The reliability of historian Josephus Flavius

[david]

Hello all!
Some are saying, that writeings of Josephus Flavius are forgery. But not just skeptics, also some Christians. So how can we defend the reliability of Josephus writeings?

Thanks for your time.

David

[James Hannam]

Hi David,

On the reference to Jesus, Geza Vermes has written an excellent article:

www.standpointmag.co.uk/jesus-in-the-eyes-of-josephus-features-jan-10-geza-vermes


Since Vermes is a NT scholar of near-legendary stature and not a Christian, this should convince the doubters. (Although I know it won't since evidence can never rebut a conspiracy theory).

Best wishes

James

[unkleE]

James, thanks for bring that excellent article to our attention - one of the really helpful things about this forum is being given references like this that I wouldn't have easily stumbled across otherwise.

The comments are interesting too, as they include the full range from belief the whole Josephus reference is a forgery through to questioning whether there is sufficient evidence to question any of it.

Obviously I have no expertise of my own, so I accept what the historians say, and GV's summary seems right in the centre of that - e.g. one of my favourite popular authors on Jesus is John Dickson, an Aussie historian (he did his PhD on the Roman/NT period) and christian apologist, and he takes pretty much the same line (though I think he gives a bit more credence to the plausibility of the passage before rejecting the same bits GV does). But I must say that I find it interesting how many internet sceptics simply take for granted that the passage is forged, when surely the passage exists in the writings of a generally reliable historian and stands until it is shown to be more probably inauthentic, as GV attempts here.

[david]

Hello!
First, thank you Mr. James for your link and answer. And Iwould like to ask you, should we be familiar with comment of Earl Doherty about Josephus F? He said, that we can't know, which Jesus and wich James he(Josephus) refer to.
I'll be very thankful, for all your comments.

David

[himself]

Or to which Socrates Xenophon refers....

[timoneill]

May 4, 2010 17:44:56 GMT david said:

And Iwould like to ask you, should we be familiar with comment of Earl Doherty about Josephus F? He said, that we can't know, which Jesus and wich James he(Josephus) refer to.

Earl Doherty says a great many silly things - usually when he has to get his flawed and creaking theory off a particularly sharp hook. Given that the Jesus referred to by Josephus was (i) crucified by Pontius Pilate, (ii) gave rise to the sect called Christians, (iii) had a brother called James who was executed by the High Priest and (iv) was called "Messiah", we can pretty happily narrow down which Jesus he was referring to.

The lengths to which fringe Jesus Mythers like Doherty have to go to so as to pretend he might have been referring to some other "Jesus" are not only amusing but also one of the reasons scholars don't take amateurs like Doherty seriously.

[david]

Thanks for the answers.

Himself, I don't know, what do you mean with comment?

[david]

But, does he(Doherty) any degree in history, theology or philosophy?

[Deleted]

May 6, 2010 9:13:23 GMT david said:

But, does he(Doherty) any degree in history, theology or philosophy?

He never made clear what kind of degree he has.

[rtaylor]

Flavious Josephus, a Jewish priest of the race of the Asmonean Princes, was born at Jerusalem, was taken prisoner during one of Vespasian's wars, and was present in his camp at the siege of Jerusalem. He wrote a work on the Jewish Antiquities, in twenty books. In the eighteenth of these books there is this famous passage.
' At about that time appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it be right to speak of him as a man, for he was a performer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as recieve the truth with pleasure. He drew after him many of the Jews, as well as of the Gentiles. This same was the Christ. And though Pilate, by the judgement of the chief rulers among us, delivered him to be crucified, those who from the first had loved him, fell not from him, for to them at least he showed himself again alive on the third day: this, and ten thousand other wonderful things being what the Holy Prophets had fortold concerning him; so that the Christian people, who derive their name from him, have not yet ceased to exist.'
This passage was first quoted by Eusebius. One of the early Church Fathers. AD315. It is thought by most scholars to be a forgery, inserted by Eusebius. I am not a scholar myself but I did get hold of a copy of the eighteenth volume and read up on Jesus. There are I think five people called Jesus mentioned by Josephus. There is Jesus the brigand, Jesus the high priest and a couple of others who all get big write-ups. Jesus the Messiah has just a few lines which seem to me to be out of place. I think they are an insertion. It does not flow with the rest of the text.

[himself]

David:
Just the limits of skepticism. The question whether Josephus refers to "the same Jesus" as Mark or Luke is never generalized to things like whether the Socrates referred to by Xenophon is "the same Socrates" referred to by Plato. Socrates himself left no writings of his own. And other than his own disciples - like Plato and Xenophon - there don't seem many contemporary sources. Yet no one seems to doubt that Socrates was real.

[Gigalith]

May 19, 2010 22:23:47 GMT himself said:

David:
Just the limits of skepticism. The question whether Josephus refers to "the same Jesus" as Mark or Luke is never generalized to things like whether the Socrates referred to by Xenophon is "the same Socrates" referred to by Plato. Socrates himself left no writings of his own. And other than his own disciples - like Plato and Xenophon - there don't seem many contemporary sources. Yet no one seems to doubt that Socrates was real.

Or, for that matter, that he was a philosopher, or that he ticked off Athens and was sentenced to death by hemlock.

[perplexedseeker]

Perhaps it's just my nasty suspicious mind at work, but could the asymmetry be due to the fact that Socrates is often seen as a proto-atheist, because he denied the existence of the Greek pantheon in favour of his own brand of mysticism?

[david]

Well rtaylor like I said before, read scolary work not lunacy work. That Eusebius forged is the most stupid claims in the world. And Josephus F. was NOT priest! He was yewes rebel. Later he become Roman historian and yewis apologist.