Another thank you for the spin off topics, readdressing the subject. I really do appreciate all of the information, funny replies etc.

Now, I have some great new reading recommendations and a lot of information (thank you Steve Benson et.al.)to process.

Thanks again,

SP

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

Here is a link to the article which I referenced on your origianl thread. It discusses both Jesus references in Josephus. Yes, there are two, a fact which some posters tend to gloss over or ignore. If you haven't taken a look, do so. It covers both sides of the controversy and gives many references.It is a fair summary and unbiased.

In a now-closed thread, RfM poster "sanityprevailed" wrote:
"
. . . I am an ex-Mormon, BIC. I left a long time ago but still have family members and friends that are TBM . . . .

"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."

("Regarding the history of Christianity and Josephus' account of Jesus," posted by “sanityprevailed,” on "Recovery from Mormonism" bulletin board, 26 April 2011, 7:57 a.m.)
_____


Believer bubble-bursting time.

When it comes to the writings of Flavius Josephus on Jesus (Josephus was a Messianic Jew and famous Roman historian), accounts attributed to Josephus regarding that supposed historical figure/purported son of god do not bear up well under critical historical scrutiny.

Indeed, even Christian apologist Ian Wilson acknowledges that accounts tied to Josephus have been undeniably adulterated by others with a pro-Christian spin. (Wilson, “Jesus: The Evidence,” 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, "Farewell to God,” p. 85)
_____


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

Let's examine the relevant record in that regard.

In his work, "The Antiquities of the Jews" (circa 90 A.D.), Josephus 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 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, “Losing Faith in Faith,” pp. 362-63)
_____


Weighing in behalf of the mythologized Christian messiah, an RfM poster who chose not to put his name where his mouth is (“anon1”), defensively responded:

“Typical Benson. Blows over the ‘James the Just’ passage.”

(“Typical Benson. Blows over the ‘James the Just’ passage,” posted by "anon1," on “Recovery from Mormonism” bulletin board, 26 April 2011, 12:51 p.m.)


Typical of “anon1,” he blew smoke from behind cover, then headed for the tall grass. Unfortunately for such regular and insecure hit-and-run types, history is not on their side.

Again, quoting Barker (this time per the so-called “James the Just,” purported by certain Christian believers to be the older stepbrother of Jesus):

“Josephus appears not to know anything else about Jesus--outside of [his oft-cited, ‘quite dubious’], tiny [and earlier-noted] paragraph, and an indirect reference concerning James, the ‘brother of Jesus’ [a.k.a., ‘James the Just’].

“[In the latter regard], [t]here is one other passage in ‘Antiquities’ that mentions Jesus as an aside. It is in Book 20, Chapter 9:

“’Festus was now dead, and Albinus was put 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, (or some of his companions). And when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned . . . .‘

“This is flimsy, and even Christian scholars widely consider this to be a doctored text. The stoning of James is not mentioned in Acts. Hegesippus, a Jewish Christian, in 170 C.E. wrote a history of the church saying that James the brother of Jesus was killed in a riot, not by sentence of a court. Clement confirms this (quoted by Eusebius).

"Most scholars agree that Josephus is referring to another James here, possibly the same one that Paul mentions in Acts, who led a sect in Jerusalem. Instead of strengthening Christianity, this ‘brother of Jesus’ interpolation contradicts history.

". . . [I]f Josephus truly thought Jesus was ‘the Christ,’ he would have added more about him that a casual aside in someone else’s story.” (Barker, “godless,” pp. 256-58; for source citations, see "Did Jesus Exist?" regarding Chapter 15, pp. 361-63)

*****


Bibliography

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

--Barker, Dan, “godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of American’s Leading Atheists,” foreword by Richard Dawkins (Berkeley, California: Ulysses Press, 2008)

--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 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/26/2011 07:40PM by steve benson.

Bona Dea, I will definitely read through the link you posted. I have no problem with looking at many different answers to the same question. Whether or not I agree with every side is another matter. :-)

Steve, while I realize your reposting of your information is not necessarily for me, I appreciate it nonetheless. I'm a firm believer in finding reliable resources.

It would seem, from my perspective, that everyone who contributed to my initial question has done their homework. I do feel slightly sheepish and incredibly lazy for asking for resources as I know many have done exhaustive research. So, I appreciate the help even more. Still, I find it interesting that, as with most things, we're all asked the same question but we don't always come to the same conclusions. It makes life interesting.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/26/2011 08:09PM by sanityprevailed.