. If you want more let me know, but this should keep you busy for awhile.

by Hyam MacCoby.

"The Mythmaker" made me doubt my faith that Jesus was not a real person. From that book I felt like I was watching an Archeologist remove all the dirt and litter from the original person who Paul used to create his very own religion.

That's of course my personal take on it - but I felt that beneath all the encrustrations that conceal this passionate young man, lies a plain sad story of a Jewish patriot who the Romans killed for inspiring focused resistance to the Roman occupation.